Corbyn Still One of the Comrades of Evo Morales

I am among those thankful that the Leftist supposed President of Bolivia Evo Morales resigned under pressure after a fraudulent re-election. But look who is not thankful: the dictators of Cuba and Venezuela . . . and Jeremy Corbyn.

The Glorious Leader of the Labour Party tweeted:

To see [Evo Morales] who, along with a powerful movement, has brought so much social progress forced from office by the military is appalling. I condemn this coup against the Bolivian people and stand with them for democracy, social justice and independence. #ElMundoConEvo

Never mind Morales’ human rights abuses or his election stealing.

By the way, I wonder what Pope Francis thinks of Morales’ resignation.  Will the LibPope miss him?  After all they’ve met at least six times, including as recently as last year when Francis surely knew the nature of the Morales regime.  And remember Morales gave Francis that lovely Communist cross. So maybe Francis will invite his buddy to move into the Vatican where he will be right at home with any number of Leftist abusers.

Pachamama Returns: Is Francis Committing Idolatry? UPDATED

I will soon be going to [TRIGGER WARNING!! AVERT YOUR EYES ALL YE SNOWFLAKES!!] a gun show.  So I am posting in haste.  I do not like to do so but the controversy about the Pachamama statues at the Vatican’s Amazon Synod has become so significant that I am compelled to comment.

To be brief, Pope Francis has noted that “the Pachamama statues” have been retrieved.  Yes, that is what he has now called them, and that in itself is significant. He thereby acknowledges that the statues are idols that have been brought into the Synod even though he claims there were “no idolatrous intentions.”

That is just begging for satire, but continuing…

This situation could become much worse tomorrow.  For, even after acknowledging that they are “Pachamama statues,” Francis said that they may be included in the Synod’s closing mass:

The Commander of the Carabinieri [Italian police] wished to inform us of the retrieval before the news becomes public. At the moment the news is confidential, and the statues are being kept in the office of the Commander of the Italian Carabinieri.

The leadership of the Carabinieri will be very happy to follow any indication given on the method of making the news public, and regarding the other initiatives desired in its regard, for example, the commander said, “the display of the statues at the closing Mass of the Synod.” We’ll see.

I delegate the Secretary of State to respond to this.

This is good news, thank you.

Needless to say, if said display occurs, it would be a grievous and idolatrous provocation.  

Already, Fr. John Hunwicke is asking if Francis has committed “a formal act of Apostasy” under the canons:

If the statue venerated in the VGE was not of Pachamama, but PF erroneously believed that it was, would his act of veneration of this statue (if he did make such an act) still be a formal act of Apostasy, on the grounds that the Roman Pontiff intended to commit an act of idolatry?

I think the question answers itself although canon law may complicate the matter.  But, yes, this is a grave matter already.

I will continue to keep an eye on this matter and to pray for faithful orthodox Catholics, who surely must be distressed by this.

---

UPDATE: There are numerous reports that the Pachamama idols were not seen at the closing Mass of the Synod. 

Vigano: Francis Lied

It is getting harder to escape that Pope Francis is a liar.  To be specific, he has lied about his knowledge of Cardinal “Uncle Ted” McCarrick’s sexual predations.

The Pope has said he knew nothing, nothing:

“I knew nothing, obviously, of McCarrick,” the pope says in the new interview. “Nothing, nothing. I said several times that I didn’t know, that I had no idea. You know that I didn’t know anything about McCarrick; otherwise, I would not have stayed quiet.”

Archbishop Vigano has been quick to call that out as a lie.  For he himself told Francis about McCarrick after Francis had asked:

Immediately after, the Pope asked me in a deceitful way: “What is Cardinal McCarrick like?”  I answered him with complete frankness and, if you want, with great naiveté: “Holy Father, I don’t know if you know Cardinal McCarrick, but if you ask the Congregation for Bishops there is a dossier this thick about him. He corrupted generations of seminarians and priests and Pope Benedict ordered him to withdraw to a life of prayer and penance.” The Pope did not make the slightest comment about those very grave words of mine and did not show any expression of surprise on his face, as if he had already known the matter for some time, and he immediately changed the subject. 

One Peter Five is on top of this, including some *creative* editing by the Vatican of Francis’, well, lie.

Pope Francis Withheld Benedict’s Observations from Sexual Abuse Summit

Yes, I got slack in keeping up with Papist news.  But when I finally read about this yesterday, I was floored.

I’ve mentioned Pope Emeritus Benedict’s essay on the causes of sexual abuse in the Roman Catholic Church.  It turns out he wrote it with the intention that it be distributed to the participants of the sexual abuse summit.  But instead Francis sat on it and did not distribute it!

Now some think it inappropriate for Benedict to say much of anything anymore as that undercuts the current Bishop of Rome.  (I disagree.)  Perhaps, Francis, too, just wants Benedict to be quiet now. And/or perhaps Francis did not appreciate Benedict rightly implicating liberalism and a weakening of ethics as among the causes of abuses.

Whatever Francis’ reasons, Benedict and his essay merited a hearing. What a petty pope Francis is to attempt to muffle Benedict.

Thoughts on Benedict’s Essay on Abuse

I hesitate to critique the just released essay from the Pope Emeritus.  For one thing, I respect him so much I do not feel comfortable criticizing him, and, yes, there were some statements in the essay that had me scratching my head.  At the same time, the history he overviews is interesting and instructive.  Instead, I will repeat two relevant axioms I have long propounded:

1. Bad theology leads to bad morals.

Yes, there were purportedly orthodox Roman Catholic clerics who abused youth and children.  But a disproportionate amount of the abuse came from Libchurchers, from the Dioceses of Boston and of Los Angeles, from likes of “Uncle Ted” McCarrick, etc.

The Pope Emeritus is right to link the two as well, although far more tactfully than I do, of course.  By the way, I find his aside about hostility to good theology an interesting barometer of how toxic segments of the church got:

Perhaps it is worth mentioning that in not a few seminaries, students caught reading my books were considered unsuitable for the priesthood. My books were hidden away, like bad literature, and only read under the desk.

Speaking of toxic seminaries…

2. A church that doesn’t care enough to discipline doesn’t care enough about truth.

And here I must criticize Popes John Paul II and Benedict. They, good and orthodox men, controlled the papacy for over thirty years.  (Granted, John Paul had debilitating health for the last years of his pontificate.)  And, as R. R. Reno notes, large segments of the Church of Rome were in “quasi-open” rebellion to the Faith and the Pope.  Surely, 30 years was long enough to discipline and defeat those Libchurchers, or at the very least weaken them so they could not elect one of their own as Pope.

Yet not only was little effective discipline applied, liberals continued to be appointed bishops and Cardinals.  And that’s how we got Francis.  

How much modern church history do we have to ignore to not get that cohabiting with Libchurchers is not viable and only enables their predations on the church, on the Faith, and, yes, on children and youth?

[Takes breath.] But us non-papists can hardly point fingers at Rome in this regard. I cannot think of a major Protestant denomination that did not fall into the trap of being nice to Libchurchers, only to be taken over by them later.  (The jury is still out on the Southern Baptist Convention I am sad to say.  And some Anglican provinces are another messy matter.)  And Libchurchers are in their own perverse way so much better at church discipline than the orthodox. Once the orthodox lose a church, the liberals virtually shut them out, except for their contributions, of course.  

This sad history has gotten me to thinking that if one wants to go orthodox, one may now have to go small.  I hope that is too pessimistic.  But that is another post for another day.

But I cannot pound the table enough on these two axioms. As much as we may wish it weren’t so or engage in denial, they are proven by modern church history, including the Post-Vatican II Church of Rome.

Face it. The Church of Rome is Soft on Babykillers.

Yes, I said it. And among the reasons I have contempt for that corrupt institution is I cannot recall a single time it has excommunicated a Democrat politician for his enormities, whether it be slavery, abortion or even infanticide. (Readers, feel free to correct my memory.) 

So the cowardice of Cardinal Dolan toward that babykiller Andrew Cuomo is nothing new. Maureen Mullarkey goes into some of the details behind that, but it’s the same old same old, just worse.

As for the lame argument that the church should not get that political, Catholic Charities openly enables illegal immigration and Pope Francis regularly cheerleads Open Borders and the accompanying invasions.  So the Church of Rome can certainly get political when it wants to, and often for bad causes.

When it comes to wanton killing, the church has excommunicated government leaders before it became limp-wristed and Liberal.  St. Ambrose excommunicated pious Emperor Theodosius, no less, for a murderous incident in Thessalonica.  

I had hoped that the Roman Catholic Church was returning to such robust orthodoxy under John Paul II and Benedict to the point where I quietly considered Rome as an option.  No more.  The Church of Rome is once again becoming just another LibChurch.  Even John Paul and Benedict could not undo the corruption and creeping apostasy of Rome.  So we have a church that will not even excommunicate a governor who kills babies then lights up buildings to celebrate.

I’d rather spit on such a church than join it. 

Francis and Cupich Transcend Satire

With my warped sense of humor, I should have noticed this earlier, but Weird Dave of Ace of Spades, being weird, has noticed it. (There’s handy screenshots at the link.  Scroll down to “Satire is dead.”)

Pope Francis and Cardinal Cupich have transcended satire . . . or killed it.

First, on August 16^th, the Babylon Bee posted “Pope Says He Will Address Sex Abuse Scandal Once He’s Finished Talking About Climate Change.”  It began:

In his first public statement on the horrifying, devastating report on sexual abuse within the Catholic Church, Pope Francis stated he would address the controversy in detail once he’s done talking about climate change for a few more weeks.

The head of the Roman Catholic Church claimed he is deeply concerned with the tragic report, but is “just too swamped” with work fighting climate change, criticizing capitalism, and advocating for other issues of social justice to talk about the repulsive report at the moment.

Now that is satire, just to be clear. . . . Or it was satire.

For ten days later, after the Vigano statement, Cardinal Cupich made this statement as I’ve noted:

The pope knows we have a bigger agenda. We have to speak about the environment, about the poor, we have to reach out to people who are marginalized in society. We cannot be distracted at this moment,” Cupich said.

Elsewhere, Cupich was quoted, “The Pope has a bigger agenda. … He’s got to get on with other things, of talking about the environment and protecting migrants and carrying on with the work of the church. We’re not going to go down a rabbit hole on this.”

That is not satire. . . .  Really.  I’m dead serious.  It is not satire.

Beyond that, I’ve got nothing.  How can satire survive that?

Perhaps we need a new feast day?  The Feast of the Translation of Holy Satire?

One of Pope Francis’ Friends Lets the Truth Slip Out

With the current abuse scandal in the Roman Catholic Church, it may be easy for some to miss its even bigger problem – the lack of faithfulness to traditional catholicity.  And as I noted in my last post, that lack of faithfulness has led to other problems, including endemic sexual abuse.  These problems have all been made worse by the lack of faithfulness of the current Bishop of Rome.

A fervent friend of Francis, Fr. Thomas Rosica has let slip the extent of that lack of faithfulness: 

Pope Francis breaks Catholic traditions whenever he wants, because he is “free from disordered attachments.” Our Church has indeed entered a new phase: with the advent of this first Jesuit pope, it is openly ruled by an individual rather than by the authority of Scripture alone or even its own dictates of tradition plus Scripture.

When a furor promptly and rightly broke out, the remarks were revised.  But, too late, alert people remembered. 

There is a book out about Francis called The Dictator Pope.  Some may find its premise overwrought and even I hesitate to call Francis a dictator (although I can call him a lot of things).  But if the Church of Rome “is openly ruled by an individual rather than by the authority of Scripture alone or even its own dictates of tradition plus Scripture,” and Francis has acted in that manner in changing the catechism on capital punishment among other matters, that is a bit dictatorial, no?

Fr. John Hunwicke notes what a grave situation the Church of Rome is therefore now in.  I will let him conclude.

Bergoglianism has been encapsulated in an even more extreme form than this by the cynically blasphemous observation of the jesuit "General" that the Lord's Words were not captured on camera, and by Fr Rosica's boastfully candid admission that the Church is now entirely at the mercy of a pope to whom neither Scripture nor Tradition are prescriptive. Such exponents appear to offer a model of Christian teaching ministry unknown even to the heretics of earlier ages. Here we have not a heresy, but the supraheresy. Earlier heresiarchs may have monkeyed around with, and perverted the sense of, both Scripture and Tradition, but, I think, never before have we had the diabolical claim that a major heretical teacher is quite simply free from any control whatsoever within the Word of God whether written or orally transmitted. When I use the term 'diabolical', I mean it in the fullest possible sense. The fingerprints all over these preposterous claims are unmistakeable.

Understanding the Rot in the Roman Catholic Church

Like most of you, I am sickened by what a Pennsylvania grand jury has exposed about abuse of minors in the Roman Catholic Church.  But what most do not understand is the abuse is largely the fruit of a corrupt and liberal hierarchy.   Yes, there are outwardly conservative clerics who were involved in the abuse and/or cover-ups. But the abuse would not have gotten to be endemic without it being enabled by libchurchers.

Peter Kwasniewski is one of the few who gets it and is not shy about saying so:

The ring of criminal Nancy Boys is the same ring that has been sedulously working for decades to undermine the integrity of the doctrinal, moral, sacramental, liturgical Church. These men – McCarrick, McElroy, Wuerl, O’Malley, Mahony, Cupich, Tobin, Farrell, Lynch, Weakland, Paglia, Maradiaga, their lovable mouthpiece James Martin, Thomas Rosica, and far too many others, including ones who have passed on to their eternal fate, such as Lyons, Boland, Brom – are the same ones who have destabilized and adulterated catechesis, theology, liturgy, and most obviously the Church’s commitment to the unchanging moral law, as we saw in the Amoris Laetitia debacle and all that surrounded and succeeded it….

These are not just men of bad moral character; they are apostates, and they are trying to remake the Church in the image of their own apostasy. The Church has been smashed up in front of our eyes in slow motion for decades and few can even begin to admit that we are now faced with a Church in actual smithereens. The Nancy Boys have conducted their campaign of demolition with a kind of imperial sway. It is not this or that aspect of the Church that is corrupt; the rot is now everywhere. It is a rot on which the McCarrick Ring still sups, like maggots feasting on a corpse. For this reason, to hear well meaning people say Bergoglio must impanel some investigative body to set things right is Alice in Wonderland lunacy. It’s like putting Himmler in charge of Nuremberg….

It is a package deal. This, above all, is what people need to see. The moral depravity, the doctrinal heresy, the liturgical devastation – all of it goes together.

Like I said, he is not shy, but he is right. The abuse and libchurch apostasy go hand in hand, so to speak.  Take Boston, Cardinal Law (spit), and Paul Shanley for example.  Before Shanley’s predations on boys became public knowledge, he was well known as a radical “street preacher” who opposed church teaching on homosexuality.  He even spoke in defense of pedophilia at a NAMBLA conference in 1979. So, even apart from his abuse, why did it take decades after that for him to be defrocked?

Damnable lib bishops, that’s why.  From a 2002 New York Times article: 

Bishop McCormack, who served as a top aide to Cardinal Bernard Law in Boston before his appointment to Manchester, oversaw the transfer of several priests from parish to parish even after evidence of sexual misconduct grew with multiple accusations made against them.

One of those he helped to transfer around the country was the Rev. Paul R. Shanley, who has been accused of the sexual abuse of more than 20 young boys and who publicly defended pedophilia at a 1979 meeting of the North American Man-Boy Love Association.

The rot goes all the way to Vatican. Rod Dreher reveals how Uncle Ted McCarrick became a Cardinal:

Back then, I received a tip from a priest who had gone on his own dime to Rome, along with a group of prominent US Catholic laymen, to meet with an official for the Roman Curial congregation that names bishops. It had been rumored at the time that Theodore McCarrick, the Archbishop of Newark, was going to be moved to Washington, DC, and to be made a cardinal. This group traveled to Rome to warn the Vatican that McCarrick was a sexual harrasser of seminarians. The story this priest shared with me was that McCarrick had a habit of compelling seminarians to share his bed for cuddling. These allegations did not involve sexual molestation, but were clearly about unwanted sexual harassment. To refuse the archbishop’s bedtime entreaties would be to risk your future as a priest, I was told.

Rome was informed by these laymen — whose number included professionally distinguished Catholics in a position to understand the kind of harm this would cause –that McCarrick was sexually exploiting these seminarians, but it did no good. McCarrick received his appointment to the Washington archdiocese in 2000.

That’s some of the “smoke of Satan” in the Vatican Benedict warned about.

Roman Catholics in the pews, like the mainstream Protestant counterparts, have put up with these libchurchers for too long. Kwasniewski again:

We need the apostates identified, denounced, and removed. We need a reaffirmation of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Faith. To clean up this mess, we have to clean up more than the scandal of homosexuality, with all of its attendant horrors. We have to denounce and reject the apostasy that powerful and influential homosexuals and their friends have insinuated into the Church over decades. 

Although I applaud and pray for those orthodox who are committed to reforming the Roman Catholic Church, I do not share Kwasniewski’s optimism that it can be done.  For one thing, Pope Francis has stacked the College of Cardinals with the likes of Blase Cupich and worse.  So I fear Benedict may be the last robustly orthodox pope.  Further, reform would require an orthodox pope with the will power and energy to clean up the Vatican and the College of Cardinals.  Not even Benedict had that nor has any pope since Vatican II.

That’s the thing about libchurchers. If you don’t put them in their place early, they end up taking over the place . . . with damnable consequences.

The rot in the Roman Catholic Church has implications of great import for Anglicans.  But I will get to that another time.

Did Pope Francis Really Change Church Teaching?

I promised to comment further on the change in the Roman Catholic Catechism on the subject of capital punishment now that the official Latin text is out. So I guess I should keep my promise.  But I do not have much more to add except to say that it is not as certain as I first thought that Pope Francis has changed official R. C. Church teaching, although I remain appalled at his arbitrary tinkering with the Catechism to turn part of it into an act of political lobbying. 

However, to avoid further ranting and to focus on the presenting question – it is unclear whether official Roman Catholic teaching has changed.  I say this for two main reasons.  First, there is a lot of debate among Roman Catholics whether church teaching has changed, which is a good sign.  Second, as Fr John Hunwicke has noted, the letter that accompanied the Catechism change is hedged and “not how the Catholic Church talks about grave moral offenses.”

My best guess is that whether the Catechism change really is a change in official R. C. Church teaching depends on what future popes do with it.

Please do not mistake that for optimism. Given how Francis is stacking the College of Cardinals, I do not expect another robustly orthodox pope in my lifetime at least.  But if this bit of pessimism and my earlier posts on the capital punishment change prove alarmist and mistaken, I will be most glad to be proven wrong.

More on Pope Francis Changing Catechism on Capital Punishment: “This. Is. Big.”

Yesterday I concluded that the arbitrary change in the teaching of the Roman Catholic Catechism on capital punishment “could be the beginning of something awful.”

Rod Dreher gets this and spells out why very well.  I highly recommend reading his whole post.  He quotes Edward Feser at length in reviewing the teaching of scripture and the Fathers on capital punishment, which teaches that it is a legitimate tool of the state even if it should be used with great restraint.

Feser, anticipating that Pope Francis might change this longstanding church teaching on capital punishment, then wrote that doing so would be “effectively saying – whether consciously or unconsciously – that previous popes, Fathers and Doctors of the Church, and even divinely inspired Scripture are in error.”

Dreher rightly asserts that this is exactly what Francis did and continues:

It seems to me that the Pope has crossed a bright line. He is denying, for the first time in nearly two millennia of Catholic teaching, and in direct contradiction to the Fathers of the Church, that the state has the right to impose capital punishment. That’s a meaningful difference from saying that the state has that right, but shouldn’t use it.

Even if you disfavor the death penalty, understand what this means: this Pope has claimed forthrightly that the Catholic Church taught error, but now, at long last, he has set the Church straight. From a traditional point of view, though, this means that the Pope is teaching error.

This. Is. Big.

Indeed it is.  And to clarify further, this is not just Pope Francis giving his opinion on capital punishment.  Hey, he’s a Libpope who likes to shoot off his mouth.  His stating his opposition to the death penalty is predictable.

He has gone far beyond expressing his opinion.  He has taken his opinion, which is contradicted by scripture, the Fathers, and many faithful today, and enshrined that opinion in the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church, and that without the backing of a church council. (In fact, several have made that case that Vatican I forbids what Francis just did.)  Regardless of whether the subject is capital punishment, changing official church doctrine like this crosses “a bright line” that even Francis has not crossed before.

Both the tyrannical act and its implications are greatly alarming. Having pulled this doctrinal coup, does anyone think Francis will stop with only capital punishment? I fear for the damage he may do to the church in his remaining years.

This. Indeed. Is. Big.

And You Thought I Was Hard on the Pope Movie…

Back in April, when the promotion for Pope Francis a Man of His Word was in full gear, I had some fun with it, noting it was “risible piece of propaganda.”

Well, now that the movie is out, Matt Gaspers and Maureen Mullarkey have reviewed it and make me look almost gentle and restrained.  And they agree that the most notable aspect of the Pope Movie is that it is . . . a risible piece of propaganda.  Gaspers:

I decided to go see Pope Francis: A Man of His Word on opening weekend (it premiered on May 18 across North America) – for investigative journalism purposes only – and if I was forced to use a single word to describe it, I would have to go with propaganda. From start to finish, it is obvious that the film’s purpose is to (1) propagate a favorable narrative that (2) appeals to the emotions rather than the intellect and (3) omits inconvenient truths.

One of said inconvenient truths is that Francis’ word is something of a moving target.  Maureen Mullarkey, as is to be expected, is even harder on the movie.  I find her most on target when she notes:

“Pope Francis” is a disturbing film, not solely for its exaltation of Francis and his politics but more so for having been planned from the beginning of his ascent to office. Biography.com states that Wenders received a written invitation to “collaborate” with Pope Francis on a documentary about his pontificate in 2013, the year his papacy began…

This is crucial: Bergolio was intent on documenting himself as the hero of his own pontificate early on. Accordingly, the commissioned film subordinates the substance of the papacy to Francis’s personality and secular pieties.

That says volumes about the oh-so-humble Pope.  Further, I find this sad because of who got lured into this project.  I’ve long had the highest respect for Wim Wenders for his Paris, Texas (1984), a great movie that is one of my favorites.  For him to get tied up with such laughable propaganda for such an undeserving figure is sad indeed.  I hope Wenders is remembered for his other works.

“It’s Time for Catholics to Face the Truth About the Papal Confusion”

Over at OnePeterFive, Steve Skojec is a provocative observer.  I do not agree with all he writes, but he is right when he notes there the persistent denial concerning Pope Francis:

Although the number of Catholics vocal about their concerns with the pontificate of Pope Francis has grown in recent months, a strange phenomenon nevertheless continues to assert itself: a kind of cognitive dissonance in which the faithful seek to find any explanation, no matter how far-fetched, to reassure themselves that what is happening can’t really be as troubling as it seems.

And the same can be said about many Anglicans.  Yes, I understand that important public figures can be misquoted.  But again and again we have this pattern:

1. Pope Francis says something or is quoted to say something out of line with orthodoxy. 

2. The Vatican issues a denial/non-denial somewhat along the lines of the Pope didn’t mean what he said.

3. Those who cannot deal with the possibility of the Pope being a Jesuit heretic engage in their usual denial and pour scorn on those open to said possibility.

Now I do not know if the Pope is a heretic.  But I sure as Hell know there is something seriously wrong with the man.

Just how much is wrong with the man I do not presume to know.  I do know he is a Lib/Left Jesuit (But I repeat myself.) who should never had been made Pope, and I am not about to engage in denial about it.

Skojec posits that the influence of Peronism explains much about Francis.  I am unsure of that.  But it gives me an excuse to repost this fun anecdote about Juan Peron:

The story is told that Perón, in his days of glory, once proposed to induct a nephew in the mysteries of politics. He first brought the young man with him when he received a deputation of communists; after hearing their views, he told them, “You’re quite right.” The next day he received a deputation of fascists and replied again to their arguments, “You’re quite right.” Then he asked his nephew what he thought and the young man said, “You’ve spoken with two groups with diametrically opposite opinions and you told them both that you agreed with them. This is completely unacceptable.” Perón replied, “You’re quite right too.”

And that sounds too much like Francis, does it not?  Perhaps that explains much of the denial about him.  His defenders hear just enough affirmation of their views from him to keep defending him – no matter what else he says or does not say to others.

Pope Francis - A Man of His Word

I got an e-mail yesterday promoting a new movie, “Pope Francis – A Man of His Word”.  Yes, I did wonder if this was a joke or satire.  How many times has the Vatican had to walk back his words?  And we still don’t really know whether he believes in Hell or not.

Should we now expect a sequel, “Katharine Jefferts Schori – A Compassionate Woman of Orthodoxy”?

But see the promotional material for yourself.  Here’s the e-mail.

I love it that the main review is from . . . the Vatican.  Well, I hope they like the movie; they co-produced it:

A rare co-production with the Vatican, the pope’s ideas and his message are central to this documentary, which sets out to present his work of reform and his answers to today’s global questions from death, social justice, immigration, ecology, wealth inequality, materialism, and the role of the family.

Hmm, so the movie covers “social justice, immigration, ecology [and] wealth inequality.”  Is this about a pope or a Socialist Party chairman?

Also quite rich is the beginning of the trailer:

“His words unite us”?  Oh yeah!  Like when it came out during Holy Week that he denied the existence of Hell . . . or not – who knows? – words like that really unite us!

But “who am I to judge?”  Anyway, I chose to laugh at this risible piece of propaganda.  The alternative is less fun.

   

Pope Francis, Bad Bishops, and a Healthy Church

The latest episode of Pope Francis spouting heresy . . . or not – who am I to judge?  Anyway, the latest episode of Francis being Francis has me reflecting on the importance of a church being able and willing to deal effectively with bad bishops. 

Yes, that is important.  I remember in my young days when I didn’t know an Anglican from a right angle that I did know enough that the Episcopal Church was a no-go denomination for me.  Why?  “Bishop” Spong and TEC’s tolerance of him.  Spong drove the orthodox out of his diocese, and no telling how many he drove out of or repelled from The Episcopal Church.  I am not saying he was vindictive towards the orthodox. He might have been gracious to them for all I know.  But a bishop spouting heresy without being disciplined sends a strong message to the orthodox to leave or stay away.

Further, the leaven of bad bishops spreads throughout a church.  That is all the more true for a Pope who makes numerous appointments worldwide.  And many of Pope Francis’ appointments have been awful.  But even the mere presence of an apparently or openly apostate bishop sends the message that apostasy is okay.  It invites more apostasy.  And the enormities of the Romans have certainly become more evident under Francis.

To avoid these and other ways bad bishops harm a church, a healthy church must be able and willing to depose them or at least demote them to positions where they can do little harm.  And, yes, it is time for Pope Francis to be sent off into the sunset – nicely, of course – but sent off before he does more damage.

That may sound like wishful thinking, and it probably is.  But the Vatican Mafia managed to send off perhaps the best Pope of my lifetime.  So why not be done with Francis?

The answer to that question may be that the Roman Catholic Church is not a healthy church; worse, that the wolves are in control of it.  Most of us are all too familiar with churches that suppress good bishops and promote bad ones and what eventually becomes of such jurisdictions.

Yes, churches can survive bad bishops – 10^th Century Rome had some real winners as Popes – but the downward spiral of The Episcopal Church illustrates that one should not so presume on the grace of God.  Bad bishops must be made demoted bishops or ex-bishops.

Closer to home, are there bad bishops in the Anglican Church in North America that need to be dealt with?

I may deal with that question at another time.

LibPope Honors Dutch Abortion Activist

The headline pretty much says it all about this award.

And if you are more offended by my calling Pope Francis “LibPope” than by his giving an award to pro-abortion activist Lilianne Ploumen, then bless your heart as we say here in Texas.

There has been enough outcry that the Vatican has attempted to explain this award away as a “diplomatic practice.”

I guess that’s true . . . for a LibPope.

When I First Knew Something Was Wrong With Pope Francis

By now traditional Catholics know too well that Pope Francis is dreadful in too many ways.  Not to brag – one would rather be wrong about such things – but I knew very early on there was something wrong with him.  How?

His first Easter Vigil was less than three weeks after he became Pope.  It would have been logical that he’d just go with Benedict’s excellent liturgy.  Instead, Francis shortened it.

Francis processed into a darkened and silent Saint Peter's Basilica at the start of the service, in which the faithful recall the period between Christ's crucifixion on Good Friday and resurrection on Easter Sunday.

One of the most dramatic moments of the Easter Vigil service that usually follows - when the pope would share the light of his candle with others until the entire basilica twinkled - was shortened this year as were some of the Old Testament readings.

The Vatican has said these provisions were in keeping with Francis' aim to not have his Masses go on too long.

Thus, early on, Francis showed his utter lack of sound priorities.  The Easter Vigil is not a service one cuts short.  For one thing, part of the drama of it is its deliberate pace.  In the primitive church, it could go all night.  And so early in his papacy didn’t he have better things to do than chop up the Easter Vigil?

But Francis rushes in and starts undoing the excellent liturgy of the best liturgical Pope of our lifetimes. 

Yes, it was then that I already knew something was wrong with Francis.

I pray my Roman Catholic friends have a blessed Holy Week and Easter anyway.

Greg Venables on Pope Francis

I have to admit, as I watched the new Pope being introduced yesterday, I was not comfortable, as you may have noticed on my twitter.  A Jesuit . . . who chooses a new name?  I’m not paranoid (I’m really not!), and I’m not Dan Brown, but I found that just a little scary to be honest.

However, I got a good sleep and then read the following from Bishop Greg Venables:

Many are asking me what Jorge Bergoglio is really like. He is much more of a Christian, Christ centered and Spirit filled, than a mere churchman. He believes the Bible as it is written. I have been with him on many occasions and he always makes me sit next to him and invariably makes me take part and often do what he as Cardinal should have done. He is consistently humble and wise, outstandingly gifted yet a common man. He is no fool and speaks out very quietly yet clearly when necessary. He called me to have breakfast with him one morning and told me very clearly that the Ordinariate was quite unnecessary and that the church needs us as Anglicans. I consider this to be an inspired appointment not because he is a close and personal friend but because of who he is In Christ. Pray for him.

I trust Greg Venables and his judgement.   That he thinks that highly of the new Pope comforts me.  And Bishop Venables is a straight talker and no flatterer.  He is also deeply evangelical in the old and good sense of the word; so for him to say the new Pope “believes the Bible as it is written” is saying something indeed.

Moreover, Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio and Bishop Venables worked side by side in combating government hostility to the church and Christian values.  And, sadly, that is something the church must do in most of the world now.  I am glad to see the new Pope has demonstrated the moral compass and backbone to do that and with other branches of Christ’s Church.

As for him being a Jesuit, I’ve read (Forgive me. I’ve forgotten where.) that as a leader in that order, he expected Jesuits under him to be parish pastors instead of running around engaging in community organizing, if you will.

So, as I said, I feel better about the new Pope now.

WaPost: Why Can’t the Pope Be More Like Us?

I’ve already alerted my readers that the transition to a new Pope will elicit much foolishness from the “news” media.  David Fischler is already having a field day with Papal Malarkey Syndrome (PMS) from the noos media and beyond.

The latest vomit of PMS that Fischler notes comes from the Washington Post, which laments that the Pope and his church is not oh-so enlightened like them.  Their conclusion is particularly rich:

Pope Benedict will leave behind a church facing the same debilitating problems that loomed after the death of Pope John Paul II — above all, how to remain relevant to an increasingly secular world and to its own changing membership. This pope’s response was to insist that only uncompromising adherence to past doctrine could preserve the faith. Catholics who seek a different answer will have to hope that a college of cardinals dominated by the pope’s appointees will choose a more progressive successor.

Oh yes, the church must be more “relevant to an increasingly secular world.”  The world is becoming more worldly, so the church should as well?  Huh?

No, the church must retain its distinctiveness, its saltiness if you will.  When the church tries too hard to be “relevant” it becomes less so and often downright silly, driving the very people away it is seeking to reach.  Marc Solas, no old grump like me, has put that down as one of the top 10 reasons youth leave the church:

10.  The Church is “Relevant”:

You didn’t misread that, I didn’t say irrelevant, I said RELEVANT.   We’ve taken a historic, 2,000 year old faith, dressed it in plaid and skinny jeans and tried to sell it as “cool” to our kids.  It’s not cool. It’s not modern. What we’re packaging is a cheap knockoff of the world we’re called to evangelize. . . .

We’re like a fawning wanna-be just hoping the world will think we’re cool too, you know, just like you guys!

Our kids meet the real world and our “look, we’re cool like you” posing is mocked.  In our effort to be “like them” we’ve become less of who we actually are. . . .  The minute you aim to be “authentic”, you’re no longer authentic!

Fortunately, we are more likely to be hit by an asteroid today than that the Cardinals will follow the Washington Post’s fond yearnings.  Thanks be to God.

Hints that Pope Benedict Would Resign

Perhaps Pope Benedict's resignation should not have shocked us after all.

He pointedly venerated a saintly pope who resigned:

Back on April 29, 2009, Pope Benedict XVI did something rather striking, but which went largely unnoticed.

He stopped off in Aquila, Italy, and visited the tomb of an obscure medieval Pope named St. Celestine V (1215-1296). After a brief prayer, he left his pallium, the symbol of his own episcopal authority as Bishop of Rome, on top of Celestine’s tomb!

Fifteen months later, on July 4, 2010, Benedict went out of his way again, this time to visit and pray in the cathedral of Sulmona, near Rome, before the relics of this same saint, Celestine V.

Then there was this from an interview:

From Light of the World, Benedict XVI’s 2010 interview with Peter Seewald:

Q:  Have you thought of resigning?

A: When the danger is great one must not run away. For that reason, now [2010] is certainly not the time to resign. Precisely at a time like this one must stand fast and endure the difficult situation. That is my view. One can resign at a peaceful moment or when one simply cannot go on. But one must not run away from the danger and say that someone else should do it.

Q: Is it possible then to imagine a situation in which you consider a resignation by the Pope appropriate?



A: Yes. If a Pope clearly recognizes that he is no longer physically, psychologically, and spiritually capable of handling the duties of his office, then he has the right and, under some circumstances, also an obligation to resign.