From FoxNews: “The head of the Vatican’s doctrine office is warning U.S. bishops to deliberate carefully and minimize divisions before proceeding with a possible plan to rebuke Roman Catholic politicians such as President Joe Biden for receiving Communion even though they support abortion rights.”
“Minimize divisions”? Let’s take a look at that…
- Did the Dems vote God out of their party platform, dividing God from everything that happens in the world? Yes.
- Do the Dems push maniacally to rip kids apart in the womb and after birth, dividing, shredding the image of God in the least of the brethren? Yes.
- Do the Dems hate the elderly, attacking the Little Sisters of the Poor in their effort to assist the elderly, dividing the elderly from the care they need? Yes.
- Do the Dems attack the image of God proclaimed in Genesis as male and female with family, thus dividing the image of God? Yes.
Diabolical? Yes. That’s from the Greek, meaning to throw apart, to divide. Division aimed at God and God’s image is diabolical. Do we “minimize divisions” when we not only ignore such diabolical interventions but bless them, consecrate them, proclaim them as holy, to be imitated, by giving Holy Communion to those who divisory in this way? Not at all. The divide is made all the greater between the saints and the malicious, between those who follow Jesus and those who attack Jesus both personally and in the least of the brethren.
In all of this it is very difficult to find anyone who speaks of Jesus. The “good” commentators will speak of “it”, you know, the thing.
They will be respectful, have right doctrine, but, really, it’s very difficult to find someone who will speak the Holy Name of Jesus, that in receiving Holy Communion, the Eucharist – you know, the thing – they are in fact face to Face Jesus, the Divine Son of the Living God, the Divine Son of the Immaculate Conception (she who had Jesus within her womb for nine months and did not rip Jesus to shreds with abortion).
Why can’t we just say Jesus? Why can’t we say that ripping kids up in the womb, kids who are the image of Jesus, and then receiving Jesus Himself at Holy Mass into one’s bosom isn’t consonant, and isn’t to be done, so that such horrific monsters like Joey Biden are to be flat out denied the reception of Jesus for the good of their own souls?
It’s pastorally sensitive to deny Holy Communion, Jesus Himself, to the likes of Joey Biden. Those who maliciously administer Holy Communion, Jesus Himself, to the likes of Joey Biden risk going straight to hell, even if they are merely any bishop, merely any priest, merely any Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion.
It’s pastorally sensitive to be divisive, dividing the likes of Joey Biden from reception of Jesus.
Jesus said He has brought a sword of division. We had better use that sword of division lest we be divided from eternal salvation.
My first duty as a priest is to be divisive since my first duty as a priest is to bring Jesus, the Great Divider, to His Little Flock, to feed the lambs, to tend the sheep, to feed the sheep, discerning with such divisory spirit just who is a lamb and who is sheep and not a wolf in sheep’s clothing. My first duty is not to feed the likes of this:
Letting the likes of Joey Biden receive Jesus in Holy Communion is to confirm him in being a wolf and risks sending him straight to hell. Those who maliciously allow that, are they not also risking going straight to hell? Are they not wolves in sheep’s clothing as well?
Where’s a real guard-donkey when you need one?
In following up on my priestly vocation from Jesus I agreed to be divisory with Jesus. I volunteered to be a guard-donkey of Jesus’ Little Flock.
Meanwhile, what the hell is that Jesuit guy at the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith doing? He is being terribly divisory, causing division. He casting all apart: diabolical. How ironic.
Now, having said that, am I liable to being smacked down by the very Church I seek to defend, as many priests are being smacked down at this moment for that reason? No, and neither are they. But it is happening to many. Let’s take a look at the law of the Church, the Code of Canon Law to see if I’m amiss on that:
- Canon 1369 A person who in a public show or speech, in published writing, or in other uses of the instruments of social communication utters blasphemy, gravely injures good morals, expresses insults, or excites hatred or contempt against religion or the Church is to be punished with a just penalty.
Correcting even an ecclesiastical personage even of great rank, even the Holy Father, is none of that. Instead, it’s speaking with the pontifically mandated parrhesia (speaking the truth boldly, with charity, for the salvation of souls). Sure, the truth hurts for those who don’t want the truth. Sure, there might be retaliation from those who have great authority in lording it over the sheep, but that doesn’t mean they are either correct or are doing that charitably.
- Canon 1373 A person who publicly incites among subjects animosities or hatred against the Apostolic See or an ordinary because of some act of power or ecclesiastical ministry or provokes subjects to disobey them is to be punished by an interdict or other just penalties.
Yes, well, we have to ask if individuals in the Apostolic See or an Ordinary are acting ultra vires, that is, beyond their powers, and so are acting as individuals and not legitimately with some act of power or ecclesiastical ministry. Charitable correction sometimes has to be harsh, as we know with John the Baptist and Jesus. And because some are in need of harsh correction there may appear to be animosity or hatred from the corrector, even when there is none. It is a supreme act of selfless charity to correct someone who is breakneck running straight into hell. Provoking people to disobey administrative acts that provoke sin is not disobedience. It is supreme obedience to keep people from sin.
This modus operandi which I strive to follow in sacerdotal ministry is to fly in the face of sin, and to disregard any order to sin. The objective is the salvation of souls. I have been ordered in decades past in far away places to give Jesus in Holy Communion to manifest pro-abort politicians and to manifest grave sinners who were members of those respective parishes. It ain’t gonna happen. I suffered the consequences, which were draconian, that is, diabolical, that is, divisory. I’m just trying to do what is right in natural law, the 10 Commandments, in Canon Law, particularly before my Judge, Christ Jesus, who will come to judge the living and the dead and the world by fire. Amen.
It just struck me that there will surely be an objection that to be fair in all things “political”, I would also have to refuse Jesus in Holy Communion to, say, someone like Mother Teresa of Calcutta, you know, to make a point that the Church is not siding with any political party (as if any of that makes any sense). No, no. It would be worse: surely the reprimand would be something along the lines of administering Holy Communion to the likes of freakish pro-abortion Joey Biden but then refusing the likes of a Mother Teresa, you know, because Mother Teresa is like, you know, “rigid.”
Is is the great Father James Altman who got me thinking on all this divisoriness. Many incidents in my priestly life come to mind where the actual world divisory was used. I’ve had people say that I’m precisely 180 degrees turned away from being a “man of consensus.” I can only blame that on the Lord Jesus, thanks be God our Father.
- We are not to unified among ourselves mired together in the lowest common denominator, then calling that such sharing in filth some kind of unity with God. No.
- We are to be united to God and because of that, with Jesus, we are to wield the sword of division, the eternal Word of God, in such manner that we are all crucified to ourselves so as live through, with and in Christ Jesus.
That’s the end of division and the establishment of true unity in the Most Holy Trinity.