Cardinals: Francis has done much damage to the Catholic Church

Gloria TV reports:

“'No pope for centuries has done more damage to the Catholic Church than Francis', wrote English journalist Damian Thompson on Twitter (October 25).  

'This is now the view of a significant number of cardinals, including several who were until recently Francis loyalists.'

Thompson further learned that “many bishops, including some cardinals, will not feel able to attend the Synod's closing Mass if the [Pachamama] statues are on display” - as if closing ones eyes in front of the abomination in the sanctuary were a solution."

Catholics and Muslims worship the same God and share a tradition?

ROME (RNS) An Italian bishop has clashed with a pair of priests who want to invite Muslims to pray inside their churches in a bid to promote tolerance in a diocese in Tuscany.

“The deserved, necessary and respectful welcome of people who practice other faiths and religions does not mean offering them space for prayers inside churches designed for liturgy and the gathering of Christian communities,” Bishop Fausto Tardelli of Pistoia said in a statement reported on Saturday (March 19).

“They can very well find other spaces and places,” Tardelli said.

The bishop was responding to pledges by two local priests, the Rev. Massimo Biancalani and the Rev. Alessandro Carmignani, to welcome 18 Muslim refugees by giving them space to pray inside their churches.

But the two priests told Italian media they intend to defy the bishop and host the refugees in three parishes in the diocese, which is 25 miles northwest of Florence.

“What is the problem?” said Biancalani who runs the parish of Vicofaro. “If we want to give them a proper welcome and integration it makes no sense to make them pray in a cellar.

“Whoever wants to can pray inside the church, whoever does not want to can do it in another space. They don’t need much; the important thing is that they can face Mecca.”

The two priests contend they are responding to appeals by Pope Francis to help immigrants seeking support and they think praying together is a good way to enable their congregations to get to know the immigrants.

Now, Father Alexander Lucie-Smith, a doctor of moral theology and a consulting editor of The Catholic Herald, has already addressed why it is inappropriate for a Catholic Church or other Christian Church to be used for Muslim "prayer space."  Fr. Lucie notes:


"A row has broken out in the Church of England’s diocese of Southwark occasioned by a vicar giving permission for some Muslims to hold their prayer service in his church. Some Catholics might feel a bit smug about this, but they ought not to, as the vicar in question’s attitude to Muslim worship is rather similar to that of several Catholic priests I could name (but won’t).

Needless to say I am firmly on the side of our evangelical brethren on this one. No Christian church, if it wants to remain a Christian church, and no other church property, even a church hall, should ever be used for Muslim worship. The reason is a straightforward one: once a place has been used for Muslim worship it is ipso facto a mosque – or so some Muslims tell us. So it is clearly not a good idea to let your church be converted into a mosque, because once it is a mosque, it cannot be converted back, or so it is claimed.

This story – Muslim prayers in Christian buildings – is a remarkably common one, and it keeps on popping up again and again in the media. It is a running saga in Spain, where, it seems, a group of Muslims are keen to reclaim their perceived rights over Cordoba Cathedral.

Most of us have heard of the theology of replacement, or supercessionism, which are terms usually used with reference to the Jews and the promises of the Old Testament. Catholics do not hold to such a theology, and we do not see the Covenant with the Jews as having been cancelled. But Islam has a theology of replacement, as far as I can see: for them it is natural that all churches, like the Haghia Sophia, should become mosques, as they regard Mohamed as the “seal” of the prophets. Therefore church into mosque is a sort of natural progression (the other way around would be regression.) Moreover, in a belief that strikes one as having it both ways, they see the natural state of mankind in the beginning as Islamic: they regard Adam as the first prophet, and see his life in the Garden of Eden as an Islamic one. So if a Christian becomes a Muslim they are at once progressing and at the same time reverting to the original state of humanity.

If a Muslim points out that I am wrong on this matter, I would be glad to take correction from him or her.

The vicar who hosted the Muslim prayers in his church and who took part in them, is reported as saying the following: “It is the same God, we share a tradition.” This is perhaps the most worrying thing of all, and it is something that I have heard on the lips of Catholics too. It is simply not true, and to suggest that it is misleading, to say the least. Islam’s concept of God and of revelation is radically different to the Catholic concept of either. Moreover, our tradition and their tradition, our culture and theirs, are radically (that is to say from the root up) different. In art, in literature, in law, in cookery, in domestic life, their path is markedly different from our own. The vicar’s words do no one any favours. Moreover, the vicar seems to have forgotten the central mystery of the Christain faith, the mystery of the Blessed Trinity, a mystery that penetrates all aspects of faith and life, or should.

Christians who take this, or a similar view, on the closeness of Islamic and Christian traditions, know nothing about Islam, but, shockingly, seem to know nothing about their own Christian tradition either.

There are forces in this country and around the world which want to combine Christianity and Islam into a global religion which would be called "Chrislam."  See here.  Still others seek to blend many different religions into a syncretistic one-world religion with truth being sacrificed in the name of a false irenicism.

Those who have the courage to warn others about the dangers inherent within Islam can expect to be ostracized and increasingly relegated to the margins of society.

Nemo dat quod non habet!

Writing for the Catholic Herald, Francis Rocca reports that, "Pope Francis has said that bishops should act not like ambitious corporate executives, but humble evangelists and men of prayer, willing to sacrifice everything for their flocks.

'We don’t need a manager, the CEO of a business, nor someone who shares our pettiness or low aspirations,' the Pope said yesterday. 'We need someone who knows how to rise to the height from which God sees us, in order to guide us to him.'

Pope Francis’s words came in a speech to the Congregation for Bishops, the Vatican body that advises him on the appointment of bishops around the world.
He stressed the importance of self-sacrifice in a bishop’s ministry, which he described as a kind of martyrdom.

'The courage to die, the generosity to offer one’s own life and exhaust one’s self for the flock are inscribed in the episcopate’s DNA,' he said. 'The episcopate is not for itself but for the Church, for the flock, for others, above all for those whom the world considers only worth throwing away.'

Pope Francis listed several desirable virtues in potential bishops, including a 'capacity for healthy, balanced relationships,' 'upright behaviour,' 'orthodoxy and fidelity' to Church doctrine; and 'transparency and detachment in administrating the goods of the community.'

The Pope laid special emphasis on a bishop’s ability to evangelise and pray.
In preaching the Gospel, bishops should be appealing rather than censorious, upholding Church teaching 'not in order to measure how far the world falls short of the truth it contains, but to fascinate the world, enchant it with the beauty of love, seduce it by offering the freedom of the Gospel.'" (Full article may be found here).

Pope John Paul II, in his book entitled "Rise, Let Us Be On Our Way," in a chapter entitled simply "The Shepherd," writes, "Christian tradition has adopted the biblical image of the shepherd in three forms: as the one who carries the lost sheep on his shoulders, as the one who leads his flocks to green pastures, and as the one who gathers his sheep with his staff and protects them from danger. 

In all three images there is a recurring theme: The shepherd is for the sheep, not the sheep for the shepherd.  He is bound so closely to them, if he is a real shepherd, that he is ready to lay down his life for the sheep (John 10:11).  Every year during the twenty-fourth and twenty-fifth week of Ordinary Time, the Liturgy of the Hours presents Saint Augustine's long sermon 'On the Shepherds.'  With reference to the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel, the bishop of Hippo strongly rebukes evil shepherds, who are concerned not for the sheep but only for themselves.  'Let us see how the word of God, that flatters no one, addresses the shepherds who are feeding themselves, not the sheep.  'You take the milk, you clothe yourselves with the wool, you slaughter the fatlings; but you do not feed my sheep.  The weak you have not strenghtened, the sick you have not healed, the crippled you have not bound up, the strayed you have not brought back, the lost you have not sought; any strong one you have killed; and my sheep are scattered because there is no shepherd.'" (pp. 63-64).

And in the chapter entitled "Courageous in Faith," the Holy Father, citing Stefan Cardinal Wyszynski, writes, "'The bishop has the duty to serve not only through his words and through the liturgy, but also through offering up his sufferings.'  Cardinal Wyszynski returned to these thoughts again on another occasion: 'Lack of courage in a bishop is the beginning of disaster.  Can he still be an apostle?  Witnessing to the Truth is essential for an apostle.  And this always demands courage.'  These words are also his: 'The greatest weakness in an apostle is fear.  What gives rise to fear is lack of confidence in the power of the Lord; this is what oppresses the heart and tightens the throat.  The apostle then ceases to offer witness.  Does he remain an apostle?  The disciples who abandoned the Master increased the courage of the executioners.  Silence in the presence of the enemies of a cause encourages them.  Fear in an apostle is the principal ally of the enemies of the cause'...Truly, there can be no turning one's back upon the truth, ceasing to proclaim it, hiding it, even if it is a hard truth that can only be revealed at the cost of great suffering.  'You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free' (John 8:32): this is our duty and our source of strength!  Here there is no room for compromise nor for an opportunistic recourse to human diplomacy.  We have to bear witness to the truth, even at the cost of persecutions, even to the shedding of our blood, like Christ Himself..." (pp. 190-191).

Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz (God love him) has displayed the courage of a real shepherd.  Back in 1996, His Excellency warned that membership in certain dissenting groups "is always perilous to the Catholic Faith and most often is totally incompatible with the Catholic Faith."  See here.

It would appear that the Bishop of Worcester, Massachusetts, lacks this same courage.  When the faithful write him with concerns over liturgical abuses or doctrinal dissent, they are most often ignored.

When I wrote the Bishop expressing interest in the priesthood, I received no response whatsoever.  See here.  I guess Bishop McManus considers me worth throwing away.

If we want to "enchant the world with the beauty of love," we must first practice love ourselves.

There is an old Latin saying: Nemo dat quod non habet!

And it applies here.

Father Jerome Murphy-OConnor has a common sense breakdown....let's hope it's brief

Father Jerome Murphy-OConnor, a renowned expert on the New Testament, has what some are referring to as "a bold view of what happened in the Garden of Gethsemane."  I would call it something else entirely: asinine.  Demonic even.  How about blasphemous?

In an article for the Catholic Herald which may be found here, Fr. OConnor is quoted as having said that Jesus suffered a "nervous breakdown" and adds, "When realizing the imminence of His own demise, Jesus was deeply distraught and troubled, out of control."  A nervous breakdown, otherwise referred to as a "mental breakdown," is statically defined as "a specific acute time-limited reactive disorder."  See here.

Jesus out of control?  Jesus so distraught that he momentarily suffered from a reactive disorder?

Anyone even remotely familiar with the New Testament knows full well that Jesus was subject to emotions.  We know that He wept when His friend Lazarus died.  We know that He experienced various emotions.  We read for example, "He began to grow sorrowful and be sad" (Mt 26: 37); that He "began to fear and be heavy" (Mk 14: 33); that He "looked round about on them with anger" (Mk 3: 5) and that He said, "I am glad for your sake" (Jn 11: 15).  But Jesus was also free from concupiscence.  As a result, His emotions could not be directed to a sinful object nor could they arise within Him without His consent.  Jesus emotions were always completely under the control of His will and could never obscure or dominate His mind in any way.

Father Kenneth Baker, S.J., notes how, "In this regard there is a significant difference between His emotions and ours.  For, our emotions arise spontaneously, often against our will, and sometimes totally dominate our power of reason.  Thus, they can lead us into sin.  Not so with Jesus.  Jesus was capable of suffering and experienced emotions, but everything was under the control of His will which was totally obedient to His Father." (Fundamentals of Catholicism, Vol. II, p. 269).

This is the teaching of Saint Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologiae:

"Since the soul gives form to the body soul and body share the same existence, and when the body is upset by physical suffering the soul existing in the body is also indirectly affected.  So because Christ's body could suffer and die, his soul too was affected by suffering.  The soul is also affected, in a different sense, by activities it exercises by itself, or that belong more to it than the body.  Knowledge and sensation are sometimes called affections of the soul, but the description applies most properly to emotions of the sense-appetite, which Christ possessed along with everything else natural to men.  But whereas in us emotions often bear on unlawful objects, frequently anticipate the judgment of reason, and sometimes draw reason after them, in Christ they were always under reason's control."

And so, Father Murphy-OConnor is simply wrong.  Jesus suffered no mental breakdown.  He was never, even for the slightest moment, "out of control."

Would that we could say the same about Father.