Archbishop-Elect Dermot Farrell of Dublin – The New Judas On The Block… 

From The Catholic Thing – Some Troubles in Dublin by Fr Gerald E. Murray

               Archbishop-Elect of Dublin,               Dermot Farrell

The Archbishop-Elect of Dublin, Dermot Farrell, gave an interview to the Irish Times soon after his appointment had been announced by the Holy See. (Click here for a transcript of the interview.)

The new archbishop declares himself in favour of women deacons and married priests. He does not find in the Scriptures an argument against the ordination of women to the priesthood. He calls the teaching of the Catechism of the Catholic Church on homosexuality merely technical. He also says he has no problem with the private blessing of rings for divorced and remarrying couples and for homosexual couples (though he finds public blessings problematic because people often misconstrue them as actual marriages).

Amid so many other troubles, the Irish Church appears to be headed for more rocky days.

Farrell’s treatment of Church teaching and practice regarding homosexuality, for example, is dismissive: “It’s a technical description. People misconstrue that then because it is technical theological language.” He considers amending this technical language, because “I think Pope Francis has discussed that (removal). It came up at the last Synod.”

Really?  Farrell is referring to this teaching of the Catechism: “Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that ‘homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.’ They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.” (CCC 2357)

In common parlance, calling language in a document “technical” can mean that it is unintelligible or is commonly misunderstood by the uninitiated, and is there to serve some arcane or legalistic purpose. Its removal is desirable but may be difficult to do if sticklers, purists, or legalists object. Better just to ignore it and treat it as a dead letter, as in “Technically speaking that is true, but. . .”

To describe the clear, unchanging, and unchangeable teaching of the Church on the inherent immorality of homosexual acts as technical language that could, and even should, be dispensed with is plainly a rejection of that teaching.

The rejection of homosexual activity, and the homosexual lifestyle, by faithful Catholics, however,  is not a misconstruing of “technical” language found in the Catechism. Those who want the Church to embrace and bless the homosexual lifestyle object to the language of the Catechism not because it is misconstrued by clueless people who think it means that no one should engage in homosexual acts because, being intrinsically disordered, they are immoral. Rather, they object because the language is easily and correctly understood to mean just that. The problem for them is not the allegedly confusing words used, but rather the clear meaning of those words.

Archbishop Farrell, in response to a question about blessing rings for divorced and remarried couples and for same-sex couples, says:

The difficulty with blessings is that they are very often misconstrued as marriage. Priests have given these blessings in the past. I remember one colleague of mine. I had said to him – he used to have this ceremony of the blessing of rings – I said to him I don’t have a difficulty with blessing rings if you’re doing that here in the house but if you go out into the public domain, in a church, and bless rings as you see it. . .they turned up with 200 people and they saw it as a marriage. Sometimes people use that phraseology. . .you’re into confusion there. It can be misconstrued as “yes, the priest married us.” Blessings are always going to be misconstrued and that’s where the difficulty arises because once you start blessing things like that people are going to construe that as a marriage. We can’t have that sort of situation in the Church because it creates all sorts of problems in terms of our own teaching and these teachings of the church have been constant.

Leaving aside the question of blessing the rings of divorced and remarried couples, what exactly are we to understand is the meaning of blessing the wedding rings of same-sex couples, whether in private or in public? Is it a misconstrual to consider that the priest who does such a blessing approves of the relationship that the homosexual couple has entered into (which is a counterfeit, pseudo-marriage), and asks God’s favor and approval upon that relationship as symbolized by the rings?

The Modern Catholic Dictionary defines a blessing thus: “In liturgical language a blessing is a ritual ceremony by which an authorized cleric in major orders sanctifies persons or things to divine service, or invokes divine favor on what he blesses.” The dictionary’s entry on rings states: “Conferring the ring is an integral part of the marriage ceremony to signify the mutual love of husband and wife, and wearing the ring symbolizes their pledge of marital fidelity.”

The main problem with blessing wedding rings of a same-sex couple is not that people will become confused and think that the priest was actually  marrying them. No, the main problem is that a priest who does such an unholy act is giving the impression that God will favour what He has condemned. Same-sex “marriages” are not marriages in any way, shape, or form. It’s a gravely sinful relationship in which two men or two women pledge to sodomize each other. No blessing should ever be invoked by a priest upon this unnatural relationship nor upon the pirated symbols of the holy estate of marriage.

Archbishop Farrell says: “I don’t have a difficulty with blessing rings.” If that’s true, what he does have is a more fundamental difficulty: God has warned shepherds who mislead their flocks into paths of sin and error that they will be held accountable. Let us pray that the new Archbishop of Dublin will forswear his comments and reaffirm the Church’s actual teaching and practice.  Click here to read at source

Comment:

There’s really nothing left for me to say – except pray for poor Ireland.  As if it’s not due a break.  From my trip to Dublin at the time of the abortion referendum I have one memory which will be forever fixed in my mind and it is this:  handing out our leaflets and engaging with the few members of the public who didn’t tell us to blankety blank off, I met one woman who expressed herself heart-broken about the state of the Church in Ireland, that it had come to this – a referendum on murdering the unborn. She told me that she had daughters who were going to vote in favour of legalising abortion, and her tears fell. My heart went out to her. Catholics have been very badly served by the clergy in Ireland.  And after the abortion and then the same-sex “marriage” votes, the Pope is still not satisfied; the people of Ireland need yet another bad bishop – and one who is not afraid to publicly display his fake Catholicism.

As I intimated at the beginning of this short comment – there’s really nothing left for me to say.  Over to you… 

Papal Visit To Ireland: Write Your Own Open Letter To Pope Francis…

Open Letter to Pope Francis…

I am shocked beyond words at your silence during the abortion referendum in Ireland. A small group of us, Scots, went over to Dublin in order to help save the lives of the unborn babies at risk of being killed if a YES vote resulted so we remain in shock that the Pope himself remained silent throughout and yet plans to visit Ireland to attend a meeting ostensibly about “family” despite the fact that a keynote speaker is an LGBT-Z activist priest. We were treated appallingly by the majority of the Irish people whom we encountered on our visit – nasty and completely sold to the values of this world. YOU encouraged that by your silence.

You are easily the worst-ever pope in the history of the Church and a future pope and Council will denounce you as it denounced Honorius I. Think of the book titles, the headlines: From Honorius I to Francis I. Roll on!

Used to be that the jibe “is the Pope Catholic” was a joke. No more. Your alleged Catholicity is now the joke. So, enjoy your visit to Ireland, enjoy the World Meeting of Families – just don’t try to pass the event off as “Catholic”.

With no condemnation (however belatedly) of the shocking pro-abortion vote, and your willingness to share a platform with a priest who will present, as a good, one of the four sins that cry to Heaven for vengeance, your presence at this event can only serve to further attack the teaching of Christ’s Church.

You, Papa Francis, are about as Catholic as the nearest Imam.

Signed… Editor, Catholic Truth

Comment:

Click here to send YOUR open letter, albeit short and to the point, to Pope Francis via the Irish Times, ahead of his visit to Ireland later this month. And then feel free to copy it onto the blog and/or share your thoughts about the forthcoming World Meeting of Families.  

Irish Jokes – Is It Any Wonder?

So, what about that papal visit to Ireland in August for the World Meeting of Families?  It’s bad enough that Pope Francis has agreed to visit what must now rank as the LEAST Catholic/most secular country in the universe to participate in what can only be a mish-mash of utter hypocritical talk and shallow blether about family life – let’s just pray they don’t have the temerity to use “Catholic” as an adjective there;  but those Irish people! WOW!  Instead of being covered in embarrassment at their national votes for same-sex “marriage” and abortion, what are they  fighting about discussing on their media talk shows?  Brace yourself: they’re battling over which celebrities should be entertaining Papa Francis and who has the right to sing what. Truly, you couldn’t make this stuff up.  Click here to read all about this latest craziness from across the water

It’s a very true saying, isn’t it, that those whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad. 

Nor could you make up the fact that while the Archbishop of Dublin is welcoming the “gay” activist priest, American Fr James Martin as a keynote speaker at the same World Meeting of Families, he’s thrown Dublin Parish Priest Fr James Larkin under the bus for the crime of urging those who voted for abortion in the May referendum, to repent and go to Confession.  Click here to read about that scandal. In the good old days, they’d have been told that by voting for the murder of unborn babies, they had automatically excommunicated themselves, but, hey, let’s not go there.  

Comments invited…   

Dissident Fr Timothy Radcliffe Keynote Speaker at Dublin Conference…

ImageThe following article appeared over on the Protect the Pope blog earlier today. Thanks to Catholic Convert for alerting us to it.

Fr Timothy Radcliffe OP, well-known liberal and dissenter, has bizarrely been chosen to be one of the keynote speakers at Dublin’s 2014 International Conference on Divine Mercy. Fr Radcliffe openly dissents on the Church’s teaching on homosexuality and Holy Communion for the divorced and re-married. Fr Timothy Radcliffe OP frequently celebrated Mass for the gay dissent group the Soho Masses Pastoral Council. During the reign of Pope Benedict XVI Fr Timothy Radcliffe was stopped from speaking at the General Assembly of the Catholic development agencies. Fr Radcliffe is well known for his liberal positions on morality, including his public opposition to the Church’s teaching on homosexuality.

The Divine Mercy Conference website states:

Divine Mercy Conference 2014

The first International Conference of Divine Mercy was held in the R.D.S. over 23 years ago. We celebrate our 23rd conference 2014 in the knowledge that Sister Faustina is now Saint Faustina. The theme of the first conference was “Mercy Our Mission”. The theme and the speakers were the product of much prayer and discernment by a committee of men and women gathered together in Eucharistic adoration under the spiritual direction of Fr. Cathal Price.’

Fr Timothy Radcliffe OP will be speaking on both Saturday and Sunday.

A selection of Fr Radcliffe’s writings expressing dissent from the Church’s teaching:

Fr Radcliffe gave the following contribution to the Church of England ‘s review of homosexuality and gay marriage:

Fr Radcliffe OP expands the meaning of fertility to include gay sex

But not every marriage is fertile in this way. We must avoid having a mechanistic or simplistic understanding of fertility. Jesus speaks a fertile word: This is my body, given for you. He is God’s fertile word. And surely it is in the kind and healing words that we offer each other that we all share in fertility of that most intimate moment. When Jesus met Peter on the shore after Easter, he offers him a word that renews their relationship. Three times he asks him; ‘Do you love me more than these others?’ He allows him to undo his threefold denial. Sexual fertility cannot be separated from the exchange of words that heal, that recreate and set free.

How does all of this bear on the question of gay sexuality? We cannot begin with the question of whether it is permitted or forbidden! We must ask what it means, and how far it is Eucharistic. Certainly it can be generous, vulnerable, tender, mutual and non-violent. So in many ways, I would think that it can be expressive of Christ’s self-gift.

We can also see how it can be expressive of mutual fidelity, a covenantal relationship in which two people bind themselves to each other for ever. But the proposed legislation for ‘gay marriage’ imply that it is not understood to be inherently unitive, a becoming one flesh. […]

And what about fertility? I have suggested that one should not stick to a crude, mechanistic understanding of fertility. Biological fertility is inseparable from the fertility of our mutual tenderness and compassion. And so that might seem to remove one objection to gay marriage. I am not entirely convinced, since it seems to me that our tradition is incarnational, the word becoming bodily flesh. And some heterosexual relationships may be accidentally infertile in this sense, but homosexual ones are intrinsically so.

Sexual ethics is about what our acts say. And I have the impression that we are not very sure of what gay sexual acts signify. Maybe we need to ask gay Christians who have been living in committed relationships for years. I suspect that sex will turn out to be rather unimportant.’

Fr Radcliffe on Holy Communion for Catholics who are divorced and re-married:

I would conclude with two profound hopes. That a way will be found to welcome divorced and remarried people back to communion. And, most important, that women will be given real authority and voice in the church. The pope expresses his desire that this may happen, but what concrete form can it take? He believes that the ordination of women to the ministerial priesthood is not possible, but decision-making in the church has become ever more closely linked to ordination in recent years. Can that bond be loosened? Let us hope that women may be ordained to the diaconate and so have a place in preaching at the Eucharist. What other ways can authority be shared?’

Protect the Pope comment: It is frankly ridiculous seeing a photograph of Fr Timothy Radclife OP on the home page of Dublin’s 2014 Divine Mercy Conference alongside photographs of St Faustina, Blessed John Paul II and Blessed Fr Sopoko. How could the organising committee of men and women who prayed and discerned who to invite as speakers choose a liberal priest well-known for his dissent from the Church’s teaching? Their decision is incredible. Click on photo for details of the Divine Mercy Conference.

Source