Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio, president of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, has written a new book, released just a few days ago on February 8. The short, 30-page text is entitled, The Eighth Chapter of the Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia. Two facts — that it was printed by the Libreria Editrice Vaticana and that a press conference on its release has been scheduled tomorrow at the Vatican — gives the unmistakable impression, similar to the L’Osservatorio Romano publication of the Maltese bishops’ exhortation guidelines before it, that the text has implicit papal approval. It is unclear if any intended significance has been placed on the presser taking place on Valentine’s day — no longer an appropriate commemoration of the Roman priest and martyr, but an international celebration of all activities, moral or immoral, carried out in the name of “love.” If not, the coincidence seems fitting.
Like the Maltese bishops’ guidelines, Coccopalmerio’s book appears to embrace the most liberal possible interpretation of Amoris Laetitia. In a report from journalist Orazio La Rocca on the Italian website Panorama.it, we are treated to an important excerpt* from the text:
“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]
Lacking any qualifiers, it is bracing to read that “the sacraments of Reconciliation and Communion should be given” to the divorced and remarried. The addition of cohabitating couples to this inclusion indicates that the bastions against all forms of sexual immorality are also being razed — from within the Church. Following this logic, it can only be a matter of time before others engaging in acts such as homosexual sodomy will be explicitly added to the group of those who “must” be given access to the sacraments as a means of “pastoral care”.
La Rocca — who is, incidentally, listed as a co-presenter at tomorrow’s presser — continues with some observations:
It is an answer, however indirect, [to the dubia], but the result of a thorough canonical and ecclesiological study done at the request of the Pope himself, by one of his closest and most listened to collaborators, Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio, president of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts (the “Minister”of Justice of the Holy See).
…An initiative, they explain in the Vatican, aiming to “clarify” all “concerns” raised by the more traditional quarters related to their defense to the bitter end of the Church’s doctrine regarding marriage and access to the sacraments…
… Yes, therefore, to admission to the sacraments for those who, despite living in irregular situations, sincerely ask for admission into the fullness of ecclesial life, it is a gesture of openness and profound mercy – it is written in the ministerial note – on the part of Mother Church, who does not leave behind any of her children, aware that absolute perfection is a precious gift but one which cannot be reached by everyone.
Francis was elected in part to reform a dysfunctional curia. So shifting responsibilities is not troubling in itself. And it is hard not to credit the sincerity of his jeremiads against child abusers. But the CDF’s performance on this issue is miles better than the situation before 2001.
So why revert?
Perhaps because the CDF has taken a tough, rules-based approach to the issue of child abuse, which clashes with the more personal autocratic style of this pope. Or perhaps because reforming the reform would reward his allies, and humiliate an antagonist.
Rumors of this reform have been circulating in Rome for months. And not happily. Pope Francis and his cardinal allies have been known to interfere with CDF’s judgments on abuse cases. This intervention has become so endemic to the system that cases of priestly abuse in Rome are now known to have two sets of distinctions. The first is guilty or innocent. The second is “with cardinal friends” or “without cardinal friends.” [emphasis added]
Consider the case of Fr. Mauro Inzoli. Inzoli lived in a flamboyant fashion and had such a taste for flashy cars that he earned the nickname “Don Mercedes.” He was also accused of molesting children. He allegedly abused minors in the confessional. He even went so far as to teach children that sexual contact with him was legitimated by scripture and their faith. When his case reached CDF, he was found guilty. And in 2012, under the papacy of Pope Benedict, Inzoli was defrocked.
But Don Mercedes was “with cardinal friends,” we have learned. Cardinal Coccopalmerio and Monsignor Pio Vito Pinto, now dean of the Roman Rota, both intervened on behalf of Inzoli, and Pope Francis returned him to the priestly state in 2014, inviting him to a “a life of humility and prayer.” These strictures seem not to have troubled Inzoli too much. In January 2015, Don Mercedes participated in a conference on the family in Lombardy.
This summer, civil authorities finished their own trial of Inzoli, convicting him of eight offenses. Another 15 lay beyond the statute of limitations. The Italian press hammered the Vatican, specifically the CDF, for not sharing the information they had found in their canonical trial with civil authorities. Of course, the pope himself could have allowed the CDF to share this information with civil authorities if he so desired.
Note well the names of the players intervening here. Coccopalmerio, whose new book on Chapter 8 of Amoris Laetitia is being given the red-carpet treatment by the Vatican even though it is an open door to the complete degradation of sacramental discipline and the observance of the 6th Commandment, and Msgr. Pio Vito Pinto, the prelate who attacked the Four Cardinals and their dubia at the alleged request of Pope Francis, and whose name appears on one of the oldest lists of suspected Freemasons in the Vatican. The same collaborators of the papal cabal seem to come up again and again in news stories as intriguants, if only in different contexts. The same pattern can be observed with other names, including but not limited to Cardinals Baldisseri and Maradiaga, the ever-present Archbishop Victor “Tucho” Fernández, who is alleged to have ghostwritten portions of virtually every papal document since Francis was elected, and media figures and pundits like La Civiltà Cattolica editor Fr. Antonio Spadaro, Crux contributing editor Austen Ivereigh, and Vatican Insider journalist Andrea Tornielli.
OnePeterFive has extensively covered this Vatican’s use of surrogates and disinformation to accomplish ends that would be untoward to come directly from the pope or the Holy See. We see this in repeated interviews with Eugenio Scalfari in which the pope can air his wildest ideas to a journalist of deeply questionable integrity. We see it in the years-long farce that the “Kasper Proposal” was not, in fact, the Francis Proposal (despite Kasper clearly saying so). It became evident in the Vatican’s intentionally confusing communications strategy, and their penchant — in conjunction with those media outlets closest to the Vatican Press Office — for changing the text of what the pope has said after the fact in an Orwellian fashion. Add to this the pope’s clear manipulation at the synods, his letter to the Argentine bishops, the army of papal friends attacking the Four Cardinals in the media, the aforementioned publication of the Maltese bishops’ guidelines in the official Vatican paper (and that publication’s later publication and obfuscation of the similarly troubling guidelines from the German bishops), and we’re left with a pretty clear picture.
Cardinal Coccopalmerio’s book appears to be the latest such effort from the Vatican, an officially-held position being pushed out through unofficial means. It’s disappointing at this point that Francis and his cohort lack the courage to be forthright about their purpose. They’ve made their position unmistakably clear. Why continue to pretend otherwise?
Meanwhile, as I was writing this, news has broken that an odd press statement has been released by the pope’s Council of Cardinals — the group of ten prelates chosen to work with him on his program of “reform”. In a translation provided by LifeSiteNews, the statement reads:
In relation to recent events, the Council of Cardinals pledges its full support for the Pope’s work, assuring him at the same time of its adhesion and loyalty to the figure of the Pope and to his Magisterium.
Slight pockets of resistance have sprung up in the last week, including posters that popped up overnight in Rome, taking Francis to task for his lack of mercy, and a fake edition of L’Osservatorio Romano making fun of Francis and his friends — both of which have been treated, to some degree, as criminal activities. In fact, a Vatican Gendarmerie investigation has been launched to discover the origins of the fake paper.
But despite this, the reference to “recent events” seems far more likely to refer to one thing — the dubia, and the possibility of a formal correction of the pope. It appears that the collaborators in the aggressive push for the new “mercy” of sacraments for those in objective grave sin are closing ranks.
* Translations of Italian texts used in this article provided by Andrew Guernsey.
An “unofficial, official response”. How appropriate.
I could actually have a grudging respect for Francis/Bergoglio if he would be honest and forthright, and acknowledge that the most liberal interpretation possible of AL is, in fact, what he intends. But he won’t do that, of course.
So now, we have to listen to yet another round of Francis apologists (“AL is totally orthodox! I mean, it really is! No, really!”) with blogs and who frequent various comboxes here, at Crisis, et cetera, deride those of us who have expressed concern since last April by saying, “Well, this isn’t official, so Francis isn’t guilty of anything! It’s just being misinterpreted, blah, blah, blah . . .”
I’m just tired of the lies. And the spin. And the fact that the man sitting upon the chair of St. Peter displays arbitrary, capricious behavior on a daily basis that causes me to raise an eyebrow incredulously whenever I hear him addressed as “Holy Father”, as I find little “holy” about his actions. But again, I will admit that I have learned so much about the Faith over the past almost-four years, as well as discovered the Mass of the Ages, out of necessity thanks to this pontificate. So, I suppose I do owe the Holy Father that much.
Sadly, everytime he gives a press conference or homily I’m afraid of what he might say, not because I expect it to be heretical (which is often the case ) but because I know there are people who are honestly curious about the faith and are looking for answers to their questions and I’m afraid the answers he gives are answers the world gives which, brings no one peace.
also me. Because of this pontificate I have researched to the best of my ability V11 and the changes in the Mass. I now go to TLM and SSPX.
Me too. And others I know.
I’ve had a hunch over the last few days and said something to the effect that things are about to get “real.” This does nothing to change my opinion. Get ready and hunker down. We’re in for a rough ride ahead.
Hi Jafin – I believe you are right. This is the year, Francis is at the moment of decision as to whether he clarifies his teachings or faces correction absent his input, The Church, being founded in the Truth, has no need to fear the father of lies, or those who attempt to establish those lies. Thank be to the Holy Spirit.
Yes, and co-incidentally we are approaching the centennial of the Fatima apparitions, with the suggestion to Sr. Lucia that the French King did not obey in consecrating France to the Sacred Heart and so France suffered the Revolution, suggesting that we will suffer from a consecration to the Immaculate Heart not fully and properly made.
So what does this mean, that priests are obliged to absolve the sin of adultery for divorced and civilly remarried couples who have no firm purpose of amendment? How disheartening to the many Catholics who are mired in mortal sin and need real mercy in the confessional, the mercy that will not allow them to remain in their sin. Great way to undermine Marriage, Eucharist and Confession at the same time….Three birds with one stone (the “mercy” stone).
“If someone tells the priest that he has to do these things, he simply must refuse and face the consequences.” Cardinal Burke @churchmilitant.com
Is that not what Fr Martin Luther tried, four “sacraments”.
Their agenda is there for all to see, their arrogance is shocking.
I’m not sure. Here’s something, though: http://religion.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199340378.001.0001/acrefore-9780199340378-e-359
All I know is that Francis is very much a man of the Second Vatican Council. All the talk of dialogue, updating the Church, humanism and man/earth-centeredness, accompaniment and openness come directly from John XXIII, Paul VI, JPI and JPII. Fr. Malachi Martin documents this in The Keys of This Blood.
The more I look into this stuff, the more it becomes evident that these problems stem from the liberalizing forces at work in the Second Vatican Council. It’s the triumph a modernism, which I suppose is now becoming so obvious that it is almost trite.
Bishop Schneider called for clarification regarding some parts of the documents of the VCii – he made this call to a gathering of many prelates in Rome – I think 3 or 4 years ago.
It is a war – a spiritual war and we have to go through in Christ with spiritual weapons. Hopefully there will be clear dicernement with Amoris laetitia! Where will you go : along the way of the church or to go nowhere in the grey shadow? May God enlighten people to see the error and to hold on in the truth!
Look, a squirrel!!
Again we see in this latest putsch the promotion of the idea that the Holy Sacrament of Matrimony is merely an “IDEAL” towards which most people are inacapable of aspiring and hence we must look at “the positive aspects” of their life of sin to find elements which reflect the “ideal” of marriage. This is the same error which undergirds Amoris Laetitia – not just in chapter 8, but the whole misbegotten tract.
This is a demonic assault on the Sacraments and a demonic assault on reality. These “men” are so far from the true faith that the whole lot need excommunicating, not just this sociopathic pope. Ratzinger as was spoke about the “filth in the Church” and now we see it oozing out of the abyss towards us.
I suppose he regards Holy Orders as an IDEAL as well, judging from his inaction against sodomite priests.
Can you imagine the uproar from the clerical caste if he did portray Orders as an ideal or if he said that he believed the great majority of ordinations were invalid? They would lynch him. What encourages the craven silence of so many in the hierarchy is that they still believe Marriage is a second class Sacrament for second class Catholics. It doesn’t really matter if the Sacrament is profaned because it doesn’t really count in the grand scheme of things. Most clergy give more preparation for children receiving their First Holy Communion than they give to couples who are preparing for Marriage.
This is a brilliant argument. For far too long marriage has been considered second-class, while only the clergy considered at the pinnacle of Catholic grace. This goes along with the idea that Original Sin is transmitted via sexual relations, per se. I don’t think the Church has ever come to terms with the incredible damage this thinking has done, and now we see some of that damage playing out. If it is not so important, or even itself a problem, then, what the hell?????? Who cares if the “sacrament” is violated? This is far too bluntly laid out here but the germ is true.
An accurate observation, something definitely went off the rails in the 3rd and 4th centuries when the thinking changed from St. Paul’s view that virginity (celibacy as he used the term) is a practical choice for those with the God-given vocation for minimizing worldly distractions to the new thinking that there is intrinsic merit in never having had sex. The article and especially the commentary at https://onepeterfive.wpengine.com/austin-ruse-on-the-catholic-toxosphere/ show this distinction particularly well.
This is strong circumstantial evidence for the early emergence of the “Gay Mafia” in the Church. From the perspective of the promiscuous homosexual man lauding celibacy and virginity is a cynical ploy to create an environment where he can indulge without questions about his lack of wife and children. For the homosexual man who tries to live a more virtuous continent life, claiming intrinsic superiority for virginity allows self-congratulatory ego soothing, telling himself that he’s superior to the straights.
They have brought ignominy & ruin to Christ’s Church on earth & are allowed to continue to do so. From top down the CC are ruled by these sodomites.
We’re definitely being punished for the Church’s decision to deviate from Christ’s example picking a married St. Peter as the first pope, and ignoring St. Paul’s repeated unequivocal advice that bishops be married men with demonstrated strong patriarchal qualities. This makes rooting out homosexual clergy very difficult.
I don’t think, though, that the solution to either homosexual clergy or the liberal Church’s seeming indifference to the cultural breakdown of natural (law) sexuality and its proper fulfillment in the indissoluble union of marriage is necessarily to open up the priesthood to married men, though. That isn’t going to solve the problems in the priesthood or marriage. The real problem is the spirit of liberalism and worldliness, a lack of faith in the divine origins of the gospel and the Magisterial teaching, as well as the lack of chastity in both marriage and the priesthood. Lack of faith and chastity got us into the mess we have in both cases, and only growth and promotion of these virtues will get us out.
Priestly celibacy is not an unchangeable practice, but it goes without saying that it has enormous practical import and theological significance, and is an enormous source of grace for those who live it with chastity. The same is true of marriage. Nobody is forced to choose priesthood as their vocation, if they are unwilling to live celibately.
There are legitimate celibate priestly vocations, maybe more monastically oriented, but not in the episcopacy with its higher bar for proven leadership ability. As St. Paul put it “for if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how can he take care of the church of God?” It is impossible to ignore the example of St. Peter and unequivocal guidance of St. Paul, both of which align with common sense.
Now it would be one thing to make exceptions in the right spirit, widowers for sure and maybe bishops in dangerous countries, but not to go directly against the original practice.
Peeling back the reasons we got to this point is very instructive, which is where the homosexual mafia and associated cult of virginity come in.
Except that the “cult of virginity” is an essential aspect of gospel teaching. Jesus was born of a virgin, was himself a virgin and recommended virginity for the sake of the kingdom to those who could accept it. Yes, he chose his apostles from among mostly married men, but the most beloved of his apostles, John, is held to have been unmarried and remained so. Also, the apostles may have been married when they were called to follow Christ, but they left everything to preach the gospel throughout the (known) world and must have left their families to do so, particularly in light of the fact that they were eventually martyred while preaching the gospel. They were called to leave everything, homes, families, comforts, etc. Jesus was unequivocal about the need to leave everything behind to follow him. This message applied especially to his apostles, who are the foundation stones of the Church. Their blood was necessary to grow the kingdom of God. How could they have adequately fulfilled the duties of domestic life in their vocations as apostles? They had to choose to give everything up for Christ.
Paul recommended proven leadership as a requirement for ordination, but I’m not sure there is a valid argument that he intended marriage to be an essential aspect of proven leadership. The fact that he also recommended the practice of celibacy to those who could accept it, as he did, is arguably evidence of this. Why would Paul recommend virginity to better allow lay people, deacons or presbyters to live in service of the kingdom, but then require that bishops be married in every case because it demonstrates leadership? Don’t bishops have to live in service of the kingdom just as much as, and perhaps even more so in some respects, other Christians?
Virginity has always been held in high esteem in the Church from earliest times. The fact that corrupt men have, through the centuries, hidden behind it with their perversions is not evidence that virginity in itself is corrupting. If it was, why would Paul heartily endorse the practice of celibacy for the kingdom, just as Christ did, even while unequivocally denouncing sodomites and the effeminate? The Church has always known that weeds grow among the wheat.
There is the facile argument that if priests were simply allowed to have a sexual outlet, there would be no or much fewer problems with sexual abuse and homosexuality among the clergy. It’s not that simple, though, and this has been proven again and again in the protestant communities and in secular society at large. What is corrupting is lack of faith and lack of chastity, and the refusal to have recourse to God’s grace. That’s the heart of the problem in all ages of the Church, and especially in our times.
At Fatima and in subsequent revelations to Sister Lucy, the Blessed Virgin Mary pointed to a major crisis of faith in the Church and to a proliferation of lust. We know that she was speaking of mass apostasy and a corruption of the clergy, and this is abundantly clear from certain other apparitions. She said all would become clearer by 1960. It did become clear, in the Second Vatican Council, when modernism triumphed in the Church, and then in the sexual revolution, which infiltrated the Church. Then, once it became obvious that this had happened, liberals and modernist Catholics began trying to blame the crisis on the Church’s “outdated” model of sexuality. What a great ruse the devil has worked, attacking the Church from within. It has always been this way, but arguably never on such a large scale.
True, however if this were important outside this special case the Gospels would have said so instead of strongly suggesting a normal marriage for Mary and Joseph post Jesus’ birth.
True, the epitome of an exceptional circumstance from which it would be risky to draw a general conclusion.
It is a worthy vocation for those who have it, but there is no reason to believe it is for the absence of sex per-se instead of the freedom from worldly entanglements it allows.
Perhaps not as Peter still associated with his mother in law and his wife is referenced in 1 Corinthians, as well as wives of other apostles. Jesus would also not have asked his apostles to do something sinful such as effectively divorcing their wives and actually abandoning their families, so must have been speaking figuratively.
Different vocations have different qualifications and there are many ways to serve.
True, but it is only appropriate for certain individuals, the corruption is introduced when others adopt it or pretend to do so.
For most marriage and the associated sexual outlet is necessary for a truly virtuous life, but are not sufficient. The clergy, whether Protestant or Catholic, will attract men of a more sensitive and caring nature, so it is even more important to filter for sexual problems, especially for leaders. Note how St. Paul doesn’t stop at marriage though, but specifies other requirements including a strong patriarchal nature.
Maybe, but the 1960s just exposed the existing rot.
The gospels do not strongly suggest anything in terms of the post-nativity sexual life of Joseph and Mary, but only strongly emphasize the fact that Joseph was not the father by nature. The aim was to demonstrate the origins of Jesus and the fulfillment of scriptures, not to show how Joseph and Mary lived as an ordinary couple after Jesus’ birth. Plus, the tradition testifies to the perpetual virginity of Mary, and this is a dogma of the Catholic faith. If you reject it, you have to be honest that your faith is not Catholic.
The absence of sex has never been seriously understood to have any spiritual significance in and of itself. Jesus encouraged celibacy “for the sake of the kingdom.” And if you consider the theology of redemptive sacrifice (Col. 1:24, 1 Peter 2:5, Rom 12:1), there can be no doubt that there is more merit to virginity for the sake of the kingdom than mere freedom from worldly cares. The Church has always understood that those who choose celibacy for the sake of the kingdom are more conformed to the example of Christ than those who do not, even though marriage is a necessary and praiseworthy vocation. As Christ testified, there is no marriage in heaven, so celibacy is a witness to the life to come. It is a sorely needed sign of hope to the faithful that our fundamental desire is for God rather than created things.
As far as the apostles and their families, it would not have been sinful to leave them behind to follow Christ if they had made adequate provision for their support. Jesus himself did this with his own mother from the Cross, entrusting her to John, and John to her.
I agree with you about marriage being appropriate for most, but I don’t think we can say that the priesthood or the episcopacy should therefore reflect this criteria. As you said, there are different vocations that have different qualifications and many ways to serve. I don’t think, and I don’t think there is evidence that Paul thought, that marriage and sex are necessary for demonstrating leadership, or even for demonstrating a fatherly nature. It isn’t lack of being married and having sex that causes these deficiencies in men, but rather a spirit of lust and the cultural breakdown of marriage and masculinity as a whole. That’s why faith and chastity are the proper remedies.
Repeated references to brothers and sisters certainly do, as does Matthew 1:25. It is possible with various contortions to explain away the plain meaning, but if the PVOM had been held by the writers of the New Testament it is not possible to believe they would have left any ambiguity here.
You are entitled to claim this, as at some point the idea definitely gained currency. It does raise legitimate questions of the idea’s origin though, and the growing influence of homosexuals in the Church is a reasonable hypothesis.
Most of the rest of your post is pretty thin but not preposterous, so can be left as is.
The Catholic view of “until” and Jesus’ “brothers and sisters” is not a matter of explaining away by contortions, but of paying attention to linguistics and contextual emphasis, on one hand, and also realizing that scripture does not stand apart from oral tradition, on the other. You are entitled among men to disagree with the Catholic faith, but to claim that the honor the Church gives to virginity/celibacy for the sake of the kingdom (whether of the Mother of God or of the saints or in the Church’s discipline) is/was motivated by a homosexual cabal (whether in support or in mere reaction) really is preposterous. There is certainly evidence that homosexuality has been a problem among the clergy throughout the ages, but to suggest that this was a driving influence on the Church’s doctrine or practice regarding celibacy/virginity and the BVM is thinly veiled ecclesiastical ad hominem.
The Blessed Virgin Mary is not only a preeminent example of faith and chastity, she is also the means by which these graces come to mankind. Slander her at your own risk. Jesus told us to become perfect as God is perfect, and he wants us to love his mother as much as he loves her. All generations will call her blessed. And blessed are those who do.
Who is really slandering her here? A wife who is not open to life and does not enthusiastically fulfill her sexual obligations to her husband would hardly be a model of virtue and would be certainly be a terrible example for Christian women to follow.
Truth is a defense against the charge of slander.
“A wife who is not open to life”
??? She is the mother of Jesus Christ and therefore the mother of all those born again in Christ. As the Mother of the incarnate God, her virginity is infinitely more fruitful than the motherhood of any other created woman.
There is nothing sinful in a couple choosing live in continence, periodically or permanently, if they both consent to it because of a special call from God. The sin comes in refusing sexual relations against the will of one’s partner without good reason. Women who do refuse intimacy to their husbands without good reason are, I’d imagine, most often seriously wounded themselves. If both partners choose to forego sexual relations in order to live chastely and give themselves more fully to the service of God, though, there is nothing inherently sinful in doing so. The sin would be trying to enjoy the pleasures of the marital act without fulfilling its purposes.
The BVM is a preeminent example of the virtues of faith in God’s promises, trust in God’s plan, love of Christ, humility, docility to the Holy Spirit, longsuffering with Christ, pastoral charity, love of souls, poverty of spirit, you name it. As a wife and mother, she had a unique call, but all women can benefit from contemplating her life of virtue and asking for her prayers and intercession.
Contemplate the chastity of Joseph, who loved and honored his wife so much that he recognized the work of God in her and remained with her, loved and supported her and her child, all without the pleasures of the marriage bed. That is heroic chastity. Joseph was a real man, one who was truly in control of his sexual energy.
Real men have control over their sexual urges, and have constant recourse to God’s grace in doing so.
Before Jesus’ birth yes, but afterwards not at all.
The rest of your argument boils down to claiming some sort of special mission, which is not unreasonable, but does not explain how virginity would support it. There is no virtue in withholding sexually for the married – quite the opposite in fact as it is a way to give with generosity. Chastity for the married is not continence, and self-control can mean more sex as opposed to less.
A Josephite marriage would be an extremely exceptional occurrence. The couple finds themselves in a position where they both desire to give their virginity as a gift to Christ “for the sake of the kingdom.” They both consent to do so freely. They may devote their extra time, energy, and money to serving the Church, to caring for adopted children, to serving the poor, to furthering the Church’s mission in some way, or perhaps to prayer for those who are contemplatively inclined. They may even choose to separate in order to pursue religious vocations, if they have permission to do so. The core of it, though, is not the practical question of what they are doing in place of having sex, but the gift of their sexuality to God with a supernatural motivation. The gift of virginity is a spiritual sacrifice to God, offered with a supernatural motive. That’s what makes it meritorious in God’s sight.
How the gift of virginity supports the advancement of the kingdom is a secondary question. The fruitfulness of Mary and Joseph’s virginity was and is primarily spiritual, in the spiritual order, in the order of grace. God uses the cooperation of his holy ones to accomplish his aims with humanity, beginning in the order of grace. The lives of the saints make this mystic reality abundantly evident. So, it isn’t primarily a question of clarifying and justifying how virginity supports a special mission, but of freely giving the gift of sexuality over to God for his purposes, which are often unknown.
The core of chastity is to use sexual energy according to the design and calling of God, as expressed in the objective moral norms laid out by the Church and according to the authentic discernment (not in conflict with the latter norms) of the couple. For the vast majority of couples, this means having a family and, as necessary, exercising responsible parenthood through the practice of continence. Procreating and raising children is a noble and generous vocation. Infertile couples, whether or not they choose to adopt, use their sexuality to remain open to life and support one another emotionally. All couples are called to gain self-mastery over sexual desire, though. That happens, in the ordinary course of things, by degrees for those who work with God’s grace. Each couple has unique circumstances. Married couples who think they are exempt from gaining mastery over their sexual powers are seriously mistaken, though. If a couple decides that God is calling them to live in permanent continence, and they are both willing, God can use this sacrifice to further the kingdom according to his design. The couple who receives such a call may have a concrete reason for that sacrifice, or may simply feel drawn to it by the promptings of grace. The more a couple gains self-mastery over sexual desire, the more able they are to abstain from sexual intercourse, if they have that aspiration and calling. For most couples, though, sexual intercourse remains an important remedy for concupiscence throughout their lives. For couples who are abiding by the objective moral norms of the Church concerning married sexuality, there should be no negative judgment. This means that the Josephite marriage remains a valid possibility, even if few choose it.
So you’re suggesting an extremely exceptional occurrence that goes directly against the Biblical evidence? Wouldn’t something noteworthy like this been noted?
These are freed by avoiding marriage, not by abstaining from sex.
That’s a lot of acrobatic theologizing to justify what is essentially deviant sexuality, closing a marriage to new life, and passing up an opportunity to give to one’s spouse.
“goes directly against the Biblical evidence”
Hardly. Your supposed “evidence” has a perfectly valid alternate explanation than the one you give. I’m not sure what standard of proof you’re applying, but it must be a very low threshold. Again, the written tradition does not stand apart from or in opposition to the oral tradition. The NT comes out of the same deposit of faith as the oral tradition, given by Christ to the apostles and codified by the Roman Catholic Church. Sola Scriptura is not a biblical teaching. It is not an apostolic tradition, and it didn’t come from Christ.
“These are freed by avoiding marriage, not by abstaining from sex.”
Sex can potentially (and typically does) result in children for those who are following Church teaching, and children require a great deal of time, energy and money. Continence within marriage would mean freeing up the couple’s resources for other purposes. Sexual energy itself is a huge resource, even apart from children, and can potentially be channeled in a number of ways for the kingdom of God. Though it wouldn’t be a strict Josephite marriage, a couple might also have their family and later on choose to enter into a state of permanent continence “for the sake of the kingdom.” Assuming that decision was mutual and done in response to the promptings of grace rather than out of psychological woundedness, this would be a generous sacrifice to God. Most people aren’t able/willing to do this, and that’s okay. Again, there shouldn’t be any judgment against those who are abiding by the Church’s objective moral norms and laws concerning marriage and sexuality.
“deviant sexuality”
So you’re saying that continence within marriage, fully and freely consented to by both parties and which is done out of a feeling that God is inviting the couple to this sacrifice, is “deviant sexuality”? As in, it’s up there with all the filth that you can find on the internet with only a Google search and a click of the mouse? That is wrong. From a Catholic perspective, deviance or unnaturalness in sexuality comes from misusing the gift of sex, from engaging in sexual intercourse without fulfilling its natural purposes. If you meant to say that Josephite marriage is a deviant or unnatural marriage, there would be a stronger argument there since marriage is meant, in part, for the procreation and education of children. To that, though, I’d say that the example of Mary and Joseph is itself the precedent, and has been followed by some saintly couples throughout Church history. A marriage is still valid under canon law without consummation, so it isn’t a question of the validity of a Josephite marriage under Church law. You have to have the call to do it, though. Again, it’s exceedingly rare. Part of the reason is that Josephite marriage can be partially dictated by necessity, and there is less of that nowadays given our modern social and economic conditions. Not to mention the widespread perversion and lust that makes it more difficult for modern man to abstain. It’s harder nowadays to remain pure than it has been in past centuries, and even the most devoted Christians can be affected by this.
Seriously. Your understanding of human nature and celibacy in particular, over so many posts demonstrates an ignorance that is so profound one wonders where to begin to correct it!
Haven’t you heard? God is pure mercy, there is no sin anymore God has evolved to our will and ways. (I wish i was joking but this seems to be the depressing message today).
Six decades ago when I was a teenager we were told by our nuns that Marriage came last in the eyes of God & was only for those who couldn’t control themselves. I got no response to the question as to why then God instituted Holy Matrimony as a Sacrament & their own vows hadn’t the same status. Like PF’s disinterest in answering the Dubia I am still waiting for an answer to that question.
With this awfulness going on right now, I went to hear the goodness and Truth on the Sacrament of Matrimony from Cardinal Burke., giving catechesis from Fr. John Hardon on this beautiful sacrament.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcXv4shV7XA
By Sensus Fidelium · 1.5K views
Aug 03, 2016 · Cardinal Burke: Marriage- Fr Hardon … Cardinal Burke on Fr John Hardon’s … Traditional Latin Mass on Feast of St. John of Matha, with Cardinal Burke …
The sooner catechesis of this type is introduced the better. As a Sacrament, Holy Matrimony was not given due recognition by the Church, hence the fall-off in those presenting for it. It is just viewed as a civil contract at best, & as long as the attraction lasts at worst.
A better question would perhaps be, “Have you been as loyal to your vows as so many married Catholics are and have been to theirs?”
You were a very wise teenager, Ana. I suspect they (the nuns) hated you for asking that question. Of course you did not receive an answer.
You also could have asked why Christ referred to the Church as his bride and he himself as the bridegroom. If it were unimportant, why talk of the Marriage Supper of the Lamb.
They told us they were the Brides of Christ & automatically would go straight to Heaven. But when I enquired as to how they got to be born in order to become Brides of Christ, that also was a difficulty for them, as they seemed to discount their parents part in the matter.
Well done for daring to question the nuns. The exact same point was made by Patriarch Maximos of the Greek Melkite Catholic Church in a meeting in London at which a Greek Catholic monk had some negative things to say about marriage – “Fr., you should remember that in our Tradition marriage is a sacrament of the Church – celibacy is not.”
That is not to detract from celibacy of course because consecrated celibacy is a jewel in the Church’s crown. But people often forget that celibacy derives its spiritual efficacy preciselly from the fact that it is giving up or sacrificing something that is good and holy – it is not givng up something which is evil.
Exactly, and how many consecrated celibates are homosexual men practising sodomy?
An answer might be that marriage “signifies”, while a nun’s religious vows, be they ever so God-pleasing, do not. Of course, the priesthood DOES signify, and is a sacrament, so there’s that.
As a married man, I have wondered myself about just how I should understand Paul’s recommendation of celibacy for those who can bear it. I have decided to take him at his word: that while marriage can be a holy state of life, greater holiness can be possible for those living a priestly or religious vocation less troubled by worldly distractions. No guarantees of course, as many married people do succeed in achieving great holiness while many priests and religious fall into grave sin.
I always found it strange that St.Paul promulgated celibacy after a life of debauchery & persecuting Christians. I think St. Stephen’s prayers for his conversion were heard by Our Lord who tested him on the road to Damascus & used him to great effect in the early Church. Unfortunately, he blamed women for his former decadence & spoke harshly about them being made second & first to sin. We all have to own up to our sins – even saints.
The persecution I get, but where does Paul confess to debauchery?
In the 20s the nuns told my grandmother’s catechism class that all are called to religious orders and only those that disobey God get married. Of course my grandmother argued, but was told to shut up.
How did they think the world would continue if everyone answered the call to religious orders? There would only be Muslims & other infidels left having families & religious orders would die very quickly.
In those days nobody thought about Muslims. The nuns were just trying to get women to join their order. My gran told her uncle who was a priest and he said that to tell the nun that all are called to be married and only those that disobey becomes nuns . LOL! Notice he did not say priests.
This is absolutely fascinating. I’ve never thought of this…..
A nd consider how bad the catechist the children receive.
You are too clever. How true!
It reminds me of Bishop Barron’s whole concept of the Church holding out the highest of ideals but also offering an equally great amount of mercy. The problem is that Bergolio and Barron’s mercy is one which holds out the ideal but doesn’t really hold everybody to it in the end, because you can apparently receive absolution without firmly resolving to strive for the ideal and to make the necessary changes to live it as long as you think it is too hard to do so.
Frankzicus and Baron are so cunning to promote and encourage adulterers, sodomites committing unforgivable sin against Holy Spirit – no repentance. God have mercy on us.
Serious question from a simple guy in the pew;
At this point, wouldn’t it be preferable to permit marriage “annulments as a matter of conscience”, than permitting Sacraments to those in adulterous/irregular situations as a matter of conscience? ….Or otherwise allow annulments even more generously as a substitute to this ‘footnote travesty’ ?
-Although it exaggerates the intent of annulments, and no doubt offends those more steeped in canonical law than I could ever be, it avoids this bizarre ‘alternate universe’…where we have “unrepentant penitents”….creating such an open ended offer to any situation deemed irregular….which boggles the mind.
–From a practical standpoint, it should limit this faux mercy to hetero-marriage and not open the flood gate to LGBT demands, unmarried co-habitation, etc.
You don’t write off God’s Commandments as a matter of human expediency, a “practical standpoint.” That is simply relativism, the subjectivism of personal opinion hidden under the terms discernment and conscience.
It’s a good point. My take, and I think that of many others, is that the decision to approve irregular situations rather than to further liberalize the annulment process, is very intentional. What else can one conclude but that it is aimed at undermining Marriage, the Eucharist and Confession?
It got a lot of publicity, so I’m surprised you don’t know that he already liberalized the annulment process about a year ago, to the point where it’s meaningless. There is almost no reason that a couple can’t get an annulment now. This whole communion for non-annulled but “remarried” people is just a stalking horse for his whole agenda of overturning the moral teachings and authority of the Church – and of Christ.
Yes, Francis liberalized the annulment process a bit more, but don’t you think he could have made even further, sweeping changes within the confines of Canon Law that would have helped ensure the divorced and civilly remarried folks would be pushed through the system and not impeded by strongholds of “rigidity” and “pharisaism,” if indeed that was his primary concern? Maybe, maybe not. Anyway, the fact that he chose not to restrict himself to Canon Law in addressing the issue is certainly telling. As others have pointed out, it suggests he is really after more bedrock “reforms.”
My point is that this is a better solution to the stated problem; poorly catechized marriage It leverages off approved processes (annulment) and avoids the horrible pandora’s box of “AL chpt 8/footnote”.
The latter is 100% open ended for any grave sin; allowing the sinner forgiveness without repentance, which, unconstrained, will lead to LGBT, co-habitation, abortion…it numbs the mind.
Culturally speaking marriage is in trouble and many good people are divorced. It is worthy of a solution that recognizes the complete lack/failure of Church catechizing on Christ’s relation to the Church as Groom and Bride…and all the richness therein.
I’m very familiar with it. The process has been streamlined/expedited, but cannon law is the same. Yes, a liberal Bishop/Cardinal has wiggle room…fewer checks & balances, but cannon law is unchanged.
As one who directs the work of a tribunal, I can assure you that this is not the case. Each marriage is carefully examined. It is vital to maintain the process for investigating whether or not a marriage is null. One cannot decide in one’s conscience whether or not one’s marriage is null. There is a grave risk of being in error on a matter pertaining to one’s eternal salvation. However, if people who are not validly married are permitted to receive the sacraments after “discernment”, one wonders what the future of tribunals is and the value of my canon law degree. Please pray for us priests and ministers of justice in the Church.
We shall prayer Father Boyle. You are and will be of great value to Christ.
Our Lord is not so concerned with canon law degrees.
There are far more pressing matters on His mind and heart.
He has a Mother to consider as she weeps. Console our Lady with your great faithfulness to Her Son. All will be well.
Definitely prayers for you and all priests, especially for strength at this time! I’ve never gotten an annulment but a family member did, about 20 years ago. She said it was a very thoughtful process and she actually learned a lot from going through it. She was grateful for it, and even glad that it took a year or so and wasn’t an “on the spot” process. It is very valuable work.
Let me answer two ways:
#1. Of course!
#2. Preferable to whom? If your goal is to destroy the church, undermine the sacraments, confuse and cloud the minds of the faithful, and attempt to capture as many souls into Hell as possible, isn’t Francis doing a great job? Can you conceive of any tact or strategem he might employ to better these goals? I can’t.
It is time to realize that if Francis was merely incompetent, and idiot, a well-meaning buffoon, he would, from time to time, do things that were good and pleasing to God and supportive of his church, simply from random luck. If, however, every single thing he does it questionable, everything is leading one direction — singly may be coincidental, but together, always supportive of each act, always moving in the same direction — always against the Teachings and Traditions of the Church, then it is time to cast aside doubts, normalcy-bias, and wishes that it weren’t so, and instead time to take actions in accordance with reality.
Francis is a gift from God. It doesn’t seem like it, but he is. He’s the same gift as Barack Hussein Obama was to the United States. God put someone into power and authority that would make it absolutely clear there was, in fact and deed, evil waging a battle against good. This battle is for all the marbles. It is the battle that has been fought throughout history.
Francis is illustrating and highlighting the opposing sides, and the opposing forces. He is forcing clarity where before there was room for doubt. He is forcing people to wake up, to be aware, to see the fighting all around them, and to realize that this is, indeed, WAR. A holy war, for souls.
Francis will not be forever. Whatever doesn’t kill you, only makes you stronger. We all must learn from these events. Christ’s Church is being refined in fire. Impurities are being separated. The impurities will be brought to the surface and burned off, or removed. The remaining pure metal will be strong and radiant, beautiful.
Obama has been instrumental in bringing about the populist backlash to fight against the evil and inhuman globalists. Francis is doing the same for the Church.
If that isn’t good enough news, and cause for a little cautious optimism, then:
Always remember, evil is not the opposite of good. Evil is the absence of God, much as darkness is the absence of light. There is no force of darkness, no power of darkness, no speed of darkness. Merely the absence of light.
To that end, darkness wins not by overcoming or overpowering the light, but merely having the light withdraw. Once the light is gone, the darkness is there, unsummoned, unbidden. No further acts need to occur for the darkness to be absolute. All that is required is the light to be gone. Hence, why all that is required for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing.
All this does not mean that there are not dark forces out there, or forces aligned with the darkness. We must fight them constantly.
Always remember, too, that light is invisible unless it shines upon something, or you view the source directly (in which case, the light is shining directly on your retinas). The brightest flashlights when viewed from the side appear to not be on at all. It is only when the light strikes an object that the brilliance is unveiled, and the luminescence is apparent. We are each charged, therefore, to show up. The light cannot be denied as long as we stand. We reflect the Light, and the Light is the Truth, and the Way, and the Son.
Do not be afraid to walk in the Valley of Darkness, for the light is there, though you do not see it, and in you being there, you become a beacon of Light not of yourself, but because of the Light shining on you.
Go forth and represent the Light. Go forth and fear no darkness. Go forth and bear witness by your mere presence, and fight for Him and His Truth always, even if you can do nothing more than stand silently by and let the Light shine upon you to be reflected where it is impossible to ignore.
Look to Love, and be a beacon of Light and Love in this world.
Cetera, I give you a standing ovation and an Amen to everything you just said. So well said, thank you!
Thank you for your kind words. I wrote it once, or perhaps was inspired to write it, years ago, pertaining to a different topic. It returns to mind frequently these days, and I try to keep it available to copy and paste and modify as the situation warrants.
It is difficult for me to remember why I’m here, what the point of all of this is, and to become overwhelmed by details and the enormity of the struggle. The big picture is certainly very big, very complicated, but also easily managed by remembering fundamental and simple Truths.
We are all asking ourselves that same question, and in an occasional lucid moment I recall that in God’s Providence, we who live now were selected to live now, to give Witness. I recall reading that Edith Stein (St. Benedicta of the Cross) before her conversion, watched a woman run up the steps of a Catholic Church, carrying bags and apparently in a hurry which caused E.S. to suspect she was meeting a friend or perhaps a lover. Out of curiosity she went to see, and saw the woman kneeling in prayer. This deeply touched her and in it’s own way eventually played its part in her conversion. Such a little thing – but such a necessary piece in the life of a saint. God, literally, only knows what we may achieve by merely doing the right thing, the good thing. Thank you for responding – and I hope you enjoy this little vignette as much as I do.
We continue to be inundated with confusion and pacified to the point where we don’t even understand that this is war. An unofficial, official answer?
May God give us the strength that we need to overcome the poisonous bite of Bergolio.
The confusion would come to a screeching halt, if the four cardinals would call out this pope, for once and for all.
The Dubia won’t go away until PF himself answers the questions posed by the Fab Four. Mouthpieces cannot legally speak for the holder of the Papal Office who signed the document AL. He must be held accountable for the many interpretations emanating from it which strictly contradict the Ten Commandments & tenets of the Catholic faith.
He has already stated that there is no Hell, so then he most likely discounts sin, even the gravest, no matter the suffering of the victims. He has told us to argue with God – “He likes when you get angry and say what you feel to His face, because He’s a Father!”, not like PF himself who blows a fuse if anyone tells him face to face what they feel.
In order to protect the Papal Office & the long-held Papal Infallibility that goes with it, that always assumed the Pope to be an adherent to the Deposit of Faith, Magisterium & Tradition of the CC over which he presides, an Imperfect Council must be convened soonest to retrieve what’s left of the charred remains of the CC & with God’s blessing restore it to its rightful position as the Institution Christ founded on His Apostles through which His followers would gain their eternal salvation for which He died. Despite what PF has stated we are not all the same – other faiths, churches, religions, are man-made & therefore schismatic at best or atheistic at worst.
If there is to be a press conference on Cardinal Coccopalmerio’s book then it should be quickly followed by another headed up by the four Cardinals & Cardinal Müller informing the public of the erroneous interpretations flowing from AL & instructing us not to follow the signatory.
More game playing by this pontificate to hide his cowardly face and not own up to his agenda to change Church teaching!
Time to call CHECK MATE, Cardinal Burke!!
I have had it with these deceptive games Francis is playing.
My patience is DONE!! He will not listen. He just continues to drive the nail into the stake!
BE GONE!!!!
Perhaps this is why we are in the mess. We stand around… waiting… and waiting… The kingdom of God is at hand and we must not put all of our trust in Card. Burke. Bless the great Cardinal but we need to demand the truth from our local parish as well!
We’ve been driven into our comfort zones and even then we are treated like dogs just begging to be fed a morsel of truth with a half decent liturgy! And now, the cat is out of the bag and we are upset?! What do we really expect from these thugs. They have hijacked our church and we must demand it back. These gangsters have been feasting on us with their perceived power and will not stop because we allow it!
Terrible things have been happening in the CC since VII even under the papacies of PB & JPII who made dreadful episcopal appointments &, driven by false ecumenism, awful friendships with schismatics & infidels. They were empowered by the notion they could bring all peoples to the altar of God without first evangelising them as to the Truth given us by Christ.
Proselytism & catechesis were suddenly not politically correct & had to be discontinued. Respecting others – schismatics/infidels alike – was pc. NWO religion without Christ has now come the full circle. PF declares there is no Hell (so therefore no sin), all are the same, making the One Holy Catholic Church Christ founded on the First Apostles take its place in the queue alongside schismatics & infidels.
It has taken a long time for most Catholics to rouse themselves simply because they were never taught the True Faith to begin with but were inculcated into the belief that the Pope was infallible even if not speaking ex cathedra. That is the power PF & cronies are banking on to see them victorious, but the fools forget that God is watching them all the way. We must stay calm & collected like Cardinal Burke & the other Cardinals as we watch PF & his mouthpieces try to defend the indefensible. An Imperfect Council must be around the corner after which the Consecration of Russia, followed by Our Lady’s Triumph.
Yup.
We quit the novus ordo culture because it is so fraught with rot and effeminacy. We took our money and we have given it to the parish we attend {FSSP}. We will no longer give to diocesan events or fundraisers. We also budget for other ministries like some life services work.
For those who do not have a traditional parish at hand, all they can do is what they can do.
Maybe getting tough with their money. Send a letter to the heretic priest and tell him you will no longer give to the local parish, but will support a priest somewhere else who is not a heretic like the local guy is.
Brainstorm it, but as you say, do something!!!
FIGHT. Don’t just accept it.
Many American bishops have already given blanket authorization for ANYONE to receive Communion, including “gay couples.” Cupich, Wuerl, McElroy, et al., say the clergy have no part in any decision.
The term “defrocked” is not used in the Catholic Church. Neither is the term “priestly state.” Was Inzoli laicized, and later returned to the clerical state?
The pope and his minions are demanding that priests throughout the world commit the crime of solicitation.
“NUTS!”, to the pope and his minions.
The Four Cardinals can no longer wait, for what is there to wait for?
This man will not speak this garbage himself, so he has others do it for him.
Clever? But so transparent.
Time for the cardinals to declare Francis a heretic, regardless of his silence. For his silence speaks for itself at this point. What is there to lose? We cannot fear, but do what is right for our Lord.
Please dear cardinals, do what you were created for! DEFEND the faith and call out the betrayer of it.
Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act. ~ Bonhoeffer
I fully agree. In the current context I have to repeat what seems to be the only solution:
1.) A Cardinal or a Bishop (or many Cardinals and many Bishops) ought to publicly denounce the heresies in clear terms (the document signed by the 45 theologians is a good starting point);
2.) The heresies ought to be named and anyone (even the Pope) who promote and spread them in any way (explicitly or implicitly) ought to be denounced;
3.) The main heretics (i.e. “heresiarchs”) has to be EXPLICITLY named and asked to repent and to denounce the heresies; if not, they have to be excommunicated through a public act;
4.) All those who are faithful to the gospel of Our Lord, Jesus Christ ought to be warned to avoid any contact with the heretics and schismatics and their teachings/writings.
We are in the middle of a situation fully comparable with the Arian crisis. We ought to pray continually that Our King and Lord, Jesus Christ, will raise pastors and faithful people ready to fight for our Christian, Catholic Faith. AMDG
If not done soon, the stage of exhaustion will reign upon the Body of Christ.
One should not abuse the Holy Spirit and remain in a perpetual state of ALARM.
There must be resistiveness by the faithful and I fully concur with you, what needs to be done.
The Church will either fight this scourge or flee from it.
There is no ” in between”.
which way? The duty falls on the shoulders of the four cardinals and those who support them.
It worse than the Arian crisis, but I do sense the correction has been made. The necessary follow-up action must be quickly carried out.
Is this really a big deal? Since it is not from the Pope I can see the neo-Catholics still living in denial.
It’s not, but it is one more document that defines the Catholic Church to the world and empowers those who reject the teaching of the Church in their efforts to redefine the Church to the world.
The heat is turned up a notch. The enemy is consolidating their position. Time for that formal declaration against Francis. Schism watch.
When will this saga finally be behind us??? I pray for the day that a good Pope reigns and all confusion is dispelled…
I sense the next pope will be worse than this one.
May 13th can’t come fast enough!
Do any of you ever ask yourselves wherether what we see at this time is simply what the Church is and will be; an institution of chaos, with factions fighting and arguing, with no discipline of those who reject the past Tradition, with the Gospel continuously denied, rejected, re-defined or obfuscated by competing internal sects trumpeting variable doctrines {AKA like the Anglicans}?
And in your opinion, what would it take to establish true Catholicity in the Catholic Church today?
That’s inevitable. Remember, regardless of what happens with PF, the overwhelming part of the existing trad movement has serious problems with a lot of things pre-Francis including ecumenism, inter-religious dialogue, the new mass, the new ordination rite, teaching regarding Jews and Muslims, teaching on Church and State, teaching on religious liberty, etc.
I’d agree except that it isn’t just the “Trad” movement. The arguments may be more organized and consistent among Traditionalists but there are many folks in the mill run novus ordo culture who have all sorts of problems with the whole list of issues you identify. Remember, there are vast areas in the country and world {most of it, in fact} where there is no “Trad” movement and yet there are Catholics who reject the heretical teachings that are seemingly so common today.
The issue is, thus, that the Church has allowed teaching and practice to diverge signficantly from the past, and that has made the Catholic Church increasingly appear to be patterning itself after the Anglican communion.
So I’m curious what folks think it would take to significantly draw the Church culture overall to what they personally perceive as reflective of perennial Catholic doctrine.
The Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary & disclosure of the Third Secret of Fatima would be an excellent start. Both these requests have been wilfully denied by several Pontiffs
OK, good ones.
Now, what about locally, as in, what do you think you might see in your lifetime {nt sure your age} in your local parish and in outreach from your local parish. Can you imagine significant change? What would it look like THERE, “boots on the ground”?
My local parish is dead, has been for around twenty years when our church was given over to Protestants to hold their services etc. Our Sunday parish is going OK but there has been a drop in attendees over the past six months. I feel people are at last getting the message. It is imperative we get direction from the four Cardinals via an Imperfect Council that no-one should follow PF & strong leadership in what to do to keep the True Faith intact in the interim when a new pope must be elected. Will the Hierarchy be strong enough to follow this lead? I don’t know, but “Truth is not determined by a majority vote” & Evil draws its power from indecision and concerns for what other people think” – both quotes of Pope Benedict XVI.
Amen. This is the only solution to restore grace which has been steadily withdrawn since 1960.
The third part of the secret has been released as Sr. Lucia wrote it down per Our Lady’s instructions of January 2, 1944. A beautiful biography discusses this story called “Um Caminho sob o olhar de Maria.” It is now in English as “A Pathway Under the Gaze of Mary.”
Parishes and individuals being consecrated to the Immaculate Heart is the answer as well.
What do you mean “de facto” couples? That doesn’t make sense, you are not married unless God joins you together.
I reckon that it is high time for priests to prepare their congregations for a schism, and that they should not put their trust in men, but in God’s word and the constant teaching of the Church. I fear that so many Catholics are simply terrifired and do not know what to believe.
A disaster we have as Pope! If Francis was on the side of truth, why all these surrogates? It clearly tells us something: falsehood always seeks further false explanations.
“No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval.” – 1 Cor. 11:19
“Sins against the Holy Spirit are mortal sins that harden a soul by its rejection of the Holy Spirit. Six sins are in this category. They are despair, presumption, envy, obstinacy in sin, final impenitence, and deliberate resistance to the known truth.” – Catholic Answers
Sadly, so many priests are resisting the truth right now and preferring to continue in denial and with their silence are leading others into error.
As Dante writes … the road to hell is paved with the heads of priests and bishops are the lamp posts. These Vatican idiots along with idiot bishops and priests the world over are building a 50 lane super highway …. They’d better stop ingesting the devils rat poison before it is too late. How long will they straddle the issue…. either God is God or Baal is God ….. As for me and my household; we follow the Lord!
Why not organize a rally (say a thousand protesters – even rent-a-crowd) and storm the Vatican demanding the Dubia be answered authoritatively? Any such rally will get maximum media coverage too.
It is not true mercy, but a false mercy which teaches that you can be forgiven without repenting, sanctified without forsaking sin, enter heaven without doing the will of God.
There were some “interesting” readings yesterday in the NO mass:
1st reading (Sir 15:15-20):
If you choose you can keep the commandments, they will save you;
if you trust in God, you too shall live;
he has set before you fire and water
to whichever you choose, stretch forth your hand.
Before man are life and death, good and evil,
whichever he chooses shall be given him.
…
No one does he command to act unjustly,
to none does he give license to sin.
Responsorial Psalm (Ps 118):
Blessed are they whose way is blameless,
who walk in the law of the LORD.
Blessed are they who observe his decrees,
who seek him with all their heart…
2nd reading (1 Cor 2: 6-10):
We speak a wisdom to those who are mature,
not a wisdom of this age,
nor of the rulers of this age who are passing away…
Gospel (Mt 5:17-47):
…Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments
and teaches others to do so
will be called least in the kingdom of heaven.
But whoever obeys and teaches these commandments
will be called greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
…
You have heard that it was said,
You shall not commit adultery.
But I say to you,
everyone who looks at a woman with lust
has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
…
It was also said,
Whoever divorces his wife must give her a bill of divorce.
But I say to you,
whoever divorces his wife – unless the marriage is unlawful –
causes her to commit adultery,
and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery…
Coincidence, I’m sure
We had the [bracketed version] of the Gospel the other day. The parts where our Blessed Lord mentions “divorce, lust, marries a divorced woman commits adultery” were *not* heard.
As you say… coincidence, I’m sure.
I suspect that this unfortunate coincidence did not go unnoticed. No doubt we will shortly learn that the Lectionary is to be revised so as to cut out the difficult bits from the readings at Mass.
“I also saw the various regions of the earth. My Guide (Jesus) named Europe and pointing to a small and sandy region, He uttered these words: ‘Here is Prussia (East Germany), the enemy.’ Then He showed me another place, to the north, and He said: ‘This is Moskva, the land of Moscow, bringing many evils’.”
“I see many excommunicated ecclesiastics who do not seem to be concerned about it, nor even aware of it. Yet, they are (ipso factor) excommunicated whenever they cooperated to enterprises, enter into associations, and embrace opinions on which an anathema has been cast. It can be seen thereby that God ratifies the decrees, orders, and interdictions issued by the Head of the Church, and that He keeps them in force even though men show no concern for them, reject them, or laugh them to scorn.” – Anne Catherine Emmerich
Thank you for the quote.
When the Pope and most Cardinals do not hold to the Catholic Faith, where is the Church? That is a reality that must be faced. I wish I could answer my question.
The Church is where the Faith is held. If you hold the Faith, you are the Church.
Look up the life of St. Athanasius. It was much the same then. The true Church and the true Magisterium endured and lives. The Arian heresy, and the multitude of bishops who supported it, are historic dust.
I think the church is now in the faithful and those prelates keeping the whole face. These are times we have more to adress to the heavenly church and go through these tribulations and purifications. We did not loose the head of the church, when the body is ill, and we do also not loose the heart of the church: our lovely mother. It will have a good end but through times of hard sufferings especially for the faithful. But they will carry the light! Most important that we understand to fight in a spiritual way not led and dominated by our emotions. Love and truth will overcome the situation in Christ!
Can any man, with good intellect and with so many diverse evidence, deny the manifest heresy now published in the venerable and ancient Church? This same Church has been assaulted on all sides with the most pernicious and crafty of heresies devised by the Devil, whence it became clear that he could no longer assail the Church with physical tortures. But evil never slumbers, nor does its Prince vacation from it. His entire thought, twisted and poisoned, is long bent on the destruction of this Holy House, whose carriage is made sweet by the assistance of the Beatific in Heaven.
Yet even though he gains mastery of some portion of the Church, She can never be taken, for the Lord promised His protection, and He is always faithful. So, when we see our Holy Mother Church beaten down with these attacks, and are brought to stinging sorrow because Her own prelates and clergy deny Her, from whence they received the Sacerdotal Order, so as to rob not only the Church but also Christ the High Priest, let us never be so trodden down as to abandon Her. But, let the loyal sons support their Mother, and hold fast to Her in all things, even if the Princes of the Church desert Her. For the Church is where the Faith is held, and that same Faith is held by those who are loyal to Her.
Let no man be deceived regarding anything, but let him test all novelty against the constant Magisterium. Let us also remember the words of the august Father of the Church, St. Athanasius. He was wrongfully excommunicated for not compromising with the Arian heretics, and was thus driven into the desert, as was Our dear Saviour, to be tempted. Yet, he did not fail, but boldly stated: The Arians may have the buildings, but we have the Faith! If any one is left without the Holy Sacrifice, or the other venerable Sacraments, let him not despair. For the Lord will not leave anyone abandoned, but will come to the aid of those left without the ordinary means of sanctification.
Take courage, for you are not alone. Your brethren are also suffering. And since the Lord has mercy on them, will He not also have mercy on you? Is not everything possible with God? But, be not mistaken. God’s wrath has come down upon those who with malicious intent, plunder the treasures of the Church. The Arm of the Almighty has brought calamity on the Church, so that the agents of the Enemy may be purged out of Her. For the stench of Satan has risen up before the Most High, and He does not suffer such things.
In concert with the holy Job, let us say: the Lord giveth, and the Lord hath takeneth away. But, blessed be the Name of the Lord!
So matrimony has been reduced to nothing more than an image over substance stage production with a scandalized altar as a mere prop in the backdrop.
Sedeprivationism is looking more and more reasonable with each passing day…
I tell you this, if onepeterfive didn’t exist i would have no idea what is actually happening. Our priest said on Sunday that the doctrine has not changed and i thought maybe on paper but in action the doctrine has changed and is being changed. Wake up!
But there are others too. How search, he can find them.
Pope Francis was born on 17 December 1936. Go to that date in the Diary of St Faustina Kowalska . She offered sacrifice for priests on that day and fell into a terrible agony. I believe this was foretelling the enormous damage this Pope would do to the priesthood by insisting that they give sacrilegious communions to unrepentant mortal sinners. Heaven knew these days would come, so do not despair. Message to Fr Spadaro SJ and your media trolls: Your days are numbered. Yes, in the meantime you seem to be winning and enormous damage is being inflicted upon the Body of Christ, but in the end you and the Vicars of Kasper will be defeated. TOTALLY DEFEATED!
Hi Bob – Very Interesting.
Reading a very interesting book at the moment edited by Margaret Harper McCarthy called ‘Torn Asunder’ on the damage divorce does to children. In an essay by Ryan C MacPherson, where he tracks the various American Lutheran Church’s changing stance on divorce and remarriage down through the years, we find the following. “On both sides of the spectrum, “strict morality” is to be shunned, whether in the form of rigidly adhering to the old definitions of “adultery” and “malicious desertion,” or in the form of urging separated parties to reconcile with one another.”
Avoid strict moralism and rigidity! Sound familiar?
Comrades, this is *not* a situation “comparable to the Arian Crisis” – it is far, far worse than that. In the Arian Crisis, ultimately the argument revolved around the question as to whether the Son was of the same substance as the Father or of like substance: the matter was cleared up at a subsequent Council and the crisis was resolved.
This Crisis is incomparably worse: remember what Pope St. Pius X said about Modernism, that it is the synthesis of ALL error. Look inside the modern Catholic Church and you will find a denial of every dogma of the Faith; you will find a contempt for the Blessed Mother; you will find protestantism, gnosticism, pelagianism (but not from our side!), a denial of Original Sin, a denial of everything including at its core a rejection of God Himself and the elevation of Man in his stead.
Francis is splitting the Christ’s body! How could a real pope do this?
How could a real successor of Peter dare to repeal one of the
Commandments? Francis talks about mercy but does not aggregate the
Catholic bishops and cardinals! He talks about an empty solidarity but
smash those who try to preserve the Christ’s only Truth! Francis is not a
Peter’ successor, he deceived all the faithful. God bless Francis while
there is time. Amem!
The management of the Catholic Church appears to be in the possession of the devil. Lord have Mercy. Let us pray and do penance especially for Pope Francis.
Gone is the time when the Pope was respected just because of the dignity of his office. When Popes themselves valued the dignity of the Chair of Peter they would not even think of teaching falsehood even in casual papal conversations. Pope Francis has proved beyond a shadow of doubt that he cares nothing about the dignity of his office and by his casual conversations with journalists and his official teaching in his encyclicals and exhortations right from the time he has been elected and by his dubious support to the liberal collegial cardinals he has proved that he is not the least concerned about authentic Catholic teaching and will go about his liberal agenda caring not about any resistance from anyone, ordained or lay people. By his teaching ambiguity shall he destroy many souls. Catholics have to pray for his removal from the Chair of Peter by an act of God Almighty. Nothing else will save the Church from such disasters. By our prayer will the wolves in sheep’s clothing inside the echelons of the Church be defeated. It is high time that we pray like we r in spiritual warfare
The cancer in the CC must be rooted out at its core. PF’s demise will not be enough – there are plenty of clones to follow. The four cardinals will have to move quickly & decisively in the name of God to eradicate for all time the heresies & blasphemies of all popes since VII, and rescind that ‘pastoral’ council.
Yes we must pray that God removes the wrong Pope and bring in a righteous one who will right the wrong. R prayers r more powerful to make God intervene in our affairs than even the power weapons. I remember that Mother Mary has said in one of her approved apparitions that r prayers can çhange even the course of prophesies and that’s why we must take prayer on a war footing now. It is the only strategy that can defeat an apostate Pope before his teachings can cause irreversible harm to the souls of Catholics
I always find the concatenation of giving access to the sacraments of reconciliation AND communion rather strange. Confession is available to all and if absolution is given then communion can follow. However as Cardinal Muller has stated there are four essentials in confession: confession of all mortal sins, contrition, a firm purpose of amendment and penance. He goes on to say that if any one of these four are missing there is no sacrament. I wonder though whether what is now being proposed is a new form of confession where the firm purpose of amendment is no longer required. That is certainly implied in the statement by the Bishops of Buenos Aires. So the idea is that anybody can go to confession and get absolution and be admitted to communion but it being clearly understood that they are going to carry on with the mortal sin regardless.
Cardinal Coccopalmerio was a no show at his own Vatican presser, apparently his diary wouldn’t allow him to attend….whatever that is supposed to mean. Apparently he had a meeting with the Congregation for the Causes of Saints…
I’m calling BS.
https://twitter.com/EdwardPentin?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor
Some important business in that Congregation for the Causes of the Saints, I’m sure…”St, Luther, Pray for Us”
My guess is Francis and co. realized what a s**t storm they had unleashed and pulled the plug, like the cowards they are.
Do they really think we’re this stupid for them to claim there was a scheduling conflict when they had already publicly announced this to the press? I know I’m cynical, but come on.
I think the fear of God are in all of them, it’s just that they refuse to repent but choose to run away as if they were actually getting away.
Is there a subtle difference between pledging support for the Pope and pledging support for the Person of the Pope?
We should not pray for intention of pope, when those are not clearly mentioned.
What is “intention of the Pope”?
Before the reform of discipline of forgiveness (1967th-1968th), there was a very clear answer to that question.
Congregation for indulgences in 1847, gave us a clear definition:
“Intentio pontificis est exultatio sanctae Ecclesiae, extirpatio haereseum, propagatio fidei, peccatorum conversio, pax et concordia inter principes christianos.”
“The intention of Pontiff is the exaltation of the holy Church, eradicating of heresy, expansion of faith, conversion of sinners, peace and concord between Christian rulers [monarchs].”
This prayer was always repeated and mentioned in their full words, in theological books – until the 1960s!
See here an example in the book of a prominent jesuit Arthura Vermeersch:
– “Theologiae moralis principia – responsa – consilia” (tom. III., Rim, 1948., page. 377.):
https://books.google.hr/books?id=FkHAMRAUcSMC&printsec=frontcover&hl=hr
The expression “HIS Magisterium” says it all. The mere need to make a distinction between “the Magisterium of Francis” and “the other” is telling. (This is where ‘Call Me Jorge’ comes and says: This is my Church.)
Good morning Notung,
Indeed, the language used speaks as res ipsa loquitur, noted here:
“adhesion and loyalty to the figure of the Pope and to his Magisterium.”
It is very curious to read, “…figure of the Pope and to his Magisterium.” Looking at this statement using the ontological method of Saint Thomas Aquinas, the “figure” of the Pope is a matter of speech which speaks to the metaphysical “form” and not to the metaphysical “matter” of the object in this sentence, the “Pope”. Otherwise said, it speaks to the person of Jorge Mario Bergoglio and not to the Divinely given Vicar of Christ, as Peter. Why, because it specifically leaves out the “matter” of the Pope, which is to say the content of specifically who the pope is as Pope, as opposed to who the pope (small case intended) is as Jorge Mario Bergoglio. What the Pope has to offer as man is a matter of his own ideological opinion and not an infallible position of the teaching Magisterium. As you pointed out, “…his Magisterium”, which is simply not, “Christ Jesus’ Magisterium” given to Peter. Please query me as you might in order for us to better flesh this out. In caritas.
I think it is part of a cynical strategy – now the ‘Anglicans’ (or Kasperites, or Bergoglians) can point to a book by a curial cardinal published by the Vatican as indication that adultery is no problem, and the Catholics are told that there is no reason to doubt Bergoglio’s orthodoxy (and hence to question whether he is or ever was pope, which is naturally contingent on being a Catholic) because it is only a private pastoral statement.
What about “minor attracted persons”? How is it fair that sodomites get to receive communion, but not those who , well, lets say, “appreciate” 12 year old girls! When will they get justice? When will they get some of that sweet, sweet mercy?
And dont forget those who have, what some have called a “romantic abnormality.’ Fish are the object of some adult affection. Where is their day in the sun? Or, under the sea as it were….
Mother Church, who does not leave behind any of her children, aware that absolute perfection is a precious gift but one which cannot be reached by everyone.
this is satanic. Straw men is the constant tactic of this pontificate
The Communist Marxists have taken over the Vatican. They are aligned with the Global Communist Marxists for the same ends. That end is a World Government with a World New Age Religion which contains the New Age Catholic Church without its Tradition but it will have a new gospel.
Communist Peronists.
Latest update: Cardinal ‘Coco’ as they have lovingly nicknamed him, canceled his ‘presser’ due to ‘diary conflicts’. Says he will speak in a couple of days. He can’t speak for Francis on the Dubia ‘officially’ anyway. Has to be Francis himself. But make no mistake, battle lines are being drawn. to be sure. The latest ‘affirmation of loyalty’ that he has demanded from the College of Cardinals seems to spell this out. Along with the ‘widely reported rumors’ in Rome that Cardinal Burke has cleared his schedule. Things seem to be indeed coming to a head in Rome.
The more these guys try to explain the unexplainable, the further they paint themselves into a corner.
What should be clear to everyone is that the interpretation of AL being given by Pope Francis’ various surrogates simply can’t be squared with the Church’s Tradition or with the Magisterium of Pope St. John Paul II or Pope Benedict. In fact, it is diametrically opposed. A thing cannot suddenly go from “not-X” to “X” and be considered anything other than a rupture.
Also, the “explanations” that are being given betray a complete lack of belief in God’s grace. The Maltese say it may be “humanly impossible” for people to refrain from adultery. That view was anathematized at the Council of Trent.
Now this Cardinal now says that people may not be able to refrain from adultery without causing even greater sin; ergo, they must be permmited to receive Reconciliation and the Eucharist even though they have no intention to stop sinning. This betrays a complete lack of trust in God, directly contradicts the teaching of St. John Paul the Great in Veritatis Splendor, the Catechism, and the Word of God.
Who can’t control themselves? Who can’t follow the Commandments and the Gospel of Jesus Christ? Perhaps they should step down from any authority or leadership position until they can control themselves because it’s these people who can’t overcome their own urges and are making themselves feel better when they tell the laity that no man or woman can control themselves – that’s negative, not positive. AND! What about the children of divorce? What sort of examination of conscious are these leaders considering when it comes to the guarantee of the well-being of spiritual, mental, and emotional conditions of children of the first “non-marriage.” Arrrrgggh!
Of course, the dubia was not asked of the heretical Cardinal, but the Supreme Pontiff! Seems a pretty simple one to answer. If he needs some assistance in giving the Catholic response, I’m sure I could arrange for a well formed eight year old to answer it for him. That way he could sake the heretic he has cowardly sent out in his stead!
“Following this logic, it can only be a matter of time before others engaging in acts such as homosexual sodomy will be explicitly added to the group of those who “must” be given access to the sacraments as a means of “pastoral care”.”
—
I agree with this analysis, because it seems to be a principle of progressive culture, that everything seems to be merely a step to the next expansion.
Reminds me of what I have seen called “Chesterton’s fence”
Chesterton said:
In the manner of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which probably will be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law, let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this, let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you destroy it.”
Got the Chesterton’s fence quote from: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/423707/subversion-101-heroism-after-critical-theory-nr-interview
The comments of La Rocca remind me of the arguments of Weston in C.S. Lewis’ “Voyage to Venus”.
It doesn’t matter what “Cardinal” Cocopuffs says or writes. The Dubia will go the way of the Ottavani Intervention–a dusty, ignored and cast aside publication in the corner of a Novus Ordo library. Maybe even an FSSP or ICK library. And more errors will be promulgated by the “indefectible” church.
I’d just like to caution against poor translations of the original text. I don’t have the official text in Italian, but according to the radiovaticana website http://it.radiovaticana.va/news/2017/02/14/esce_il_testo_del_card_coccopalmerio_sull_amoris_laetitia/1292459 the text on page 27 states: “…la Chiesa dunque potrebbe ammettere alla Penitenza e all’Eucarestia i fedeli che si trovano in unione non legittima, i quali però verifichino due condizioni essenziali: desiderano cambiare situazione, però non possono attuare il loro desiderio”.
In the article above, Mr. Skojec adds emphasis on “should be given”. But if the quote on radiovaticana is correct, it should rather be translated “could be given.” I think that’s an important distinction.
I checked the translation with three different people on that specific phrase. It has come back to me as “must be given,” “ought to be given,” and “should be given.” One translator said to me that it’s sort of a weak imperative, avoiding the command of “must” (I’ve seen another outlet translate it as “must”; this was our first take, but I wanted to make sure I had it right so this is why I triple checked our work.)
It should also be noted that the official services providing translations on controversial statements — Vatican Radio, CNS, Zenit, etc. — have been found to produce obviously bad translations or to change wording after the fact when people reacted strongly to something.
We’ve documented it here and I can provide links. One of the more egregious examples is this:
https://onepeterfive.wpengine.com/video-pope-francis-comments-on-divorced-remarried/
Thanks for the response! Good to know that the “leg work” is being done. I guess it’s a good reason for everyone to just learn Italian! 🙂 I guess I’ll have to wait until I see the original version for myself to make a judgement.
I believe the specific excerpt in question was taken from here:
http://www.panorama.it/cultura/libri/papa-francesco-e-i-divorziati-la-risposta-ai-cattolici-intransigenti/
So, how does this square away with our historical understanding that even the worst, most immoral of popes has never done anything against doctrine or morals? Pope Francis seems to be doing both.
I am so very grateful for this forum and this website. If it were not for all of you, I would not understand what is happening in the Church. I can come here and listen to what is not being addressed and/or acknowledged in very many places. I can speak freely without being told I am rigid or traditional or conservative or disloyal or a bad Catholic. What we are all enduring now is, I think, a small portion of what Mary must have experienced at the foot of the cross as she watched and wept as her Son and our Lord was dying. I am deeply saddened. With each passing day, my pain and my grief seems to grow. How can one know and not weep?
Can someone tell me where I could find the text of cardinal Coccopalmerio’s pamphlet to read for myself?