Tag Archives: Marriage

Taylor Marshall ups the stakes for women on sex-strike. I laughed throughout. GREAT job, Taylor.



Filed under Pro-Life, SCOTUS

Hey! Pope Francis! Priestly celibacy is doctrinal and necessary for the Church

dove pope francis 2

There are rumors!

  • There are rumors that Pope Francis is going to publish the Amazon Synod “document” or throw-away “dialogue point” this Wednesday, February 12, 2020.
  • There are rumors that priestly celibacy will be thrown away.

If that’s what you intend Pope Francis, you have in that case certainly been coprophagic. Too bad, that. Let me instruct you.

  • We were created male and female, for marriage and the family, as the image of God.
  • We lost that in original sin. To redeem us from that Jesus would marry His bride, the Church, with His wedding vows at the Last Supper: “This is my Body given for you in sacrifice, this is the chalice of my Blood poured out for you in sacrifice.” Those vows are connected to His sacrifice on the Cross: He stood in our place, the Innocent for the guilty, He therefore having the right in His own justice to make us one with Himself, He the Head of the Body, we the members of the Body.
  • The priest repeats those consecrations in Persona Christi. The priest is married to the Bride of Christ, the Church, by the wedding vows he recites in the first person singular at the wedding banquet of the Lamb, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
  • As it says in the Scriptures, we priests are to be married but once. That “one time” refers to the Bride of Christ, the Church.
  • If the priest was already married, say, Saint Peter, then the Church provably, demonstrably, inescapably understood this to be a Josephite marriage (in which Saint Joseph was entirely chaste in regard to the Blessed Virgin Mary, who continued to be a virgin). This is evident in the Councils to follow in those early centuries.
  • To disregard this marriage of Christ so as to have married men in the Amazon and then around the world who are not living a Josephite marriage just so that they can say Mass but not hear Confessions is to disregard the redemption of the image of God in us by way of Christ’s marriage with His Bride, the Church. It is to disregard Calvary. It is to disregard original sin and personal sin. It is to say that Christ is useless and did nothing for us at the Last Supper and upon the Cross. It is to say that Christ is a damn fool.
  • Moreover, the priesthood must therefore be male. A woman-priest would be the symbol of transgenderism and of lesbianism, a woman married to the Bride of Christ. How sick is that?

Is that what you really want, Pope Francis?

  • Speak to us instead about the redemption of the image of God in us, about the redemption of marriage and the family by way the Last Supper and Calvary.
  • Speak to us instead about who priests really are as they offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, as they forgive sin of those who are repentant.
  • Speak to us not of your own personal version of a Jesus who has zero power to sanctify people, making all lost hope, throwing them into despair, but speak to us instead of the Divine Son of the Living God, immortal, holy, who can bring us to a love which is consonant with truth, and to a morality which is the splendor of the truth, you know, the Veritatis splendor.

I hope you are not offended by my making brave to say such things, but it is out of love for you. You are the Bishop of Rome, the Successor of Peter, the Vicar of Christ.

I am not your “yes man.” I am not your sycophant. I am your good servant, but God’s first.

Stop scandalizing the entire Church and the entire world. We want a holy Holy Father.

Just to say, it is when priests do not know that they are married to the Church that all problems start. When marriage is not open to life, it tends to be sex tending to death. If it’s just sex, then the door is open to homosexuality. If priests don’t even know they are married, and are therefore not open to the forgiveness of sin, and have no hope of anything about redemption and salvation, they turn to sin. Look at the history of it, since the rejection of Human vitae on late July, 1968. Get it? Wake up!

The worst case scenario: After getting rid of priestly celibacy, the worst case scenario would be that executive power in the Roman Curia would be reserved only to the Pope, who can only handle a case or two a day, so that all other cases of that which would have involved Rome now will be dealt with only by the local bishop. In that case all hell will break out. Zero governance. Zero discipline. Good priests will be assigned to nothing, then lose their salary, then lose their insurance, then be dismissed from the clerical state as useless creatures who only offer liability. You know the drill: pro bono ecclesiae.

Oh. I forgot. Pope Francis already promised long ago to take away executive power from the Roman Curia just after finishing publishing the “document” of the Amazon Synod.


Filed under Holy See, Marriage, Missionaries of Mercy, Pope Francis, Vatican

Sinaloa Cartel Cathedral Wedding? No. Listen up, fake-news reporters…

catedral culiacan sinaloa mexico

Joaquín Archivaldo Guzmán Loera “El Chapo”, reportedly worth more than USA$1,000,000,000.00 in blood money, with well over 200,000 deaths and disappearances accredited to his Sinaloa Cartel, is now serving a life sentence in the only Level 5 U.S. Penitentiary existing today. That’s in Florence, Colorado, an ADMAX facility (Administrative Maximum Security), or “Ultra-Max.” Stories about him are of interest to me since, way back in the day when he was just getting started, my “Shadow” did up arms transfers for him. In other words, many of those AKs and ammo have my own name written all over them. That’s all something I’ve been trying to stop for quite some time. Always the uphill battle.

Alejandrina Gisselle Guzmán Salazar, the daughter of “El Chapo”, just got married to Édgar Cázares, the nephew of an alleged cartel money launderer in a private Mass at the cathedral in the capital city of Sinaloa, Culiacan. The cathedral, pictured above, was locked down and other Catholics locked out for the event. Many of the Cartel crowd were in attendance. All the usual accoutrements were at hand, like bullet-proof vehicles. Doesn’t quite look right, does it?

Reportedly, this wasn’t a violent takeover the cathedral with guns blazing, followed by a secular “justice of the peace” signing of documents, doing this in the cathedral for the photo-op so as to make a show of the local church being under the power of “El Chapo.”

Reportedly, this was a full on celebration of the sacrament of Holy Matrimony during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, meaning, in that case, that a Catholic priest was fully participating.

The shock value desired by the cartel goes far to desensitize actual believers and normalize cartel governance not only of the police and military and politicians and the government, but also of the local churches.

However, no reporters were invited inside. We don’t know what happened. That could be for a number of reasons, one of them being security.

But another reason could be that there was no priest, no Mass, no sacramental wedding, just a fake show of fraudulent Catholics, blathering on about their love for one another before jaded guests, all of them congratulating each other on their mocking of God together. The wedding vows are insincere. The wedding never actually took place. It’s just a brutal promise to use each other for ulterior motives.

But even if there was a priest, a Mass, the whole show of sacramental wedding vows, I contend that this cannot be a valid celebration of Holy Matrimony, even if Alejandrina Gisselle Guzmán Salazar, the daughter of “El Chapo”, and her present hubby, Édgar Cázares, have sworn off all connections with the Sinaloa cartel and indeed had nothing ever to do with the cartel on any level whatsoever. Isn’t that guilt by association, you might ask? Well, in this case, I would say yes, it is guilt by association, not just in opinionated judgement of someone with direct stake in the matter, but in reality, real guilt of real people, even if only by association.

Here’s the deal: the ceremony, whatever it was or was not is not important. What was entirely essential was the fact that this was done with the knowledge of reporters snapping pictures outside and at the reception; what was all-important was that this was done at the Cathedral of the capital city of the State of Sinaloa, the den of the Sinaloa Cartel; what was all-important was that the Sinaloa cartel has gone to great lengths to manufacture theatrics for world consumption. So…

If the bride, Alejandrina Gisselle Guzmán Salazar, the daughter of “El Chapo”, and her present hubby, Édgar Cázares, were sincere about their wedding vows being valid and a celebration of the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony so that their marriage and family was the redeemed image of God by way of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass providing them sanctifying grace to actually love each other as Christ Jesus loved the Church, He laying down His life for His Immaculate Bride, the Church Jesus, Christ our God, Himself founded, His wedding vows expressed in the Consecrations at Holy Mass, the Last Supper, united with Calvary – This is my Body given for you, in Sacrifice, this is my Blood poured out for you, in Sacrifice – if Alejandrina and Édgar, knowing that they had to prepare for their final judgment always coming for all of us much sooner than later, if Alejandrina and Édgar had this as their motivation, thus providing valid vows for their marriage, in that case Alejandrina and Édgar would NOT have gone along with all the pro-Cartel theatrics. The marriage, regardless of any priest or Cathedral is entirely invalid. They are NOT married.

You object that they might have been bullied into tolerating this mockery of Christ’s own wedding with His Bride, the Church, you know, because bullying is the way of the cartel. You know the drill: you get with the program or disappear. So you do it.

Really? You deny Jesus before men thinking Jesus will not deny you before our Heavenly Father at the judgement? What happened to martyrdom? But I’m not at all speaking about their subjective moral innocence or guilt. No. This is about the public, ecclesial validity of their vows. So: If they were coerced into this, then by definition their vows are invalid.

The Bishop and, if there actually was a priest involved, should make a joint statement that they were coerced into doing this – if they indeed had to be coerced… – and that obviously the wedding vows are invalid, and that the Sinaloa cartel is itself entirely evil, condemning all their killings and violence and destruction of lives. They should state the condemnation and denunciation of the vows even if it was all done entirely without their knowledge, say, while the bishop and all the clergy were at a clergy conference or retreat elsewhere in the diocese. Right? On that note, I otherwise have no indication that the Bishop and any priest who may well have refused to participate in any way did not suffer, and greatly, for having objected. The Sinaloa cartel is ruthless.

Look, I’m not going to judge the Bishop or any priest for not publicly condemning anyone. They may literally have guns to their heads. Literally. They can let people know quietly, my discreet word of mouth. Believe me, this kind of information spreads instantly, but you’ll never know it. Believers are sick of cartel violence and will support their clergy.

I’m exaggerating, you say? The other night in a private meeting more cartel / church theatrics were related to me about a certain parish in a certain diocese where the Sinaloa cartel is most active. Without any involvement by the parish priest or the diocese in question, the cartel had built a new mission church in that parish, and was trying to force the pastor to make use of “their” church as a parish church. The priest wouldn’t do it. Blessings upon him. But none of those stories are reported, are they? And that tells me that what are admitted to be conjectures about anything scandalous are in fact manufactured, fake news for the benefit of the coprophagic, as Pope Francis would say.

It is a sign of the loss of hope, and therefore of despair, when one falls into instant assumption that all are guilty of everything that anyone accuses anyone of doing. Were the Bishop and any priest absolutely guilty just because some reporter made conjectures about that which he could not verify? Despair is a sin. We’re not to go there.

  • Jesus was falsely accused.
  • But He was accused by the Chief Priests and Elders of the People; it has to be true!
  • No, it doesn’t have to be true. In fact, listen to this beatitude:
    • “Blessed are you when people hate you, and when they exclude and insult you, and denounce your name as evil on account of the Son of Man. Rejoice and leap for joy on that day! Behold, your reward will be great in heaven. For their ancestors treated the prophets in the same way.” (Luke 6:22-23)
    • “Blessed are you when they insult you and persecute you and utter every kind of evil against you (falsely) because of me. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward will be great in heaven. Thus they persecuted the prophets who were before you.” (Matthew 5:11-12)

Reporters went from pictures outside of a building to accusing the church by conjecture of money-laundering for the cartel by way of the collection. Really? Could be. Anything is possible. But, guilt because of accusation by reporters who get paid for salacious stories, true or fake news? I should like to think that the Bishop and any priest accused of participation are instead enjoying the blessedness of the Beatitude cited above.

Let’s not forget Cardinal Juan Jesús Posadas Ocampo, who was vociferous in his opposition of the cartels, and was “accidentally” caught up in “crossfire”, being shot 14 times in the chest at a distance of about six inches, with the rifle barrel shoved through the open car window in which he was sitting, was an enemy of the cartels, and, in my opinion, a martyr. But fake news is eager to say that church subservience to “El Chapo” has been going on for some thirty years, since that assassination, in fact, which doesn’t make sense. The result of the international investigation was that the Tijuana cartel was tricked by “El Chapo” into thinking that the guy in that car was “El Chapo” himself, their mortal rival of the Sinaloa cartel. Get it? Even if the Tijuana cartel pulled the trigger, the trigger was operated by the Sinaloa cartel. The Cardinal was used by the Sinaloa cartel and this usage of the Church continues with the use of the Cathedral in Culiacan, Sinaloa.

The wedding was just as fake as everything else about the fake glories of the ever supremely glorious “El Chapo,” who garners only fake adulation by people who are scared to death of him. Oh, he does nice things too, such as fixing roads and building bridges for “his” people. They pretend to love him for it, having parades in his honor. All fake. I bet he pays – just as a possible example – construction companies a thousand times the price of a project, and then is given 999 times the price of the project back. Money laundering anyone?

A note to news outlets: You report conjectures as if they were events that have taken place, thus capitalizing on the blood of so many who have died. Yours also is a blood sport, and you have all that innocent blood upon you. What is it that you are doing with your lives? You put peoples’ lives more at risk because of what you do. What for? For $10 bucks more in your paycheck this month?

Finally: Jesus was in solidarity with us, standing in our place, the Innocent for the guilty, so that He would have the right in His own justice to forgive us our sin, our idiocy, our misuse of others for ourselves, and bring us to heaven. He asks that while we live in His grace with that forgiveness, we ourselves live also His love and respect for others, even as we, while still in this world, also suffer through the other effects of original sin and our own, including suffering the mistreatment of others. Come over to the light. It can mean suffering for the cause of all that is good and kind and true, but that is all out of love, for God is love. God so loved the world that He sent His only begotten Son…

Jesus crucified passion of the christ

1 Comment

Filed under Marriage

Homily 2019 01 20 Τί ἐμοὶ καὶ σοί, γύναι; Οὔπω ἥκει ἡ ὥρα μου. John 2:4. *The* Wedding. Priests are married.

wedding of cana mosaic lourdes rosary basilica doors

These are the massive central portals to the Rosary Basilica in Lourdes, in front of which the candlelight rosary procession is led nightly in Lourdes, France. The artist attempts to get us to understand that the two scenes are one by distributing the jars of water now turned to wine at the Wedding in Cana on both sets of doors. He also has us pointed to where the real “Wine” is to be had, as well as Mary’s solidarity with Jesus at His Hour, where she is to intercede for us in the redemption of the image of God, as Genesis has it, one man and one woman for marriage and family.

Τί ἐμοὶ καὶ σοί, γύναι; Οὔπω ἥκει ἡ ὥρα μου (John 2:4).

  • Mary’s statement: “They have no wine.”

After all, we have to celebrate the image of God as to be found in marriage and the family when the Redeemer of the image of God within us is present. All the Sacred Scriptures point to this. She, who is the Mother of the Redeemer of Genesis 3:15, knows she can go to her Son who is set for the rise and downfall of many in Israel, He who is the Light unto the Nations.

  • Jesus’ title for His mom: “Woman”

Some think that this is an insult. Since when is being a woman an insult?! Anyway, this is the epic title of the Woman in Genesis 3:15, the War Hero over against Satan, and the Immaculate Mother of the Redeemer, the War Hero by way of her maternity of “her Seed.”

Then we see the Woman below the cross who, already having given birth to the Head of the Body, Jesus, becomes mother also to the members of the Body, that is, by way of her perfect intercession for us under the cross, with all the “birth pangs” as it were that that entails. This is when all of hell is broken out. This is when she is successful in the battle with her Seed, her Divine Son, Jesus, who crushes the power of Satan over us and is crushed in His human nature for us.

Then we see the Woman in the Apocalypse, the Woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under he feet, and crowned with twelve starts, she, again, depicted as victor over Satan by way of her maternity.

For Mary to be entitled Woman is not an insult!

  • Jesus’ question: “What is that to me and to you?”

That question refers to both Jesus’ good mom and Jesus. Jesus wants to draw out the truths that are taking place. The Vulgate gets it exactly right: “Quid mihi et tibi est?” “What is that to me and to you?” It’s a real question, seeking the deeper truths to be spoken publicly. Great!

The Holy Spirit inspired the words to be the way they are. If we rewrite the Scriptures, bad things happen. Thus:

The Catholic NAB translates this if not with true malice, then with sheer incompetence: “Woman, how does your concern affect me?” That makes it sound like Mary just wants more alcohol for everyone, and that Jesus couldn’t give a hoot about anyone there, so that He wants to point out her stupidity publicly.

The KJV is even worse: “What have I to do with thee?” It’s like these rebels are having Jesus disowning His mother. That’s bad, really evil.

One of the Spanish translations simply has “déjame,” “Let me take care of it” (which leaves Mary out of it altogether. No good, that. And that’s only if we give it the far-fetched best sense, which would otherwise be: “Leave me alone!” Sigh… The Lectionary version we had was this: “¿Qué podemos hacer tú y yo?” That puts way too much emphasis on stuff to do instead of what the real question was about, namely, the explication of the deeper realities at hand.

  • Jesus’ hint for the answer: “My hour is not yet arrived.”

His Hour is when He is on the Cross on Calvary when all hell is broken out and the battle is on, when Mary’s hour of intercession for us is to be in full operation.

Let’s do the analogy: Cana has a wedding banquet. The Last Supper is Jesus’ wedding banquet. His vows refer to the epic battle for our souls mentioned above: This is my body given for you in sacrifice, the chalice of my blood poured out for you in sacrifice.

If Jesus wants Mary to make the realities of our salvation more apparent by this question, if Jesus wants to point out that we are to celebrate such a marriage at Cana because Jesus is set to redeem all marriage and the image of God within us by way of His own marriage with His Bride the Church at the Last Supper and then on the Cross, then we understand Mary’s “response.” She simply has to turn and say to the servants: “Do whatever He tells you.”

We priests and bishops MUST understand this, that we are married to the Church by way of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass that we offer, by way of the wedding vows that we recite in the first person singular: This is my body… my blood. And we have to be just that ready instantly to lay down our lives for the flock just as Jesus, that is, by way of the love and truth and goodness and kindness of Jesus granted with sanctifying grace.


Filed under HOMILIES, Jesus, Marriage, Mary, Priesthood, Vocations

Homily 2017 10 15 The Ferocity of Jesus’ Marriage with His Holy Bride the Church

jesus faces


Filed under HOMILIES, Marriage

Many sacraments at once: doing it right in the age of Amoris laetitia


John was already baptized, so we brought him through the ceremony to bring him officially into the Church prepared by Reconciliation. He was then Confirmed, was Wedded, and received his first Holy Communion. I couldn’t but snap the picture above at the reception as it speaks of the colors of the flag of the Holy See. We went through the process with the Tribunal of the diocese of Charlotte and, in fact, a previous “marriage” of his bride-to-be was declared null from the beginning, leaving them free to marry. In preparing John for the big day there was no hiding truth or making excuses for the cross. Instead, the boast is in Jesus, who is the Way, the Truth and the Life. Both Bride and Groom cried about through the whole day, for joy. It was one of the best days of my own priesthood, very much feeling to be the father of the parish family.

If I might say this: To date, on the one hand, I have not met anyone who is interested in doing things the way our Lord commanded to also be interested in Amoris laetitia‘s ambiguity and rejection of the cross and of conversion. If one loves our Lord, one wants to keep His commandments. Period. It’s a matter of love, and love makes it possible.

On the other hand, I get the impression from anyone who is interested in rejecting the commandments that Amoris laetitia has only made them terribly bitter with the Church. What they really wanted was a steadfast hand up but let themselves be thrown down at the first opportunity by which it seemed they could sin and please God at the same time, finding out that that just isn’t the case; they feel terribly betrayed by those who should have helped them and instead gave them Amoris laetitia, and thus they let those dark emotions entrench them all the more into being alienated to the peripheries which they were mistakenly led to believe was ‘accompaniment.’

People are thirsting for the truth, that is, the Living Truth, Jesus, divine Son of the Immaculate Conception who loves us so very much.

Also, just to say, we’re getting ready to set a time when John will be able to give me some pointers about how to shoot my Glock the right way. :-)


Filed under Amoris laetitia, Marriage, Missionaries of Mercy

Questions for + Charles Scicluna


Your Grace: Why did the Malta Times take down their article about you? Were they wrong? Did they misrepresent you? Really? Since you invite dialogue, as a Missionary of Mercy I will put some questions before you for the sake of, you know, promoting justice, for the good of the Church, pro bono ecclesiae. So…

  • Your Grace: You say that the teaching of the Church — let’s just call it by the name of the encyclical Humanae vitae — is only for married couples which you say can be constituted only of one man and one woman, but that you don’t judge other couples, though you insist that extramarital sex is sinful but at the same time insist that adulterous couples can receive Holy Communion if they are at peace with themselves regardless of their flagrant rejection of Jesus’ teaching, of Sacred Scripture, of Sacred Tradition, of the constant interventions of the Magisterium of the Church: does this mean that you are making a sacrament of sinful behavior?
  • Your Grace: Lest anyone think that is a sarcastic question, let’s provide an analogous question regarding your longstanding promotion of the civil celebrations of homosexual love in civilly recognized homosexual unions, as long as there is no sexy hanky panky going on, though all love including homosexual love, you say, is given by God and is good and holy: are you saying with your recent statements about peaceful consciences for adulterous couples that homosexual acts are also a kind of sacrament, objectively sinful as they may be, as long as the homosexuals involved are at peace with themselves regardless of their flagrant rejection of Saint Paul’s teaching, of Sacred Scripture, of Sacred Tradition, of the constant interventions of the Magisterium of the Church?
  • Your Grace: You seem to be throwing a tantrum that the Malta Times got it wrong, but would you say that — you know, in being honest here — that they had a good instinct about your utter hypocrisy regarding sexual morality, so that anything whatsoever is just fine, including contraception also in marriage as long as those involved are at peace with their consciences?
  • Your Grace: Do you put condom dispensers in your Catholic parochial school bathrooms for those who judge their consciences to be at peace? Or do you put those dispensers out, say, in the lunchroom along with free copies of the Qur’an which you let be taught in your parochial schools?
  • Your Grace: Jesus warned those who teach people to break the commandments, so are you going to spit on Jesus while you continue to teach people to break the commandments?
  • Your Grace: You slit the throats of those seminarians who wish to follow the teaching of Jesus and Paul, that is, those seminarians who do not reject Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition and the constant interventions of the Magisterium of the Church: so do you think that Jesus, who is calling them to His priesthood, is happy with your violence against them?
  • Your Grace: Your close friend (Monsignor) Edward Arsenault, at the epicenter in so many ways of the abuse crisis, just got out of prison and is in home confinement, where he just received the news that he has been dismissed from the clerical state (laicized): is what you are doing with your not so ambiguous and inconsistent but really very clear statements related somehow to demands of his, you know, because he could spill the beans about how things have actually gone in these USA, over in Europe, and at the Holy See?

1 Comment

Filed under Abuse, Amoris laetitia, Canon 915, Eucharist, Holy See, homosexuality, Marriage, Missionaries of Mercy, Pope Francis

+CJ Scicluna’s Amoris laetitia usurps papal authority, rejecting dialogue, discernment, accompaniment


The Archbishop of Malta, C.J. Scicluna has high praise for dialogue, discernment and accompaniment in a document directed to priests which he published in the Vatican newspaper, l’Osservatore Romano (Criteria for the Application of Chapter VIII of Amoris laetitia), but he rejected all of this, including papal authority, by adding this:

10. If, as a result of the process of discernment, undertaken with “humility, discretion and love for the Church and her teaching, in a sincere search for God’s will and a desire to make a more perfect response to it” (AL 300), a separated or divorced person who is living in a new relationship manages, with an informed and enlightened conscience, to acknowledge and believe that he or she are at peace with God, he or she cannot be precluded from participating in the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist (see AL, notes 336 and 351).

The words “cannot be precluded” are directed at the priests, telling them that they have no real voice in dialogue, discernment and accompaniment, undercutting their priestly ministry and, quite frankly, threatening them with what would have to be removal from active ministry if they wish instead – knowing well the smell of their sheep – to prolong  the process of dialogue, discernment and accompaniment for the good of those very sheep.

The Times of Malta reports that “Archbishop Charles Scicluna refuted the criticism, insisting Bishop Mario Grech and himself had decided not to engage with individual bloggers on the matter.” “Decided not to engage” is also not a dialogue. The “criticism” refers to Ed Peters, a canon lawyer whose blog entries on this topic can be found HERE and HERE. Ed Peters has a serious analysis. I’m amazed that +CJ Scicluna, a member of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome, dismisses Ed Peters so readily, since Peters is a Referendary of the Apostolic Signatura, the Holy See’s top tribunal.

Archbishop Scicluna then turns his attention to those he might think are a more vulnerable class of people, the priests: “I am saddened by the reaction from certain quarters and invite priests who may have concerns to come forward and discuss them directly with us because we want to be a service to our people.” I’m sure the priests want to be of service to their people as well. But here’s the problem. If any priests go to him with their concerns they are merely self-reporting that which is absolutely intolerable, reporting that they are precluding or envision precluding that which Archbishop Scicluna says cannot ever be precluded. If they open up a dialogue with him they will simply have their heads cut off. That’s another example of what he really thinks about dialogue, discernment and accompaniment. Moreover…

The threat to impose sanctions that is inescapably implied in the absolutist phrase “cannot be precluded” goes so far beyond Pope Francis’ direction in this matter that Archbishop Scicluna is de facto usurping the authority of Pope Francis to guide the Barque of Peter. And that I find disgusting.

The direction Pope Francis gave to us Missionaries of Mercy began by all of us singing together the Salve Regina with Pope Francis. I’m sure he remembers the exuberance:

Pope Francis brought all of us Missionaries of Mercy together and brought us through, with incisive distinctions, refined moral and sacramental theology, using anecdotes some of which were terribly sad and some of which were hilarious. He did his best to form us priests into being good confessors, those who would dialogue with, discern with and accompany penitents on their journey to know the will of Christ Jesus in all of their unrepeatable circumstances.

But Archbishop CJ Scicluna rejects that effort of Pope Francis. Sad, that. Sad for him. Sad for the penitents. Sad for the priests who are treated as his robots, not as Jesus’ fathers of their parish families. And this is also the point: CJ Scicluna rejects the unrepeatable circumstances of people, ideologically putting them all in one group.

Much more could be said about anthropology, psychology, grace, sacramental theology, ecclesiology, etc., with some saying I say too much and others too little. What I’m writing about in this post is just this one aspect of what is happening:

the ministry of priests is unimportant in the Church because + Scicluna said so.


Filed under Amoris laetitia, Confession, Eucharist, Marriage, Missionaries of Mercy, Priesthood

Fearful Roman Curia discerning the way of the Holy Spirit in the Beatitudes


You have heard that it was said that those working in whatever capacity in the Holy See (the “Vatican”) are scared. I say that if they are ever afraid, whether priests or bishops or religious, they shouldn’t be. Fear is a sign of the lack of truth, a lack of discernment of the truth, a lack of the Holy Spirit who would instead lead us to the truth. To be established in him who is truth is not to fear. Being one with him who fearlessly says “I AM” cannot at the same time tolerate fear.

“But what should we do? Give us clear direction!”

So, I guess you missed it the first time around. Here it is: “If you love me, keep my commandments.”

“But you don’t get it, Father George, that’s considered Pharisaical, Pelagian, Promethian self-absorbed idol worship.”

“Really? Are you making that application? Even if that were true on whoever’s part, so what? Since when did we lose sight of the Beatitudes? Since when are we to mope about, have nervous sweats, panic attacks and ulcers instead of rejoicing and being glad that great is our reward in the Kingdom of the heavens because we love Jesus and want to share the greatest love of our lives, namely, Jesus? Is not Jesus the Divine Son of the Immaculate Conception, the King of kings, the Lord of lords, the Wonder Counselor, Prince of the Most Profound Peace, who will be the one to come to judge the living and the dead and the world by fire, the very fire of God’s love, the fire of the Holy Spirit? Yes, that would be him. He’s the One who said: “I AM.” So what are you afraid of? Amen.

P.S. I mean, really, what are these protestations of fear about? Is this a way of making an excuse? “Oh! I’m so fearful that my fear acted as a coercion forcing me to do something I otherwise would never do! It’s all the fault of fear! I’m soooo afraid.”

To which I say, grow up, love Jesus, and be a good son of his good mom. Also, and I don’t say this lightly, have some respect for your guardian angel who sees God in the face.


Filed under Amoris laetitia, Canon 915, Confession, Jesus, Marriage, Mercy, Missionaries of Mercy, Pope Francis, Priesthood, Spiritual life

If John the Baptist was decapitated for witnessing to marriage, must we not be politically incorrect with him?

martyrdom of saint john the baptist

All the hints that we have in the Gospels reveal that, back in the day, pretty much no one except John, and then Jesus, was preaching about the sanctity of marriage. Everyone was busy misinterpreting Moses’ permission to write a bill of divorce, conveniently forgetting the bit about “because of their hardness of heart.” That comment of Jesus means that what Moses actually said with his permission as they bothered him non-stop, harassing him for permission was this:

“Sure, go ahead, write your little damned bill of divorce! Use it! See if I care you hard hearted haters of God and neighbor! No, really! Go to hell, too!”

Peter was lost in admiratio about this. He just couldn’t get over it. He protested. “Lord, if it’s really that way then it’s better not to get married!”

Amazement and incredulity haven’t changed much. It’s all mushy interpretation of Moses’ “permission.” But Jesus says, “From the beginning it was not so.”

Here’s the deal: John pointed to the marriage of Jesus with His Bride the Church, pointed to wedding vows of the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world: This is my body given for you in sacrifice, my blood poured out for you in sacrifice. People hated John for that. It would be Jesus’ turn very soon. It was right after the beheading that we have the multiplication of the loaves.

All of this is all about Jesus. We forget Him. Why is that? Do we hate Him? Without grace, we do hate Jesus. I know, for one, that I’ve crucified the Son of the Living God with my sin, original sin and whatever other rubbish I’ve ever done in my own life. If we don’t admit we’ve all done that, we are not with Jesus, but actively against Him, hating Him, and looking to kill off in whatever way those who would, as John, speak of proper marriage.

padre pio ecce agnus dei

“Ecce Agnus Dei qui tollit peccata mundi…”

I have to wonder how many priests, when they hold up the Lamb of God, know that they are saying the words of Saint John about the Lamb who takes away the sins of the world by laying down His own life, being wedded to His Bride the Church. If more understood this, I think there would be less problems with marriage today. Priests have to understand that they themselves are married to the Church by the Sacrifice they offer, saying the wedding vows of Jesus in the first person singular: This is my body given for you in sacrifice… my blood poured out for you in sacrifice…


Filed under Amoris laetitia, Marriage, Priesthood, Vocations

Pope Francis: The next bishop of Tulsa is Father David Austin Konderla

bishop david austin konderla tulsa

This is a kind of miracle. I’ve been using Father David’s article on marriage preparation for cohabiting couples first published in the days of yore in the Homiletic and Pastoral Review, even reprinting this article (ever so slightly edited), usually in five parts, in so many of my parishes right around the world right through the years. You can get a reprint of that article just below the page break of this posting. Such a perspective of Father David was considered by pretty much everyone to be terribly “rigid” and “not nice” blah blah blah. Instead, he shows great pastoral sense. I learned much from him because of this article. It’s what I always believed, but, I’ll tell you this, it was good to see a confirmation of my beliefs published in a respectable journal. Why? Because I believe those beliefs are consonant with the traditional praxis of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Very happy he’s going to be a bishop. Pray a Hail Mary for him just now… Hail Mary…

Continue reading


Filed under Marriage