SPECIAL FEATURE - Amoris Laetitia: License to Sin & Profane?

The Special Feature article entitled 'Amoris Laetitia: License to Sin & Profane?' (concerning Pope Francis' Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation) is now available here.

[4/19/16]

Reaction to Court Ruling Re: Prop 8

The following are some comments regarding the recent ruling issued by an openly gay judge which overturned California's ban on homosexual 'marriages'...

* USCCB President Cardinal Francis E. George: "The misuse of law to change the nature of marriage undermines the common good" and: "No court of civil law has the authority to reach into areas of human experience that nature itself has defined." [Source: CNA]

* Archbishop Joseph E. Kurtz: "Marriage is more fundamental and essential to the well-being of society than perhaps any other institution. It is simply unimaginable that the court could now claim a conflict between marriage and the Constitution" [Source: CNA]

* Executive director of the California Catholic Conference: "That the judge should find marriage - civilization’s long-standing public policy - irrational and discriminatory does a great injustice to the institution itself and ultimately will further encourage the disintegration of mother-father families" [Source: CNA]

* Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles: "[The judge's] decision fails to deal with the basic, underlying issue - rather he focused solely upon individual testimony on how Prop 8 affected them personally. Wrong focus." And: "Judge Walker assumes that the institution of marriage is of human and civil origin, and therefore, that 'marriage' can mean anything any person wishes to ascribe to the institution. Wrong." [Source: CatholicCulture.org]

* General counsel for ProtectMarriage.com: "The judge’s invalidation of the votes of over seven million Californians violates binding legal precedent and short-circuits the democratic process. But this is not the end of our fight to uphold the will of the people for traditional marriage, as we now begin an appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals." Confident the decision will be overturned, he also stated that the anticipated reversal "will also serve as a reminder that the role of the courts is to interpret and apply the law only as enacted by the people and their elected representatives, not to impose new social policies." [Source: EWTN]

Related: The End of Freedom in America?

[8/5]

How about another apology?

A deacon in Gloucestershire has apologized for the wording of his comments that "marriage is between Adam and Eve - not Adam and Steve" after homosexuals & their sympathizers complained. Comment: How about an apology for apologizing for speaking the truth?

[3/11]

A Dangerous Road

USCCB President Cardinal Francis E. George recently addressed an "historic gathering" at BYU on the need to "stand together" in the defense of religious freedom. While it is certainly praiseworthy to defend innocent human life and marriage between a man and a woman, one might be forgiven for finding some of his remarks rather troubling. For example, if "true religious freedom" means the right to "influence the public square", how can one ignore the fact that his comments - taken to their logical end - advocate that non-Catholic religions influence laws regarding any number of sinful, immoral actions for which their adherents feel are "rights"? Particularly with regard to Mormons, does he not realize that 'full religious freedom' for them would include polygamy? It is certain that Mormons would practice polygamy today had it not been for laws curbing their "religious freedom". Such restrictions are actually a good thing, are they not? Presumably even the Cardinal would not push for their 'religious freedom' in this matter.

And when the Cardinal says that "government should never stand between its citizens and almighty God", he seems to gloss over the fact that just about every false religion probably believes they are following God's will - even if they are manifestly acting in opposition to it. Clearly, to put a justifiable obstacle between a person and his false conception of God can be the right thing to do - e.g. outlawing polygamy (even if someone thinks God desires it); stopping someone from murdering (even if they think God 'wants' them to kill); etc.

Furthermore, blanket calls for 'religious freedom' with reference to a country's laws seem to ignore the fact that laws based on falsities are not just. Rather, to be just, laws must be based on actual truth. To encourage false religions to exert influence on laws can be a dangerous road to travel. It is only when society's laws are founded upon the teachings of the one religion founded by Jesus Christ - Catholicism - will there be true religious freedom. To argue otherwise is shortsighted.

"Truth has its rights - or, rather, it is truth alone that has the right to claim liberty." (Gueranger)

"[I]t is contrary to reason that error and truth should have equal rights." (Pope Leo XIII, "Libertas Praestantissimum", 1888 A.D.)

"[F]reedom negates and destroys itself, and becomes a factor leading to the destruction of others, when it no longer recognizes and respects its essential link with the truth." (Pope John Paul II)

"[W]hen freedom is detached from objective truth it becomes impossible to establish personal rights on a firm rational basis; and the ground is laid for society to be at the mercy of the unrestrained will of individuals or the oppressive totalitarianism of public authority." (Pope John Paul II)

Related: Truth / Error (Reflections)

[2/26]

Two Letters Making Waves

A couple recent letters have been making waves in Catholic circles. The first is a draft of a pastoral letter on marriage by the U.S. bishops. It was "leaked" to the press and will be discussed & voted on by the bishops in November. The second is a pastoral letter of the Bishop of Sioux City, Iowa. Brief highlights concerning both appear below.

U.S. Bishops' Letter

The 57-page pastoral letter on marriage is said to discuss Catholic teaching on marriage as well as covering "fundamental challenges to the nature and purpose of marriage" such as c*ntraception, homosexual unions, divorce and cohabitation. The document reportedly also covers harm to children from cohabitation and divorce, as well as harm to society from same-sex unions.

On the positive side, the letter has been "harshly criticized" by dissenters. On the negative side, the document is said to encourage NFP while omitting reference to the required "serious reason" which make its use licit only in certain cases and only for certain periods (click here for more information). Also potentially troubling are references to 'remarriage' which may lack forceful denunciations and reminders of the gravity of sin involved. Even when actions are condemned as "gravely immoral", one may fear that the final document will (as is common nowadays) omit all mention of the grave eternal consequences of such actions as well as the divine mandate not to engage in them.

For example, which explanation do you think is more likely to prevent fornication?

* "To [engage in the marital act] outside the covenant of marriage is gravely immoral because it communicates physically the gift of oneself to another when, at the same time, one is not willing or able to make a total and permanent commitment."

* "To [engage in the marital act] outside the covenant of marriage is a mortal sin that offends God. Those who engage in this sin may suffer the pains of hell for all eternity. Scripture says, "Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers...will inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor. 6:9-10) and says that "If we sin deliberately after receiving knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains sacrifice for sins but a fearful prospect of judgment and a flaming fire that is going to consume the adversaries. Anyone who rejects the law of Moses is put to death without pity on the testimony of two or three witnesses. Do you not think that a much worse punishment is due the one who has contempt for the Son of God, considers unclean the covenant-blood by which he was consecrated, and insults the spirit of grace? We know the one who said: 'Vengeance is mine; I will repay,' and again: 'The Lord will judge his people.' It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God." (Heb. 10:26-31)

One may be permitted to think the latter would have a better chance of deterring sin, especially since this approach seems more closely aligned with writings of previous popes, saints, and even Holy Scripture.

Letter of Bishop of Sioux City, Iowa

Certain Catholics may be glad to hear that Bishop Nickless' recent pastoral letter includes a reference to exorcising the spirit of Vatican II. Specifically, the bishop says, "The so-called 'spirit' of the Council has no authoritative interpretation. It is a ghost or demon that must be exorcised if we are to proceed with the Lord’s work." He also says that "It is crucial that we all grasp that the hermeneutic or interpretation of discontinuity or rupture, which many think is the settled and even official position, is not the true meaning of the Council" and says that "There can be no split...between the Church and her faith before and after the Council."

The Bishop embraces Vatican II, but wants to see it "fully implemented and brought to fruition." In fact, not only does he embrace Vatican II, but he somehow actually considers it "the greatest gift of the Holy Spirit to the Church in centuries." There seems to be no precedent for "the greatest gift of the Holy Spirit to the Church in centuries" which also requires that it's "so-called 'sprit'...must be exorcised."

Certainly his letter is not a 'traditionalist's document' [e.g. it contains multiple, unqualified references to "Pope John Paul the Great" (click here for one user's article on this topic), it says Vatican II's "aggiornamento brought about a great breath of fresh air, a new freedom and excitement about being Catholic", it speaks favorably concerning certain novelties, etc.], but it does note a loss of sense of sin and refers to problems in today's liturgy, calling for a renewed "reverence, love, adoration and devotion to the Most Blessed Sacrament, within and outside of Mass."

There seems to be no word on which exorcist may be called in for the task, but still it's an interesting thought, is it not?

[Related Resources: Summary of Changes Since Vatican II: A Revolution in the Church? | Vatican II and its Fruits]

[10/16]

Update

The disgraced FL priest who defected to a heretical sect has reportedly "married" the 'divorced' woman he was having an affair with (of course he cannot be validly married to her if her husband is still alive and she was validly married to him). May God give them both the grace of true contrition. "God will not forgive us any sin, whether mortal or venial, unless we have true contrition for it." (Baltimore Catechism) [Note: Previous story here] [6/16]

It is frightening

Speculation is that the 'famous' FL priest who betrayed his vows and left the Church to join a heretical sect soon will 'marry' the 'divorced' woman. The reprehensible behavior displayed is obviously lamentable & scandalous, but it also presents an opportunity to pause for some serious thought.

For example:

* He will now be preaching in a false 'church' that espouses heresy - Will he change his doctrine? Was his doctrine Catholic in the first place? If so, how can this sect accept him unless he changes his theology? Does he not care that his sect is set up in opposition to Christ? "Do they actually think that Christ is with them in their gatherings, when they gather outside the Church of Christ?" (St. Cyprian of Carthage)

* Will he be effecting a valid (although illicit) consecration in their 'temples of heresy'? Although his sect does not have the powers of the priesthood (click here for decree on Anglican orders), his personal priestly powers still remain. Therefore, he can confect a valid Eucharist if he uses the proper form & matter and has the proper intention.

* Does this former teacher of Catholic souls somehow fail to realize that he cannot be validly married to this woman if her husband is still alive and she was validly married to him? (click here) Unless his formation was incredibly deficient, he would have to know this. Yet he intends to go through with this mock "marriage" anyhow? What does this say about his supposed 'faith'? How could a man with such apparently shallow faith have been made a priest?

* Given his sudden betrayal of the Catholic Church for a heretical sect, one may wonder if this former leader of Catholics ever adhered to the infallible Catholic doctrine regarding No Salvation Outside the Church (click here). And, if he failed to hold this doctrine, was he not already under the Church's anathema? [For example: Pope Pelagius II, c. 585 A.D.: "If anyone, however, either suggests or believes or presumes to teach contrary to this faith, let him know that he is condemned and also anathematized according to the opinion of the same Fathers... Consider (therefore) the fact that whoever has not been in the peace and unity of the Church, cannot have the Lord (Gal. 3:7)" And, Lateran Council, 649 A.D.: "If any one does not profess, in accordance with the holy Fathers, properly and truthfully all that has been handed down and taught publicly to the holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church of God, both by the same holy Fathers and the five approved universal councils, to the last detail in word and intention: let him be condemned."]

* How could a man who has been ordained a Catholic priest simply stop caring about the Church or the souls he was placed over? How could he so easily betray them? Worse yet, how could he so easily abandon Christ for whom he solemnly promised to serve? Shouldn't someone have noticed his shortcomings? Remember, if he hadn't been caught, he'd probably still be a priest cavorting with this woman. Sadly, before he was exposed, this priest laid his adulterous hands on the Holy Eucharist time and again.

* How can it be thought that he actually "loves" the woman with whom he is about to enter a mock sacrament to commit adultery? We know the punishment for those unrepentant of the mortal sin of adultery is eternal hellfire. How is that love? Also, does he not care about this woman's offspring? How could he be said to care about them if he is willing to betray God, espouse heresy, cause their mother to live in adultery...?

Also worthy of serious thought is the fact that this former Catholic shepherd appears entirely devoid of fear of the Lord. His list of public sins is mounting rapidly: breaking of vows, adultery, heresy...

As Scripture tells us:

"[Jesus said,] I shall show you whom to fear. Be afraid of the one who after killing has the power to cast into Gehenna; yes, I tell you, be afraid of that one." (Lk. 12-5)

"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom; prudent are all who live by it." (Ps. 111:10)

"Give honor to all, love the community, fear God, honor the king." (St. Peter, 1 Pt. 2:17)

"So then, my beloved, obedient as you have always been, not only when I am present but all the more now when I am absent, work out your salvation with fear and trembling." (St. Paul, Phil. 2:12)

Does this former Catholic shepherd not fear hell? Did he therefore also fail to inspire his former parishioners with a fear of hell? And this was a "good priest" a "model priest"? One worthy to be on television and radio?

As St. Augustine says, "If, then, the Lord inspired fear, and inspired it strongly, and doubled it by repeating the threat, I ask you, is it wrong of you to fear? I would not say that. Fear openly, there is nothing better for you than fear; there is nothing you ought to fear more."

Should not Catholics be extremely troubled that a Catholic priest has apparently no fear of the Lord?

In fact, this former Catholic shepherd's recent behavior gives reason to question his entire body of past teaching. Was it truly orthodox? Is this simply a case of his not practicing what he preached? If so, how could he have taught Catholic doctrine correctly yet suddenly go against this doctrine? Did he really hold Catholic doctrine to begin with? Did his Catholic faith really mean so little to him or does he see little difference between it and the heretical sect he has joined? Ether way, the answer is frightening. Remember he was a CATHOLIC PRIEST placed over CATHOLIC SOULS. And a "famous" Catholic priest at that.

Now that he seems to have no qualms about joining a false 'church' and "marrying" a divorced woman in a 'temple of heresy', we see he is clearly lacking in the sensus Catholicus. Therefore, how could he have been ordained in the first place? How could he have been made "famous" on Catholic radio and television? How did the deceived masses - or his superiors - not notice his lack of faith or sanctity? God help us.

Final note: Is it not ironic that he has chosen to abandon the Church for a sect traced to Henry VIII, another former Catholic whose libido led to his destruction?

[Note: Previous story here] [6/13]