Pewsitter News Pewsitter News en-us Thu, 05 Mar 2015 11:42:47 GMT Thu, 05 Mar 2015 11:42:47 GMT none <![CDATA[ Synod Heist: Was it Cardinal Baldisseri or Colonel Mustard? ]]>
Synod Heist: Was it Cardinal Baldisseri or Colonel Mustard?

By Frank Walker

American Life League’s Judie Brown asks, “Was it Colonel Mustard in the library with a candlestick or was it Cardinal Lorenzo Baldisseri, general secretary for the Synod of Bishops in the Vatican with sticky fingers?”

In advance of the next iteration of the looming Synod on the Family, Brown presents a quick but necessary refresher. She lays out the battle lines between thousands of years of Catholic faith in the Eucharist and what seems like the new FrancisChurch Synod agenda. On one side Cardinal Burke. On the other, Germany’s Kasper.

Some months ago, Cardinal Raymond Burke, along with eight other distinguished Church leaders and theologians, authored a book that sets the record straight on the question of what the Church teaches regarding divorced and remarried Catholics and the reception of Holy Eucharist. The publication, Remaining in the Truth of Christ, was generally well received by those who were opposed to what a certain German cardinal, Walter Kasper, had proposed. Namely, the cardinal suggested “a change in the ‘pastoral practice’ about who can receive Communion.” Kasper opines, “To say we will not admit divorced and remarried people to Holy Communion? That’s not a dogma. That’s an application of a dogma in a concrete pastoral practice. This can be changed.” To further his argument, Kasper explained to the press that he and the Holy Father, Pope Francis, are on the same page and that ordinary folks agree with his preposterous proposition. He told the National Catholic Reporter: “If what people are doing and what the church is teaching, if there is an abyss, that doesn’t help the credibility of the church. . . . One has to change.”

Well, not so fast say Cardinal Raymond Burke and a host of other prelates who perceive the Kasper proposal as anything but just—not to mention not in accord with Catholic doctrine and tradition. In an interview, Burke commented on Kasper’s proposal to the synod fathers, saying, “It is profoundly sad and scandalous that such remarks were made by a cardinal of the Church. They are a further indication of the determination to manipulate the process of the synod to advance Cardinal Kasper’s false positions, even by means of racist remarks about a significant and highly respected part of the synod membership. That this incident has taken place, especially in the context of such an important event in the life of the Church, has deeply saddened me.”

Fast-forward to one week ago. The news begins to break that all the precious and hard-wrung copies of the scholarly book meant for Synod Fathers were stolen. If any more evidence is needed to show one side of this deeply unfortunate debate is unCatholic….

Remaining in the Truth of Christ was published by Ignatius Press and subsequently distributed to, among others, the synod fathers.

Or was it?

According to Catholic, “Father Joseph Fessio, SJ, the editor of Ignatius Press, which published the American edition of the book, confirms that dozens of books were received by the Vatican City governorate, but never reached the prelates to whom they were addressed.” This story broke when Edward Pentin penned a news article exposing the case of the disappearing books in a NewsMax column last week. Two days later the Vatican issued a statement saying that the copies were indeed delivered.

I can remember a time when the Vatican Press Office was not content to openly lie. A lie from the Catholic Church itself, why? If the Church can set no example of faith or virtue, why does it exist?  Perhaps it was the men behind the book lying to tarnish the image of their Synod opposition?

We must ask: Would men who buck the trend of Church power, and work very hard to provide information and tools to Synod decision-makers in defense of the Holy Eucharist and marriage, do such a thing? It seems the Associated Press might like us to consider the possibility.

Associated Press reporter Nicole Winfield offers her description of the whodunit: “The mystery underscores the divisiveness of the debate and the conspiracy theories that ran rampant during the synod, with accusations that meeting organizers were angling to favor a more progressive outcome. Such tensions will likely only rise before the second round of discussions starting in October.”

With so much at stake, Brown is not content to leave things as they sit.

So we are left wondering about the true facts in this matter. If we must compare the veracity of statements made by publisher Father Joseph Fessio with those of a Vatican press office that is so frequently inaccurate, well, whom would you believe?

The clues lead in one direction, and my suspicion is that the malefactor in this case is none other than Cardinal Lorenzo Baldisseri, who did it in the Vatican with sticky fingers. 


... ]]>
Wed, 04 Mar 2015 00:00:00 GMT
<![CDATA[ Christian Persecution: Will Egypt Soon Be Safer Than Europe? ]]>
Christian Persecution: Will Egypt Soon Be Safer Than Europe?

By Frank Walker

The Middle Eastern Al-Monitor reports:

An Egyptian administrative court on Feb. 18 upheld the Ministry of Religious Endowments’ decision issued in September 2013 to close down neighborhood places of worship of less than 80 square meters (861 square feet), a move intended to protect young people from the militancy and extremism that can prevail in such places, which lack the legal standing to hold Friday prayers.

This move sets a precedent that raises many questions about the fate of mosques in many Egyptian villages, the grounds of which are usually less than 80 square meters. In reply, opponents of the decision such as the Salafist Nour Party claimed that closing down places of worship without providing a larger alternative serves to further bolster extremist ideology, considering that the larger existing mosques cannot accommodate Friday worshippers who line surrounding streets to pray. On the opposite end of the spectrum, supporters of the decision such as intellectuals and scholars say that those mosques are time bombs that threaten national security, as they fall outside the purview of the Ministry of Religious Endowments and are used to spread subversive ideologies.

The new, powerful, and re-conquered Egypt under President Al-Sisi is moving to impose real controls on the militancy of mosques.

Ahmed Karimeh, a professor of Sharia at Al-Azhar University, told Al-Monitor that legal teachings and conventions specify that Friday, Eid and main prayers must be conducted in a mosque, and not in a neighborhood place of worship. The five daily prayers can be held at these informal sites, but not the special celebration prayers. In that sense, the Egyptian Ministry of Religious Endowments upheld a recognized religious law.

Karimeh explained that closing those neighborhood places of worship, located in apartment buildings, commercial buildings or factories, would help mitigate the influence of extremist religious orators such as those affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood, Salafist groups or Shiites, who use those places of worship to take advantage of religious gatherings. As such, the Ministry of Religious Endowments’ decision, while late, was the correct one. 

Measures are being taken to ensure mosque leaders are properly screened and prepared. Nevertheless a full 27,000 smaller mosques have been shut down.

Karimeh criticized the ministry’s examination policy and said that it solely tested the applicant’s memorization of the Quran, without evaluating his general culture. He added that closing down neighborhood places of worship would not be enough to confront extremism. Toward that end, attention must be paid to the preachers, who should be properly schooled and financially compensated, so as to allow them to better educate themselves, instead of having to work as taxi drivers or vegetable vendors to provide for their families.

Karimeh also denied claims that some villages lacked proper mosques. It should be noted that neighborhood places of worship and mosques with surface areas of less than 80 square meters numbered 27,000 in all of Egypt’s provinces and villages.

Closings of mosques? The West cries about the lack of democracy in the elected Egyptian government, but is there anyone in the first world who would be willing or capable of taking such measures to protect the rights of free people today? The practicing Muslim Al-Sisi is unafraid to honor and protect Christian rights. He is also said to be leading a revolution in Islam.

Soon Egypt may be the safest place in the world for Christian faithful.




... ]]>
Wed, 04 Mar 2015 00:00:00 GMT
<![CDATA[ Cardinal Luis Tagle: Man of the World ]]>
Cardinal Luis Tagle: Man of the World

By Frank Walker

'Philippine Francis', Cd. Luis Tagle gave a talk at his alma mater, Catholic University of America, Monday, starting off with a slap to those straw men who don’t want Catholics to care about the world.

It’s not too mundane you know, plus it’s all written down in Gaudium et Spes.

On Monday afternoon at The Catholic University of America, Philippine Cardinal Luis Antonio Tagle spoke at length about the seminal Second Vatican Council document Gaudium et Spes and its implications for the modern world, with a special focus on Asia.

The talk, which lasted for an hour, marked the 50th anniversary of Gaudium et Spes, the Pastoral Constitution of the Church in the Modern World. 

"Some people, even up to now, 50 years after the [Second Vatican Council], are still asking the question, 'Why does the church bother with the world?' " Tagle said. 

"Should not the church focus itself on strictly spiritual matters?" he asked rhetorically. "Why would the church become mundane by talking about the political world, the economic life of countries, the environment, peace, and all of these things?"

Why? Because of Catholicism's amazement at the value and dignity of every human being, the cardinal said -- an amazement that is reflected in Gaudium et Spes.

“Gaudium et Spes from one perspective could be considered an ode of the church to the beauty, the value of every human person,” Tagle said. “And this is not a strategy.”

“This is deeply theological,” as the human person is “part of God's revelation in Jesus Christ, who is truly God and truly human”.

Not only is it theological, but it’s deep.

After explaining Asia in terms of restaurants he’s eaten in, Tagle rolls out his FrancisPoverty rhetoric.

Truthful evangelization requires careful attention to "concrete men and women," the cardinal said, "especially the teeming masses of the poor and the young."

And it requires dialogue, he said.

In Asian society, a "direct" proclamation of the Gospel may not be a smart approach, Tagle said.

"If I have a visitor and I cannot verbally tell the person to leave my house," he said, "how would I do it? I would look out the window and say, 'I think a snowstorm is coming.' If the person is Asian, that person will pick it up and say 'I think so, I better go.'

"Now who says that isn't direct?"

Everyone in Asia can take a hint? What does that say about the rest of us?

"The church in Asia is asked to encounter peoples in their concrete cultures" where "attitudes and value systems emanate," the cardinal said.

This means engaging "the ancient religions" and philosophies of Asia, "most of them older than Christianity."

Indeed, "in some parts of Asia, Christianity is perceived as alien to Asian cultures," Tagle said. "Some especially extremist and fundamentalist parts of Asia would say that Christianity would even harm or destroy our Asian ways of being human."

Why do we always have to ‘engage’ with other value systems that are always ‘emanating?’ When and where can Catholics emanate some idea? You can look out the window all you want but if these great ‘older’ religions never hear it, they won’t know the Gospel.

After plugging the FrancisChurch dogma of dialogue, Cd. Tagle asks ‘the hard question.’

Evangelization, Tagle said, means having to ask "the hard question: What happens when the other party does not welcome dialogue?" Answer: Free stuff, I mean, ‘sharing the resources of the Gospel.’

And it means encountering the reality of Asian poverty, he said.

"These past 50 years, questions like growth that does not exclude the larger population -- inclusive growth -- how could that happen? And how could the resources of the Gospel be shared to the world of Asian economies, the world of politicians, the business world, so that everyone could benefit from economic growth?"

"We have new forms of the poor in Asia," Tagle said. "The forced migrants ... the refugees."

And "new forms of slavery," he said, "the trafficking in human persons, sex tourism."

Increasingly, he said, evangelization in Asia means engaging the culture of "big metropolitan cities," where "50 percent" of Asian people live.

"The kingdom of God is like a mustard seed." But "do [city people] see mustard seeds?" he asked. "They see mustard when they buy hot dogs."

The Cardinal’s ‘lighthearted’ and materialist message is clear. Forget all that other-worldly Catholic stuff. These people care about hot dogs, not souls! Just read Gaudium et Spes, ok?



... ]]>
Wed, 04 Mar 2015 00:00:00 GMT
<![CDATA[ San Diego: Pope Francis Raises A Bishop: LA Times, NC Reporter Celebrate ]]>
San Diego: Pope Francis Raises A Bishop: LA Times, NC Reporter Celebrate

By Frank Walker

Rome makes a new American FrancisBishop. The LA Times celebrates.

The San Diego diocese covers San Diego and Imperial counties, with nearly 1 million Catholics. The diocese has 98 parishes, 46 elementary schools, six high schools and 14 missions. It has more than 200 priests and 200 nuns.

In an article Tuesday in the National Catholic Reporter, which is independent of the Vatican, journalist and author Michael Sean Winters said San Diego has "hit the jackpot" with McElroy, describing him as having a "brilliant mind and the heart of a pastor."

I thought the Reporter’s Bishop said they weren’t very Catholic at all?

The selection of McElroy, Winters wrote, shows something "about Pope Francis and the process of selecting bishops. An affectation for the traditional Latin Mass may no longer get one into the express lane. An intransigent, culture-war approach to the public square is no longer weighed on the plus side of the ledger, and a pastoral sensibility is no longer seen as a deficit."

I guess every new Pope Benedict bishop was eager to say the Latin Mass?

Aren’t all bishops required to take an ‘intransigent, culture-war approach to the public square?’ I guess that’s the ‘pastoral sensibility deficit’ Winters is talking about? Either way, this new style of bishop he’s praising doesn’t sound anything like an actual bishop at all but more like a dressed-up Nancy Pelosi trying hard not to blurt out her true feelings.

McElroy understands income inequality, which is becoming "the defining issue of our political life," Winters wrote.

Bingo.  We’ve unearthed a belief: the primacy of other people’s money.

But on the issue of the church's pro-life stance, "anyone who thinks McElroy is out to downplay the pro-life cause has never had a conversation with him."

A private one-on-one conversation with the bishop, that’s the only place you’ll hear anything against abortion or euthanasia from the Church in San Diego I suppose.




... ]]>
Wed, 04 Mar 2015 00:00:00 GMT
<![CDATA[ Synod Heist: Was it Cardinal Baldisseri or Colonel Mustard? Christian Persecution: Will Egypt Soon Be Safer Than Europe? Cardinal Luis Tagle: Man of the World; San Diego: Pope Francis Makes A Bishop: LA Times, NC Reporter Celebrate ]]>
PewSitter NewsBytes

By Frank Walker

Synod Heist: Was it Cardinal Baldisseri or Colonel Mustard?


Christian Persecution: Will Egypt Soon Be Safer Than Europe?


Cardinal Luis Tagle: Man of the World


San Diego: Pope Francis Makes A Bishop: LA Times, NC Reporter Celebrate



... ]]>
Wed, 04 Mar 2015 00:00:00 GMT
<![CDATA[ Francis: God Loves Sinners, But He Hates Those Holy Hypocrite Pretenders A Thousand Times Worse ]]>
Francis: God Loves Sinners, But He Hates Those Holy Hypocrite Pretenders A Thousand Times Worse

By Frank Walker

AsiaNews reports on the Pope’s most recent homily, where he issued his latest round of perplexing thoughts. Today Jesus prefers sinners to hypocrites a thousand times more.

"A thousand times Jesus preferred sinners" to hypocrites, those who "pretend to be converted", but "whose heart belongs to Satan," and if you "learn to do good," God "generously forgives" all sin, said Pope Francis in his homily at Mass celebrated this morning at Casa Santa Marta, inspired by a passage from Isaiah and the Gospel of the day that speaks of those "who say the right things, but do the exact opposite."

So God ‘generously forgives’ all sin but not those hypocrites who pretend to be converted and whose hearts belong to Satan. Is the Pope saying that the sin of hypocrisy is an unrepentant sin but all other sins are repented and forgiven? Is every unrepented sin hypocrisy? Is it possible to repent of hypocrisy? Are there not other sins which are even worse, instead of ‘a thousand times’ better?

Reflecting on the first reading from Isaiah, Pope Francis said the prophets' words describe an "invitation and an imperative" that come directly from God: "Cease to do evil, learn to do good" defending orphans and widows, namely "those who no one remembers".   Pope Francis said this category includes the "abandoned elderly" "children who do not go to school" and those "who do not know how to make the sign of the Cross". Essentially it is an invitation to conversion.

Can we do good to those who people do remember? People of worldly success and riches can become proud, hardened. Is it doing good to help them humbly convert, to pray for them? What if we help someone who isn’t an orphan, a widow, an abandoned old person, or a child who doesn’t go to school? Not good?

"But how can I convert? 'By learning to do right!'. Conversion. You cannot remove the filth of the heart as you would remove a stain: we go to the dry cleaner and leave cleansed ... This filth is removed by 'doing': taking a different path, a different path from that of evil. 'Learn to do right!', That is, the path of doing good. And how do I do good? It's simple! 'Seek justice, encourage the oppressed, defend the orphan, plead for the widow'. Remember that in Israel the poorest and most needy were orphans and widows: do justice to them, go there to the wounds of humanity, where there is so much pain ... And by doing so, by doing good, you will cleanse your heart ".

So in order to remove the filth of the heart and convert, we must learn to do right. What about making a good Confession? Doesn’t that also ‘remove the filth of the heart somewhat?’ Must I encourage the oppressed, do justice to orphans, and ‘heal the wounds of humanity’ to cleanse my heart? What if I only meet married people and children with parents as I go back and forth from home to work and home today?

Pope Francis went on to say the Gospel of the day, instead, presents the hypocrisy of the Pharisees and Scribes. He was reflecting on people "who say all the right things, but do the exact opposite." "We are all clever and always find a path that is not right, to seem more virtuous than we are: it is the path of hypocrisy". "They pretend to convert, but their heart is a lie: they are liars! It 'a lie ... Their heart does not belong to the Lord; their heart belongs to the father of all lies, Satan. And this is fake holiness. Jesus preferred sinners a thousand times to these. Why? Because sinners told the truth about themselves. 'Get away from me, Lord, I am a sinner!': Peter once said. One of those [the hypocrites] never says that! 'Thank you Lord, that I am not a sinner, that I am righteous ... In the second week of Lent we have these three words to think about, to ponder: the invitation to conversion; the gift that the Lord will give us, which is great forgiveness, a great forgiveness; and the trap -- that is, pretending to convert, while choosing the path of hypocrisy".

So if I try to say right things, convert and be holy, but don’t do the humanity-healing things and call myself a sinner, I’m also a hypocrite, yes?

Better to do nothing then I suppose, than try being righteous and holy without saving the oppressed and forgotten….”a thousand times better”.


... ]]>
Tue, 03 Mar 2015 00:00:00 GMT
<![CDATA[ San Diego: Is that a Catholic Bishop, Pope Francis? ]]>
San Diego: Is that a Catholic Bishop, Pope Francis?

By Frank Walker

CruxMag reports:

Robert W. McElroy, an auxiliary bishop in San Francisco and a leader in the Catholic Church’s social justice wing, was named head of the Diocese of San Diego. Crux reported the move Monday, and it was confirmed by the Vatican Tuesday morning. He will be installed April 15.

McElroy, 61, has written extensively about the Church’s social justice mission, promoting Catholic engagement with society that places economic and human rights issues on par with abortion and same-sex marriage.

It’s a good thing he’s written extensively about the Church’s social justice mission. There’s not enough of that out there yet.

“We are called to see the issues of abortion and poverty, marriage and immigrant rights, euthanasia and war, religious liberty and restorative justice, not as competing alternatives often set within a partisan framework, but as a complementary continuum of life and dignity,” he wrote in America magazine in October 2013.

What in the world does that have to do with Faith? “Restorative justice?” “Complimentary continuum of life and dignity?” I’m sure Jesus was all about that. He just need a few more years in a Jesuit seminary before he could develop the nerve to lay it out.

McElroy’s appointment to San Diego is the latest sign that Pope Francis intends to make his mark on the Church in America.

Last fall, Francis handpicked another moderate, Blase Cupich, to serve as archbishop of Chicago. McElroy was present at Cupich’s installation Mass.

McElroy, a San Francisco native, graduated from Harvard University with a degree in history, and holds a doctorate from Stanford University as well as a doctorate in moral theology from Rome’s Pontifical Gregorian University.

Not the University of 'Bologna'?

Though he’s worked in the San Francisco chancery for many years, McElroy was pastor of a San Mateo, California, parish for 14 years.

Speaking last month in San Francisco, McElroy praised what he called the pope’s emphasis on mercy, and said that the church must gravitate toward pastoral responses to believers.

“To be judgmental is a cardinal sin for religion,” he said, according to the National Catholic Reporter. “It is easy for the church to get lost in the rules, but pastoral theology trumps rules.” He went on to say he favors allowing divorced and remarried Catholics to receive communion, a position that allies McElroy with bishops attempting to overturn the ban at this fall’s synod on the family in Rome.

Is that a Catholic bishop, Pope Francis? How many more such ‘marks’ will you leave upon Christ’s Church before you’re through?


... ]]>
Tue, 03 Mar 2015 00:00:00 GMT
<![CDATA[ Toward a Hunky-Dory Synod Full of Gentlemen and Consensus ]]>
Toward a Hunky-Dory Synod Full of Gentlemen and Consensus

By Frank Walker

Mary Ann Kreitzer provides a welcome refresher on the ugly event that was the October Synod by reminding us how easily a powerful bishop can lie.

I spent several hours yesterday watching videos of bishops commenting on the synod. Robert Arroyo did a "World Over" video featuring Cardinal Dolan and Archbishops Salvatore Cordileone and Joseph Kurtz at the bishops' conference last November asking about the Extraordinary Synod.. Cardinal Dolan's portion had me shaking my head. Despite all the comments by Synod Fathers concerned about the manipulation of the Synod and expressing worry and alarm, Cardinal Dolan was his happy-clappy self. No problems at the Synod. "There must have been two synods." he quipped to his brother bishops. There were no major disagreements. The one the four Americans attended was "a synod of consensus."

Wow! I wonder why Cardinal Burke is "worried," why Cardinal Napier said the damage from the mid-term release was "irredeemable." Why Archbishop Chaput lamented the confusion saying "Confusion is from the devil." and Bishop Athanasius Schneider described the mid-term document as a text that "represent a radical neo-pagan ideology" which has "penetrated such important levels of the life of the Church."

Arroyo asked about Cardinal Burke's demotion and Dolan affirmed him as a great cardinal. Then he went on to praise Kasper. "There were no bad guys." Kasper is a "gentleman" who doesn't doubt Church teaching. He just wants to be pastoral. "I'd like to think we are all decent guys," Dolan said. Well, me too. I'd like to think it but it's almost fifty years since this naive teenager started college and I've seen a lot of bad stuff go down since then.

I lived through the revolution in the Church after Vatican II (I was 17 and just starting college as Vatican II ended). I remember the impact on my parents. At one point my dad wanted to leave the Church after watching Baltimore's Archbishop William Borders and Fr. Robert Drinan tear down the faith in a Sunday talking heads interview. (Remember Drinan - the pro-abortion Jesuit who was elected to Congress and only resigned to avoid being suspended?)

I remember the butterfly vestments, crepe paper rainbows in the sanctuary, the cracked pot as a Lenten image, holy water fonts filled with sand, nuns transitioning from habits to pearls and pantsuits. Then there were the crazy home Masses where the hostess brought out her wine goblet to use as a chalice and couples Communicated each other and invested each other in stoles as "symbols of our priesthood." For a while I was as confused as everybody else. How many mortal sins did I commit enabled by all the "good" clerics? Follow your conscience -- I'm okay, you're okay.

The fact that this is all happening again, but on a more destructive scale, is a sign that the Church is powerless to stem outside influence. The hierarchy can’t resist but the faithful still can. No Catholic prelate can rob what belongs to Christians: Honor for the Blessed Sacrament and a Holy Mass.

Kreitzer leaves us with a few more questions for the sunny bishop from New York:

Now exactly how did all that happen, Cardinal Dolan since there are no "bad guys" and all the bishops are "just decent guys." Are there people in hell because of the refusal of all those "good guys" to teach, govern, and sanctify and, instead, confused, abandoned, and scandalized? How did rejection of Church teaching on marriage and sexuality become so widespread? Why do two generations know virtually NOTHING about the faith? Why were all those children sexually abused?

And who exactly wrote the disastrous mid-term report at the Synod and released it to the press before any of the Synod Fathers saw it? What happened to the book sent to all the Synod Fathers refuting the "Kasper proposal?"

Every heresy in the Church began with a man in a Roman collar. Why are bishops calling us to fight for the family in these months before the Ordinary Synod if everything is so hunky-dory? -

Catholics must fight to counter the spin from now through October.


... ]]>
Tue, 03 Mar 2015 00:00:00 GMT
<![CDATA[ Celebrating 50 Years of Vernacular Success ]]>
Celebrating 50 Years of Vernacular Success

By Frank Walker

English liturgical scholar Fr. John Hunwicke has returned from a week at Silverstream Monastery with a few apt words for the upcoming celebration of fifty years of the Novus Ordo Mass.

I was surprised to get back home to my computer to discover that in Rome there is going to be a special Mass to commemorate fifty years since the first Mass entirely in the Italian Language. Surely, this sort of rather Renaissance triumphalist crowing is both in bad taste, and sadly divisive? Will the Mass be a Requiem to pray for the souls of those whose faith was disastrously weakened by those of the post-Conciliar changes which were praeter Concilium seu contra Concilium, and which proliferated during this half-century?

Father is not one to blame the devolving world for the collapse of Faith. If you seek answers to current Catholic problems, why not examine what changes precipitated them? Of course, that won’t make you a friend of the Pope.

If you are a no-longer-fertile Mexican grandmother possessing shares in the Ignatius Press, whose newly ordained narcissistic grandson possesses a semi-Pelagian biretta and works in the deeply flawed Roman Curia, you must be in sore need of something to cheer you up. This event may not be precisely what you've been waiting for.

I guess not everyone will be there in spirit.


... ]]>
Tue, 03 Mar 2015 00:00:00 GMT
<![CDATA[ Francis: God Loves Sinners, But He Hates Those Holy Hypocrite Pretenders A Thousand Times Worse; San Diego: Is that a Catholic Bishop, Pope Francis? Toward a Hunky-Dory Synod Full of Gentlemen, Consensus; Celebrating 50 Yrs. of Vernacular Succes ]]>
PewSitter NewsBytes

By Frank Walker

Francis: God Loves Sinners, But He Hates Those Holy Hypocrite Pretenders A Thousand Times Worse


San Diego: Is that a Catholic Bishop, Pope Francis?


Toward a Hunky-Dory Synod Full of Gentlemen and Consensus


Celebrating 50 Years of Vernacular Success


... ]]>
Tue, 03 Mar 2015 00:00:00 GMT
<![CDATA[ Vox Cantoris Back with a Nod to Team Bergoglio ]]>
Vox Cantoris Back with a Nod to Team Bergoglio

By Frank Walker

A week after announcing he’s about to be sued by Vatican’s Fr. Thomas Rosica, Canadian blogger Vox Cantoris is back with his thanks.

Dear Friends,

I want to take this opportunity to express to the thousands of Catholic people around the world a thanksgiving from myself and my family for the outpouring of prayers, rosaries and Masses, sacrifices of personal illnesses offered up, emails, Tweets and comments. However, there is one in particular which was incredibly moving and prayerful. A few days ago, Mr. Gareth Thomas of Spain did a most wonderful thing. As a result of that gesture of fraternal charity, I received a letter which was overwhelming in its beauty and wisdom. Please let us remember that all is not lost and that there are many fatherly and faithful Shepherds in the Church and one of them is His Excellency Athanasius Schneider.

It has been one week since my last blog post whatever that was about, it seems so long that I can hardly remember. I've been itching to get back. First, I have no doubt that you all want to know what is happening with whatever it is that has kept me away from blogging. Let me say simply that "Patience is power" according to Venerable Fulton Sheen and "Patience is not an absence of action; rather it is "timing" it waits on the right time to act for the right principles and in the right way."

Encouraged by the worldwide support, Vox clearly has that fighting spirit. After his brief blogging break he uses his new notoriety to resurrect ‘Team Bergoglio’, that canonical technicality which might seem to invalidate the Pope Francis conclave if the entire world didn’t dismiss it.

Like the Obama and his birth certificate, he may perhaps not be eligible to be Pope, but that doesn’t mean anyone’s going to support that impossible cause. The Church law forbids lobbying under pain of excommunication, and that invalidates conclave outcomes, but everyone keeps bragging about all the lobbying that happened. Why not?

Rome seems to be in chaos, eh? We have the theft of the book by the five Cardinals for the Synod Fathers Remaining in the Truth of Christ (which was my Christmas present from Fox) to the admission by the much troubled Theodore McCarrick (you can search for the filth) a retired Cardinal from Washington. Seems that they just can't resist a video camera. Thank the LORD for the Internet. It seems that the octogenarian eminence was "lobbied" to vote for Jorge Bergoglio. "Talk him up!" he was told.

Well that is lobbying and it is against Canon Law; but then, one would need to have respect for the law to obey it. There are some pretty serious implications to this -- from the potential of excommunication to the calling into question the factors around the overall election of Pope Francis and its implications.

Evidence of lies, tricks, and lawlessness are a daily occurrence in the FrancisChurch. Can anything these new princes do or say be trusted? Is it likely to be Catholic?







... ]]>
Thu, 26 Feb 2015 00:00:00 GMT
<![CDATA[ Are Free and Living Christians America's Enemies? ]]>
Are Free and Living Christians America's Enemies?

By Frank Walker

Inquisitor reports:

Employing its familiar tactics, the Islamic State is now threatening to execute the 150 Assyrian Christians they have taken hostage in Syria.

While initial reports suggested that between 70 and 100 people had been taken captive, according to the Daily Mail the true figure is thought to be almost double, including many women, children and elderly people.

It is thought that a new ISIS video is in the making which will address American President Barack Obama. It will tell him that if the air strikes don’t stop, the 150 Christian hostages will be killed.

While the hostages were taken from villages in northeastern Syria, near to Tal Tamer, Osama Edward, founder of the Assyrian Human Rights Network said that, according to the latest information, the hostages have been moved to ISIS-controlled areas.

Fearing the worst for his Christian brothers and sisters, Edward told reporters that the situation as it stands is tenuous for them.

   “Maybe they are facing the same destiny. That’s why we call on all over the world, like the U.S., Europe, coalition forces — protect Assyrians, save Assyrians in Syria. They are facing death, people are unarmed, they are peaceful. And they need help, they are just left alone — no one’s protecting them.”

For Assyrian Christians in the Middle East, life isn’t looking good, as at least 35 of their villages have been overrun and looted by ISIS, leaving thousands of people fleeing for their lives.

The Iraq war only succeeded in purging Christians from the country. Now, the more the Obama Whitehouse claims to help Syria-Iraq-Libya, the worse things get. The President moves to disarm U.S. citizens and choke the internet while Christian genocide is funded, trained, and armed by whom?

We have to ask, “Are free and living Christians the enemies of America?”




... ]]>
Thu, 26 Feb 2015 00:00:00 GMT
<![CDATA[ Cardinal George Pell Defends Christ, Again. ]]>
Cardinal George Pell Defends Christ, Again.

By Frank Walker

In a quick piece at the Catholic Thing embattled Finance Czar and Synod hero, Cardinal George Pell, stands for Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament (and against scoundrels).

Interestingly, Jesus’ hard teaching that “what therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder” (Mt 19:6) follows not long after his insistence to Peter on the necessity of forgiveness (see Mt 18:21–35).

It is true that Jesus did not condemn the adulterous woman who was threatened with death by stoning, but he did not tell her to keep up her good work, to continue unchanged in her ways. He told her to sin no more (see Jn 8:1–11).

One insurmountable barrier for those advocating a new doctrinal and pastoral discipline for the reception of Holy Communion is the almost complete unanimity of two thousand years of Catholic history on this point. It is true that the Orthodox have a long-standing but different tradition, forced on them originally by their Byzantine emperors, but this has never been the Catholic practice.

One might claim that the penitential disciplines in the early centuries before the Council of Nicaea were too fierce as they argued whether those guilty of murder, adultery, or apostasy could be reconciled by the Church to their local communities only once—or not at all. They always acknowledged that God could forgive, even when the Church’s ability to readmit sinners to the community was limited.

Such severity was the norm at a time when the Church was expanding in numbers, despite persecution. It can no more be ignored than the teachings of the Council of Trent or those of Saint John Paul II or Pope Benedict XVI on marriage can be ignored. Were the decisions that followed Henry VIII’s divorce totally unnecessary?

The Cardinal’s timing is excellent, just as Italian Cardinal Coccopalmerio moves to check his reform power with a new supervisory board.



... ]]>
Thu, 26 Feb 2015 00:00:00 GMT
<![CDATA[ Cd. Marx: The German Church Is Not Just a Subsidiary of Rome! ]]>
Cd. Marx: The German Church Is Not Just a Subsidiary of Rome!

By Frank Walker

Is the German Church Catholic or is the Catholic Church German? Who rules? Is it Peter or is it Luther?

Cathcon reports:

The German Bishops Conference addressed itself to a long process of talks about marriage and family by giving plenty of room for the local church. The chairman of the German Bishops' Conference, Cardinal Reinhard Marx (Munich-Freising) underlined in the context of the Family Synod in autumn the efforts of the bishops for "new approaches" and to "help ensure that doors are opened". In the universal Church, there is "a certain expectation" of Germany. He hoped that some issues would be addressed before the Synod, Marx told journalists n Hildesheim on Tuesday.

The Archbishop of Munich and Freising assumes after the Synod that a Commission would be further concerned with the relevant issues. Theological questions about marriage and family as well as on sexual morality could not be answered in a mere three weeks. "My hope is that then this results in a further discussion." The Synod must find a text that "would lead to further progress" in the discussion and also find a common position on fundamental issues. As far as teaching is concerned, one remains in communion with the Church, in individual issues of pastoral care, "the Synod cannot prescribe in detail of what we have to do in Germany". Therefore, the bishops wanted to publish their own pastoral letter on marriage and family after the Synod. The office of the bishops is not to wait for permits. "We are not just a subsidiary of Rome. Each Episcopal Conference is responsible for the pastoral care in their culture, and has to proclaim the Gospel as their very own office. We cannot wait until a synod state something, as we have here to undertake in this place marriage and family ministry. "

So is the German Church throwing in the towel on their Kasperite Synod heist of Catholic practice and teaching, or are they just telegraphing their plan B go-around we'll all end up following?

Why can’t it be like the old days when disobedient heretic bishops were cut off from Rome instead of plaguing the world with their pretense? Where is the real Church?


... ]]>
Thu, 26 Feb 2015 00:00:00 GMT
<![CDATA[ Are Free and Living Christians America’s Enemies? Vox Cantoris Back with a Nod to Team Bergoglio; Cardinal George Pell Defends Christ, Again; Cd. Marx: The German Church Is Not Just a Subsidiary of Rome! ]]>
PewSitter NewsBytes

By Frank Walker

Are Free and Living Christians America’s Enemies?


Vox Cantoris Back with a Nod to Team Bergoglio


Cardinal George Pell Defends Christ, Again


Cd. Marx: The German Church Is Not Just a Subsidiary of Rome!



... ]]>
Thu, 26 Feb 2015 00:00:00 GMT
<![CDATA[ Are These The Kind Of Men Who Ran The Conclave? If Pope Francis Hates Reform, What Does He Love? Man On White Horse To Get Italian Helpers; Mercy and Communion: Ghana Abp. Palmer-Buckle Holds the Keys to Everything ]]>
PewSitter NewsBytes

By Frank Walker

Synod Thievery: Are These The Kind Of Men Who Ran The Conclave?


If Pope Francis Hates Reform, What Does He Love?


Financial Reform Surprise: Vatican Man On White Horse To Get Italian Helpers


Mercy and Communion: Ghana Abp. Palmer-Buckle Holds the Keys to Everything



... ]]>
Wed, 25 Feb 2015 00:00:00 GMT
<![CDATA[ Synod Thievery: Are These The Kind Of Men Who Ran The Conclave? ]]>
Synod Thievery: Are These The Kind Of Men Who Ran The Conclave?

By Frank Walker


Uncovered in the German press, Fr. Z reveals yet another thuggish and troubling event from the notorious October Synod on the Family.

Remember the Five Cardinals Book™? Remaining in the Truth of Christ: Marriage and Communion in the Catholic Church helped to turn the tide – in a good way – during last October’s Synod of Bishops. It was simultaneously released in English, Italian, French, German and Spanish. It is going to be issued in: Polish, Portuguese, Hungarian, Croatian, Slovak, and Czech. It contains essays of five cardinals, of the archbishop secretary of the Vatican congregation for the Oriental Churches, and of three scholars direct at the notions suggested by Walter Card. Kasper in the opening discourse of the consistory in February 2014. It blew the Kasper proposals and arguments out of the water.

You will also remember that Synod members were up in arms because of the manipulations and machinations of the staff of the Synod office. Remember all the controversies about whether texts of speeches would be released? About what could be reported? About how the mid-term report was produced? About certain strange paragraphs that didn’t reflect the discussions of the Synod?

In an interview last year Cardinal Burke described how difficult it was to produce this scholarly work during the months between the February Consistory, where the Pope revealed his support for the sacrilegious Kasper Proposal, and the October Synod.

Father continues:

Here is something of the story that you don’t know, because at the time it couldn’t be told.

The people who crafted the Five Cardinals Book™ wanted to make sure that Synod members had copies, at least in English or Italian, as the Synod was starting up.  Therefore, they sent copies to every member of the Synod (quite a few) through the Italian post to each member’s personal mailbox near the Synod Hall which was set up individually by the Vatican Post.  Remember, Vatican Post is the postal service of a sovereign nation that has laws.  The Book was sent in individually addressed and franked envelopes.  They weren’t just envelopes with someone’s name on them shoved into the slots by whomever.  They were properly sent postal items.

When the organizers of the Synod realized what had been sent to the members of the Synod, someone removed all the envelopes from the members’ mail boxes!

That’s called theft.   That’s called illegal.   They stole people’s mail.  Please correct me if I am wrong, but isn’t that a crime in, I think, every country?   The Vatican City State… that’s a country… isn’t it.

That’s how frightening the Book is to those who want to overturn the Church’s practice and, therefore, teaching.

The Kathnet piece, by  Manfred Ferrari, indicates that the heist was ordered by Card. Baldisseri, who is the head of the office of the Synod of Bishops.

The heretics who rule the Church have absolutely no respect for any faithful men who remain. We do well to remember how they’ve lied, cheated, and stolen in order to obtain whatever their ugly Synod is supposed to yield.

Such men have no place discussing the Faith in doctrine or praxis. They are not our Christian brethren.


... ]]>
Wed, 25 Feb 2015 00:00:00 GMT
<![CDATA[ If Pope Francis Hates Reform, What Does He Love? ]]>
If Pope Francis Hates Reform, What Does He Love?

By Frank Walker

The blog ‘Out of Great Silence’ details the many small but precious achievements of the Reform of the Reform, which the unfortunate Pope Francis just denounced in the most cruel terms.

Faithful Catholics seem to have no friend in the Pope today.

Pope Francis met on Friday, February 19, 2015, with a group of Roman priests. The meeting was mostly not recorded officially and only a small part was shared with the media and we have only what those in attendance reported was discussed and what Pope Francis had to say. One item that I have seen mentioned was the pope’s comments that the issues of married priests might be too difficult to be resolved.

Another is his comments about traditionally oriented seminarians and priests and how so many of them have, well, mental problems, according to him.

His comments struck me as more appropriately directed at the seminarians of the “spirit of Vatican II” mindset, particularly the droves of homosexuals who entered the priesthood aided by the “lavender mafia”, many of whom acted out their pederasty on members of their parishes, especially as I read he warned that allowing these men into the priesthood.

“is like placing a ‘mortgage on the Church.’ The underlying problem is that some bishops are sometimes overwhelmed by ‘the need for new priests in the diocese.’ Therefore, an adequate discernment among candidates is not made, among whom some can hide certain ‘imbalances’ that are then manifested in liturgies.”

That was said about traditionally minded seminarians and priests, but what he said was actually a scathing indictment of the other, which is and was, the far more serious and widespread problem, because they did indeed place a mortgage on the Church, one which we all are paying off for many, many years. As we have heard, Pope Francis doesn’t make judgments about them. Apparently, judgment is reserved for traditionally oriented seminarians and priests.

He goes on.

The reform of the reform that he sought and pursued has begun to bear some beautiful fruit. It has become noticeable and remarkable that there is less novelty and kookiness at Masses, seminarians and young priests are studying the Extraordinary Form, bishops and Cardinals are celebrating Mass in the Extraordinary Form at prominent places and times, more Latin is being brought into Novus Ordo Masses, more and more parishes have reestablished Adoration and Benediction, and past devotional practices have reappeared in parishes. Indeed, dioceses where more traditionally minded bishops reign have been producing much more seminarians and priests, as well as real nuns, than the others. Moreover, these effects have coincided with the new translation of the Novus Ordo rite in English, where the Liturgy is a more direct and accurate translation of the Latin, as well as the Faith, which, contrary to the cries of anguish by the “spirit of Vatican II” crowd, has not led to the ignorant pewsitters bewailing their lack of understanding of the “big” words they now hear and say, as they believed them to be and claimed they would. Another effect has been seen in more places where priests, bishops and Cardinals celebrate the Novus Ordo Mass ad orientem and the emphasis on the sacrificial aspect of the Mass has overshadowed the community meal emphasis of the “spirit of Vatican II” adherents so prevalent over the last few decades.

Because of Pope Benedict, there was a sense for me and many others that Catholicity was being reintroduced and starting to take root and bloom, after a few decades of a real loss of reverence, of real Catholic worship. Despite some complaints of the hippy crowd, there was a return to normality, with fresh air blowing out the unsettledness and egregious novelties that upset the Mass, and a certain sense of comfort restored. In most places, we are today more likely to encounter a reverential Mass than a puppet, clown or liturgical dance Mass, whereas previously it was the opposite.

Pope Benedict had also confronted the problem of homosexuals being admitted into seminaries and ordained because of the sexual abuse and pederasty many such men had perpetrated on a grand scale, causing great personal harm to scores of boys and young men, to so many vilified innocent and good priests, to the esteem, respect and moral authority of the Church and Faith, led many Catholics to abandon their Faith in disgust, and bankrupted many dioceses whose bishops had protected these intrinsically disordered men. Pope Benedict’s bar on active homosexuals and those with such tendencies brought new life back to the seminaries and priesthood, and the priests coming out of most seminaries are solid, real men, priests for the right reasons, and not the pansies of years past.

Later our blogger cites the most infuriating excerpt from a Pope whose tired bagful of tricks have been well-used before.

However, the Pope noted that there are priests and bishops who speak of a “reform of the reform.” Some of them are “saints” and speak “in good faith.” But this “is mistaken”, the Holy Father said. He then referred to the case of some bishops who accepted “traditionalist” seminarians who were kicked out of other dioceses, without finding out information on them, because “they presented themselves very well, very devout.” They were then ordained, but these were later revealed to have “psychological and moral problems.”

Continue reading this excellent reminder of not only of the Christian ground we’re losing, but what evil we are facing.

Good priests were psychologically screened out of seminaries for a generation, while faithless, vicious, and effeminate men were herded in. Many of us grew up under their ‘care.’ What does it say about someone who would call a faithful man with a vocation ‘unbalanced?’ It says he hates the Church and hates good priests. That’s what is says.

What does it say when a Pope teaches such treachery as Church policy? Does this Pope love you, pious Christian?



... ]]>
Wed, 25 Feb 2015 00:00:00 GMT
<![CDATA[ Financial Reform Surprise: Vatican Man On White Horse To Get Italian Helpers ]]>
Financial Reform Surprise: Vatican Man On White Horse To Get Italian Helpers

By Frank Walker

 CruxMag’s John Allen reports:

Any day now, Pope Francis is expected to issue a new legal framework for three financial oversight bodies in the Vatican he created last year:

  • A 15-member Council for the Economy, composed of cardinals and the laity, which is responsible for overall policy;
  • The Secretariat for the Economy, responsible for day-to-day management;
  • An independent Auditor General, designed to keep everyone honest.

Strictly from a political point of view, the decision will be taken by many observers in Rome as a thumbs up or thumbs down for Australian Cardinal George Pell, who took the Vatican by storm a year ago as the pope’s chosen financial reformer and who has played to mixed reviews ever since.

I’m sure his reviews have been ‘mixed’ after the 6’3” son of a boxer and soldier shouted the room down in October with, ”You must stop manipulating this Synod!”

Strictly from a political point of view, the decision will be taken by many observers in Rome as a thumbs up or thumbs down for Australian Cardinal George Pell, who took the Vatican by storm a year ago as the pope’s chosen financial reformer and who has played to mixed reviews ever since.

For fans, including a wide cross-section of fellow cardinals who recently gathered in Rome to receive a progress report, the 73-year-old Pell is just what the doctor ordered: a tough, no-nonsense administrator capable of bulldozing through established patterns of doing business and ushering in a new era of transparency and accountability.

For critics, including some long-time Vatican insiders, Pell seems more interested in accumulating power than in achieving reform. They see him as blithely indifferent to legal limits on his freedom of action, and sometimes replicating the very cronyism and secretiveness he was intended to dislodge.

Does any of this sound convincing?

The fact that much of this criticism is unfolding in Italian has led some to suspect a clash of cultures, pitting the Vatican’s Italian-speaking old guard against a new English and German-speaking financial regime.

That impression was reinforced recently when Italian Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio, president of the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, suggested amendments to the looming statutes that would impose significant new limits on Pell and his staff.

Coccopalmerio? I remember him.

(Here’s one indication of cultural issues at work: When the Secretariat for the Economy was established, both Italian and English were designated as working languages in order to expand the international talent pool. Coccopalmerio proposed eliminating English, arguing that if non-Italians need translation they can get it.)

Peripheries? Inclusiveness? Eh! Let ‘em learn Italian, capiche?

At the big-picture level, there are four major decisions Pope Francis has to make. Observers will read how they’re resolved as a referendum on Pell’s future as the point man for the pope’s reform project.

In his recommendations, Coccopalmerio suggested creating a four- or five-member council of cardinals to supervise the prefect of the Secretariat for the Economy, meaning the job held by Pell. The idea would be to create a body of cardinals to exercise oversight similar to the one responsible for the Vatican bank.

Such a move, however, would be at odds with the original vision for the structures launched by Francis a year ago, in which the prefect of the Secretariat for the Economy reports directly to the Council for the Economy, a 15-member body composed of cardinals and lay financial experts.

(It’s actually the only decision-making body in the Vatican where cardinals and laity enjoy full equality as voting members.)

One observer suggested that the actual motive for Coccopalmerio’s recommendation was to empanel “a group of Italian cardinals who can control this Australian,” thereby, perhaps, preserving at least some aspects of past practice.

How about a five-member band of Italian locals to oversee that new honest, respectable no-nonsense Financial Czar charade? That will take care of that!



... ]]>
Wed, 25 Feb 2015 00:00:00 GMT
<![CDATA[ Mercy and Communion: Ghana Abp. Palmer-Buckle Holds the Keys to Everything ]]>
Mercy and Communion: Ghana Abp. Palmer-Buckle Holds the Keys to Everything

By Frank Walker

Africa, that great source of faithful bishops and holy priests, just got three new FrancisCardinals.

I wonder if they are like this guy?

In the following far-ranging interview, Archbishop Charles G. Palmer-Buckle of Accra, Ghana, suggests that next October’s Synod might consider how “the power of the keys” (Mt. 16:19) could be employed to “unbind” those who have divorced and civilly remarried without a decree of annulment. He characterizes his thinking on this subject as “daring,” while pointing to numerous examples of Jesus extending mercy to society’s outcasts. He also wonders whether the sons and daughters of the Church don’t bear some responsibility for the stridency of the gay lobby through their dehumanizing attitudes.

Ghanaian bishops chose Archbishop Palmer-Buckle, 64, to be a participant in the Synod of Bishops, set to assemble at the Vatican October 4-25. Pope Francis confirmed his election in late January.

Did you hear that, faithful Catholic? It’s your fault that the gay lobby is ruthless!

In the interview Abp. Palmer-Buckle is asked about Communion and remarriage. He starts by explaining a great concept he learned once from a Protestant.

Q: But according to the doctrine of the Catholic Church, whatever your sin may be, one must be in a state of grace in order to receive the Holy Eucharist (CCC 1415).

I would have to admit that, over the centuries, we have made a very tough line in that context. I met a Protestant pastor once. We had a big discussion. He said that, in Matthew 16, Jesus gave the power of the keys to Peter, saying: “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

According to this Protestant pastor friend of mine, he said that, because of this, in some of the Protestant churches they believe that Christ gave them power to unbind those who have bound themselves in some marriages that are irregular, that are difficult, that are counter-productive, and to allow them to go within another context.

So, you see, it’s an interpretation. We have interpreted it to mean that, yes, the Church has the power of the keys, but not in this particular context of marriages. Therefore, the marriage must go through the whole channel and be annulled before [the couple] are allowed to go further. I think we are going to look at what “the power of the keys” could mean in this context.

Q: How would that be reconciled with the Lord’s words: “What God has joined together, let no man put asunder.”

That is true. What God has joined together. In fact, it is not “let no man put asunder,” but “what God has joined, no man can put asunder. No man can put asunder what God has joined together, and it is true. But then the same Jesus says: “Whatever you bind on earth is bound in heaven, whatever you loose on earth is loosed in heaven.” So what did he mean by that? Are they two statements that contradict one another?

You see the Church’s power to bind and loose is more than just a power to absolve sins. It’s a power to change right and wrong itself!

Q: Well, Your Excellency, they can’t contradict one another if the Lord said them, because He is Truth.

They cannot contradict one another, so we are going to have to find out through prayer what to do. I believe that every institution like the Church must have rules and regulations. But the rules and regulations are ideals, points of arrival. They are the perfection to which we aspire. However, we are walking on, and when we fall we should be able to rise and to go ahead. And that is why the Pope is asking us: How do we help people whose marriages are broken down beyond repair to rise up, get the medicine they need, and continue walking?

Are we going to keep them perpetually feeling guilty about themselves and about the children they’ve had thereafter, and so on. Do we help them that way? Is God not all mercy? It’s only in God that justice and mercy meet and embrace. We are only his instruments, so I believe very strongly that we should be able to say: “Lord, this is the situation but we lift it up to you in your great mercy, and allow them.” It’s going to be tough, but we may have to do that.

It’s daring to say what I’m saying.


Yes, you’re daring, Archbishop. You’re downright frightening.








... ]]>
Wed, 25 Feb 2015 00:00:00 GMT
<![CDATA[ Jesuit Jon Sobrino: The Liberation Theologist Who Escaped Martyrdom ]]>
Jesuit Jon Sobrino: The Liberation Theologist Who Escaped Martyrdom

By Frank Walker

So many interesting things would never see the light of day in the U.S. if it weren’t for rough Google translations.

Just last week a former secretary to the late Salvadoran Archbishop Oscar Romero made the two-fold claim that the Archbishop had no interest in the once-condemned Liberation Theology, and that he was murdered for preaching ‘a personal encounter with Jesus.’ How that would be criminal in a right-wing gov't, where practice of the Catholic faith was freely permitted, is never explained.

If the now ‘martyred’ Archbishop had no interest in Liberation Theology, why do all its proponents hold him up as an example?

The Spanish-Basque liberation theologian and Jesuit Jon Sobrino is this week visiting our country. Tomorrow he testifies at 19 o'clock in the Resurrection Chapel near the European Parliament in Brussels about his relationship with Oscar Romero, who will soon be beatified. Sobrino was a supporter and personal adviser to the murdered Salvadoran Bishop Oscar Romero. He escaped on November 16, 1989 itself but just to death when a death squad six Jesuits, including the rector of the university, killed in the garden of the University of Central America. The liberation theologian, for whom the attack was intended, coincidentally was abroad.

Jon Sobrino was on December 27, 1937 from Basque parents born in Spain. In 1957 he settled in El Salvador. He studied theology in Germany, where he graduated with his right mate, the dogmatist Erhard Kunz. Sobrino was an advisor of Archbishop Oscar Romero, who from 1977 until his death in 1980, Archbishop of San Salvador. During those turbulent years he taught at the University of Central America. He was on February 2, 1985 an honorary doctorate from the Catholic University of Leuven.

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith started in 2001 a study of his writings because of the positions on the divine nature of Jesus in his book "Jesus the Liberator" (1991) and "Christ the Redeemer" (1999). This resulted in a 2007 notification of the congregation in which some of the propositions of the Jesuit Jon Sobrino "wandering and dangerous" were called. Sobrino then got a temporary teaching and publication ban.

So the Pope Benedict CDF called Sobrino ‘wandering and dangerous.’ One abdication and two short years later he’s sort of a living Catholic martyr?


... ]]>
Tue, 24 Feb 2015 00:00:00 GMT
<![CDATA[ <i>FLASH</i>: Thug Pontificate Follows Papal Abdication ]]>
FLASH: Thug Pontificate Follows Papal Abdication

By Frank Walker

Lawrence England has weighed in on the latest outrage from the Vatican: the threats of litigation against a volunteer blogger because he called out heresy.

The Fr Thomas Rosica 'case' now covered by quite a few sites disturbs me greatly. The idea that a Catholic layperson can voice his concerns at what certainly appears to be the public statement of doctrinal positions that deviate from the Magisterium, only to then be issued with a lawsuit from a priest is quite unbelievable.

This news ties in with the latest reports of the wrecking ball approach of the Commissioner of the Franciscans of the Immaculate. This is getting really very ugly. A papacy that was meant to embody 'mercy' more and more appears to be used - by some at least -as a smokescreen for a new and brutal era that seems well suited to thugs or nightclub bouncers.

     'That man criticised me, because my own words make me look and sound heretical. Sue that man!'

In the absence of a sense of right doctrine at the top levels of the Church, England detects a moral vacuum.

Apparently, Fr Thomas Rosica can spout whatever nonsense he likes on Twitter - or other media outlets - and everyone has to accept it without complaint, even if it insults God, Our Lady and St Joseph. What we are seeing now is in stark contrast to the Benedictine approach. The new regime seems to talk the talk about mercy, but walk a different walk that sees might as right, even though if you ask them to give a clear answer on good and evil, and the difference between the two, they offer very little advice. Strange that, isn't it? I suppose that a new atmosphere and a new 'springtime' in the Church regarding moral and doctrinal issues could leave certain prelates and priests confused, giving them a conducive environment in which to exercise their baser, more brutal, more violent sides.

A leading member of Fr. Rosica’s order in Canada shocked the faithful Catholic press this week when he tweeted that beloved Cardinal Raymond Burke, who has been so outspoken against some of the Synod agenda, should simply ‘STFU’. This betrays a glaring lack of Christian sentiment, and a ‘thuggish’ tyrannical approach.

England captions the tweet:

People are still confused as to what STFU means. Does it mean 'Surrender to Francis Unconditionally?'

Cardinal Donald Wuerl and others are very good at talking about compassion and mercy but then go onto attack other bishops as 'dissenters', while not taking time to tell us who or what they are dissenting to. Is it the Bishop of Rome they are dissenting to or the timeless teaching of the Eternal Word of God, Jesus Christ and His Church? It is rather important to ascertain whether 'dissenting' bishops are being loyal to Jesus Christ by voicing concern over the 'agenda' promoted in the pontificate of Pope Francis.

While we are on the subject of 'agendas', is it really appropriate for the Pope to say that the issue of married priests 'is on my agenda'? Does the Vicar of Christ really have an 'agenda'? I think it is safe to say that Pope Francis does have an agenda, not far down the list of which seems to be the habitual insulting and public denigration of priests, seminarians and other Catholic Christians he thinks don't live up to the mark. Questioning, in public, the psychological state or moral state of 'traditionalist' seminarians is, I think, pretty outrageous and an insult to the intelligence of Catholics. Has it escaped His Holiness's notice that the former Bishop of our Diocese and others now known as notorious were not particularly 'traditionalist'. I don't recall the abusive priests and scandalous bishops or those who covered up serial abuse in Belgium and Ireland and the US being 'traditionalist', but I suppose it would be unhelpful to let truth get in the way of a good old fashioned smear campaign.

Whatever is going on in Rome, it doesn't appear to be the way of Jesus at all, and stands in stark contrast to the humble way of Francis's predecessor. All this ugliness now starts to make sense if the truth of Jesus Christ is not placed firmly at the top of the Pope's 'agenda' and moral confusion is allowed to flourish in Rome.

“A Pontificate for Thugs” - the expression is historic.

Lies, slander, heavy secular media, and force are key to the Pope’s goals. What would we expect to follow a faithful and gentle Pope who was moved to abdicate out of weakness.




... ]]>
Tue, 24 Feb 2015 00:00:00 GMT
<![CDATA[ FrancisChurch Agenda: Step 1: Back Up. Step 2: Back Up More ]]>
FrancisChurch Agenda: Step 1: Back Up. Step 2: Back Up More

By Frank Walker

The American Catholic’s Donald McClarey runs an excerpt from vaticanista Andrea Gagliarducci where he highlights the striking similarities between the FrancisChurch agenda and the monstrous 60/70s era.

There is a whole world of expectations behind Pope Francis. It’s as if the Church of 1968 has broken out again. With one difference. The Church’s ’68 was characterized by the publication of the controversial Dutch catechism and by post-Vatican II theological drifts. Paul VI responded to this crisis by issuing the encyclical “Humanae Vitae” and by proclaiming the Year of Faith that culminated with the Creed of the People of God. This time Pope Francis began his pontificate with the Year of Faith and in the end faces the typical hot button issues of the post-conciliar period that are now in vogue again.

And so outdated topics of debate have returned to center stage in the Church. The need for the Church to be less centralized formed the agenda of many progressive theologians after the Second Vatican Council. Decades later a dossier with the reforms needed to achieve this goal was compiled by the Bologna School, a group of scholars that interprets the Second Vatican Council as a rupture with the Church’s tradition, and this file was sent on at least three occasions to the Cardinals before they gathered for the conclave that elected Francis.

Other current topics that can be traced back to the debates immediately following Vatican II include the need for a more merciful opening to homosexual couples and a more compassionate application of the doctrine of marriage.

These – and many other – doctrinal leaps forward were halted by Blessed Paul VI. St. John Paul II blocked them with the enthusiasm of one who loved the Church’s teachings but who, at the same time, was able to be close to people. Benedict XVI elevated doctrine to a higher level, with the energy of one who loves the truth and thinks that the greatest mercy possible is to equip people with the truth.

Three Popes were not enough to shelve a whole generation of post-conciliar theology intended to foster a non-Roman Church – despite the fact that it bears the title of the Apostolic Roman Catholic Church.

Anyone faithful Catholic over forty with eyes to see knows that we have already lived through this type of papal ‘agenda.’ We’ve watched the world come apart and seen the damage in our own lives and in others'.

In a paragraph McClarey says it all:

For those of us of a certain vintage, the current pontificate is so disheartening because we have sat through this all before. The attempt during the sixties and early seventies to modernize, make the Church more relevant and “pastoral”, and what crimes have been committed in the name of that word, was a flat disaster with the emptying of pews, plummeting ordinations and the sacrifice of the mass celebrated in many places with all the awe and ceremony of a Tupperware party. We do not want to repeat that performance again and Pope Francis gives every sign of assuming, just like the advocates of socialism, this time we will get it right. No, you will not. You will merely neuter the Church for a time, spread chaos and destroy the faith of hundreds of millions.

It’s hard to imagine what type of cocoon one would have to emerge from in order to apply the Pope’s set of goals with the enthusiasm that he does, but he aims to go much further than the deadly 70’s.

Francis seems to have something in mind that resembles a fully-empowered United Nations with a veneer of politically correct beliefs which people have been groomed into thinking are Christian. He may have some spiritual rationale but his vision is worldly. 

With churches sold off at lightening pace and no young people in sight it's not hard to see what things will be like in twenty years.  Imagine secular colleges, frightening hospitals, government cubicles, and plenty of high-level meetings.


... ]]>
Tue, 24 Feb 2015 00:00:00 GMT
<![CDATA[ No. Pius XI Was Not Somewhat of a Collectivist ]]>
No. Pius XI Was Not Somewhat of a Collectivist

By Frank Walker

Scratch the surface of what many Catholic writers call social teaching magisterium and you can find surprises.

Perhaps prompted by nervousness about the agenda of Pope Francis, recently there has been a flurry of activity pushing the compatibility of Catholicism with capitalism. In a recent op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, Tim Busch—trustee of the Catholic University of America—praises the power of free markets to lift people out of poverty. In his view, the free-market system advances the virtues enshrined in Catholic social teaching, and is therefore superior to “collectivist” economic systems in which big government impinges on personal freedom.

Busch presents a false dichotomy. Who does not oppose the collectivism associated with the oppressive Marxist regimes of the twentieth century? Catholic social teaching has always staked out a middle-ground position that opposes the excesses of collectivism on the one hand, and laissez-faire individualism on the other—the “twin rocks of shipwreck,” as Pope Pius XI put it in Quadragesimo anno (1931).

The Catholic Church has always taught that the right to private property is never absolute, and must always be subordinated to common use—making sure that the needs of all are met. And while collectivism can elevate common use at the expense of private ownership, free-market individualism errs in the opposite direction. Writing at the time of the Great Depression, Pius XI was particularly blunt: “The right ordering of economic life cannot be left to a free competition of forces,” he said. “For from this source, as from a poisoned spring, have originated and spread all the errors of individualist economic teaching.”

This tired old screed is a lie. The Church has not always drawn a line between collectivism and free individualism. No-one even thought in these terms until the 19th century. The Church has always taught against greed and for true charity, and they have stood for property rights since at least the days of Moses.

Nothing has changed and you can’t blame Piux XI who also said in Quadragesimo anno:

In order to place definite limits on the controversies that have arisen over ownership and its inherent duties there must be first laid down as foundation a principle established by Leo XIII: The right of property is distinct from its use. That justice called commutative commands sacred respect for the division of possessions and forbids invasion of others' rights through the exceeding of the limits of one's own property; but the duty of owners to use their property only in a right way does not come under this type of justice, but under other virtues, obligations of which "cannot be enforced by legal action." Therefore, they are in error who assert that ownership and its right use are limited by the same boundaries; and it is much farther still from the truth to hold that a right to property is destroyed or lost by reason of abuse or non-use.

In citing and supporting Leo XIII, Pius XI is certainly not advocating some partial form of collectivism here or expressing legal 'limits' on property rights. He’s simply affirming that a Christian has the moral duty to use property in the exercise of virtue and charity. Collectivism would ‘enforce by legal action’ such duties and Pope Pius condemns this.

Slogans which misrepresent authoritative sources are no help. The Church does not want us to have some collectivism and some property rights. It wants us to use our full property rights in ways that aren’t greedy or individualistic, accumulating enormous wealth for our own sake and depriving others of the benefits of property.

There’s nothing in Quadragesimo anno which says Pius XI or Leo XIII wanted governments to do any of that for us.




... ]]>
Tue, 24 Feb 2015 00:00:00 GMT
<![CDATA[ <i>FLASH:</i> Thug Pontificate Follows Papal Abdication; FrancisChurch Agenda: Step 1: Back Up. Step 2: Back Up More; Jesuit Jon Sobrino: The Liberation Theologist Who Escaped Martyrdom; No. Pius XI Was Not Somewhat of a Collectivist ]]>
PewSitter NewsBytes

By Frank Walker

FLASH: Thug Pontificate Follows Papal Abdication


FrancisChurch Agenda: Step 1: Back Up. Step 2: Back Up More


Jesuit Jon Sobrino: The Liberation Theologist Who Escaped Martyrdom


No. Pius XI Was Not Somewhat of a Collectivist



... ]]>
Tue, 24 Feb 2015 00:00:00 GMT
<![CDATA[ Happy Chinese Ash Wednesday from Cd. Tagle; False Dichotomies And Straw Men: Francis Is Very Good At What He Does; Wanted: New Knights of the Holy Tabernacle; Synod 2015: Vox Cantoris Stirs the Hornets’ Nest ]]>
PewSitter NewsBytes

By Frank Walker

Happy Chinese Ash Wednesday from Cardinal Tagle


False Dichotomies And Straw Men: Francis Is Very Good At What He Does


Wanted: New Knights of the Holy Tabernacle;


Synod 2015: Vox Cantoris Stirs the Hornets’ Nest




... ]]>
Thu, 19 Feb 2015 00:00:00 GMT
<![CDATA[ Happy Chinese Ash Wednesday from Cardinal Tagle ]]>
Happy Chinese Ash Wednesday from Cardinal Tagle

By Frank Walker

When will the bishops of the Church stop doing clever things in order to disable it? Cannot the start of Lent begin with a fast? Do they not see the frustrated desire even among marginal Catholics and Protestants to do penance and observe Ash Wednesday?

As the eve of the Lunar New Year coincides with Ash Wednesday, the Archdiocese of Manila allowed certain members of its faithful to be exempted from the holy obligation of fasting and abstinence at the start of the Lenten season.

“We grant dispensation from the obligation of fasting and abstinence to our Chinese-Filipino and Chinese Catholics in the Archdiocese of Manila from the afternoon of February 18, 2015 until midnight,” Manila Archbishop Luis Antonio Cardinal Tagle said in a circular dated February 6.

So if you’re ten percent Chinese you’re off the hook in the Philippines.

Tagle said that this dispensation was made “in view of the celebration of the Chinese Lunar New Year, its cultural and spiritual importance and the traditional practices associated with it.”

However, those who will avail of the dispensation must engage themselves in other forms of penance and acts of mercy and charity to the poor and suffering to keep with the penitential spirit of the season of Lent, he further noted.

There we go. Cardinal Tagle has been very vocal about avoiding useless observances that do nothing to further his social agenda. What is the point of paining ourselves when we could be helping our poor marginalized bretheren who suffer from years-old typhoons and earthquakes and need Caritas?

Why did Jesus die on the cross? What a bunch of unproductive suffering! We must channel ourselves for the common good you know, and Chinese New Year is as good an excuse as any.




... ]]>
Thu, 19 Feb 2015 00:00:00 GMT
<![CDATA[ False Dichotomies And Straw Men: Francis Is Very Good At What He Does ]]>
False Dichotomies And Straw Men: Francis Is Very Good At What He Does

By Frank Walker

The Remnant’s Megaera Erinyes has an excellent piece this week on Pope Francis, that master of the false dichotomy. Writers lament his clumsy utterances and faithful Catholics recoil at his un-Catholic assertions, but he is the absolute best at twisting the Faith of Christ into something completely alien. He is very, very good at Liberation Theology.

If Pope Benedict was made pope for his skill in presenting the Faith, rival Francis must have been elected for his talent at misrepresentation.

Some excerpts:

   Lord, if you choose, you can make me clean"… Jesus, moved with compassion, stretched out his hand and touched him, and said: "I do choose. Be made clean!" (Mk 1:40-41). The compassion of Jesus! That com-passion which made him draw near to every person in pain! Jesus does not hold back; instead, he gets involved in people’s pain and their need… for the simple reason that he knows and wants to show com-passion, because he has a heart unashamed to have "compassion".

Francis uses the starting point, the fundamental premise, of the Kasperites, uses their terminology and repeats their accusations against anyone who would dare to uphold or defend the traditional doctrine of the Church. We start with the set-up: the Kasperite revolutionaries always present a putative “compassion” or “mercy” as the reason the “rules” of withholding Communion from public sexual sinners – always depicted as essentially meaningless, arbitrary or at least “outdated” – must be overturned or, as in Kasper’s own plan, simply ignored. This is illustrated with the repeated reference to the analogy of the medicinal, curative aspect of God’s mercy, the Church as the “field hospital” of mercy.

What is never mentioned is the necessity of repentance, or what repentance actually is. “Mercy” – with the concept of justice carefully excised – is always depicted as the only action of God’s will for Man. Justice, and therefore the requirement of repentance – the metanoia, the definitive turning away of the individual from his sin – is simply denied. God is depicted as having no interest in justice. The very notion of “justice” is presented as anathema to a “merciful” God.

Instead, we have Pope Francis equating obedience to God in his divine law as injustice, lack of mercy, “marginalization”:

   Jesus could no longer go into a town openly, but stayed in the country; and people came to him from every quarter" (Mk1:45). This means that Jesus not only healed the leper but also took upon himself the marginalization enjoined by the law of Moses (cf. Lev 13:1-2, 45-46). Jesus is unafraid to risk sharing in the suffering of others; he pays the price of it in full (cf. Is53:4).

In the expression “marginalisation enjoined by the law of Moses” we have an unmistakable conflation. The law of the Church is of no more moment to Francis’ “true” Christians than the old Mosaic dietary laws, to be overturned by this primacy of Christ’s “compassion” and “mercy”. Of course what is being left out are the words of Christ Himself who said that the Law of Moses was not overturned, but that He was Himself the fulfillment of that old law, and that to love Him we must obey his commandments.

Moreover, what is being forgotten is that Christ Himself said, in so many words, that divorce was allowed by the old law out of the “hardness of hearts.” It would mean, therefore, that it is the need of softening of hearts under Christ’s own new dispensation that makes marriage indissoluble. One of the major problems the Kasper faction have to face is that the injunction against divorce and “remarriage” was clear and explicit and in the very words of the King and Creator of the Universe.

Then later on:

It is hard to overstate the irony here of a pope suggesting that the plain words of Christ can be overturned or ignored in order to apply the “mercy” of Christ for those who have “marginalized” themselves out of their refusal to obey His commandment – a commandment, moreover, that he gave specifically in order to remedy “hardness of heart”.

If we show our love for Christ by obedience to His commandments, what does the refusal to obey indicate? What does the desire to change the entire practice of the Church to approve that disobedience indicate? It is a frightening thought.

Pope Francis continues:

   Compassion leads Jesus to concrete action: he reinstates the marginalized! These are the three key concepts that the Church proposes in today’s liturgy of the word: the compassion of Jesus in the face of marginalization and his desire to reinstate.

   Marginalization: Moses, in his legislation regarding lepers, says that they are to be kept alone and apart from the community for the duration of their illness. He declares them: "unclean!" (cf. Lev 13:1-2, 45-46).

The obvious implication here is that it is the “compassion” of Christ that leads the charge to “reinstate” those who have, because of the silly and arbitrary, unmerciful “rules,” been cast out of the Church. Anyone who expects a sinner to repent – to turn permanently away from his sins – is one of the wicked people heartlessly ostracizing poor, sick people who cannot help themselves, pointing at them and shouting “unclean”.

With the equation of the sexual sinner, the adulterer, the co-habitor, the active homosexual – a person who, in reality, has used his will to refuse the forgiving mercy of Christ – with the leper who is powerless to stop being a leper, we have the papal condemnation of anyone who wants to uphold the need for repentance as a needful precursor to God’s mercy.

We are the truly wicked, those who would unjustly refuse – for the sake of a few outdated and incomprehensible “rules” – to welcome back the poor innocent sufferer who has been unwillingly infected by a disease. We are, in effect, wicked enough that we would cast out and condemn someone for being sick.

You can see the rest of Erinyes’ deconstruction of the FrancisChurch doctrine here. There is a method to the Pope’s use and abuse of the Gospel and it can be summed up in one word, “attack”. Attack the faithful. Attack the truth. Attack the Gospel through false dichotomies and straw men.

Using a proven technique, if you hammer away persistently you can demolish anything. You just have to keep swinging. "Good Catholics are Pharisees, good Catholics are Pharisees!"

Before you know it you’ve got a dizzy sick Church that doesn’t know what it is anymore, but it sure has an idea what it’s not. Cut loose from its moorings it will only take a shove or two to topple it and plant something awful in its place.

Like Cardinal Kasper says, Francis isn't a liberal.  He's a radical.



... ]]>
Thu, 19 Feb 2015 00:00:00 GMT
<![CDATA[ Wanted: New Knights of the Holy Tabernacle ]]>
Wanted: New Knights of the Holy Tabernacle

By Frank Walker

Once in Manhattan I stopped in St. Agnes Church and prayed in the middle of the day. There was no-one there but me. The entire city was gridlocked because Bill Clinton was speaking to the UN, but not another soul was before that altar. It was quiet, and it was the most beautiful Church I’d ever seen. Those heavy old wooden doors swung right open. They weren’t locked like they all are back home.

Something is really wrong when people can’t walk into a Church and kneel before Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament. In all of Christian history could things have ever been this bad?

When parishioners in the French Diocese of Bellay-Ars enter church these days, they might not have to genuflect.

That’s because the bishop has ordered churches to empty their tabernacles of the reserved Eucharist.

The diocese, situated in the Rhone-Alpes region of France, has been beset with church break-ins and theft of ciboria from their tabernacles. In some cases, thieves have left sacred Hosts behind; in others, they took them with the precious vessels.

This has happened 10 times since last October, with five incidents in the first week of February alone.

How many French are keen to desecrate Churches today? Do their doors not lock?

“The Church invites every Christian to pray for forgiveness and repentance of those who committed these acts,” the diocese said in a statement, calling the theft of the hosts a “desecration of extreme gravity.”

Bishop Pascal Roland has ordered parishes to keep consecrated hosts in secure places rather than in tabernacles, the UK Catholic newspaper The Tablet. The bishop:

... told priests to leave tabernacles open to show they contain no valuable ciboria. Hosts could be left in the tabernacle if it is made of metal and securely locked, he said, or if enough believers are present to deter thieves.

It’s so common these days for authorities to make new crimes into an excuse to impose some cruel policy. First the faithful were locked out of Church. Now it’s Our Lord Himself. How can there be a Catholic Church with no Blessed Sacrament? Will Jesus be kept in a drawer in the sacristy? Must every single good thing in the world give way to terrorists, even the greatest good?

I would think a locked metal tabernacle would or could be standard, so why not use them if that is sufficient? But if parishioners must now guard churches in order to retain the Blessed Sacrament then so be it. The Church could use such faithful guards. Their numbers would surely grow to their point where every Hell-bound desecrator is locked out of France.


... ]]>
Thu, 19 Feb 2015 00:00:00 GMT
<![CDATA[ Synod 2015: Vox Cantoris Stirs the Hornets' Nest ]]>
Synod 2015: Vox Cantoris Stirs the Hornets' Nest

By Frank Walker

Writers are speculating that the new FrancisChurch is taking concrete steps to prevent the 'misteps' of last year’s Synod, meaning 'silence the remaining free press'.

It’s not for nothing that Canadian blogger Vox Cantoris has been threatened with a lawsuit. He has been taking it straight to the trouble:

Father Tom Rosica is a spokesman for the Vatican. One would presume that someone in such an important and sensitive and influential position would be prudent with his personal opinions and the use of social media. It leaves one to ask an honest question; Is this his own opinion? Is it that of Father Lombardi's and the Office of Social Communication? Is it the Holy Father's? Or is it an attempt to smear and obfuscate the truth. I've written elsewhere that the tactics of Saul Alinsky are not unknown to this cleric.

In the post one below, I wrote that if one sends a "Re-Tweet" it would imply that one would agree with the original.

Cardinal Wuerl is interviewed by Andrea Tornielli in Vatican Insider. While Wuerl does not single out Cardinal Burke directly he does allude to "an interview" and "an article." It seems to have left no doubt in Tornielli; mind since he lead with a headline linking Cardinal Burke within "dissenters." This no doubt refers to a recent interview with Cardinal Burke where he stated that he would "resist" hypothetically an attempt by the pope to change the law on Holy Communion for the divorced and remarried without an annulment.

How disingenuous is it of Cardinal Wuerl to suggest that Cardinal Burke is a dissenter, which would include your writer and probably you as well. There was a time when the word meant someone that dissented from the truth of the faith. Now it seems to mean that it is someone who upholds it.

Why do evil deeds require the cover of darkness even when a majority approve?  How far can they go to black out the small lights of Christ?



... ]]>
Thu, 19 Feb 2015 00:00:00 GMT
<![CDATA[ 50 Shades, Islam, and the Absence of Heroic Purpose; St. Pat’s Parade: Wrong Gay Group, Cd. Dolan! Ecumenical Martyrs: Does ISIS Decide Who Died for the Faith? New FrancisCardinal: Pro-Sacrilege, Staunch Anti-Capitalist ]]>
PewSitter NewsBytes

By Frank Walker


50 Shades of Grey, Islam, and the Absence of Heroic Purpose


Ecumenical Martyrs: Does ISIS Decide Who Died for the Faith?


St. Pat’s Parade: Wrong Gay Group, Cd. Dolan!


New FrancisCardinal: Pro-Sacrilege, Staunch Anti-Capitalist



... ]]>
Wed, 18 Feb 2015 00:00:00 GMT
<![CDATA[ 50 Shades of Grey, Islam, and the Absence of Heroic Purpose ]]>
50 Shades of Grey, Islam, and the Absence of Heroic Purpose

By Frank Walker

People are beginning to come somewhat to grips with the cultural suffocation which has led to Islamic victory over the West. (I think this victory is close to complete, since an embedded Muslim minority has never integrated into any society. If not completely removed, as it was once in Spain, it violently persists until it prevails. Victory can be surprisingly quick and permanent.)

Some blame these conquests on a crisis of faith and some see a crisis of manhood. I would add to this an applied feminism since any man may be undone by a mother or wife. Unmanly men and unwomanly women are mutually destructive.

I put the ultimate blame a crisis of the faith, but this crisis is from the faith’s emasculation. Our Catholicism has been rendered impotent.  This kind of faith has no virility so it cannot live or grow. It is dying from a lack of real virtue (a word also derived from the Latin ‘vir’, or ‘man’.) Shrunken debased men long for high sacrificial purpose and women wish they could find true men of virtue. If they can't do that, women dream the men they know would change. We can see that at the box office.

Writing at St. Austin Review about the sad '50 Shades of Grey' phenomenon, Kevin O’Brien is onto something true.

I think there is a connection between Fifty Shades of Grey and the Islamic State, and it's not the obvious one: the fact that devout Muslims, like devout Christians, would see sexual perversion and pornography as decadent and sinful. No, there's something deeper than that.

Concerning Fifty Shades of Grey, I recently wrote to a friend of mine ...

The young secular women I know see absolutely nothing wrong with it. It's porn with a story, which is the kind of porn women like. [Men prefer their porn without a story; women prefer theirs with a story].

Having not seen it, I can only judge from what I'm hearing. It is, first of all, shocking that perversion has become so mainstream that normal suburban young women get a thrill out of the degradation of women that BDSM portrays.

The movie also shows up the contradiction at the heart of liberalism. The left wants both uninhibited lust and also respect for the dignity of women. You can't have both. You can't even have men with dignity under these conditions.

Of course, defenders of the movie say that the story is about a consensual relationship, that if a woman submits to being degraded and abused, it's OK as long as she does so willingly.

But that's exactly the point. Masochism is thrilling because it's a form of willful submission.   It's like riding a roller coaster. You can have the excitement of being swept up and down and side to side while being safely locked in to your seat. The vacillations of the ride itself are beyond your control, but choosing to experience these thrills are within your control, and that bar is in place, giving you an assurance of safety.

It is that willful submission that is the key to the link with radical Islam.

O’Brien goes on to list writers who have attempted to explain the film’s appeal and the attraction of BDSM eventually landing on Orwell and his understanding of fascism. Hitler’s call was one of complete submission.

The emotional appeal of the radicals of the Islamic State is that they take their religion seriously, and that it is a religion that calls for radical submission and that promises both a temporal and an eternal fulfillment.  It is a religion that appeals to a deep need in human nature.  It is a religion of black and white, with zero shades of gray.

But what we are learning from the soccer moms who masturbate to BDSM porn-with-a-story is that it's not the gray that appeals to them emotionally.  It's something of a far darker and a far deeper shade.  It is something, in fact, that would not be dark, nor would it be deeply buried, if it were properly channeled and worked out in the world.

This masochistic urge, this desire willfully to place ourselves in a situation where our will is limited and constrained, is deeply and mysteriously connected to submission (which is what the word "Islam" means), to the desire to humble oneself before something or someone greater.  When that need is frustrated, it turns very dark, and men like Hitler and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi - and the fictional Christian Grey - take advantage of it.

For when we have no god to submit to, and no men to admire, the world slides from gray to black very quickly.

We must resurrect the true Catholic man of faith, the Christian knight, and the Ancient Mass.  But first we must put a stop to princes of the Church who submit to the World.




... ]]>
Wed, 18 Feb 2015 00:00:00 GMT
<![CDATA[ St. Pat's Parade: Wrong Gay Group, Cd. Dolan! ]]>
St. Pat's Parade: Wrong Gay Group, Cd. Dolan!

By Frank Walker

Gay groups continue to complain even after they pressured Cardinal Dolan and the St. Patrick’s Day Parade organizers to let a pro-gay group, OUT@NBC, to march this year.

Apparently it’s not the type of gay group that was desired.

NEW YORK, Feb 17 (Reuters) - Gay rights activists and elected officials said on Tuesday they would continue to protest New York City's main St. Patrick's Day parade even as organizers prepared to let a gay group carry a banner this year for the first time in the parade's history.

The problem, they say, is that the group, an organization of gay NBCUniversal employees, does not represent gay Irish-American people at an event that marks the most prominent celebration of Irish heritage in the United States.

"The issue has never been about having a gay group in the parade," Daniel Dromm, a City Council member, said at a news conference outside City Hall where he was joined by Irish Queers, a group that has organized annual protests of the parade. "It has always been about having an Irish gay group in the parade. For the parade organizers to try to pull this trickery by allowing an organization called OUT@NBC to march in the parade is not a solution."

So it was the “Irish Queers” who did the pressuring. Now they want the St. Patrick’s Day spoils.




... ]]>
Wed, 18 Feb 2015 00:00:00 GMT
<![CDATA[ Ecumenical Martyrs: Does ISIS Decide Who Died for the Faith? ]]>
Ecumenical Martyrs: Does ISIS Decide Who Died for the Faith?

By Frank Walker

The critical blog, “Call Me Jorge” takes issue with a paragraph from the Pope’s response to the recent beheading of 21 Copts on a beach in Libya.

From 16 February 2015, Francis' Address to the Moderator and Representatives of the Church of Scotland:

I would now like to turn to my native tongue to express feelings of profound sorrow. Today I read about the execution of those twenty-one or twenty-two Coptic Christians. Their only words were: “Jesus, help me!”. They were killed simply for the fact that they were Christians. You, my brother, in your words referred to what is happening in the land of Jesus. The blood of our Christian brothers and sisters is a testimony which cries out to be heard. It makes no difference whether they be Catholics, Orthodox, Copts or Protestants. They are Christians! Their blood is one and the same. Their blood confesses Christ. As we recall these brothers and sisters who died only because they confessed Christ, I ask that we encourage each another to go forward with this ecumenism which is giving us strength, the ecumenism of blood. The martyrs belong to all Christians.

After noting that the Pope actually said, “Copts or Lutherans” and not “Copts or Protestants,” the blogger goes on to cite a vital quote from the 1438 Council of Florence regarding what constitutes an actual martyr:

It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.

Why is this teaching from a clear Council of the Church, and other magisterium like it, so utterly dismissed today? Why does the Pope proclaim martyrs where in fact they are in doubt, and then extend the term even to Lutherans?

In the Church of Francis, is there any point in living and dying as a Catholic, or do you just have to be what ISIS considers Christian?


... ]]>
Wed, 18 Feb 2015 00:00:00 GMT
<![CDATA[ New FrancisCardinal: Pro-Sacrilege, Staunch Anti-Capitalist ]]>
New FrancisCardinal: Pro-Sacrilege, Staunch Anti-Capitalist

By Frank Walker

The Eponymous Flower reports:

The  Vatican expert, Giacomo Galeazzi   conducted an interview with the previously little-known Archbishop of Ancona, Msgr. Edoardo Menichelli, whom Pope Francis has made a cardinal this past Saturday. The interview was published by  Vatican Insider. Cardinal Menichelli is considered a "veteran of the Progressives" (Huffington Post).He was for many years the personal secretary of Cardinal Achille Silvestrini, a "herald of Ostpolitik" (Huffington Post). Now is following the critique of capitalism which coincides with papal statements and the reception of Alexis Tsipras by Pope Francis.

Tsipras is the new hard-left leader of Greece, warmly welcomed in the Vatican by Pope Francis recently.

Vaticanista Galeazzi wonders how Menichelli could have impressed Pope Francis since he is 75 and ready to retire. It seems he had an opportunity at last year’s Synod.

As the Italian weekly magazine Famiglia Cristiana, which lists in the same direction, wrote, Pope Francis wanted to "reward" the elevation to cardinal for those who show "commitment to the least" in a special way. Who is meant by the "least"? Menichelli is 75 and has already submitted his resignation. For which services he was rewarded left some observers to employ some guesswork. The hint maybe have even been provided by the Pope himself: Francis had appointed Menichelli personally at the Synod of Bishops Synod in October 2014. There, the Archbishop,   who took part in the sometimes heated debate, put in the word to give communion to "remarried" divorcees and for the aberrosexuals. Four months later, he is a Cardinal and papal elector.

The new cardinal seems to echo the Pope’s anti-capitalist rhetoric in his interview responses:

What aggravates the crisis?

If the money is at the center, the person loses importance and society becomes a desert of values. Society reduced to the mere finance kills and the damage is visible for all to see. The politicians should remember the people and not their parties. It requires solidarity and sobriety: a policy of work for all. One must start again, restore the dignity of the person and eliminate injustices in the last.

More involvement in the social?

The social dimension is part of faith. In "Evangelii gaudium" Francis warns against the ideologies that defend an absolute autonomy of markets and financial speculation. Already Benedict XVI. called for a political institution which returns the financial and monetary system to function, granting credit to the workers, families, businesses and local communities.

What more can the church do?

Charity must guide every action to rush to the aid of those who have lost their jobs, experience human suffering and risk losing their social identity. The Church is called to appear sensitive and attentive. It must not support political oligarchies who disregard the needs of civil society and create a distance between ruling class and the people. Globalisation is to align the common good. And the Church, "which goes forth," must always intervene against selfishness and relativism.

This is an exact replica of the Pope's continuous pseudo-magisterial moralizing on behalf of socialism, with some presumed agreement from Pope Benedict thrown in for credibility.  It's easy to see how he got the red hat.




... ]]>
Wed, 18 Feb 2015 00:00:00 GMT
<![CDATA[ The Ecumenical Martydom of the 21 Copts ]]>
The Ecumenical Martydom of the 21 Copts

By Frank Walker

Lawrence England of “These Bones..” blog feels Pope Francis has sullied the name of the 21 Coptic Martyrs even as he praised their witness for Christ.

To be filed under 'increasingly irritating'.

   "I would now like to turn to my native tongue to express feelings of profound sorrow. Today I read about the execution of those twenty-one or twenty-two Coptic Christians. Their only words were: 'Jesus, help me!' They were killed simply for the fact that they were Christians. You, my brother, in your words referred to what is happening in the land of Jesus. The blood of our Christian brothers and sisters is a testimony which cries out to be heard. It makes no difference whether they be Catholics, Orthodox, Copts or Protestants. They are Christians! Their blood is one and the same. Their blood confesses Christ. As we recall these brothers and sisters who died only because they confessed Christ, I ask that we encourage each another to go forward with this ecumenism which is giving us strength, the ecumenism of blood. The martyrs belong to all Christians." ~ Pope Francis

I agree with anyone who calls these valiant men martyrs for Jesus Christ. However, I do not think that the heroic deaths of these Coptic Christians, who died with the name of Jesus on their lips, should be exploited by anyone for any agenda whatsoever. It is wrong to shamelessly advance in the name of your own projects men's real sacrifices to further your agenda, namely, in this case - ecumenism. Cannot Churchmen just honour the lives and heroic deaths of these men and acknowledge that they didn't die for ecumenism. It is tasteless to hijack people's deaths for your own agenda and then announce it to be the 'ecumenism of blood'. They died for Jesus Christ. Their obvious martyrdom, their shining witness stands well enough for what it is. They didn't die for Vatican II projects of closer ecclesial relationships or any ecclesial project. They died for Jesus Christ.

“Increasingly Irritating” as well as painfully sad. How terrible a thing to use the name of Christ and the leadership of His Church to push an evil, soul-crushing agenda which honors and encourages heresy and apostasy!

Ecumenism is worthless and Christ would never put his name on it. It’s just a trick to hobble the Church and lead everyone into world-think.



... ]]>
Tue, 17 Feb 2015 00:00:00 GMT
<![CDATA[ Jihad On To Rome. Pray the Church Gets Leaders Who Care ]]>
Jihad On To Rome. Pray the Church Gets Leaders Who Care

By Frank Walker

Citing a HotAir piece, the American Catholic’s Donald McClarey re-states the plain fact that Islamic Jihad is having world-wide victory over the West again after all these years simply because it can.

Now, the point that the 21 men were beheaded for their faith isn’t exactly a subtlety in the ISIS propaganda video. The video title calls it “A Message Signed with Blood to the Nation of the Cross.” After beheading the Coptic Christian hostages, the Islamist terror leader threatens to “conquer Rome”:

“After the ISIS leader finishes speaking, his fellow terrorists then commence the beheading of the 21 Egyptian Christians. “And we will conquer Rome, by Allah’s permission, the promise of our Prophet, peace be upon him,” The militant leader says after his comrades slaughter the Christian hostages.

Get the point? Most did, but not so much the White House. In the statement released yesterday after the video emerged, the Obama administration declared its outrage over the murder of … “Egyptian citizens” (via Charlie Spiering and Jeryl Bier, emphases mine):

Go here to read the rest. Christians are being murdered around the globe and our useless and feckless President could care less. The Church, still in a haze of the post World War II de facto pacifism that ensures that murderers around the world assume that Christians are a soft target, can only prepare for a wave of new martyrs, no doubt soon among places where we live. Idiot Catholic bloggers decry drone strikes and any other effective military options against the murderers, having long ago forgotten, if they ever knew, that the cross of Christianity has ever to be protected by the sword of Christians. During this Lent we should pray for forgiveness of our sins. We should also pray for better leadership than those currently at our helm who stand by helplessly as Christians are butchered around the world and do not lift a finger in their defense.

Pacifism is nothing more than siding with the aggressor. In the Church Militant there is only fight or lose. If the White House and the powers that rule our world did not want ISIS to happen it would not be happening. God bless those leaders and soldiers who actually care and do not hate the Christian West.

Why is the Catholic Church so well-neutered? It does nothing to defend the temporal rights of the faithful. It’s in bed with all its enemies, taking their blood money. It can’t even ‘pastorally’ manifest what it believes before its own altars.


... ]]>
Tue, 17 Feb 2015 00:00:00 GMT
<![CDATA[ Where is the Praise for the New Crusaders? ]]>
Where is the Praise for the New Crusaders?

By Frank Walker

El Alarabiya reports:

Saint Michael, the archangel of battle, is tattooed across the back of a U.S. army veteran who recently returned to Iraq and joined a Christian militia fighting ISIS in what he sees as a biblical war between good and evil.

Brett, 28, carries the same thumb-worn pocket Bible he did whilst deployed to Iraq in 2006 - a picture of the Virgin Mary tucked inside its pages and his favorite verses highlighted.

“It’s very different,” he said, asked how the experiences compared. “Here I’m fighting for a people and for a faith, and the enemy is much bigger and more brutal.”

Thousands of foreigners have flocked to Iraq and Syria in the past two years, mostly to join ISIS, but a handful of idealistic Westerners are enlisting as well, citing frustration their governments are not doing more to combat the ultra-radical Islamists or prevent the suffering of innocents.

Crusaders! Where is the Pope’s praise?



... ]]>
Tue, 17 Feb 2015 00:00:00 GMT
<![CDATA[ Pope's Pseudo-Embrace of the Poor All About Control ]]>
Pope's Pseudo-Embrace of the Poor All About Control

By Frank Walker

Restore D.C. Catholicism takes issue with Cd. Maradiaga’s casual and continual promotion of that greedy, envious, and elitist monster called socialism. One can claim Catholic social teaching all day long but it doesn’t make an impenetrable ‘exhortation’ or a few skewed blurbs pulled out of a contemporary encyclical dogma.

I've written quite a bit about the harm that Cardinal Maradiaga is inflicting upon the Church: his dalliance with the World Social Forum, his encouragement of the encroachment of illegal aliens and his foolish embrace of "climate warming" (we could use a little warming right now, but I digress). Now consider that he is the head of the "gang of eight" prelates that are serving as top advisers to the pope.

Today the Catholic Herald UK gave details about remarks made by the cardinal at a book presentation recently. In the words of the Herald piece, "The book includes an interview with Pope Francis responding to accusations that he is a Marxist or a Communist because of his insistence that the economy, finance and free market must be controlled to ensure a greater distribution of the world’s wealth. A portion of the interview was published in January. 'I did not say anything that is not in the social teaching of the Church,' he said in the full interview."

This "insistence that the economy be controlled" begs some questions. First, who or what should be doing this "controlling"? That makes a world of difference. If that controlling is done by the government, well that is socialism by definition. And if the pope and cardinal think that socialism does not contradict Church teaching, what do they say about the words of previous pontiffs?

Further down the article, we see the cardinal grumbling about "bank officials" being allowed to retire comfortably and play golf while others are struggling. Again, who does this "allowing"? Have you ever noticed how these socialists like to couch their sentences in passive voice? When one uses passive voice in a sentence, the subject of the sentence is usually not mentioned as it would be in active voice. Thus we see things like "being controlled" and "being allowed", phrases that shift focus on the receiver of the "allowing" and "controlling" as opposed to the initiator of the action. If the initiator were made manifest, then most would see plainly the intentions of the Maradiagas of the world and rightfully reject them.

This is precisely true. When Pope Francis and Cardinal Maradiaga constantly hammer away at our ears on behalf of the long-suffering poor they are just using such people, and the Church, to shift power. They want it out of the hands of certain people, and into the hands of the government. It’s an old trick and it only works on fools. One would think that a faithful Catholic would not actually be a fool, but then I don’t find much real interest in faithful Catholics anywhere in this pontificate.

It bears repeating that Our Lord and St. Francis embraced poverty, NOT the poor. They showed charity in all things for everyone. They certainly didn’t bend ears for socialism (stealing of rights and property), and neither should we.

For that matter - Aren’t people deep in debt and compelled to pay high insurance and taxes, yet with no real means of production at their disposal, poor? Isn’t that almost everybody? If Pope Francis wants everyone to give more, do more, and ‘care’ more, isn’t he just demanding even more from us, the poor? That doesn’t sound very charitable, but it sure sounds like socialism. At least it might help someone in the peripheries?

By the way - if Maradiaga wants an image of a powerful person wantonly playing golf while people to whom he answers are suffering, I direct his attention to the picture at right. The Messiah Most Miserable has taken copious golf trips paid by the taxpayers of this country, many of whom are financially strapped owing to his draconian taxes, etc. When will Maradiaga rebuke him? The answer is "never" for he and Obama are of the same mind in all too many respects.

Back in the 80’s and 90’s it seemed that everyone was either enjoying the rewards of their hard work or appreciating whatever they’d been able to build. The only one who seems to feel inclined that way today is Obama.

Have you seen how hard it is for Pope Francis to get in and out of that Ford Focus?




... ]]>
Tue, 17 Feb 2015 00:00:00 GMT
<![CDATA[ The Ecumenical Martydom of the 21 Copts; Jihad On To Rome. Pray the Church Gets Leaders Who Care; Where is the Praise for the New Crusaders? Pope’s Pseudo-Embrace of the Poor All About Control ]]>
PewSitter NewsBytes

By Frank Walker


The Ecumenical Martydom of the 21 Copts


Jihad On To Rome. Pray the Church Gets Leaders Who Care


Where is the Praise for the New Crusaders?


Pope’s Pseudo-Embrace of the Poor All About Control




... ]]>
Tue, 17 Feb 2015 00:00:00 GMT
<![CDATA[ Cd. Napier: Curia Resisting Reforms Because They're Not Used to Accountability ]]>
Cd. Napier: Curia Resisting Reforms Because They're Not Used to Accountability

By Frank Walker

Catholic News Service reports:

A fairly smooth rollout of more effective and transparent budgeting procedures and accountability throughout the Vatican met with "a hiccup" when some of the larger entities "did not want to come on board" and were more "resistant" to mandated changes, said Cardinal Wilfrid F. Napier of Durban, South Africa.

He said one such office was the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples, which oversees the church's missionary activities. The 400-year-old congregation had its own budget, managed its own investments independent of the Vatican's main investment program and has its own office complex, located in downtown Rome a mile away from Vatican City.

"But it's the very big ones we need (to comply) so the little ones have a good example" to follow, he told Catholic News Service Feb. 10 in between meetings in Rome.

Cardinal Napier is one of eight cardinals and seven lay experts that are part of the Council for the Economy -- an independent authority Pope Francis established one year ago to devise appropriate policies and best practices for all economic and administrative activities within the Holy See and Vatican City State.

The Secretariat for the Economy, headed by Australian Cardinal George Pell, implements the policies determined by the council and answers directly to the Holy Father. The pope established the council and the secretariat as part of efforts to simplify, consolidate coordinate and oversee management structures throughout the Vatican and to improve the governance, control and reporting of the financial activities of the Vatican's different offices and bodies.

For years now the financial pressure on the Vatican has been intense. There have been continual reports of mismanagement, laundering, and fraud. Heads roll and sanctions are imposed. Restructuring, audits, and new measures for transparency and compliance are announced. Now the Gang of Nine is moving to consolidate financial and other management of major groups under a centralized authority.

What’s being lost however is autonomy. Why does the Vatican bank have to meet over-arching international reporting and ‘anti-terrorism’ standards? Nobody wants criminals running loose in the Vatican, but can’t they just handle things they’re own way? Are we supposed to believe that the Church is that much more corrupt than the regular Euro-bureaucrats and Wall Street Regulators? Why must the outside world have such intimate knowledge and control over the Church? Isn't the Vatican a sovereign nation?

It seems possible that a papacy might be able to handle more distributed management power and more subsidiarity. If everything is consolidated more directly under the Francis and moved into the exlusive hands of men like Cardinals Maradiaga, Marx, and O’Malley, and whoever runs the world’s banks, where is the gain?

Cardinal Napier said that on the whole, most people accepted they needed training in the new standardized practices and the council got "quite a lot of cooperation" from many departments.

However, larger agencies put up the most resistance, he said. "It's a culture shock to have to report to somebody other than themselves," especially when there had been so much autonomy and little accountability concerning the running of their financial activities.

The cardinal said it is "not surprising to get complaints" about the new procedures, particularly the requirement to account for and have the funding ready for purchases.

Getting used to what are standard practices in most companies requires "a mind shift and a change of heart," he said.

People who have not had to deal with budgeting easily feel "you have to account for every pen you buy" and see some of the requirements as "minutiae" that initially appear absurd.

"But if you consider that this is money that often comes from ordinary people, sometimes poor people, that should be a good enough reason to say how the money is being spent" and that it is spent "according to the rules," he said.

So under Popes John Paul and Benedict people just spent freely without accountability? Is the Catholic Church like the Federal Government? If they spend all their money is there always more to follow? I always thought they were working with finite amounts of money. Never before was there an office where they had a ledger item for pens that someone could expense? I just don’t believe things were like that. The Church isn’t Congress.





... ]]>
Thu, 12 Feb 2015 00:00:00 GMT
<![CDATA[ If Benedict Supported the Romero Cause He Would Not Have Blocked It ]]>
If Benedict Supported the Romero Cause He Would Not Have Blocked It

By Frank Walker

Grant Gallicho at the liberal Commonweal makes a rare reference to the inconsistent reports from the Vatican concerning the unblocking of the Oscar Romero cause. Did Benedict do it or did Pope Francis?

So why has it taken decades to move Romero's canonization process forward? "Misunderstandings and preconceptions," according to Paglia. While Romero was archbishop of San Salvador, Paglia explained, "kilos of letters against him arrived in Rome. The accusations were simple: He's political; he's a follower of liberation theology." Romero freely admitted it, Paglia said, but clarified: "There are two theologies of liberation: one sees liberation only as material liberation; the other is that of Paul VI. I'm with Paul VI."

That never convinced Romero's "enemies" at the Vatican--including conservative Cardinal Alfonso López Trujillo, who died in 2008. For most of his career, Trujillo's bête noire had been liberation theology, which he identified with Marxism. Fearing that naming Romero a saint would signal the church's approval of a politics that was incompatible with Catholicism, Trujillo led the Latin American bishops who worked to stifle Romero's canonization case under John Paul II and Benedict XVI. For years many assumed that both pontiffs shared Trujillo's view of Romero. But at the press conference Pagila said that the one who first "unblocked" Romero's cause was not Francis but Benedict--a confusing claim, because in April 2013, Paglia announced that Francis had unblocked the cause. So which was it? Did Benedict--the man who had warned against some forms of liberation theology--put the process back on track or did Francis? The answer, it turns out, may be both.

Why did Paglia announce that Pope Francis unblocked the cause in April 2013 if Benedict had done it?  If Pope Benedict did it years earlier, why didn’t anyone know?

During last week's press conference, Paglia reported that on December 20, 2012, Benedict told him that Romero's case had moved from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, where it has been languishing for decades, to the Congregation for the Cause of Saints. (In 2000, the CDF had been tasked with examining Romero's writings to make sure they were sufficiently orthodox. After no errors were found, Trujillo reportedly put the brakes on the process.) That in itself wasn't news. Back in 2013, Andrea Tornielli reported that Gregorio Rosa Chávez, an auxiliary bishop of San Salvador who worked with Romero, told a Portuguese magazine that in 2012 Benedict had asked Paglia to move ahead with Romero's case. Tornielli also reminded readers of one of the stranger episodes in the Romero saga--one I had forgotten about: The time Benedict told reporters that Romero deserved to be beatified but the official transcript of his remarks omitted those comments.

This sounds like a good bit of hearsay.

Next, Gallicho lists the 2007 Benedict interview where he said Romero merits beatification, but the transcript was supposed to have been scrubbed.

During a 2007 in-flight press conference, Benedict was asked about Romero's canonization process. He said he considered Romero a “great witness of the faith, a man of great Christian virtue who worked for peace and against the dictatorship and was assassinated while celebrating Mass. Consequently, his death was truly 'credible,' a witness of faith.'" The problem "was that a political party wrongly wished to use him as their badge, as an emblematic figure,” Benedict XVI continued. Whether Romero "merits beatification," the pontiff said, "I do not doubt." That comment was scrubbed from the transcript released by the Holy See press office, as though the dozens of reporters present for the remark wouldn't report it.

Gallicho concludes:

So apparently Benedict did want to see Romero beatified. But that was 2007. If he had no doubt that Romero should be beatified, then why did he wait five years to tell Paglia that the case was moving forward--news that was not reported until 2013? Trujillo died in '08, so if he was puppet-mastering the resistance to Romero's canonization, did someone else take the strings? Or was this another lever of curial power Benedict struggled to pull? And if Benedict had already unblocked the cause, why did Paglia report last year that Francis had unblocked it? Hard to say, but one could be forgiven for wondering about Benedict's commitment to Romero's cause.

In the end the conclusion that Benedict ‘did want to see Romero beatified’ is based on an interview where the official version has no mention, and on contradictory statements from Abp. Paglia.

Pope Benedict had authority over Romero’s cause for decades. It’s a stretch to assume that he supported it based soley on this evidence.





... ]]>
Thu, 12 Feb 2015 00:00:00 GMT
<![CDATA[ Stark Bergoglio Impressions From an Argentine Contemporary ]]>
Stark Bergoglio Impressions From an Argentine Contemporary

By Frank Walker

At the "FromRome" blog Argentine prosecutor, Jack Tollers, gives some stark impressions after years of following Jorge Bergoglio.

Some more telling Q&A:

Q. Do you know any of his family or friends personally?

His family is very small and from quite humble origins (the class question cannot be discarded here, it is quite obvious that Bergoglio resents any mention of his parents or sister). So nobody that I know of has ever known or met anyone of his family. As to friends, he never had them, not old friends, that is to say, friends who have nothing to do with his personal ambitions, his power games, his downright careerism. Not a single Jesuit, not a single priest, not a single friend from old times, shall we say. A quite different story you will hear if you refer to people like Rabbi Abraham Skorka who happens to live with him in Santa Marta, believe it or not.


Q. Did he have a reputation for fidelity to Catholic Doctrine, when he was in Argentina?

He certainly did not.


Q. In all his years as Archbishop of Buenos Aires, can you cite anything which he said or taught which was contrary to the Catholic Faith?

Nope. That wouldn’t be Bergoglio. He just isn’t like that. One must never forget that, before anything else, he’s a Jesuit (and if St Ignatius didn’t want his offspring to take up high positions in the Church, then he had very good reasons to forbid them doing so. Not that they would ever obey him here, ha, ha).


Q.10  Some Catholics, confused by Bergoglio’s speaking style, consider it very likely that he is a sociopath, namely, that for him, there is only the right and wrong which his conscience agrees with, and that this right and wrong is not based on Christ’s teaching, but on his own personal whims.  Do you think that is an accurate description of the man?

Yes, I agree. But a “sociopath”? That was Kolvenbach’s take on him when he quite publicly opposed Bergoglio being appointed Archbishop of Buenos Aires. And yes, lots of people think he’s in some way or another a deranged person. But I’m not so sure. For instance, what we take to be a “confused” manner of speaking is no such thing for him. In Bergoglio it’s deliberate, it’s a way of going forward, it’s an agenda. No “whims” here. His “confused” speak responds to a “confused” faith, which in turn only echoes a very, very, confused character whose name I will not mention here. But who is out to confuse us all. If that maddens us, it doesn’t mean that they (pace C.S. Lewis) Screwtape, his nephew, et al, are entirely mad, in the sense that they think and act meaninglessly, without a purpose.



... ]]>
Thu, 12 Feb 2015 00:00:00 GMT
<![CDATA[ New Cardinal Mafi of Tonga Puts His Faith in the Synod ]]>
New Cardinal Mafi of Tonga Puts His Faith in the Synod

By Frank Walker

CruxMag’s John Allen relates how the new cardinal from Tonga has to take four planes to get to Rome.

To get a sense of how far off the beaten path it lies, consider that Soane Patita Paini Mafi, the country’s fourth-ever Catholic bishop and now its first cardinal, had to travel almost 11,000 miles via four airplane connections to arrive in Rome for his big day.

Lifting up a cardinal from such a locale is clearly a way for Francis to emphasize the root meaning of Catholic: “universal.”

Set at age 53 to become the world’s youngest cardinal, Mafi seems a Pope Francis sort of cleric: unpretentious, non-political, and refreshingly ordinary. He’s the kind of guy, for instance, who freely admits his one regret at being named to high Church honors is that it might mean less time to clean out his family’s small pig sty back home.

The King and Queen of Tonga will be at the consistory when Mafi gets the red hat.

“Even to become a bishop was hard for me to believe, but I never thought I’d be a cardinal, never,” Mafi said.

He said tens of thousands of Tongans from all walks of life have sent notes of congratulations and best wishes, including the country’s king, Tupou VI, and his wife Queen Nanasipauʻu, who’s planning to be at Saturday’s consistory ceremony.

Mafi said he knows he’s not being chosen based on any personal rapport with the pope. In truth, he said, he’s met Francis only once in his life, for a fleeting moment during last fall’s Synod of Bishops, and then only to explain to the pontiff where Tonga is located.

“That’s far, far away!” was the only thing the pope said, Mafi recalled.

The story of easy-going Mafi takes an ominous turn when we learn he’ll be at the Synod. New Cardinal Mafi is all about the Synod.

Despite coming from a small place, Mafi is no naïf. He’s actually taken part in two Vatican Synods of Bishops: a 2012 summit on the New Evangelization and last year’s session on issues related to the family. He’ll likely take part again when the Synod of Bishops meets in October.

“I liked the spirit of openness,” he said of last fall’s synod, saying his earlier experience in 2012 had seemed “tighter” and “more controlled.”

“There was true friendliness and plenty of free discussion,” Mafi said, “but there was also something deeper. I sensed the Spirit, the Holy Spirit, working through that openness.

“I’m still new and learning,” he said, “but I hope that spirit will continue in this next synod.”

On the vexing issue of whether divorced and remarried Catholics ought to be able to receive Communion, Mafi said he doesn’t come into the debate with a fixed position.

“As pastors, we meet people who ask, ‘When will the Church relax this? We need to receive Communion.’ We see that often,” he said.

“I believe in the need for discerning, for the Church to listen and to be open,” he said. “It’s not for one person to decide. It’s not an individual opinion. I believe in that, [and] I remain open.”

Uh oh. Another open-minded prince of the Church.



... ]]>
Thu, 12 Feb 2015 00:00:00 GMT