Thursday, December 5, 2013


I enjoyed this straight-forward story from John Henry on Evangelii Gaudium..

“If anyone feels offended by my words, I would respond that I speak them with affection and with the best of intentions, quite apart from any personal interest or political ideology.”

I can live with this.

It sure beats Terry Donilon's strategic communications plan for criticism. By a long shot.

If circumstances of an episcopal administration forces faithful Catholics to step forward and say the Cardinal Archbishop can't outsource abortions - a no-brainer - slandering them in the public square is replete with personal interest and political ideology.

And right up my alley:

But Pope Francis instead emphasizes the spiritual needs of the poor. “I want to say, with regret, that the worst discrimination which the poor suffer is the lack of spiritual care,” he writes. “The great majority of the poor have a special openness to the faith; they need God and we must not fail to offer them his friendship, his blessing, his word, the celebration of the sacraments and a journey of growth and maturity in the faith.”

“Our preferential option for the poor must mainly translate into a privileged and preferential religious care....own notions against them when it comes to abortion. Speaking of “unborn children,” he says, “Frequently, as a way of ridiculing the Church’s effort to defend their lives, attempts are made to present her position as ideological, obscurantist and conservative.” He adds: “It is not ‘progressive’ to try to resolve problems by eliminating a human life.”

If he had ended the exhortation here, we'd all give a full salute.

A word to the wise: When you runs out of mojo...put the pen down.

A supposed soundness of doctrine or discipline leads instead to a narcissistic and authoritarian elitism, whereby instead of evangelizing, one analyzes and classifies others, and instead of opening the door to grace, one exhausts his or her energies in inspecting and verifying.”

Right back atcha.

If you're inspecting, analyzing and classifying Catholics who say no to heresy, count the prayers of a Rosary to notify you of a spiritual bouquet, are offended by the observation that you genuflect and kneel at the feet of a pagan woman but will not do so at Transubstantiation - that would be you, sir.

And...this is hilarious:

One of the more serious temptations which stifles boldness and zeal is a defeatism which turns us into querulous and disillusioned pessimists, ‘sourpusses’,” he writes

I like that he talks like a normal person.

But, as JHW points out, what ever happened to "who am I to judge?"

The Pope is starting to reveal the judgments of his heart.

What is troubling about this tapestry is, it is giving the impression he is clueless about the identity of the sourpusses.

You want to see a querulous and disillusioned sourpusses?

Check out the pessimism of priests and lay people teaching heresy to children when parents circle back and ask them to correct their errors and undo the damage they have done to their moral compass.

If it's defeatism you're looking for, when those lay people and priests tell the parents to go scratch their backsides with a broken bottle, follow those same parents on the journey to the local Chancery to ask the Bishop's henchmen unravel the damage done to their children's moral compass.

In some people we see an ostentatious preoccupation for the liturgy, for doctrine and for the Church’s prestige, but without any concern that the Gospel have a real impact on God’s faithful people and the concrete needs of the present time.

If I didn't know any better, I'd wonder if he was implying we should fuggetabout the Church's mission of teaching our children the distinction between what pleases and offends God, sin and sanctifying grace.

Is he suggesting unfaithful priests and friends with benefits liturgies are what has a real impact on the concrete needs of the present time?

I think not, but something's cooking.

JHW suggests the possibility it's the sedevacanists.

I'm totally with him on that one. But the thing is, sedevacanists are the fruit of the very same priests the Pope claims he doesn't want to make judgments about.

It's fair to say that faithful Catholics are not returning to sodom and gommorah catechetical programs and liturgies at our lady of the matress.

Some of the victims sadly jumped off the cliff to sedevacanism.

The rest of us drive past our local parish and have settled into the pews of a faithful priest - who by the by - are being persecuted by the sourpusses in the local Chancery.

It is probably a good idea to get a handle on what's gone down because we are expecting you to make judgments about these sourpusses, set up a system that can take the appropriate disciplinary actions and execute a pastoral plan to spiritually care for the wayward priests.

Discrediting Catholics who are in love with our doctrines and our Sacred Liturgy is regrettable.

1 comment:

Left-footer said...

I agree with you 100%, but would replace the last word in your post - "regrettable" with something much stronger.

Tweeted and facebooked. God bless!