Rocky Road From Dublin: Irish Bishops In Rome – seeking end of celibacy?

The Irish Bishops are in Rome for their ad limina visit

shamrockBelow, report from The Irish Catholic…

The Irish hierarchy will not ask Pope Francis to consider permitting priests who left to get married to return to ministry at a meeting in Rome next week after failing to reach a consensus, The Irish Catholic can reveal.

However, Bishop Leo O’Reilly, who first brought the proposal for discussion with his fellow Irish bishops, said the issue may well come up during a series of meetings the Irish bishops are due to have with the Pontiff and senior Vatican officials in coming days.

The possibility of married men being ordained to the priesthood in Ireland may come up in next week’s meeting between the bishops and Pope Francis, according to the bishop who in 2015 said the idea should be considered.

The bishop’s observation comes against a background of rumours that the Pope is willing to allow married former priests to return to ministry in Brazil on a phased and experimental basis, and as Ireland’s bishops are due to make their first ad limina visit  to Rome in a decade.

In June 2015, Kilmore’s Bishop Leo O’Reilly said he was liaising with other bishops about setting up a commission to discuss the possibilities of ordaining married men and of appointing female deacons, saying that the Pope encouraged individual bishops and bishops’ conferences to be creative in looking at ways to do ministry in the future, and that Ireland bishops must “consider all options”.

Saints are used to handling snakes...

Saints are used to handling snakes…

However, Dr O’Reilly told The Irish Catholic, no decision was made when he raised the matter with his fellow bishops in 2015. 

“There was a discussion about it at the bishops’ conference, and it was inconclusive – there was no decision taken at that point, and that’s where it rested,” he said.

“Where it came from originally was the diocesan pastoral plan,” he said, highlighting how it had arisen following an 18-month listening process in his Kilmore diocese which had led in turn to a diocesan assembly and a new diocesan pastoral plan to tackle such challenges facing the Church as the declining number of priests.

“The request of the plan was that I would bring it to the bishops’ conference, which I have done,” he continued. “I don’t know whether there is anything more that I could do on it.”

At the same time, he said, there was a chance that the proposal could be raised at next week’s ad limina visit of the Irish bishops to Rome. “I’d say it’s possible,” he said, “because I would have sent in the pastoral plan as part of the submission of the report to the Vatican.”  Source

Comment…

Well.. will Catholic Irish eyes be smiling at the end of this ad limina d’ye think, at all, at all? 

Papacy: Elect One Pope, Get One Free?

You MUST read these Catholic Truth newsletter. If you want to be a good pope, read them...

This box contains all my copies of the Catholic Truth newsletters, Francis. A MUST-read, if you want to be a good pope…

I’m finding myself getting short on patience, to put it mildly,with those who keep telling me that “Benedict is still pope” – having me choking on my morning tea – and, as if that’s not annoying enough, I get regular emails containing the same message from the other side of the world. Anything, rather than accept the fact that it is perfectly possible for a pope to be a bad pope. I mean, we’ve argued the Sedevacantist  theory to death, now we’re faced with more Theology For Dummies thanks to the rise of  Benevacantism…  Is there no end to it?  

Anyway, when I complained to Athanasius about this annoyance, he emailed as follows, and subsequently gave permission for me to use his pearls of wisdom to kick start this discussion: note: Pope FRANCIS is the pope, a terrible pope, no question about it, and while we will certainly permit those of a different view to express their opinion, allow me to say at the outset that we are not about to go round in circles with this. The purpose of this thread is to nip this nonsense in the bud, so anyone who doesn’t “get it” reasonably quickly, can expect to be erased from the face of this blog, in due course. Be warned! No more Mzzzz Nice Gal!

ATHANASIUS WRITES…

Below is Pope Benedict’s declaration of Papal Renunciation with highlighted words showing that he renounced both spiritual and pastoral aspects of the Papacy and then confirmed this by speaking of the election of a new SUPREME PONTIFF, where “Supreme” means over everything, not shared. He even stated that he was renouncing the ministry entrusted to him by the conclave and we know that was the Petrine ministry in all its aspects. These conspirators are just trouble making schismatics. 

Dear Brothers,

I have convoked you to this Consistory, not only for the three canonizations, but also to communicate to you a decision of great importance for the life of the Church. After having repeatedly examined my conscience before God, I have come to the certainty that my strengths, due to an advanced age, are no longer suited to an adequate exercise of the Petrine ministry. I am well aware that this ministry, due to its essential spiritual nature, must be carried out not only with words and deeds, but no less with prayer and suffering. However, in today’s world, subject to so many rapid changes and shaken by questions of deep relevance for the life of faith, in order to govern the barque of Saint Peter and proclaim the Gospel, both strength of mind and body are necessary, strength which in the last few months, has deteriorated in me to the extent that I have had to recognize my incapacity to adequately fulfil the ministry entrusted to me. For this reason, and well aware of the seriousness of this act, with full freedom I declare that I renounce the ministry of Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter, entrusted to me by the Cardinals on 19 April 2005, in such a way, that as from 28 February 2013, at 20:00 hours, the See of Rome, the See of Saint Peter, will be vacant and a Conclave to elect the new Supreme Pontiff will have to be convoked by those whose competence it is.

Dear Brothers, I thank you most sincerely for all the love and work with which you have supported me in my ministry and I ask pardon for all my defects.  And now, let us entrust the Holy Church to the care of Our Supreme Pastor, Our Lord Jesus Christ, and implore his holy Mother Mary, so that she may assist the Cardinal Fathers with her maternal solicitude, in electing a new Supreme Pontiff. With regard to myself, I wish to also devotedly serve the Holy Church of God in the future through a life dedicated to prayer.

From the Vatican, 10 February 2013

Comments invited…  

Consecration of Russia: God Got It Wrong! – World Apostolate of Fatima

Martin Blackshaw (aka blogger Athanasius) writes…

Alerted by the comment of a blogger here a few weeks ago, concerning a website claim by the World Apostolate of Fatima (WAF) that the consecration of Russia was done by Pope John Paul II in 1984, I began a correspondence exchange with a representative of that Apostolate with the aim of enlightening him and his colleagues to the truth of the matter.

For reasons of respect for privacy I will not name the individual with whom I debated the issue. All I will say is that, two weeks down the line, and after much batting back and forth of claim and counter-claim, I have been forced to conclude that the WAF is dangerous to unsuspecting Catholic souls and should be avoided.

In June of 1929, Our Lady appeared to Sr. Lucia in her convent in Tuy, Spain. As promised, the Blessed Virgin requested the consecration she had mentioned 12 years earlier at Fatima. Our Lady’s words were recorded in Sr. Lucia’s memoirs: The moment has come in which God asks the Holy Father, in union with all the Bishops of the world, to make the consecration of Russia to My Immaculate Heart, promising to save it by this means... If My requests are heeded, Russia will be converted, and there will be peace; if not, she will spread her errors throughout the world, causing wars and persecutions of the Church. The good will be martyred, the Holy Father will have much to suffer, various nations will be annihilated. In the end, My Immaculate Heart will triumph. The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to Me, and she will be converted, and a period of peace will be granted to the world.

The moment has come in which God asks the Holy Father, in union with all the Bishops of the world, to make the consecration of Russia to My Immaculate Heart, promising to save it by this means…
If My requests are heeded, Russia will be converted, and there will be peace; if not, she will spread her errors throughout the world, causing wars and persecutions of the Church. The good will be martyred, the Holy Father will have much to suffer, various nations will be annihilated. In the end, My Immaculate Heart will triumph. The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to Me, and she will be converted, and a period of peace will be granted to the world.

There is an established principle in the Church when it comes to heresy, which is that a heresy containing elements of truth is much more dangerous than one that is an outright falsehood. The same principle applies in general wherever truth is paramount, be it WAF propaganda or the doctrines of secular ideologies.

Communism, for example, ensnared many because it sided with the poor working classes against the exploitation and injustices visited upon them by the rich and powerful. Accompanying its alluring empathy, however, was the lie that class warfare and a revolutionary overthrow of Church and State was the answer to all their problems.

The theoreticians, architects and implementers of the Communist utopia knew well how to woo the ignorant with promises of human dignity and equality for all. Like the poor beggars who fell for the same revolutionary rhetoric in 18th century France, however, the overthrow of Church and the established order was to result in a much more despotic governance than the one they had rid themselves of.

And so it proved in Russia and its satellites post-1917. Instead of freedom and their fill, as Communism had promised, the proletariat found itself more enslaved and hungry than before. It also found itself subject to mass extinction upon the whim of whatever paranoid ego maniac happened to murder his way to the top.

By the late 1980s the Soviet Union was so greatly in danger of internal collapse that it shifted its position to the delight of its long-suffering people. Now there was to be “Glasnost” and “Perestroika” (Openness and restructuring), a contingency plan laid out many decades before by Lenin himself.

All at once the Iron Curtain was withdrawn and western democracy was welcomed in together with its Capitalist ideals and market economy. Communism, it seemed, had failed in its objective and the world rejoiced.

For many lesser informed Catholics this was proof positive that the 1984 consecration of the world made by Pope John Paul II was accepted by heaven. Russia was converted, they said, though to what exactly remains a mystery to this day.

What has happened since, imperceptible to the masses, is that all Western governments including the United States have become more Socialist and atheistic in their governance, to the extent that God is today entirely banished from the political, economic and legislative life of almost all Western Democracies.

Evolutionism, first recognised and embraced by Karl Marx as the key to cultural anarchy, is now everywhere the fundamental global Gospel upon which all else is built and proceeds. Contrarily, The Creator, His Commandments and the natural law are dismissed as myths of a less enlightened age.

Complimenting this new vision for the new post-Christian Europe is a model of the old Supreme Soviet, called the European Union.

The Supreme Soviet was a series of legislative bodies (parliaments) based within the Kremlin that made all the laws by which the various Soviet Socialist Republics were bound. Though individual nation States in Europe are not yet entirely governed in the same way by the EU’s Brussels-based centralised government, this is the ultimate goal and many are walking blindly into it.

In their pre-Vatican II Encyclicals, the Popes warned of the dangers threatening nations should Communism ensnare them. They predicted in particular that such nations would rapidly decline financially, spiritually and morally. Who would argue that this is not the very scenario we are witnessing today in all the nations of Europe?

Yes, it would appear that the “Glasnost” and “Perestroika” introduced by Gorbachev nearly thirty years ago signified less the death of the Communist ideology in Russia than its surreptitious expansion to every corner of the globe.

It was the West that was opened up to restructuring; the moral voice of the Catholic Church having been silenced by the lure of Catholic/Orthodox relations at Vatican II, whose liberal prelates became metaphorically high on a truth-altering drug long promoted by Communism, called ecumenism.

Cardinal Josef Tomko, friend and advisor to Pope John Paul II at the time of the 1984 consecration of the world, later admitted that it was precisely for fear of damaging Catholic/ Orthodox ecumenical relations that he personally advised the Pope not to mention Russia.

That John Paul II complied with the request of Cardinal Tomko rather than with the request of Our Lady is obvious from the following unscripted line the Pontiff inserted into his ‘Act of Entrustment of the World’ at that time: Enlighten especially the peoples whose consecration and entrustment by us you are awaiting.”

When I brought this glaring fact of a non-mention of Russia to the attention of my WAF correspondent, he rather indifferently replied that he personally saw it as the Pope exercising his power to bind and loose by prudently choosing a less direct form of consecrating Russia in order to avoid any persecution of Russian Catholics. He even drew ridiculous parallels with the wartime prudence of Pius XII in dealing with the persecution of the Jews to bolster his theory.

In other words, he was saying that heaven hadn’t really thought through the practical consequences of a direct consecration of Russia by the Pope to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, and so the Pope was forced to employ corrective tactics that were more prudent than God’s.

I put it to him that what he was suggesting bordered on blasphemy, that all John Paul had demonstrated by his actions was disobedience to God and a woeful lack of trust in the divine promise.

To this he replied that Sister Lucy had herself confirmed heaven’s acceptance of the 1984 consecration. He even directed me to a DVD for sale on Amazon in which Cardinal Vidal apparently has Sister Lucy making the confirmation on camera.

My obvious response was that any such video confirmation from Sister Lucy, if it were genuine, would have been utilised to the full by the Vatican a long time ago. It would not be left as an obscure production available only to the few who stumble upon its existence and are prepared to fork out good money to buy a foreign language copy from Amazon.

Besides this, Sister Lucy is on record as having several times testified to the non-fulfilment of the 1984 consecration. She declared the fact, for example, in a 1985 interview with the Blue Army’s Spanish magazine Sol de Fatima, and again in 1987 to the journalist Enrico Romero.

A more thorough examination of the facts can be found here: http://www.cfnews.org/page10/page91/consecration-addup.html

So then I asked him about the non-participation of the world’s bishops in the 1984 act, to which he replied that they did in fact participate in “spiritual union” with the Pope. The problem with this strange assertion, however, is that said “spiritual union” was not clearly discernable to the world and is very hard to prove.

Had not Our Lord expressed to Sister Lucy His desire that His Mother’s Immaculate Heart be honoured beside His Sacred Heart, which is why he wants the world to see the conversion of Russia resulting from a public and solemn act to the Immaculate Heart of Mary by the Pope and the bishops?

As far as my WAF correspondent is concerned, though, there never was a specific request from heaven for a public and solemn participation of the bishops with the Pope. This, said he, was a corruption of the Message introduced by some of the more extreme Fatima enthusiasts.

And so I came to the fruits of the 1984 act of John Paul II. I chronicled for him the non-conversion of Russia, its continued hostility to Catholicism, its exploding immorality and its renewed Cold War stance with the West that threatens shortly to erupt into global nuclear conflict. This last observation was made recently by a former Commander-in-Chief of the British Armed Forces.

I further chronicled the crisis in the Church, the deteriorating culture of Western Nations, the rise of Islamic terrorism, the conflicts in the Middle East and so many other manifestations of evil indicative of a heavenly request not fulfilled and a world consequently running headlong into the abyss.

To this observation my correspondent replied that God rarely brings about miraculous conversions by divine intervention, and so we must be patient and permit the fall of Communism in 1989 to produce eventually the fruits promised by Our Lady, which fruits, said he, are only delayed by the refusal of individuals to obey Our Lady’s request for recitation of the Rosary and fulfilment of the five First Saturday’s devotions of reparation.

So there we have it. It’s not the Pope and the Bishops of the world who have failed to meet Our Lady’s request, but the faithful who refuse to embrace the Rosary and the five First Saturday’s. It is the latter rather than the former who are responsible for the non-conversion of Russia. How very convenient!

To emphasise his point, my correspondent sent me a link to some EWTN writings on the subject of Fatima by the Neo-Modernist Fr. Robert J Fox. This told me all I needed to know about my correspondent and the Apostolate he represents. Read about Fr. Fox

Here: http://www.fatima.org/news/newsviews/1104frfox.asp

Here: http://www.fatima.org/news/newsviews/062504frfox1.asp

Here: http://www.fatima.org/news/newsviews/062504frfox2.asp

Here: http://www.fatima.org/news/newsviews/062504frfox3.asp

In summation. Like those heresies and ideologies I mentioned at the outset, the World Apostolate of Fatima proposes to readers of its website a great good, namely, the recitation of the Rosary and the five First Saturday’s devotion of reparation to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. But then comes the poison, the liberal Modernist party line that Russia has been consecrated and the future looks rosy.

This single falsehood, so contradictory of the evidence before our eyes and so obstructive of an outpouring of God’s grace on Russia, the world, the Church and souls, undermines whatever truths the WAF otherwise confirms.

It is therefore incumbent upon all souls of good will to expose this and other so-called Fatima Apostolates that peddle the “Russia is consecrated” falsehood. For behind it lies the illusory ecumenical utopia envisioned and pursued at all costs by certain powerful Vatican officials. No less than the honour of Our Lady and the salvation of countless souls depends on our full objective fidelity to the truth about Fatima.

Comments invited…

We’d especially like to hear from those who consider that we are now enjoying the promised period of world peace AND from  those who agree with the World Apostolate of Fatima that it was necessary for the Pope to be “prudent”, given that God really didn’t understand the political implications of consecrating Russia… 

For the record, I’ve sent the link to this thread to the man in charge at WAF and invited him to contribute. 

Yoga: Paying Homage To Hindu Deities

yogaposeToday, I enjoyed a conversation over lunch with a some Catholics from various parishes in Glasgow, including a young woman who was thoroughly informed about the New Age Movement and its impact on Catholics in this archdiocese and beyond. Unfortunately, I had an appointment so had to leave before the end of the chat, and without, therefore, taking in all of the detail, but, from what I did hear of this young woman’s own experience of parishioners who are deeply committed to the New Age phenomenon, it seems that it warrants our attention.  The spread of New Age-ism has worried the  Vatican sufficiently, for the Pontifical Council For Culture to issue a document on the matter: “Even if it can be admitted that New Age religiosity in some way responds to the legitimate spiritual longing of human nature, it must be acknowledged that its attempts to do so run counter to Christian revelation…”

 I’ve heard plenty of people defend Yoga, saying it helps them relax and is good exercise. But it is more than simple body exercise – it is Hindu prayer using body postures – click Here

Yogaprayerpostures

 

                                                    

Comment…

 

Have you noticed the advertisements forNew Age groups – under various guises, mostly Yoga classes – in church porches and in bulletins?  The fact that bookshops are filling their shelves with “New Age” material is one of the concerns found in the Vatican Document, A Christian Reflection on the New Age     

Should we be concerned? One priest in England was concerned enough to hit the headlines in 2012 – from the BBC to the Telegraph and plenty of headlines in between – click here to read the Catholic Herald report.  Will Yoga destroy the Faith of Catholics who participate in it, or is it possible to be a “New Age Catholic”?  

A Troubling Week In Vatican Politics…

The article below is taken from the blog, One Peter Fve (1P5)…

Müller, Küng, Marx, and St. Joan of Arc

 

The Catholic Church, therefore, faces a very serious situation, where many vulnerable souls are at stake and where there seems to be a growing atmosphere of intolerance toward those who try to defend the Catholic Truth...

The Catholic Church, therefore, faces a very serious situation, where many vulnerable souls are at stake and where there seems to be a growing atmosphere of intolerance toward those who try to defend the Catholic Truth – IP5

 

On this Feast of St. Athanasius [2nd May], and inspired by the story of Saint Joan of Arc, I was encouraged to write this article.

At the end of last week, three major events happened that are very troubling for faithful Catholics. One event relates to Cardinal Gerhard Müller, one to Father Hans Küng, and the third relates to Cardinal Reinhard Marx.

First of all, reports came to us that Carlos Osoro, the archbishop of Madrid, Spain, forbade Cardinal Gerhard Müller from presenting his new book   on hope  at the Catholic University San Dámaso, because this book is — Osoro alleges — “against the pope”. Guiseppe Nardi, who first reported this story in German on Katholisches.info, refers to the original Spanish source, Infovaticana.com. I report here on this story since, from other sources as well, I know it to be the truth.

Infovaticana also surprisingly reports that Archbishop Osoro has been incorrectly reporting, in his official Curriculum Vitae (which he had once sent to the Vatican), that he has four licentiates, namely in philosophy, theology, natural science, and pedagogy. As has now been confirmed, Osoro, in fact, does not have those licentiates. After Infovaticana had also reported on his scandalous treatment of the head of Doctrine in Rome, Osoro has now said that he himself will participate at the presentation of Cardinal Müller’s book, but it still will not take place at his own university. Rather, the presentation will happen at the private University Francisco de Vitoria in Madrid. It is unlikely that the archbishop would have given such a prohibition to a senior cardinal of the Church, had he not felt a sense of assured protection from above. In fact this incident seems only possible due to the fact that, indeed, there is an objective disagreement between Pope Francis’ reforms and Cardinal Müller’s doctrinal position which affirms and preserves the traditional teaching of the Church… The Catholic Church, therefore, faces a very serious situation, where many vulnerable souls are at stake and where there seems to be a growing atmosphere of intolerance toward those who try to defend the Catholic Truth…

Before commentingRead entire article here  

8th April: Start of Greatest Revolution in Church in 1500 Years – Cardinal Kasper

As we prepare  for the release of the Pope’s post-synodal Exhortation on Friday 8th April, it might be useful to reflect on the issues raised in the following article published by Catholic Family News.

 

The Exhortation will be presented to journalists at the Holy See’s Press Office on Friday 8 April at 11.30am (Rome time).

The Exhortation will be presented to journalists at the Holy See’s Press Office on Friday 8 April at 11.30 am (Rome time) 10.30.am UK time. 


When the document is released on Friday, we will discuss it on this thread and rejoice – absolutely – if the fears implicit below, turn out to be groundless. I’m sure we are all praying to that end.  Feel free to read the article below, but refrain from commenting until the Exhortation is released on Friday, if you wish – that’s perfectly acceptable. However, we’ll leave the thread open for those who do wish to comment before Friday.  At the end of the article,  there is a video link to the live-stream of the Presentation of the Apostolic Exhortation, available to view at 10.30 am (UK time) on Friday 8th April. If you click on the image above, that will also take you through to the live-stream video.

Francis’ Synod Exhortation: Brace Yourself for Revolution?

The Past is Prologue

by John Vennari

The Vatican announced Francis’ post-synodal Exhortation, titled Amoris Laetitia (“On Love in the Family”), will be released on Friday, April 8.

            Vatican spokesman, Fr. Federico Lombardi, said the document will be presented in the Vatican newsroom at 11:30 am by Cardinal Lorenzo Baldisseri, the Synod’s secretary, Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, Archbishop of Vienna and a married couple, Francesco and Giuseppina Miano who participated in the Synod discussions.

            Both Baldisseri and Schönborn are very much in line with Pope Francis’ thinking.     

Pope Francis

Pope Francis

            The National Catholic Reporter quoted Australia’s progressivist Archbishop Mark Coleridge who rejoiced, “I expect the papal document to be a typical Bergoglio combination of challenge and encouragement.”[1]

            Cardinal Walter Kasper already announced the text will be revolutionary. “The document,” said Kasper, “will mark the start of the greatest revolution experienced by the Church in 1500 years.”[2] 

Cardinal Walter Kasper

Cardinal Walter Kasper

            I travelled to Rome to cover the October 2015 Synod, along with my friend and colleague Chris Ferrara. Spent 14 days there, the final two weeks of the event. Based on what we saw coming from the Synod, as well as the daily Vatican press briefings, there is good reason to fear the new Exhortation will be every bit as “revolutionary” as Cardinal Kasper pledges.

            After some preliminary remarks, we will take a close look at these press briefings, especially some revealing comments of the liberal Archbishop Coleridge. The final week of the Synod was one of revolutionary expectations.

“Resist Not the Spirit”?

            From the beginning of his pontificate, Francis made clear his resolve to advance the Conciliar agenda. He sees the modernist updating from John XXIII’s Second Vatican Council as a work of the Holy Ghost to be embraced, not resisted. Vatican II ushered us into the evolutionary process of continuous aggiornamento, justified by the changing pastoral needs of the time. Francis implies we should be attentive to the alleged call of the spirit to even more revolutionary change, and more razing of Catholic bastions that block the way for renewal.

            Thus we better understand Francis’ exaltation of Vatican II and his scolding of “hard-headed” Catholics. This oft-quoted speech took place on April 14, 2013, only a month after his election to the papacy.

            “The Council was a beautiful work of the Holy Spirit,” said Francis. “Consider Pope John. He looked like a good parish priest; he was obedient to the Holy Spirit and he did it. But after 50 years, have we done everything the Holy Spirit told us in the Council? In the continuity of growth of the Church that was the Council? No. We celebrate this anniversary; we make a monument, as long as it does not bother us. We do not want to change. What is more, some people want to go back. This is hard-headedness. This is what we call, trying to tame the Holy Spirit, this is what we call becoming foolish and slow of heart.”[3]

            The Synod is a main engine in furthering this “work of the Spirit”. As I’ve noted in the past, the Synod has been established in order to advance the implementation of Vatican II throughout the world. That is how it was defined by Father Kenneth Boyack, a Paulist who had worked with the NCCB.[4]

            Likewise, Tad Szulc, in his biography of Pope John Paul II, explained that the Synod is a “permanent organ to implement the decisions of the Second Vatican Council.”[5]

            Thus the purpose of the Synod is to keep the continuous aggiornamento alive, to keep the accomodata renovatio in motion, in order to implement the Council throughout the world, through the collegial method. The Synod is an ever-present extension of Vatican II into the future.

            The tumult leading up to the 2015 Synod is well known: Cardinal Kasper’s call in February 2014 to pave the way for divorced and remarried Catholics to receive the Eucharist; Francis’ public praise and support for the Kasper proposal; the working document for the 2014 Synod containing an avalanche of perverse proposals such as “new language” to replace natural law, openness towards the homosexual lifestyle, including the tacit nod for homosexuals to be godparents; the tumultuous 2014 Synod; the scandalous pro-homosexual, pro-cohabitation mid-term report; the subsequent Vatican questionnaire in which the bishops were told not to form their responses merely based on doctrine; the 2015 Instrumentum Laboris forcefully criticized by the more orthodox prelates, including Archbishop Schneider who warned that it pushes an agenda contrary to Divine Law.

            In short, we see a process in which the integrity of Catholic doctrine appears to be the last concern of those steering the events.

            The final Francis-offensive in favor of breaking down the Church’s moral edifice in the name of “Mercy” was manifest in the final week of Press Briefings.

            I had arrived in Rome on October 12, and went to the various press briefings during the second week. These sessions included various lay participants of the Synod who were so happy, so happy, so happy to be there. I paid little attention to these useless sessions, as I knew the key briefings would take place the third week

            Sure enough, this was the case.

            Each day of the final week, the most radical prelates were trotted out by the Vatican Press Office to tell the world what the Synod was, and what were the true goals for the future. These prelates included Archbishop Mark Coleridge, Cardinal Reinhard Marx (outspoken supporter of the Kasper Proposal), Cardinal Oswald Gracias (on record calling outto homosexuals, “the Church embraces you, wants you, and the Church needs you”),[6] Spirit-of-Assisi Cardinal Paul Turkson, and Cardinal Christophe Schonborn (who appears to be of one mind with Cardinal Marx). One had the sense the entire week of press conferences was staged-managed for a pre-determined result.

“No Black or White” Coleridge

            Archbishop Mark Coleridge of Brisbane, Australia kicked off the final week of Synod Press Briefings. Each daily press event of the final week comprised at least three synod prelates (different prelates every day) along with Father Frederico Lombardi, Vatican Press Secretary. Coleridge, by far, was the most colorful. He was also the most helpful, as he gave the game away in clear crystal tones.

            I spotlight Coleridge’s October 19 comments as he represents to a more or less degree the position of the most radical Synod prelates, including – according to all available evidence – that of Pope Francis himself. His testimony is crucial, as it indicates the thinking behind the maneuvering, and the path Francis is most likely to take in the future.

            Coleridge insists that doctrine is one thing, and pastoral practice is another. It’s all about starting from human experience (as we repeatedly warned would be the case in previous issues of CFN). In this regard, Cardinal Wuerl and others say, “We must meet people where they are.” Coleridge likewise insists the Church “must put down its roots in human experience.” This is code for accepting the person’s sinful lifestyles as is, and then bend pastoral practice to accommodate it. This is called the “creative” pastoral approach.

            Though he claims to respect the Church’s traditional teaching regarding divorce and remarried, Coleridge says, “not every case [of adultery] is the same, and that’s where the pastoral approach needs to take account … just to say every second marriage or second union [divorced and remarried] is adulterous is perhaps too sweeping.”

            In one sense Coleridge says nothing new. The Church always noted there can be different degrees of culpability regarding such sins – but also insists that these grievous sins remain grievous sins that bar the soul from the Eucharist. The new “discernment” approach, however, favored by modern ecclesial delinquents, looks to pry open a way to grant access to the Eucharist for couples living in adultery who will not correct their lifestyle.

            Coleridge derides the “all or nothing” attitude, saying there is “no black or white.” He frowns upon the word “adultery,” claiming that it is a “convenient and apparently clear blanket term” that does not deal with the reality of human experience in this life or that life.

             All of this twaddle is camouflage for the old heresy of Situation Ethics: the belief that there is no objective morality, and everything depends on the circumstances of the person. Coleridge calls for a whole new language – thus further discarding irreplaceable scholastic precision – so that those living in moral turpitude will not feel “excluded” or “alienated.”

            When asked what terminology he would like to see changed, Coleridge responded he would do away with the term “indissolubility,” which he says is “negative in form.” He also wants to discard the phrase “intrinsically disordered act” – a term despised by those who embrace situation ethics, and the term used by the 1993 Catechism to describe homosexuality.

            Worse, Coleridge goes on to say, “These are just two examples, there would be many, many other” traditional Catholic terms he wants to shed.

            As a true revolutionary, Coleridge sums up his hope that the synod “would bring the whole Church to a new listening, for the sake of a new language, that would open new doors and new possibilities.”

            He also rightly explains that the effects of this Synod will not end with the closing of the October event, but will extend far into the future.

“Theology progresses”?

            Other prelates from the final Synod week piped a similar tune.

            During the October 22 Press Briefing, Cardinal Gracias ladled out his subversion of Catholic truth claiming, “Theology progresses, the doctrine remains the same, and our understanding of Church discipline progresses.” – words that would warm Teilhard’s heart. After spouting the false claim that John Paul II’s Familiaris Consortio opened the doors to ‘different circumstances’ that could lead the way for some divorced and remarried to receive the Eucharist, Gracias said, “I don’t think we have seen the solution … this has got to be tackled, this has got to be studied … as we deepen our understanding … I am sure you will find a way forward.”   Gracias acts as if the solution does not already exist, that those in a second “marriage” must repent of their adultery in order for readmission to the Sacraments, a clear teaching of Familiaris Consortio that Gracias does not mention.

            Likewise Germany’s rootin’tootin’ Cardinal Marx at the October 21 press briefing noted that German-speaking bishops made their own proposal to deal with divorced and remarried. It comprises an appeal to the internal forum, where the priest “in dialogue” with various couples will judge each situation on a case-by-case basis. This too opens the door to sacrilegious Communion under the rubric of a counterfeit compassion.

            Other prelates at the third week’s press conference touted a parallel line. This is what Francis’ Vatican presented to the world by means of the press as the major goals and themes of the Synod.

The Final Thud!

            On the evening of October 24, I picked up the final Synod Document from the Vatican press office. The result was every bit as disastrous as we predicted: a mish-mash of imprecision that opens the door – overtly and covertly – to eventual acceptance of various practices always considered gravely sinful. The document has the atmosphere of an insipid humanism with a Christian veneer. Despite its God-talk, it is bereft of the sense of the supernatural.

            Cardinal Burke put it mildly when he lamented the final document “lacks clarity on the indissolubility of marriage”. A number of us have elsewhere listed its numerous deficiencies.

            Of course there is the obvious omission: The Synod’s final Relatio contains no mention of sin or sinful behavior. Yet the number one incentive for most souls to resist immoral behavior is the truth that sexual sins are mortal sins that bring eternal damnation if the sins are not confessed – in other words, a realistic dread of mortal sin and fear of hell.

            Yet the final document contains no reminder that engagement of the ‘marital act’ is thoroughly forbidden outside of the marriage. There is no word about “avoiding the occasion of sin” – which was always a pastoral admonition. Sin is mentioned only in passing (Christ has saved man from sin, etc.). Regarding homosexuality, cohabitation, adultery, fornication, there is no mention of sin whatsoever.

            One would never know Our Lady of Fatima warned, “More souls go to hell for sins of the flesh than for any other reason.” All so-called “negative language” and “language of exclusion” is expunged from the text. This omission itself is a grave sin of those who dish out this toxin as if it were genuine Catholic nourishment.

            Catholics need to pray, arm themselves with traditional doctrine, teach the truth to those in their sphere of influence, and publicly resist.

            The 2015 Synod and its final document represent an attack on the Church’s entire moral edifice, and points to institutionalized scandal for the future.

            There is every indication that Francis’ April 8 Apostolic Exhortation will proceed according to the same revolutionary spirit..[7] Source 

Vatican Protocol & Doctrine – Linked?

The Vatican Secretariat of State had specifically looked into changing the protocol, at Pope Francis’ request. As it turned out, the protocol was applied for the first time on the occasion of the visit by Argentina’s new President Mauricio Macri to the Vatican, where he attended an audience with Pope Francis on Saturday 27 February. From now on, Catholic heads of state in irregular marital unions will be able to meet the Pope along with their spouse and the latter will also be able to appear in official group photos when gifts are exchanged. Until today, in such cases, the husband or wife had to wait in another room and the Pope greeted them separately at the end of the audience. 

Pope Francis hugs US gay couple at the Vatican embassy, in 2015

Pope Francis hugs US ‘gay’ couple at
the Vatican embassy, in 2015

 Argentinian journalist Elisabetta Piqué was the first to announce the change in protocol in an article published by daily newspaper La Nación

 Secretariat of State sources confirmed to Vatican Insider that this change is in force as of now and applies to all Catholic heads of state on official visits to the Vatican. According to traditional protocol, only in cases of Catholic heads of state – being spiritual children of the Church – did the “regularity” of a marital state need to be take into consideration respecting Canon Law. 

 Argentina’s new President Mauricio Macri and his third wife, Juliana Awada, were the first to experience this change in etiquette. The decision was taken in light of something that occurred two years ago when a Latin American head of state who had married his wife in a civil ceremony met the Pope who then greeted the wife in a separate location. That was when he started thinking about changing the protocol that had been in place until then. In a statement about remarried divorces during his interview with journalists on the return flight from Mexico on 17 February, Francis said: “The key phrase used by the synod, which I’ll take up again, is ‘integrate’ in the life of the Church the wounded families, remarried families, etcetera.” The change in protocol is a small step in that direction.  Source

Comment

The feeling out on the street these days is that Pope Francis will come perilously close to making one of his many errors binding on Catholics – perhaps his assurance to Protestants and atheists that they needn’t worry about salvation, no need to convert,  or perhaps his confusing messages about marriage and the family (all shapes and sizes acceptable) or similar. The feeling out on the street is that this is likely to come about soon, and will provoke some major activity, either through the concerned members of the hierarchy or by direct divine intervention.  This news of a change in Vatican protocol seems to support the voices on the street. IS this a significant change, or does it really not matter that much?