Chick-fil-A has emboldened the LGBT mob.

Patrick B. Craine, "Chick-fil-A has emboldened the LGBT mob" LifeSiteNews (November 29, 2019):

We have sadly decided to boycott Chic-fil-A. Sadly, because we LOVE Chic-fil-A chicken. No one makes better chicken. Much better than KFC or any other vendor. And normally I wouldn't care much where I'm getting my fast food on the road, as long as it's good. I wouldn't care if those making my food are religious, agnostic, or gay. But when an institution stands for traditional Christian family values, is closed on Sundays out of respect for Judeo-Christian sabbath observance, and has "Christian" in its mission statement, but then caves in to anti-Christian lobbies where it’s hard – where the Gospel butts up against our culture of death and sexual licentiousness – they have betrayed their Christian identity. Chic-fil-A is the warning canary in the coal mine, and it just died. Sad. Caveat emptor!

If you’re still defending them, watch this:



[If you would prefer to read a transcript of the video, click here.]

Fr. Perrone: can lost innocence, virginity, or sacredness be regained?

Fr. Eduard Perrone, "A Pastor's Descant" (Assumption Grotto News, June 2, 2019):

Proposition #1. Innocence transgressed is irreversible. #2. Virginity undone cannot be regained. #3 Sacredness defiled cannot it be recovered -- or can it? Number 3 is moot (disputed) while numbers 1 & 2 are factual. What most ails the Church in this time is violated sacredness. It is the spiritual equivalent of rape, a terrible invasion of a precinct that must be strenuously guarded against assault. What is today labeled the "abuse crisis" in the Church is a yet-unfolding story, the apex of which, I fear, has not yet been hit. It has taken "victims" not only in the sense of the persons abused but also in the faithful whose consciences have been seared by the disclosure of what had been done behind closed doors. The outcry and outrage over the discovery is just and right but is partially misdirected. This may be evident by responses to the scandal by various diocesan bureaucrats who obsequiously pledge approval and cooperation with civil authorities to bring down those accused; who offer hollow, formulaic apologies to the victims; who are more concerned over the threat of bankruptcy than over God being offended by the sins and crimes committed; who in a desperate move to avert any accusation for their own wrongdoing mandate the 'training' of all diocesan personnel to protect children from abuse but who refrain from identifying abusers as perverted or mentally ill.

The real shame is not the publicity of horrid, secret sins but the venting of lewd passion, the foul degradation of the flesh, the mortal sins committed, the extinction of God's grace, the subversion of conscience, the loss of a sense of guilt, and the vanquished sacredness from priests, from the Mass, the Sacraments and sacred rites. Where did the holiness go? In truth, it had been slowly seeping out of clergy (and not a few lay people) and out of seminaries and parishes for a long time, so subtly that it was scarcely noticed.

Yes, the evils done and publicized are horrible. Why, though, was there no protest "back then" when Catholic doctrine was deliberately suppressed in CCD programs and Catholic schools; when teaching about the commandments and forbidden acts was outlawed; when chastity, in marriage and outside marriage, were taboo topics; when sex-ed programs for youth were introduced that stung their innocent souls and extinguished their spiritual sensitivities? Why was there little indignation over priests' secular clothing, their unbecoming manner of talking and worldly behaviors? Where was the sacredness? At one time it was nearly tangible. Where did it go and with it the fear of the Lord, modesty, and priestly dignity?

When sacredness fled so did its abiding companion, wisdom. "Truths are diminished from the sons of men" (Ps. 11, Vulgate). The departure of holiness from clergy (and laity) meant the loss of wisdom so that we don't even know how to respond to this crisis. We've become foolish, unable to analyze why we have come to this disgrace. This ignorance is itself a punishment for the sins committed.

In recent decades the Church has been run more like a corporation or a business than a divine organism intended for man's salvation. Its policies and rhetoric have resembled civil law and echoed popular opinion more than the Gospel of Christ. Its models and mentors have not been the saints of her illustrious history but CEOs, business men, psychologists, and lawyers. Its greatest concerns have been financial viability and growth; its successes measured in numbers; its worship directed not to God but to the enjoyment of the attendees. The eternal and irrevocable consequences of mortal sins -- to say nothing of the now ubiquitous sins that "cry out to God for vengeance," which include abortion, sodomy, and causing scandal to children, are terra ignota in preaching and religious instruction.

What's been wrong with the Church in our time such that it brought on the said crisis? Pope Benedict indicated that the moral lapses of the clergy brought on a reticence to witness clearly and forecefully to moral truth.

Once trespassed, can sacredness be recovered? Only God knows; but with a return to unambiguous teaching on faith and morals, the foundation will be laid for a restoration of a sacredness that's been sorely missing from the Church for a very long time.

Fr. Perrone

Roberto De Mattei, "The Roots and Historical Consequences of Modernism"

Roberto De Mattei, "The Roots and Historical Consequences of Modernism," translated by Giuseppe Pellegrino (1P5, June 23, 2018). Pellegrino writes:

Roberto de Mattei’s paper, presented today in Rome, is entitled “The roots and historical consequences of Modernism”. It provides a detailed study of the origin of the present theological confusion in the Church in the ideas embraced at the time of the so-called “Modernist crisis” of the early 20th century. The teaching of Maurice Blondel that experience is the criteria of truth spread to influential theologians such as Alfred Loisy, George Tyrrell, and Ernesto Buonaiuti, who all affirmed in various ways that truth is not immutable, rather it evolves as man evolves. These writers in turn influenced Teilhard de Chardin, Henri de Lubac, and Karl Rahner, all of whom were extremely influential on the work and teaching of the Second Vatican Council. This “Neo-Modernism” subtly tried to influence the Church without revealing its agenda of dismantling the philosophical foundation of the immutable nature of Truth and the theological foundation of the unchanging character of Divine Revelation. Through a “revolution of language,” one of the key principles of Marxism, those who seek to foment revolution in the Church have used words such as “renewal,” “aggiornamento,” and “accompaniment” to radically change the Church’s praxis, falsely setting up a separation between doctrine and praxis. The writings and statements of contemporary churchmen such as Walter Kasper, Bruno Forte, and Jorge Bergoglio are imbued with this same thinking. Bergoglio is clearly a disciple of Blondel. The only effective way to combat the present culmination of the “Modernist crisis” is to embrace the immutable Tradition of the Church.

"Et Tu, Benedict? (Wrinkles in Time & Theology)"

Prefatory note:

Dionysius the Areopagite was a 1st century convert of St. Paul mentioned in the Book of Acts; but the man who wrote under his name in the late fifth or early sixth century and transposed the whole of pagan Neoplatonism from Plotinus to Proclus into a distinctively new Christian context is more aptly called "Pseudo-Dionysius."

Frank J. Sheed (1897-1982) was an Australian-born lawyer, Catholic writer, publisher and speaker who was married to Maisie Ward, who together with her lent his name to the famous English imprint Sheed & Ward and was a forceful speaker in the Catholic Evidence Guild; but the man who, under the name of "Frank J. Sheed," is the author of the contemporary blog from which the following article is taken should perhaps better be known as "Pseudo-Frank J. Sheed," since, like "Pseudo-Dionysius," he conceals his own identity behind a pseudonym taken from the name of someone he wishes to honor. -- Editor

Pseudo Frank J. Sheed, in "Et Tu, Benedict? (Wrinkles in Time & Theology)," introduces his subject as follows:

When you read Joseph Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI, it can be a faith-rewarding exercise or a head scratcher. I, for one, am very grateful for his Gospel, Catechesis, Catechism, his book on the Infancy Narratives, his Handmaid of the Lord, and Ignatius Press’ volumes of weekly teachings as pope like A School of Prayer. Not to mention his output at the CDF, which considering the possibilities he prevented seems heroic.

But then there are other scattered books, like Principles of Catholic Theology, Introduction to Christianity, In the Beginning, and Highlights of Vatican II. These often seem ambiguous on key points, and suggest a mind conditioned by the more liberal currents of the 60s and 70s. For the conservative crowd, that’s lamentable. Which all that in mind, I was both irked and intrigued by Hilary White’s column. It follows here, and as you’ll discover, she takes no prisoners.

Indeed, there is much here "irk and intrigue" most anyone.

Yes, by all means: Caveat emptor! But by the same token, know that those who neglect acquaintance with many of the dark details here related do so at their own peril of blissful ignorance. [Disclaimer: Rules ## 7-9]

Faggioli & Longenecker on the radical disconnect between liberal academic theology and nearly everyone else in the Church

Fr. Dwight Longenecker, "Are Liberal Catholic Theologians Past Their Sell By Date?" (Fr. Dwight Longenecker, March 7th, 2018), comments on Massimo Faggioli's latest article at Commonweal. First, Faggioli honestly acknowledges that young Catholics don't care for the older, established liberal theological establishment [with the bold commentary of Guy Noir - Private Eye* in brackets]:

"[T]he estrangement between academic theology and the institutional Church is one reason many younger Catholics are now turning to neo-traditionalist circles for instruction. A new generation is re-examining what’s happened in the church since the 1960s and reacting against the theology that came out of the Second Vatican Council. Some younger Catholics are also questioning the legitimacy of the secular, pluralistic state. This is why the concerns of academic theology are no longer merely academic. [Notice that! Theology is no longer academic because it now touches on… the political! Speaks volumes about his priorities].

Those who have contact with young Catholics… have noticed that this theological anti-liberalism is not just coming from a few marginal intellectuals. Catholic anti-liberalism is part of a broader phenomenon, a new quest for Catholic identity that takes various forms. It may be expressed as an enthusiasm for the Tridentine Mass and a distaste for the Novus ordo. Or it may take the form of an interest in countercultural communities—in some version of the “Benedict Option.” But it can also take the form of a theo-political imagination that rejects liberal democracy in favor of a new Christendom. [Would he think it fair to say Catholic liberals reject ‘Church’?] Mixed in with this ideal is often a suspicion of those who come from parts of the world where Christianity is not the predominant religion. [Guffaw. Cardinal Sarah? And in Latin America Catholicism IS still predominant.]

This rise of Catholic anti-liberalism marks a regression in the ability of Catholics to understand the problem of the state and of politics in our age. [Only if you disagree with their analysis, right?] But it also says something about the state of Catholic theology, especially in America."

Faggioli then goes on to make the claim that theology can only really exist and flourish in a traditional academic setting. [Because only their can it be toyed with without regard for devotional or moral relevance].

"I believe that the fate of Catholic theology in the Western world is inseparable from the fate of academic theology. [In one way, liberal Catholicism cannot maintain any standing unless propped up by the academy and its priest culture.] In order to survive and flourish, theology needs universities, publishers, and journals. [Like America and Communio?] You can just about imagine the church surviving intellectually without academic theology, but I think it …

Longenecker remarks: "I don’t buy it. In my experience it is just as arguable that the very academic establishment the Faggioli wants to prop up is the very kiss of death of any real, creative and dynamic theology."

Guy Noir seems to concur. He comments: "All quite telling. I read once that Evangelicals are really the only ones who any longer talk theology, and that’s simply because they actually believe it. We could extend the comment to trad Catholics. Really, do you ever get the impression any of these liberals passionately believe anything at all outside of a vague moral therapeutic deism? No, because the most feel, and whittle down their doctrine to match those feelings. Liberalism and real theology are antithetical.

If anything new is to come along in theology, concludes Longenecker, it will not come from within the halls of academe, but will most likely "spring up from some home schooler, some start up online academy, a blogger who reads instead of watching TV or some hard working home grown scholar who is teaching at a classical school or slaving away teaching the great books to undergraduates."

You're right: way past sell by date. Let the younger generation discover the neglected treasures of Catholic tradition and discover that Catholic theology, like the Catholic Faith itself, can be the most beautiful adventure in the world.

[Acknowledgement: Guy Noir - Private Eye is our underground correspondent we keep on retainer in an Atlantic seaboard state.]

"Despondent Converts"

Thomas Howard, "Despondent Converts" (CatholiCity, March 8, 2010):

Reprinted with permission.

I receive, not infrequently, inquiries by mail from recent converts to the Church who, after a year or so as new Catholics, find themselves wondering about this and that. All of these letters are from former Evangelicals who have read themselves joyfully into the Church. With their earnest, muscular, biblically oriented background in the free churches, or in the Episcopal Church to which they had migrated because of its liturgy, at some point they had come upon such books as Newman's Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, or Karl Adam's The Spirit of Catholicism, or The Catechism of the Catholic Church, or one of the volumes from the recent flood of testimonials from erstwhile Evangelicals recounting their own itinerary to the Ancient Church.

In most cases, they have, in the course of this reading, been dazzled by the sheer serenity of the Catholic Church, derived from its immense antiquity, its undoubted apostolicity, its liturgy and sacraments, its Magisterium, and its unswerving fidelity to the Deposit of Faith over the last two millennia – often in the face of heresies, war, tyranny, and sin in the camp. The marks of their own piety hitherto have been the great marks of Reformation and Evangelical Christianity: sedulous personal study of Scripture, with its corollary of exhaustive familiarity with the whole Bible; an atmosphere of talkative friendliness and "sharing" of spiritual matters among their fellows; meaty biblical preaching on the part of the clergy; a somber distrust of the pitfalls to be found in 19th-century German historical/critical methods of Scripture scholarship; and a strong sense of "knowing the Lord Jesus Christ as personal Savior" on the part of every individual. Until their entry into it, these good people understood the Church to be, quite simply, the dispersed aggregate of all individuals scattered across the globe who believe in Christ.

Any lifelong Catholic reading this will anticipate straightaway the questions such a convert finds himself entertaining: Why does no one greet me at Mass? There's not much animated Christian fellowship around here. Nobody sings the hymns – and there seems to be an impoverished fund of hymnody in any case. I'm not sure what to make of the preaching: As often as not, it doesn't sound like the fruit of studious and prayerful preparation. But most puzzling of all, the pastor seems to have identified himself with the dissenters in the Church. He appears to have espoused what Popes Pius IX and X would have called "Modernism." The homilies often seem to reflect popular notions on morals and politics championed by the New York Times, NPR, and the Washington Post.

How shall I respond to my correspondent? What would you say? What would Benedict XVI or John Paul II or Cardinal Newman say?

A start might be made by encouraging our friend to reflect on the question as to what the Catholic Church is. Certainly the ambience in a Catholic parish is different from that found in the Evangelical churches of his background. The observations are understandable; so it may be helpful for him to canvass again the reasons that moved him to make his obedience to this ancient Church in the first place. What is the Catholic Church?

It is what it claims to be. It is the Church of God's New Covenant with man, built by Jesus Christ on the foundation of the prophets and apostles. And – as was the case with Israel, who was the bearer of God's earlier Covenant with her – the Church is God's people. But it is God's people – human beings who turn out to be weak, wayward, and often untrustworthy. The Hebrews, as often as not, made a hash of things. Their very first high priest (Aaron) made them a golden calf to worship. They had wicked priests, wicked kings, unfaithful prophets, and no shortage of bad men in their midst.

But God looked on them as His Spouse, as He does on the Church. In both cases, the very thing that God Himself was bringing into being was shot through with human sinfulness and failure. God's forbearing grace was at work, century after weary century. A faithful Catholic does not throw in the sponge over the phenomenon of bad Renaissance popes, other than to deplore their evil doings: the Church, Christ's Mystical Body, does not stand or fall with the faltering fidelity of us mortals. (It is interesting to note in this connection that no pope, be he never so wicked, ever taught from Peter's chair that his simony, avarice, luxury, nepotism, and lechery were anything other than sin. He never substituted the euphemism "style of life" for the stark category "sin." Dante, a fierce Catholic, had half of his popes in hell.)

Whereas Protestantism, when discord, heresy, or scandal arises, can always split off and start a new parish or denomination, the Ancient Church has no such option. As was the case with the Hebrew Covenant, earnest and faithful men had no warrant to hive off into the wilderness and start things over if there was unfaithfulness in the camp. We recall Elijah and Hezekiah, and Simeon and Anna and Joseph and Mary: faithful Hebrews in the temple, and eventually the synagogue that fell under the power of "scribes, Pharisees, and hypocrites." These faithful men and women never thought of starting up a new, pure sect.

Fortunately for us, the Church has been served by godly and faithful pontiffs for a very long time now. It is an article of faith that the Church Herself will never teach falsehood. If a given priest or bishop ever sponsors novel or unscriptural ideas in place of the Deposit of Faith, it is of course to be deprecated, and parishioners in such a parish or diocese have to try to fix their gaze on what the Catholic Church teaches. If Father X, in the name of affability, is distributing Communion to non-Catholics, or tacitly endorsing abortion, or winking at moral disorder in the parish, we know that confusion, infidelity, and disobedience are at work here. But the Catholic Church is a hierarchical Church. Only rarely might it ever fall to a layman to try, on his own authority, to set things right. He may, in a pinch of course, venture inquiries. But the Catholic's ordinary duty is fidelity to the Church and to her teaching – which is to say, of course, to Sacred Scripture, the Magisterium, and the Petrine authority in Rome.

But all of this brings us to the question as to why we go to Church in the first place. A Protestant goes for the preaching primarily, and then for the fellowship. Why, on the other hand, does a Catholic go to Church? We go to offer the Sacrifice of the Mass; to join ourselves with the ancient and apostolic Church as she joins herself to her Head and High Priest, Jesus Christ, in his eternal self-offering to the Father, which offering was made present in our history, once and for all, at Calvary, as a perfect oblation of thanksgiving, and as the propitiation for our sins.

A Catholic lives there. This is the lodestar, the anchor point of everything, the Still Point of the Turning World. All other aspects of Catholic life – private prayer, the rosary, the divine office, the sacraments, retreats, pilgrimages, and works of mercy – find their wellspring here. This has been going on for 2,000 years. Other factors – war, plague, one's own weaknesses and sins, domestic tragedy, clerical infidelity – can never dry up this fountainhead of Catholic life.

These remarks, of course, do not bring easy consolation to a confused or distressed new Catholic who finds things different from what he may have expected. But he will find that fidelity in his own prayer life, habitual participation at Mass, and an attitude of self-effacing expectation will draw him gradually into the ancient company of Simeon and Anna, and Bede, and Brother Lawrence, and Francis de Sales, and all men and women who have made up the body of the faithful from the beginning.

Thomas Howard is retired from 40 years of teaching English in private schools, college, and seminary in England and America.

© 1996-2018 The Mary Foundation · 501(c)3

Related:

Thomas Howard, Evangelical Is Not Enough (1988)
_______________, Lead, Lindly Light: My Journey to Rome (2004)
_______________, On Being Catholic (1997)
_______________, Chance or the Dance? A Critique of Modern Secularism (1969, 2018)

[Hat tip to J.M.]

"St Anthony, St Anthony, please come around ..."

As a reader says, "if you do a quick online search for the mag. using Google's ‘ images’ filter, you get the vague sense from many covers that 'something’s been lost' for maybe too long now."


Dorothy Cummings McLean, writes, in "Major Catholic family magazine spotlights pro-LGBT priest in favorable interview" (LifeSiteNews, November 30, 2017):

Many faithful Catholics who read St. Anthony Messenger will likely be scandalized that a Catholic magazine that congratulates itself on its august past and popularity with Catholic families would give so much space to a high-profile critic of the Catholic Church and her doctrines without challenging either him or his ideas.

New interview with Bishop Athanasius Schneider

Steve Skojec, "Video: New Interview With Bishop Schneider" (1P5, November 20, 2017):

Fr. Perrone: without an intense, devout life, Catholics will not survive the age

Eduard Perrone, "A Pastor's Descant" (Assumption Grotto News, October 15, 2017):

The saintly priest, learned theologian, and catechist extraordinaire, Fr. John A. Hardon, was fond of saying that without an intense, devout life Catholics will not survive the age. I admit that at the time I thought this a ruse to shock his audience into taking their faith seriously. The longer I live in this age, however, the more I become convinced that this priest got it right. In recent decades we've seen great numbers of Catholics cease to practice their faith while others have exited the Church for small community non-denominational churches or trendy mega-churches that offer swingin' and swayin' worship services with an appealing "prosperity" message. I've heard many a sorrow-laden complaint from Catholics who have lost family members or relatives to such groups. It seems that no family has been wholly exempt from the defection. I did a little checking among my own family and close relatives to see how things stacked up in this regard. In a fast count from a pool of 52 family members and close relatives on my mother's side only (my siblings and their children, uncles, aunts, and first cousins), there were only 20 out of 52 still practicing the Catholic faith in which they were reared and living in a Christian manner.

These facts may make us wonder about many things. First, of the necessity of faith in Christ and of keeping His commandments. Without whole-hearted acceptance of all that Christ has revealed by His Church and without a state of grace, one cannot hope to be saved. Then, about the Church. It is by definition one, founded by our Lord: "Upon this rock I will build My Church" with Peter as its rock foundation (Mt 16:18). It is this Church which holds the true doctrine of Christ since it alone is "the pillar and bulwark of the truth" (1 Tim 3:15). Christ's apostles and their line of successors were handlers-on (transmitters) of 'tradition,' that is, of their authority, powers, the truth and the practices they received from Christ. Efforts to deviate from that apostolic inheritance were made from the earliest days of the Church. Thus were the faithful flock warned of those who would deceive and mislead the flock, false teachers and false prophets (Mt 24:24; 2 Tim 4:3-4), those "even of your own number" who would "draw away the disciples after them" (Acts 20:30). On account of the ever present danger of being misled and of departing from truth, Saint Paul admonished succeeding generations of the Church to "guard the truth that has been entrusted to you" (2 Tim 1:14) and to "hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth of by [written] letter" (2 Thes 2:15).

The Catholic Church is the only Church which has existed uninterruptedly from apostolic times, unbroken in historical continuity. This is an indisputable fact. You will find the Catholic Church in every year since the first day of the Christian era. While the church as Christ's body has matured and organically grown in acquiring a greater clarity in its beliefs (the creed), in a more developed way of celebrating the Christian "mysteries" (the liturgy and the sacraments), and in a worldwide institutional expansion, yet she has remained true to her divine charter, being essentially as she has always been from the beginning and as she is destined to remain until the Lord returns.

The claim is made, of course, that the Catholic Church at some point erred and went astray from what Christ had intended from the beginning. [But] with the publication and now easy availability of the Fathers of the Church (and especially of the Apostolic Fathers -- those who immediately succeeded the apostles) and other early Church writings, it is clear for anyone who would care to investigate the matter that the early Church is the same Catholic Church we know today in all essential aspects. From these documents we learn many things: how Mass was said and the sacraments celebrated; the deeper theological understanding of the faith revealed in time by the Holy Spirit (who "will teach you all things, and bring to remembrance all that I have said to you" (Jn 14:26) and which was formulated in the ancient creedal statements; how holy orders were transmitted from bishop to bishop, and from bishop to priest; etc. Only the Catholic Church did all these things from the beginning of the Christian era and only she continues to do them faithfully.

The problem of defection from the true Church and from its faith plagued the Church from its earliest days. Already in the Book of Revelation we find mention of a sect known as the Nicolaitans (e.g. 2:6). St. Paul wrote against the beliefs of the Gnostics. Aberrant sects claiming to be some manner or other of 'church' apart from the unique historical body of the Catholic Church are fraudulent. There can't be a 'spontaneous generation' of a new Christian body claiming to be in any sense authentic. There must be, and is, but 'one body, one Spirit, one hope, one faith, one baptism, one God' (cf. Eph 4:4-5).

Of course, in our families there are those who are simply non-practitioners, those who still regard themselves as Catholics but who can't be bothered going to Sunday Mass or to Confession. Our Lord warned that the way to salvation was a narrow one, that few would find it (Mt 7:14), and that when He would return to earth there might be but a few who would have kept the faith (cf. Lk 18:8).

there are many diverse reasons why people cease to practice the Catholic faith or who leave holy Church for something other. The lure of sensuality and worldliness -- always a powerful force -- is not to be discounted. There's also the scandalous lives of bad Catholics which are discouraging; the incredible permissive things we now hear coming from Rome, from certain bishops, "theologians," and priests; the fallout from the clergy scandals of recent times; the enormous ignorance of Catholics about their faith and their history; the irreverent way priests and laity deport themselves at Mass such as to belie the doctrines of the Real Presence and the sacrificial nature of the Mass; the great number of divorces with remarriages of Catholics outside the Church; the Church's condemnation of all forms of artificial birth control; the circulation of the pernicious teaching that "one religion is as good as another" (indifferentism). Take all these things together and ... voilà! ... you have all that's needed for a great exodus from the true Church.

Christ is not indifferent about truth, about fidelity to the practice of the faith, or about His Church. The only Church which has perdured through the centuries since the time of its founding is the one, true Church of Christ: the Catholic Church, a truth "which nobody can deny, which nobody can deny."

Fr. Perrone

P.S. Today, Sunday, marks the fourth anniversary of my Mother's death. Mom and Dad were devout believers both. How profoundly grateful I am for the faith my parents passed on to me! I pray for them and I pray to them for the return of our family members who have strayed from the one truth Catholic Church.

Austin Ruse: "James Martin SJ Thinks You're a Nazi"

Austin Ruse: "James Martin SJ Thinks You're a Nazi" (Crisis Magazine, September 29, 2017): "... Martin became incensed when Catholic Vote said he had been 'beaten' in a debate. He said it was a call for violence against him. Yet, now he is saying his critics are no better than Nazis, and his friend McElroy compares them to cancer. One wonders how far McElroy, Martin, Scalia, Faggioli, and Ivereigh want to go in getting rid of those they do not like."

A convert reflects on Mysterium Fidei and the state of the Church

Edited by Frank J. Sheed, "Prayer for Paul VI" (October 13, 2017):

Pope Paul VI’s 1965 encyclical on the Eucharist, “Mysterium Fidei,” was the first place I saw anyone say that the body and blood, soul and complete divinity of Christ was actually present in the consecrated species. Having been raised in Remi de Roo’s Victoria in the 1970s, I had naturally never heard anything at all about the Eucharist. The understanding that Catholics believed what they believe about it came as a bit of a shock...

... The encyclical, the very first I ever read, was also a marker for me of a personal turning point. It was the first time I had ever seen Catholic eucharistic doctrine clearly and – most importantly – unapologetically stated. It came right out and said something so astounding, something so completely unlikely, that I had to admit that it left very few logical possibilities. Like C.S. Lewis’s assessment of the claims by Christ of His own divinity, this pope was either mad, bad or telling the plain truth. Read more >>

"Farewell to the Pontifical John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family"

Mark Latkovic, "Farewell to the Pontifical John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family" (CWR, October 6, 2017). Wow.

Ed Peters: "On arguments that may be, and sometimes must be, made"

Edward Peters, "On arguments that may be, and sometimes must be, made" (In Light of the Law, October 5, 2017):

I have taken no position on the Correctio Filialis. I know and respect some of its signatories as I do some of its critics but, as the document itself seems to fall within the boundaries of Canon 212, I say, ‘Have at it folks and may the better arguments prevail’. That said, some recent arguments against the Correctio are, in my view, subtly deficient and, time permitting, I will reply to them.

But even before that, I wish to reply to an attitude I perceive emerging against the Correctio, one that attempts to dissuade Correctio supporters from their position by alleging a disastrous—but supposedly logical—consequence of their being right, something along these lines: If Amoris laetita and/or Pope Francis and/or his Vatican allies are really as bad as the authors of the Correctio seem to believe, then all petitions, Dubia, and corrections will do no good. Prayer and fasting would be more advisable.

Hmmm.

Setting aside that several of these scenarios are not asserted in the Correctio and that the evidence concerning some others is not yet in, underlying this doomsday-like retort of the Correctio is, I think, a certain despair about the importance of argument itself in this matter. At the very least, such a bleak conclusion disregards the duty of certain Catholics precisely to engage in such debates.

Canon 212 § 3 has been invoked by those supporting the Correctio to point out that the Church herself recognizes the right of certain persons “to manifest to sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful”, namely, those persons who possess “knowledge, competence, and prestige” in regard to the matter under discussion. Indeed. But Canon 212 § 3 says something more.

Canon 212 § 3 states in regard to persons with special knowledge, competence, and prestige in regard to ecclesiastical matters, that they “have the right and even at times the duty” to express their views on matters impacting the well-being of the Church (my emphasis). The duty. Not just the right.

Thus to the extent that some qualified signatories and/or supporters of the Correctio have realized a duty (expressed in law) to address these matters, they are not simply acting under the protection of law (as are those exercising a right), they are acting in accord with its directives (as do those under an obligation). Now, to be sure, Canon 212 is not self-interpreting and several prudential considerations must be considered when applying it. But in its very terms is the expression of a duty incumbent upon certain Catholics who are qualified by their education, experience, and Church positions to make serious arguments on matters impacting the Church. And I see no exception in the law for those whose positions might imply the existence of other problems for the Church or for those who arguments seem unlikely to be acted upon.

Cdl. Caffarra said “only a blind man could deny there’s great confusion, uncertainty, and insecurity in the Church.” Much of that confusion turns, obviously, on the meaning of technical terms and on the content of intellectual assertions. Those blessed with advanced training in such technical terms and intellectual assertions may be, and at times should be, at the forefront of these debates.

And, yes, all participants in these debates should be engaged in extra prayer and fasting.

Lifesite petition supporting the "filial correction" of Pope Francis for allowing the propagation of confusion and heterodoxy

In July of 2016, an international group of 45 scholars, academics and pastors petitioned Pope Francis for clarification on his Apostolic Exhortation, Amoris Laetitia. Later that year, four cardinals published their now well-known five questions, or "dubia" (Latin for "doubts") concerning Amoris Laetitia, after receiving no response from Pope Francis. In July of 2017, 62 scholars, pastors and others, sent Pope Francis a "filial correction" (or Correctio) accusing him of "propagating heresy" by equivocal passages in Amoris Laetitia and by "other words, deeds and ommissions." Again, after a month of waiting in vain for a response from Pope Francis, the authors of the Correctio have published their document.

The the document is over 25 pages long, some of it in untranslated Latin, and can be found online at various sites. Clear summaries can be found here and here.

Now I see that LifeSite has launched a PETITION where others can add their names to the signatories. I also see that, despite the Correctio's framer's original intention to voluntarily exclude bishops and cardinals, that Rene Henry Gracida, Bishop Emeritus of the Diocese of Corpus Christi, has sent in his name to be added to the original list of signatories. Others will probably follow suit.

Just one comment. The whole idea of sending a "correction" to the Pope sounds radical. Some have called it 'epochal.' Yet it may be important to bear in mind that the document does not accuse Pope Francis of formal heresy. Rather, it argues that the Pope has allowed heterodox opinions to proliferate by his silence when asked for clarification (as by the four cardinals last year), by his prolix and confusing declarations in interview, and his appointment to positions of influence within the Church men who publicly dissent from Catholic teaching on the sacraments. It is, in short, a filial cri de cœur directed to the Holy Father asking for him to raise the torch of truth and illumine the darkness amid the sea of benighted confusion in which so many feel as if they are drowning.

Please pray for His Holiness, Pope Francis, for the whole Church, and for all affected by the confusion abroad.

Monsignor Bux: We Are in a Full Crisis of Faith

Edward Pentin (National Catholic Register, June 21, 2017) writes: "Theologian and former consulter to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith calls on the Pope to make a declaration of faith, warning that unless the Pope safeguards doctrine, he cannot impose discipline." Read more here >>

[Hat tip to JM]

Is Cardinal Müller censuring himself?

 Christopher A. Ferrara, "Cardinal Müller Covers His Eyes" (CFN, January 9, 2017): 

According to Stanze Vaticane, the blog for the Italian TV channel TGCom24, Card. Gerhard Ludwig Müller has rejected any correction of Pope Francis concerning those explosive sections of Amoris Laetitia (especially Chapter 8, ¶¶ 302-305) which prompted the four cardinals to present their dubia to Pope Francis. Those passages of Amoris clearly open the door to Holy Communion for the divorced and “remarried” in “certain cases” — as bishop after bishop is now declaring — while appearing to reduce exceptionless negative precepts of the natural law (including “Thou shalt not commit adultery”) to “general rules” and mere “objective ideals” rather than divine commands from which no one can claim an exemption.

But Müller’s choice of words is very curious.  As reported by Stanze Vaticane, during an interview with TGCom 24 (translations mine), Müller stated:

“Everyone, above all the cardinals of the Roman Church [sic], have the right to write a letter to the Pope. I was astonished, however, that this became public, almost constraining the Pope to say ‘Yes’ or ‘No’. I do not like this. Also, a possible fraternal correction of the Pope seems to me very far off. It is not possible at this moment because it does not involve a danger to the faith as Saint Thomas has said. We are very far from a correction and I say that it harms the Church to discuss these things publicly.

“Amoris Laetitia is very clear in its doctrine, and we can make out the whole doctrine of the Church on matrimony, all the doctrine of the Church in 2000 years of history. Pope Francis asks for discernment of the situation of those persons who live in an irregular union, that is, not according to the doctrine of the Church on matrimony, and he asks for aid of these persons to find a path for a new integration in the Church according to the conditions of the Sacraments, of the Christian message on matrimony. But I do not see any contraposition: on the one hand we have the clear doctrine on matrimony, and on the other the obligation of the Church to concern herself with these persons in difficulty.”

First of all, why is Müller “astonished” that the dubia became public?  The four cardinals state clearly in their accompanying letter that while their dubia were first submitted privately to Francis, “The Holy Father has decided not to respond. We have interpreted his sovereign decision as an invitation to continue the reflection, and the discussion, calmly and with respect. And so we are informing the entire people of God about our initiative, offering all of the documentation.”

That is their right as cardinals, and indeed it is the right of any member of the faithful:

“According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons.”  (Canon 212, § 3)

Secondly, why is a “possible fraternal correction” deemed “very far off” — meaning that there is a potential for one — when Müller says at one and the same time that Amoris presents the Catholic doctrine on matrimony and that there is no opposition to that doctrine in the call for “discernment” of the situation of people in “irregular unions”? If Amoris were really so clear, and there were really no contradiction between Catholic doctrine on the indissolubility of marriage and Francis’ call for “discernment,” Müller would say simply that a correction of Francis is unnecessary. He would not say a correction is “not possible at this moment…”

I am afraid Müller’s statement falls into the category of so much of what has come out of the Vatican over the past fifty years: artfully worded doubletalk that tries to have it both ways.

Bishop Schneider: "I have asked Msgr. Fellay not to delay his acceptance any longer"

From Adelante la Fe’s exclusive interview with Monsignor Schneider: "Msgr. Lefebvre would accept the canonical proposal of a personal prelature without hesitation" (Adelante la Fe, January 4, 2017, via Rorate Caeli): As Adfero remarks, "It's pretty clear even by just skimming his answers that he believes the time has come for the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX):

Headlines
“There are many places where priests act more like Protestant ministers than Catholic priests”

“There are families that must travel more than 100 km (60 mi) so that they can go to a dignified Mass and hear sound doctrine”

“The faithful must ask the priests for kneelers so that they can kneel”

“We have a eucharistic-heart disease, and as long as we fail to heal it, the whole body will remain ill and will not produce fruit”

“In today’s climate, it’s a true miracle that we have vocations”

“Gender ideology is a depravity, a final form of Marxism”

“If they can, parents should withdraw their children from schools where they are taught gender ideology”

“There is a mentality of radical relativism within the Church”

“We should speak up so that the Magisterium might speak clearly”

“With moral relativism, especially concerning the reception of Communion by the divorced and remarried, we want God to do our will, and not for us to do His”

“A sacramental female diaconate contradicts the nature of the Church”

“We have to love the pope supernaturally, praying for him, not practicing a form of papolatry”

SSPX – Msgr. Lefebvre
“I am convinced that in the present circumstances, Msgr. Lefebvre would accept the canonical proposal of a personal prelature without hesitation”

“Msgr. Lefebvre is a man with a deep sensus ecclesiae”

“The episcopal ordinations were done in 1988 because in good conscience he thought that he had to do it, as an extreme act, and at the same time said that this situation should not last a long time”

“If you remain canonically autonomous for too long, you run the risk of losing a characteristic of the Catholic Church, that is, to be subject to the pope”

“We cannot make our subjection to the Vicar of Christ dependent upon the person of the pope; this would not be faith. You cannot say that “I don’t believe in this pope, I don’t submit, I am going to wait until one comes along that I like.” This is not Catholic, it is not supernatural; it is human. It is a lack of supernaturality and trust in Divine Providence, that God is the one who guides the Church. This is a danger for the SSPX.”

“I have asked Msgr. Fellay not to delay his acceptance any longer, and I trust in Providence, though it is not possible to have 100% certainty”

“It is my great wish that the SSPX might be recognized and established within the regular structure of the Church as soon as possible, and this will be for the benefit of all, for them and for us. Actually it will be a new force in this great battle for the purity of the Faith”

“I have told Msgr. Fellay: “Monsignor, we need your presence to join together with all of the good forces in the Church to achieve this union.”

TRADITIONAL MASS
“The movement to restore the traditional Mass is the work of the Holy Spirit, and is unstoppable”

“If the Fathers of Vatican II witnessed a Mass like the one we know today and a traditional Mass, the majority would say that the traditional Mass is what they want, and not the other”

The traditional liturgy is the liturgy of Vatican II, perhaps with small changes.

When mainstream media spin takes a sharp turn, against Francis

For the record: Matthew Schmitz, "Has Pope Francis Failed?" (New York Times, September 28, 2016).

Was that a Catholic Mass or Protestant Service? Hilarious.

Of course, humour, like alcohol (in vino veritas), always conveys some truth:


"No One At Mass Sure Whether They At Catholic Or Protestant Service" (Eye of the Tiber, September 7, 2016):

Despite efforts to figure whether they were in a Catholic or Protestant service, local parishioners were left baffled after an “animated” man wearing vestments put on a head mic and began pacing back and forth as he delivered his sermon.

“The man looked like a priest and I was quite certain I was in a Catholic Church,” said longtime parishioner Joyce Parlin who had no clue as to what the hell was going on. “But he kept pacing back and forth, ending each statement with a ‘can I get an amen?’ No one was exactly sure what he was asking for. I overheard one gentleman respond, ‘yes, I suppose,’ but the priest or pastor or whatever he was kept desperately asking if he could get more amens.”

Parlin went on to add that the priest or pastor or whatever the heck he was continually used words like “fellowship” and “ministry” during his sermon, words, Parlin admitted, she had never heard before.

“He also used the phrase ‘saved by the Blood of the Lamb,’ which I suppose is some sort of Christian take on the TV show ‘Saved by the Bell.’ Hell, I don’t know.”

At press time, the band has begun singing praise a worship as beach balls are being thrown to and fro, confirming that the event is a Life Teen Mass.

[Hat tip to Fr. Z]

Calling leaders 'moderate' only abets the enemy's desire to sanitize evil and marginalize faithful Catholics

William Doino, Jr., "The Myth of the Moderate Catholic" (First Things, August 29, 2016:

If there is one word Christians should be wary of, in the political and religious spheres, it is “moderate.” Though it denotes a prudent, middle-of-the-road approach to contested issues, “moderation” is often ascribed to people who hold very immoderate views.

The mainstream media, for example, frequently describe politicians who endorse every aspect of the culture of death and ongoing sexual revolution as “moderates.” It’s not difficult to understand why: Doing so helps sanitize the enormous evil of abortion and promote a do-as-you-please morality—exactly what the media desire.

In the religious sphere, “moderate” is frequently applied—albeit inconsistently and for different reasons—to Catholic bishops who speak out for social justice, but who are also strongly pro-life and pro–traditional marriage. Again, the reasons are obvious: Championing the supposed “moderate” side of Catholicism will, as the media see it, delegitimize “conservatism” within the Church, and thus weaken the Church’s repressive and outdated moral teachings.

Together with Joseph's comment beneath the posted article:

Christian moderates of all stripes have forgotten Christ's own words.

For example, "Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household."

Surely, Jesus desires that the whole world would be at peace and that all could share in God's glory, but he also understood that truth is radical. Truth is divisive and exclusionary by its nature. When he said that "nobody comes to the Father except through me," he meant it. The way, the truth, and the life is just one path - the only path.

When "moderates" attempt to soften what they perceive as the rough edges of Christianity, they are only eroding the truth to conform to human standards. Any heart changed by Christ knows that it works precisely the other way around.

What's worse is that this watering down of the message minimizes the sacrifice of the cross. One wonders if we aren't soon headed for a final evolution of Christianity that does away with all that icky "sin" stuff altogether.