On the evening of the Day Off we got a good talking to by Bishop Franz-Peter Tebartz-van Elst.
The other presentations to date have been absolutely fantastic, all of them taken with Jesus. He’s the One. He’s the only One.
On the evening of the Day Off we got a good talking to by Bishop Franz-Peter Tebartz-van Elst.
The other presentations to date have been absolutely fantastic, all of them taken with Jesus. He’s the One. He’s the only One.
This parish, Holy Redeemer in Andrews, NC, has a work-Confessional. No brooms, vacuum cleaners, zambonis or what not in our Confessional, converting it into a janitor’s closet. No, no. The clean-up here is for the soul, and is done with the abrasive force of none other than the Blood of Christ Jesus.
There’s more work to be done, like framed acts of contrition in various language to be added to the penitent side just to either side of the screen, and framed absolutions in various rites and languages on the priest side. Also, I’d like to move the crucifix and two oval pictures of Jesus and Mary alongside the door where it’s easier for the priest to see them. Then some kind of CD player for chant to be played softly as a noise muffler. Usually, there’s tons of prayers going on outside in the church, a rather raucous rosary (I like that) or an enthusiastic part of the Liturgy of the Hours. (I like that a lot).
More things to be added in future. But the huge consolation with all this… is that this is a working-Confessional. The heaviest use is during early morning adoration of the Most Blessed Sacrament. Of course.
Apparently some hermits declared some months ago that they were withdrawing their “obedience from Pope Francis” and that they were severing “communion with the Holy See.” “Them’s is fightin’ words” as we say here in the back reaches of Appalachia. Those words are technical, and scream out for an application of canonical penalties involving excommunication. And – no surprise – they were excommunicated. That’s clearly what they desired all along, making a show.
There is simply zero need to do what they have done. They are not brave. They are ignorant ultramontanists. Pope Francis has not done anything ex-Cathedra against the faith, not could he. Ambiguity might be troublesome. Ambiguity might throw one’s own soul into anguish. But that’s no reason to force these excommunications.
Yes, I know, they listed all sorts of things they don’t like about Pope Francis. Fine. Lots of people do that, but not everyone gets excommunicated. The reason they did get excommunicated is because they treat what Pope Francis himself calls a dialogue instead as ex-cathedra dogma. It’s not. And that’s disingenuous for them to treat such things in that manner. But this is what they ultra-tradition-al-ism-ists have always done. They can get as huffy as they want, but they talked themselves into getting excommunicated. No one would have batted an eye had they said that they disagree with Pope Francis, even if they said this very strongly. And I don’t think Pope Francis could have possibly cared less even if they called him a heretic, which apparently they did. That’s not the issue. They went over the line only when they said that they were withdrawing obedience and severing communion with the Holy [Apostolic] See. That’s the kicker. The kicker-outer terminology.
Here’s the deal: whenever you run across ambiguity from any ecclesiastical superior or anything downright wrong, one’s duty is to do what the Church has always taught be done, with the attitude that one simply doesn’t understand the commands of one’s temporary ecclesiastical superior. Period. And this is NOT disobedience. It is supreme obedience. One will likely suffer for it, but won’t get excommunicated for it. And to such as think they are entitled never to suffer in such manner, never to follow our Lord by taking up their cross, to them I say: Get a life! Don’t be such tender snowflakes! March on behind our dear Lord Jesus.
Also, I suggest they look up what Saint Thomas Aquinas said is always the motivation for division in the Church.
I’ve tagged this post also with “Missionaries of Mercy” because I think it is a mercy to assist those who have purposely removed themselves from communion with the Church to reenter. Their choice. But I think I’ve given them a way to save face and come back to the fold.
The great receptionist lady at Valley View Nursing Home told me quite a while back that I had better not just see Marie McIsaac (who died Nov. 21, 2019), but I had better see Marjorie Harris as well.
“Who’s Marjorie Harris?” I asked. Of course, I would have to find out for myself.
I went to her room and saw a terribly pitiable sight, that is, to all appearances. What a strong woman, what a fierce wit. How much she has suffered. The currents run deep in those who suffer. Marjorie was effectively without a family. They are far away. So far.
Marjorie had what’s called an essential tremor. The brain sends it own signals to the muscles on its own and there’s a Parkinson-esque tremor especially in the head which continuously shakes and especially in the hands especially when trying to hold flatware or pick up a cup to drink. Sitting in a wheel chair staring at a corner of her room she looked pitiful, as I saw, until I noted (it didn’t take long) a piercing ironic brilliant wit. Wow! I love to see this. I am rightly reprimanded for being tempted to judge appearances. Stupid, stupid, stupid me. She quickly became a close friend.
We spoke much about her family… We spoke a great deal about the faith, about the sacraments, about the ironies of life, about literature. Regarding the literature thing, take a hint about her from the comment she made to me the other day with some dismay at the state of affairs with education today:
Marjorie made me laugh. I was able to bring her to laugh, almost to tears. She thanked me for that. I learned that from the great Venerable Fulton J Sheen, who spoke of breaking the suffering of those in a hospital or institution. He said those who suffer do suffer in the present, but they are also tempted to drag all suffering of the past into the present and they project all that heap of suffering into the future and drag that back upon themselves into a suffocating, frustrating web of suffering so great that it seems it is impossible to extricate oneself. And then one is brought to laugh. It all breaks apart.
We spoke of Jesus and His great wit, how He turns tables with but a word. Yep.
Testing me, Marjorie told me about Dorothy Parker and asked me to find a quote from her aphorisms. Marjorie told me this was a test of my own wit or lack thereof. I brought Marjorie this quote:
I laughed when I saw that. I printed it out and brought it to her. She struggled a bit trying to hold the paper still enough to read it, trying to see around dark spots in her eyes… Then she laughed and laughed and laughed a howling laugh making me laugh with her. Lovely, really.
Marjorie loved the likes of T.S. Elliot, Kipling, Frost, Wordsworth… Knowing this, I promised to bring her, in big print, my summary of Hilaire Belloc’s chapter on the greatness of irony:
To the young, the pure, and the ingenuous, irony must always appear to have a quality of something evil, and so it has, for […] it is a sword to wound. It is so directly the product or reflex of evil that, though it can never be used – nay, can hardly exist – save in the chastisement of evil, yet irony always carries with it some reflections of the bad spirit against which it was directed. […] It suggests most powerfully the evil against which it is directed, and those innocent of evil shun so terrible an instrument. […] The mere truth is vivid with ironical power […] when the mere utterance of a plain truth labouriously concealed by hypocrisy, denied by contemporary falsehood, and forgotten in the moral lethargy of the populace, takes upon itself an ironical quality more powerful than any elaboration of special ironies could have taken in the past. […] No man possessed of irony and using it has lived happily; nor has any man possessing it and using it died without having done great good to his fellows and secured a singular advantage to his own soul. [Hilaire Belloc, “On Irony” (pages 124-127; Penguin books 1325. Selected Essays (2/6), edited by J.B. Morton; Harmondsworth – Baltimore – Mitcham 1958).]
She loved it totally. So, full of thanksgiving. Then she brought up GK Chesterton and The Man Who Was Thursday. Testing me again, I’m sure, she said ever so non-nonchalantly: “I’m not sure what it means. I had to read it seven times.” I brought her commentary on that work of Gilbert Kieth and on where Chesterton was in his life, he writing that more than a decade before his conversion. Instantly I could see everything click, all her questions answered. So I promised to bring her THE CHAPTER.
“The Secret of Brown” in a volume of the Father Brown stories also sporting that title,” said I. It was that Secret which accompanied Marjorie to the next life. It is so filled the greatest suffering, with the greatest hope, going to the heart of Chesterton’s own friendship with Christ Jesus, the greatest expression of spiritual irony surpassing even that of Belloc’s take on irony.
Marjorie was the most incisive literary wit I have ever know, ever. And, believe me when I tell you, after hanging around the most brilliant people in the world for a lifetime, all at the top of their game, that that’s saying a lot.
I will miss you terribly Marjorie. Remember me from where you are, this donkey-priest. Tell Jesus this donkey priest needs His special help. Here’s what Marjorie had with her:
THE SECRET OF FATHER BROWN
FLAMBEAU, once the most famous criminal in France and later a very private detective in England, had long retired from both professions. Some say a career of crime had left him with too many scruples for a career of detection. Anyhow, after a life of romantic escapes and tricks of evasion, he had ended at what some might consider an appropriate address: in a castle in Spain. The castle, however, was Continue reading
There is way more to this than meets the eye. Very interesting. Very.
Dear Pope Francis,
John 3:16 is the rallying cry of non-Catholic Christians here in my parish territory in the remote mountains of Western North Carolina. They want to love Jesus. However, you, Pope Francis, are making this difficult. You are putting obstacles in front of people.
What you do in promoting Islam and and satanic idol devil worship and homosexualism and with financial who-knows-what – continuously something more horrible day by day – makes it easy for these non-Catholic Christians to hate us all. It baits them into hating. Certainly Islam hates us all the more for the idol worship. We are all weak in this world. We don’t need you provoking hatred among anyone. You make us all targets of hatred, not because the Cross is a sign of contradiction, but because no one sees the sign of contradiction when they have a right to see this because of what Jesus did for us. The things you do are, objectively, hate crimes against the Church, against Jesus, are they not? Your sycophants, “Yes men”, your ideologues, such as + Paglia, condemn true believing as ideology of rigid ideologists. No, sincere believing is of the Holy Spirit. So, is the condemnation of those who sincerely believe similar to the condemnation of the spirit within Jesus?
And it’s not only non-Catholic Christians and others such as Islamists who despise us. Catholics are defecting. So many. This is so sad. When, O when will you turn and confirm your brethren in the faith? Can you tell Jesus’ good mom why you do this?
Your Holiness, I realize that you can punish me in a thousand different ways, say by taking away my faculties as your Missionary of Mercy (which I use frequently), or by having me punished in some way by my bishop, even to have me dismissed from the clerical state, but I beg you to see that I’m not being a “Yes man” because I stand in solidarity with you in your being the Bishop of Rome. It’s the most difficult vocation to live out. You are the most attacked by Satan. I know that. I pray for you, offer Mass for you, have others pray for you. I’m trying to be a good son of the Church, and to think with the Church: sentire cum ecclesia. I know that where you are, there is the Church: ubi Petrus, ibi ecclesia.
Why do I write such things? Because I know how much Jesus and how much the Immaculate Virgin Mother of God have done for me, personally. I am grateful to them. I want all to know my great joy, the joy of gratitude to Jesus and Mary, the joy of thanksgiving. But what you do, Pope Francis, smothers this, drowns this, frustrates this. Please, Holy Father, please confirm your brothers in the faith.
//// I really hope that those reading this blog in the Holy See will pass this on to Pope Francis. Do it.
I was always under the impression that Peter’s Pence was used exclusively for the poor and suffering. For instance, under Pope Saint John Paul II, one year it was used for building a hospital for cancerous kids of the Ukraine following the Chernobyl nuclear meltdown.
Now we find out that 90% is used for covering costs in the Vatican. We would be happy to help pay for the costs of any necessary bureaucracy for 1.3 billion people, you know, if it was all actually Catholic and not used for an overall continuous attack on God and man in every conceivable way. But that use should be public knowledge. Support of the Vatican will be necessary for future Popes who want to do something for the good but have only ashes to work with. But that’s in the future.
For right now, all we’ve heard is that Peter’s Pence is used for the poor and suffering. Should we mention that it was also used for specious real-estate investments wherein the Vatican lost tens of millions of dollars just recently. And didn’t we just find out that the Vatican invested in a gay porn movie with that money meant for the poor and suffering?
In our parish, we gave up taking a collection for Peter’s Pence and instead take up a collection for our food basket, which actually does go to the poor and suffering. That has something do with the great principle of subsidiarity.
We do the same thing when it comes time for the collection for Catholic Relief Services, which is not Catholic, not for relief, and has nothing to do with services.
We do the same thing when it comes time for the collection for the Catholic Campaign for Human Development, which is not Catholic, not any kind of Campaign, and is not used for Human Development.
Sometimes canon lawyers say that taking up mandated collections is in Canon Law and that I really must do it. But these collections fund abortion, marxist propaganda, gay-whatever… The anti-human list is long.
Will I take these collections? Over my dead body.
On December 12, 2019, Feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe, in Saint Peter’s Basilica, Pope Francis denounced a title of our Lady, with an edge. I started to write about all that to defend that title used many times by Saint Pope John Paul II and which has a history in the Church. But the only thing I could think of was Pope Francis’ deep hatred for women and mothers. I forgive him. I do. But I’ve never heard him repent of what he said.
I know, I should be even more forgiving, especially of Pope Francis, and maybe not ask him for repentance, just a condescending permission for me to “accompany” him. After all, I’m his own Missionary of Mercy, right? I use those particular faculties all the time. I accompany people right to Jesus, not to sin. I hope I don’t lose those entirely useful faculties for NOT being a “Yes man”. Pope Francis doesn’t want “Yes men.” He said so. Therefore, NO. Pope Francis needs to repent like anyone else, with sincerity.
What came to mind for me during Pope Francis’ Guadalupe Mass homily about Mary the other day were comments he made on Monday, January 19, 2015, during the in-flight press conference from the Philippines to Rome, in which he demonstrated just how much he despises mothers and motherhood. Sorry, but that’s the way my heart and soul and mind work, that is, with reality.
Pope Francis said: “I believe that the number of three [children] per family, which you [the reporter] mentioned, is important, according to the experts, for maintaining the population. Three per couple.” Then, after citing an example of a woman having more than three children he says that this is a “form of irresponsibility.” Would that be a sin, perhaps an ecological sin that he’s accusing that woman of committing, publicly? And then he speaks of rabbits: “Some people believe that – pardon my language – in order to be good Catholics, we should be like rabbits. No. Responsible parenthood.”
So, any woman who has more than three children is irresponsible, perhaps sinful, and a rabbit.
That makes my mom an irresponsible rabbit. Mom had two daughters with her first husband, and then, when he was killed in plane crash, she remarried and had two boys, including me, the last. That makes me child number 4. Last time I checked, 4 is more than 3. So, my mom is an irresponsible beast, and I’m the son of an irresponsible beast, according to Pope Francis. And she was probably sinful in her irresponsibility.
I thought it was bad enough when my “Shadow” called my mom a “b*tch.” A “b*tch” is a female dog. I’m not so sure how that’s so different from a rabbit. But this is the Pope.
So, that seals it then, right? He’s the Pope.
So, my mom is surely the most god-damnedest irresponsible beast.
Is that right, Pope Francis?
How about an apology?
There are plenty who follow this blog in the Holy See. They can give this to Pope Francis, who, as it happens, follows American blogs through his minions closely. I don’t want a phone call with an apology. I want to see him publicly repent of his remarks.
Now, I’ll set about writing about how a particular woman, Mary, can be more than a birth-robot. Stay tuned.
Besides the usual rounds, which can really add up, Sassy has been, if we count today, on three trips to Charlotte this week, those trips alone making for about 1,300 miles:
Meanwhile, Keto charges forward. I’m two weeks in and down from the 260s to the 240s. More energy, everything better.
The DoJ has many times been to the post with the detail of the screenshot of the URL above. The URL is misleading. I had been writing about the prudence – or not – as to whether essential members of racketeering influenced and corrupt organizations (RICO) such as mafiosi (who happen to be Catholic by baptism) should be automatically excommunicated in such manner that Missionaries of Mercy might be delegated to remove such medicinal penalties upon any repentance. Archbishop Rino Fisichella, who spearheads the Missionaries of Mercy project for Pope Francis, told me when I was last in Rome that this was not their project, nor that of Pope Francis, but a project of others in the Roman Curia, and had been abandoned. But that’s not the point of the visits to the post, as that aspect of the post was also changed mid-writing. The URL stayed but the subject matter was different.
What continues to be of interest in that post by the DoJ regards the recording of Sacramental Confessions, something that the FBI (a bureau under the DoJ) has been caught doing a number of times by way of bugging Confessionals in such churches as Saint Patrick’s Cathedral in Manhattan, again and again. They don’t give a damn, literally. They can’t bring that information to court, but it’s useful for structuring directions of investigations, it being easy for U.S. Attorneys to provide other more legal motivations to the court for why certain investigations were undertaken.
I find it interesting that the Department of Justice continues to look at this post with some regularity:
Surely this isn’t to prosecute anyone who is abusing the first amendment rights to free exercise of religion as guaranteed by the Constitution of these United States by way of the recording of Confessions. No, no. It’s the very DOJ via the FBI which abuses the Sacramental rights of Catholics.
Update: A priest friend on the other side of the Diocese texted me the following. I asked his permission to put it up. He said yes. So here’s his response to my original post below:
“Read your piece about anointing. It sickens me that priests will make excuses about just doing their job. When I get the call, I go. If there’s even the slightest reason to think someone needs anointing, I do it. I throw in the Apostolic Pardon as well if there’s any whiff of danger of death. In my mind, I will be in more trouble at the judgement for the people I didn’t anoint that I should’ve than the people I did anoint that I shouldn’t have.
“I was talking to a (Protestant) hospital chaplain about a training I want to do for the chaplains around here to help them better understand what priests do and what the sacraments are so they can secure better pastoral care, i.e. by communicating with us better. She says on their end the biggest problem is getting priests to show up, which breaks my heart. There is nothing more important when that call comes in, unless I’m in the middle of Mass.”
You have to know, most priests feel this way. I’m also personally upset about this because Jesus has provided that I meet up with priests who are really idiots when it comes to this Sacrament. I myself have a certain malady which can bring death very quickly, or leave you just barely hanging on to life until it passes. It’s hereditary. I got it from mom, who died from it, as to about 1/3 of people who have it, regardless of any would-be emergency room intervention. The priests either refused to give anoint me (sooooo disheartening) or would be cutesy cutesy and make up their own sacramental words, you know, after praying, anointing with words to the effect of “God is nice. Have a nice day.” Then they would run away (just as disheartening).
There are excellent, holy, dedicated, good priests, shepherds who wouldn’t hesitate at all to lay down their lives for the sheep in the face of the wolves. I know heaps of those good priests, so very many of them in my diocese. I rejoice. But once in a while one encounters a PoS priest who will do anything not to do the priest thing. My ire is stirred, indignant for the needs of Jesus’ little flock.
Late last night I got a call requesting, later today, a pastoral intervention in another parish that will require from some hundreds of miles of travel. I won’t say what diocese it’s in. It’s about a doctor scheduling an urgent operation for someone who is, as the hours go by, ever more in extremis, at the extremes of this life, death. When a request was made of the parish priest for Anointing of the Sick, the priest said that the policy is that no Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick will be provided to anyone whomsoever who does not trundle off to a doctor to get a note saying that such person is a candidate for the Anointing of the Sick. But that’s what the urgently scheduled operation is all about. So, someone direly sick is to make an arduous mountain journey to the in-town doctor – assuming that such appointments could ever be made – so as to get a note, and then make an appointment with the priest. As if whatever doctor (likely not Catholic and possibly atheist) could make a pastoral decision about a Sacrament of the Catholic Church. And all that could take days, or where I am, weeks, months. Well. Four letter expletives come to mind.
Dear priests, listen up. The doctrine of the Church on this is that if a person has an illness which without intervention could possibly lead a person to death, whenever that might be, such a person is already a candidate for this Sacrament. In other words, don’t hesitate. Provide the Sacrament. Bring Jesus’ little flock encouragement, strengthened in good friendship with Jesus. I mean, y’all do know the spiritual benefits of this Sacrament, don’t you?
If there have been abuses of this Sacrament in the past, so what? Are you holding that against the sheep right in front of you? That doesn’t make sense. So, this isn’t about protecting the Sacrament, is it? No. What is it about? Clericalism of the worst kind? That’s for any priest who has such a malicious and insane policy to answer.
Meanwhile, please God, I’ll be able to take care of member of Jesus’ little flock in some hours. And then I’ll see if that policy in that parish can be changed.
Saint Teresa of Calcutta often said that we don’t need more priests. Not at all. We need good, holy priests who are close to Jesus. That’s what she used to say. I agree. Jesus is calling young men to this end.
But everyone: Go to Confession. Pray for good, holy vocations to the priesthood.
My own personal update: The trip to provide this Sacrament, with Holy Communion, was very successful. The person is now under the knife. Yesterday, when I arrived with Jesus, the person was shedding tears, saying saying that this is proof of just how much Jesus loves us. It is such a joy to be a priest, hanging around Jesus, watching Jesus at work. Truly a great joy and consolation.
Thomas Aquinas and Réginald Marie Garrigou-Lagrange and Cardinal Giuseppe Siri have noted that Judaism and Catholicism are but one religion with the same (univocal) Divine Revelation. The Messiah to whom Israel and Judah looked forward is the Divine Founder of the Catholic Church.
Meanwhile, Islam is a Judeao-Catholic heresy. Islam is not a religion but rather error. Error has no rights. Muslims have rights. We are to respect their persons, but not their fake religion. We can offer to dialogue with them as did Pope Benedict XVI in his famous Regensburg Address. But they will say that they cannot dialogue because our logic, our reason, our common sense, our respect for the dignity of the human person is not at all the way Allah thinks. Therefore, no dialogue on any level is permitted.
When Abraham was to sacrifice his son as recounted in Genesis, this was about an immediate resurrection from the dead, an un-slitting of the throat of the boy. If Abraham believed that all his progeny would come through Isaac alone, he had to believe that God would immediately raise Isaac from the dead. Young Isaac, a symbol of the innocent sacrifice that would take away original sin, was not at all innocent, having been subject to original sin like all of us. So, a ram, a symbol of the Lamb of God to come was sacrificed as a temporary symbol instead. Then, Jesus, the Lamb of God, the Messiah, the Suffering Servant, worthy of standing in our place before our Heavenly Father, the Innocent for the guilty, arrived. Catholics are 100% with the Jews on the clear logic of this account in Genesis.
Meanwhile, Islam, the Qur’an, perverts this demonically. Muhammad has it that Abraham was to sacrifice his son not in view of any promised progeny, nor did it have to be this or that son, legit or illegit. For Islam, Abraham was to sacrifice his son merely as an offering to a bloodthirsty Allah. This is not about justice regarding sin, or any propitiatory sacrifice, nor about any symbolism regarding the Messiah to come and what that Messiah would do for us by standing in our place, taking on the punishment of death that we deserve for sin, original and whatever else. It is simply doing what all fallen peoples do in false religions, sacrificing children as bribery of, in this case, hateful “obedience” to a hateful Allah. The bowing the forehead to the ground thing of Islam is about the submission of Abraham’s son to Allah wanting that Abraham’s son get his head cut off, just to do it. Why do you think kids are the ones who are always strapped up with suicide-murder bomb vests?
Try to dialogue with that and you will be killed. Let Islam consecrate Vatican City to Islam and they will rejoice. But that’s not dialogue. Such confusion only brings about discord, you know, wherein children get killed. It’s not right:
It’s gotta stop. But free speech is being attacked both by secular society and…
I’ve commented at length on this question and it’s full context just recently here:
I’d like to comment just a bit more on his imperative command that “the pastors must lead their flock between grace and sin, because this is evangelical morality.” Let’s see that paragraph again:
For my response in what I hope is a dialogue instead of my just getting smacked down, I would like to use the woman caught in adultery at the beginning of John chapter 8, what with Jesus evangelically forgiving her and, we cannot deny, evangelically commanding her NOT to sin again.
This has always been my practice of mercy in the Confessional as a priest and Missionary of Mercy. If someone, a penitent, is in fact repentant and has a firm purpose of amendment of life according to the Good News, there will be an absolution immediately provided. One may sincerely try to live in grace. But one may fail. But one may return to the Confessional for more needed guidance and understanding of what repentance and amendment of life practically entails. But one may also then be ready for absolution and that is then provided.
Such is entirely different from what Pope Francis proposes here with his talk of leading the flock between grace and sin, with the operative word being merely leading, always leading, but never putting such a soul face to face, heart to Heart with Jesus, always and only between grace and sin, so that the dialogue, the process is the soul having arrived, with there being nothing beyond the dialectical ideology of thesis and anti-thesis. Grace is no longer a friendship with Jesus, walking with Jesus, heart to Heart with Jesus. Grace is instead an ideological goal, and idea, a “horizon statement” to which one never arrives. “Go ahead, adulterous woman, go ahead and sin again! Go ahead, sin and then go up to receive Holy Communion! Never actually repent!” That is what Pope Francis is saying.
And now we know what that not so ambiguous footnote in Amoris laetitia certainly means: active adulterers are to be encouraged to continue their adultery and to go to Holy Communion.
Good thing Pope Francis called Amoris laetitia a dialogue in the opening paragraphs of that screed. But here he clarifies that supposed ambiguity. It’s now certain what he means.
The presumption in all of this is that all penitents are incapable of living a moral life, a life of grace, that Jesus’ love and Jesus’ truth, that Jesus’ friendship, that Jesus Himself is powerless before sin. This presumes that we are all lost, all going to hell, and we’re just somehow trying to please everyone and be praised ourselves for just going along with sinfulness and encouraging everyone to do the same. What a dismal, dark, anti-evangelical view. To me, it seems like a blasphemy against what Saint Paul describes as the Body of Christ, the Head of the Body and the members.
The technical word for encouraging people to remain in sin, when used specifically for a Confessor who is “guiding” a penitent in this way, is solicitation. This is a crime in Canon Law, the code of law of the Church.
In other words, the priest is encouraging a penitent to continue sinning in whatever way. This turns a possible sin of weakness into a sin of real corruption, but even worse. The sinner who was guilty of a sin of weakness is now encouraged to purposely go ahead and sin. This is a direct mockery of God and a sin against the Holy Spirit.
Pope Francis is encouraging all the priests in the world and all penitents – everyone in the world – to mock God and sin against the Holy Spirit. Talk about being Promethean and Pelagian and self-referential and self-absorbed…
Never letting Jesus’ little flock get close to Jesus, always keeping that little flock in a life of sin, telling them with jaw-dropping condescension that they can never actually live a life of grace and morality and friendship of Jesus, taking away their hope altogether, creating in this way an ideology out of the person of Jesus, making Jesus a mere “horizon statement” a mere “ideal” that we can never really reach, all of this is, objectively, a sin against the Holy Spirit.
Dear Pope Francis, what you are doing is Pelagian: You are forcing people to think that they have to trust in their own strength which they do not have, and so lead them to frustration and, losing hope and giving up, lead them to a life of sin, but, oooh!, always trying harder with the strength they do not have, which none of us has. How cruel of you, Pope Francis. Instead we are to lead people to humility, to know that they, that we have no strength of our own, and that we are therefore to depend on the strength of Jesus, not in the sense that Jesus just helps us out and we continue to depend on our strength that we do not have, but rather in the sense that amidst all our weakness Jesus will draw us up into His strength, His love, His truth, so that however weak we are of ourselves, we can still live in grace, by grace, heart to Heart with Jesus, always carrying the cross but always looking to Jesus. He’s the One. He’s the only One. Not us! But Jesus!
Meanwhile, Jesus, putting His own life on the line, standing in our place, the Innocent for the guilty, forgives our sin, and then we, seeing His great love, with humble thanksgiving and in reverence before Him and in all good friendship, we are open to hearing His reprimand to us, ever so lovingly given: “Do not sin again!” He tells us that not just as some sterile command for a sterile morality, as Pope Francis thinks, but with grace, that is His presence, with the indwelling of the Most Holy Trinity, having us be Tabernacles of the Holy Spirit, offering our bodies as living sacrifices so different from this fallen world, so different from our fallen flesh, so different from the fallen angels, we being living sacrifices of purity of heart and agility of soul, aflame with love of God and self-sacrificing love of neighbor. Jesus who is alive, who is love, who is truth, is the Jesus I know, before whom I am thankful. He has forgiven me so much. Thank you, Jesus. I promise not to sin again.
And, yes, this priest loves to go to Confession.
Go to Confession!
And that means you too, Pope Francis.
I’ll be your very own Missionary of Mercy if you like.
Recently the Apostolic Nuncio to these USA, during the general assembly of the bishops, demanded concrete signs of submission to the “magisterium” of Pope Francis. I took that as a bullying threat because, well, there is no such thing.
Here’s the deal: No Pope has his own magisterium. His teaching is to be the teaching of Jesus, and of Jesus’ Church throughout the ages. For instance, if a Pius IX or a Pius XII pronounces something ex-Cathedra, say, about the Immaculate Conception or about the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, that’s nothing different from what the Church has always believed. I would never reduce such teaching merely to the idiosyncratic wierdnesses of some particular individual Bishop of Rome. No. This is Catholic teaching of the ages.
Pope Francis has never pronounced anything in an ex-Cathedra manner. Moreover, the thing most pushed for compliance, for submission, is Amoris laetitia. But Pope Francis called that a dialogue in it’s opening paragraphs. It’s means nothing on the level of teaching or “magisterium.”
If such pressure is given – and the pressure is a green light to not give believing priests assignments, and eventually to dismiss them from the clerical state – it can only refer to insisting on submission to the most unorthodox interpretations.
Thus, I guess it’s being demanded to put Pachamama idols on our altars with the Holy Sacrifice of Jesus. I guess we’re supposed to put Pachamama consort idols of a fully sexually erect man up on the altar as in the Vatican Gardens pagan worship ceremony at which Pope Francis blessed the idol. I guess we’re supposed to say that Jesus sinned against His mother. I guess we’re supposed to say that women with more than two children are rabbits (my mom had four children). I guess…
Should I go on?
My challenge to you +Christophe Pierre, is to come up with a list of things to which we bishops and priests must adhere so as to be counted among the supporters of Pope Francis.
You would think this would be about Jesus.
But no. This is all self-referential. Prometheam. Pelagian. Self-absorbed.
I will not submit to idiocy. I am a Catholic priest. I am priest of Jesus Christ. A priest forever in the line of Melchizedek. I will not submit to Satanic idiocy.
P.S. One might speak of the magisterium of JPII and, for instance, that saints efforts with the JPII Institute for Marriage and the Family. But all that is only hailed because it is reflective of that which is Catholic. It is Catholic. It is the magisterium of the Church. Nothing that Pope Francis has been vomiting out has anything to do with such doctrine, such morality, such integrity, such honesty, such honor.
If there’s no honor, there’s no obedience from me.
Hier stehe ich. Ich kann nicht anders. Gott helfe mir. Amen. And Amen.
We Will Rock You [Queen]
Buddy, you’re a boy, make a big noise
Playing in the street, gonna be a big man someday
You got mud on your face, you big disgrace
Kicking your can all over the place, singin’
Buddy, you’re a young man, hard man
Shouting in the street, gonna take on the world someday
You got blood on your face, you big disgrace
Waving your banner all over the place
Buddy, you’re an old man, poor man
Pleading with your eyes, gonna make you some peace someday
You got mud on your face, big disgrace
Somebody better put you back into your place
Dear Pope Francis:
Pachamama idol worship is the epitome of self-referential, self-absorbed, Promethean Pelagianism and leads to the biography of (1) boy, (2) young man, (3) old man so well described above.
We all love you, Pope Francis. We would all like to encourage you NOT to find your relativistic version of Jesus Christ, but to be found by Him who is the Divine Son of the Immaculate Conception, the Sinless Son of the Living God, the Almighty, the Judge of the living and dead and the world by fire, the living Truth who is not to be mocked, and cannot be manipulated with mind game dialectics. We want you, Pope Francis, to be found by Jesus, the ROCK of our Salvation. “And the Rock was Christ” (1 Corinthians 10:4). We will pray for you to Jesus, our Rock. In other words:
Remember that The Rock said of you: “You are Peter (Rock!), and upon this rock I will build my Church.”
Remember also that The Rock said to you: “When you turn again (after your denial of the Rock three times), it is then that you are to confirm your brothers in the faith.”
For my part, I’m your Missionary of Mercy, not your Missionary of Syncretism.
“Hier stehe ich. Ich kann nicht anders. Gott helfe mir. Amen.”
Later in the address…
And that’s a green light for bishops to smash down priests who simply want to be priests of the Catholic Church, of Jesus, faithful to the Sacred Scriptures, Sacred Tradition and the constant and infallible Magisterium of the Church. This is bullying, and a signalling of a new inquisition in which faithfulness and goodness and kindness and actual mercy and truth is punished.
What a joke. Pfft. The grace of Jesus, friendship with Jesus, is stronger than threats, stronger than our weakness, stronger than marginalization and torture and death. What a joke. I mean, look at the hellish betrayal of China by the Holy See. What do we expect? Of course it will be our turn. As the Master, so the disciple.
Look, people: This isn’t things falling apart. As a friend in Rome said: “Finally! A persecution! It means that Jesus loves us, that He hasn’t forgotten us. Finally we have the gift, the privilege to witness to Jesus.”
A reader asked about going to Confession after a long time, about an examination of conscience. We might first of all want to get it right about the dynamics, the infrastructure, the-way-it-all-works before we even begin. There are a number of points with that.
(1) Make sure that the Confession is about humbly asking God for forgiveness, not about congratulating ourselves. Here’s an important post on that: Making an examination of conscience. Just click on that. Just read it. Do it!
(2) And then we gotta understand why Jesus would have set things up this way, where we would go to Confession to one of His priests who we hope also goes to Confession. I mean, Jesus knew how sinful we priests can be, what with Judas betraying Him and then committing suicide, with Peter denying Him three times, with all of them running away when Jesus was apprehended in the Garden of Gethsemane. We gotta understand that, as Saint Paul says, Jesus is the Head of the Body and we are (to be) the members of this Mystical Body of Christ. When we love it is with one act of love that we love both God and neighbor, the Head of the Body and the members of the Body of Christ. When we sin, we sin against the whole Body of Christ, if you will, both Head and members. We don’t decapitate the Head and say that we only offended the members of the Body of Christ. Both Head and members are offended by any sin, however private or public or big or small. When we are to be reconciled, it must also be that this is done simultaneously, so that both Christ, the Head of the Body, and (a representative of) all the members of the Body of Christ forgive us. A priest by way of ordination to the Priesthood of Jesus acts in the person of Christ in granting the absolution in the first person singular (“I absolve you of your sin, in the Name of the…) but at the same time he represents all the members of the Body of Christ. This is why Jesus set up this sacrament this way. This completely reconciles us, forgives us, brings us back. This is why people are so very happy after a good Confession. This is not just some sort of psychological catharsis, but rather puts everything back as it should be, what with us now walking with God in all humble thanksgiving.
(3) After original sin, because of the just consequences of sin chosen with that sin, we remain in this world with weaknesses until we die, weakness of mind, weakness of will, emotions all the hell over the place (the devil’s plaything), sickness, death. The salvation Jesus came to bring us doesn’t involve an unjust action of delivering us from the just effects of sin while we are still in this world, that is, outside of forgiving us the worst of the effects of sin, the guilt. But we still have the weaknesses. Jesus said to carry these very things, outside of the guilt, as a cross. Don’t deny the weaknesses. Don’t suppress the weaknesses. Don’t think that progress in the spiritual life will somehow make you personally no longer subject to being weak in whatever way. Don’t think that you can grow out of needing Jesus as a Savior because, oooh!, you’ve self-helped yourself so very much in self-congratulation that Jesus is irrelevant to you. That would be the worst sin of all. AFTER a good confession, know that you’ll still have weaknesses and still be tempted. The point is that we can carry such crosses and, instead of falling into sin, we can use those things as occasions to turn to Jesus, to cry out to Him, to depend on His strength, to grow in virtue in Him, to walk in His presence ever more humbly, ever more thankfully. With Confession we grow more aware of how far our Lord had to reach to get us in this world, to each side of the Cross. The bond of love, the sanctifying grace, given with such reality, helps us to be joyful as we realize just how much Jesus loves us.
(4) A good Confession is an integral Confession, which means being sincere, honest, plain-speaking, not-obfuscating, not making excuses, but being complete, meaning including all serious sins in kind and number. “I was upset,” doesn’t cut it. What’s the Confessor supposed to think? Was that a passing emotion that you didn’t want and didn’t crank up and therefore was no sin at all? Did being upset mean that you threw your kid through the sheet rock wall and then through the window, doing the same with the wife? Did you run someone off the road once or do you do that every time you get in a vehicle? Kind and number, when asking forgiveness from Jesus, make a difference. “I stole cars for different times,” sounds better, but sometimes circumstances make a difference, so that violently carjacking using a weapon while people tried to make it to the hospital is more serious than mistakenly getting in the wrong Uber car in a parking lot full of the same vehicles. A young man killing an innocent old man is one thing, a young man killing his father who didn’t do anything to him is quite another, involving two commandments, thou shalt not murder and thou shalt honor that father and mother. But, having said that, don’t otherwise give any useless details at all.
(5) Confession is about us being forgiven. IT’S NOT ABOUT accusing everyone else in the world of sin except for yourself.
(6) Confession isn’t about talking about politics or parish council dramas or anything else except our own sin and asking for absolution from this sin of ours. Confession is about confessing our own sin. Confession is about getting absolution for our sin. “Everyone else is a horrible sinner and I’m a saint who never sinned, ever. Gimme absolution!” No.
(7) Confession isn’t about saying stuff that you want the priest to know but you don’t want him to be able to say that you said it because you know that he’s forbidden to do this by the Seal of Confession. You know that he knows that if he breaks the Seal of Confession, he will take on all the guilt of your sins and be pointed straight to hell for mocking the Blood of the Lamb, our Salvation. You know that he knows that he will be automatically excommunicated if he breaks the Seal of Confession. But, here’s the deal, the priest also can’t know or use anything he has learned in Confession regardless of whether it was a sin you confessed or just some juicy bit of gossip, however serious, like murders or whatever. He can’t say anything, ever. He can’t know it. Can’t use it. And if you say things like this expecting him to do something about it outside of Confession, you’re completely mistaken. HE CAN’T DO IT. Not for anything, ever. Period. If you want the priest to know something for use outside of Confession, tell him whatever it is OUTSIDE of Confession. All of this holds, by the way, regarding that for which the priest, as everyone else, is a mandatory reporter.
(8) Don’t even come to Confession, confessing all sorts of things, and THEN say that you are in freely chosen circumstances of sin (say, for example, adultery, or being a Mafia enforcer, or whatever). You have to have a firm purpose of amendment to receive absolution, for not to have a firm purpose of amendment while presenting oneself for absolution is the very definition of the mockery of God. So, first of all, change the circumstances. Then come to Confession. You might think that the Mafia hit-man example is extreme, but, years ago, I was actually asked to be a Confessor by the liaison between the Italian Military and the Holy See in a parish that they would arrange for me to be Confessor so that they could record confessions of such hit-men. Of course, I said NO.
(9) Getting the vocabulary right, individual confession is one on one, penitent and Confessor. A “General Confession” refers to someone who wishes to confess one’s sins for whatever period of time – kind of as a renewed thanksgiving to Jesus by renewing one’s sorrow for those sins even if already confessed and already forgiven. This is sometimes a good idea for some people, say, before a huge change in life, such as marriage, such as taking religious vows, such as being ordained a deacon, priest or bishop. This is not required nor is it a good idea for some people, such as those who are scrupulous. But see: Yesterday was really cool. I made a “General Confession.” Yikes! A “General Absolution” is when people do not confess their sins to a priest, but who, as a group, receive absolution as a group. There are circumstances for this, such as soldiers going into battle right then. The priest leads them in a brief examination of conscience, an act of contrition, instructs them that they have to have the intention of going to individual confession when they can, if they survive, as soon as they can. If you’ve gone to a “General Absolution” event, such as in peace time in a filthy liberal parish with a filthy liberal priest, with that event NOT being sanctioned by the bishop, know that such a General Absolution is INVALID. And I bet that the priest in that circumstance did NOT instruct people to have the intention of going to individual confession as soon as possible. Just sayin’… When was your last good Confession. That would go back to a time before any invalid General Absolution or any sacrilegious Confession, such as a Confession which leaves out the number of sins (inasmuch as we can remember, with Jesus knowing we’re not computers) or the the kind of sin, that is, having been purposely ambiguous, purposely non-specific. We can always fool a priest. We can’t fool God. Mocking God with a sacrilegious Confession is not a good idea.
(10) How to go to Confession: When you enter the Confessional, kneel or sit and say: “Bless me, Father, for I have sinned, my last good Confession was [… last week, a month ago, or whatever the time is, like fifty years, whatever…]. Here are my sins: [… and you do your best to recite those sins in the frankest, simplest, clearest, briefest way you can…] The priest may say some words of encouragement, give some words of advice. He may ask a question if he doesn’t understand what you’re talking about: “What does you did something wrong refer to?” Don’t be offended. This is Confession, not a game. Again, don’t go into useless details. Then the priest will give you a penance, perhaps some prayers. Then he will invite you to make an act of contrition. If you don’t know one, the priest will help you. Then, the priest will recite the absolution, which is really beautiful. Then the priest will dismiss you with a few words about the mercy of the Lord. I always ask people to pray for me as well.
(11) An act of imperfect contrition is when we are sorry for our sins because we fear the loss of heaven and we fear the pains of hell. An act of perfect contrition is when we are sorry for our sins also because we have offended God’s love. Here are a couple of variations from what I learned as a kid in the mid-1960s (there are a zillion variations). The first of these below quite clearly includes both kinds of contrition:
(12) After having been Concise, Clear, Contrite, Complete (the four Cs of Confession) in an individual Confession, prepare to be ever so happy, humbly thanking Jesus, pointed to heaven, walking in His presence in our daily lives. It is because of that increase of God’s love within us that we are more capable of staying away from our love to sin. The love of God is greater than our sin. We can still choose to sin, but Jesus gives us the Way to Heaven. He gives us His friendship. :-)
Now about an examination of Conscience. The following link is for an examination of conscience for adults and teens, not for kids.
There are a zillion examples of examinations of conscience on the internet. But remember, we’re good at rationalizing. So, to make a good exam of conscience, first put yourself before Jesus humbly, prayerfully, sincerely, with sorrow for sin. Give yourself a minute or two for this. Don’t be afraid. Then start.
Lastly, one of the most important things about going to Confession is to…
GO TO CONFESSION!
Recently, during an airplane presser, Pope Francis revealed what he desires for the total and blind obedience of the Church, of everyone, to the United Nations. Total. Yep. This text is prepared by the Holy See and is published on their own website. [My comments below]
QUESTION: Jean Luc Mootoosamy (Radio One, Mauritius) – “The Prime Minister of Mauritius thanked you for your concern regarding the suffering of our fellow citizens who have been forced to abandon their own Archipelago by the United Kingdom after the illicit separation of this part of our territory before independence. Today on the island of Diego Garcia, there is an American military base. Holy Father, the Chagossians who have been in forced exile for fifty years want to return to their land. The United States and the United Kingdom will not allow this to happen, notwithstanding a United Nations resolution from last May. How can you support the Chagossians’ will and help the people of Chagos to go home?”
ANSWER: POPE FRANCIS – I would like to repeat what the Doctrine of the Church says about this: [What he says now is total bullshit. What he says is not at all the doctrine of the Church. What a blatant lie. Just. Wow.] When we acknowledge international organisations and we recognise their capacity to give judgment, on a global scale – for example the international tribunal in The Hague, or the United Nations. If we consider ourselves humanity, when they make statements, our duty is to obey. It is true that not all things that appear just for the whole of humanity will also be so for our pockets, but we must obey international institutions. That is why the United Nations were created. That’s why international courts were created. [It’s better that one man die than that a whole nation perish, right? No, that’s not right.] Then there is also another phenomenon which, however, I say it clearly, I do know whether it is relevant here. When the liberation of a people comes about (a people obtains independence) and the occupying State has to leave – many independence processes have taken place in Africa – from France, from Great Britain, from Belgium, from Italy – all of them had to leave, some [of the countries] have matured well – but there is always the temptation to leave with something in in the pocket: Yes, I give freedom to this people but I take some crumbs with me… I give freedom to the country but from the ground up, what’s underneath remains mine. This is an example, I do not know if it is true, but I want to say: there is always the temptation… I believe that international organizations need to propose a process of accompaniment, recognizing the predominant potentials, what they were able to accomplish in the country, recognizing the good will to go away and helping them to leave totally, in freedom, with a brotherly spirit. It is a slow cultural process for humanity and these international institutions help us a lot, always, and we need to go forward strengthening the international institutions: the United Nations, that they might take in hand once again their role; that the European Union might become stronger, not in the sense of domination, but in the sense of justice, of fraternity, of unity for all. [To use the vocabulary of Freemasonry.] I believe this to be one of the important things. And there is another thing that I would like to take the opportunity to say after his intervention. Today geographical colonialization does not exist – at least not many…. But there are ideological colonializations that want to enter into the popular culture and change those cultures and homogenize humanity. It is the image of globalization like a sphere, all of the points being equidistant from the centre. Instead, true globalization is not a sphere, it is a polyhedron where each people preserves their own identity but it united to all of humanity. [That’s the spirit of syncretism demonstrated by lifting up, say, Pachamama.] Instead, ideological colonization seeks to cancel the identity of others to make them equal and they come at you with ideological proposals that are contrary to the nature of that people, the history of that people, against the values of that people. [But that is exactly how you are smashing down the Catholic Church, Pope Francis…] And we must respect the identity of peoples, this is a premise to defend always. The identity of the people’s needs to be respected and thus all types of colonialization will be cast out. [So, Holy Father, please respect my belief that Jesus is God, that He is sinless, that He is our Redeemer and Savior, the Divine Son of the Immaculate Conception, that He is the One, the only One.]
Before giving the word to EFE – which is a privilege, it is “old”, it is 80 years old – I would like to say something more that struck me about the visit. What struck me about your country is the capacity for religious unity, for interreligious dialogue. Differences between the religions are not to be cancelled out, that we are all brothers is to be underlined, that everyone needs to speak. This is a sign of the maturity of your country. Speaking yesterday with the prime ministry, I remained surprised at how they, you, have worked at this reality and live it as necessary in order to live together. There is an intercultural commission that gathers together… The first thing that I found yesterday when I went into the bishop’s resident – this is anecdote – was a bouquet of beautiful flowers. Who sent them? The Grant Imam. We are brothers, human brotherhood is the foundation and respects all beliefs. Respect for other religions is important. [Islam is not a religion as it does not render what is due in justice to God, our obedience by way of Jesus’ perfect obedience on the Cross.] This is why I tell missionaries not to proselytize. Proselytizing is valid for the world of politics, of sport – I root for my team, for yours – not for a faith. [Islam proselytizes by the sword.] [… see the rest there…]
////////// And yes, Pope Francis, I’m your Missionary of Mercy. You had said you don’t want “Yes men”. I’m just obeying you. I always pray for you and get the parish to pray for you.
Condescension about the tribesmen of the Amazon region? It’s said that they can’t live chastely, because, you know, they are equated as persons with ejaculation, of whatever kind and style, the “sacrament” of, it seems, so many in filthy, filthy Rome. In other words, they have no free will, no capacity for natural moral law. But the manipulators of the Amazon Synod (or the prestidigitators as Cardinal Siri called analogous manipulators), are they not talking about themselves?
The locals of the Amazon shouldn’t be offended by my comments, but rather with the Europeans and those in Rome who are playing them for themselves. I’m indignant on behalf of the locals in the Amazon Region. Those who hate God and neighbor in REPAM and the Brazilian bishops conference who forbid the evangelization of these peoples should be rejected by the locals of the Amazon Region.
So, with all the Pachamama news going on – and it always gets worse, much worse – I did something I don’t recommend anyone do. I Google-Image searched for Pachamama. That was a mistake. Pachamama is simply the slut of the Andes’ demons, so that what is in her womb is, in this superstition scenario, a demon.
The more I learn about Pachamama, the more I am horrified the the Immaculate Virgin Mother of God has been compared to and even equated with this demon goddess.
Amoris laetitia had a section dedicated to pastoral care for prostitutes, which no one paid attention to or made excuses for because they couldn’t wrap their “pious” minds around it. It was just too horrible to think that it could possibly be true. Whilst I lived in Rome for so very many years I would meet South American priests from Pachamama territory who would say precisely and with no ambiguity what the prevailing pastoral practice is; even admitting that they would “visit” the prostitutes themselves. Yep. Here’s a post I wrote about this with it’s own update:
Update: There is some pretty heavy interest in high places right now over some of the more controversial posts I’ve put up about the past couple of Synods. If I had to write an apologia about this, I would just say that my opinions are on behalf of those who suffer much in this world, who are marginalized and kept suffering it seems to me on purpose. That unnecessary suffering really just needs to stop, and stop now.
Original Post: It seems that paragraph 49 refers to prostitution to avoid poverty. Communion for active prostitutes has been part of pastoral praxis by some for decades and a continuous side debate for some of the liberation theology / arm-chair moral theology crowd. So:
49. Here I would also like to mention the situation of families living in dire poverty and great limitations. The problems faced by poor households are often all the more trying.36 For example, if a single mother has to raise a child by herself and needs to leave the child alone at home while she goes to work, the child can grow up exposed to all kind of risks and obstacles to personal growth. In such difficult situations of need, the Church must be particularly concerned to offer understanding, comfort and acceptance, rather than imposing straightaway a set of rules that only lead people to feel judged and abandoned by the very Mother called to show them God’s mercy. Rather than offering the healing power of grace and the light of the Gospel message, some would “indoctrinate” that message, turning it into “dead stones to be hurled at others”.37
36 Cf. Relatio Finalis 2015, 15.
37 Concluding Address of the Fourteenth Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops (24 October 2015): L’Osservatore Romano, 26-27 October 2015, p. 13.
I mean, what does that mean in light of footnote 351 other than to provide, say, Communion for active prostitutes? The solution, it seems to me, isn’t to argue for decades about Prostitutes going to Communion, but rather to open safe houses which can immediately set about finding jobs and shelter and education.
Who throws dead stones of doctrine at anyone? Is the reference to priests like me?
Does this throwing stones reference (coming not long after paragraph 27 in which the adulterous woman of the Gospel of John is mentioned) mean that Jesus was a fool damned by our Heavenly Father for telling the adulterous woman to “sin no more,” Himself stoning this woman into marginalization from the faith by His damnable indoctrinated doctrine-stone of “sin no more”? That’s not what the document says about Jesus, instead reporting in paragraph 27 that, “alone with Jesus, she meets not condemnation but the admonition to lead a more worthy life (cf. Jn 8:1-11).” In other words, the Gospel lies that Jesus told her to “sin no more,” which would inescapably imply that she knew she had in fact sinned (both objectively and subjectively), and that the condemnation is only avoided by taking in the forgiveness with repentance and a firm purpose of amendment. All that, for the document, is simply a heap of indoctrinated stones to throw. So, instead, the document insists that Jesus said that she is to live a more worthy life, inescapably implying that her life was already worthy, but just needed to be, you know, more worthy.
And that leads us back to paragraph 49, where the worthiness of adultery by prostitution, while not as worthy as a life which doesn’t include prostitution, is nevertheless so worthy that it is to be rewarded by such casuistry with, say, Holy Communion.
Look: Just open a safe house. I’ve worked in such places, offered confessions and Holy Mass in such places, given Holy Communion to prostitutes galore in such places. I’ve even ended up in a wheelchair and crutches because of such places. Really, I’ve been there, done that. Just get them the help they need. Don’t just say have a nice day with Holy Communion at a street Mass in the red-light district and not provide for them. Do provide for them both physically and spiritually.
Just call me the dumpster priest. But don’t try to make me take up a program that will keep prostitutes in prostitution. To hell with that.
And, by the way, you know all those people steeped in Tradition, that is, those Legion of Mary people? You have to know that I’m one of them, and you have to know that they started out by evangelizing at brothels.
Or is this really about thinking that prostitutes can’t repent? A prostitute once told me that a clergy guy (Episcopalian I think) would walk into her room for quick sex, first taking his clergy collar off, then unzipping himself, as if the collar in the back pocket would make what he was doing out front somehow moral. When she asked him about his visits to herself later (after she was converted from prostitution), he said that he didn’t think that people like her could possibly ever convert. Is that the message that we have here?
I would like to ask someone, but it seems that speaking with parrhesia isn’t to be met with answers of parrhesia. But if I’m wrong on that, I sure would appreciate an answer.
And, oh, by the way, this paragraph 49 cannot refer to something like thievery either for the mom or the boy, can it? We have better theology of private property than that.
I mean, I just can’t believe that this paragraph was written or published. Prostitutes are always in grave danger of disease, damage, dismemberment, and death by physical force or despair along. Get them out of the situation immediately. Don’t argue about their subjective guilt. If you want a lack of mercy and hurling stones, THAT kind of sophistry that keeps them in their prostitution is example number one.
Addendum about the recommendations of the Amazon Synod:
We’ve been hearing there’s a thing about ordaining uneducated men to the priesthood just for Mass, but not granting them faculties for Confessions. That’s consistent with the idea that these people cannot sin because, you know, they are pristine pre-original sin Garden of Eden people. Pfft.
I gotta wonder if the proposed deaconettes (sacramentally impossible) will do dances with pachamamas as part of an Amazonian Rite of Mass, and if that will turn into the shrine prostitutes we read about in the Old Testament. Remember, there’s no sin! (That’s sarcasm for the secularites reading this.)
The very instant anyone who finds himself in purgatory knows when they enter…
It’s a good practice every day, any time during the day, to pray three Hail Mary’s for the souls in purgatory. You will be amassing an army praying for you in return, with enthusiasm, with more hope for you than you could possibly have for yourself, cheering you on.