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… 

USA Election: Priest On Voting Priorities – Warns Against “Catholic” Biden…

Comment: 

Even without the above excellent sermon I could not see how any American Catholic could vote for Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.  After listening to the sermon, I’d dearly love to hear from any Catholic who still intends to vote for the Democratic Party. If every priest in the USA preached like that, there would be no question whatsoever about the outcome of the November election.  Therefore, let’s pray, in the remaining time, for some lights to switch on in the heads of currently less enlightened or less courageous priests.  As the priest in the video says, this election is a battle for the soul of America, no less – it is, unarguably, a battle for the soul of the free world.  Archbishop Fulton Sheen is quoted in the above sermon.  Here’s the Archbishop again, on the charge that the Church interferes in politics…

“… Is this true? It all depends upon what you mean by politics. If by interference in politics is meant using influence to favor a particular regime, party, or system that respects the basic God-given rights and freedom of persons, the answer is emphatically No! The Church does not interfere in politics. If by interference in politics is meant judging or condemning a philosophy of life that makes the party or state, or the class, or the race, the source of all rights, and that usurps the soul and enthrones party over conscience and denies those basic rights for which the war was fought, the answer is emphatically Yes!

The Church does judge such a philosophy. But when it does this, it is not interfering with politics, for such politics is no longer politics but theology. When a state sets itself up as absolute as God, when it claims sovereignty over the soul, when it destroys freedom of conscience and freedom of religion, then the state has ceased to be political and has begun to be a counter-Church.”  Ends. 

This is exactly what is happening, not just in America but here in the UK as well and in particular in socialist Scotland. So, why are there so few priests speaking out to warn, educate and edify the faithful?  

Pope Silent On Abortion, Outspoken On Mass Migration of Muslims: Why? 

Pope Francis Weaponizes the Mass for Politics
by Chris Ferrara
Fatima Perspectives #1213

The Pope who vows he will not interfere in the concrete politics of nations when it comes to abortion and “gay marriage” never ceases to interfere in politics when it comes to his obsession with promoting the mass influx of Muslims into Europe.

Thus the Vatican Press Office has just announced that tomorrow “the Holy Father Francis will celebrate a Mass for Migrants at the Altar of the Cathedra, in Saint Peter’s Basilica. The Mass coincides with the fifth anniversary of Pope Francis’ visit to Lampedusa (8 July 2013).”

Lampedusa is the place where Francis ostentatiously denounced as “shameful” a shipwreck off the coast of that island near Sicily in which many migrants from Africa, most of them military age Muslim males, were drowned. As if it were the fault of the government of Italy that illegal traffickers in human beings had provided an inadequate vessel for their cargo of illegal immigrants.

On June 14, addressing a conference on international migration at the Vatican, Francis demanded “a change in mindset: we must move from considering others as threats to our comfort to valuing them as persons whose life experience and values can contribute greatly to the enrichment of our society.”

The notion that the mass migration of Muslims into Italy in violation of Italian law enriches Italian society is utterly preposterous. And, as the recent elections in Italy have shown, the Italian people, who are overwhelmingly Christian at least by virtue of Baptism, have had quite enough of this nonsense.

Over the past five years Francis has continually glossed over critical distinctions between legal and illegal immigration, between true refugees with bona fide claims of asylum and merely economic migrants hoping to reap benefits by entering illegally, between able-bodied males and vulnerable women and children, between people fleeing wars or disasters and merely opportunistic individuals who had no compelling reason to leave their home countries, between people without skills who may have criminal tendencies and the best and brightest from other lands.

These are all legal distinctions it is the duty of civil authorities to sort out with appropriate legislation, including tight restrictions on the number of permitted legal immigrants, not excluding a total moratorium on immigration from certain places if it is deemed to serve the common good of citizens. The crafting of these laws and regulations is, frankly, none of Francis’ business.

Yet on June 14 Francis continued with his crude demagoguery on the immigration issue, demanding that European countries “tear down the wall of ‘comfortable and silent complicity’ that worsens their [the migrants’] helplessness; they are waiting for us to show them concern, compassion and devotion.” As if legitimate attempts to impose strong restrictions on immigration were immoral — restrictions like those in effect in Vatican City!
The Mass tomorrow will be a virtual weaponization of the sacred liturgy for political purposes, including a specially composed prayer, published by the Vatican, that declares: “O God, father of all men, for you no one is a stranger, no one is excluded from your fatherhood…” — as if to suggest that the exclusion of illegal immigrants is per se offensive to God.

The same prayer pleads that “we,” meaning, of course, the opponents of open borders, “be given a sensitive and generous heart towards the poor and oppressed.” One wonders when the Pope will have a Mass for the innocent unborn who are slaughtered by the millions each year, and when he will offer a highly publicized prayer that supporters of legalized child murder be “given a sensitive and generous heart towards the poor and oppressed” victims of their slaughterhouses.

But we know the answer to that question: Probably never. And therein lies the essence of the disaster that is this pontificate.   Source – Fatima Perspectives

Comments invited… 

Disastrous Pontificate Persists – Yet No Sense of Urgency From “Opponents”…

Me? Damaging the Church? No way!

A friend rang me last night to say he’d attended a Summorum Pontificum Traditional Mass and found himself chatting afterwards with a couple who were not husband and wife, but “partners” …   My friend was downhearted, dispirited that even the better priests seem to be willing to tolerate such scandals. 

Then this from The American Conservative “The president of the German Bishops’ Conference has declared that, in his view, Catholic priests can conduct blessing ceremonies for homosexual couples.”

The list of scandalous words and actions from this current shocking pope, or tolerated by him, grows day and daily. Too much to list here – and anyway, would, more likely than not, be out of date before I press the “publish” button on this page. 

There is no lack of evidence that Pope Francis is a danger to Catholic Faith and Morals.  Quite the reverse – there’s an abundance of evidence. Even as I type this, a report has come in questioning the pope’s integrity – would he blatantly impart falsehoods, we have to ask? Click here to answer that for yourself. 

The question is, why are the supposedly concerned bishops who allegedly oppose him remaining silent – such as Cardinal Burke and the Captain and Crew of the Lifeboat SSPX?  Why no sense of urgency? Why have they all gone to ground? 

It’s one thing to pick one’s fights, but not to fight at all?  Take a few minutes to view the short video in the News section of the Dici website here.  Who, on this earth, would ever imagine that the Church is suffering the worst crisis ever in its entire history, watching that broadcast?  Lovely reports, sure, but there’s been nothing about any attempt to fight as members of the Church Militant, under our banner as Soldiers of Christ,  in any of the recent videos posted on Dici  in January, which I’ve viewed with surprise and disappointment.  This latest one, linked above, dated 2nd February, is no different. Plenty of devotional content, suggesting the danger of becoming so heavenly minded that we’re no earthly use.  

What should the supposed opponents of this dreadful pontificate be doing, in addition to prayer. Concrete action, surely – but what, precisely? 

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?

Same-Sex & Sibling “Marriage”…

Notice the failure of Piers Morgan and his pro-same-sex marriage guest to answer the question about the brother and sister who want to marry. After all, if “luv” is all that matters, why not? 

What does the uncomfortable (they were manifestly taken-aback) inability of Morgan and guest to answer the question, tell us?  That those who bleat on about “discrimination” and “gay rights” really haven’t thought it through? What then?

Also for this thread, consideration to be given to the “extremism” bill being proposed by Theresa May who refuses to define “extremism” and to rule out applying it to those of us who refuse to go along with the LGBT agenda.  We’re all at risk of being labelled “extremists” since, it seems, one of the British values she is determined to promote (and which from which nobody will be permitted to dissent) is the “tolerance” which has led to the legalisation of immorality of every imaginable kind and then some. Somebody asks me what I think of men who decide to go into hospital and return a woman, and I don’t reply “great, that’s his, or, er, rather, her choice”  then – unless I’m misinterpreting her rather muddled non-response to the interviewer’s persistent questioning –  I’m in danger of breaking the law of the land.  Check out her recent interview on BBC  Radio 4…

98-15 in favour: shame on Catholic MSPs who supported same-sex marriage bill…

98-15 in favour: shame on Catholic MSPs who supported same-sex marriage bill...

Legislation to introduce same-sex marriage in Scotland has been approved in principle by parliament, after MSPs voted on it for the first time.

The Scottish government’s Marriage and Civil Partnership Bill passed the first of three parliamentary hurdles by 98 votes to 15 with five abstentions.

Ministers said the move was the right thing to do, but the Church of Scotland and Catholic Church are opposed.
Religious and belief bodies would “opt in” to perform same-sex marriages.

Same-sex couples in Scotland currently have the option to enter into civil partnerships, and there has been an indication that the earliest gay marriage ceremonies could take place by the start of 2015, if the legislation is passed.

Click on the Scottish flag to read the rest of the above report.

Then tell us whether, in the cases of Members of the Scottish Parliament (MSPs) who either voted in favour of the same-sex marriage legislation or abstained, the Bishops should be enforcing Canon Law, # 915 “…(Those) who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion”.

Given the extent of public debate on this issue and the pronouncements from the Church both nationally and from the Vatican, no MSP can claim ignorance. Catholic MSPs have clearly chosen to vote for this legislation in the full knowledge that they are defying a very serious moral law – God’s moral law (not “the Church’s). For them to go forward, therefore, to receive Communion in their parish churches is a source of huge scandal.

But are the Bishops of Scotland likely to enforce Canon Law? They tend only to point to Canon Law when it serves their own purpose, and falling out with MSPs is unlikely to be on their wish list.

Finally, a word about voting habits. If your MSP voted with the Government today, will you vote for him / her again?

Archbishop Nichols Supports Dissident MPs – Anyone Out There Surprised?

Archbishop Nichols Supports Dissident MPs - Anyone Out There Surprised?

I have received the following email from Chris Whitehouse of the misnamed Catholic Legislators’ Network, giving advance warning, I mean notice, of an article in this week’s Universe, by Archbishop Vincent Nichols of aren’t “gay Masses” terrific fame:

Please find attached a whole page article to be published in this weekend’s edition of The Universe in which Archbishop Vincent Nichols reflects on the same sex marriage legislation and the way in which the debate has been conducted. Colleagues who have faced criticism, from whatever quarter, for the position that they took might find the closing section quoting St Paul’s letter to Titus a source of solace!

The Hierarchy has been very aware of the pressure that some Members have been under, on both sides of the debate, and are, I know from personal contact with them which Rob Flello and I have had, keen to reach out and to enhance the pastoral support that is provided to Members both in Westminster and in their home dioceses not only in relation to controversial legislation such as that which has just received Royal Assent, but also in the wider aspects of their role as Catholics in public life. END

Now, why would I be included in Mr Whitehouse’s circulation list on this topic, if not to scare me into thinking “WOW! An archbishop who thinks the MPs who voted for same-sex marriage are right to cite conscience”?

I could scarcely make out the text of the article but I read enough of the globbledegook on “freedom of conscience” towards the end of the piece to know that Archbishop Nichols is as wrong on this as were Mr Whitehouse and Mr Flello when they first made the mistake of contacting me. I mean is anyone, apart from these clueless Members of Parliament, surprised that Archbishop Nichols supports their dissent? Don’t they know his reputation as a “liberal”?

What would I say to the archbishop if I bumped into him in Sauchiehall Street? One word, folks. You guessed it: gerragrip!

For background: read Letter from Rob Flello MP

And reply from Catholic Truth