If I were Roman Catholic...

No, I am not becoming Roman Catholic.  I’m a traditional Anglican until I die even if that means starting an Anglican parish in my house.

But I do share a lot with traditional Roman Catholics.  And my heart is with them as the Traditional Latin Mass (TLM) is being suppressed by LibPope Francis and his . . . minions. 

Knowledgable readers might think I’m exaggerating by saying the TLM is suppressed.  Fair enough.  Let’s look at the Archdiocese of Chicago under Cardinal Blase Cupich (SPIT).  For the sake of “the unity of the church” deplorable trads cannot have their Latin mass on the first Sundays of months, nor during Christmas, the Triduum, Easter Sunday and Pentecost Sunday.  And among other restrictions is the required permission of the bishop.  Yeah, I’m sure Francis fanboy Cupich will be generous in giving permission for Latin masses.  In any case, during the holiest times of the year, traditional Roman Catholics cannot have their Latin Mass in Cupich’s Archdiocese

This from a Cardinal and diocese replete with enormities, such as this service that began with a “Happy Kwanzaa.”

Yes, not all dioceses are not quite that bad.  But increased restrictions on the TLM are the norm as directed by Francis.

If I were a Roman Catholic I would not submit to having decent traditional liturgy taken away from me.  I will not do that as an Anglican either.  If that means going it alone for a brief time, so be it, but I would hope to find clergy and people with the gumption to rebel against rot in the church.  People like this:

On April 12, 1977, Parisian traditionalists got sick of worshipping in the community hall the petty New Church bureaucrats relegated to them for the celebration of their banned Mass. So they did what any decent, God-fearing Catholics should – they processed into the church of St. Nicholas with priests, occupied it, and stayed there. Every living Trad should know by heart the exchange that occurred between the parish clergyman of St. Nicholas du Chardonnet and one of the occupying priests.

‘By what right do you come here?’ asked one of the parish clergy.

‘We come,’ replied Mgr. Ducaud-Bourget… ‘In Nomine Domini.’[1]

When the police were called by the conciliar priests to expel the invaders, the police showed that they knew more about liturgy than the Congregation for Divine Worship does today. The police did nothing because, as they told the Novus Ordo priests about the Trads: “They’re saying Mass and praying, that’s what a church is for!”

They also displayed that they were inhabiting a more Catholic, and less officious France, when a group of progressive clergy went to a police precinct to complain about the takeover. Requesting to speak with the officer in charge they were told he was unavailable, as he was attending Latin Mass at St. Nicholas.

Yes, I do think it is time for rebellion from faithful Roman Catholics.  For the LibPope and most of their leaders have rebelled against their own history and patrimony.  Francis and his tools are trying to tear the church from the Faith handed down to them.

Those who think I’m overwrought and overstating the situation should remind themselves that lex orandi, lex credendi.  Liturgy and faith cannot be separated.  A crap Novus Ordo liturgy leads to watered down crap belief and visa versa.  Defending and insisting on traditional liturgy is defending and insisting on the Faith.

Those faithful Roman Catholics who are so doing have my respect and prayers.

Great Whore of Pachamama Update

I apologize for not posting and especially for falling behind on news concerning the Church of Rome.  One excuse I have is I am preparing for a lecture next week on the Venerable Bede’s Explanation of the Apocalypse.

I do want to bring your attention to two excellent items. First is a number of faithful Roman Catholics have issued a public rebuke to Pope Francis and a call for him to repent of the idolatrous worship of Pachamama at the Amazon Synod. It is well written and well titled Contra Recentia Sacrilegia.  I you have not read it yet, I urge you so to do.

Second, Taylor Marshall and George Neumayr have given an excellent video summary of the U. S. Roman bishops meeting and of the current state of the Roman Catholic Church particularly in the U. S.  It is an eye-opener.

I wish I could say more and may when priorities allow.

The AND Campaign: “Seamless Garment” Redux?

When I first heard of the AND campaign, I was immediately reminded of the “Seamless Garment” pushed by the late Cardinal Bernardin.

An old Crisis article by Michael Pakaluk goes through the history of Bernardin’s Seamless Garment and the problems with it very well.  A key moment was when the Cardinal brought together liberal Democrats talking points under a “pro-life” umbrella in a 1983 address at Fordham:

If one contends as we do, that the right of every fetus to be born should be protected by civil law and supported by civil consensus, then our moral, political, and economic responsibilities do not stop at the moment of birth. Those who defend the right to life of the weakest among us must be equally visible in support of the quality of life of the powerless among us: the old and the young, the hungry and homeless, the undocumented immigrant and the unemployed worker. Such a quality of life posture translates into specific political and economic positions on tax policy, employment generation, welfare policy, nutrition and feeding programs, and health care. Consistency means we cannot have it both ways: We cannot urge rights of the unborn and then argue that compassion and significant public programs on behalf of the needy undermine the moral fiber of the society or are beyond the proper scope of governmental responsibility.

As Pakaluk notes, “this controversial passage, never withdrawn or repudiated by Bernardin, links regard for life with regard for the ‘quality of life’ in a highly dubious moral equation.”  And it is dubious. Say, letting illegals right on in and helping them stay, as the Roman Catholic hierarchy has long advocated and Catholic Charities has long enabled, is in the same category as protecting the unborn? No.  It is not.

For all I know, Bernardin may have had the best of motives. But the timing of the address and how the U. S. Roman Catholic bishops pushed the Seamless Garment is suspicious in light of the politics of abortion, Democrats, and Roman Catholics at the time.  

Democrats used to be a mixed lot on abortion.  Even Ted Kennedy once opposed abortion.  But by 1983, Democrat pols were becoming more and more pro-abortion under deceptive rhetoric such as “pro-choice” and “personally opposed but…”  And more than a few of these pro-abortion Democrats were Roman Catholics, such as Kennedy and New York Gov. Mario Cuomo.  Most U. S. Roman bishops were Democrats, of course, and liberal on social welfare issues while still opposed to abortion.  But with the Democrat Party becoming increasingly pro-abortion, continuing support for them was getting harder to justify.

In addition, Ronald Reagan was recovering well from his 1982 mid-term election setback.  Thanks to a robust economic revival and his social conservatism, he was popular among Roman Catholics and was well on the way to a landslide 1984 victory.  And he was pro-life. On the other hand, all but the gullible were not buying the “personally opposed” bit of Democrats.

This presented U. S. Roman bishops with some quandaries. How to get Roman Catholics to return to the Democrat fold?  How to justify voting for Democrats when they had become more and more pro-abortion?  And how could the bishops justify their own usual support for Democrats or even justify giving pro-abortion Democrat pols communion?

The Seamless Garment came to the rescue, doing far more for Democrats and for the bishops than for the unborn.  Now one could be “pro-life” by being for food stamps for illegals or by being for a “Nuclear Freeze,” a trendy stance back then, or by supporting Democrats on liberal quality of life issues as whole.  Abortion was relegated to one issue among many if even that.

By thereby supporting Democrats, efforts to protect the unborn were undermined. For the days of Democrats embracing the unborn under their liberalism were ending if not already over.  The Seamless Garment gave an excuse to put Democrat political and policy priorities above the lives of the unborn.  Oh, the pro-life rhetoric continued from the U. S. RCC, at least for a time.  But their political actions usually undermined efforts to protect the unborn. The Seamless Garment was a compassionate appearing fig leaf over that.

Obviously, this is a very condensed overview.  But discerning readers may already notice parallels between the Seamless Garment and what AND is promoting.  I see the AND Campaign, particularly their 2020 Presidential Election Statement, and I see Democrat priorities dubbed pro-life. I see an effort to undermine a pro-life Republican President (Reagan then. Trump now.) while wanting still to appear pro-life and non-partisan.  I see an effort to justify voting Democrat to pro-life evangelicals being driven away by Democrat extremism on abortion (and today on many more issues than in the 80’s).  I see once again the “highly dubious moral equation” between quality of life issues with the right to life.  And if AND comes close to succeeding in attracting Evangelical voters to Democrats as well as the Seamless Garment blessed Roman Catholic support of Democrats, I see the unborn as the losers in the end, along with church and country as well.

I see Seamless Garment Redux in the Evangelical Church of What’s Happening Now.

Again, the AND Campaign may be well meaning, but it repeats the errors of the Seamless Garment.  May it not repeat its influence.

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. 

Destruction of Pachamama Idols a Godly Example of Lay Direct Action

With Taylor Marshall, I rejoice in the infamous Pachamama fertility idols (And let’s cut the clerical bull manure – that’s what they are.) being removed from the church and thrown into the Tiber.

With traditional Roman Catholic sites covering the controversy, I wish to focus on just one aspect.  Judging from the dress of the men who removed the idols, it appears they are laymen.

This episode illustrates that when clergy will not do their job of banishing abomination and false teaching, the laity should step up and do what they can.  Once, at my Presbyterian Church back when I was still young, a visiting preacher said something like “We don’t believe the Bible, but the Jesus in the Bible.”  I made it quite clear to her on the church steps in front of others that we believed the Bible. Not just clergy but knowledgable laity should call out false teaching and false teachers.  And if clergy won’t do so, then all the more should laity take action.  Less dramatic but also needful is withholding offerings from churches and church agencies that espouse or even tolerate false teaching or abominable practices.

I’ve said it before, and I will say it again.  One big reason most mainline denominations went apostate in the 20^thCentury is that lazy laity enabled the apostasy with their money and with their silence.  If the Southern Baptist Convention, the Presbyterian Church in America, and, yes, the Anglican Church in North America are not to go down the same path, the laity must step up, speak out, and make clear that false teaching and practice are not welcome and will not be tolerated.

So may God all the more bless those idol-expelling men for their godly example.

Francis Continues to Stack the College of Cardinals

Some may think the above headline to be too strong.  They would be mistaken.  Francis’s latest appointments to the College of Cardinals “are, without a doubt, the most liberal group of Cardinal-Electors ever assembled.”

One even wrote a foreword for the infamous Liberal Jesuit James Martin.  But I will allow others to go over the sordid appointments in detail.

The big picture is that the College of Cardinals under Francis is getting more and more stacked with LibChurchers.  So much so that I think we are already past the point where we will have another robustly orthodox Pope in our lifetimes. Yes, the Lord can certainly do miracles concerning his church.  But more often when a jurisdiction willfully descends into apostasy, he spews them out of his mouth. (Rev. 3:16)   No, I do not think the Church of Rome is exempt from that.

I confess that under Benedict I considered the possibility to crossing the Tiber.  Had I made that crossing, I would surely be considering repentance now. Maybe my ecclesiology needs an adjustment, but I cannot conscientiously be in communion with a Francis or the future LibPopes his stacked College of Cardinals will likely produce.

Is a Democrat Congresswoman and the Roman Catholic Church Engaged in Immigration Fraud?

It is one thing for the Democrat Party and the Roman Catholic Church to oppose and undermine almost every reasonable attempt to secure our borders, although that is bad enough.  But it quite another to solicit immigration fraud. Yet it appears the staff of Democrat Congresswoman Veronica Escobar of El Paso and the local Roman Catholic Diocese are doing just that.

Under the bilateral Migration Protection Protocols, or “Remain in Mexico” policy, anyone returned must be fluent in Spanish because they may have to reside in Mexico up to five years until a U.S. federal judge decides their asylum claim. A Democratic politician's aides reescorting people back to the port are telling officers the Central American individual with them cannot speak Spanish despite their having communicated in it days earlier, CBP officials said.

“What we’re hearing from management is that they’re attempting to return people, and the story was changed in Mexico, where a person who understood Spanish before now doesn’t understand — where a person who didn’t have any health issues before now has health issues," the union representative said.

I’m not a (spit) immigration lawyer, but that sounds like fraud to me.

Most of the attention so far – which is not much yet – is on the actions of Rep. Escobar and her staff.  But the Roman Catholic Church may be involved in border immigration fraud as well.  One case is interesting:

In one incident, an Escobar aide and diocese official walked a male migrant over the bridge in June and asked for him to be admitted into the U.S. because they had found he had "cognitive disabilities." Officers took the boy and turned the case over to the Border Patrol, where an agent found a Constituent Information and Privacy Release Form with the U.S. House of Representatives seal on it inside the 17-year-old's file. Two officials said the paper would have to have been put in his file while he was interviewed in Mexico and was not supposed to have been left there because it would reveal to the Border Patrol that a member of Congress or their staff was meeting with migrants in Mexico.

The boy has since returned to Mexico because the medical condition was not diagnosed by a medical professional but by an aide of the congresswoman, one official said Friday. 

“Management saw that form and was like, ‘What is this?’ and reached out to our International Liaison Unit. And ILU said, ‘Yes, Veronica Escobar and several other politicians are in Mexico trying to defeat the MPP program,'" the union said.

I suspect this is not the last we’ve heard of this matter.

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.

Grieving for Faithful Roman Catholics

I can be a bit hard on some Roman Catholics, particularly Libchurch Roman clerics and those who tolerate them.  But something I read this morning prompts me to get a bit personal and slightly less prickly.

I grieve for those Roman Catholics who are orthodox and faithful. If you are one of them, I hurt for you, brother/sister.  

What prompts me to say this is seeing this reminder of the awful appointment of Wilton Gregory as the Archbishop of Washington.

If I were a Roman Catholic, I would feel trapped, trapped by a horrible pope who is making the episcopate in his image and who is so stacking the College of Cardinals that it makes me wonder if there will ever again be a robustly orthodox pope.  Though I’m not Roman Catholic, I grieve for what is happening to such an important part of the church and for the genuinely faithful in it.

Which brings me to Roman Catholic ecclesiology.  Orthodox RCs see themselves as a True Church and other churches as less than that even if valued.  With that viewpoint, it makes leaving the Church of Rome hardly an option.

I disagree with that viewpoint, but I respect and understand it.  For at least the first millennium of the church, splitting off was considered an awful and damnable act and for good reason – can the body of Christ be split?  (But there is the question of what if a part of the body becomes cancerous or necrotic.  But that is a subject for another time.)

Having that ecclesiology, where are faithful Roman Catholics to go if their church becomes unfaithful? I would feel very much trapped.

So I want my faithful orthodox Roman Catholic friends who are resisting the predations of Pope Francis and allies to know my heart is with you.

And so are my prayers.  Regularly, everyday that I remember to do so, I pray for struggling, faithful catholics, especially Roman Catholics. 

I hope this post does not seem trite.  I don’t know what else to say.  But I am so upset over the plight of Roman Catholic faithful, I felt I should say something and let them know I am standing with them in prayer.

BREAKING: Pope Francis Appoints Yet Another Libchurcher as Archbishop of DC

Pope Francis continues to stack the episcopate.  This time D. C. gets yet another Libchurch Archbishop, Wilton Gregory.

Gregory is a protégé of Cardinal Bernardin, who ran cover for pro-abortion Democrats with his “seamless garment” crapola. Later, Gregory worked closely with Cardinal “Uncle Ted” McCarrick.  Accordingly, Gregory’s record is more liberal than thou. Debra Heine spells out some of the sordid details well.

With this appointment, Pope Francis demonstrates he has no shame. He is going to stack the episcopate with corrupt Libchurchers like himself come Hell or high water.

To their credit, some conservative churchpeople opposed this appointment:

Catholic Laity for Orthodox Bishops and Reform (Catholic Laity) has grave reservations about the appointment of Archbishop Wilton Gregory as Archbishop of Washington:

We urge the Holy See to seek out a worthy candidate who is without ties to Joseph Cardinal Bernardin, Mr. Theodore McCarrick, or Donald Cardinal Wuerl.  Archbishop Gregory was a protégé of Cardinal Bernardin in Chicago, where he first became an auxiliary bishop.  Cardinal Bernardin left a legacy of dilution of Catholic teaching and subversion of the fight to protect unborn babies and their mothers. 

In 2004, then-Bishop Gregory, as president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, collaborated with then-Cardinal McCarrick in deceiving the Bishops of the United States about  the contents of a letter from Cardinal Ratzinger, then-Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.  The letter said that politicians who support legal abortion should not be admitted to Holy Communion, but they did not reveal that to the other Bishops.  The Democrat candidate for President that year was a Catholic, John Kerry, who supported abortion.

Yes, faithfulness to the Democrat Party is far more important than faithfulness.

As for other Roman Catholic laity, shame on them if they do not cut off funds to that corrupt diocese immediately.  It is spineless laity that enable corrupt clerics.

MORE:  More on Wilton Gregory from George Neumayr and from Steve Skojec.  Francis sure does stack the Roman episcopate and the College of Cardinals with some real winners.

A Reality Check on the McCarrick Laicization

The big Roman Catholic news over the weekend was the laicization of now former Cardinal “Uncle Ted” McCarrick.  Yes, it is very rare that a Cardinal is reduced to lay status. Yes, this is actually good news, for a change, from the Vatican.

But a reality check is in order, and it is well delivered by Steve Skojec.*  McCarrick is 88 and very damaged goods well before this verdict by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith.  Although very useful in getting Pope Francis elected, he is no longer useful to the Vatican.  So he can be dispensed with.  

Other LibChurchers who have enabled the abuse of children and of the Faith, such as Cardinal Cupich and Pope Francis himself, remain firmly in power.

Yes, I include Pope Francis.  He knew about McCarrick and yet lessened Benedict’s restrictions and increased Cardinal Ted’s power after the Cardinal helped get Francis elected.  

Yes, “the smoke of Satan” is putting it nicely.

------

* There is one thing in the article with which I respectfully but strongly disagree.  And I think I should say so.

I do not think statue of limitation laws should be eliminated for child abuse and other forms of sexual abuse.  False accusations are particularly a problem in this area and often are very difficult to combat.  Accusations long after the fact are that much more prone to be false.

As upsetting as it may be that McCarrick and the like are free men and will remain so, it is worse for anyone to endure a trial or imprisonment for something decades ago that did not actually happen.

I realize my viewpoint is getting less and less popular.  And with all the child abuse scandals, I completely understand that.

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. 

Roman Catholic “Bishop” Attacks Covington Students … for Wearing MAGA Hats

One would think after videos have clearly shown that the Covington High School students were the victims of aggressive bigotry, not the perpetrators, that LibChurchers would engage in the penitential discipline of apology and then shutting the **** up. And one would think Roman Catholic hierarchy would come to those students’ defense and surely not heap more smears on them.

But not so with the Roman Catholic Bishop of Lexington, John Stowe.

Instead, in an op-ed in the Lexington Herald-Leader for all to see, he wrote, “I am ashamed that the actions of Kentucky Catholic high school students have become a contradiction of the very reverence for human life that the march is supposed to manifest.” And he is particularly upset that they . . . wore MAGA hats.

That is not satire.  He took the students to task for wearing MAGA hats to a political demonstration.  It appears merely wearing support for Trump and for “making America great again” even in a political demonstration is now a mortal sin in the Church of Rome.

I will let you read this and the rest of his smear for yourself if you wish.  I refuse to dignify it further.

And, again, these are pro-life Catholic High School students he is smearing.  Hasn’t the Roman Catholic Church victimized youth enough already?

But this is the sort of LibChurch leadership that is typical under Pope Francis.  

Roman Catholics Should Have Freedom of Religion, But Do They Deserve It?

It is becoming that much more clear that the Left is attacking the freedom of religion of Christians, particularly Roman Catholics.  This is confirmed by that oh-so-noble Indian Elder Nathan Phillips attempting to disrupt a mass for the unborn over the weekend.

Not just Christians, but all who care about genuine freedom of religion must rise up and stand our ground against these predatory totalitarians. (And, yes, disrupting services is an old tactic of totalitarians.)

But I say that as the Roman Catholic Church has joined the totalitarians and once again victimized youth by smearing the Covington students. And even after more facts have come out showing the students were the ones who were the targets of bigotry, apologies are slow in coming and often do not come at all.

Just two examples: The Archdiocese of Baltimore smeared the students on twitter, posting “The Archdiocese of Baltimore condemns the disrespect shown toward a Native American elder during the March for Life. Respect for life demands all are treated with dignity.” But when the facts of the matter came out, they deigned only to “clarify” their statement.  No apology.

The Sisters of Mercy tweeted: “Racism and intolerance in all forms go directly against Catholic social teaching. The disturbing videos being shared of this incident showcase a bigoted disrespect of indigenous peoples and remind us how urgent our work for racial justice remains.”  Have these whores of the Left since issued any apology on their twitter account?  Of course not! Being a Libchurcher means never having to say you’re sorry.  Libchurchers confess other peoples’ sin, remember?

As for those Roman Catholics who say such as these do not represent you, I ask do you allow your contributions to filter to such? Then you are complicit, too.

I will continue to do my part to defend the freedom of religion of even such as the Archdiocese of Baltimore and the Sisters of Mercy. But do they deserve it? Heck, no.  Are they actually the comrades and dupes of those Leftists who are attacking freedom of religion?  Yes.

Anglo-Catholics Are That Much More Important Now.

I hope it goes without saying for my good readers that traditional Anglo-Catholics are a vital part of Anglicanism and of the whole church.  With the current crisis in the Roman Catholic Church, they are now that much more important.

(And this is such a weighty subject that I apologize ahead of time that I will be glossing over it.  I also apologize if what I am about to say seems a bit obvious.  Sometimes, however, we need to remind ourselves of the obvious.) 

Anglo-Catholic parishes and jurisdictions have long been havens for those who love traditional catholic worship and orthodox teaching but who for various reasons cannot conscientiously join the Roman Catholic Church.  I count myself among these.  Pusey House, especially, has been a haven for me when in Oxford.  And when anywhere near North Dallas on a Sunday, I can hardly keep myself from visiting Smokey Matt’s.

Without rehashing the sordid details, matters have gotten so awful in the Roman Church that those of a traditional catholic mindset who can no longer abide the Church of Rome will surely increase – and surely are increasing now.  And where will they go except to Anglo-Catholic parishes? Jurisdictions outside of both the Church of Rome and Anglicanism that have traditional catholic worship with which Anglicans and Roman Catholics are familiar are few and far between. Without desiring it to be so and in spite of their ecumenical mindset, Anglo-Catholics have close to a monopoly on non-Roman traditional catholic worship.  (By the way, has anyone addressed why this is so? Perhaps this question would make for a good thesis.)

So traditional Anglo-Catholics who hold to the orthodox catholic faith should know that they are that much more important now.  They should not attempt to poach from the Romans, but they should be that much more committed to letting people know you are there and to being a welcoming haven to those who thirst for catholic faith and worship.

And, frankly, the rest of Anglicanism should know this, too, and be more committed to the genuine flourishing of Anglo-Catholic parishes and jurisdictions.   Anglo-Catholicism is a great gift of Anglicanism to the world and to the church.  Anglo-Catholics live out that one can be a robust catholic outside the Church of Rome and all her enormities.  And now more than ever for the health of the whole church, there needs to be a place for traditional catholics to flourish outside the Roman Catholic Church – especially since the days may be numbered for traditional catholics to flourish inside the Roman Catholic Church.

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?

Cardinal Cupich Doesn’t Like You Distracting Bigots

Cardinal Blase Cupich is not happy with you bigots who think Pope Francis should resign or, at the very least, think Francis’ promotion of apostate predators and wolves should be thoroughly investigated.

“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.

Yes, the Gospel, the purity of the church, and protecting the young are such annoying distractions from lib/left political activism.  And Vigano’s testimony is a really bad distraction:

Cupich described the contents of Archbishop Carlos Maria Viganò’s 11-page testimony, published Aug. 25, as a “rabbit hole” that he does not think the Church should be going down.

Yes, the church should ignore Pope Francis’ rehabilitation of Uncle Ted McCarrick and the appointment of Uncle Ted’s libchurch allies as Cardinals.  Nothing to see here!

And Cupich knows the real reason I and others dislike Francis:

“Quite frankly, they also don’t like him because he’s a Latino,” said Cupich. Pope Francis was born in Buenos Aires, Argentina, to parents of Italian descent.

But don’t let that detail keep you from playing the race card, Cardinal.

Now there is a reason I mock Cupich’s statements other than that there are such easy targets.  Backed by the predatory Uncle Ted, this is the sort of libchurcher with which Francis has stacked the College of Cardinals. Therefore, if we are to have a robustly orthodox Pope in our lifetimes, it is not enough that Francis resign. The likes of Cupich, Wuerl etc. must be shown the door as well. 

But I have serious doubts that even Francis will resign.  I might get to that another time.

Abusing and Covering-Up Libchurchers Elected Pope Francis and Were Rewarded

Yes, I have been slow to respond here to the explosive statement of ex-Nuncio Archbishop Carlo Vigano for a number of boring personal reasons and for a not so personal reason – that statement was so candid and so from the inside that I doubted at first that it was authentic.  But by now it is obvious it is authentic.  And it is a must read.

Francis responded to the statement yesterday if it can be called a response:

“I will respond to your question,” says the pope in a video of the plane presser translated by LifeSiteNews. “But I would prefer that we first speak about the trip, and then other topics[.] … This morning I read that statement. I read it, and I will say sincerely that I must tell you all this – you [CBS] and all of you who are interested: Read the statement carefully yourselves and make your own judgment.I am not going to say a word about this.I believe that the statement speaks for itself, and you all have sufficient journalistic ability to draw conclusions.”

And overnight, Vigano’s statement received important confirmation:

Meanwhile, the Catholic News Agency (CNA) obtained a brief statement from Monsignor Jean-François Lantheaume, the former first counselor of the nunciature in Washington, whose job it was to inform Cardinal McCarrick of the sanctions imposed on him by Pope Benedict XVI. Lantheaume, who declined to give an interview, merely confirmed the veracity of Viganò’s report.

“Viganò said the truth. That’s all,” said Lantheaume, in a written response to CNA.

A number of traditionalist catholic sites are covering this closely.  (The twitter of Rorate Caeli is particularly impressive.)  And I do not want to duplicate their efforts. So I will try to restrain myself as this unfolds to pointing out some aspects that may be below readers’ radars or are in some other way value-added. 

First, it must be noted that there is an ugly pattern here as pointed out by Damian Thompson:

This is becoming clearer in my mind.
Danneels: complicit in sex abuse, campaigned for Bergoglio.
McCarrick: sex abuser, campaigned for Bergoglio.
Bergoglio becomes pope. Both men – mirabile dictu – are rehabilitated.
THIS STINKS.

— Damian Thompson (@holysmoke) August 26, 2018

In other words, key libchurchers who abused/enabled abuse/covered up abuse backed Bergoglio for Pope and, behold!, were rehabilitated after the election of Francis.  Not only that but, as Vigano’s statement states, they become influential in the appointment of other libchurchers, some/most of whom are also tied to abuse.  I hope no reader is so naïve as to consider all this a coincidence.

Uncle Ted McCarrick himself has been quite open about throwing his influence behind the election of Bergoglio.  And, lo and behold, his record of abuse, very well known in the Vatican, and the restriction of him by Pope Benedict was then [Anglican Understatement Alert] overlooked.

This mafia-like pattern is one reason it would not be enough for Francis to resign.  The libchurchers who conspired to elect a Pope who would favor them and sweep their sexual abuse and cover ups under the rug must be done away with as well.

But I will likely say more about that another time.

We Want Not Words, But Wuerl! UPDATED

It took a while, but Pope Francis has issued a letter “to the people of God” concerning the abuse of minors in the Roman Catholic Church.  I’ve read it, but not closely enough to parse it.

I have good reason for my negligence. Unless Pope Francis repents of being a libchurcher and pledges to remove libchurchers from positions of power, his words are close to pointless.  For, as I and others have pointed out, it is the dominance of libchurchers in key areas of the Church of Rome that has enabled its widespread sexual predation.

If Pope Francis’ concern is worth anything, he will give us not mere words, but Wuerl.  He will accept the resignation of Cardinal Wuerl.

What? Wuerl resigned?  Yes, back in 2015 when he turned 75.  Pope Francis could accept that pro forma resignation (as he has oh-so quickly when certain orthodox prelates reached resignation age).  And it would be a perfect resignation to accept. For not only has Wuerl presided over abuse and likely helped cover up the predations of his friend Uncle Ted Cardinal McCarrick, he is practically a prototype of a libchurch abuse-enabling bishop: 

He has suspended and intimidated conservative priests, and has even blocked conservative bishops from offering sacraments in his archdiocese, while doing almost nothing to combat the numerous shenanigans administered by Jesuits at Georgetown University. 

Of course, far far more needs to be done than accepting one resignation. Far far more libchurchers must have their church careers ended for the Roman Catholic Church to recover from their wolfish predations.  Nonetheless, more words mean little at this point.  Don’t give the faithful more of your words, Francis.  You talk too much anyway.  Bring us the mitre of Cardinal Wuerl.  Not words, but Wuerl!

Yes, Your Holiness, we know you don’t like capital punishment.  So the head need not be attached to said mitre.  At least it doesn’t have to be.

----

MORE:
Here’s a taste of Wuerl in action if you can stomach it: hard on orthodox priests, easy on predator priests.

With the WARNING that it’s difficult reading, here’s more details on how easy he was on predator priests.

He. Must. Go.

 ----

UPDATE:

And maybe he will soon.

The Washington Post confidently declares that it is "unlikely" Wuerl will resign soon. I'm hearing something different. A source close to Wuerl reported to me that he is telling people around him that he is resigning.

— George Neumayr (@george_neumayr) August 21, 2018

 

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.