Cardinal Müller to Francis: You have no authority to change the Church's teaching

 

Once again, Cardinal Miller has reminded Francis that he has no authority to change the teaching of the Lord Jesus through His Church. See here.

Francis the false shepherd wants change.  And he has castigated faithful Catholics who refuse to go along with his perverse agenda as "lazy" Catholics who are "parked" [read faithful to Christ's immutable teaching]. See here.

The Dictator Pope bans the unvaccinated faithful from the Vatican

 Francis is denying the unvaccinated access to the Vatican.   See here.  This is the same Francis who previously said that freedom of conscience must "always and everywhere" be respected.  See here.

In any case, for your consideration:

"..each of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue..."

Unlike Bishop Rozanski, here's a Bishop who understands that Catholics have a right at all times to receive Holy Communion on the tongue.  See here.

Redemptionis Sacramentum, No. 92:


"Although each of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue, at his choice, if any communicant should wish to receive the Sacrament in the hand, in areas where the Bishops’ Conference with the recognitio of the Apostolic See has given permission, the sacred host is to be administered to him or her. However, special care should be taken to ensure that the host is consumed by the communicant in the presence of the minister, so that no one goes away carrying the Eucharistic species in his hand. If there is a risk of profanation, then Holy Communion should not be given in the hand to the faithful.

Holy Communion on the tongue is the norm.  Communion in the hand is only allowed by indult, which is a sort of grudging permission.

I challenge Bishop Rozanski, or any Bishop or priest who believes Communion on the tongue may be prohibited, to cite a Church document that justifies this belief.

I await a response.

In the meantime.  See here.

Faithful Catholics should resist Bishop Mitchell Rozanski, a modernist thug who wants to use Covid-19 as an excuse for prohibiting Communion on the tongue

As noted here:

"Tension is brewing between the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) and the bishop of Springfield, Massachusetts, who is forbidding Holy Communion on the tongue in spite of the USCCB's recent decision to the contrary.

In anticipation of Massachusetts' planned multiphase reopening, Springfield bishop Mitchell T. Rozanski sent his clergy a document titled 'Re-Opening Considerations' to give guidelines and suggestions for conducting public Masses as they resume.

Maintaining previous diocesan restrictions and state guidelines, Rozanski is requiring that at public Masses, Holy Communion is offered in the hand only, Holy Water fonts remain empty and covered, social distancing is enforced at a minimum of six feet between individuals and masks be worn at all times. 

Rozanski's prohibition of Holy Communion on the tongue contradicts the USCCB's "Guidelines for Sacraments and Pastoral Care" published in late April, which states:

We have carefully considered the question of Communion on the tongue vs. Communion in the hand. Given the Church's existing guidance on this point (see Redemptionis Sacramentum, no. 92), and recognizing the differing judgments and sensibilities that are involved, we believe that, with the precautions listed here, it is possible to distribute on the tongue without unreasonable risk.

Bishop Rozanski has no right to prohibit Holy Communion on the tongue and faithful Catholics should resist this ecclesial modernist thug to his face.  A Canon Law expert here.

More on Rozanski here, here and here

Update on Bishop Rozanski: Complaint filed against him.  See here.

Francis: Fulfilling the prophecy of Mother Anne of Jesus...

Our Lady told Mother Anne of Jesus (at Quito, Ecuador) that, "..the Church will go through a dark night for lack of a Prelate and Father to watch over it with love, gentleness, strength and prudence, and numbers of priests will lose the spirit of God, thus placing their souls in great danger...Satan will take control of this earth through the fault of faithless men who, like a black cloud, will darken the clear sky of the republic consecrated to the Most Sacred Heart of my divine Son.  This republic, having allowed entry to all the vices, will have to undergo all sorts of chastisements: plagues, famine, war, apostasy, and the loss of souls without number.."

The Church is now going through that dark night for lack of a Prelate and Father to watch over it with love.  Rather than love, a False Shepherd and Prophet offers only hatred and vitriolic rhetoric, accusing the faithful remnant of espousing an "ecumenism of hatred."

Another prophecy fulfilled in our own time.  See here.

Pastors of the Church must offer the entire plan of God...

In an essay on the meaning of evangelization, Father Vincent Miceli, S.J. wrote, "Being the work of God and man in cooperation, it must ever be a thrilling and awesome adventure.  We can say, however, that this sanctifying activity proclaims Christ to those who do not know

Him, preaches the Gospel to them through catechesis and missionary sermons, confers Baptism and other sacraments and tirelessly exhorts converts to scale the heights of sanctity.  Jesus Christ, Himself, the Good News of God, was the very first and greatest evangelizer.  He proclaimed an absolute Kingdom of God, making everything else relative.  He proclaimed salvation, namely liberation from sin, Satan, death, a liberation that bestowed upon sinners returned to God grace, resurrection in immortality and glorification in the triune God.  He proclaimed the price man must pay for his salvation, namely that men must gain Heaven by violence, i.e., through a life of penance, toil, and suffering accepted in the spirit of the Suffering Servant of God.  And above all He proclaimed that man must undergo that interior renewal which the Gospel calls metanoia, that is the radical change of heart and mind which destroys 'the old man of sin' and creates 'the new man of grace.'"

Fr. Miceli then explains that there are obstacles to evangelization.  He writes, "St Thomas Aquinas teaches that three things are necessary for a soul to find, follow and embrace Christ.  First, a person must know what he ought to believe.  Second, he must know what he ought to desire.  Third, he must know what he ought to do.  Now ignorance is the first great obstacle to evangelization.  Catholics, therefore, should grow in a profound knowledge of their Faith through a constant reading and reflection on the Gospels and a faithful following of the teachings of the Magisterium.  Only thus will they come to appreciate the Catholic Faith as a gift of God that is true, good and beautiful.  They then will be moved by the Holy Spirit to bring non-Catholics to share this gift from God with them..."

Finally, surveying the Catholic Church in the United States, Fr. Miceli writes, "Unfortunately, the fact is that the Church in the United States, instead of being the crusading, courageous, evangelizing society Christ founded it to be, has become a cream-puff chaplaincy to the converted - and because of this attitude is failing to hold on even to these...How are we to stir up again the spirit of evangelization?  Pope Paul VI in Evangelii Nuntiandi gives us our marching orders:

'On us particularly, the pastors of the Church, rests the responsibility for reshaping with boldness and wisdom, but in complete fidelity to the content of evangelization, the means that are most suitable and effective for communicating the Gospel message to the men and women of our times.'" (Fr. Vincent P. Miceli, citing Pope Paul VI in Evangelii Nuntiandi, No. 40).

Note this passage.  What does Pope Paul VI mean by "complete fidelity to the content of evangelization"?  The Holy Father means that pastors of the Church must offer the men and women of our times what Pope Benedict XVI has said is the entire plan of God. See here.  That is to say, the full content of Catholic teaching - including, and especially, those hard truths which the world does not want to hear but which faithful Catholics must share with hurting souls who wander about without a shepherd.

This is what evangelization is all about!

But it's not what many "pastors" are offering.  Instead, they are abandoning the people they're supposed to be serving.  See here.

In one of his last homilies, Archbishop Oscar Romero, the martyred Archbishop of San Salvador, said: "A preaching that does not point out sin is not the preaching of the gospel. A preaching that makes sinners feel good so that they become entrenched in their sinful state, betrays the gospel's call. A preaching that does not discomfit sinners but lulls them in their sin leaves Zebulun and Naphtali in the shadow of death. A preaching that awakens, a preaching that enlightens -- as when a light turned on awakens and of course annoys a sleeper -- that is the preaching of Christ, calling, "wake up! Be converted!" this is the church's authentic preaching. Naturally, such preaching must meet conflict, must spoil what is miscalled prestige, must disturb, must be persecuted. It cannot get along with the powers of darkness and sin."

Cardinal Raymond Burke: The faithful remnant should place themselves under Christ the King during these days of apostasy...

Cardinal Raymond Burke is exhorting the faithful remnant to place themselves under Christ the King during these dark days of apostasy.

In his Encyclical Letter Quas Primas, Pope Pius XI wrote:


"In the first Encyclical Letter which We addressed at the beginning of Our Pontificate to the Bishops of the universal Church, We referred to the chief causes of the difficulties under which mankind was laboring. And We remember saying that these manifold evils in the world were due to the fact that the majority of men had thrust Jesus Christ and his holy law out of their lives; that these had no place either in private affairs or in politics: and we said further, that as long as individuals and states refused to submit to the rule of our Savior, there would be no really hopeful prospect of a lasting peace among nations. Men must look for the peace of Christ in the Kingdom of Christ; and that We promised to do as far as lay in Our power. In the Kingdom of Christ, that is, it seemed to Us that peace could not be more effectually restored nor fixed upon a firmer basis than through the restoration of the Empire of Our Lord. We were led in the meantime to indulge the hope of a brighter future at the sight of a more widespread and keener interest evinced in Christ and his Church, the one Source of Salvation, a sign that men who had formerly spurned the rule of our Redeemer and had exiled themselves from his kingdom were preparing, and even hastening, to return to the duty of obedience." (No. 1).

What of this papal teaching on the Kingship of Christ? Why is it that we hear almost nothing on this subject these days? Largely because of our modern democratic mentality. Beginning with the "Enlightenment" (although it was hardly that) and the Industrial Revolution, there was the realization that the rights and interests of a people are best furthered by self-government. This was a positive development. And as nations began to adopt more democratic models of government, the whole notion of royalty either disappeared altogether or was reduced to little more than a museum-piece whose purpose was merely to perpetuate the memory of a romanticized past.

The transition from monarchy to democracy is rightly labelled progress. This because, as any student of history knows full well, the kingship of men more often than not was an exercise in injustice, brutality and unmitigated tyranny. The reign of these merely human kings (and emperors) brings to mind the words of Lord Acton: "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." I write these words as I listen to the Iraqi Prime Minister address the United States Congress and testify to the same.

But should this fact have any implications for our approach to the whole notion of Christ as King of the universe? Obviously we cannot totally divorce our religious concepts from those of the secular sphere. If the notion of kingship is now considered obsolete with regard to our political life, then there are two alternatives which present themselves to us: either we abandon the entire concept and terminology of kingship in the religious sphere, or we must define the Kingship of Christ more precisely so that we might better distinguish this Divine Kingship from that of merely human kings and thereby present it to the world in a more appealing way.

But can we abandon the title of king which Sacred Scripture applies to Christ? Unlike presidents, prime ministers or those we simply refer to as leaders, a king reigns; he rules. And what does it mean to reign or rule? It means to direct or order members of a given society toward their proper end. In a democratic government, it is the people who have the power to rule and the president or prime minister is merely their delegated representative. Whereas in a monarchy, the king alone has the power to rule. And this not by delegation but because this power to rule is derived from his pre-eminence or excellence.

In a democratic form of government, there are three functions which are divided and which are the proper domains of three separate brances of government: the legislative, executive and judicial. But a king possesses the fullness of these powers and it is of his royal essence that he is subject to no one else in the realm with regard to these powers.

Christ has full legislative power. We see this in the New Testament as He accomplished His task of setting up the New Covenant. He has full executive power which He exercises over His Mystical Body the Church and through His Apostles. He has full judicial power, a power which will be made all the more manifest when He returns to earth:

"I saw heaven standing open; and behold, a white horse, and he who sat upon it is called Faithful and True, and with justice he judges and wages war. And his eyes are as a flame of fire, and on his head many diadems; he has a name written which no man knows except himself. And he is clothed in a garment sprinkled with blood, and his name is called the Word of God. And the armies of heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and pure, were following him on white horses. And from his mouth goes forth a sharp sword with which to smite the nations. And he will rule them with a rod of iron, and he treads the wine press of the fierce wrath of God Almighty. And he has on his garment and on his thigh a name written, 'King of kings and Lord of lords" (Revelation 19: 11-16).

Jesus is indeed our King. And yes, He rules with a rod of iron. But not as the brutal despot rules. He rules with justice and He is Faithful and True. He is the King of the Universe who defends His people against the rule of Satan, a rule which He overthrows as He destroys the kingdom of Satan on a blood-soaked Cross.

Our King is meekness itself. He defeats the powers of darkness with an iron rod which is called love. Recall that when He stood before Pilate, the Roman governor questioned him, "Are you the king of the Jews?" (Mt 27:11). And He replied, "You say so." This statement from Jesus our King is absolute. And men of every age and place must acknowledge this truth.

Because of the modern democratic mentality, there are many within the Church who believe that they can dissent from (reject) the authoritative teaching of Jesus our King as made known through the Magisterium of His Church. Recall what Pope John Paul II had to say about this:

"While exchanges and conflicts of opinion may constitute normal expressions of public life in a representative democracy, moral teaching certainly cannot depend simply upon respect for a process: indeed, it is in no way established by following the rules and deliberative procedures typical of a democracy. Dissent, in the form of carefully orchestrated protests and polemics carried on in the media, is opposed to ecclesial communion and to a correct understanding of the hierarchical constitution of the People of God. Opposition to the teaching of the Church's Pastors cannot be seen as a legitimate expression either of Christian freedom or of the diversity of the Spirit's gifts." (Veritatis Splendor, No. 113).

The Church is hierarchical with Christ our King as the head of His Mystical Body. And our heavenly Father has sent forth His firstborn Son to establish a kingdom for a glorious purpose: "For just as in Adam all die, so too in Christ shall all be brought to life, but each one in proper order: Christ the firstfruits; then, at his coming, those who belong to Christ; then comes the end, when he hands over the kingdom to his God and Father, when he has destroyed every sovereignty and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death, for 'he subjected everything under his feet.' But when it says that everything has been subjected, it is clear that it excludes the one who subjected everything to him. When everything is subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to the one who subjected everything to him [the Father], so that God may be all in all." (1 Corinthians 15: 22-28).

Now that's a Kingship which should appeal to anyone!

Angela Markas has Francis' ear...

We already know that Francis ignores faithful Catholics whom he labels as "rigid."  But look who has his ear.  As this article notes:

"Francis..heard some tough talk from Angela Markas, 22, of Australia. 'There is a tendency in the Church to avoid matters that are not-so-easy to talk about. This includes same-sex marriage, our sexuality, and also, the role of women in the Church,' she told the pope."

Today, the family is under violent attack. Primarily through abortion and the push for same-sex "marriage." Those within the Church who seek to redefine marriage have rejected Christ as the institutor of the sacraments and, in their revolution against God the Author of the Sacraments, are preparing the way for the Man of Sin, who will bring man his own ersatz "sacraments" which will be signified by lying and homicide.

We ignore the teaching of Pope John Paul II to our own peril:

"Certain currents of modern thought have gone so far as to exalt freedom to such an extent that it becomes an absolute, which would then be the source of values. This is the direction taken by doctrines which have lost the sense of the transcendent or which are explicitly atheist. The individual conscience is accorded the status of a supreme tribunal of moral judgment which hands down categorical and infallible decisions about good and evil. To the affirmation that one has a duty to follow one's conscience is unduly added the affirmation that one's moral judgment is true merely by the fact that it has its origin in the conscience. But in this way the inescapable claims of truth disappear, yielding their place to a criterion of sincerity, authenticity and "being at peace with oneself", so much so that some have come to adopt a radically subjectivistic conception of moral judgment.

As is immediately evident, the crisis of truth is not unconnected with this development. Once the idea of a universal truth about the good, knowable by human reason, is lost, inevitably the notion of conscience also changes. Conscience is no longer considered in its primordial reality as an act of a person's intelligence, the function of which is to apply the universal knowledge of the good in a specific situation and thus to express a judgment about the right conduct to be chosen here and now. Instead, there is a tendency to grant to the individual conscience the prerogative of independently determining the criteria of good and evil and then acting accordingly. Such an outlook is quite congenial to an individualist ethic, wherein each individual is faced with his own truth, different from the truth of others. Taken to its extreme consequences, this individualism leads to a denial of the very idea of human nature." (Veritatis Splendor, No. 32).

Cardinal Sarah: Summoning the faithful to receive Holy Communion on the tongue while kneeling

Life Site News reports:

"The head of the Vatican department overseeing liturgy is summoning the Catholic faithful to return to receiving Holy Communion on the tongue and kneeling.

In the preface to a new book on the subject, Cardinal Robert Sarah, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, writes: 'The most insidious diabolical attack consists in trying to extinguish faith in the Eucharist, by sowing errors and fostering an unsuitable way of receiving it. Truly the war between Michael and his Angels on one side, and Lucifer on the other, continues in the hearts of the faithful.'

'Satan’s target is the Sacrifice of the Mass and the Real Presence of Jesus in the consecrated Host,' he said.

The new book, by Don Federico Bortoli, was released in Italian under the title: ‘The distribution of Communion on the hand: a historical, juridical and pastoral survey’ [La distribuzione della comunione sulla mano. Profili storici, giuridici e pastorali].

Recalling the centenary of the Fatima apparitions, Sarah writes that the Angel of Peace who appeared to the three shepherd children in advance of the Blessed Virgin’s visit 'shows us how we should receive the Body and the Blood of Jesus Christ.' His Eminence then identifies the outrages by which Jesus is offended today in the Holy Eucharist, including “so-called ‘intercommunion.’”

Sarah goes on to consider how faith in the Real Presence 'can influence the way we receive Communion, and vice versa,' and he proposes Pope John Paul II and Mother Teresa as two modern saints whom God has given us to imitate in their reverence and reception of the Holy Eucharist..."


Communion on the tongue is the normative manner of receiving the Eucharist. Communion in the hand is allowed by indult (a sort of grudging permission if you will) and should never be presented as the preferred way of receiving.

The Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship teaches clearly that, “The new manner of giving communion [in the hand] must not be imposed in a way that would exclude the traditional practice..” And, “The rite of communion in the hand must not be put into practice indiscriminately…it is necessary to have the introduction of the rite preceded by an effective catechesis, so that the people will clearly understand the meaning of receiving in the hand and will practice it with the reverence owed to the sacrament.”

On kneeling for Holy Communion, see here.

Francis: I ignore faithful Catholic Bloggers but homosexual activists have my ear...

Francis has made it clear that he doesn't read Blogs written by devout Catholics faithful to Tradition.  As noted here:

"Few bloggers critical of this notorious pontificate, mired in scandal upon scandal, can be surprised that the Pope regards them as enemies to be prayed for, but ultimately ignored, like a bedraggled Big Issue vendor outside a supermarket might be for much of his time. Some, but not many, will be surprised to hear that he 'sees them and knows them' and that it is unlikely that he sees 'spiritual goodness' in many of them."

For Francis, inspired not by Heaven but by the poison of Hell, orthodoxy, fidelity to Jesus Christ and His Revelation, is wickedness.  See here.  As one Cardinal has said, "Do not follow this pope into his evil designs to destroy Holy Mother Church."

Now that we can say with certainty that Francis ignores those of us who lovingly embrace the Church's perennial teaching, the immutable truths of Holy Mother Church which are not subject to the whims of sociopaths or the prevailing zeitgeist, who exactly does Francis listen to?

With his appointment of LGBT promoting Father James Martin, S.J., as a Vatican Consultant and his meeting with homosexual activist Simon Cazale, a man who claims to be married to another male while demanding that the Church change her teaching regarding homosexual acts, it's obvious who has Francis' ear.  It's not Nineveh he's listening to, it's Sodom and Gomorrah.

Bishop Mitchell Rozanski calls for "listening sessions" in preparation for the Diocesan 'Pastoral' Synod: But who will the Diocese actually listen to?

In his Encyclical Letter Ecclesiam Suam, Pope Paul VI explains that, "Dialogue..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 is what Catholics are called to. Sadly, the Diocese of Springfield, Massachusetts, under the "leadership" of Bishop Mitchell Rozanski, has failed to embrace these fundamental characteristics of dialogue.  Catholics who adhere to the perennial teaching of the Church or who refuse to accept liberal Democratic policies advanced by Bishop Rozanski are routinely excluded from any meaningful participation in parish or diocesan life.

Readers of this Blog know how the Bishop deleted comments I left at his Facebook page regarding his partisan posturing on immigration and how he blocked me from commenting in the future simply because I politely disagreed with him and refuted his arguments with sound logic.  See here.

Now Bishop Rozanski, presiding over a Diocese which is crumbling from within, "..is encouraging the faithful to take part in listening sessions" in preparation for a Diocesan Pastoral Synod.

But who exactly will the Diocese be listening to?  From past experience, it will not not be "the faithful," but only those who embrace dissent from Church teaching or far-left Democratic policies.  See here

Related reading here.

.

The artificial vocations crisis and Francis the "Merciful"...

Writing on the continued vocations crisis, Father John Zuhlsdorf correctly notes:

"The crisis of priestly vocations is largely artificial.   It has, in some cases, been manufactured.

Tradition is the counter-measure to the crisis.  It works where it is tried.

Also, we need to pray explicitly for vocations and keep the sound of that prayer ringing constantly in the ears of parents and their sons.  Again, I propose that every parish adopt the following prayer, to be prayed while kneeling by the entire congregation at every Sunday Mass immediately after the Gospel..."

Readers of this Blog know that I've been addressing the vocations crisis for years.  My own vocation was sabotaged by the La Salette Missionaries because I oppose the ordination of women to the priesthood.  See here.

Although I have had extensive psychological testing and screening for the United States military (as part of my security clearance for military intelligence) and have received glowing reports which indicate that I am free of any pathologies - including a homosexual inclination, when I contacted the Worcester Diocese (twice) to express my interest in discerning a priestly vocation, I received no response whatsoever.

Meanwhile, the Diocese of Worcester has ordained homosexual men to the priesthood.  For example, a psychological evaluation in 1977 prior to the ordination of Fr. Jean Paul Gagnon  indicated that the candidate had possible "sex role identification" problems. See here.

When I left a comment on Francis' Facebook page detailing my struggle to pursue a vocation to the priesthood, I received no response whatsoever.  And yet, Francis found the time to personally meet with a homosexual activist who claims to be married to another man - Simon Cazal.  See here.

But then, as a pesky orthodox Catholic who actually believes everything contained in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, no doubt the "merciful" Francis seems me too "rigid" and not open to change.

That's okay though.  I'd rather be a faithful member of the Common Priesthood of the Faithful than Francis' idea of a priest.

For what does it profit a man...you know the rest!

But not to worry folks, all is well.  See here.

For Archbishop Chaput, Father James Martin's ad hominem trashing of faithful Catholics is apparently just fine

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Chaput goes kaput...

Every now and again, I receive criticism from another Catholic who accuses me of "lacking peace" simply because I defend the Church's authentic teaching on a variety of issues and because I oppose dissent from the same. These confused Catholics have a distorted notion of what constitutes "peace" and are often motivated by guilt which stems from their own refusal to live up to their duty, their responsibility, to both defend and promote the Magisterial teaching of the Church.

Such is the case, sadly, with Archbishop Charles Chaput.  In an article published in First Things, the Archbishop, who is fast becoming a modern-day Judas, says:


"Fr. Martin* is a man of intellect and skill whose work I often admire. Like all of us as fellow Christians, he deserves to be treated with fraternal good will. It’s one thing to criticize respectfully an author’s ideas and their implications. It’s quite another to engage in ad hominem trashing. In Dr. Faggioli’s view, Fr. Martin is yet another victim brought low by a mob of conservative cyber-militias. And these militias have allegedly been fostered by a generation of John Paul II and Benedict XVI bishops, who reshaped “the U.S. episcopate in the image of the ‘culture warrior.’”

As I mentioned in a previous post, Christopher Ferrara explains that the homosexual activist dissident Father Martin continues, "preaching the lie that homosexual acts are not only not depraved, but on the contrary are genuine expressions of what he calls 'love.'  Martin even dared to proclaim openly during a conference at Fordham University (my alma mater) that there is nothing wrong with the depraved acts performed by his homosexual friend 'Mark' and that he professes not to understand how 'even the most traditionalist, homophobic, closed-minded Catholic cannot look at my friend and say: that is a loving act...'"

I never lose any sleep over asinine criticisms such as those from Archbishop Chaput. However, for the sake of those faithful Catholics who take their responsibility to defend and promote the Church's authentic teaching seriously, I submit the following. While it can be constructive (and even necessary) for people to dissent from the official policies of a democratic society and even to resist such policies, because these policies are only grounded in a human consensus, within the Church it's a different story.

How so? The policies of the Church are not merely grounded in a human consensus. They are grounded on faith and directed toward salvation. Therefore, dissent is a tactic which is not appropriate within the Church. In fact, dissent within the Church is only divisive. Dissent from the constant and most firm of Church teaching is an attack on truth. In its Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith had this to say: "The Church 'is like a sacrament, a sign and instrument, that is, of communion with God and of unity among all men' (LG, 1). Consequently, to pursue concord and communion is to enhance the force of her witness and credibility. To succumb to the temptation of dissent, on the other hand, is to allow the 'leaven of infidelity to the Holy Spirit' to start to work." (No. 40, AAS, 82 (1990) 1568, OR, 2 July 1990, 4.).

Some will still object: "But even if people dissent from Church teaching, that's not our concern. Leave them to God. We shouldn't say anything for the sake of peace. They will come to the truth in God's time." What of this? Is this an authentic peace?

Well, no. In the words of Pope John XXIII, who was an extremely good-natured and peacable Pontiff, a lover of peace, an authentic peace, "is not completely untroubled and serene; it is active, not calm and motionless. In short, this is a peace that is ever at war. It wars with every sort of error, including that which falsely wears the face of truth; it struggles against the enticements of vice, against those enemies of the soul, of whatever description, who can weaken, blemish, or destroy our innocence or Catholic faith." (Ad Petri cathedram, AAS, 51 (1959) 517, PE, 263.93).

And in so doing, one may justly employ strong language.  See here.

There you have it. The Church's understanding of peace. The next time a chicken Catholic like Charles Chaput levels an accusation against you of betraying peace simply because you defend and promote the Church's Magisterial teaching, remind them that they are in reality judging your interior dispositions. Remind them as well that perfect love casts out all fear and that the Holy Spirit gives His gift of Fortitude to those who ask for it. If this doesn't work, pray for them while letting their childish criticism roll off your back.

Mother Teresa used to say that people will always be around who will question your motives and, with an air of "superiority," castigate you for the good you do. Do good anyway. And on the Day of Judgment, these people can explain to Jesus not only why they refused to promote and defend Catholic teaching (which is their responsibility as a baptized Catholic), but why they even attempted to discourage faithful Catholics from their mission.

It is interesting that Archbishop Chaput has nothing to say about Father Martin's and other's  unjust criticism of faithful Catholics who defend the immutable teaching of Christ's Church.
But then, evil attracts evil.

*  See here

Obscuring the difference between the common priesthood of the faithful and the ministerial priesthood...

INSTRUCTION ON CERTAIN QUESTIONS
REGARDING THE COLLABORATION OF THE NON-ORDAINED FAITHFUL IN THE SACRED MINISTRY OF THE PRIEST
Congregation for the Clergy and 7 other Roman Dicasteries:

4. The Collaboration of the Non-ordained Faithful in Pastoral Ministry

Among the various aspects of the participation of the non-ordained faithful in the Church's mission considered by the conciliar documents, that of their direct collaboration with the ministry of the Church's pastors is considered. Indeed, "when necessity and expediency in the Church require it, the Pastors, according to established norms from universal law, can entrust to the lay faithful certain offices and roles that are connected to their pastoral ministry but do not require the character of Orders". In this way, it is not one merely of assistance but of mutual enrichment of the common Christian vocation. This collaboration was regulated by successive post-conciliar legislation and particularly by the Codex Iuris Canonici.

The Code, having referred to the rights and duties of all the faithful, in the subsequent title devoted to the rights and duties of the lay faithful, treats not only of those which are theirs in virtue of their secular condition, but also of those tasks and functions which are not exclusively theirs. Some of these latter refer to any member of the faithful, whether ordained or not, while others are considered along the lines of collaboration with the sacred ministry of cleric. With regard to these last mentioned areas or functions, the non-ordained faithful do not enjoy a right to such tasks and functions. Rather, they are "capable of being admitted by the sacred Pastors... to those functions which, in accordance with the provisions of law, they can discharge" or where "ministers are not available... they can supply certain of their functions... in accordance with the provisions of law".

To ensure that such collaboration is harmoniously incorporated into pastoral ministry, and to avoid situations of abuse and disciplinary irregularity in pastoral practice, it is always necessary to have clarity in doctrinal principles. Therefore a consistent, faithful and serious application of the current canonical dispositions throughout the entire Church, while avoiding the abuse of multiplying "exceptional" cases over and above those so designated and regulated by normative discipline, is extremely necessary.

Where the existence of abuses or improper practices has been proved, Pastors will promptly employ those means judged necessary to prevent their dissemination and to ensure that the correct understanding of the Church's nature is not impaired. In particular, they will apply the established disciplinary norms to promote knowledge of and assiduous respect for that distinction and complementarity of functions which are vital for ecclesial communion. Where abusive practices have become widespread, it is absolutely necessary for those who exercise authority to intervene responsibly so as to promote communion which can only be done by adherence to the truth. Communion, truth, justice, peace and charity are all interdependent terms.

In the light of the aforementioned principles, remedies, based on the normative discipline of the Church, and deemed opportune to correct abuses which have been brought to the attention of our Dicasteries, are hereby set forth.



PRACTICAL PROVISIONS

Article 1

Need for an Appropriate Terminology

In his address to participants at the Symposium on "Collaboration of the Lay Faithful with the Priestly Ministry", the Holy Father emphasised the need to clarify and distinguish the various meanings which have accrued to the term "ministry" in theological and canonical language.

§ 1. "For some time now, it has been customary to use the word ministries not only for the officia (officies) and non-ordained (functions) munera exercised by Pastors in virtue of the sacrament of Orders, but also for those exercised by the lay faithful in virtue of their baptismal priesthood. The terminological question becomes even more complex and delicate when all the faithful are recognized as having the possibility of supplying-by official deputation given by the Pastors-certain functions more proper to clerics, which, nevertheless, do not require the character of Orders. It must be admitted that the language becomes doubtful, confused, and hence not helpful for expressing the doctrine of the faith whenever the difference 'of essence and not merely of degree' between the baptismal priesthood and the ordained priesthood is in any way obscured".(54)

§ 2. "In some cases, the extension of the term "ministry" to the munera belonging to the lay faithful has been permitted by the fact that the latter, to their own degree, are a participation in the one priesthood of Christ. The officia temporarily entrusted to them, however, are exclusively the result of a deputation by the Church. Only with constant reference to the one source, the 'ministry of Christ' (...) may the term ministry be applied to a certain extent and without ambiguity to the lay faithful: that is, without it being perceived and lived as an undue aspiration to the ordained ministry or as a progressive erosion of its specific nature.

In this original sense the term ministry (servitium) expresses only the work by which the Church's members continue the mission and ministry of Christ within her and the whole world. However, when the term is distinguished from and compared with the various munera and officia, then it should be clearly noted that only in virtue of sacred ordination does the work obtain that full, univocal meaning that tradition has attributed to it."

§ 3. The non-ordained faithful may be generically designated "extraordinary ministers" when deputed by competent authority to discharge, solely by way of supply, those offices mentioned in Canon 230, § 3(56) and in Canons 943 and 1112. Naturally, the concrete term may be applied to those to whom functions are canonically entrusted e.g. catechists, acolytes, lectors etc.

Temporary deputation for liturgical purposes — mentioned in Canon 230, § 2 — does not confer any special or permanent title on the non-ordained faithful.

It is unlawful for the non-ordained faithful to assume titles such as "pastor", "chaplain", "coordinator", " moderator" or other such similar titles which can confuse their role and that of the Pastor, who is always a Bishop or Priest."


Canon 517.2: "If, because of a shortage of priests, the diocesan Bishop has judged that a deacon, or some other person who is not a priest, or a community of persons, should be entrusted with a share in the exercise of the pastoral care of a parish, he is to appoint some priest who, with the powers and faculties of a parish priest, will direct the pastoral care." 


Ecclesiae de Mysterio, No. 1.3, says: "It is unlawful for the non-ordained faithful to assume titles such as 'pastor,' 'chaplain,' 'coordinator,' 'moderator' or other such similar titles which can confuse their role and that of the Pastor, who is always a Bishop or Priest." The footnote that accompanies this passage (No. 58) reads: "Such examples should include all those linguistic expressions; which in languages of the various countries, are similar or equal and indicate a directive role of leadership or such vicarious activity."

The Common priesthood of the Faithful is that office which each layperson enjoys by virtue of Baptism.  The priesthood of the faithful and the priesthood of the ordained differ in both essence and degree.  See CCC, 784, 941, 1119, 1141, 1143, 1268, 1273, 1546-1547, 1591.

Some titles should not be given to, or assumed by, the non-ordained faithful. Especially those which indicate "a directive role of leadership."

Faithful Catholics: Stand with Pope Benedict XVI, Cardinal Caffarra and other legitimate shepherds against the forces of Ecclesiastical Masonry

Cardinal Carlo Caffarra has reminded us that we have entered the time of the final battle between the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Satan, between the Culture of Truth and the Culture of the Lie.

Caffarra said that legalized abortion comes from the “culture of the lie” where the “crime” of murdering a human being is seen as a “good.”

Abortion is a “sacrilegious act,” he said, adding that it is the “profoundest negation of the truth of man.”

“The reason why man should not shed the blood of man is that man is the image of God. Through man, God dwells in His creation. This creation is the temple of the Lord, because man inhabits it. To violate the intangibility of the human person is a sacrilegious act against the Sanctity of God. It is the Satanic attempt to generate an ‘anti-creation.’ By ennobling the killing of humans, Satan has laid the foundations for his ‘creation’: to remove from creation the image of God, to obscure his presence therein,” he said.

The Cardinal said Homosexual “marriage” also comes from the “culture of the lie” since it “denies entirely the truth of marriage” as it comes from the “mind of God the Creator.”

“The Divine Revelation has told us how God thinks of marriage: the lawful union of a man and woman, the source of life. In the mind of God, marriage has a permanent structure, based on the duality of the human mode of being: femininity and masculinity. Not two opposite poles, but the one with and for the other,” he said.

“The union between a man and woman, who become one flesh, is human cooperation in the creative act of God,” he added.

Satan, in pushing the lies of abortion and homosexuality, is attempting to destroy the two most important pillars of creation, the “human person” created in the image of God and the “conjugal union” between a man and woman.

This is solid Catholic teaching in preparation for this final battle between the Children of Mary and the Children of Lucifer.

By contrast, Masonic forces, led by Francis, would have us believe that Faithful Catholics have been obsessed with abortion and homosexuality.

But how can the defense of "the two most important pillars of creation" be justly labelled "obsessive"?  Why then would Francis assert such a thing? Because the Devil is pursuing a divide and conquer strategy even within the Church.

At Fatima, Pope Benedict XVI called abortion and same-sex "marriage" some of the most "insidious and dangerous" threats facing the world today.

And so they are.  Which is why faithful Catholics need to stand with Pope Benedict XVI, Cardinal Caffarra and other legitimate shepherds and against the forces of Freemasonry within the Church.

The hidden hand of masonry here.

Francis: Church should apologize to homosexuals

ABC News is reporting:

"Pope Francis says gays — and all the other people the church has marginalized, such as the poor and the exploited — deserve an apology."

Really?   Then by extension,  Francis is implying that God owes homosexuals an apology.  For God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for engaging in unnatural vice:

"We are about to destroy this place, for the outcry reaching the Lord against those here is so great that the Lord has sent us to destroy it.” (Genesis 19:13).

The rejection of homosexual behavior that is found in the Old Testament is well known. In Genesis 19, two angels in disguise visit the city of Sodom and are offered hospitality and shelter by Lot. During the night, the men of Sodom demand that Lot hand over his guests for homosexual intercourse. Lot refuses, and the angels blind the men of Sodom. Lot and his household escape, and the town is destroyed by fire "because the outcry against its people has become great before the Lord" (Gen. 19:13).


Throughout history, Jewish and Christian scholars have recognized that one of the chief sins involved in God’s destruction of Sodom was its people’s homosexual behavior. But today, certain homosexual activists promote the idea that the sin of Sodom was merely a lack of hospitality. Although inhospitality is a sin, it is clearly the homosexual behavior of the Sodomites that is singled out for special criticism in the account of their city’s destruction. We must look to Scripture’s own interpretation of the sin of Sodom.

Jude 7 records that Sodom and Gomorrah "acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lust." Ezekiel says that Sodom committed "abominable things" (Ezek. 16:50), which could refer to homosexual and heterosexual acts of sin. Lot even offered his two virgin daughters in place of his guests, but the men of Sodom rejected the offer, preferring homosexual sex over heterosexual sex (Gen. 19:8–9). Ezekiel does allude to a lack of hospitality in saying that Sodom "did not aid the poor and needy" (Ezek. 16:49). So homosexual acts and a lack of hospitality both contributed to the destruction of Sodom, with the former being the far greater sin, the "abominable thing" that set off God’s wrath.

But the Sodom incident is not the only time the Old Testament deals with homosexuality. An explicit condemnation is found in the book of Leviticus: "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. . . . If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them" (Lev. 18:22, 20:13).

Reinterpreting Scripture


To discount this, some homosexual activists have argued that moral imperatives from the Old Testament can be dismissed since there were certain ceremonial requirements at the time—such as not eating pork, or circumcising male babies—that are no longer binding.


While the Old Testament’s ceremonial requirements are no longer binding, its moral requirements are. God may issue different ceremonies for use in different times and cultures, but his moral requirements are eternal and are binding on all cultures.

Confirming this fact is the New Testament’s forceful rejection of homosexual behavior as well. In Romans 1, Paul attributes the homosexual desires of some to a refusal to acknowledge and worship God. He says, "For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct. . . . Though they know God’s decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them" (Rom. 1:26–28, 32).

Elsewhere Paul again warns that homosexual behavior is one of the sins that will deprive one of heaven: "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor. 6:9–10, NIV).

All of Scripture teaches the unacceptability of homosexual behavior. But the rejection of this behavior is not an arbitrary prohibition. It, like other moral imperatives, is rooted in natural law—the design that God has built into human nature."

The Catholic Church has nothing to apologize for.   It is Francis who must apologize.   To the faithful.

Francis: I was mistaken

Rome, Italy, Jun 16, 2016

(CNA/EWTN News).- Updated June 17, 2016 to include a clarification by the Vatican: Pope Francis approved a revision to the official transcript to say that “a portion” of sacramental marriages are null, instead of “the great majority.”

Pope Francis said Thursday that many sacramental marriages today are not valid, because couples do not enter into them with a proper understanding of permanence and commitment.

While he initially said in unscripted comments that “the great majority of our sacramental marriages are null,” he later approved a revision of these remarks.

When the Vatican released its official transcript of the encounter the following day, they had changed the comment to say that “a portion of our sacramental marriages are null.”

In the Vatican blog “Il sismografo,” Vatican spokesman Fr. Federico Lombardi said that this change is a revision approved by the Pope himself.

“When they touch on subjects of a certain importance, the revised text is always submitted to the Pope himself,” Fr. Lombardi said. “This is what happened in this case, so the published text was expressly approved by the Pope.”

Proverbs 29:20 tells us, "Do you see someone hasty in speech? There is more hope for a fool!"  Francis had to revise his asinine comment.  There is a pattern here, and a disturbing one at that, as John-Henry Westen has so ably demonstrated (see here).

And faithful Catholics are rightly concerned.  For a spirit of confusion and chaos has infected Rome.

Pope Francis, the examen, and Bonny and Clyde

In his book entitled, "Rise, Let Us Be On Our Way," Pope John Paul II writes that: "By his manner of life, a bishop demonstrates that the Christ as "Model" lives on and still speaks to us today. One could say that a diocese reflects the manner of life of its bishop. His virtues - chastity, a spirit of poverty and prayer, simplicity, sensitivity of conscience - will, as it were, be written into the hearts of his priests. They, in their turn, will convey these values to the faithful entrusted to their care, and in this way young people can be led to make a generous response to Christ's call." (p. 129).

And on page 66 of the same book, the Holy Father explains that, "It is very important for a bishop to have a rapport with his people and to know how to relate to them well...Interest in others begins with the bishop's prayer life: his conversations with Christ, who entrusts 'His own' to him. Prayer prepares him for encounter with others."

And so, a Bishop should be a man of deep prayer. And that prayer should motivate him to be a good "paterfamilias" to the faithful who have been entrusted to him by the Lord Jesus. As the Holy Father explains, every individual diocese is a reflection of its Bishop's manner of life. If a diocese is in near constant turmoil, what would this indicate about the Bishop's "manner of life"? If children are sexually abused while a Bishop merely shuffles the abuser from one assignment to another, would this not indicate that something about the Bishop's "manner of life" is gravely wrong? If a diocese is plagued with dissidents and other malcontents who lay siege to various parishes while insisting that the Church's teaching must change or that the very structure of the Church must change, what would this indicate about its Bishop's "manner of life"?

To be sure, not everything negative which transpires in a diocese may be laid at its Bishop's doorstep. However, as the Holy Father makes abundantly clear, "The responsibilities that weigh on a bishop's shoulders are many." (p. 93). He cites St. Augustine's long sermon "On the Shepherds" writing that, "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 strengthened, 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).

Indeed, the responsibility of a Bishop is a grave one. This is why the great Saint Augustine (Bishop and Doctor of the Church) said that his vocation as a Christian instilled him with "great hope" but that his vocation as Bishop instilled him with "great fear." It was Jesus, after all, who said that: "Much will be required of the person entrusted with much, and still more will be demanded of the person entrusted with more" (Luke 12: 48).

Could this be why the normally gentle Saint John Chrysostom has been quoted as having said that the road to Hell is paved with the skulls of Bishops?

Troubling words coming from a gentle saint who was known not only for his great eloquence (his last name translated as "golden-mouthed") but for his pacific spirit.

In a previous post, I noted how Bishop Johan Bonny is calling on the Church to recognize same-sex "marriage." Can it honestly be said that Bishop Bonny is presenting himself as a model of Christ to the faithful entrusted to his care?

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in its document entitled Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons, warns that even where homosexual unions have been legalized, "clear and emphatic opposition is a duty." (No. 5). This important document stresses that, "any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws" and even any "material cooperation on the level of their application" must be avoided. "In this area," states the document, "everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection."

Considerations makes it abundantly clear that, "The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behavior or to considerations of homosexual unions." (No. 11). In other words, there can be no doubt that all Catholics have a moral duty to oppose the homosexual agenda.

Why hasn't Pope Francis thundered against Bishop Bonny and his insanity?  The Pontiff wants us to examine our conscience.  See here.

I call upon Christ's Vicar to set the example for the rest of us and to examine his own conscience, asking himself: "What, if anything, is my responsibility with regard to insisting upon the RIGHT OF THE FAITHFUL TO RECEIVE CATHOLIC DOCTRINE IN ITS PURITY AND INTEGRITY? (Veritatis Splendor, No. 113).

An orangutan cannot examine his conscience.  A Bishop, like any member of the Church, is called to the examen, both general and particular.  An orangutan cannot understand why homosexual acts are gravely sinful.  A Bishop is called to defend God's Revelation which condemns such acts as an abomination.

A Bishop is called to be something more than an orangutan.  Is that too much to ask from our hierarchy?

May a Catholic question the Pope or engage in constructive criticism of Bishops who appear to depart from Tradition?

"Dear Father,


Can I be a good Catholic and still be skeptical or even critical of certain things said or done by bishops and popes that appear to contradict all the Tradition of the Church?

Thank you,
Confused in Ontario"


Dear Confused in Ontario,


This is a question that I am asked many times. It is, of course, the result of disquiet over what is said by Church authorities mainly in Rome but elsewhere as well. So many “off-the-cuff” pronouncements by members of the hierarchy and the reappearance of theologies that we thought were dead because they lead to dead ends have had this disquieting effect on many of the faithful.

I fear that I will not be able to answer your question in a way in which you will be satisfied. For a clear answer would have to be part of a serious theological task that so far no one has undertaken and that involves a serious rethinking of the role of the Pope and of the bishops in the Church in the light of Tradition. Tradition, we must always remember, is something living and therefore is integrally connected with the past and open to the future, all under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. It bothers me that those Catholics who are labeled as Traditionalists are seen to be somehow locked in the past. While it is absolutely true that the teaching of the Church in the past is necessary for true development of the Church’s teaching in the present and future, one must always be one’s guard against antiquarianism (which in part gave us the Novus Ordo ) and against nostalgia for a perfect time that never really was.

One of the greatest problems in the Church for the past hundred years has been a creeping Ultramontanism that seeks to almost identify the Church with the Pope. We see this happening all through the 20th century, but especially during the last quarter of that century. The era of instant communication afforded by the Internet and the all-pervasive presence of the media has contributed greatly to this situation. But it is also because of a series of Popes who traveled widely in the world in the name of evangelization. Those Masses in football stadiums with thousands and thousands of people, the World Youth Day celebrations, all followed by the media everywhere as they would follow “rock stars”, further contributed to this phenomenon.

Perhaps this was inevitable given the world in which we live. But it has had a bad effect on the understanding of the Papacy and its role both in the world and in the Church herself. We seem to have gone from an understanding of the role of the Pope as Supreme Pastor, Defender of the Faith and Guardian of the Liturgy, the Supreme Teacher who when guided by the Holy Spirit can define in a solemn way what the Church has always believed: from this understanding of the Papacy that reaches (one thought) its dogmatic zenith at the First Vatican Council with its careful definition of Papal Infallibility to the current understanding of the Papacy that sees him as the very embodiment of the Church with apparently no boundaries to his power and authority....

The irony of all of this is that we find ourselves in the grip of reactionary forces that are pushing liberal (as Blessed John Henry Newman understood that word) causes in the Church. That Newman foresaw this in his Biglietto Speech over one hundred years ago is no comfort to us who are going through this time of tribulation.

Having said all of this, I will answer your question in a qualified way. My answer is as follows. Yes, you are free as a Catholic to question the decisions of the bishops of the Church, including the Bishop of Rome, when they seem to you to depart from the Tradition, the teaching of the Church for the past two thousand years, in its roots in Scripture and in the organic growth of the Tradition. But one must differentiate here between criticizing and questioning. It really does no good to criticize specific words or acts of the Bishop of Rome or of any bishop in an uncharitable and carping way. It is often an offense against charity and leads to hardness of heart.

But it is surely the duty of the laity to question pronouncements (including press conferences and sermons) and decisions of the hierarchy when they seem to depart from the teaching of the Church, from the Tradition. Newman believed so strongly in the importance of an educated laity, educated both in the secular sense and in the ecclesial sense! And in this way it is the duty of the educated and faithful laity to question decisions of the hierarchy on the basis of the Tradition of the Church. And questioning here means to ask the bishops (with no animosity) how a specific pronouncement, whether official or unofficial, of a bishop squares with the Tradition. In this way, for instance, it is perfectly fine to ask how the image of the Church as a “field hospital” is consonant with the self-understanding of the Church within her Tradition.

I am sure, dear Confused in Ontario, that my response is not crystal clear nor does it help to assuage your genuine concerns about the state of the Church. But a priest is neither a medicine man nor a magician. He is called to faith in the same way as every Catholic is called to faith. And he sees, like we all do, “through a glass darkly”. But even through that partially de-silvered mirror that is the Catholic Church here on earth, we see the glory of the Truth in the face of the One who is our only hope, our only source of truth, our only source of real life, our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ."

Father Richard G. Cipolla


My added response:


In his important work entitled The Devastated Vineyard, Dr. Dietrich von Hildebrand examines three false responses to the devastation within the Catholic Church while emphasizing that, "the most dangerous one would be to imagine that there is no devastation of the vineyard of the Lord" and that "our task as laymen is simply to adhere with complete loyalty to whatever our bishop says." Dr. von Hildebrand warns that, "the basis of this attitude is a false idea of loyalty to the hierarchy." (p. 246).


The Church's pastoral authority is not totalitarian. Her authority is subordinate to the theological virtues of faith and love, both of which redeem and perfect persons instead of merely subjecting them to a particular ideology. There are some who believe that the laith should never criticize a bishop because "it is impossible for a lay person to know all that goes into his decision-making process" and because "it just seems backwards to mistrust a man who authoritatively speaks in the name of Christ."

But a bishop only teaches authoritatively if he offers a teaching which conforms to that of the Church's Magisterium. And while the laity may not always be privy to all the factors that go into a bishop's decision-making process, they still are able to see the results of a particular decision and "have the right and even at times a duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church." (Canon 212).Dr. Germain Grisez reminds us, "That the Church is a communion of faith and love does not mean popes and other bishops may ignore the conditions necessary for the just use of authority in any human community. Like any community's leaders, the Church's pastoral leaders can make wise decisions only if they deliberate well. The other members of the community should contribute to their deliberation by responsibly expressing their opinions on matters concerning the Church's good."

Pope John Paul II said that there is room in the Church for constructive criticism. Sometimes such criticism must be directed toward a bishop. Especially when he sets himself against the Church's teaching or fails to protect the faithful entrusted to his care.


Many today, including sadly many Catholics, equate criticism with condemnation. Dr. Montague Brown explains the difference between the two nicely: “Criticism is the honest appraisal of the value of ideas or actions…Pursued in the right spirit, it is a positive undertaking whose purpose is to gain an accurate understanding for the sake of growing in wisdom and virtue….Condemnation goes beyond evaluation of an idea or action to a declaration of the worthlessness of a human being. It is never fair and is a wholly negative judgment, referring only to weaknesses. Because condemnation is unreasonable, it serves no purpose in our quest for wisdom and virtue.” (The One-Minute Philosopher, pp. 28,29).

“We invite you to criticize our institutions without reserve. One is not insulted by being informed of something amiss, but rather gets an opportunity for amendment, if the information is taken in good part, without resentment.” – Plato, Laws, Bk. 1, 635a