Pope Leo XIV corrects Francis

In an article which may be found here, we read:

"There is breaking news today from Rome where Pope Leo is correcting the Francis record on cohabitation. Pope Francis created worldwide scandal when on June 16, 2016, he said cohabitation is 'real marriage' and has the grace of real marriage...today at the Vatican, Pope Leo addressed the issue of cohabitation with these words: “Perhaps many young people today, who choose cohabitation instead of Christian marriage, actually need someone who, in a concrete and understandable way—especially by the example of their life—shows them what the gift of sacramental grace is and what strength it brings; someone who helps them understand ‘the beauty and greatness of the vocation to love and to the service of life’ that God gives to spouses (St. John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio, 1).” 

Out of love and concern for His creatures, God has taught us that marriage is a necessary prerequisite for sexual relations. The Catechism #2353 teaches: 

“Fornication is carnal union between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman. It is gravely contrary to the dignity of persons and of human sexuality which is naturally ordered to the good of spouses and the generation and education of children. Moreover, it is a grave scandal when there is corruption of the young.”

___________________________________________

Commentary

The Sons of Hell, the Children of Belial as St. Louis de Montfort refers to them, are spreading their errors everywhere. The confusion of our own time has become general. And this too was prophesied by the great Jesuit priest Father Nectou, who said that before the triumph of the Church, "The confusion will be so general that mankind will not be able to aright, as if God had entirely withheld His providence from mankind, and during the worst crisis the best thing that can be done will be to remain where God has placed us, and persevere in fervent prayer."

Signs are multiplying everywhere. Today, all across society, people are committing grievous sins and even blasphemously calling these sins virtue. Sin is justified. It is even celebrated. Active homosexuals and lesbians have the audacity to call their perverse practices "love" (practices for which God destroyed the five cities of the plain: Sodom and Gomorrah) and agitate for - demand - the legal status of marriage. As a girl in the Ukraine is reported as hearing from the Blessed Mother: "The present times are worse than at the time of Noah. Then the world was scourged by a deluge of water; now the world is going to be scourged by a deluge of fire." (Firs apparition to Anna at Seredne, December 20, 1954).

Our sin-sick world, puffed up with satanic pride, has become too blind to see its own miserable state. Today our great cities have become new Sodom and Gomorrahs. And at a time when so many confused people look to their priests for moral and spiritual guidance, often they receive chaff instead of wheat.

What a blessing to have a Shepherd in Rome who cares for souls. Let us pray for Pope Leo XIV.

See here.

Resisting the current of harsh commentary....

Michael Brown writes:


The quickening descent of American politics into ribald, mean-spirited, and generally coarse discourse should be no surprise: it has been on this trajectory for several decades now, propelled not just by movies and music — which no longer require commentary — but the psittacism, the constant, numbing negative drumbeat, of harsh (not to mention un-Christian) verbiage on the internet and talk-radio and cable TV. 
The result, the fruit, is now constantly before us, as politics sinks into what can most charitably be called a quagmire, and entertainment into a “cesspool of impurity” (to borrow a phrase from the Blessed Mother at La Salette).

Gutter language is the norm of modern America.

The other day a liberal woman in Gainesville, Florida, verbally assaulted Governor Rick Scott, calling him — shouting at him — a word we don’t even want to abbreviate. You used to be arrested for such things. There are no more profanity laws, not really. Is there no such thing as decency? We are now, indeed, a “Savage Nation” (the name of one caustic talk show).

Unfettered anger and uncharitable approaches have been drilled into us (listening to radio, as so many do, while working or driving or sleeping, thus often only partly aware of what’s being said and how it is being stated, although it washes to the subconscious). There is seething anger: some justified, some inspired or magnified by the Prince of Division (reigning behind the scenes, in the dark, in the radio waves; divide and conquer).

And so now we are at the point of tremendous factionalism; it’s why we often carry articles under the category of “upheaval watch.” Minorities are mad. Majorities are mad. Immigrants are mad. Natives are furious. Liberals detest each other as much as they detest conservatives, and vice versa. Atheists are furious. So are evangelicals. 

Are we really still the “United” States when the governor of New York bans official travel to the state of Mississippi because Mississippi has passed a religious-rights law. This same governor previously banned non-essential travel to North Carolina when that state barred trans-sexuals from using restrooms opposite the gender they were given (by God) at birth.

It is not just a passing observation, because on many fronts, the seeds for civil uprising and/or even civil war have been cultivated. That leaders and major commentators and candidates could be tearing into each other the way they now do (“liar,” “sniveling,” “coward,” “stupid,” “crazy,” small of hands) is astonishing even if it shouldn’t be astonishing — upsetting even though one can see the frustration of the hitherto “silent majority.”

Punches are thrown at rallies. There is hatred. Insults about manhood fill the air. Height and weight and looks are fair targets. There are salacious reports. There are salacious photos (including of a potential First Lady).
On TV, formerly dignified and objective newsmen use language that only a short time ago was confined to bars, sports stadiums, and gyms. Once-staid magazines such as The Atlantic and The New Yorker allow a certain degree of scatological utterance; mainstream publications occasionally allow their writers to use the “f-word” (in their own prose).

Women who claim to be Christian — often Catholic — take to the microphone and use language once confined to men’s locker-rooms to besmirch the opposition (all in the name of righteousness).
A “born-again” candidate for vice president (2008) uses the term “punk a—” to describe protesters, while the sitting vice president is also known for a bit of saltiness.

When the head of the Democratic party cusses in front of nuns who are protesting the health mandate (the law that would force them to pay for contraception), it’s just another news item that passes quickly. How inured we have grown! (That’s a nice way of saying “hard.”)

We pay for such things in the afterlife.

“Shun the gossip of men as much as possible, for discussion of worldly affairs, even though sincere, is a great distraction inasmuch as we are quickly ensnared and captivated by vanity,” warned the classic Catholic writer, Thomas a Kempis. “Hence, we talk and think quite fondly of things we like very much or of things we dislike intensely. But, sad to say, we often talk vainly and to no purpose; for this external pleasure effectively bars inward and divine consolation. Therefore we must watch and pray lest time pass idly. When the right and opportune moment comes for speaking, say something that will edify.”

Indeed we only have a set number of hours on this earth; it is wise to use that time well.

The undercurrent of harsh commentary (See here, my note), of execration, of cussing, is now burbling — gushing — into the very fabric of American society. It is what our flag is now fashioned with. It goes for every walk of life, and every political party. It is what we wear. It is how we drive (now, too often, so rudely, and with profane hand signals).

Is it caused, in large part, with the suddenly-roused white middle-class, by what a magazine called Salon (itself known for caustic language) recently said, in discussing “Savage Nation”?

“Between American multinationals, who do everything and anything to avoid taxes, and American politicians, who so often trade on their office to amass vast fortunes, regular working class Americans feel abandoned,” it said. “For decades, as businesses have increasingly exploited undocumented immigrants for cheap labor or moved operations out of the country entirely, these voters have become resentful, watching their wages stagnate and full-time jobs with benefits become scarcer by the day. For many of them… ‘Savage Nation’ is a kind of sanctuary.”

While there is no question that a number of major issues have been neglected for far too long, and that the middle class has been all but forgotten — with Washington unable to accomplish just about anything, even when it has the notion to — good Christians are allowing themselves to be swept toward a vortex of rancor. It could end up being a truly epic divide (or series of them).

No one knows to what end result.

But one can guess it will not be a good one.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Indeed.  In his Encyclical Letter Ecclesiam Suam, Pope Paul VI told us that, "The Church must enter into dialogue with the world in which it lives. It has something to say, a message to give, a communication to make." (No. 65).

The Holy Father goes on to say that, "Dialogue, therefore, is a recognized method of the apostolate. It is a way of making spiritual contact. It should however have the following characteristics:

1) Clarity before all else; the dialogue demands that what is said should be intelligible. We can think of it as a kind of thought transfusion. It is an invitation to the exercise and development of the highest spiritual and mental powers a man possesses. This fact alone would suffice to make such dialogue rank among the greatest manifestations of human activity and culture. In order to satisfy this first requirement, all of us who feel the spur of the apostolate should examine closely the kind of speech we use. Is it easy to understand? Can it be grasped by ordinary people? Is it current idiom?

2) Our dialogue must be accompanied by that meekness which Christ bade us learn from Himself: "Learn of me, for I am meek and humble of heart." It would indeed be a disgrace if our dialogue were marked by arrogance, the use of bared words or offensive bitterness. What gives it its authority is the fact that it affirms the truth, shares with others the gifts of charity, is itself an example of virtue, avoids peremptory language, makes no demands. It is peaceful, has no use for extreme methods, is patient under contradiction and inclines towards generosity.
3) Confidence is also necessary; confidence not only in the power of one's own words, but also in the good will of both parties to the dialogue. Hence dialogue promotes intimacy and friendship on both sides. It unites them in a mutual adherence to the Good, and thus excludes all self-seeking.

4) Finally, the prudence of a teacher who is most careful to make allowances for the psychological and moral circumstances of his hearer, particularly if he is a child, unprepared, suspicious or hostile. The person who speaks is always at pains to learn the sensitivities of his audience, and if reason demands it, he adapts himself and the manner of his presentation to the susceptibilities and the degree of intelligence of his hearers....In a dialogue conducted with this kind of foresight, truth is wedded to charity and understanding to love." (Nos. 81, 82).

As faithful Catholics, we must recognize and embrace these characteristics of authentic dialogue, even when our partners in dialogue refuse to accept these principles. For we will often encounter those who have succumbed to relativism or who do not possess a love of objective truth. For such people, the purpose of dialogue is not to attain truth but rather to achieve personal victory and to triumph at any cost. As Dr. Montague Brown explains in his wonderful book "The One-Minute Philosopher" (Sophia Institute Books): "An argument (emotional, not rational) is a disorderly confrontation based on an unwillingness to learn from one another. Desire for victory takes precedence over love of truth, with the result that agreement becomes impossible....in an argument, I simply want my position to be the right one and you to agree with me. I am, indeed, looking for agreement, but on my terms, not in terms of objective truth." (p. 33). An authentic dialogue (which such people are not really interested in) is, "..an orderly confrontation based on a mutual willingness to learn from one another. It involves the presentation of evidence by each party and then a good-faith attempt of the participants in the discussion to come to agreement...In a discussion [or dialogue], I do not primarily want to disagree: I want to know the truth.." (The One-Minute Philosopher, p. 32).

It was Pope John Paul II, in his Encyclical Letter Ut Unum Sint, No. 36, who said, "There must be charity toward one's partner in dialogue, and humility with regard to the truth which comes to light and which might require a review of assertions and attitudes."

This requires maturity.

Soho Masses: Clarity of Catholic Doctrine or Diabolical Disorientation?

Archbishop Vincent Nichols has assured us that he is going to conduct a "review" to ensure that the pro-homosexual Soho Masses "are not occasions for confusion or opposition" relative to the Church's teaching on homosexuality. 

His Excellency should ask Father Timothy Radcliffe, OP what he meant exactly when he said (in a homily on February 6, 2011):

"Gay people are often not seen in Christ's light!  Gay people may be seen as threats, as predators, as temptations, or whatever.  You have to shed Christ's life so that people see that gay people love, have friendships, have gifts such like everyone else.  Cardinal Basil Hume, clarifying Catholic teaching on homosexuality, wrote, 'Love between two persons, whether of the same sex or of a different sex, is to be treasured and respected...When two persons love they experience in a limited manner in this world what will be their unending delight when one with God in the next.  To love another is in fact to reach out to God who shares his lovableness with the one we love.'...(Find Fr. Radcliffe's homily here).

It was Sister Lucia (of the Fatima apparitions) who said, "the Virgin knew that these times of diabolical disorientation were to come" and who wrote, "Let people say the Rosary every day. Our Lady stated that repeatedly in all her apparitions, as if to fortify us against these times of diabolical disorientation, so that we would not allow ourselves to be deceived by false doctrines...Unfortunately, the great majority of people are ignorant in religious matters and allow themselves to be led in any direction. Hence, the great responsibility of one who has the task of leading them....A diabolical disorientation is invading the world, deceiving souls! It must be resisted." When questioned on the content of the Third Secret of Fatima, Sister Lucia replied, "It's in the Gospel and in the Apocalypse, read them." She also confided to Father Fuentes that the Mother of God made her understand that "we are in the last times of the world."

Some, like Father Robert Bruso of Saint Anthony's Parish in Fitchburg, Massachusetts, scoff at the notion that we are living in apocalyptic times.  But Fr. Radcliffe's homily is an example of the very diabolical disorientation Sister Lucia spoke of.

Dutch psychologist Gerard J.M. van den Aardweg, Ph.D., a specialist on homosexuality, says that the claim that homosexuality is normal is one of those statements that are "so foolish that only intellectuals could believe them." It is like saying that anorexia nervosa is healthy. Dr. Aardweg notes that, "The term neurotic describes such relationships well. It suggests the ego-centeredness of the relationship; the attention-seeking instead of loving...Neurotic, in short, suggests all kinds of dramas and childish conflicts as well as the basic disinterestedness in the partner, notwithstanding the shallow pretensions of 'love.' Nowhere is there more self-deception in the homosexual than in his representation of himself as a lover. One partner is important to the other only insofar as he satisfies that other's needs. Real, unselfish love for a desired partner would, in fact, end up destroying homosexual 'love'!" (Dr. Gerard J.M. van den Aardweg, The Battle for Normality, Ignatius Press, 1997, pp. 62-63).

If Fr. Radcliffe wasn't using his homily to condone homosexual relationships which are sexual, as opposed to promoting simple friendship, why did he not mention that Cardinal Basil Hume, "While condemning homosexual acts..accepted the validity of love between gay people." (Wikipedia, see here).  Why did he not mention that the Cardinal condemned homosexual acts as does the Catechism of the Catholic Church: "Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved."


Is Fr. Radcliffe suggesting that homosexual acts fall into the category of "love between two persons, whether of the same sex or of a different sex, is to be treasured and respected" when he cites Cardinal Hume without mentioning the Cardinal's opposition toward homosexual acts?

What do you think Your Excellency?  Is Fr. Radcliffe's homily an example of clarity or of confusion - of diabolical disorientation?