Concern Over Pope Francis Grows: Schism Looms – Cardinals MUST Act!

From One Peter Five…

Pope’s Letter on Argentinian Communion Guidelines for Remarried Given Official Status

A letter from Pope Francis praising episcopal guidelines that would allow divorced and remarried Catholics to receive Holy Communion in some cases while living in a state of objective grave sin has now been added to the official acts of the Apostolic See, conferring official status on what was formerly considered by many to be merely private communication — and raising the stakes on the Amoris Laetitia debate significantly.

Of the guidelines issued by the bishops of the Buenos Aires region that would open “the possibility of access to the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist” in “complex circumstances” where “limitations that lessen the responsibility and guilt” of couples who will not make the commitment to “live in continence” despite living in an objectively adulterous situation, the pope said in his letter that “The document is very good and completely explains the meaning of chapter VIII of Amoris Laetitia. There are no other interpretations.”

In August of this year, this letter was added to the Vatican website as a papal document available for public reference. Concerns were raised that what had previously been viewed as only private correspondence — and thus, completely outside the realm of papal magisterium — was being given the appearance of an official papal act.

Others were quick to point out that the presence of such a letter on the Vatican website, while troubling in itself, did not grant the document any status, but only publicity. The concern, as I speculated at the time, was that the letter seemed likely therefore to find its way into the Acta Apostolicae Sedis  (AAS) — the journal of the official acts of the Apostolic See. Such a move would confer an official, and at least quasi-authoritative status to the document, in as much as the AAS “contains all the principal decrees, encyclical letters, decisions of Roman congregations, and notices of ecclesiastical appointments. The contents are to be considered promulgated when published, and effective three months from date of issue.”

As Vatican journalist Marco Tosatti reported yesterday, the addition of the letter to the AAS has now been confirmed*:

[T]he “private” letter of Pope Francis to the Argentine bishops was published in the October 2016 edition of Acta Apostolicae Sedis, after they had issued directives for the application of chapter 8 of Amoris Laetitia (the chapter with the famous footnotes on giving communion to the divorced and remarried). Directives which, as has been noted and emphasized here, are anything but clear.
The publication of this letter in the Acta is accompanied by a brief note from the Secretary of State, Cardinal Pietro Parolin, together with an official rescript from a papal audience in June 2017, announcing that the Pope himself wanted the two documents — the guidelines and the letter — published on the website of Acta Apostolicae Sedis.

The announcement can only serve to further fuel the confusion and uncertainty surrounding the controversial apostolic exhortation as well as the Pope’s way of doing things, which yet again appears to be a far cry from the clarity and straightforwardness that many of the faithful would expect [from the Holy Father]. He has given no response to the dubia Cardinals, no response to the letters, petitions and other initiatives written by scholars, theologians, and ordinary faithful people who have been confused by the deliberate ambiguity of the document. Yet, at the same time, he has given a veneer of officiality to one letter sent to one member of one bishops’ conference.

To what end? To obligate all to give religiosum obsequium [religious assent] to a magisterium expressed in oblique and ambiguous forms, or to respond without committing himself in a direct response which would express the mind of the Pope in an unequivocal manner to the doubtful and perplexed? One is given the feeling that the only thing this does is cause the simple believer annoyance with the Pope’s comportment, which may be defined as a “pretext” in the worst sense of that term.

You can view only the relevant section of the October 2016 edition of the AAS here (Spanish/Latin PDF). (The full edition is available here, but a word of caution – it’s a huge PDF document at nearly 1,200 pages and with a 300MB file size.)

Some outlets are already reporting that the presence of the Buenos Aires letter in the AAS elevates it to the level of “authentic Magisterium,” which would therefore require the aforementioned religious assent of mind and will (cf. Lumen Gentium 25). Others are not so sure. We asked for an assessment from Dr. John Joy, co-Founder and President of the St. Albert the Great Center for Scholastic Studies and a specialist in Magisterial authority. “It means that it is an official act of the pope,” Joy said, “rather than an act of the pope as a private person. So it cannot be dismissed as a merely private endorsement of their implementation of AL. It is an official endorsement. But this doesn’t necessarily mean that the letter to the Argentine bishops is itself magisterial” and thus requiring religious submission of will and intellect. Such a requirement, Joy said, would only apply if the document intended to teach on matters of faith and morals.

Inasmuch as the letter was in praise of pastoral guidelines that were anything but concrete, this seems unlikely.

Dr. Joy pointed out that adding the letter to the AAS could, in fact, damage the credibility of Amoris Laetitia by potentially removing the possibility that it could be interpreted in an orthodox way through establishing, via its publication in the official acts of the Apostolic See, that the unorthodox interpretation is the official one.
Marco Tosatti says that even some who have been ideological supporters of the pope are allegedly losing patience with his brashness:

And further, if what we have learned from two different sources is true, this annoyance extends to the Vatican. A cardinal of great renown, a former diplomat, who has served an impressive career at the head of Congregations and in high offices in the Secretariat of State, is said to have reproved the Pope for his actions [as Pope], saying to him essentially, “We elected you to make reforms, not to smash everything.” News of this conversation — if it can be called a conversation — has spread through the Vatican, because it took place at a high decibel level, which carried through the fragile barrier of the doors and walls. The cardinal in question was one of those who supported the candidacy of Jorge Mario Bergoglio in the conclave of 2013.

It would not be the first time such dissent has been reported from within the pope’s own camp. In March, The London Times reported that some of the cardinals who helped to elect Francis wanted Francis to step down out of fear that his agenda might cause a schism “more disastrous” than the one wrought by Martin Luther, and that the Church could consequently be “shattered as an institution”. That story indicated that at least some of the group had an interest in replacing the pope with Cardinal Pietro Parolin, who heads up the aforementioned Secretariat of State.

Earlier this week, we also told you about a new book, The Dictator Pope, which alleges that many cardinals who helped elect Francis are experiencing “buyer’s remorse,” in part because Francis “is not the democratic, liberal ruler that the cardinals thought they were electing in 2013, but a papal tyrant the like of whom has not been seen for many centuries.”

It seems difficult to believe that just over a year ago, we were attempting to ascertain the veracity of the papal letter to the Argentinian bishops — which had been called into question nearly immediately after its publication — and we now learn that it was only the following month that it became an official act of the Apostolic See.

As reported in The Dictator Pope, the English Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor told journalist Paul Valley in 2013, “Four years of Bergoglio would be enough to change things.” Every day, we receive new evidence that this might have been a significant understatement.   Source – One Peter Five…

* Translated by Giuseppe Pellegrino

Comment: 

Discussing this development after Mass today, one of our bloggers twisted my arm to post this thread because, he argued, next to the new Mass, this is the single biggest catastrophe to afflict the post-Vatican II Church.  Explain why you do, or do not agree…

The Sexual Culture of Politicians Vs The Sexual Culture Of The People…

It’s fascinating to listen to the news broadcasters taking some very high moral ground this week, as they report lurid stories of  alleged sexual abuse of both men and women by Members of Parliament.  Everyone agrees that this is shock-horror stuff, posture amazement, and insist that it must stop.  It’s almost like watching one of the old interviews with Mary Whitehouse

Whatever happened to the whole “let’s ditch morality” thing, and “no more hang-ups about sex” – whatever happened to sexual freedom and liberalism? 

Comment:

Will it be possible to change the culture in Westminster, but not in the rest of the country? Should we really expect the politicians to live by a higher standard of sexual morality than that taken for granted in the wider (very) sexually permissive society, UK-wide?

Oh, and wouldn’t this be the ideal time for the Bishops to be speaking out – sort of “We [or, more accurately, God] told you that sexual permissiveness brings nothing but misery”  – wouldn’t that be something for the population of the UK to hear and ponder?  

Cardinal Brandmüller: Pope Ignoring Dubia Puzzling – We Need Answers!

 28 October…  Cardinal Brandmüller demands Pope answer Dubia – Cardinal Brandmüller defends “Dubia”

Four Dubia Cardinals
(two now deceased)

Last year, four cardinals had made public their criticism of the Pope with their “Dubia”. For this they learned a great deal of counter-criticism. One of them now defends the requests to Francis.

The Four Dubia Cardinals- two now dead.

The German Cardinal Walter Brandmüller defended the “Dubia”, which he co-wrote, to Pope Francis. He understood the criticism that had triggered the publication of the questions. But the step was “only taken after a waiting for an answer”, he said in the interview of the “Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung” (Saturday). “And especially with regard to the fact that many believers have had the same questions and are waiting for an answer,” the Cardinal explained.

“What do you mean, what phone calls, letters, inquiries we get?”, Brandmüller continued. “They also say,” Why do you not do anything, you Cardinals ? “We finally made an oath of office and are by office advisers to the Pope.” They had asked for an audience, but they also did not receive an answer on this, the 88-year-old said.

In the context of his view of liberal interpretations of the Papal letter, the Cardinal emphasised: “It is a dogma that marriage is a sacrament and therefore indissoluble.” This means, “He who asserts that one can enter into a new marriage during his lifetime of his lawfully married wife is excommunicated, because this is an erroneous teaching, a heresy.” Whosoever is aware of a serious sin such as adultery, can only go to the Eucharist if he has previously repented, confessed, and been forgiven.       

He had “great concern that something would explode,” said the former President of the Vatican Historical Commission. The fact that the requests of thousands of people remained unanswered, raised questions. “This is really hard to understand,” the prelate said.

After all, the central question is: “Can something [be] good if something was a sin yesterday?” In addition, the question is asked whether there really are acts that are “morally reprehensible” under all circumstances – such as the killing of an innocent or adultery. “If in fact the first question should be answered with yes and the second with no – then this would be heresy, and, as a result, schism, division of the church,” said Brandmüller.

The Papal letter “Amoris laetitia” of 2016 is the reason for the “Dubia” (doubts). The Pope said that Catholics who had married again after a divorce could be admitted to the communion. The Cardinals Walter Brandmüller, Raymond Leo Burke and the now deceased Carlo Caffarra and Joachim Meisner first asked Francis personally, then in November last year publicly to clarify the interpretation and categorisation of “Amoris laetitia”.  Source

Comments invited… 

Fr Paul Morton: a bad priest who poisons and rots Church (St Catherine of Siena)

A PRIEST from Cambuslang has become the first Catholic representative to support teaching children about lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) issues in school. 

Fr Paul Morton encourages LGBT lessons in schools…

Father Paul Morton, of St Bride’s Parish Church, says bullying due a child’s gender identity or sexual orientation should be a “thing of the past”.

The priest has lent his support to the Time for Inclusive Education (TIE) campaign, which was set up by two Glasgow men in a bid to crack down on homophobic abuse in the classroom.  Click here to read Evening Times report Cambuslang priest first Catholic representative to support LGBT education in schools  which headline is a tad stronger in the print edition of the newspaper, to read: Pioneer Catholic priest’s backing for LGBT rights.

Seems like only yesterday we were discussing this same priest’s public support for homosexuality; our call for Bishop Toal to act at that time, went unheeded, and so, taking his lead from the Bishop’s tolerance, he has moved forward from “welcoming” active homosexual couples to his Masses, to seeking to educate children in the same vice.  Click here to read our previous discussion…

Now, having pretended that his only interest was in making people feel welcome, he has moved on to recite the LGBT mantra about “homophobic” and “transgender” bullying.  Some chance.  Heavens above, it’s impossible to say a word – not a single word – to express disapproval of the evil of homosexual activity, without finding yourself plastered over the front page of a tabloid or, in my own case, nominated for the Stonewall Bigot of the Year award, so it’s a joke to suggest that any homosexual or “transgender” person is bullied.

One thing we never actually deal with – one thing never dealt with – when discussing LGBT “rights” is what they actually DO.  What IS it that is so objectionable?  Why is it that we are shocked that any Catholic priest would encourage children to participate in such behaviour as this

The above link to what homosexuals do, is mild.  Anyone who has ever visited a “gay” website, will know that.   Still, it gives a flavour of precisely what it is that this priest, and his Bishop – Joseph Toal – is shamelessly promoting. Or, more accurately, “proudly” promoting.  

Challenge From Editor, Catholic Truth, To Father Morton…

I’ve tried phoning Father Morton several times but keep getting a voicemail telling me that he is not available to speak and I can’t leave a message.  You’d almost think he knew that the caller is li’l ole moi…  Poor souls trying to get through with a sick call, if priests like Fr Morton still do such mundane things as attend to the sick, or administer the sacraments to the dying.  Must be a worry, having an LGBT celebrity as your Parish Priest.

Anyway, here’s why I was ringing… I rang to say “Hello, there, Father….Let’s debate St Catherine of Siena’s call for Pope Gregory XI to “rid the Church of bad priests and rulers who poison and rot that garden [the Church]” Some motion to the effect that St Catherine’s description of priests who “poison and rot” the Church applies today, more than ever, including to Fr Morton himself.  I do wish he’d answered his phone. 

Not to worry – I’ll email him the link to this thread in the [fond] hope that he takes up the challenge… I’ll also email the link to Bishop Toal, who is gravely responsible before God for this scandal.  He can have a ringside seat at the debate where he might reflect on the contrast between his suspension of Father Matthew Despard for writing a book exposing the  homosexual culture within the Diocese of Motherwell – a fact confirmed by Fr Morton  – while being complicit in Fr Morton’s guilt by  allowing him free rein to encourage homosexual activity, Communion for unrepentant public sinners and now, actively promoting the corruption of school children into the euphemism of “LGBT rights”.

Vote in New, Updated Poll…

  

American Bishops Use “Welcome” Excuse To Encourage Sin & Sacrilege

SAN DIEGO, California, October 13, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) — Two left-leaning Catholic bishops, along with “married” homosexual partners, celebrated a special Mass for “Families of the LGBT Community” in San Diego last weekend. The event commemorated the 20-year anniversary of a controversial U.S. bishops’ letter on homosexuality that was censured by the Vatican within a year of its release.

Bishop John Dolan, an auxiliary bishop in the Diocese of San Diego, presided over the October 7 mass commemorating the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ (USCCB) letter on homosexuality “Always Our Children.”

The mass, concelebrated with San Diego Archbishop Robert McElroy and 16 other clergy, took place at St. John The Evangelist Catholic Church, located in the heart of Hillcrest, the historic epicenter of homosexuality in San Diego.

Before the Mass, Dolan said: “This parish falls within the Hillcrest district and there are a number of people in our community here who want to participate in the life of the Church, and we want to make sure they have a welcome home in some fashion here within the Church.”

During his homily, Dolan praised the 1997 letter “Always Our Children” as offering “an outstretched hand” to parents and family members of homosexual Catholics.
“To you parents, there is no denying your own sons and daughters, whatever their walk in life,” he said.

“Married” homosexual partners Kyle and Snapper Escobar-Humphries said they attended the ‘LGBT’ Mass with their 8- and 9-year-old children to teach them about equality.

“It’s important because my kids have two gay dads and I would like for them to understand that this church is open for everybody,” said one of the “dads” to the San Diego Tribune. “I want them to understand how to treat each other equally.”

The USCCB’s letter Always our Children was addressed to Catholic parents  with homosexual children. The letter was criticized by faithful Catholics for its language that originally called the homosexual orientation a “fundamental dimension of one’s personality.” 

Less than a year after its release, the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) demanded several changes to the text. One change included calling the homosexual orientation “a deep-seated dimension of one’s personality” so as to avoid the inference that if homosexuality is a “fundamental dimension of one’s personality,” it must be God-given and permanent.

Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz, then bishop of Lincoln, Nebraska, said after the letter’s release that it was “very flawed and defective.” He asserted that it was “founded on bad advice, mistaken theology, erroneous science and skewed sociology.”

He added that the “document carries no weight or authority for Catholics, whom I would advise to ignore or oppose it.”

Ex-homosexual Catholic Joseph Sciambra has said the U.S. bishops should apologize to Catholics who struggle with same-sex attraction for releasing the letter, what he called a “travesty.”

“The text is still shocking for its gross generalizations and unwillingness to even briefly grasp the intrinsic desperation and depravity found in the modern ‘gay’ lifestyle,” he wrote in a 2016 article.

“The document also openly condemns those with same-sex attraction to a lifelong imprisonment within homosexuality,” he added.

Allyson Smith, who attended the event as a member of Ecclesia Militans San Diego, a group of concerned Catholics, called Bishop Dolan’s homily a “total capitulation to the homosexual activist agenda.”

“(There were) no calls for homosexuals to repent and convert included in his homily,” she [said].

The event was attended by various San Diego dignitaries, including Republican Mayor Kevin Faulconer, openly-homosexual California State Assembly member Todd Gloria, San Diego City Commissioner and male transvestite Nicole Murray-Ramirez, Democrat city attorney Mara Elliott, city council member Chris Ward, San Diego Unified School District board member Kevin Beiser, and city of San Diego Human Relations commissioner Bruce Abrams.

Laurence Greenbank, a Catholic who attended the event to pray a rosary for participants, called the LGBT Mass a “staged media event.”

“The ‘LGBT’ Mass was a media event, staged by the diocese. I believe the real story is how the bishop turned the celebration of the Holy Eucharist into a media event, not a place of worship. The whole event seemed to be choreographed, with the TV cameras, the VIPs, including the mayor and city council member, the imported rich gays (at least two of them were from Palm Springs), the Hillcrest elite gay men’s group with the matching T-shirts. There was an enormous amount of money and preparation spent on this event,” he told LifeSiteNews.

“It is absolutely disgusting to see the Holy Eucharist used for political agenda,” he added.
Click here to read entire report

Comments invited… 

Jacob Rees-Mogg – A Catholic Hero?

Comment:

Apart from making it crystal clear that it is not possible for a fully believing Catholic to play a leading role in UK politics, let alone achieve Leader of a Party and become Prime Minister – even one as “liberal” (“who am I to judge”) as Jacob Rees-Mogg – what else do we learn from this interview?  Any chance that it stiffened a few backbones, and makes us more determined than ever to act as true Confirmed  Soldiers of Jesus Christ when we are presented with opportunities to defend the moral law?

Is Jacob Rees-Mogg a “Catholic hero” as a result of his responses in the above TV interview, aired on ITV this morning?   Was he demonstrating Christian prudence with one eye on possibly entering a future leadership contest – or was this a golden opportunity missed?  

Francis: The “Gay”- Friendly Pope…

Does [Pope Francis] Lead us to Gay Church?
BY Jean-Pierre Dickès, 8/14/17
[http://medias-catholique.info/bergoglio-nous-mene-t-il-a-leglise-gay/9160]
[Excellent Google Translation]

The case began with the famous “Who am I to judge? ” about homosexuality. The curious reflection of a pope whose role is precisely to transmit the spiritual and moral heritage of the Church. Teaching itself dating back to the sixth commandment given by God to Moses. The justification of this practical relativism was the famous word “mercy” aimed at validating “concrete situations” in order to “accompany and integrate”. Things could have stopped there. Now we find ourselves faced with a new form of ethics which was to materialize by an avalanche of precise facts which ultimately lead to a new Church which can be called homosexual; It is a veritable apocalyptic avalanche aimed at transforming the Church and subjecting it to gender, the necessary passage of transhumanism, this ideology wanting to create a new man. It is a frontal and programmed attack against the natural order willed by God in his creation.

* We have already forgotten the famous text known as Relatio of mid-term at the synod on the family in 2014. It had been massively rejected in a resounding way. “Homosexuals have gifts and qualities to offer to the Christian community: are we able to welcome these people, by guaranteeing them a fraternal space in our communities? … Can our communities be able to provide this, accept and value their sexual orientation without compromising the Catholic doctrine on family and marriage? “It is therefore a question of “valuing sexual orientation” in this case sodomy. It was indeed [Pope Francis] who wanted to insert this abominable text in the final document of the synod.

* At the beginning of his pontificate, [Pope Francis] named a notorious homosexual, Mgr. Battista Ricca, as prelate of his own papal house and at the head of the Vatican bank.

* The famous “Who am I to judge” referred to an active homosexual for whom it is undoubtedly demonstrated that he was involved in many sodomite relationships, including a young man with whom he was caught in a blocked elevator.

* In an interview with America magazine in September 2013, Pope [Francis] laughed at the very idea of ​​disapproving homosexual conduct: “One person once asked me provocatively if I had approved of homosexuality. I answered with another question, “Tell me, when God looks at a gay person, does he support the existence of that person with love or refuse and condemn this person? ”

* [Pope Francis] has since made a great show by meeting personally and physically embracing an assortment of homosexuals and transgenders, even accepting the “marriage” of a woman claiming to be a man who “married” another woman.

* The Pope ostensibly embraced the hand and concelebrated the Mass with a Don Michele de Paolis, a notorious pro-homosexual militant priest and animator of a gay site. This is a public sacrilege. Then [Pope Francis] invited him to dinner. At the moment of the priest’s departure he had an ambiguous sentence: “Everything is possible!”  A warning quickly forgotten by all. And yet …

* [Pope Francis] refused to rule against the legalization of “homosexual unions,” “gay marriages,” or even “gay adoption” in Italy, Ireland, the United States and Malta. His excuse was that “the Pope does not place himself in the concrete policy of a country.”  But he is the first to defend immigration and to invest in the issue of “climate change.”  Eminently political issues.

* One of the rare and frank episcopal opponents of the emerging “Gay Church” is Charles Chaput, appointed Archbishop by Pope Benedict XVI. During the synod of which he was a member, he had presented guidelines prohibiting the giving of Holy Communion to same-sex couples or remarried divorcees. In the hierarchical order, being archbishop of Philadelphia, he should have been named cardinal. From consistory to consistory, [Pope Francis] challenged him. Bishop Chaput was strongly criticized by Father Thomas Rosica, attaché of the Vatican Press Office during the Synod. This priest is nicknamed the “attack dog” of the LGBT.

* The Jesuit James Martin, is a fervent defender of the gay priesthood and a fortiori unions of this nature. Normally he should have been “crossed” by the Pope. On the contrary, [Pope Francis] appointed him consultant of the Secretariat of Social Communications of the Vatican. He is the author of a book entitled “Building a Bridge”. This bridge must connect the Church to the LGBT. The teaching of the catechism is rejected; Sodomy can not be a sin. It is God who created homosexuals, so their morals can not be condemned.

* Cardinal Walter Kasper, is an arch-progressive German prelate. He headed the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of Christian Unity. He is the favorite theologian of [Pope Francis]. He defended the legalization of homo marriage in Ireland. For him, if the majority of the people agree with laws of this nature, it is legitimate to “recognize their rights”. In other words, it is the people who define what is true and good. The Church must align with the politically correct. Curious approach. Jesus told us that “you are in the world, but you are not of the world” (John 17: 14-18).

* Another case is that of the well-named Cardinal Reinhard Marx. Concerning “gay marriage” he said: “The Christian position is one thing. It is another thing to ask if I can respect all the laws on Christian moral concepts. Anyone who does not understand that one does not automatically lead to the other, has not understood the very essence of modern society “. A convoluted way to say that the Church does not have to defend its morality in the face of the present world.

* Cardinal Christoph Schönborn was the Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. He said, “We can and must respect the decision to form a same-sex union, [and] look for ways in civil law to protect their lives with the laws to ensure such protection.” However, he is considered a conservative. He was the one who carried the project of Amoris Laetitia on the question of remarried divorcees. The Pope considers him a “great theologian.” Who presented in his own cathedral of Vienna a gay couple who had adopted a child of black race. This couple has ordered a three-year-old girl in South Africa.

* With Bishop Vincenzo Paglia we reach the height. According to the newspaper La Croix on 17 June, he was charged with criminal conspiracy, obstructing the investigation, fraud against the town of Narni (Umbria, central Italy), misuse of credit and misappropriation Of funds. The accusation is carried by the prosecutor of Terni, Elisabetta Massini. Notwithstanding this situation, [Pope Francis] placed him at the head of the Academy for Life and the Grand Chancellor of the Pontifical Institute for Studies on Marriage and the Family. He has exploded these two institutions by introducing supporters of euthanasia and abortion. He wears sunglasses whose frame is rainbow LGBT. But above all he made a gigantic fresco of “homoerotic” inspiration in the choir of his cathedral in Terni. Pushing vice up to represent itself with the episcopal cap. This fresco was made by a notorious homosexual artist.

* The American Cardinal Blase Cupich, is an LGBT actively supported by [Pope Francis]; He announced that he was for the reception of Holy Communion by “homosexual couples;” this during his installation as archbishop of Chicago. It is based on the pretext of the “inviolable conscience.” We are in full Protestantism. For him, heterosexual adulteresses can also communicate.

* Another case is that of Cardinal Dolan. His archdiocese is full of homosexual priests. A professional player named Michael Sam publicly revealed his homosexuality in 2014. The Archbishop said on national television: “Good for him. I would have no sense of judgment on him. God bless him … The same Bible that tells us that we teach the virtues of chastity and the virtue of fidelity and marriage also tells us not to judge people. So I would say, “Well done!” For Saint Patrick, the Irish are traditionally a parade, a kind of folk parade. Dolan was named “Grand Marshall” of this parade despite the presence of a group of “gay pride” with its banners.

* Cardinal Joseph Tobin, named Cardinal by [Pope Francis] and head of the Archdiocese of Newark, New Jersey (New York suburb), gave his blessing in July to a gay pilgrimage that ended with a Sacrilegious Mass at the Cathedral. One of the militant homosexuals who participated in the demonstration called the cardinal’s blessing a “miracle.” The New York Times greeted the event with the title: “As the Church changes, a cardinal welcomes gays; They embrace a “miracle.” Tobin is a very active supporter of Father Martin named above. The same is true of Bishop Robert McElroy, Bishop of the Diocese of San Diego. This bishop is one of the recruits of the expanding corps of gay shock troops that [Pope Francis] settles in the key dioceses; He praised Martin’s book and proclaimed beyond the teaching of the catechism that homosexuality is “intrinsically disordered.” He believes that homosexuals can communicate.

* We will not return to the case of Bishop Cocopalmerio, President of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts. In what is surely only the tip of a very large iceberg, his private secretary Luigi Capozzi, was arrested amidst a homosexual orgy whose participants were drugged. Capozzi completely “shot” was hospitalized by the gendarmerie. When one looks at Saint Peter of Rome, one sees a building on the left, seat of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. It was here that these great deeds unfolded. Capozzi at the request of his boss was proposed to the episcopate.

The characteristic of all these prelates is that they were promoted by [Pope Francis] with the exception of course of Bishop Chaput. There are, of course, others like Bishop Robert Barron, an American theologian who denounces the Church for condemning homosexuality.

The only conclusion to be drawn is that [Pope Francis] is preparing the advent of the Gay Church at full speed. Notably by eliminating the most conservative elements opposing him in one way or another.   Jean-Pierre Dickès

Comment

As readers will note, I’ve had to change “Bergoglio” to [Pope Francis] umpteen times in the above article.  It strikes me that those who insist on using the Pope’s family surname, not only show lack of respect for the papal office but they minimise the gravity of what this Pope is saying and doing.  If only it were “Bergoglio” saying and doing all these awful things, that would be bad enough – bad enough that any Catholic would promote homosexuality – but not as grave as these words and actions falling from the lips of a reigning pope.  Why can’t Catholics, who are rightly outraged at Pope Francis, see that they are letting him off the hook by minimising the damage he is doing to the Church as pontiff… Who cares about “Bergoglio”? 

Anyway, comments invited.  Do you agree with the author that Pope Francis is “preparing the advent of the ‘Gay  Church’ at full speed” or is there another explanation for the facts detailed in the above article?  But please – it was irritating enough having to keep deleting “Bergoglio” and typing [Pope Francis] in the article, do not make extra work for me by using the Pope’s family surname in your comments.  Please and thank you!