Sidebar
Browse Our Articles & Podcasts

A Busy Week in Review: Vatican Edition

This past week has been incredibly busy for Church news. There is a definitive sense that the Francis agenda has shifted, once again, into a higher gear. We didn’t have the time to cover all the stories of relevance over the past week, so here’s a top-level recap of what’s been happening, sorted by day.

Monday, June 26:

Re-imagining Humanae Vitae 

In a report by Phil Lawler entitled, Pope may not have ordered re-examination of contraception, but it’s happening under his watch, Lawler echoes the denial (not at all believable, in my book) issued by Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, president of the Pontifical Academy for Life and grand chancellor of the John Paul II Institute (as well as star of his own homoerotic mural and promoter of pornographic sex ed materials) that any re-examination of Humanae Vitae in light of Amoris Laetitia exists. You may recall we reported on this based on Roberto de Mattei’s confirmation of the existence of just such a commission. “The bad news,” writes Lawler, “is that the commission exists. Call it a ‘study group’ if you prefer, but there is a scholarly panel, working under the auspices of a pontifical institute, preparing a reappraisal of Humanae Vitae.”

Lawler continues:

Archbishop Paglia assured Gagliarducci that “there is no pontifical commission called to re-read or to re-interpret Humanae Vitae. OK, Pope Francis didn’t appoint the commission. He didn’t need to. By appointing Archbishop Paglia, and appointing the new members of the Pontifical Academy for Life, he ensured that these institutions would take a new direction.

Or put it this way: Pope Francis didn’t appoint the commission that is now studyingHumanae Vitae. But that commission wouldn’t exist within the Vatican if it didn’t have the Pope’s implicit approval.

Summorum Pontificum Under Fire

While we were sharing a new drink recipe from Dr. Michael Foley to celebrate the 10th anniversary of Summorum Pontificum and the liberation of the Traditional Latin Mass, progressive Italian Catholic theologian and historian Massimo Faggioli — whose name, interestingly, translates into English as “Maximum Beans” — was showing what he’s full of. You see, Faggioli thinks Pope Francis is the living embodiment of all the hopes and dreams of Vatican II “reformers”, so it may come as no surprise that he’s not a fan of Pope Benedict’s work in restoring the Latin Mass paradigm:

Paul VI and John Paul II had already sought to accommodate liturgical traditionalists by issuing special indults for celebrating the pre-Vatican II liturgy, most particularly in 1984 and 1988. But they never cast any doubt on the legitimacy and the good fruits of the Vatican II liturgical reform, the theological and ecclesiological framework of which is found in the constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium.

Those earlier popes saw a fundamental coherence between the tradition of the Church, the theology of Vatican II and the council’s liturgical reform.

But this picture changed significantly under Benedict XVI, whose pontificate needs to be analyzed in its complexity; that is, through his speeches, policy decisions, and personnel appointments. It makes no sense to interpret the theology of his entire pontificate solely on the basis of his address on the “two hermeneutics” of Vatican II or on his encyclicals.

There is little doubt that Benedict expressed and embodied a clear shift from a magisterium that saw Vatican II as part of the tradition of the Church to a magisterium that saw the tradition and Vatican II in much more complicated terms. Certain issues, such as the liturgical reform, were seen in tension and opposition.

While it is certainly too early to assess the long-term effects of Summorum Pontificum, it is necessary to begin the effort. For example, ten years on it is striking to re-read Benedict’s hasty, and failed, attempt to stop the tendency to interpret the “motu proprio” as a denunciation of Vatican II, which – in fact – is widespread in Catholic traditionalist circles.

Further on, Faggioli complains:

[T]here are two phenomena that are part of the post-Summorum Pontificum ecclesial and theological landscape of Roman Catholicism, which are difficult to separate from the pontificate of Benedict XVI.

The first phenomenon is that Summorum Pontificum boosted the pre-existing, sociologically limited world of liturgical traditionalism and projected it onto the wider world of the Catholic Church, especially among English-speakers. It is has given theological legitimacy to traditionalist views of the Vatican II liturgical reforms. And it has raised the visibility of traditionalist liturgy in the virtual spaces of the Catholic Church.

Over the past decade, social media has increasingly become a forum where the people of God can make their voices heard. Images of elaborate vestments used for pre-Vatican II liturgical celebrations have become part of the daily diet of those who follow the life of local churches and even prominent Church leaders.

This has had a significant impact on important parts of contemporary Roman Catholicism and its future – especially on committed Catholic youth and recent converts, as well as on seminarians and young priests.

The second phenomenon has been the reduction of Joseph Ratzinger’s theology to that of traditionalism. In fact, Summorum Pontificum has helped to greatly distort the overall theological legacy of one of the most important theologians in the 20th century.

If Joseph Ratzinger’s emphasis was on the tradition of the Church (“continuity and reform”), Benedict XVI’s pontificate has been reduced, especially in these last few years, to an icon of traditionalism (against any kind of theological development, seen as “discontinuity”).

This liturgical traditionalism has contributed to an overall traditionalist understanding of Catholicism to the point that it has become a problem and challenge for Pope Francis. Last year (July 11, 2016) the pope finally felt the need to intervene. In a statement released by the Holy See Press Office, he disavowed the so-called “reform of the liturgical reform”, which Cardinal Robert Sarah – prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship – had promoted a few days earlier during a public lecture to priests in London.

Let’s pause for a brief interlude in honor of Professor Faggioli.

There. Now that we’ve gotten that out of our system, his conclusion:

…Liturgical traditionalism among Catholics has had a negative effect on the acceptance of other documents from Vatican II, such as those on ecumenism, inter-religious dialogue and missionary activity of the Church.

Cry me a river.

Tuesday, June 27:

Walfordism and the Four Cardinals

My battle with Stephen Walford over Amoris Laetitia last week spilled over to Twitter, where I’m less known for diplomacy and more for my skills in heckling. After recognizing that I should be a better evangelist than pugilist, at one point I apologized to Walford for being so abrasive.

And then the next day, this piece of fetid garbage was published. In it, Walford, with his overinflated sense of his own theological knowledge, suits up in his characteristic hubris and tells the Four Cardinals to go pound sand. He tells them that their dubia have already been answered, and then proceeds to tell them about his favorite magisterial documents, which he’s fond of quoting every chance he gets if he feels it can prove his point (but never when it doesn’t.) He then asks them a series of condescending questions (as one Catholic commentator said to me privately, “I hope Walford is a better pianist than he is theologian and papal apologist, because his two pieces are, at times, embarrassing. Even farcical.”), accuses them of not living in the “real world,” and then delivers this load of manure to their doorstep:

I will end by humbly [sic!] asking you to reconsider your position on this issue. You may or may not be aware that there is a growing section of traditionalists and even some conservative Catholics who see you as the standard bearers for the rejection of this papacy. I know from experience that some of it is deeply troubling. The abuse from many, including those who run websites and Traditionalist blogs aimed at the Holy Father and those who are loyal to him, is nothing short of satanic. You are their role models and that is an intolerable situation. In reality, there is no confusion but only outright rejection and defiance towards the legitimate Pope and his magisterial teachings. If all the Cardinals had accepted and defended Pope Francis’ clear teaching, there would have been no fuel for the dissenting fire. In the desire for the Unity of the Church around Peter, it is essential to affirm the Pope has the authority— ratified in heaven—to make disciplinary changes for the good of some divorced and remarried souls, and so I ask you to bring to an end this situation by accepting the constant Tradition of the Church that Popes are free from error in matters of faith and morals and that derives from the specific prayer of Jesus himself: “I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail” (Lk. 22: 32).  [emphasis added]

It’s a good thing this Walford fellow is so much smarter than these eminent and esteemed cardinals, most of whom are experts in their respective fields. What would they do without him? La Stampa needs to fire its editorial staff.

For Walford’s attack to be rolled out like this (it was immediately boosted by a Crux article with no byline) — an attack I’m afraid I gave oxygen to by bothering to respond to his five month old failed essay about AL’s place in Catholic magisterial teaching — makes me wonder if he’s being used as a surrogate to begin a new round of attacks on anyone questioning AL. I fully expect to see more thought pieces soon using Walfordian logic to demean and rebuke the Four Cardinals.

For what it’s worth, Latin Mass Society of England and Wales Chairman and Oxford Fellow Dr. Joseph Shaw took Walford behind the woodshed. I won’t excerpt it here, but suffice to say he uses the phrases “suppose for a mad moment that in Walford-land” and “Walford appears to inhabit an parallel universe in which the only problems being caused by Amoris are being caused by theological conservatives” and “This suggestion is so insane that I do not believe that Walford can have this in mind”. It’s gleeful.

Wednesday, June 28:

Pope Benedict, Are You Trying to Tell Us Something?

On Wednesday, Pope Francis made five new cardinals at the Public Ordinary Consistory. (One of the five, believe it or not, is a wanted man for corruption in his home country of Mali. But I digress…) In his homily to the five new cardinals, Francis touched on a theme that sounds positively Walfordian:

[T]he disciples themselves are distracted by concerns that have nothing to do with the “direction” taken by Jesus, with his will, which is completely one with that of the Father”. So it is that, as we heard, the two brothers James and John think of how great it would be to take their seats at the right and at the left of the King of Israel (cf. v. 37). They are not facing reality! They think they see, but they don’t. They think they know, but they don’t. They think they understand better than the others, but they don’t…

Later, the new cardinals were taken, as has become the custom in this age of two living men called “pope”, to stand before the Pope Emeritus and receive his blessing. Although I have not seen a full text of Pope Benedict’s comments to the cardinals, he did end with this:

Sort of an ominous thing to say, don’t you think? Makes you wonder if it appears to the Pope Emeritus that the Lord isn’t winning now…

Bishop Poprocki has to defend himself for being a Catholic Bishop 

For this one, I’ll let the article at Catholic World Report tell the story:

On June 12, Bishop Thomas Paprocki of Springfield, Illinois issued a decree regarding same-sex “marriage” (SSM) and “related pastoral issues”.  In it, he reaffirmed traditional Catholic teaching that marriage can only be “a covenant between one man and one woman …” and promulgated diocesan norms relating to SSM.  Norms included that no member of the diocesan clergy or staff is allowed to participate in a SSM service in any way, nor is church property to be used for SSM services or receptions.  Persons in SSM relationships may not receive Holy Communion, and when in danger of death, persons in SSM relationships may not receive Holy Communion in the form of Viaticum unless they express repentance for their lifestyle.

Additionally, persons in SSM relationships may not receive a Catholic funeral unless they offered some signs of repentance before their death, nor may they serve as lectors or extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion at Mass.  Children of parents in SSM relationships may receive the sacraments and attend Catholic schools; however, such parents should be aware that their children will be instructed in the fullness of Catholic teaching.
In a follow-up statement released June 23rd, Bishop Paprocki added that “the Church has not only the authority, but the serious obligation to affirm its authentic teaching on marriage and to preserve and foster the sacred value of the married state.”

Unsurprisingly, this caused an unholy hellstorm. And bishop Paprocki — facing calls for his resignation, among other things — answered like a real Catholic shepherd:

The Catholic Church has been very clear for two thousand years that we do not accept same-sex “marriage,” yet many people seem to think that the Church must simply cave in to the popular culture now that same-sex “marriage” has been declared legal in civil law.  From a pastor’s perspective, it is quite troubling to see that so many Catholics have apparently accepted the politically correct view of same-sex “marriage.”  This just shows how much work needs to be done to provide solid formation about the Catholic understanding of marriage.

I think my favorite answers in the Paprocki interview, however, came at the end:

CWR: Has the negative press on this issue been difficult for you personally, or have you come to see that it goes with the office you hold?

Bishop Paprocki: I’ll take my cue on that question from my patron saint, Sir Thomas More, who said, “I do not care very much what men say of me, provided that God approves of me.”

CWR: Any other thoughts?

Bishop Paprocki: Gay activists have harassed my staff and me with obscene telephone calls, e-mail messages and letters using foul language and profanity, supposedly in the name of love and tolerance.  I am sorry that people around me have been subjected to such hateful and malicious language.

CWR: Is there anything you’d like to see Catholics who support the decision do to help?

Bishop Paprocki: Please pray for the conversion of sinners.

LIKE A BOSS.

Concelebration: Not Just a Good Idea, It’s the Law

At Rorate Caeli, it was revealed on Wednesday that there is a

“working paper” of the Congregation for the Clergy “On Concelebration in the Colleges and Seminaries of Rome”, which is circulating in an unofficial way in the Roman colleges and seminaries.  What emerges clearly from this text is that Pope Francis wants to impose Eucharistic Concelebration in the colleges and seminaries of Rome, de facto, if not in principle, affirming that: “the celebration in community must always be preferred to individual celebration”.
At his blog, Fr. John Zuhlsdorf (“Fr. Z”) says of the news:

This of course is a direct contradiction to the Code of Canon Lawcan. 902, which guarantees that priests can celebrate Mass individually and privately.  I think that concelebration should be safe, legal and rare.

[…]

I am not opposed in principle to concelebration (which is a Novus Ordo thing, of course).  I will concelebrate occasionally, for example, at ordinations to the priesthood and on Holy Thursday, especially with the bishop.  Otherwise, I want to say my own Masses.  Concelebration is too prone to wandering minds, inattentiveness, sloppiness, abuses. I’ve seen horrid examples of this, including priests not saying anything at all during the consecration and bizzare handling of the Eucharist.  Can there be poorly celebrated private Masses?  Sure.  However, a man who is dedicated to saying Mass privately – because of devotion and because saying Mass is a good thing for him and for those for whom he offers it – is less likely to celebrate in a sloppy manner.

Moreover, it seems to me that a concelebrated Mass is one Mass, not many.  Why is that a good thing?  People can talk about priestly brotherhood and unity blah blah blah.  Why are fewer Masses good for anyone?   It seems to me that many Masses, properly and reverently celebrated, are good for the Church and for the world.

In addition, the imposition of concelebration for all priests in clerical residences in Rome will also undercut the right of priests to use the 1962 Roman Missal in accord with Summorum Pontificum.  The use of the older, traditional Missale Romanum is on the rise among younger priests.  Many seminarians want it.  I’ll bet that scares the daylights out of some who are in power.

As one of my Roman correspondents put it:

This is scorched earth tactics.  They’re going Carthage on everything distinctively Catholic to make sure we don’t turn back the Hegelian flow of history again.

Fr. Z also dishes on a bizarre proposal to only allow transitional deacons to be ordained if the laity of the parish where they’re serving approves. You can’t make this stuff up.

Thursday, June 29:

Cardinal Pell Accused

Cardinal Pell, who has fought an uphill battle to bring reforms to the Vatican bank, was formally charged with sexual abuse this week after an investigation that lasted years. There are concerns that the media in his home country of Australia are pursuing the case so recklessly and unethically that he may never get a fair trial. As the campaign against Cardinal Pell swings into high gear, we are left to wonder: is this the case of yet another high-ranking cleric guilty of unspeakable deeds, or is the man who was charged with the task of staring into the Pandora’s box of Vatican finances being destroyed because he found out things he was never meant to see? There is so much to consider concerning this situation that I spun it off into a separate article.

Charlie Gard and the Pontifical Academy for Life

I am not well-informed about the situation with little Charlie Gard, the terminally-ill 10 month old in the UK whose parents wanted to bring him to the United States for experimental treatment, only to face denial from the European Court of Human Rights. What I can tell you is that Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia issued a statement regarding the case, and it amounts to a politely-worded version of: “Sorry parents, it’s sad, but you need to just suck it up and let him die”. There are those who argue that the child’s condition is irreversible, and perhaps it is. But there is no reason why the parents should not be able to seek alternative treatment, or hope for a miracle. Science doesn’t always get things right. Nevertheless, champions of the new direction of the Vatican as regards pro-life issues seem to see nothing wrong with the  approach:

The papal Twitter account unleashed its own tone deaf (and possibly unintentional) commentary on the situation this morning:

Friday, June 30:

Gaying it up at the Hotel Vaticana

A report that came out earlier in the week indicated that something rather indecent had transpired in the apartment of a Vatican official:

Il Fatto Quotidiano writes, that the Holy See’s Gendarmerie disrupted a homosexual drug-party in an apartment of the Palazzo del Sant’Uffizio in Rome, where also the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith is located. The apartment belongs to a monsignor, who was caught red-handed. According to Il Fatto Quotidiano, he is the secretary of a cardinal who heads a dicastery of the Roman Curia and who had proposed the monsignor to become a bishop.

The monsignor was brought to the Roman clinic Pio XI in order to be detoxified. He is now in a monastery in Italy. His apartment was not destined for simple monsignors. He also drove an exclusive car with Vatican license plates, which are reserved for higher Vatican dignitaries.

Il Fatto Quotidiano writes that the cardinal, for whom the monsignor was working, is well over 75. This is only true for two cardinals at the Roman Curia, Cardinal Angelo Amato (79) of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints, and pro-gay Cardinal Francesco Cocopalmerio (79) of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts.

As Hilary White noted, Cardinal Amato is known for his denunciation of same-sex “marriage” and abortion, going so far as to call homosexual “marriage” an evil.

“Now” wrote Hilary, “let’s see what Cardinal Coccopalmerio is famous for…”

He’s recently become one of Francis’ leading Nothing-to-See-Here apologists on Chapter VIII of AL.

But I think his “side” in the larger church-war can be determined less by what he says than what he does, and who is friends are. Specifically this friend. Mauro Inzoli is known to have appealed his suspension a divinis, imposed by Benedict, to his two buddies in the Curia; Monsignore Pio Vito Pinto and Cardinal Coccopalmerio.

Inzoli was recently convicted of child molestation – acts he occasionally enjoyed committing in the confessional and sentenced to nine years, four months four years, nine months in prison [Oops. My bad. HJW] But he was walking around free for quite a while. His suspension by Benedict was overturned by Francis on the advice of his two close collaborators, Pinto and Coccopalmerio. The suspension was lifted and Inzoli was allowed to celebrate private Masses, ordered to stay away from the kids and to get five years of “counselling.” This lenient treatment, however, backfired a bit because it aroused howls of protest from … well… normal people in Italy who had had rather enough of Don Mercedes.

(Inzoli, by the way, was finally laicized.)

Two days later, Hilary’s math was checked, and it was not found wanting:

Mexico City, June 29 (SinEmbargo / RT) .- Italian police broke into the apartment of the former secretary of Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio, housed in the palace of the former Holy Office in the Vatican, where a gay orgy with drugs, reports Italian media.

Upon locating the prelate himself, the police arrested him and sent him to the Pío XI clinic for detoxification. He is currently in retreat in a convent in Italy.

The intervention of the security forces came as a result of complaints about the constant arrival of guests to the apartment. Likewise, suspicions appeared regarding the luxury car with the license plate of the Holy Seat that had said prelate.

Cardinal Coccopalmerio is the President of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts.

We’ve written about Coccopalmerio here and here. If you don’t remember him, he’s the one who was chosen to write the book about Amoris Laetitia, published by the Libreria Editrice Vaticana and promoted by the Vatican itself, that said this:

“The divorced and remarried, de facto couples, those cohabitating, are certainly not models of unions in sync with Catholic Doctrine, but the Church cannot look the other way. Therefore, the sacraments of Reconciliation and Communion should be given even to those so-called wounded families and to however many who, despite living in situations not in line with traditional matrimonial canons, express the sincere desire to approach the sacraments after an appropriate period of discernment.” [Emphasis added]

Lovely man. And this is my favorite photo of him:

Yeah. Nothing off there. Whatsoever.

The End of the Line for Cardinal Müller

Of course, the most noteworthy story of the week was the unceremonious departure of Cardinal Gerhard Müller, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. With his five-year mandate expiring tomorrow, July 2nd, Müller was told he wouldn’t be coming back to the job. I wrote about this yesterday, so I won’t comment much on it here, except for two things:

There were some indications from our sources in Rome that thus freed from the constraints of his position, Müller would be much more likely to fight for a change. A new report from Rorate Caeli this morning demonstrate that those expectations appear to have been just a tad optimistic:

 “The five year term was over,” Cardinal Müller said. Although it is customary to renew the term, in his case Francis decided not to do so. Francis told him that it was his plan from now in general not to extend such terms, “and I was the first one for whom the plan was implemented,” said Müller. The pope did not give any further reason. And Müller himself says that he does not know of any further reason why the pope would not want him to continue. “There were no differences between me and Pope Francis,” said Cardinal Müller… He insisted that there was no quarrel about Amoris Laetitia, the Apostolic Exhortation in which Pope Francis allowed more flexibility in the pastoral care of the divorced and remarried, and which in some points he did not find complete agreement with Cardinal Müller. It was regrettable, however, Müller said, that the pope fired three of his officials a few weeks previously. “There were competent people,” he said. At 12 o’clock on Friday, he learned from Pope Francis himself that he wanted a new prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. “It doesn’t bother me,” said the 69 year old, smiling. “Everyone has to retire at some point.” He will stay in the Vatican, that much he has decided. “I will do scholarly work, continue to exercise my function as cardinal, and do what I can in the care of souls. I have enough to do in Rome.”

Secondly, Müller has already been replaced. His name is Archbishop Luis Ladaria Ferrer. He is a Spanish Jesuit. (I’ll just wait here for your eyes to stop rolling). I don’t know much about him. I’ve already seen some people saying “we dodged a bullet.” My friend and colleague Oakes Spalding says he’s a universalist. I think we need to take our time before we get excited and remember who appointed him and that mistakes are rarely made in the irreversible program of Church reform. Whatever the case, he’s very, very unlikely to make trouble for The Dictatorship of Mercy.

That’s the wrapup for this week. Let’s hope next week isn’t quite as…fruitful.

121 thoughts on “A Busy Week in Review: Vatican Edition”

  1. The photo of that diabolical, pervert sums up it up for me.

    Yes, the Lord wins in the end. But, many to be lost in the meantime.
    Stay tuned.

    Reply
      • February 11, 2013 marked the start of an acceleration of time for our Church.
        With such speed now and unabashed is Satan releasing the final thrust of what has been
        methodically and cleverly, bit by bit planned ,for many decades now.

        God gave us a sweet little saint, Bernadette, who had the faith to eat dirt when she was told, and
        withstood attacks, persecution, threats for our Lady. February 11, 1858 was her first vision of the Blessed Mother near the grotto of Massabielle.

        May we serve Him well through this.

        Reply
        • Do you understand why she was directed to humiliate herself with eating dirt? Was this indignity good or necessary?

          There is a lot I don’t understand.

          Reply
          • I don’t think one needs to understand here. Our Lady had her reasons.

            In my mind, Bernadette showed complete humility and obedience to the request by our Blessed Mother. Bernadette accepted that she would willingly be used as a tool, for God’s greater glory. I think perhaps, the eating of dirt, upon request of our Blessed Mother, was to help strengthen Bernadette as well.

          • Well said. After all Our Blessed Lady risked scandal, ostentation and being cast off by St Joseph in order to be obedient to God’s holy Will and have her baby – Jesus.

        • Amen! St. Alphonsus formulated five prayers for the most important Feasts of Our Lady. This is his prayer for the Feast of the Annunciation:

          Virgin ever blessed, you are raised to the sublime dignity of Mother of God; may I remain always faithful in His service.

          Reply
        • “Eat dirt”? Do you know anything about Bernadette and the waters of Lourdes?

          Bernadette was told by the BVM to dig in a certain spot, and then wash herself in the stream and drink of the water that came up. Obviously those around her didn’t hear these instructions. They saw Bernadette dig in the dirt (which evidently was damp), and then smear herself with what appeared to be nothing but mud.

          Which understandably seemed pretty weird at the time.

          But it wasn’t just mud. There actually WAS water bubbling up. And it kept coming. And it’s 2017, and the water keeps coming up. And millions of people have washed in it, and drunk it, and nobody thinks it’s weird now.

          My point is, Bernadette was NOT told to “eat dirt.”

          Reply
        • I love Saint Bernadette. When asked what she feared most of all, her reply was “bad catholics.”

          That says it in a nutshell:-)

          St. Bernadette pray for us!!!!

          And, during the ninth apparition she was, indeed, directed to eat some of the weedy grass in the grotto, which I would venture to guess probably had some dirt on it as well. This was met with shouts of horror from the onlookers, “she is mad!”

          May we all be so brave as this sweet saint, even while the crowd is jeering.

          Ad majorem Dei gloriam!

          Reply
    • I edited my initial post regarding the diabolical pervert mentioned and shown in this article.
      But, I shall repost the rest of it:
      Yes, we know God wins. But…..in the meantime, souls to be lost, much unhappiness and great unrest
      for the world. Satan has such an easy time of it, which should make these SILENT cardinals shudder and fear.

      Since I am on a role here, I would say that the errors of Muller, and perhaps a few more cardinals dear to us, that are so reluctant to ” defend the Church to the very ends of the earth”, somehow believe that they are so gifted, so needed, so as to remain in the backfield, will only do good for the laity and theChurch.
      What utter vanity!! The cardinals, like Muller, have become so preciously full of their own piety, they can’t seem to understand that they are a speck. They have grandiose illusions, that they cannot
      sacrifice their red “beanie” because why, without them, the Church will surely go to hell.

      Guess what guys?

      Reply
  2. There is good news. It is now reported that Charlie Gard has been baptized.
    I’ve been worried about this since learning of his family’s terrible battle. Praise and glory to God for this excellent, excellent news.

    Reply
  3. Sodomy is the bane of the Catholic Church.

    Cocco is a sodomite, Paglia is a sodomite……..

    They’ve taken over. These men are addicted to self-indulgence and have no stomach for sacrifice and suffering. That’s why they won’t confront the zeitgeist. They’re not real Christian men who’ll put their lives on the line for Christ. Mouth a few platitudes about Charlie Gard and then fuh-get about it!

    Worthless, faithless rouges. Fake shepherds.

    Reply
        • I think a lot of people are reading this incorrectly. This isn’t the first time I’ve seen the two confused:

          Italian police broke into the apartment of the former secretary of Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio, housed in the palace of the former Holy Office in the Vatican, where a Gay orgy with drugs, reports Italian media.

          Upon locating the prelate himself, the police arrested him and sent him to the Pío XI clinic for detoxification. He is currently in retreat in a convent in Italy.

          My read on this is that these bold sections are both referring to Msgr. Luigi Capozzi, not Cardinal Coccopalmerio. If I’m missing something, please let me know.

          Reply
          • The bold sections in this report are indeed both referring to Msgr Capozzi.

            I was assuming that the blog linked in my above post had an alternative source of information which implicated Coccopalmiero. This assumption may or may not be correct.

      • On a more light-hearted note, this was posted on Vox Cantoris:

        For Baby Charlie, heir to the kingdom of heaven:

        God save our precious Charles,
        Long live our in-fant Charles!
        God save infant Charles!
        Send him victorious,
        Happy and glorious,
        Long to live among us:
        God save infant Charles!

        O Lord our God arise,
        Scatter his enemies,
        And make them fall:
        Confound their politics,
        Frustrate their knavish tricks,
        On Thee our hopes we fix:
        God save infant Charles.

        Thy choicest gifts in store,
        On him be pleased to pour;
        Long may he live:
        May he defy evil laws,
        And ever give us cause,
        To sing with heart and voice,
        God save infant Charles!

        Pretty neat, don’t you think?

        Reply
  4. The fact that Archbishop Ladaria is president of the papal commission studying the ordination of women to the diaconate should tell us something.

    Reply
    • Amen. That’s the first thing I thought. I wondered, hmmm, what does he have to offer??? and then, boom, there it was.

      Reply
  5. For all you holy priests {and laymen} out there, remember the Church has always used whatever was good in the pagan society in order to point to Christ. True enough, in the last half century it seems our leaders have redefined that concept to mean simple praise FOR the pagan society, but in ramming the truth down their throats, let’s not toss the baby out with the bathwater.

    In that spirit {I hope the Holy One}, Holy Priests, I wish my arms were long enough to give you all a good solid shot in the arm.

    Alas, my arms aren’t long enough.

    But in that spirit, I offer you this encouragement.

    Speaker On.

    All the way up. It’s worth the risk of a blown subwoofer.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKQsv1Q3ZNY

    Reply
  6. Faggiolli? Really? That doesn’t even sound like a real name. It sounds like the name that people in middle school would make up outta his actual name to mock him

    But at least the jokes write themselves!

    Reply
  7. Some pundits were tipping the appointment of Cardinal Sean O’Malley, while others went for Christoph Schonborn to replace Cdl. Muller as Prefect of the CDF. Happily both were wrong. The Jesuit Cardinal Luis Ladaria Ferrer is described as “a theological conservative.” The expectation, reasonably enough, was that Francis would appoint someone after his own heart. Whether or not Cdl. Ladaria proves to be just that remains to be seen. But one thing that does immediately set off alarm bells is that he was appointed President of the Study Commission on the Women’s Diaconate, and many of us have an inkling as to Francis’ own position on this. Otherwise, this Commission would be completely redundant.

    Reply
    • If everything goes according to the plan of the globalists, Cardinal Sean O’Malley should replace “Pope Francis” and become the ruler of the fake Catholic Church. Or the Anti-Church, if you see it that way.

      Reply
  8. “As one of my Roman correspondents put it:

    This is scorched earth tactics. They’re going Carthage on everything distinctively Catholic to make sure we don’t turn back the Hegelian flow of history again.

    Fr. Z also dishes on a bizarre proposal to only allow transitional deacons to be ordained if the laity of the parish where they’re serving approves. You can’t make this stuff up.”

    Let me see if I have this straight:

    Humanae Vitae is up for grabs but not officially up for grabs.

    “…the reduction of Joseph Ratzinger’s theology to that of traditionalism.”

    A Cardinal is fired for acts done in the past while the secretary of another Cardinal caught in flagrante delicto gets rehabilitated.

    A wanted man is made a Cardinal while 4 good Cardinals and a faithful American bishop are persecuted.

    Transitional deacons can’t be ordained unless the *laity* approve???

    The guardian of orthodoxy is fired and replaced.

    Mea culpa if I missed anything.

    As noted above: “You can’t make this stuff up.”

    Hilary White might say: “The Great Clarification continues.”

    Save Your people, O Lord, and bless Your inheritance. Grant victory to Your Church over Her enemies, and protect Your people by Your Cross.

    Troparion of the Holy Cross, Tone 1

    Have mercy on us, O Lord, have mercy on us! Since we have no defense, we sinners offer this supplication to You, our Master: Have mercy on us!

    Troparion of General Intercession and Penitence, Tone 6

    Reply
    • I am having a difficult time with all this horrible stuff Francis is doing. I know there has been corruption in Rome forever but do these men not believe in GOD? Francis is blaspheming yet very few Cardinals are saying anything. In fact only 4 have questioned his blasphemy. Are they not afraid of GOD’s retribution? Are they just play acting at being believers? Is it just about power? Have they sold their souls to Satan? Has anyone else thought about this? It just boggles my mind.

      Reply
      • According to many who have studied the question, including the late John Vennari (‘Alta Vendita’, which appears to be out of print; also there are the words of Our Lady of Good Success at Quito, Ecuador), the Church has indeed been infiltrated, by high-ranking Freemasons (and/or whomever is above even them?). Right now it’s impossible to say for sure how many, but these people are out there, and since the Church is the only institution on earth that can stop them, it stands to reason that they would try very hard to destroy Her from within.

        Reply
      • I suspect that many members of the clergy do lose their faith. The problem is that a priest who loses his faith is faced with a dilemma. The Church represents his bread and butter and he is not trained to take up any other career. At the same time he probably sees that the Church does do some good in the social sphere. So he carries on pretending and devotes himself to social work.

        Occasionally there are other ways out. In a village not far from here there is an ex-benedictine monk from Downsisde who is now the married vicar of the local Anglican Church so he has a wife and presumably a reasonably generous living and all the security of the established Church of England.

        Reply
      • I have thought long and hard about all of this. Yes, it is mind boggling.

        On the positive side of the ledger: what is unfolding will force all to choose — do we/ will we serve the Lord or do we/ will we serve Satan? It will reveal where the clergy stand — are they good shepherds and holy men who are faithful to Christ and to his Church or are they not? What is unfolding is the fulfillment of prophesy– many a saint would trade places with us to live in our day and age. Each of us will have the opportunity to become a saint with all of its rewards or not.

        On the negative side of the ledger: what is unfolding is downright painful (agonizing) to witness. The Bride of Christ — his Church — is undergoing her passion and crucifixion. what is unfolding is confusing, demoralizing, scandalizing, ravaging ….. fill in descriptors here ….. If a tree is known by its fruit, then I would venture to say that many of the Catholic clergy are not Catholic and are not Christian. If a tree is known by its fruit, then the tree (and fruit) are rotten to the core.

        Do they fear God’s retribution? If one doesn’t believe in God, then of course one will not fear his retribution. Are they play acting at being believers? That could very well be the case. Is it just about power? No, it is not just about power; it is about money and ego too. Have they sold their souls to Satan? Windswept House and Hostage to the Devil may not have been works of fiction. But take heart. We all know who wins in the end. Satan knows too and his time is short.

        Reply
        • Well said Susan,
          “If a tree is known by its fruit, then I would venture to say that many of the Catholic clergy are not Catholic…”
          And yes! A tree IS known by its fruit! No any doubt about that. And we should always keep in mind right that, this parable which is telling us about the TREE. Not just keep attention about the rotten fruits of IT.
          And this too is worth to keep on mind:
          “…many a saint would trade places with us to live in our day and age.”
          Thank you and God bless you Susan.

          Reply
        • Thank you all for your responses. I have agonized over this but never put the question out there. I’m relieved to know that I am not alone witht these thoughts. I trust in GOD and depend on Jesus for my salvation but I also worry about those who need to convert especially the clergy who are false and drag souls along in their falseness.

          Reply
      • I would echo SJ Green and jsc. Their explanations are most likely the core reasons we must witness these bizarre heresies on full display in the Church of Christ. And, some have indeed lost the faith entirely. I do have a hard time with the fact that the four Cardinals who issued the Dubia to Francis are now just ‘coasting’ if not at a complete stand still. In the meantime souls are being led in the opposite direction of where they should go and the Cardinals basically………… do nothing.

        Reply
    • “Transitional deacons cannot be approved unless the laity approves” Maybe the Church is being remodeled in imitation of the Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association.

      Reply
      • As I understood it, it’s permanent deacons that could be ordained if the laity approves? Maybe I need to go check Fr. Z’s article…

        Reply
        • Whether permanent or transitional deacons, it still makes no sense that the laity would approve them BEFORE their ordination.

          In the Byzantine rite of ordination, the people sing “Axios!” – “Worthy!” or as is more commonly translated “He is worthy!” AFTER the man has received ordination to the diaconate, priesthood or episcopate.

          Reply
          • I agree, it’s ridiculous. My reason for thinking it was permanent deacons is two-fold 1) transitional deacons are just that… transitional. They will only be deacons until they are priests. That laity would decide is a little silly. 2) With all the talk of needing more priests in places like Brazil and maybe ordaining married men to the priesthood, permanent deacons seem to make the most sense. It’s all ridiculous and idiotic, but those were my reasons. I haven’t had a chance to get over to Fr. Z’s post to check it out yet, so I may be off… and hopefully and by God’s mercy none of this happens.

        • My own recollection would seem to be in agreement with Margaret’s, but I’m possibly mistaken. It is customary for transitional deacons to spend six months or so in a parish to ‘gain pastoral experience’ within the year prior to priestly ordination. So, when I read Fr. Z’s article, I immediately formed a mental image of a poor deacon, at the end of his six month ‘pastoral’ stint, being hauled before a jury of bolshy parishioners who would decide whether or not this particular candidate would be ‘the right stuff’ to make a priest according to their own concept of what a priest is.

          Reply
      • Or, full-out versions of Protestant ministry, as for many of those denominations ordination of a candidate cannot occur until they are “called” to their first parish or other significantly pastoral apostolate.

        I have a couple of colleagues at my hospital who have shared some of the process. The finding of a position is fundamentally a long interview process, usually with a Vestry or Board of Elders or some such, and some “regular” pew sitters included, then often once a couple of candidates are selected, they are asked to come to the church on a Sunday to either just preach (if they are replacing the minister who is already there), to actually run the entire worship service including preaching. Then sometimes there’s a meet-and-greet coffee hour after.

        Then usually a short time after the congregation is notified to come together for a special meeting, which is usually held in the nave of their church. Then, they vote as to which candidate will e given the reins. It all amounts to a full-out difference from Catholicism, as the Board/Vestry/Elders also have the power to dismiss the clergy if they are not in tune with the desires of the congregation.

        I gave a Biblical course once in NYC, which looked at the key differences between the Protestant and Catholic approach to Scripture (books, translations, usage in church life, etc.) and it pulled from various Catholic and Protestant parishes in the area. My goal was to show the fullness that Catholicism held. Some got that!! For many who came it was an “Isn’t that interesting?” curiosity. Whatever. What it led to is my point.

        I was asked (because of theological knowledge on Christology) to sit as a guest on a Vestry meeting in which there was discussion about bouncing the minister of multiple years because he was too strong on the absolute Divinity of Christ!! Very strong Unitarian ribbon ran through the congregation. I sat there doing my job of defending the pastor’s take (and not even a member!) all the while inside thinking WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAT?!?!!??!?!??!? It was so, so, so, so different from the idea of Catholic ordination and characterological change of the ordinand, so much more a “job” than a calling.

        I’m happy to say that though Protestant and so flawed the pastor held his job and went on to hammer not only on issues of Divinity but other important truths. One day he said to me, watching how our RC Church was declining (this was the late 80s) especially in liturgy and the ongoing rising of the social justice agenda, and most important to him the fight against Humanae Vitae in the Church and such fool things as “Catholics for Choice.” (He was adamantly pro-life and most of his congregation too) “What is wrong with you?? Don’t you know that if the Roman Church changes the essentials, none of the rest of us have any hope? We may disagree on some things but we have always looked to you to hold the line on the essentials! Why do you tolerate the dismantling?? Why is the Pope allowing this?” He was very vocal, pained tone of voice, flapping his arms around, exasperated and more. Decades later, I still take it as one of the most “Out the the mouths of babes” moments in my life.

        Reply
        • Thank you so much for this, Julia. Frankly, whenever I hear of former Protestants coming into the Church, I have to ask myself; “What do they really think they’re joining? And will they soon become thoroughly disillusioned?” Fortunately, thanks be to God, there have been a number of contributors to 1P5 who are in precisely this situation, and they testify that before entering the Church, they had come to an unshakable convinction of the Truth of our Faith. One of the most inspiring things is to hear former Protestant ministers who have entered the Church teaching us ‘cradle Catholics’ about the faith. It is especially powerful since they bring with them their fiery passion and the zeal that is typical of so many Protestant preachers.
          As for the one you described, if the Bergoglian Rigidity Index could be applied to him, he would probably be at the top of the scale!

          Reply
  9. Of course their agenda has been shifted in a higher gear. They need to finally impose an artificial religion in the Persian Gulf while there is still ongoing “political crises”. It’s the classical example of the “shock doctrine”. The fact that they are truly busy these days is obvious even from the latest move of the Abu Dhabi’s crown prince who decided to rename one mosque “Mary, Mother of Jesus” to “consolidate bonds of humanity between followers of different religions”. Now, if you add to that the recent visit of Bergoglio to Egypt in order to spread “unity and brotherhood” among Sunni Muslims and Christians, and that the future Bahrain Cathedral is, according to the words of the Bishop Camillo Ballin, the “House of Virgin Mary”, the things become very clear. This new religion among Jews, Sunni Muslims and Cristians is based on their common acceptance of Mary being Mother of Jesus. They don’t care who the Jesus truly is (Son of Mary, Son of God, Saviour, prophet, carpenter, teacher, friend, wonderworker or something else) for it doesn’t really mater to them. Unfortunately, that is why they are trying so hard to take away the Divine nature of Our Lord so He can not be called the Son of God and Saviour (it can’t bring the religious unity that is necessary for the political goals of the liberal globalist) nor the Church can be called the House of One Triune God, nor the Holy Mass can be the Sacrifice with the real presence of Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist. From now on, Jesus Christ should be just the Son of Mary, and the place of worship is now the “House of Virgin Mary” or “House of Mary, Mother of Jesus”. Btw, the seat of this new religion is in Domus Galilaeae in Israel.

    Reply
  10. Since we are “all going to be saved” what is the fuss all about. Pope Francis has found the truth that has set us all free. The whole “hell thing” was just a lot of Middle Age superstition. Fuhgeddaboudit. Live, love and be happy.

    The devil must surely be pleased with this week’s Church activities.

    Reply
  11. I expect Mr. Beans is precisely correct about this:
    Faggioli thinks Pope Francis is the living embodiment of all the hopes and dreams of Vatican II “reformers”,

    Reply
  12. Sandro Magister has published an excellent critique of Walford – unfortunately only available in Italian and French when I looked at it.

    Reply
  13. All these actors, filled with the “Pride Of Life”, who think they control “the arc of history”; using their days as if they were gods to impose their will on eternity. They are merely the living who have chosen the wrong side of the eternal battle. Lucifer controls the world, the flesh, the living (I John 2:16); and they have allied themselves with Satan’s infernal goals.

    “For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.” (Eph 6:12)

    As Pope Benedict said, “In the end, God wins”.

    Take up Christ’s yoke, as Bp Paprocki has done, and suffer with Jesus Christ while there is still time in this world. It doesn’t matter how hopeless it may seem at any given time. The battle always belongs to the Lord, in His dominion in heaven. And He wins. Satan is bound. Satan’s allies will be bound with him.

    Reply
  14. Loved this article! It’s great for people who don’t have enough time to read something longer but want the truth (with a little sarcasm in the mix) about current events in the Church. Hope to see more of these in the future! (Though hopefully they won’t have such bad news to report!)

    Reply
  15. Delighted to see the courage of the current Bishop of Springfield Illinois. A huge contrast to his late predecessor as Bishop, the infamous Daniel Ryan. Ryan survived the most sordid accusations for years before he was finally replaced. The less squalid allegations concerned his habit of cruising the streets of Springfield to pick up male prostitutes. No wonder that the current Bishop is facing such hostility as he attempts to uphold Catholic teaching.

    Reply
    • God bless Bishop Paprocki!

      He has affectionately been known as the “holy goalie”.

      No sacrilege intended, it’s just that it takes guts to face an ice hockey puck at 60-70 miles per hour.

      God writes straight w crooked lines.
      The Good Lord is in control and sees all in these dark days.

      Reply

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Popular on OnePeterFive

Share to...