Warm your Catholic heart

Courtesy of Rorate.

Q:  What can a pastor say to a Catholic who feels bewildered by these winds of change?

A:  The faithful should take courage, because the Lord will never abandon his Church.  We should think about how the Lord calmed the sea in the storm and his words to his disciples:  “Why are you afraid, you men of little faith?” (Mt. 8:26).  If this time of confusion seems to put their faith at risk, they have to only work even harder to live a life that is truly Catholic.  But I am aware that to live in these times is a source of great suffering.

Q:  It is becoming difficult not to think of this as a time of chastisement.

A:  I think about this first of all concerning myself.  If I am suffering at this time because of the situation in the Church, I think that the Lord is telling me that I have need of purification.  And I also think that, if the suffering is so widespread, this means that the whole Church is in need of purification.  But this is not because of a God who is waiting only to punish us.  This is because of our own sins.  If in some way we have betrayed doctrine, moral teaching or the liturgy, it follows inevitably that we will undergo a suffering that purifies us to put us back again on the narrow way.

Read the rest there, including my little friend who delights in mocking everything that this humble and holy lion says.

Is Cardinal Kasper racist and a liar or does he suffer from dementia?

It is not bad enough that Cardinal Kasper appears to be a racist with his statements about Africa, now it appears that he is also a liar. Either that, or the octogenarian Cardinal suffers from an onset of dementia and has no business being a involved with the synodal process.

The friend and confident of Jorge Bergoglio, Bishop of Rome in a conversation with Kath.net, denied the alleged statements made yesterday about Africa and its bishops published by Zenit and now removed.

“I am shocked. I have never spoken like this about Africans, and I would never do so. Zenit has, in the past days and weeks, never reached out to me, nor has it had an interview with me,” Kasper is reported to have said.

Zenit took down the interview which appears below "Is Cardinal Kasper a racist."

In response, the interviewer Edward Pentin, reprints the interview and provides the following statement:

In response to a statement from His Eminence Cardinal Kasper denying giving the interview that appeared in ZENIT Wednesday 15th October, I issue the following response:

His Eminence Cardinal Walter Kasper spoke to me and two other journalists, one British, the other French, around 7.15pm on Tuesday as he left the Synod hall.

I transcribed the recording of our conversation, and my iPhone on which I recorded the exchange was visible. I introduced myself as a journalist with the [National Catholic] Register, and the others also introduced themselves as journalists. I therefore figured the interview was on the record and His Eminence appeared happy to talk with us. In the end, I posted the full interview in ZENIT rather than the Register. ZENIT removed the article on Thursday in response to Cardinal Kasper’s denial.

His Eminence made no comment about not wanting his remarks published. It depends on the context, but normally in such a situation, comments are considered on the record unless otherwise requested.

The recording can be downloaded below. A couple of the questions came from the other two journalists and I included them as part of the interview. Some of the quality of the English has also been improved for publication.

00:00

07:53

If there was a misunderstanding, I apologise, but I stand by the interview that was published as a correct account of the exchange.

How much longer will Pope Francis allow this scandal to continue?

It was Martha

Originally posted, October 16, 2006 and edited for today. Please see the N.B. at the end.

A WIDOW WHO SOUGHT "THE PEARL OF GREAT PRICE"

+ Martha Joan Stephen Domet +

August 15, 1915 - October 16, 2006

Martha on her 90th birthday

+++

Eight years ago today, in her 92^nd year, my mother was called home to the LORD. She was a woman of great faith in God and she taught many lessons to all of those who came into contact with her. This was especially true in her last few years. She suffered the loss of her first grandson and then her first son, both from cancer and she bore much physical suffering with faith, trust and humility.

Today, October 16 according to the calendar for the usus antiquior or the Traditional Latin Mass calendar is the Feast of St. Hedwig a medieval Polish duchess who died on October 14, 1243. She was also maternal aunt of St. Elizabeth of Hungary which incidentally was my maternal grandmother's name. So it was then for me a rather serendipitous moment when at the Mass which I attended earlier that day, the Epistle was read from the First Letter of Blessed Paul the Apostle to Timothy:

"Dearly beloved: Honour widows that are widows indeed. But if any widow have children, or grandchildren, let her learn first to govern her own house, and to make a return of duty to her parents: for this is acceptable before God. But she that is a widow indeed, and desolate, let her trust in God and continue in supplications and prayers night and day. For she that liveth in pleasures is dead while she is living. And this give in charge, that they may be blameless. But if any man have not care of his own, and especially of those of his house, he hath denied the faith and is worse than an infidel. Let a widow be chosen of no less than threescore years of age, who hath been the wife of one husband having testimony for her good works, if she have brought up children, if she have received to harbour, if she have washed the saints' feet, if she have ministered to them that suffer tribulation, if she have diligently followed every good work."

The Gospel was the parable about the "pearl of great price." Martha spent her life auctioning all for that pearl. I believe she found it. A few days before she died we had a conversation and she told me that whenever God was ready to call her, she was ready to go.

We often hear or read of those things that are “unexplained” except by coincidence, of course. To those who know and love God, “there are no coincidences.” Not even the fact that the Epistle at Mass chosen was one of two from the "Common of Holy Women" or that she spoke only a few days before about being "ready" nor about what you are about to read below.

That day started like many others. I woke my son for school, I got ready for work and before dashing out the door I took Roxy, our terrier mutt to stay with her, kissed both of them good-bye and while bidding her adieu the first home care girl was arriving to help her get ready for the day and stay with her whilst I was at work.

At around 1:00 PM the second caregiver, Bridget, arrived for the shift-change. As Bridget arrived she came into the family room, the other caregiver had just sat  mum down on the sofa. My mother had only moments earlier complained of difficulty breathing and then she laid back, gasped and closed her eyes. Bridget yelled out her name, “Martha, Martha!” and gently slapped her. She stirred and let out a breath, she collapsed on the sofa.

At that moment, my mother died.

I got the call at work from Bridget and on the way home it was clear from speaking to the paramedics that she was gone. They were working on her with adrenalin and the heart paddles but were not having any success. I told them to stop but they would not, there was no DNR posted.

I spoke to Bridget and told her that a priest from the local parish was on his way (the Sacrament of the Sick, what we used to call Extreme Unction had already been administered by one of her faithful Oratorian Priests a few weeks earlier.) I asked Bridget to go to my mother’s bedroom and retrieve the sick visit Crucifix from the wall above her bed. (This is a Crucifix which slides off and is placed in a stand; on either side are then candle holders and some of the necessary items for the Sacrament).

A few minutes later, I arrived screeching in the driveway the importance of which will reveal itself shortly. When I arrived my mother’s eyes were open and she was semi-conscious; technology, it seemed had triumphed, at least for now. Father arrived a few moments later and anointed her. She was transported to “St. Joe’s” where my father also died, and we removed the medical intervention around 5:00 PM., it was clear that the technology that brought her back was keeping her here and that if we did not remove this invasion she would suffer worse indignities. An Oratorian priest came to bless her again and to counsel us on the rightness of our decision to remove the intervention. Just after 8:00 P.M., I went outside for some air and a smoke with my niece. A few minutes later my sister came running to get me. She had just gone out of the room to the nurses desk to make a phone call. My sister was not out of the room a half-minute and no more than 5 metres away and our mother died. It was like she could not let herself go whilst we were with her.

So, what does this have to do with coincidence?

The next day I called Bridget and asked her to stay on for a few more days to be at the house to tidy and answer the phone and assist with guests. Bridget was quite upset to be sure. She had been with my mother daily for the last year and often spoke of how well she was always treated and “their little talks.”

She came to me with apprehension and said that she really needed to talk to me about something.

The paramedics, with all of their intervention, brought her back. It took 14 minutes from the time they began to get a pulse. Had she every regained full consciousness her life would have been horrible, we all knew that. But what was disturbing Bridget was that there was no reaction to their work; nothing, until my car screeched to a halt in the driveway.

“I have a pulse!” exclaimed the paramedic. It was simultaneous and with my arrival at home -- it was simultaneous with the screeching of my tires. 

David was home and his mom came back to see him.

But there is more, much more.

Bridget began to shake and was in tears.

“David, I had a dream Sunday night," my mother having died on Monday. She went on to say that she had typically forgotten the dream until she went to my mother’s bedroom to get the Crucifix. Upon seeing Jesus on the Cross the dream came back to her for just a moment. Again, it was gone. The house after all was a mass of confusion, police, fire-fighters, the paramedics, and eventually me, and the Priest; Bridget was now a bystander.

After we left for the hospital, Bridget was alone and tidying up and it was what happened then that she was so desperate to tell me. She will never forget it. Nor will I as Bridget recalled for me her dream.

“I was standing on a street-corner in small town with other people. We were laughing at this man dressed in a robe and with long-hair. He said his name was Jesus and we were making fun of him. Just then a young beautiful woman stepped off of the curb and started to cross the street; she turned around and looked at us, she had tears in her eyes, tears of overwhelming joy, she was happy, really happy. It was then that Jesus took her hand and walked across the road with her.”

That was Bridget’s dream.

She went on to say that when she woke up from her dream. She interpreted it that she needed to be more like the woman who walked across the street. That she needed to have “more faith in Jesus.”

I told her that it seemed like a pretty plausible conclusion.

“Wait” Bridget said, “There is more.”

I waited and listened and she started to cry again.

“David, I remembered the dream only for a moment when carrying the Cross. When I was tidying up I put the Cross on the end-table -- over there.”

“Yes, it looks nice there” I replied.

“No, David, you don’t understand, the picture, the picture beside the Cross.”

“Yes, Bridget, what is it?”

“That picture of your mother at graduation.” Bridget started to weep uncontrollably 

“It was her; it was your mother; she was the girl in my dream, it was Martha.”

and this...

Nota Bene: Please say a prayer for Bridget; I've not seen her since then but I know she suffered from the affects of an abortion forced on her by her mother and family doctor when she was 19. That doctor was a former Toronto Coroner, Member of the Legislature in Ontario and broadcaster. He also suffered from Parkinson's and was desperate for a cure, so much so that Bridget exclaimed, "Dr. (Morton) Shulman ate my baby." She was told by the nurse that he would dry out the fetus and grind it into powder and then in capsules in a desperate attempt to find a cure for the disease that ravaged his body.  

Vox, 2014

Michael Coren's corrupted Catholicism

Michael Coren appeared tonight on a rather pedestrian television program from Hamilton, Ontario with Damian Goddard. The two debated each other, with the two moderators. Coren is a bully, though he called Goddard one repeatedly. Yet it was Coren that did all the interrupting. He even called Goddard a hater. 

I won't quote everything but Coren stated that Jesus never preached on homosexuality.

This statement does not merit a rebuttal.

Michael Coren, stop identifying yourself as a practicing and faithful Catholic. Stop appearing to defend the Church as if you are speaking on Her behalf. You are no theologian. You have no standing to go on regional or local television and speak for the Church. 

Your opinions are heterodox and please, stop complaining of cancellations and the loss of income from Catholics. Certainly all your new friends should be able to make up the difference.

The Synod was a Set-up!

The Catholic Church's teaching on sodomy is clear, it is a mortal sin and one of the four deadly sins crying out to heaven for justice. Holy Scripture is clear throughout on the abomination before God and the crime of this behaviour. Until just over 100 years ago, it was the sin of sodomy until the word homosexual was coined and until nearly 50 years ago, it was considered a psychiatric disorder. The act is sinful, it always is sinful and it can never be good, it can never be accepted. It is an act against God, it is an act against the soul, the person and it is an act against nature. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church states, those who practice this behaviour suffer from an "intrinsic disorder." This is the truth, it is the law, it is magisterial and it is infallible and that applies no matter what trash comes out of Rome.

Are persons suffering with same-sex attraction to be hated? Of course not; but we can hate the political and social movement of homosexualism that has taken control of our culture and clearly, our Church! 

Are people with same-sex attraction to be welcomed in the Church -- in our parishes and loved and respected? Absolutely; and I know many and one is now married to a woman and I had the pleasure to be a Lector at their wedding. 

For the last thirty years of my life, the Churches which I've attended have either offered the Mass in the traditional rite or the new rite with solid liturgy and orthodox preaching. At these churches there have been people who identified as "gay" people divorced (myself at one time) and a myriad of suffering humanity. Were they/I all accepted as brothers and sisters? 

Absolutely! 

So, what on earth is this synod all about?

The idiocy and evil by those at the Synod and I use those words in their full meaning, is profound. They wish to leave people suffering from same-sex behaviour in their sin. There is no call for repentance!

Look, people with SSA (same sex attraction) are not beating down the doors to get into Church. They can come just like anyone else if they choose to do so. If they repent and amend their lives they can come to Holy Communion. If they do not, they cannot. Neither can I if I live a life of adultery or fornication or drunkenness or deny just wages. Are we to reach out to them? Absolutely, with the truth! 

It is a false mercy to think otherwise.

The relator at the Synod blames an Archbishop who inserted three paragraphs without anyone knowledge. Really Eminence; we are to believe this? 

The Bishop of Rome's morning homily from the morning of the release of this document was all about the law and the "god of surprises" (the lack of a capital is intentional).

What does that tell you?

The Bishop of Rome, Jorge Bergoglio, must not only have known of these three paragraphs, he must have agreed with them!

Our good friends at Rorate are reporting today on Sandro Magister:

"The coincidence must be fortuitous, but on Monday, October 13, precisely on the very same day on which in the Italian political arena both the party of [Socialist prime-minister] Matteo Renzi as that of Silvio Berlusconi [the main "conservative" party] announced their will to legitimize homosexual unions, on the other bank of the Tiber the special secretary of the Synod on the Family, archbishop Bruno Forte, said that he also hoped for the same thing, because "it is an issue of civilization."

Has Rome, have these bishops and cardinals, has the Pope himself lost his mind?

This is a disgrace! It is a crime against the Church. It is a betrayal of our faith and of the truth. Can it be a set-up from the very beginning and from the highest office? The damage has been done, the global media will report that the Church has changed and our argument is now lost and if we stand for the truth, we will be mocked, we will now be the problem.

It is Peronism at its finest, eh? Even Saul Alinsky could not have imagined that this would actually happen and make no mistake, they are using all of his rules (for radicals). That homomafia is alive and well and still very active in Vatican City.

The Vatican is clearly backtracking today that "a value has been attributed to a document which does not correspond to its nature. As Mundabor writes, "this is not even a fig-leaf. This is like staying naked in front of the journalists and making a declaration that one is clothed."  He rightly questions which is more "stupid" the Relatio or this declaration but he when he writes, "probably the text is more blasphemous and heretical, but this declaration is every bit as offensive."

A breaking report from England quotes Archbishop Nichols that  the document was "composed under pressure." If this revelation is true, and there is no reason to doubt the Archbishop, then the document is illegal and the whole legitimacy of the Synod is in doubt.

Matt C. Abbott today at Renew America quotes Cardinal Napier, "We're now working from a position that's virtually irredeemable,' said South African Cardinal Wilfrid Fox Napier, referring to the media coverage. 'The message has gone out that this is what synod is saying, that this is what the Catholic Church is saying,' he said. 'Whatever we say hereafter will seem like we're doing damage control." Through his own network, Matt has asked for comments and Father James Fargalia writes, "Pope Francis has correctly criticized the plague of clericalism within the Catholic Church, but Monday's document is the most disgusting example of clericalism that I have ever seen in my almost twenty-seven years as a faithful and hardworking Catholic priest. In fact, the entire synod is an example of clericalism in its most horrendous form. How many of the participants in the synod have ever served in a parish?" He continues, "I used to dismiss the conspiracy theories regarding Pope Benedict XVI's resignation. In light of Monday's horrendous Vatican document, I entertain those theories as a plausible possibility." Father Richard Perozich says that "A pastoral practice that allows sin to be mixed with grace is neither pastoral, nor compassionate, nor merciful. Any such accommodation would teach others to abandon biblical guidance, to follow human desire, and to separate themselves from God."

Now we see the agenda, eh?

This was all about Kasper and his Holy Communion for the divorce and remarried without a decree of nullity, Now, it is revealed that it is really about a blanket acceptance of sodomy, a watering down of marriage, Holy Communion for everyone, a false mercy. 

If they truly believed that Our Lord Jesus Christ was present body, blood, soul and divinity in the Blessed Sacrament would they permit this? They would admonish the sinner and they would prevent him or her from eating "unto their own condemnation."  This is mercy and they can only have lost the faith. 

Father D. Vincent Twomey, S.V.D., writes today in Catholic World Report, that "It is gravely irresponsible on the part of the Synod to cause further confusion in a pastoral situation that, in the absence of little authentic instruction on the part of the bishops and priests over the past forty years, is causing havoc in people's lives."

I think the most salient quote today is this one from Father Hunwicke; "When you have a problem with some word or action, you lean over backwards to see it in the best possible light. But your duties of faithfulness to Christ do not mean that you have to be pathologically sycophantic towards whoever happens to be the current bishop of Rome." I've said it before papolatry (papal-idolatry) is not Catholic; no matter how many nice pictures and how humble the Vatican spin doctors dress this up. So, let us get over this idea that the "wonderfullest pope evah" can do no wrong. He can and he has.

The Synod is a disgrace, it is bordering on illegitimacy and is enveloped in a level of unprecedented secrecy and manipulation. This is not the working of the Holy Spirit, of that we can be certain. In Poland it is being called a "hermeneutic of treachery!"

I've read in a few places of people despairing and some say that they will leave the Church.  I am not despairing but I am bloody angry. 

Look, you cannot leave the Bride of Christ over this. Where else are we to go? The Orthodox who remain schismatic? The SSPX without Faculties? 

We stay right where we are. We do not have to obey on matters that dissent against the Magisterium. If these Romans do this, they call St. John Paul II a liar. If they do this, they call the man they are about to beatify, Bl. Paul VI a liar. They call St. Paul a liar. Now, I would not put it past any of these, and I mean any, to try but know what this is:

This is the devil. He has seized these men by their necks and by their hearts. They are old men, withered and bitter. They have lost the faith, they are out of touch. They are modernists, some are heretics and 100 years ago they would have already been tried for their lies, their heresy, their sodomy and malfeasance. They are sterile and they have no progeny. They represent a dead church and a dead theology.

As our beloved Benedict said, "the Church of the future will be smaller." The people behind this poisonous synod, this betrayal of the law, this new crucifixion are a declining number and they know it. They know too, as does their father of lies, that their time is short.

The next pope is there in Rome. He is witnessing this horror, and he is being called to truly rebuild and re-evangelise the Church. He will uphold the faith and he will restore all things.

The next year is going to be a trial. Then, some time in 2016; Jorge Bergoglio, Bishop of Rome will issue his Apostolic Exhortation.

A lot can happen between now and then.

Holy Father, Cardinals, Bishops; do you want this on your conscience in time and eternity?

From a Facebook friend.

Frustrations of a Catholic

October 14, 2014 at 1:57pm

I’ve not been a Catholic long. Even including the three years I spent familiarizing myself with all things Catholic before I swam the Tiber, I’m an infant. There’s wisdom in recognizing the fundamental incompetence of a new Catholic to do justice to Catholic topics of great complexity — no matter his familiarity with them, no matter his intellect or confidence in discussing them. Developing interiorly is paramount.

I understand all this; I offer this not as a bombastic critique, but as an infant’s cry to his Ecclesial Mother: I’ve ceased to care whether the synod in Rome affirms Catholic dogma or not.

I no longer care whether the final result is a resounding reaffirmation, a technical affirmation of orthodoxy even as orthopraxy is corrupted, or an outright denial of dogma.

I no longer care; because it’s become obvious to me the pseudo-Catholic revolutionary does not usually mount a direct attack on dogma. No, the Catholic Church is far too old and too traditional for that. The more direct approach taken in the Church of England does not work.

Nine times out of ten our revolutionaries settle for allowing technical affirmations of dogma or even resounding ones so long as the concrete reality on the ground is changed. Our revolution is one of appearances, not the letter. Unlike the clumsy heretics of yesteryear, today’s version neither leaves the Church, nor foments change in teaching — instead, they pass themselves off as loyal sons of the Church, conceding the letter of dogma for the few who care about it, if only they’re allowed to control the image of the Church, which the masses take as their cue of belief.

This power of appearance has never been stronger than during the present pontificate. I daresay this pontificate has been more successful at using the media, via clichés, slogans, photographs, etc, than any in history.

Which brings me to the synod currently in progress. The synod has become the perfect environment for this phenomenon, which we’re seeing in a way unrivaled since the decade immediately following the close of the Second Vatican Council. Pope Benedict XVI, shortly before abdicating, spoke candidly on this effect after Vatican II, with the important distinction that he refrained from attributing it to churchmen within the Church. It’s obvious to me that influences both within and without the Church drove the image of the Church forward after the Council, with the goal in mind of changing ecclesial praxis, entirely without regard for changing the letter of dogma. Only confusion and an emerging appearance in the public eye are necessary for change in practice; so who cares what that remnant of stuffy dogmatists believes? The Church has, so to speak, moved quite beyond them in the only way that matters to the revolutionaries: in concrete reality.

So, what is my point in all this frank commentary? Simply this: I believe I, and others like me, am being played for fools. We are allowed to continue believing dogma, while the movers-and-shakers of the clergy and the secular media cooperate to create impressions that drive what the majority of Catholics and non-Catholics believe about the Church. This is actually worse than an outright assault on faith and morals, because there’s no clearly defined heresy to be rejected. It’s all ether in the wind, so to speak; all pastoral praxis, publicity, image, public opinion, and change on the ground.

And worst of all, none of the dogmatists seem to be aware of these mechanics. Continually insisting “Rome hasn’t changed dogma” almost seems the silly, stupid talk of fools, of saps to be taken advantage of. Sure, have your precious dogma; have your pie in the sky ideology; the real change-agents have wrought revolution without changing it.

I invite your prayers; I could use them. I'm really struggling.

Revolution on the Way

Did Cardinal Burke say that the Devil is at work at the Synod?

From the latest interview with Cardinal Burke: (my emphasis)

CWR: In what way is information about what is happening in the Synod being either manipulated or only partially reported and made public?

Cardinal Burke: The interventions of the individual Synod Fathers are not made available to the public, as has been the case in the past. All of the information regarding the Synod is controlled by the General Secretariat of the Synod which clearly has favored from the beginning the positions expressed in the Relatio post disceptationem of yesterday morning. 

While the individual interventions of the Synod Fathers are not published, yesterday’s Relatio, which is merely a discussion document, was published immediately and, I am told, even broadcast live. You do not have to be a rocket scientist to see the approach at work, which is certainly not of the Church.

CWR: How is that reflected in the Synod's midterm document, released yesterday, which is being criticised by many for its appeal to a so-called "law of graduality”?

Cardinal Burke: While the document in question (Relatio post disceptationem) purports to report only the discussion which took place among the Synod Fathers, it, in fact, advances positions which many Synod Fathers do not accept and, I would say, as faithful shepherds of the flock cannot accept. Clearly, the response to the document in the discussion which immediately followed its presentation manifested that a great number of the Synod Fathers found it objectionable. 

The document lacks a solid foundation in the Sacred Scriptures and the Magisterium. In a matter on which the Church has a very rich and clear teaching, it gives the impression of inventing a totally new, what one Synod Father called “revolutionary”, teaching on marriage and the family. It invokes repeatedly and in a confused manner principles which are not defined, for example, the law of graduality.

CWR: How important is it, do you think, that Pope Francis make a statement soon in order to address the growing sense—among many in the media and in the pews—that the Church is on the cusp of changing her teaching on various essential points regarding marriage, “remarriage,” reception of Communion, and even the place of “unions” among homosexuals?

Cardinal Burke: In my judgment, such a statement is long overdue. The debate on these questions has been going forward now for almost nine months, especially in the secular media but also through the speeches and interviews of Cardinal Walter Kasper and others who support his position. 

The faithful and their good shepherds are looking to the Vicar of Christ for the confirmation of the Catholic faith and practice regarding marriage which is the first cell of the life of the Church.

Happy now you malefactors?

Exactly what Cardinal Napier warned about!

 

Synodal secrecy and spin and sodomite-mafia takeover

If you've not already read or heard, the Synod Fathers elected by secret ballot their representatives to write the report known as the relatio. Cardinal Raymond Burke and Cardinal Bagnasco amongst others were elected, again I repeat, by secret ballot! Most of the group was decidedly orthodox to Catholic doctrine.

What has been the response by the Bishop of Rome? 

Pope Francis appointed six others including Cardinal Wuerl of Washington -- six who seemingly take opposing views to the first group and are in line with the thinking of the Bishop or Rome.

Let me be clear.

The Bishop of Rome has no right or authority by God to change doctrine, so get off your papolatrous high-horse now. The Pope, this Pope, is obligated ,as are all,  to receive and pass on, he is a servant of the servants of God, he is not a master.

This cabal lead by Cardinal Kasper aided by Donald Wuerl are trying to remake Catholic doctrine by stealth, make no mistake about that.

Holy Communion for the divorced and remarried without a decree of nullity is their goal, they are literally "hell-bent" on doing it no matter what.

The Pope should not allow Cardinals such as Kasper to openly create confusion and rancour. It is astounding. 

The fact that we cannot here what our bishops say and that it is filtered by the likes of Lombardi and Thomas Rosica, CSB is a detestable. We all know about how these men communicate, eh? We have a right, as Cardinal Muller stated, to know what our bishops say!

In the recent past, many Catholics opposed St. John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI for their teaching. They dissented. They were wrong as they were dissenting from the magisterial teaching of the Church be it on women's ordination, liturgical abuses, divorce and remarriage civilly with no decree of nullity, acknowledgement of same-sex relationships, contraception -- the list goes on. These people were wrong, they were not practising Catholics. They were trying to undermine the faith.

Catholics now who have not changed their beliefs are now the dissenters -- how can this be?

If you think that those other points are not going to fall like dominoes if these scandalisers in Rome succeed in changing doctrine by stealth (the wedge is Holy Communion) then you are a bigger fool than them. Read what the German bishops write and say, and the Bishop of Antwerp (an appropriate name) and you tell me where these modernists wish to take the Church.

This is happening as the world is burning. Christians beheaded and persecuted. People crucified in 2014!!! Homes destroyed, cultural genocide, economic disruption and these men talk of no Holy Communion for some who persist in mortal sin and refuse to live the life that God has deigned and the Church has taught for two millenia.

Bishops in Africa are notably absent from the commission appointed by the Pope. The issues of this Synod are white, rich European and English world issues. The main focus has been and continues to be divorce and Holy Communion.  

The Church and this Synod is out of touch with the reality of the world. 

This Synod on the Family is a false construct and a Trojan horse.

This post started to be written with the latest article by Sandra Magister, "The Real Dilemma: Indissolubility or Divorce" as the main focus until the latest from Rome came to my attention. They are though, intricately connected and Magister gives you the inner workings in his usually well-informed manner.

Below is a link and quote from this morning at the Vatican. This is a result of the what has been unleashed at this Synod. Can we be lead to any other conclusion that the dossier handed to our beloved Benedict XVI in fact contained a plethora of information on the power and infiltration of effeminates and sodomites in the highest realms of the Church? 

http://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2014/10/13/0751/03037.html

  50.        Homosexuals have gifts and qualities to offer to the Christian community: are we capable of welcoming these people, guaranteeing to them a fraternal space in our communities? Often they wish to encounter a Church that offers them a welcoming home. Are our communities capable of providing that, accepting and valuing their sexual orientation, without compromising Catholic doctrine on the family and matrimony?

     51.        The question of homosexuality leads to a serious reflection on how to elaborate realistic paths of affective growth and human and evangelical maturity integrating the sexual dimension: it appears therefore as an important educative challenge. The Church furthermore affirms that unions between people of the same sex cannot be considered on the same footing as matrimony between man and woman. Nor is it acceptable that pressure be brought to bear on pastors or that international bodies make financial aid dependent on the introduction of regulations inspired by gender ideology.

     52.        Without denying the moral problems connected to homosexual unions it has to be noted that there are cases in which mutual aid to the point of sacrifice constitutes a precious support in the life of the partners. Furthermore, the Church pays special attention to the children who live with couples of the same sex, emphasizing that the needs and rights of the little ones must always be given priority.

Do not be fooled. The cover-up of pederast priests was done by bishops who sympathised or were of the same ilk as them. They are now at the height of their power or else this would not be happening. 

Canonist provides clarity

Canonist Edward Peters provides clarity!

Either the Catechism of the Catholic Church 2384 is right, or it is wrong, to call remarriage after civil divorce “public and permanent adultery,” and either Canon 915 is right, or it is wrong, to prohibit administration of holy Communion to Catholics whose protracted public conduct is gravely at odds with fundamental Church teaching. Either the Sacrament of Confession requires of penitents a ‘firm purpose of amendment’ (that is, one’s casting off the sinful act), or it does not require such resolution for absolution (CCC 1451, CIC 959), and either Jesus’ frequent words against divorce and remarriage conveyed His meaning, a meaning which the Church in turn correctly understands, or not. But, if the Catechism is right, if the Code is correct, if sacramental theology is sound, and if Jesus knew what He was saying and His Church has rightly understood Him, then, how does one countenance administration of holy Communion to the typical divorced-and-remarried Catholic without at the very least disregarding the logical principle of non-contradiction?

Canonist, Ed Peters