Crazy? Angry? You decide and I couldn’t care less!

The Bonus Scandal in Tucho’s Book

I suppose that title doesn’t narrow things down much. I mean there’s a lot in it, but, buried in the gratuitous detailed sexual content and useless advice helpful to nobody, there was one little tidbit. Personally, I might even find this the biggest scandal, so I am going to focus on this since, well, everyone else is focusing on the sexual content because there was so much of it and it was so bad. That is covered so I’ll focus on this mostly overlooked tidbit.

Let us remember that God’s grace can coexist with weaknesses and even with sins, when there is a very strong conditioning. In those cases, the person can do things that are objectively sinful, without being guilty, and without losing the grace of God or the experience of his love. Let’s see how the Catechism of the Catholic Church says this:

Imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors (CCC 1735). https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2024/01/mysticism-and-sex-rediscovered-1998.html (Honestly, if you don’t have to discuss it or educate people as to why Cardinal Fernandez should be in a corner somewhere saying non-stop Rosaries for the rest of his life, I wouldn’t click the link.)

He quoted the catechism out of context for a reason. This is a common tactic with him and the James Martin, SJ cult and it’s poisoning people. I know someone who was told by his spiritual director that if you’ve been committing a sin for a long time, you are not culpable for it because it’s just become habitual. This is why these jerks have to partially quote this, because if they actually quoted in context, people might see that, no, they still have a responsibility to try and overcome that sin and properly form their conscience. Do you know how hard it is to deprogram someone from bad spiritual advice? It’s mighty hard because they’ve just been told they can keep sinning and their sin isn’t a sin. Who doesn’t want to believe that???

So here is the citation in context:

1734 Freedom makes man responsible for his acts to the extent that they are voluntary. Progress in virtue, knowledge of the good, and ascesis enhance the mastery of the will over its acts.

1735 Imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors.

1736 Every act directly willed is imputable to its author:

Thus the Lord asked Eve after the sin in the garden: “What is this that you have done?”29 He asked Cain the same question.30 The prophet Nathan questioned David in the same way after he committed adultery with the wife of Uriah and had him murdered.31

An action can be indirectly voluntary when it results from negligence regarding something one should have known or done: for example, an accident arising from ignorance of traffic laws.

1737 An effect can be tolerated without being willed by its agent; for instance, a mother’s exhaustion from tending her sick child. A bad effect is not imputable if it was not willed either as an end or as a means of an action, e.g., a death a person incurs in aiding someone in danger. For a bad effect to be imputable it must be foreseeable and the agent must have the possibility of avoiding it, as in the case of manslaughter caused by a drunken driver.

Tucho just wants to leave people cut off from God. It’s pathetic for a priest. On to more things he could have quoted but didn’t:

 1855 Mortal sin destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God’s law; it turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him.

Venial sin allows charity to subsist, even though it offends and wounds it.

1856 Mortal sin, by attacking the vital principle within us – that is, charity – necessitates a new initiative of God’s mercy and a conversion of heart which is normally accomplished within the setting of the sacrament of reconciliation:

When the will sets itself upon something that is of its nature incompatible with the charity that orients man toward his ultimate end, then the sin is mortal by its very object . . . whether it contradicts the love of God, such as blasphemy or perjury, or the love of neighbor, such as homicide or adultery. . . . But when the sinner’s will is set upon something that of its nature involves a disorder, but is not opposed to the love of God and neighbor, such as thoughtless chatter or immoderate laughter and the like, such sins are venial.130

1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: “Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent.”131

1858 Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man: “Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother.”132 The gravity of sins is more or less great: murder is graver than theft. One must also take into account who is wronged: violence against parents is in itself graver than violence against a stranger.

1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart133 do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.

1860 Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders. Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest.

1861 Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom, as is love itself. It results in the loss of charity and the privation of sanctifying grace, that is, of the state of grace. If it is not redeemed by repentance and God’s forgiveness, it causes exclusion from Christ’s kingdom and the eternal death of hell, for our freedom has the power to make choices for ever, with no turning back. However, although we can judge that an act is in itself a grave offense, we must entrust judgment of persons to the justice and mercy of God.

1865 Sin creates a proclivity to sin; it engenders vice by repetition of the same acts. This results in perverse inclinations which cloud conscience and corrupt the concrete judgment of good and evil. Thus sin tends to reproduce itself and reinforce itself, but it cannot destroy the moral sense at its root.

1866 Vices can be classified according to the virtues they oppose, or also be linked to the capital sins which Christian experience has distinguished, following St. John Cassian and St. Gregory the Great. They are called “capital” because they engender other sins, other vices.138 They are pride, avarice, envy, wrath, lust, gluttony, and sloth or acedia.

1867 The catechetical tradition also recalls that there are “sins that cry to heaven”: the blood of Abel,139 the sin of the Sodomites,140 the cry of the people oppressed in Egypt,141 the cry of the foreigner, the widow, and the orphan,142 injustice to the wage earner.143 

Tucho and the groupies might want to seriously pay attention to this next part:

1868 Sin is a personal act. Moreover, we have a responsibility for the sins committed by others when we cooperate in them:

– by participating directly and voluntarily in them;

– by ordering, advising, praising, or approving them;

– by not disclosing or not hindering them when we have an obligation to do so;

– by protecting evil-doers.

1869 Thus sin makes men accomplices of one another and causes concupiscence, violence, and injustice to reign among them. Sins give rise to social situations and institutions that are contrary to the divine goodness. “Structures of sin” are the expression and effect of personal sins. They lead their victims to do evil in their turn. In an analogous sense, they constitute a “social sin.”144

So, “Let us remember that God’s grace can coexist with weaknesses and even with sins, when there is a very strong conditioning” is not a given in any way, shape or form. And, again, see directly above, because those who say that and encourage souls to sin are going to be held accountable.  “I just can’t help it!” is likely not going to relieve your imputability and responsibility. In fact, as shown above, some things are hardwired into us. We know they are wrong. Claiming ignorance does nothing if you don’t seek to know the truth. Cardinal Fernandez should be encouraging people to inform their conscience, but he’s too busy writing graphic sex manuals lacking in Catholicism. Christ wasn’t lying when he said the gate is narrow. Like I said, Tucho’s cult has their marching orders: Lead people into believing they’re just fine in their sin because x,y and z, and never tell them all the teachings of the Church.

 

Damage Control

Uh, oh. Looks like somebody ran a poll and found out that the spin about taking Cardinal Burke’s apartment away didn’t fly too well. So now we’re on day two of attempting to make this look good.

What Pope Francis said about Cardinal Burke

BY AUSTEN IVEREIGH · NOVEMBER 29, 2023

What did Pope Francis say? Who in the heck knows??? According to Austen Ivereigh, we do have what he didn’t say. Pope Francis delivered a note to him saying “I didn’t say ‘my’ nor did I say ‘enemy’” We still actually don’t know what he actually did say, though.

And, let me add a disclaimer to all this: The Pope certainly has the authority to remove +Burke’s apartment and stipend privileges. The authority to do something is very different from the correctness of doing it. Just because a pope is allowed to do something does not make it prudent. The Holy Spirit isn’t in charge of everything the pope says or does, like slapping a woman’s hand or dropping a bunch of profanities in front of seminarians. Is he free to do it? Sure. Good idea? No. Guided by the Holy Spirit? Of course not. Let’s just admit that he has a bit of a problem with his temper and ego.

The question most Catholics have in response to the decision of Pope Francis to remove the Vatican privileges of Cardinal Raymond Burke will not be, “why did he do this?” but “what on earth took him so long?

Yeah, no. This is not the burning question on peoples’ minds. I’m not even sure if anyone has a question about this situation. Austen needs to surround himself with more than those who think just like him. I could help him out but he blocked me ages ago.

 

The Pope is an astonishingly patient man,

Wait, what?!?! HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! (Gasp!) Are we talking about the same Pope Francis? I’m reasonably sure even Austen’s posse doesn’t believe that.

and he loves to give people second chances.

Oh, I agree, but it’s the wrong people. Marko Rupnik, rapist of sisters, got many chances. Or how about Bp. Gustavo Zanchetta? Where are we with those canonical proceedings? https://www.pillarcatholic.com/p/zanchetta-trial-to-begin-without  Yes, we all know that the friends of the pope get many, many chances.

Anyone who has followed the activities, speeches, and shenanigans of the traditionalist American cardinal this past decade will have been amazed at how Burke has been allowed constantly to undermine the pope’s authority, setting himself against the papacy as a counter-magisterium, and building a lucrative career portraying himself as the true guardian of the tradition.

This pretty much sums up Austen’s belief about many, many American prelates. Sorry, Austen. No counter-magisterium, but he is definitely a guardian of the Faith as it is, not as you wish it to be. I’m sorry that you have so much trouble with Cardinal Burke doing what his vocation calls for. I realize that asking for clarification and letting the Holy Father know that ambiguity is hurting the Church (and it is) is a problem for you and your minions, but it’s not for the rest of us. Paul withstood Peter to his face, didn’t he, Austen? Do you remember any restrictions placed on Paul? Do you remember Peter claiming disunity? Did Peter accuse Paul of setting up a counter-magisterium?

But while the Pope’s patience personally is virtually limitless,

Again, does Austen really think anyone’s buying what he is selling? I guess you have to give him credit for tenacity. He’s just going to keep saying it until people think it’s true.

there is a point where he must act: in justice, and for the good of the Church.

Justice? Again, he has the authority, but a prudent pope would think a dozen times before he did that and then decide agaist it.

Burke’s antics at the start of the synod assembly in Rome to promote a traditionalist tract denouncing the synod as a heretical conspiracy were arguably of a piece with previous outrages.

Care to offer a source for this, Austen? Didn’t think so. Let me do what he is unwilling to do. https://www.cardinalburke.com/presentations/synodality-vs-true-identity  Austen’s quite fond of paraphrasing incorrectly, so please read. Cardinal Burke is not the one dropping the heretical bomb. That would be Cardinal “Heal Me with Your Mouth” (Tucho) Fernández.

And, I, not a traditionalist, will attest to the fact that my concerns are quite the same as Cardinal Burke. How does that track with the “it’s just the mean ol’ traditionalist conspiracies”? It doesn’t. The vast majority of people who pay attention to the Magisterium of the Church are concerned about this, not to mention you and your minions’ attempt to wag-the-dog.

But with the world’s attention on the assembly, they were aimed to capture maximum publicity and to create confusion and doubt in the ordinary faithful about the most important process in the Catholic Church since the Second Vatican Council.

Hello, buddy! The confusion already exists, and comparing a synod to a council is a prime example. You don’t even understand that the authority that goes with one does not go with another. Or, maybe you’re just trying to confuse people.

A cardinal, in his oath, promises obedience “to blessed Peter in the person of the supreme Pontiff.” The wording is not accidental. Whoever is pope has the charism of authority which Jesus entrusted to the apostle Peter. It is not a matter of personal preference for this or that pope. To undermine, question, and to throw into doubt the legitimacy of the authority of the office of Peter by claiming that its occupant cannot be trusted with that office goes directly against the oath cardinals take. If a cardinal reaches this conviction in conscience, integrity demands he resign his office.

See. Peter and Paul. Above. Oh, and also read Cardinal Burke’s statement at the Synod of Babel conference that irks Austen so much. He says no such thing. He’s saying just the opposite. This is the Holy Father’s job and he is encouraging him to do it. And, hello, stop pointing the finger of schism Cardinal Burke’s way. Pope Francis has allowed Germany to go into actual schism. They’re the ones that just shouted a big ol’ “Rome can’t tell us what to do!” cry. Are their apartments and salary being taken away?

So let’s talk about the apartment and stipend. Hoping to paint Cardinal Burke in a bad light, his detractors did nothing but foment about it yesterday.

Yet not only has Cardinal Burke not done this, but he has also continued to draw a Vatican salary of around 5-6,000 euros a month while living in a spacious rent-free Vatican apartment of over 400 square meters (close to 5,000 square feet), probably worth a similar amount. It is hard to imagine any other organization allowing this. The injustice of an independently wealthy cardinal living at the expense of the People of God while touring the traditionalist circuit sowing suspicion and doubt about the successor of St. Peter should be obvious to anyone who doesn’t live in a world of their own confection.

OK, this is where the moronic liberals went astray. They want to make a big to-do about something that happens all the time, yet they act like Cardinal Burke is different from any other cardinal. In fact, they made an even bigger mistake in pointing this out, because we’re all going to point out that an archbishop, not even a cardinal, renovated his apartment with money it appears was embezzled. Remember Archbishop Paglia? Has he lost his wages, been forced to retire, lost his apartment or even been brought up on charges??? https://www.pillarcatholic.com/p/paglia-used-charity-funds-to-renovate-personal-apartment  Oops. Can you stop clutching your pearls now, Austen?

It should also be pointed out again, as shown in this article, that Cardinal Burke had nothing going that was out of the norm.  His flat has offices, chapel and rooms for visitors. Again, hardly out of the norm except he didn’t misappropriate money to pay for it. If its size is so darn extravagant, why is it a Vatican flat?

Cardinals who work at the Vatican or retire from Vatican positions receive a monthly stipend of about 5,000 euros (about $5,500). The figure had been higher before the COVID-19 pandemic, but Pope Francis reduced the salaries of cardinals by 10% in March 2021 as part of a package of Vatican cost-cutting measures.

According to the same article from the Our Sunday Visitor , he’s now not getting evicted. They’re going to ask for rent. The story seems to be evolving. I mean, why would they allow a cardinal under some sort of canonical penalty which is forthcoming to even rent a flat? It’s like they’re trying to figure out what story plays best. This is becoming the norm. Are they now going to start treating all prelates the same? Probably not.

I met with Pope Francis on the afternoon of November 27th. It was a short meeting because of his lung inflammation, which meant it took him some effort to speak. (The following evening his trip to Dubai was cancelled because it had not improved enough.)

Or maybe he just wanted an excuse to keep your meeting short? He was watching circus acts today.

In the course of our conversation, Francis told me he had decided to remove Cardinal Burke’s cardinal privileges — his apartment and salary — because he had been using those privileges against the Church. He told me that while the decision wasn’t a secret, he didn’t intend a public announcement but earlier that day (Monday) it had been leaked.

Oh, please, please, tell us how he’s been using those privileges (which some might call protocol) against the Church. Once again, is the Holy Father going to kick the Germans to the curb? Do it. Do it. Do it.

After I came out from the Santa Marta I found it on a traditionalist news website, La Bussola Quotidiana. The meaning of this is obvious to anyone covering the Vatican: the leaker is motivated by animus against the Pope. Their story reported that at a meeting on November 20 with heads of the dicasteries, the Pope had told them: Il cardinale Burke è un mio nemico, perciò gli tolgo l’appartamento e lo stipendio (“Cardinal Burke is my enemy, so I am taking away his apartment and stipend”).

I knew this quote was pure fiction. Pope Francis would never conduct a personal vendetta.

I don’t even know where to go with this. How about “Paging Austen Ivereigh. Reality is trying to get ahold of you. Please contact it as soon as possible!”?

It was conveniently in line with the traditionalist narrative of a merciless, vindictive pope who recklessly and unreasonably “punishes” those who disagree with him.

Anyone seen Archbishop Ganswein lately?

Anyone who knows or works with the pope knows how bizarrely untrue this is, yet it is a fiction promoted with great vigor by media and websites supportive of Cardinal Burke. It is a fiction meant to perpetuate their fantasy that they are innocent victims being punished merely for defending the Church’s unchanging tradition against a modernist usurper.

OK, again, not a trad, but I’d like to know why feel you need to work hard to do damage control on this? I mean, the trads are the super-minority screaming alone in their basements, right? Or, maybe you know you incorrect about this? Maybe it’s not just traditionalists? Maybe you realize your opening questions are stupid?

On Tuesday morning, I wrote Pope Francis a note alerting him to this quote and offering to correct it with the truth as he had put it to me. As it happened, others who were at the November 20 meeting had already done so, speaking on condition of anonymity to reputable journalists. One told Massimo Franco of Corriere della Sera that the Pope had informed them of “some measures of an economic nature, together with canonical penalties” he would be taking against the cardinal. (emphasis mine)

Oh, there will be penalties, but will they be as “canonical” as, say, the penalties against Bp. Strickland??? (As in throw Canon Law out the window?) Again, Pope is free to do it, but let’s not pretend everything he’s done so far is canonical.

According to a source present at the meeting cited by the Associated Press’s Nicole Winfield, this was because Burke was “a source of ‘disunity’ in the church.

DOES ANYONE SEE GERMANY? ANYONE AT ALL?

A Reuters report by Philip Pullella quoted an official at the same meeting recalling the Pope saying that Burke was “working against the Church and against the papacy” and had sown “disunity” in the Church. The same official specifically denied that Francis had referred to Burke as an “enemy.

On Tuesday evening I had a note back from the Pope. “I never used the word ‘enemy’ nor the pronoun ‘my.’ I simply announced the fact at the meeting of the dicastery heads, without giving specific explanations.”

This is just getting ridiculous. How do you say “my enemy” without actually saying “my enemy?!” Did he say “traitor to the papacy of Pope Francis”, perhaps?  Is this really where you are going to go with this?  You may want to start forming those explanations better, because this is sitting about as well with the faithful as Rupnik.

He thanked me for making this clear.

And then patted you on the head and sent you off.

Liberal Catholics Got a Pretty Present

Well, Christmas came early for the Jesuits and other liberals when Fr. Altman decided to go full sedevacantist. Just in time for the Synod — they wished, and he delivered.

Faithful Catholics should be laser-focused on the Synod and the many valid concerns surrounding it. Yet here we are talking about Fr. Altman. The funny thing is that I agreed with pretty much every single point of concerns about the reign of Pope Francis. However, there was one glaring error: none of it makes Pope Francis “not pope” or, rather, an anti-pope. It just makes him a nightmare pope, but he remains the pope nonetheless.

Yes, Virginia, there are such things as bad popes and we’ve had some disastrous ones that would give even this pontificate a run for its money.

First, a little disclaimer. I like Fr. Altman. The points in his original video was spot on. I thought he got a bum deal from his bishop.  That said, I have always disagreed with some of his statements and delivery, even in that first video. For example, the “you/they are not Catholic” in referring to validly baptized Catholics. There are such things as bad Catholics, sinful Catholics, hypocritical Catholics, willfully ignorant Catholics, etc., etc., etc., but they remain Catholic nonetheless. I have one friend who knows Fr. Altman personally and is always saying “I really think you’d like him.” I tell him, “I do like him!” But when you are a Catholic with a big pulpit you must be theologically precise. And, by the way, I’ve also heard many of his lesser-known homilies and talks which were spot on. Those never get the air time because liberals don’t get to play the great “A-ha!” card.

Next, I never liked his use of “Bergoglio.” Sorry not sorry.  When you start off there, it’s likely you’re going to end up where we are today, which is sedevacantism. Fr. Altman didn’t always say Pope Francis wasn’t pope and yet always used the “Bergoglio” moniker. I suppose now he’s just being consistent in that respect, but before, he should have given dignity to the papacy. To call the Holy Father “Bergoglio” always diminished Fr. Altman more than it did Pope Francis.

Now, looking at the recent video…the negatives about Pope Francis that he listed?  All true. The conclusion that he is not pope? Reckless at best. And, by the way, it played right into the narrative we’ve heard all week long: “Americans are rebellious! Americans hate the pope! Schism!” – anything to shift the focus off the synod. That is frustrating. We had the victim status in the media drama. And now? The “I told you so’s!” are dropping. This is something about being sly as a serpent and gentle as a dove.

To all of this, Fr. Altman would probably say “Good!” but I do not. Why? Because he failed to make his case. Almost every single one of his points could be used to say Pope St. John Paul II was not pope, with the exception of closing the churches during Covid since, well, that wasn’t a thing then. Most sedevacantists are cheering, “Right! He wasn’t pope either!” while Fr. Altman, based on all I’ve heard him say in the past, would probably be saying, “No! It’s not the same!” But isn’t it, at least to a lesser degree? Pope Saint John Paul II, with all his holiness (and I very much think he was holy and do not doubt the judgment of the Church that he is a saint and thus gazes on the face of God), had his bad hair days, as did most saints (Peter should pop into your head at this point).

Fr. Altman rages about who Pope Francis appointed, who he surrounds himself with, Pachamama, the abusers he’s failed to stop, vaccines, etc., etc., etc. I agree! Horrific! But then I’d have to ask Fr. Altman about the pope who elevated Bishops Bergoglio, Mahony and McCarrick to cardinal? Who was he surrounded with who would recommend them??? Even in the video, Fr. Altman called him a pope, he has spoken on the Luminous Mysteries, etc. I have no reason to believe he thinks of Pope St. John Paul II as anything but a pope and a saint.

However, an X follower (still does not roll off the tongue), in all caps so it must be correct, said “HE SAID POPE FRANCIS IS NOT A POPE BY HIS ACTIONS. NO POPE WOULD TELL THE FAITHFULL IT IS PREMISSABLE AND MANDATE THEY RECEIVE AN INJECTION OF GENE THERAPY THAT CAME INTO EXISTANCE THROUGHT THE MORTAL SIN OF ABORTION. FR. ALTMAN IS CORRECT.” As I pointed out, Pope St. John Paul II allowed the use of HEK line vaccines under remote material cooperation and with qualifiers. So, did Fr. Altman want this person to also think that Pope St. John Paul II was not pope? Does Fr. Altman think this? I don’t think so, but that’s where you get to if you follow that line of thinking, unless you want people to just agree with who you think is and is not pope. There’s an inconsistency that should have given him pause.

Yes, +Francis had Pachamama, but +John Paul II had the Koran. +Francis has had a slew of abusers he defended (the list would be too long), but +John Paul II again elevated McCarrick and didn’t do anything about Fr. Marcial Maciel.

I would argue that +John Paul II was kept in the dark by some who adjusted their halos and talked a good talk and, while he had a file of unverifiable letters from my own diocese, he tried hard to make right what he got wrong when he got the verifiable information. You can think what you want of Archbishop Vigano but he suggested some excellent replacements for the “Mahonyites” who ran the country for way too long. From what I’ve seen, +Francis has the information – yet for some unexplained reason – just keeps plowing ahead. Or, maybe it is explained. I don’t think Fr. Altman wants to be hypocritical, but he’s either going to have to understand there are some simply abysmal popes OR he’s going to have to go with guilt by association and take out a whole lot of popes from the past and declare them illegitimate, including a few whom I think he loves.

Now, Fr. Altman could be right about +Francis (we’ll know someday), but he’s wrong about the declaration. We can totally have our own opinions on the situation. We can totally hold that +Francis is a disaster, but declaring him an illegitimate pope is neither my jurisdiction, nor Fr. Altman’s.

Here’s an interesting study on +Francis, the sedevacantist position, Bellarmine, etc., from folks who are hardly a Pope Francis cheerleaders: https://akacatholic.com/bellarmine-ipso-facto-loss/  It’s not as simple as sedevacantists would have you think. Pastor Aeternus is also a good read. Honestly, the extraordinary route is probably not going to happen, so we’ll just have to wait for some future pope to make that declaration, but I also doubt that will happen. I mean, it could happen that a good chunk of bishops and cardinals around the world are declared schismatics and move to go through the deposing process but it seems like most are just playing a long waiting game.

As the study above shows, Bishop Schneider has already weighed in on +Francis and sedevacantism (or lack thereof). While Cardinal Burke is extolled in Fr. Altman’s video in the video, +Burke himself remains silent and continues to call +Francis by that title even while disagreeing in areas that are in his purview and his responsibility as a cardinal. Even Bishop Strickland does not deny +Francis is pope! I’m sure Fr. Altman had a goal in doing so and I’d love to know what it was. Does he know how the “Emperor’s New Clothes” ends? It’s not with the deposing of the emperor. It’s with him carrying on as usual.

It’s Not Complicated for the Faithful

Drag queen ‘nuns’ will be included in LA Dodgers Pride Night. I have complicated feelings about it. 

Michael J. O’Loughlin
May 24, 2023”

If this is complicated, a coffee order must kill him.

News that the Los Angeles Dodgers had invited the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, an L.G.B.T. activist group known for members who dress in drag resembling the black-and-white habits of Catholic sisters, happened to break as I was reporting on a forthcoming story about actual Catholic sisters. Earlier this month, the Sisters of Charity of New York voted to begin a process that will effectively bring to conclusion their nearly 200 years of ministry. Or as the sisters put it, they will now embark on a “path to completion.

Well, there’s two things that have nothing to do with each other. Do they have a word minimum at America? Let me clue Michael in. The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence (from here on known as SPI) is not really a religious order nor are they sisters.

In the days following the initial announcement of the Dodgers’ decision, especially as images of the drag troupe filled social media, my mind went to the women religious, including some Sisters of Charity, whose good work too often goes unnoticed and who are collectively the unfortunate target of mockery.

YES! Stick with that thought. You have a conscience. I know you can do it. SPI is literally mocking all things Catholic despite the fact that many sisters actually cared for their friends who have died from AIDS, AIDS related cancers and all other horrible diseases found in their community.

Last week, the Dodgers announced that they would honor what you might call “drag nuns” during their Pride Night on June 16, a common promotional event at many Major League ballparks during the month of June.

The conservative political advocacy group CatholicVote highlighted the news on May 12 and three days later, Senator Marco Rubio sent a letter to Major League Baseball Commissioner Rob Manfred.

…and every other faithful Catholic is offended, not only by the SPI being honored but by ”Pride Night” in general. Some of us remember that pride is one of the seven deadly sins, and while America Magazine is quite happy to support all sorts of distorted viewpoints, we don’t wish to see the physical, mental and spiritual mutilation going on in these communities. We don’t want to see people dying in sin, dying period, or mutilating themselves and becoming patients for the rest of their lives. The SPI is just a small portion of what’s wrong with pride. Oh, and BTW, Michael, June is actually the month of the Sacred Heart.

“Do you believe that the Los Angeles Dodgers are being ‘inclusive and welcoming to everyone’ by giving an award to a group of gay and transgender drag performers that intentionally mocks and degrades Christians—and not only Christians, but nuns, who devote their lives to serving others?” Mr. Rubio wrote.

The Dodgers responded by uninviting the group.

Go, Marco, but this is hardly one senator’s opinion. This is the FAITH.

“Given the strong feelings of people who have been offended by the sisters’ inclusion in our evening and in an effort not to distract from the great benefits that we have seen over the years of Pride Night, we are deciding to remove them from this year’s group of honorees,” the Dodgers said in a statement on May 17.

They miss the point completely. If you are going to take a stance on morality, either pro or against, at your event, you will have a backlash. The SPI was just an extra offense. Honestly, when will organizations learn that you don’t have to join in the madness?

But following a social media uproar over the decision, the Dodgers reversed course, posting an apology for the rescinded invitation and announcing that they had re-invited the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence.

They apparently missed the whole “Bud Light” debacle except, this time, there hopefully won’t just be empty Bud stands. Hopefully there will be empty stadiums. Drag strays so far from the mainstream we even have “Gays Against Groomers” now. Gays Against Groomers has 235K+ on Twitter. The SPI? 8,340. So, Dodgers…What are you thinking?

“We are pleased to share that they have agreed to receive the gratitude of our collective communities for the lifesaving work that they have done tirelessly for decades,” the team wrote.

Collective. How fitting.

“Some Catholic leaders expressed renewed outrage.”

No. There’s not “renewed outrage”. It’s still the same outrage we had. You act like faithful Catholics would simply forget about this. What you don’t seem to realize is that you don’t offend Our Lord and you don’t offend our nuns and sisters.

“Our Catholic sisters devote themselves to serving others selflessly. Decent people would not mock & blaspheme them,” Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone of San Francisco tweeted on Tuesday. “So we now know what gods the Dodger admin worships. Open desecration & anti-Catholicism is not disqualifying. Disappointing but not surprising. Gird your loins.”

And while the liberal far-left will whine about hate, Archbishop Cordileone is quite familiar with the SPI and knows their souls are in danger, too.

The Archdiocese of Los Angeles released a statement saying, “The decision to honor a group that clearly mocks the Catholic faith and makes light of the sincere and holy vocations of our women religious who are an integral part of our Church is what has caused disappointment, concern, anger, and dismay from our Catholic community.”

Again, “Pride”, in general, is evil. Who wants that for anyone?

 

Who are the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence?

I had been vaguely aware of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence for a number of years, initially because of a spat between the group and the gay Catholic writer Andrew Sullivan. In 2011, Mr. Sullivan criticized the organization for hosting its annual “Hunky Jesus” contest on Easter Sunday, calling them “smug, liberal bigots,” and suggesting that they would not have the fortitude to hold an event mocking the Prophet Mohammed during Ramadan.

Oh, let me familiarize you with them, Michael. “Hunky Jesus” is just one small portion of the blasphemy they display. If you’re going to try to rationalize them, you might want to do some research. https://www.catholicleague.org/sisters-of-perpetual-indulgence/

1979: This was the beginning of the Sisters. In San Francisco’s Castro District three men dressed in traditional nun’s habit walked the streets. One of them carried a machine gun. Then they went to a nude beach. It was then that they adopted the name the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence.

1982: A year after AIDS was discovered, the Sisters were upset, but they did not complain about the lethal sex practices that gave rise to AIDS; rather, they complained about the “fear and prejudice” that it was engendering. “Sr. Florence  Nightmare” and “Sr. Roz Erection” addressed the issue.

1987: The Sisters were granted a tax-exempt status after trashing Pope John Paul II’s visit to San Francisco. The Sisters held an “exorcism” and a “Condom Savior Mass” in Union Square. At the event, they featured “the Latex Host” and referred to Jesus as “the Condom Savior.” They also burned the Pope in effigy.

1987: They staged a “Hunky Jesus” contest, something they do every year on Easter Sunday.

1989: On their tenth anniversary, they held many events, including one with “Sr. Psychedelia’s” rise from the dead, and “Pope Dementia’s Altered Boys.” They wore “only thongs and smiles.”

1989: At the “Condom Savior Mass,” the Sisters read from a text of the “Condom Savior Consecration.” It said, “The Latex Host is the flesh for the life of the world. Just as the Creator who has life sent us, we have life because of the Condom Savior. Those who feed on this latex will have life because of it. This is the bread that comes down from Heaven, and, unlike those who eat not and therefore die, those who feed on this bread shall live forever!”

1990: A staff writer for the Miami Herald said the Sisters were noted for “carrying a 20-foot replica of a penis” at its street events.

1992: At a rally in Sacramento at the Capital Christian Center, the Sisters held signs of the Cross with a pink inverted triangle in the place of Jesus; the inscription read, “Stop Crucifying Queers.”

1992: “On Parade,” a publication of the San Francisco Lesbian/Gay Freedom Day Parade and Celebration Committee, published an article by “Sister Dana Van Iquity” which said the motto of the Sisters is “Encroach not on my crotch!” and “Leave my loins alone.” He described the day’s events, including “Dykes on Bikes” and “Dykes with Tikes on Trikes.”

1993: At another rally at the Capital Christian Center, protesters held a sign, “Queer Alert: Fighting for Freedom From Religion.”

1993: Twelve years after AIDS hit, they demonstrated in Washington, “reeling in anger and despair” over five of their members who died of the sexually transmitted disease.

1993: The Sisters were banned from the March on Washington’s stage for being “too controversial and not the appropriate image” for C-Span and “the movement.”

1993: The Sisters are seen as so offensive that they incur the wrath of Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, the authors of a landmark book on gays, After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90s. They say of the Sisters, “‘Fringe’ gay groups ought to have the tact to withdraw voluntarily from public appearance at gay parades, marches, and rallies, but they don’t care whether they fatally compromise the rest of us.”

1994: They served “holy communion wafers and tequila” to the congregation at a mock Mass.

1999: On the cover of the April 1, 1999 edition of the San Francisco Bay Times there was a full-page picture of a Sister superimposed on a cross-like photo with his hands stretched out, imitating Jesus on the Cross.

2000: In San Francisco, they held a Good Friday event where they sponsored a fetish fashion show that provided “a chance to get spanked and free “Sticky Buns.” Dr. Carol Queen held her “Good Vibrations Dildo Fashion Show.”

2001: I petitioned the IRS to revoke the tax-exempt status of the Sisters, citing multiple examples of “vulgar, obscene and bigoted material against the Catholic Church and its members.”

2002: They celebrated Easter with an “Indulgence in the Park” event that featured a “clown-drag-nun” fundraiser, along with the annual “Hunky Jesus” contest.

2004: They spent the entire month of December bashing Christmas in Los Angeles.

2008: San Diego House of the Sisters—The Asylum of the Tortured Heart, which was founded in 2005, held a “Midnight Confessional Contest” that gave prizes to those with the “hottest confessions.” It was held in a gay bar.

2009: They held a block party in San Francisco where some of the men danced naked in the street.

2010: At the Yerba Buena Center for the Arts winter gala, the Sisters were asked to perform six musical acts in a “Nunway Noir” drag fashion show where attendees could “bask in the bloody gore of occult film screenings.”

2011: In a Daily Beast column, gay writer Andrew Sullivan called the Sisters’ “Hunky Jesus” event a form of “blasphemy.” He was so angry at them that he said, “This makes me feel like Bill Donohue.”

2018: The Multnomah County Library in Portland, Oregon hosted “Drag Queen Storytime with the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence,” despite their history of anti-Catholicism. The event explicitly targeted kids 2-6.

2022: The Sisters gave an award for featuring Lil Hot Mess, “a man who dresses as a woman for children and one of the leading activists behind Drag Queen Story Hour.”

2023: A Sister won the “Free Choice Mary” pro-abortion award. The man, dressed with a nun’s veil, wearing a bra and panties, was featured holding a baby doll with a sign, “I Had A Choice.”

Does this help you, Michael? Things a little less complicated.

Some members of the group use lewd and crude comedy in their performances, as their Catholic detractors have highlighted this week. But the group also raises money for charitable causes and seeks to bring visibility to a community often under siege.

How about a car wash? The “It’s OK to do evil to do good” is totally against the Catholic Faith, Michael. Get away from the Jesuits.

According to a press release in response to the Dodgers controversy from the San Francisco branch of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, the organization was founded “in response to the AIDS crisis, when gay men, who their faiths and families had abandoned because of their orientation, were sick and dying.

Oh, yeah. It was nothing but a charitable organization. Hello!!! It was the CATHOLIC sisters and priests they mock that took care of them when they were sick and dying. The SPI NEVER tried to stop the behavior that led to AIDS in their community.

I had learned about some of that history while I researched my book, Hidden Mercy, which chronicles the Catholic Church’s response to H.I.V. and AIDS.

The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence were active in San Francisco, where they rankled some Catholics who found their performances distasteful and offensive.

So, the SPI basically bit the hand that was trying to care for them by mocking them even more. When you want to talk about how mean Catholics were, remember Mother Teresa was on the job in SF in 1982 with an AIDS hospice, but, yeah, let’s dress in drag and mock her.

I learned that some members of the group were former Catholics who were angry at the church for its condemnation of homosexuality. Others said their schtick paid homage to Catholic sisters, a tongue-in-cheek salute to strong women ministering in a patriarchal church. At least one member actually became a Catholic for a while, according to the book Gays and Grays, by Donal Godfrey, S.J.

Oh, please. Can you possibly learn from someone other than Fr. “Just keep doing what you’re doing” Godfrey? These men are not paying homage to the Catholic sisters. While they whined about the “patriarchal church”, the real sisters did the real work.

The Sisters say their members engage in ministry and that they are “not anti-Catholic, but an organization based on love, acceptance, and celebrating human diversity.” As for the drag mocking Catholic nuns, the group says its members “use humor and irreverent wit to expose the forces of bigotry, complacency, and guilt that chain the human spirit.”

Again, Michael, look at the litany above. That doesn’t even include the desecration of the Eucharist. I suppose that’s just awesome as long as they raise money. https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/10642/archbishop-niederauer-apologizes-for-giving-communion-to-sisters-of-perpetual-indulgence-at-san-francisco-parish

Critics of drag, of which there have been many in recent years, often fail to appreciate how the artform uses humor to poke fun at those who hold power, especially those who wield that power to hurt marginalized groups. Often, performances are over the top, and it is not uncommon for snarkier drag queens to cross various lines. That is sometimes even the point, to use humor to shake those who may have become complacent.

You have a lot of experience with it, do you? It’s not humor. It’s disgusting unless you’re the type that thinks the strip tease is art and the stripper pole gymnastics. How do you all sleep at night? At best it’s a downfall of souls (maybe, as a Catholic, you shouldn’t excuse it). At worst, it’s satanic.

What causes me some unease about the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, however, especially at this particular moment, is that their costumes mock women who wield relatively little power, especially in the church. These women are often responsible for creating some of the most L.G.B.T.-affirming spaces in an institution that can regularly feel unwelcoming to the community.

YOU. DON’T. One of the only orders that doesn’t allow women (and their sycophants) really needs to stop whining on behalf of women. They hypocrisy is staggering. The women taking care of AIDS patients, the poor, the orphans – they’re the real women who are not whining. They don’t need you, and they certainly don’t need you using them to promote the immorality of the SPI.

Rooted in activism

But one member of the Sisters said the goal is to get people thinking about how they use religion to justify homophobia.

“We feed the hungry, we work with people who are unhoused, we support LGBTQ and trans youth, we support queer art,” a member who goes by the drag name Sister Roma told the Religion News Service. “The reason that we really manifest is to shed light on the hypocrisy of all organized religion, and the way that people interpret the teachings, the word, and use it as a weapon to justify their own homophobia, their own transphobia, their own hate.”

I’m not sure they understand the definition of the word “hypocrisy.” Last time I checked, they don’t run a hospice. They’re a bit too busy mocking the Church that will nurse them and who has taken care of their dying community for decades. But, yeah, we’re the homophobic ones.

The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence trace their roots to 1979. Their earliest activism was to serve gay men affected by H.I.V. and AIDS, when few mainstream organizations were willing to do much of anything to help.

They encouraged them to keep living the lifestyle that was killing them. Oh, and nude beaches. Bravo.

The Catholic Church, broadly speaking, was among those organizations that made life difficult for gay men during the height of the AIDS crisis. Bishops in many cities fought against gay civil rights measures and, though not a mainstream Catholic opinion, some priests preached that AIDS might be a punishment from God.

Got some links for that?

But there were important exceptions, especially among Catholic sisters, who ministered alongside the gay community, often in Catholic hospitals that served people with H.I.V. and AIDS. I got to know several of these sisters in recent years, spending countless hours with them in person and on the phone, learning about their H.I.V. and AIDS ministry.

When I see the clownish costumes worn by some Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, my mind goes to Sister Carol Baltosiewich, who opened a resource center for people with H.I.V. and AIDS in the small Midwestern city of Belleville, Ill. I think of Sister Pascal Conforti, who took the train each morning from her community house to St. Clare’s Hospital in New York’s Hell’s Kitchen neighborhood to be present with gay men whose partners were dying from AIDS. And the Sisters of Charity of New York, who engaged in dialogue with the activist group ACT UP in order to better serve the gay community who sought care at St. Vincent’s Hospital.

Missionaries of Charity? Crickets.

The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, with their over-the-top costumes, are implicitly ridiculing these heroic women. It is not easy to separate their humor—some of which is undoubtedly motivated by religious trauma but some clearly by anti-religious bigotry—from the cruel ways Catholic sisters have too often been portrayed in popular culture.

This is super easy. It’s not humorous to any devout Catholic.

Some Catholics are more angry than perplexed, condemning the Dodgers and the Sisters.

Brian Burch, the president of CatholicVote, described the Sisters as “a blatantly perverted, sexual and disgusting anti-Catholic hate-group,” adding that its “evil and disturbing behavior makes a mockery of Catholic religious across the nation.

Of course, the umbrage Mr. Burch feels on behalf of Catholic sisters may not be universally shared by the women he claims to defend. For the sisters I know, it would take more than a man in a silly costume telling bawdy jokes to offend them. Still, I cannot quite shake the feeling that the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence are, at least in some ways, punching down.”

No. He’s right. Burch can’t help the women who are suffering from Stockholm syndrome. He can only defend the women rightly being attacked and Our Lord. This goes a little further than faithful sisters being offended. This is a mockery of Christ’s Church and “Pride” is a grave evil pushed by satan. I doubt the sisters caring for people give this the time of day. The rest of us, especially those of us with children, should care deeply when God is mocked. Not sure why Michael doesn’t.

An actual sister sees past the caricature

A Catholic Sister of the Holy Names (and a Dodgers fan) in California said that she finds kindred spirits in the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence—both as fellow activists and in their commitment to acts of social justice.

And here comes the parade of liberal sisters from dying orders.

“We used to refer to them as the ‘corporal works of mercy,’” Jo’Ann De Quattro, S.N.J.M., told America. “They visit the sick, they feed the hungry, clothe the naked. So that’s good.”

Sister De Quattro, 84, said she had been aware of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence for a while, “because I live in California,” where the organization has a visible presence. She was not offended by their costumes, she said, but she was unaware of what they did until this latest controversy.

“I just thought they were trying to attract attention by their kind of outlandish garb,” she said.

A retired activist herself—Sister De Quattro protested against U.S. military involvement in Central America in the 1980s, fought the death penalty in California and advocated for a stronger social safety net for Californians—she said individuals rallying people around a cause do whatever they can to attract attention and donors.

I wonder where she stood on abortion? And, can Michael not find someone younger than 84 who thinks the SPI is groovy? Of course not.

“You can’t do the corporal works without money,” she noted.

Uh, it’s hard to do the corporal works of mercy when you’ve only raised 1.5 million between 1979 and 2016 and one of your members embezzled a large sum of it. https://www.ebar.com/story.php?ch=news&sc=crime&id=318042 And out of that whopping 40+K average a year, are their any salaries paid?

And then there’s this:
https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/sisters-of-perpetual-indulgence/

The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence fundraise through donations received at their events and ceremonies. Over the last 20 years, the organization has raised $1.5 million to further its mission. In 2016, the organization received $135,459 in contributions and spent $154,130 on functional expenses. Examples of organizations the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence have financially supported include the Center for Immigrant Protection (The LGBT Asylum Project), San Francisco Dyke March, and the Trans Liberation Coalition.

Um, the numbers are a little fuzzy based on the data given but they hardly seem like they’re the charitable organization of the year!!! They’re right up there with BLM.

As for the organizations pressuring the Dodgers to rescind the invitation, Sister De Quattro said their anger is misplaced.

Sister, our anger is very well placed.

For me, it’s about trying to embrace people who might be different from us,” she said. “Because Jesus said, ‘Come to the table.’ Not, ‘You don’t deserve a place at the table.’”

Sister De Quattro said she and a group of sisters thought the Dodgers made a mistake in uninviting the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, especially after they learned about their work supporting the L.G.B.T. community, people with H.I.V. and individuals struggling to get by.

Is that what they told you?

I only wish that members of Congress would see fit to do the same thing, rather than cut social programs,” she said.

So, Michael, you’ve now spent an entire piece trying to appease everyone. You know your conscience is nagging you. Listen to it and stop tracking down the most liberal of the liberal “victims” to clear your conscience.

Humanae Vitae & the Audacity of Irrelevant Bishops

Archbishop Paglia on relevance of ‘Humanae vitae’ today.

By Vatican News

Let’s just ask an honest question. Did Archbishop Paglia ever find Humanae Vitae relevant? I mean, he probably thinks his apartment is more relevant. Speaking of that, why is this guy allowed to run anything but the janitorial department. I guess he’d probably find a way to make his life a little more lavish with that, too, though.

A two-day Congress organized by the Jérôme Lejeune International Chair of Bioethics opened on Friday, 19 May on the subject “Humanae Vitae, the audacity of an Encyclical on Sexuality and Procreation”.  In his introductory greeting to the assembly, Cardinal Luis Francisco Ladaria Ferrer, Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, emphasized the importance, value, and timeliness of Humanae Vitae, commending the gathering’s planned in-depth study of the subject. As well, in a message delivered to the Congress, Cardinal Matteo Maria Zuppi, President of the Italian Bishops Conference, wrote that “We need your serious reflection on the problems created by the differences between what the Magisterium of the Church says about the creation of new life and what we see in the everyday lives of not only the wider society but of Catholics as well.”

Ah, the infamous “lived experience” argument. You know, the argument that goes “Nobody is following the teachings of the church so we should just ditch all those Magisterial teachings that are hard. It doesn’t matter if people are sinning. We can’t offend them because we need to keep them in the Church so we can redo our palatial apartments in Rome and pay for our hook-up apps!” Yeah, that’s the whining that make saints.

With respect to the importance of the Encyclical today, we raised a number of questions with Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, President of the Pontifical Academy for Life.

Your Excellency, in the past you have said that bioethics requires a reflection on all aspects of life.  Today we have to deal with rescuing both our planet and humanity as a whole.  Bioethics calls for a worldwide alliance among all the sciences, because the future of the planet and of humanity must be dealt with in a holistic way.  In this context, looking at Church teaching, what is your assessment of Humanae Vitae, 55 years after its publication?

Umm, the Church exists for the salvation of souls. Why do they repeatedly miss this? If they truly wanted to “rescue the planet and humanity” they would get on to doing their real job because, if they can’t accomplish their real job, the “planet and humanity” is going to hell in a handbag anyway. They might want to nail down “therefore, must go out, making disciples of all nations, and baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all the commandments which I have given you. And behold I am with you all through the days that are coming, until the consummation of the world.” That is literally their primary command and they have let that slide big time. It’s kind of laughable they think they’re going to succeed in the area of “bioethics” when they don’t even really know the definition.

Let me focus on a critical element.  The Encyclical gave new and crucial emphasis to the synergistic connection between sexuality, married love, and generation.  This connection is found particularly in Article 9 of the document where St. Paul VI describes the four fundamental “characteristics” of married love:  it is “fully human” that is, both sensual and spiritual”; it is “total” that is, a “very special form of personal friendship; it is “faithful and exclusive until death”; it is “fruitful”. Real married love resolves at a stroke the age-old uneasiness between the “ends” of marriage – the primary end, which is having and raising children (prolis generatio et educatio), and the secondary end, which is mutual support and sexual comfort (mutuum adiutorium and remedium concupiscentiae).  Fruitfulness that produces a new generation was conceived as intrinsic to married love, not simply a later addition. As we have wisely come to understand, we have to continue interrogating Humane Vitae for a deeper understanding of the connection that ties sexuality, married love and generation together, a connection made clearer by a personalist approach.  That’s why I believe continued reflection on the subject is very important, as are wide-ranging discussions.  Indeed Pope Francis, speaking about contraception, has said that “…the duty of theologians is research, theological reflection, you cannot do theology with a “no” in front of it.  Then it is up to the Magisterium to say no, you’ve gone too far, come back, but theological development must be open, that’s what theologians are for  (Press conference, July 29, 2022).

Article 9 actually starts with the words “In the light of these facts”, and yet Archbishop Paglia leaves out those facts altogether. Also, why the whole re-write? Sexual comfort? I find that an odd way of putting it. I believe the translation for those two is “mutual aid” and “remedy for concupiscence.” Sexual comfort doesn’t seem to fit the definition of the latter. Not surprising they found a need for the subtle switch. Not surprising he couldn’t just quote Article 9.  Also, when he says “interrogating” he does truly mean it in an adversarial way. Can we also talk about the use of “personalist”? Seemingly it’s going to be twisted just as “Primacy of Conscience” is. Which vein of personalism are we going to use? There are MANY definitions, and he seems to be counting on low information people, as usual these days. He’s also using “generation” as a noun. St. Paul VI used it as a verb in regards to LIFE. The archbishop seems to be avoiding that word at all costs.

What is the message and value of the encyclical?

The recognition of the unbreakable connection between married love and generation in Humanae Vitae (Yeah, again, not how “generation” is used in Humanae Vitae but carry on with the re-write) does not mean that every marital act must necessarily bear fruit.

Pause. Is there anyone who thinks that??? Anyone at all? 

With this affirmation, the Encyclical adopts the opening of Pius XII’s famous Allocution to Midwives in 1951. It is for this reason that, proceeding from the felicitous expression found in the Vatican Council Constitution Gaudium et Spes (GS 50 and 51), St. Paul VI recognizes that procreation must be “responsible” and – as is well known – points  to natural methods as the way to exercise this responsibility.  After that, in the Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio, St. John Paul II points out how theological reflection is called to study further both the anthropological and moral meaning of the choice of the rhythm method, beyond mere biology. “The choice of the rhythm method brings with it the acceptance of a woman’s monthly cycles and thus acceptance of dialogue, reciprocal respect, shared responsibility, and self-control”. (FC 32). 

Let me just provide you with the link to the allocution, since he won’t. https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/allocution-to-midwives-8965

The quote from Gaudium et Spes he’s trying to paraphrase (emphasis mine): https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_en.html

50. Marriage and conjugal love are by their nature ordained toward the begetting and educating of children. Children are really the supreme gift of marriage and contribute very substantially to the welfare of their parents. The God Himself Who said, “it is not good for man to be alone” (Gen. 2:18) and “Who made man from the beginning male and female” (Matt. 19:4), wishing to share with man a certain special participation in His own creative work, blessed male and female, saying: “Increase and multiply” (Gen. 1:28). Hence, while not making the other purposes of matrimony of less account, the true practice of conjugal love, and the whole meaning of the family life which results from it, have this aim: that the couple be ready with stout hearts to cooperate with the love of the Creator and the Savior. Who through them will enlarge and enrich His own family day by day.

Parents should regard as their proper mission the task of transmitting human life and educating those to whom it has been transmitted. They should realize that they are thereby cooperators with the love of God the Creator, and are, so to speak, the interpreters of that love. Thus they will fulfil their task with human and Christian responsibility, and, with docile reverence toward God, will make decisions by common counsel and effort. Let them thoughtfully take into account both their own welfare and that of their children, those already born and those which the future may bring. For this accounting they need to reckon with both the material and the spiritual conditions of the times as well as of their state in life. Finally, they should consult the interests of the family group, of temporal society, and of the Church herself. The parents themselves and no one else should ultimately make this judgment in the sight of God. But in their manner of acting, spouses should be aware that they cannot proceed arbitrarily, but must always be governed according to a conscience dutifully conformed to the divine law itself, and should be submissive toward the Church’s teaching office, which authentically interprets that law in the light of the Gospel. That divine law reveals and protects the integral meaning of conjugal love, and impels it toward a truly human fulfillment. Thus, trusting in divine Providence and refining the spirit of sacrifice,(12) married Christians glorify the Creator and strive toward fulfillment in Christ when with a generous human and Christian sense of responsibility they acquit themselves of the duty to procreate. Among the couples who fulfil their God-given task in this way, those merit special mention who with a gallant heart and with wise and common deliberation, undertake to bring up suitably even a relatively large family.(13)

Marriage to be sure is not instituted solely for procreation; rather, its very nature as an unbreakable compact between persons, and the welfare of the children, both demand that the mutual love of the spouses be embodied in a rightly ordered manner, that it grow and ripen. Therefore, marriage persists as a whole manner and communion of life, and maintains its value and indissolubility, even when despite the often intense desire of the couple, offspring are lacking.

  1. This council realizes that certain modern conditions often keep couples from arranging their married lives harmoniously, and that they find themselves in circumstances where at least temporarily the size of their families should not be increased. As a result, the faithful exercise of love and the full intimacy of their lives is hard to maintain. But where the intimacy of married life is broken off, its faithfulness can sometimes be imperiled and its quality of fruitfulness ruined, for then the upbringing of the children and the courage to accept new ones are both endangered.

To these problems there are those who presume to offer dishonorable solutions indeed; they do not recoil even from the taking of life. But the Church issues the reminder that a true contradiction cannot exist between the divine laws pertaining to the transmission of life and those pertaining to authentic conjugal love.

For God, the Lord of life, has conferred on men the surpassing ministry of safeguarding life in a manner which is worthy of man. Therefore, from the moment of its conception life must be guarded with the greatest care while abortion and infanticide are unspeakable crimes. The sexual characteristics of man and the human faculty of reproduction wonderfully exceed the dispositions of lower forms of life. Hence the acts themselves which are proper to conjugal love and which are exercised in accord with genuine human dignity must be honored with great reverence. Hence when there is question of harmonizing conjugal love with the responsible transmission of life, the moral aspects of any procedure does not depend solely on sincere intentions or on an evaluation of motives, but must be determined by objective standards. These, based on the nature of the human person and his acts, preserve the full sense of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love. Such a goal cannot be achieved unless the virtue of conjugal chastity is sincerely practiced. Relying on these principles, sons of the Church may not undertake methods of birth control which are found blameworthy by the teaching authority of the Church in its unfolding of the divine law.(14)

All should be persuaded that human life and the task of transmitting it are not realities bound up with this world alone. Hence they cannot be measured or perceived only in terms of it, but always have a bearing on the eternal destiny of men.”

And, for heaven’s sake, our scientific understanding has progressed much further than the “rhythm method”, but yeah, let’s just keep leading the ill-informed to believe that’s why we have so many kids. Maybe he could quote something like this instead of trying to re-construct the wheel into a square. https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/speeches/1996/december/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19961207_nfp.html

In Article 14 of the Encyclical, Paul VI states that any action specifically intended to prevent procreation is not permissible. A prohibition that is considered to have created “distance” between the faithful and the Magisterium. What is your opinion about it?

How does his opinion have any bearing on Truth? Oh, yeah, it doesn’t. Like clockwork, he’s trying to blame adhering to the Truth to people leaving the Church. Guess what? Even the greatest teacher, Christ, had that happen. People walked away. You guys don’t even attempt to teach anymore. You just let people sin as much as possible.

I am in agreement with every provision of Humanae Vitae.

It’s mighty hard reading this and coming to that conclusion. I’m surprised he didn’t throw in “archaic” somewhere in his answers.


You will find no one who defends life more fiercely and tenaciously than I do.

Really?  Uh, right.  https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/252147/taken-out-of-context-pontifical-academy-defends-archbishop-paglias-abortion-law-remarks 

Archbishop Paglia agreed to the appointment of Professor Mariana Mazzucato, a pro-abortion economist, as a member of the Pontifical Academy for Life and other abysmal appointments. https://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/hostile-takeover-pontifical-academy-for-life/ He can clutch his pearls all he likes but it’s a joke. He’s about as fierce and tenacious in regards to Humanae Vitae and life as a burrito. In other words, not.

I think that this Encyclical must be read today for the value it has in today’s circumstances, which concentrate on the generativity of human relationships.  We are facing epochal challenges.  In the Sixties, the “pill” was considered a total evil. Today, we face even greater dangers.  All human life is at risk if we don’t stop spiralling conflict, the arms race, if we don’t stop destroying the environment.

Oh yeah, we didn’t have any of those issue in the 60’s, nor did the Doomsday Clock appear in 1947. Oh, wait…never mind. Stop trying to throw everyone into a fever pitch. The pill is still considered a total evil (although it comes in a variety of forms now). It’s a direct attack on life, children and the family. The results, as foretold by those archaic documents you want to rethink, was DEAD ON and you are literally touting them as not important to today. Hello! This is why the world is in the state it’s in. Life is not pre-eminent. You worry about faulty scientific “consensus” where the evidence is made to fit the narrative vs. the reality of downtown San Francisco or Los Angeles where drugs and third world country diseases are blossoming. You champion things like the quashing of DDT, again, based on the scientific method being checked, and then people die in the thousands. Which do you think is more important to the survival of the people of, say, Africa? Climate change or malaria? So, please, stop championing all of the fake “scientific consensus” and get onto reality. Personally, I think you know the truth. You just choose to ignore it for the almighty dollar from the Germans, the Gates’ Foundation, etc., etc., etc. And making disciples of all nations? Well, that just doesn’t bring in the cash.

What I would like to see is an approach that integrates Humanae Vitae with the encyclicals of Pope Francis (and St. John Paul II) and with Amoris Laetitia, and that opens up a new era of integral humanism.  Integral, not just out-of-context quotes.  Moreover, as Cardinal Zuppi writes in his message to the Humanae Vitae Congress, it is “…very important to avoid working within closed and homogenized circles.  In the end, that kind of approach does no more than reinforce the shared views of the participants, without any trace of sincere and authentic dialogue.”  This is true because – I repeat – today the challenge of continuing, protecting, and developing, human life, must be faced and met everywhere, just as Laudato Si’ and Fratelli Tutti teach us.

Well there’s a word salad for you! Did Kamala write this? That said, humanism is actually properly used here. They’ve been wanting to get rid of the Divine for quite a while. Homogenized?!?! Aren’t you the one trying to take the Catholic out of Catholicism and make us just like every other insufficient church on the planet? We actually don’t need more dialogue that leads to word salads like this. WE. NEED. TRUTH. Let’s be honest. He and his ilk abandoned that a long, long time ago.  Maybe it’s time to give that a try today. TEACH PEOPLE THE TRUTH. Stop giving us stones when we ask for bread.

In your opinion, is there a thread that connects Humane Vitae with Amoris Laetitia?  What is it?

It’s family.  As the paradigm for the generation of all fundamental anthropological relationships, the family is clearly the “engine of history.”  It is an authentic school of life, open to society and to the world, a “laboratory” of human relations and civic responsibility.  Thus, from generation to generation, the family opens the individual up to the world and teaches the way to live in it. 

Oh my gosh, Kamala’s writers are on staff!

That way is the opposite of ownership of persons and despotic domination.”

You know what’s despotic? Lying to people and keeping them uneducated until it’s too late. It’s despotic and demonic so it’s no surprise you engage in it.

It is a gift and responsibility, according to the model of that integral ecology that Pope Francis outlined in the Encyclical Laudato si’.  It is through this optic that we can understand the firm bond between the family and the Church.  Pope Francis speaks about this in Chapter III of Amoris Laetitia, where he states that “…the Church is a family of families” (AL 87) and adds: “…the Church is good for the family, and the family is good for the Church.” (87)

Just keep taking your blue pills like all the good little girls and boys, just as Auntie Kamala, uh, Archbishop Paglia tells you.

 

The Theological Grifter Babes Got Owned

I have been waiting for this! https://eppc.org/publication/for-a-life-affirming-consensus-an-open-letter/  I’m glad the truly accomplished Catholic women responded to this because, as you will see, they are not just pontificating from their Jesuit school ivory towers. They all come from medical and psychological backgrounds. They’re the ones who deal with the very real aftermath of abortion on women. While the Bitter Babes found here https://onemadmom.foedus.co/open-letter-from-bitter-catholic-feminists/ decry the Church protecting women from a horrible scourge to their bodies and souls, these women actually deal with women regularly.

Dear Sisters in Christ,

In response to your recent open letter in which you expressed your concerns about women’s health and restrictions on reproductive care, we write to share with you our own experiences as medical professionals who regularly care for women and children.

We are Catholic women who are doctors, physician assistants, and nurses, board-certified in obstetrics and gynecology, family medicine, pediatrics, psychology, neonatology, radiology, maternal-fetal medicine,, and midwifery. Collectively, we are experts in maternal health, pregnancy complications, fetal pain, fetal development, perinatal hospice, newborn and premature baby care, postpartum depression, post-abortion aftermath, infertility, and abortion complications.

Let’s take a little time to read the titles under the signatures of both letters. Who do we think is more qualified to talk about abortion and the health of women? Hmmm…I’m going to go with the Catholic healthcare professionals, not the theological grifters who just want to rail against the “all-male hierarchy”, as if that has anything to do with anything.

We come from racially, socioeconomically, and ethnically diverse backgrounds, and care for equally diverse patients. Together we have accompanied thousands of women through their pregnancies, delivering babies, correcting adverse outcomes and complications from abortions, and addressing post-abortion infertility issues. Those among us who treat women who have miscarried or who are diagnosed with an ectopic pregnancy have always been permitted to do so in the context of our Catholic faith and have never been deterred because of Catholic medical and ethical directives.

So, what these great Catholic ladies who actually treat women are saying here is that the lie the pro-abortion crew has repeatedly tried to sell about Catholic hospitals and doctors being unable to treat miscarriages and ectopic pregnancies is just that, a bold-faced lie. Sadly, the Bitter catholic Babes never bother to correct anyone on that lie because it wouldn’t suit them. Killing children is simply the answer to provide “quality healthcare” in their minds.

We wish to share with you how “following the science” has only strengthened our understanding of the Catholic Church’s “unchanged and unchangeable” teaching on abortion. In doing so, we hope to expand your own understanding of the humanity of the unborn and the God-given dignity that they possess as members of the human family.

Oh, ladies, you have chosen a mighty big task. Abortion is their sacrament and you want to expand their understanding? May the force be with you. There’s nothing that repels these women like Holy Water on a demon than knowledgeable Catholic women who understand science and the Catholic Faith and their compatibility with each other. What’s kind of funny is they didn’t see you coming.

You rightly draw attention to the fact that women “do not make decisions in isolation.” As medical professionals who interact with pregnant women on a daily basis, we have seen first hand the coercion that can be present in an abortion decision. As you know all too well, some corporations will now pay $4,000 for one of our patients to travel for an abortion, but will not offer her paid maternity leave. Or there’s the man who says he “will be there” for his girlfriend if she chooses abortion; but if she chooses life, is nowhere to be found. Or someone like the struggling single mother who finds she is pregnant again the same week her baby’s father is incarcerated. And so on. In each of these scenarios, it is our ethical duty as healthcare professionals—and moral obligation as Catholics—to care for both the mother and her child, to uphold the human dignity of both, and to protect and defend both.

They left out “the ‘moral’ theologian college professors who whisper in the ears of young women that their consciences can decide and they’ll be ok.” They’re right up there with satan in the Garden of Eden.

We have seen first-hand the damage that 50 years of abortion on demand has imposed on women. We grieve that our equality in business, education, politics, and society has often come at the expense of the lives of millions of unborn human children. We are deeply saddened, but not surprised, that legal abortion did not result in a society that fully accommodates pregnancy and childbirth, but rather continues to undermine the unique gift that has been entrusted to us as women: bearing and nurturing new life. In fact, our medical training teaches us that this is precisely what healthy bodies are able to do.

At the same time, we marvel at the advances in medical care that allow us to get to know our unborn patients at earlier and earlier stages. We are grateful that the age of viability for our unborn patients has (as of this writing) dropped to 21 weeks and that fetal surgery can be performed as early as 16 weeks gestation. We have seen the relief on the faces of mothers and fathers when we are able to tell them the wonderful news that their baby’s congenital defect can now be corrected in utero, and that pediatric anesthesiologists will make certain their unborn child does not experience pain.

Planned Parenthood offers NONE of this. They simply offer death as a solution to all of a woman’s problems. If the Bitter Babes (I think I can just drop the “catholic” at this point) truly wanted to help women, they’d stop targeting their children for death and actually help them as these amazing Catholic women do.

We have treated prematurely born infants and children, corrected abortion complications (like perforated uteruses and sepsis) in our hospital emergency rooms, and counseled post-abortive women suffering from depression and regret. Through perinatal hospice programs, we have compassionately accompanied families who are given an adverse prenatal diagnosis, holistically caring for both mother and baby, assuring that the child has a painless and peaceful transition to the Lord and that he or she is celebrated and welcomed in this life, no matter how brief that time may be.

Again, these ladies are doing something! The women pontificating on the all-male hierarchy? Not so much.

Our gifts and talents in our individual areas of expertise are given each day in service of women and children, for the good of society. We see no conflict in simultaneously being faithful daughters of the Church.

We would welcome a “comprehensive agenda” that would better genuinely support women and families. But we cannot in good conscience support that agenda if human rights violations like abortion are offered as a solution to unplanned or unwelcome pregnancies. Abortion is not healthcare, and it is not a solution to social and economic difficulties.

Because, and repeat after me, KILLING CHILDREN DOESN’T SOLVE ANY PROBLEMS. It simply creates more hell on earth.

We would also like to extend an invitation to you: Will you discuss abortion with us in a frank and honest conversation that includes science, faith, and reason? Are you willing to take in our experiences as medical professionals, as well as those of our patients? Are you open to meeting with us in a public forum where the harms of abortion to women will be laid bare?

Oh, I so don’t think that’s going to happen. Right about now they are hiding under their desks because truly faithful Catholic women scare the living daylights out of them. But, yes, catholic women for “reproductive women,” let’s see what you’ve got. It is something you say you want to discuss. Let’s see how your “lived experiences” hold up against these ladies’ “lived experiences.” You’re supposed to be in the dialogue loving crowd, although I’m pretty sure we all know that’s a lie by now.

We would like to unite our efforts as Catholic women, so that together we can arrive at a life-affirming consensus that will benefit not only women, but the Church and greater society.

Come on ladies, do it! Look, even some of the signatories have “Loyola” in their place of work. It’ll be just like a couple of colleagues chatting. Oh, who am I kidding? It would be an intellectual and experiential bloodbath and the women who whine would be on the losing end big time. I know some of the signatories, and what they do for women and children is nothing short of amazing. They’re not droning on and on about the oppressive all-male hierarchy because their lives are not all about them. They see a problem and they work on it. They don’t pontificate on it nor do they use killing children as their solution because, well, real women protect children. You don’t see them whining about the truly evil men in our hierarchy such as Cardinal Cupich. They just blow by those yahoos and get the job done.

We look forward to hearing from you.

Cricket. Cricket. Sadly, I’m sure you all will be waiting awhile.

Sincerely,

Maralee C. Bowers, MD

Family Medicine

Orchard Hospital Medical Specialty Center Rural Health Clinic

 

Mary L. Davenport, MD, ABOG

Obstetrician/Gynecologist

Certified FertilityCare Medical Consultant

My Catholic Doctor

 

Colleen Malloy, MD

Division of Neonatology

Department of Pediatrics, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine

 

Karen J. Deighan, MD

Associate Professor

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology Loyola University Medical Center

 

Lisa Festle, MSN, RNC-NIC, APRN/CNS

Neonatal Outreach Educator

Loyola University Medical Center

 

Mary Keen-Kirchoff, MD

Pediatrics and Orthopedics

Clinical Associate Professor

Loyola University Stritch School of Medicine

 

Madeleine Neri Guevara, D.O., FACOOG

Obstetrician/Gynecologist

CrMS Medical Consultant

St. Gianna Molla Clinic

 

Debra S. Gramlich, MD

St. Gianna’s Center for Women’s Health

FertilityCare

 

Mary Jo O’Sullivan, MD, FACOG

Professor Emeritus

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology

Director Emeritus

Department of Maternal-Fetal Medicine

University of Miami

 

Faith D. Daggs, MD (OB/GYN)

OB Hospitalist

Bon Secours /St. Francis Eastside

 

Robin Pierucci, MD, CMA, ACPeds

Neonatologist

 

Jenna Shurer, FNP-C

Certified Family Nurse-Practitioner

 

Pearl Huang, MD

Family Medicine

 

Lynn Keenan, MD

Clinical Professor of Medicine

UCSF Fresno

Board Member

Institute of Restorative Reproductive Medicine of America

 

Maura Buete, MD

Family Practice

St Gianna’s Center for Women’s Health & FertilityCare

 

Amber Day, MD, FABP, FACOP

Internal Medicine

Crossroad Health Center, Cincinnati

 

Christa Marie Thornberry, MD

Pediatric Hospitalist and Pediatrician

MyCatholicDoctor

 

Karen Dalton, MD

Internal Medicine, Naprotechnology

Aid for Women (Chicago, IL)

 

Margaret-Anne Fernandez, MD

Pediatrician

 

Danielle Guilfoil, DO

MyCatholicDoctor

 

Ann Parker, RN

 

Gabria Cathcart, RN, APRN, FNP-C

 

Dr. Jennifer DeMarco, DO

Board Certified Family Medicine

Gianna Center for Women’s Reproductive Health

 

Elizabeth Cirillo, CNM, MSN, RN

Member, AAPLOG and ACNM

Certified Nurse Midwife

Holy Family Prenatal Care

 

Louise Smyth, MD ABFM

Co-owner

Couri & Smyth Health for Life Medical Center.

 

Dr. Monique Ruberu, MD, FACOG

Obstetrician/Gynecologist

Natural Women’s Health Ob/Gyn Fertility Practice

 

Grazie Pozo Christie, MD

Diagnostic Radiologist

Advisory Board Member

Archdiocese of Miami Pregnancy Resource Centers

 

Lisa McDaniel, PA-C

Certified Physician Assistant

Aid to Women, Tempe, AZ

 

Mary Ann Sorra, MD, ACOG

Obstetrician/Gynecologist

Ascension-St. Agnes Fertility Care

 

Hanna Klaus, M.D. FACOG

Obstetrician/Gynecologist (Retired)

 

Kathleen Berchelmann, MD

Pediatrician

Co-founder and CEO, MyCatholicDoctor

 

Mary Bauer, CMN

Certified Nurse-Midwife

Private practice

 

Joanne E. Castillo Rivera, MD

Family Medicine Physician/NFP Medical Consultant

My Catholic Doctor

 

Sarah Adamo, PA

Naprotechnology/Creighton Model Practitioner

Morning Star OB/GYN

 

Amy Elizabeth Shivone, MD

Board Certified Family Medicine

 

Christina Peña, MD

Obstetrician & Gynecologist

NaPro Technology & Creighton Method Medical Consultant

 

Lisa Gilbert, MD, MA, FAAFP

Family Medicine and Catholic Clinical Ethics

Ascension Vía Christi

 

Marguerite Duane, MD, MHA, MSPH, FAAFP

Family Medicine

Adjunct Associate Professor

Georgetown University School of Medicine

 

Hilary Towers, LPC, PhD

 

Shirley Reddoch, MD, FAAP

Department of Pediatrics

Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine

 

Karen D. Poehailos, MD

Family Medicine

Assistant Medical Director

National Institute of Family and Life Advocates

 

Kathleen Paravano, RDMS

Registered Diagnostic Medical Sonographer

Little Workers of the Sacred Hearts

 

Gretchen V. Marsh, DO

Family Physician & Fertility Care Practitioner

AOBFP board-certified

Certified, NaProTechnology Certified Creighton Model

 

Sheryl Beard, MD

Family Medicine

Ascension Via Christi Hospitals

 

Cynthia Jones-Nosacek, MD, MA

Family Medicine Physician, Bioethicist

Private Practice

 

Rebecca Worden, MD

Family Practice/Obstetrics

Mercy Family Practice

 

Emily Dowdell, PsyD

Licensed Psychologist

Ruah Woods Psychological Services, Cincinnati

I Am the Jesuit Whisperer

A Catholic Case for Choosing Your Own Pronouns

VIEWS Jim McDermott, S.J. / April 21, 2023

I’m sure some of you didn’t know this, but I am a Jesuit Whisperer. I can translate all of the amazingly smart things that are so far above you so that maybe you can just grasp a little of their saintliness. There should be a degree in this but, alas, there is not so I will not be able to add letters to my name as these mighty social justice warriors! I’ll have to settle for making those my personal pronouns. I hope these translations help you to realize just how wrong the patriarchal, all-male hierarchy Church really is.

In recent months, a number of Catholic bishops in the US have spoken out against transgender and non-binary people’s decision to alter their pronouns, names and bodies. Some have even insisted that Catholic schools must continue to use the birth pronoun and names of transgender and non-binary students in their schools, despite the pain that non-binary and transgender people have expressed over this practice.

In recent months, a number of Catholic bishops in the US have spoken out against people suffering with gender dysphoria who would like to make us deny reality and affirm their delusions despite the wailing of people who have no interest in the Catholic Church except to sue it, demanding they ditch Catholicism. Some have insisted Catholic schools must remain Catholic. The nerve.

The arguments of these bishops and others have been built on Catholic moral teachings and interpretations of Scripture. And as I’ve read their statements, I’ve wondered whether there’s another theological case that can be made in favor of the decision by transgender and non-binary people to alter their pronouns and names.

The arguments of bishops and others are faithful to the teachings of the Church and the Bible. Op-ed dude wonders if there’s another argument that can save their anti-Catholic ship in regards to affirming their delusions.

So I reached out to three theologians: the moral ethicist Fr. James Keenan, S.J., at Boston College; Gina Hens-Piazza, Ph.D., a Scripture scholar at the Jesuit School of Theology in Berkeley, Calif.; and Annie Selak, Ph.D., an ecclesiologist at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C.

So he reached out to three people who agree with him and also hate the doctrines of the Church. What else is a “pop culture priest” do?

In each case, I asked them whether they thought a Catholic theological case could be made for the acceptance of a person’s stated pronouns and name from the standpoint of their own discipline.

In each case he asked whether or not liberals who are now using the minority of the minorities can  prove their “development of doctrine” canard.

Here’s what they had to say.

Here’s what they say repeatedly most days of the week. It’s totally solid Catholicism. Trust me.

The Moral Requirement of Accepting Agency: Fr. James Keenan, S.J.

“I don’t understand the problem,” Fr. Keenan tells me as we begin our conversation. “People may think I’m naïve, but it just strikes me that I don’t call somebody a name that they don’t want to be called.”

Fr Keenan understands the problem completely and takes the opportunity to feign naiveite. “Why would the Church ever act like it’s Catholic! I do declare!”

“I note the argument made by some that what is at issue is the truth of who those individuals are.”

Some have the nerve to say an orange is not an apple. A man is not a dog. My afternoon 5 finger scotch is not lemonade! How dare they question the lived reality!

“It’s their truth, though,” Keenan responds. “That’s what we’re talking about: their truth. How does a bishop have more capability of grasping other people’s truth than they themselves do? There’s something deeply disturbing about claiming you understand a person’s truth better than they do.”

It’s their truth, got it?! It doesn’t resemble truth as God ordained and as the bishops understand it, but it’s theirs, gosh darn it. There’s something deeply disturbing about Catholics being Catholic. I demand we stop it for the greater good.

I wonder what Keenan makes of the decision by some bishops to frame transgender persons’ desires as indicative of a mental health crisis rather than a legitimate desire. “These bishops, are they physicians?” Keenan asks. “If you take away a person’s way of declaring their self-understanding, where is there room for any dialogue? You’ve said, ‘I’m not going to talk to you on your terms.’ Who does that? Even in  mental health places, I don’t think they do that.” 

These bishops! Are they scientists? Do they really know the sky is blue? Do they really know a dog is not a cat?  How dare they look at the obvious and state it is obvious!  Isn’t there any room for dialogue???

In terms of Catholic ethics, Keenan looks to foundational concepts. “Catholic moral principles need to begin with a sense of respecting the dignity of a human person,” he explains. “In the horizon of meeting one another,” Keenan explains, “we have to allocate the agent their experiential self-understanding as privileged.” There can be no getting to the truth, he argues, “if you’re not going to attend to agency.”

Dignity of the human person! It doesn’t matter that they are being disrespectful of the body God gave them. It doesn’t matter they are rejecting it. We have to let them do it because it’s their lived experience, and lived experiences are always more important than reality for those with dysphoria. They think they’re fat? Well, they should have the agency to starve themselves. It’s their lived experience! Think they are missing limbs? My gosh! Why did we not cut them off earlier because, well, lived experience!

He notes that this is demonstrated in Scripture as well. How does God enter into relationship with Israel through Moses? By introducing himself. “The beginning of all discussion is getting the name right.”

This one is even beyond my feeble knowledge, even if I am an expert in Jesuit speak. Some things are just too brilliant for me to even try to grasp.

There’s another moral principle at work for Keenan, a virtue he’s alluded to already: humility. “To say you know better than they know themselves, it strikes me as almost a divine perspective. How could you have such a transcendental viewpoint?” Keenan compares this way of proceeding with that of his doctoral director Joseph Fuchs, SJ, who served on the Pontifical Commission on Birth Control first established by Pope John XXIII in 1963. Prior to his appointment, Keenan explains, “Fuchs always thought that he knew what the moral law was.” But listening to married people talk about their experiences revealed the deficits in his own analysis. It did so to such a profound degree, in fact, that Fuchs “revised his entire moral theology,” says Keenan. Fuchs decided “The question of competency for a moral judgment rests with those who are closest to the experience.”

I got shot down when the Church said birth control was compatible with God’s law, but I’m going to give it one more shot. And don’t you dare try to tell me murderers don’t have a “lived experience”. Since they are closest to the experience, they are completely competent to murder someone. They have that moral agency!

Keenan acknowledges that a person’s experience “has to be filtered through all sorts of other things. But knowing what is there requires the subject to be able to convey it.” If the church insists that a person’s fundamental self-understanding is in error, there’s no room for them to convey what they know. Refusing to allow people to self-identity, he says, sends the message “If you don’t meet me as I want you to meet me, then I won’t meet you.”

Of course, a person’s lived experience has to be filtered through what I hold dear and right. Just because you think you know what it is to be a Catholic doesn’t really mean you do. You need to meet me at the conclusions I’ve come to.

“All you’re doing is silencing them,” Keenan insists. “There can be no dialogue if there’s no respect.”

No dialogue! No respect! No bowing down to my abject whims! No respect! I’m a Jesuit, for goodness sakes! I know these things!

The Inmost Self: Gina Hans-Piazza, Ph.D.

In considering the question of self-identification, the Scripture scholar Gina Hans-Piazza begins with Psalm 139, 13-16:

 

“You formed my inmost being;

    you knit me in my mother’s womb.

I praise you, because I am wonderfully made;

  wonderful are your works!…

  Your eyes saw me unformed;

 

    In your book all are written down;

my days were shaped, before one came to be.”

God made them to be a woman trapped in a man’s body or vice versa! Just accept that. It has nothing to do with sin in the world or their own personal sins. That’s how God made them. I’m a scripture scholar and not crazy in the least.

The clear sense here, Hans-Piazza explains, is that “the self that has been created by God is more than the physical self. The inner self is being lifted up here. That “inmost self,” she says, is “what really defines a person” for the Psalmist, rather than any notion of physicality. “Psalm 139 celebrates the creation of the innermost self as the actual act of God.”

You’ve got to look at the inmost self. Don’t look at all the poppycock that the Ratzinger guy told you about the soul and the body mirroring each other.

In this context, claiming the identity that we discover within ourselves over time, rather than being a sin or error, is the way in which we are true to God. “The person can, by virtue of their in-touchness with themselves, praise God for being so wonderfully made.”

“Their in-touchness!” Look it up. It’s actually found in the Church Parents!

While the question of personal pronouns is not something that comes up in Scripture—“it is just so far outside the mindset of antiquity”—Hans-Piazza notes that any number of biblical characters do change their names. “Abram’s name is changed to Abraham, Sarai to Sarah, Jacob to Israel, Saul to Paul.” And she notes, these name changes always come back to that same feeling expressed by transgender persons of one’s inmost self: “All of these [changes] are in conjunction with identity changes, with their deep self-understanding.”

While nothing in scripture says anything about personal pronouns, we’re going to act like a bunch of bible characters chose their own names instead of God signifying His covenant and their new life in Him. They were all just trans-something. Again – their in-touchness!

Hans-Piazza also points out that in other respects religion is very open to these kinds of name changes. “For someone who becomes ordained, we start calling them Father; for someone who is married or divorced, we use the last name they want; or there’s religious profession.”

All sorts of religions do this and we call priests Father (not that it has anything to do with the fact they have made a vow or anything). It’s all the same as transgender people. The exact same. If you were in touch with your in-touchness you would do this too.

These sorts of contradictions make Hans-Piazza wonder whether the resistance to pronouns and name changes doesn’t reflect a deeper transphobia or homophobia, and a misunderstanding of scriptural references to homosexuality (which a number of Scripture scholars have commented on). “In my own life, I’ve always been called ‘Jenna.’ My baptismal name was Virginia, but I was always called ‘Jenna.’” She posits, if someone insisted on calling her ‘Virginia’ on some kind of religious ground, that would be widely understood as strange.”

I can’t see that it’s any different than a nickname. It’s really not. Just do it.

So why, she wonders, would it be appropriate for a Christian or Catholic to object over a choice of pronoun? “What’s really at the root?” she asks. “I am suspicious.”

I am suspicious that these faithful Catholic bishops don’t want people suffering from dysphoria to be affirmed in it. It’s like they want them to get help for their mental illness! What is our Church coming to???

Contending with the Wounds of the Church: Annie Selak, Ph.D.

A lot of the Georgetown ecclesiologist Annie Selak’s current work focuses on the wounds carried by the church. “My basic thesis is that the church can only credibly be church if it attends to its own wounds,” she says, listing racism, sexism, clericalism and the exclusion of the LGBTQ community as amongst them. “There are some in the church who say if we recognize the sin in the church, then we harm the holiness of the church,” she acknowledges. “My argument is the opposite. My argument is that the church can only live into its mission if it grapples with its own wounds.”

I’m a Georgetown professor. Enough said. Just obey and, by the way, priests should stop abusing every child they meet and the Church should make reparations for slavery.

In ignoring our wounds, Selak argues, we undermine our mission. She points to the treatment of LGBT+ people: “I look to the four marks of the church: unity, catholicity, oneness, holiness,” she explains. “How are we holy if we are telling people that they don’t belong? How are we one if we’re excluding members from the body of Christ, from the people of God, if we’re saying some people are in, some people are out? That hinders the one holy catholic, apostolic church.”

The Church is just telling people to go away. It’s not like they’re calling them to embrace Truth or anything. To be one, holy, catholic and apostolic, you need to embrace their sin, stupid Church.

“If we look at that most foundational understanding of church by those four marks, I think all of us are harmed when some people are included and others are excluded.” And we see the evidence of that harm within the body of the church, she notes. “I think a lot of people are leaving because they don’t want to be complicit in real harm and hatred. Then I know a lot of people, myself included, who stay because we say the way the church is being church isn’t actually it. We want to work to make the church look a little bit more like the reign of God.””

A lot of people are leaving because the Church is mean and I’ve told them that, so they are leaving because I am so much smarter than all those lame bishops who are men. Not letting me have more power is also super harmful to everyone I’ve ever met.

“I think that same love for the church motivates each way.”

“Practically speaking, confronting our wounds involves “truth telling,” Selak says. “I think sometimes the church is scared to confront its own woundedness, because what we know now is comfortable.”

Confronting our wounds involves truth telling, but only truth telling which I tell you is truth otherwise it’s untruth and really super mean.

I wonder if part of the threat posed by confronting our wounds is that we don’t know what lies on the other side of honest assessment. We don’t know where it will lead us. Selak agrees: “If we recognize the harm that’s done, what does it look like to repair that harm? Does it mean we’re changing governance practices, changing programming, asking different questions about where the money goes?”

They’re all just too phobic and might have to allow me to become a priest and, oh, they’re stealing money. They’re terrified of change. Has zero to do with God. Nothing at all.

“I want to believe that God is always calling us to something greater, something deeper, something truer, something more authentic, something more whole,” Selak says. “And that’s also more scary because we don’t know what that looks like.”

I want to believe God is always calling us to something greater like genital mutilation, women priestesses and completely re-writing the English language.

Intriguingly, the journey she imagines for the church in confronting its own wounds seems very much akin to the journey of transgender people. “If we’re all created in the image and likeness of God,” she poses, “there’s also a sense of self as mystery.” Reconsidering one’s name, gender or pronouns, she argues, is part of the broader dynamic of growing in our sense of self that we all go through over the course of our lives. “New contexts bring out new parts of ourselves, new life phases bring out new parts of ourselves.” 

Uh, I got nothing. We’re all transgender now?

In the end, says Selak, “We are all naming our gender, our identities for ourselves.” And recognizing that, “We’re ethically obligated, when people tell us who they are to honor that, to respect that and to recognize that.”

God is dead. The end.

Contrary to what Jesuits and their affiliates tell you, no Jesuit or affiliate was actually harmed in the making of this satirical piece. Just me getting in touch with my in-touchness.

This is also a friendly reminder that friends don’t let friends near Jesuits.

 

 

 

When the Church Gives God’s Love & You Reject It

While she just came on my radar, I have a lot of issues with Alessandra’s ideas, but this one is solidly hypocritical and pretty much gossip, detraction, and slander rolled into one. I’m sure in her mind she’s just fighting for the little guys, but the problem is, the little guys may be wrong. When you’re trying to get them to come back to the Church, maybe don’t write an article about how mean the Church is? The problem is, I don’t think she’s trying to get people to orient their actions towards God. She wants a Church that just makes everyone feel better about their sins and they can just get absolved without the resolve to sin no more because, hey, everyone deserves to get in line for Communion, right? Wrong.

When the Church Refuses God’s Love

In late July 2021, I attended Mass at Our Lady of Peace Parish in Santa Clara, California, with my teenage family members. I literally and figuratively grew up at that church as my mom worked as a secretary there for twenty-three years before retiring in 2010. I spent a lot of time there and had a great relationship with many of the priests and parish employees. I was married by one of their priests at a chapel nearby, and all four of my children were baptized there. For decades the church has been an anomaly in the San Francisco Bay Area — offering multiple Masses throughout the day and confession with every Mass. On that July day, we waited in the 45-minute line for confession. What happened afterwards still impacts me today and has increased my concerns about the treatment of young LGBTQ+ people by the Catholic Church in the United States.

You know why she puts the date? Probably because now we can all go there and see who was on staff and she can say “Well I didn’t say who it was.” Can the priest defend himself and make explanation at all? Nope. We’re just going to have to take the secondhand conversation at her word. The funny thing is, I actually think I knew her mom during her tenure there when Msgr. Sweeny was also there. Msgr. Sweeny probably would have done the same thing. One thing I’d point out is, since she repeatedly brings up “transgender” that might be what her relative was going through. If the child was indeed obviously living a lifestyle inconsistent to the Church, what is a priest to do??? While she spews disgust at the priest, she leaves out a lot of the story. I mean, what was the conversation the relative had with the priest? We don’t know and she’s not telling us that even though she’s telling us a lot more.

Covid restrictions were still in place at the church at the time, so confessions were heard outside in the parking lot, face-to-face with the priests. Loudspeakers projected the Mass throughout the church grounds, allowing people sitting outside or waiting in line for confession to follow along with it. I remember that the priest preached in his homily that frequenting the sacraments as often as possible and receiving the Eucharist are sometimes the only way people overcome persistent sin. I was very happy to hear that message because my teenage family member, who had become increasingly distant from his faith had decided to return to Mass and confession after being in a serious car accident the month before.

Maybe, as the adult in this relationship, you should have explained the “resolve to sin no more” and why that’s important before absolution and reception of Our Lord in the Eucharist? Maybe you should have explained the harm in receiving Our Lord unworthily? Maybe you should have talked to him about a lot of things, especially when he’s got the notion that death could occur at any time. While the accident was awful, that perspective is a gift.

He looked upset, however, after his confession. He then told me the priest said he would not absolve him from his sins. I asked if he had expressed contrition for his sins. He said, yes, of course, but the priest told him that he was not sincere enough.

Again, this is all hearsay. Did the kid really just come out and say this or did she ask him? I’m not really even sure why anyone watches anyone confess, much less discusses it with the penitent. I highly doubt the priest said “Sorry, I just don’t think you’re sincere enough.” Honestly, what priest wants to withhold absolution? What he probably did was ask him how he was going to avoid the situation again or if he planned on doing it again, etc., etc. And, I highly doubt a priest that said frequent reception of the Sacraments is a way to overcome persistent sin would say that it’s OK to not resolve to sin no more either.

Not to give too much info, I’ve had “stubborn sins” at time which I was just having issues not committing repeatedly. After hearing the same thing a few times in confession, the priest rightly asked me if I was resolving not to do it again. That was a perfectly valid question given the number of times I confessed it. I was, but I was also in a situation where I simply could not get away from what was stressing me. That doesn’t mean I couldn’t resolve to try not to ever do it again. Just meant I was in constant temptation that I could not avoid and I fell repeatedly. But, if I had gone into the confessional insincere, not resolving to not do it again, and just checking off a box so I could go to Communion and the priest who knew my issues didn’t bother to ask, he would have very incorrectly given me absolution. And, if he didn’t ask, I would have been really wrong to approach the Eucharist without that intent to resolve to sin no more. Honestly, I don’t know too many who don’t go through this at some point. We have bosses, kids, parents, and a myriad of things we cannot avoid, and we can’t simply say “I’m going to avoid you boss since you are driving me crazy and I can’t help but lose my temper in word or action.” All we can do is, yes, resolve not to do it again and keep getting the graces from the Sacraments in order to overcome our stupid selves as quickly as possible. And, that can happen, but not if we don’t humbler ourselves and throw ourselves on God’s mercy in what seems like an insurmountable situation. We can’t do that when we just don’t get “the rules.” They are actually there for our protection not as a punishment. We are definitely going to have a harder time with it when people are telling us the rules don’t apply to us and we are special. Why would we work???

The Church should be the one place people should, indeed, be treated as equal. We’re all sinners. Nobody’s pet sin should be given a pass. Rather than all struggling together to overcome sin, we hear “Well, these people should be “accompanied” (which nobody ever really defines, but it come down to being told their sin is so special that it’s OK).

This upset me so much that when I got home I burst into tears. I am a life-long Catholic and I have never been denied absolution. To experience second-hand the hurt and shame it caused broke my heart. On Monday morning, I emailed the pastor. He responded a week later with no remorse and merely suggested my young family member see a different confessor. I also made a complaint to Bishop Oscar Cantu. He spoke with me about my concerns and said he would speak with both the confessor and the pastor at Our Lady of Peace to discuss the seriousness of refusing absolution, especially for young people, and that it should rarely — if ever — happen.

How does she know it wasn’t rare? And especially for young people? Why? While I try not to look around, I have seen people even at my parish go up for a blessing only during Communion. It’s beautiful! They’re looking at the bigger picture. They’re simply not going to receive unworthily. In a time when so few believe in the Real Presence, they’re humbling themselves in front of Him.

Almost two years later, my worst fears have come to pass. My young family member no longer goes to confession and, subsequently, does not receive the Eucharist when he attends Mass. I fear that the actions of that priest may have permanently turned a young soul away from the sacraments.

Not treating the Eucharist as some sort of right to be had in any condition might be the one thing that young person has seen making God’s presence in the Eucharist known. This may be the thing that eventually brings him back. It certainly isn’t you. And, good on him for not receiving!!! He seems to be showing more belief than Alessandra at this point. Again, the Faith isn’t checking of a bunch of boxes. It’s about humbling ourselves and embracing God’s grace and mercy. If we can’t get to the first part, we’re never going to get to the latter. Maybe, instead of saying how horrible the priest is, you might have wanted to learn yourself why he would deny absolution to anyone. Of course, while you’re blasting this all over the internet, the priest cannot address that particular confession. Maybe you should go out to coffee with him and set your rage aside for a second and ask some questions. You probably didn’t think about that before firing off complaints to the pastor and bishop.

In March 2022, Pope Francis addressed participants in the 32nd Course on the Internal Forum, an event organized by the Apostolic Penitentiary, and stressed to confessors the importance of being welcoming and having pastoral charity towards penitents in the Sacrament of Reconciliation. He told them that they must avoid curiosity and not probe penitents for unnecessary details, saying, “Please! You are not a torturer, you are a loving father. Curiosity is of the devil.” He even went as far as to say, “Forgiveness is a right.”

Here’s the actual address in its totality. https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2022/03/25/220325d.html And here’s something she skipped while cherry-picking:

“This is a good sign, because today there is a widespread mentality that struggles to understand the supernatural dimension, or would even prefer to deny it. There is always, always the temptation to reduce it. Confession is a dialogue.”

And here she misses something important. Emphasis mine.

He explained:

God, in the Paschal Mystery of Christ, has given it in a total and irreversible way to every person willing to accept it, with a humble and repentant heart… By generously dispensing God’s forgiveness, we confessors cooperate in healing people and the world; we cooperate in bringing about that love and peace for which every human heart yearns so intensely; we contribute, if I may say so, to a spiritual ‘ecology’ of the world.

Repentant means you are truly sorry, you don’t want to do it again, and you try to avoid doing it again as far as possible. The command Christ gave was to “Repent and sin no more.”

Also, she may want to read the document Pope Francis mentioned: https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/tribunals/apost_penit/documents/rc_trib_appen_pro_20190629_forointerno_en.html

The personal experience of a young family member being denied a sacrament has led me to broader concerns about policies that are being instituted in the US Church policies that will drive even more young people away from the faith — specifically young Catholics who identify as LGBTQ+.

There is no “specifically.” We’re all sinners and we all play by the same rules. Whataboutisms don’t work. I have to wonder what would have happened if she hadn’t probed someone about their confession and decided to decry the priest. Also, the family member was not denied the sacrament.

For example, according to a January article from Catholic News Agency, “the Diocese of Des Moines, Iowa, has banned the use of puberty-blocking drugs, transgender pronouns, and the use of bathrooms opposite of one’s biological sex.” Last year, the Denver Archdiocese issued a 17-page document establishing guidelines on the handling of matters related to sexuality and gender identity. Among other policies, it states that transgender students should not be admitted to its Catholic schools:

A Catholic school cannot affirm a student’s identity as transgender, gender nonconforming, non-binary, gender-fluid, gender-queer, or any other term that rejects the reality of the student’s given male or female sexual identity; any asserted identity that rejects the reality of biological sex is incompatible with Christian anthropology.

One of the signature passages from the New Testament is Jesus’ command, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” (Matthew 19:14). Regardless of the Catholic Church’s stance on gender identity, no child, teenager, or young adult should be barred from receiving a Catholic education or partaking in the sacraments and life of the Church.

And? What about all the other children in the school being scandalized? What about all those who would then have to share locker rooms with people of the opposite sex? At some point, we have to admit that the onus is not on the priests, the schools, the teachers, etc., who are trying to keep others from being scandalized and who refuse to placate dysphorias for the child in question. What if the child was passing around drugs at school? Well, I hope the child wouldn’t be welcome because a class full of kids hooked on meth wouldn’t be pretty. Seriously, we cannot placate bad behavior. Ask yourself, Alessandra, how we’d know that a child is LGBTwhatever? They are acting on that dysphoria or attraction, that’s how. Or they’re simply walking around saying “I’m non-binary” and dressing like the opposite sex. To what end? For complete and total acceptance. Should we accept the homosexual act? Should we accept boys being in girls’ restrooms or vice versa? Is that what’s good for the body and soul of ANYONE involved, be it the child subjected to it or the one doing the subjecting? You completely misunderstand the verse above on children. You are the one trying to keep them from coming to Christ. And you totally leave out the verses that have to do with the scandal which adults are now championing.

If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them if a large millstone were hung around their neck and they were thrown into the sea.

You are the one who is causing little ones to stumble, not the priest who heard your family member’s confession.

Pope Francis has set an example of how to honor Catholic teaching on gender identity while welcoming and accepting people who identify as transgender. When he took questions from the press on his return flight from Azerbaijan to Rome in October 2016, Joshua McElwee asked how the pope would accompany people who feel that their physical makeup does not correspond to their sexual identity. Francis answered that he had accompanied many people with “homosexual tendencies and also homosexual activity,” and that his accompaniment had brought them closer to the Lord. He insisted that we should never abandon them. He also told a story, one that reminds me of the way Jesus often taught with parables, such as the story of the Good Samaritan:”

Pause. Nobody is suggesting abandoning anyone. I, for one, am really tired of the ambiguous word “accompany.” It’s so ridiculous to think that the rest of the Catholic world that disagrees with Alessandra’s idea that we should just accept everyone doing anything doesn’t have many people suffering with same-sex attractions in their lives. Do Harris, Martin, Reese, etc., really think that our method of operation is “Be gone!”? How about Fr. Mike Schmitz, whose brother is suffering with same-sex attraction and who has written about it beautifully in “Made for Love?” (I highly recommend people buy that one.) That’s the definition of accompaniment we should have as Catholics. Lots and lots of conversation with love. From millennials on down they’ve been told that everyone just has to agree with you or you should cut them off. How loving is that?

My husband and I had an occasion to travel a few months back. We stumbled into a shop and we like to talk to the locals. It turned out the guy running the place was from our town. We must have spent a lovely hour talking to him about all sorts of things. Politics, religion, small town life, travel, Catholicism, etc. Turns out, politically he liked and disliked a lot of the same people as us. He thought it was sad to see our state turning out so horribly, taxes, and a general lack of kindness, just like us. I’d say he was of my generation. You’ve got to love us Gen X people. We just get along with everyone. We don’t shun people because of our differences with them, agree or not. We’re also not afraid to discuss things. One last thing, he was same-sex attracted. Amazingly enough, we didn’t hold up a Crucifix in an attempt to repel him. We talked about our differences and we talked about our common ground.

Seriously, the old canard of we hate everyone is ridiculous. We’ll probably go back and chat with him again next time. You really can love people you don’t agree with on every single thing in life. Ironically, he pointed us to another shop that just happened to be having a fundraiser for the local pregnancy center. There was no animosity toward his fellow townsfolk who are from all walks of life. There is no demand that everyone agree with each other. There’s just a general caring about their community. This is what leads to honest dialogue. This is why I hate seeing most of Fr. James Martin, SJ’s posts and things like Alessandra’s. There was an opportunity for Alessandra to have a honest talk with her relative, but she totally missed it.  

“Last year I received a letter from a Spanish man who told me his story from the time when he was a child. He was born a female, a girl, and he suffered greatly because he felt that he was a boy but physically was a girl. He told his mother, when he was in his twenties, at 22, that he wanted to have an operation and so forth. His mother asked him not to do so as long as she was alive. She was elderly, and died soon after. He had the operation. He is a municipal employee in a town in Spain. He went to the bishop. The bishop helped him a great deal, he is a good bishop and he “wasted” time to accompany this man. Then he got married. He changed his civil identity, he got married and he wrote me a letter saying that it would bring comfort to him to come see and me with his bride: he, who had been she, but is he. I received them. They were pleased. And in the neighborhood where he lived there was an elderly priest, over 80 years old, the former parish priest who assisted the nuns, there, in the parish… Then a new [parish priest] came. When the new priest would see him, he would yell at him from the sidewalk: “You’’ll go to hell!” When he went to the old priest, the old priest said to him: “How long has it been since you made your confession? Come now, I will hear your confession so you can receive Communion.”

Well, that was full catering to Gnostic Dualism. Thankfully, plane interviews are not binding.

“Through that story, I can almost hear Jesus’ question after telling the parable of the Good Samaritan: Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers? Which priest acted like the true shepherd?”

Are we talking about people outside our Faith? No. We’re talking about very confused people approaching the Church for help and being told everything is fine. The problem is, you can’t run from your conscience. I’m sure the priest in question knows this.

Did the priest have the authority to deny absolution to my family member? Yes. Do Catholic dioceses have the authority to ban transgender students? Probably. But that doesn’t make it right in either situation.

Or it’s the only solution they have for a horrific situation brought about through sin. The people who should be in charge of caring for their souls likely have been absent or simply don’t know what to do. These are really evil times we’re living in and a lot of children, especially, are being preyed upon.

The real question is, who would Jesus deny absolution to? Which transgender student would Jesus turn away and say they could not be a part of his community and learn from his teachings?

He would tell them to repent and sin no more, but you’re kind of forgetting about that. Remember the rich man who came to Jesus and asked Him how to inherit eternal life? When Jesus told him, the rich man couldn’t do it, and he left, and Christ let him. Jesus didn’t say “Oh wait! Wait! That teaching was too hard for you? I’ll just change it.” He spoke the truth and the young man rejected it. This applies to all of us.

The Catholic Church does not need protecting. Jesus promised the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church. However, people at the margins of American society — those who are LGBTQ+, single parents, those who are divorced, Black Catholics, migrants, low-income Americans — apparently need to be protected from a US Church more concerned with waging culture wars than inviting and welcoming all people, from all walks of life, into the fold.

Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! Why is the Church waging the culture war? Is she insisting that everyone join it? Is She insisting that everyone adhere to Her beliefs under penalty of imprisonment, prosecution, endless litigation, etc., etc., etc.? No. The Church is doing now what Christ did. “Here is how you inherit the kingdom of God.” Honestly, I’d LOVE to hear that my sins are not sins, but that wouldn’t get me the everlasting life I’d like. No, the only ones waging a culture war are those demanding everyone just get in line with the culture.

After all this time, I’m still furious at the priest who denied my family member absolution. Although it’s entirely possible that he has never given a second thought to what he did that day, his callous decision towards my family member may have effects that could last into eternity. Even still, I know I must offer the priest the one thing he denied my family member: forgiveness.”

Or your family member denied himself. We’ll never know, and you may very well be responsible for that by spreading your take on this private conversation between confessor and confessee.

One more thing. Where Peter Is should be embarrassed and apologetic for posting this very lacking in detail accusation of a confession that cannot be verified for details.

 

Open Letter from Bitter catholic Feminists

This is the first thing I saw this morning. You just know when you see the term “reproductive justice” it’s going to be anything but Catholic. Shocker, it was exactly as I thought it would be: just a bunch of shrews “catholicsplaining” to the rest of the world from their ivory towers.

I can usually get away with just commenting after whole paragraphs, but just about every sentence is crammed with crud, so, for once, I’ll just write it as I read it with my morning coffee. Wouldn’t want you to miss what it’s like being inside my head when I read this stuff!

OPEN LETTER FROM CATHOLIC WOMEN: RECLAIMING PUBLIC DEBATES ABOUT ABORTION & REPRODUCTIVE JUSTICE [Right now I’m thinking that true “reproductive justice” would be you not being allowed to have children or teach anyone else’s.]

We write as Catholic women [Are you sure about any of that?] at a time when the opinions of judges and lawmakers are viewed as more valid than our own lived experiences with reproductive health. [Repeat after me: Abortion and contraception have nothing to do with health. Neither treats a disease. They cause physical death of baby as well as spiritual death of mom.] We are theologians, [So many people throw that title around] scholars, [debatable] advocates, [advocating what? Evil?] mothers [That’s unfortunate.] and daughters […with some serious mommy and/or daddy issues]  who watch in anguish [dramatic much?] as abortion bans make pregnancies even more dangerous for women. [I’ve got news for you. Far fewer women have died or been maimed since the abortion bans. Yes, it’s true that a few medical “ethicists” and doctors have turned women away whose baby no longer had a heartbeat or who had ectopic pregnancies and thus no longer fell under these bans for surgical/medical procedures which would normally kill a child. However, people like these “Catholic women” have endlessly lied about the fact that this was anything other than malpractice and/or a chance to show how dangerous these bans were. These “Catholic women” are hard-pressed to find one case to prove their point. How is it that Ireland, who resisted abortion among the longest, had stellar maternal health numbers until then? Even the case they used to overturn their abortion bans was a lie and based on what should have been a malpractice case.] We see how decades of disinvestment in the social safety net and more recent restrictions on women’s reproductive care disproportionately impact Black and Hispanic women. [What in the what??? Decades can be based on the last year? Up until then, women were free to abort at will. They still can use birth control all they want. Please. All the supposed “social safety net” did was to produce more broken families and more dead women and children. More money than ever is given to “social programs” and, despite this, not enough makes it to women and children, so fix that, ladies. Don’t suggest that killing the poor Black and Hispanic women’s children is the solution. That would actually play right into Margaret Sanger’s plan on getting rid of them. How about we take the money we give to “the arts” and give it to poor families??? How about that?! No comment? Didn’t think so.] We are moved by compassion and conscience [“We’re so benevolent to the unwashed.” I think I just vomited a little.] to say clearly that laws and policies celebrated as  “pro-life” by our Church leaders often hurt women and demean our dignity. [No, ladies, it is you who do that. And, by the way, stop using euphemisms like “our Church leaders” and just admit you don’t like the all-male hierarchy. That’s who you’re really talking about because you are bitter that it’s one glass ceiling you can’t break.]

Culture wars over abortion have divided our Church, [No, feminist babes, it’s you. You have divided the Church. Let’s not blame this on the inability to kill children, or, should I say, to morally kill children. It’s not a “culture war.” It’s about murder.] coarsened political discourse and left a legacy of mistrust and resentment. [What are you talking about? I have no mistrust or resentment towards the teachings of the Catholic Church. The only people I mistrust and resent is people who claim to be Catholic but do not embrace the Church’s teachings. Why? Because you are morally disingenuous and deserve mistrust and resentment.] Pregnancy, parenthood and the totality of women’s lives have been turned into simplistic slogans. [Says the women who use “Catholic” in a wholly inconsistent way.] We are told to “choose life” [Oh, the horrors!] even as the policies needed to build a culture of life and dignity for women and families are rejected by the same politicians who criminalize our reproductive decisions. [Reproductive decisions? No slogans or euphemisms there.]

We applaud Church leaders who walk with people as pastors,[translation – those who tell us our sin is not a sin] but a vocal segment of clergy has created a culture of stigma and shame that shuts down conversations about women’s health. [Nobody is shutting down conversation on women’s health, but we totally should be shutting down conversations on things like birth control and abortion which hurt us.] This culture contributes to retaliation in the public square as some bishops weaponize Communion against Catholic politicians. [Awwww, isn’t this cute. The ivory tower women’s club is giving cover to Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden.] In addition, when bishops describe abortion as the “preeminent priority” in elections, [Because it is.] the fullness of Catholic social teaching [as if you are the arbitrator of that or even know what that is. You don’t kill children and harm women to solve social issues. You don’t kill children and harm women to solve social issues. You don’t kill children and harm women…] is narrowed in ways that are exploited by partisan agendas [Truth is not exploitation.]and that devalue the theological and spiritual role of discernment in making difficult decisions. [Did Father Martin write this screed? I think these ladies should spend less time writing and more time studying how to “discern” decisions in light of TRUE Catholic teaching. The “Primacy of Conscience” as Fr. Martin and club peddle it is a LIE. You know this but you want what you want.]

We have three core reasons for speaking out. [Can’t wait to hear this. I mean, if the core reasons weren’t laid out in the ramblings above, this ought to be good.]

We need better public conversations about abortion and reproductive justice that acknowledge the full complexity of women, pregnancy, parenthood and reproductive decisions. [Because we haven’t been having them for well over 50 years? Are you babes really this myopic? Maybe pick up a Church document or writings from a pope from time to time? Maybe read, oh, I don’t know, Theology of the Body? Humanae Vitae? Evangelium Vitae? Or a host of others? It’s time to reclaim the public narrative [Here’s an idea: how about we reclaim the Catholic narrative from the anything but crowd like you?] from a vocal minority of religious and political leaders [So, if the bishops are in the minority, they should simply stop teaching Catholicism?] who have monopolized these debates for too long. [The only people who have been talking far too long are people like you ladies. Your way is not the Catholic way simply because you claim Catholicism. You are bad Catholics and bad Catholics shouldn’t have a say in anything remotely Catholic.] Catholic universities, [ what they really mean are all the CINOs out there. Catholic In Name Only is the long form for those not familiar.] parishes, faith-based non-profits and those of us who have a public platform as intellectuals, scholars and advocates should help foster these conversations. [But not you faithful Catholics. You all need to just shut up. That’s really what they’re going for. Only women who they think hold their class of “intellectuals, scholars and advocates” need apply. The rest of you can take a seat in the back of the bus.]

Catholic women have moral agency and baptismal dignity. [Well, some of us do and some of us have given that all up.]  We encourage Catholic women to share their experiences and recognize the power of their stories. [“Their stories” do not change the truth that God will hold them responsible for the death of children and the destruction of, say, the family. Let me help you ladies, your experience really doesn’t matter. God’s will does. Stop being and encouraging people to be narcissists. Your precious “lived experience” has nothing to do with the Truth of Catholic doctrine.] It’s especially important for women to be heard in a Church led by an all-male hierarchy. [By gosh! Who knew they’d say the quiet part out loud. Some call these men our shepherds and some call them the evil “all-male hierarchy” as if men cannot possibly possess Truth. Bitter much, ladies? Again, I’m thinking some of these babes have some serious daddy issues.] Because it takes courage to have these challenging conversations, [Actually, it takes courage to follow the teachings of the Catholic Church, pick up our crosses and to choose the narrow path. It just takes envy to do what you’re doing.] women can’t be expected to speak out unless Church leaders also work to create a culture of respect and listening. [Oh my gosh, I really wish the female doctors of the Church and Our Lady could appear to you and tell you what fools you are. What I wouldn’t pay to see St. Catherine give you a tongue lashing. Look what contraception and abortion has done to our world, ladies. You want people to have respect and love for “poor Black and Hispanic women?” How about you stop suggesting they need to kill or prevent their offspring so that they can be saved. I know this is lost on you, but that actually isn’t loving in the least. Stop trying to justify your use of contraception and abortion on their backs. I’m pretty sure that’s what this all comes down to. You are willing to throw them under the bus to ease your own guilt. “I’m not doing this for me. This is for those poor women.” Garbage.]

We urge elected officials to support robust policies that address how economic, racial and reproductive justice are interconnected. [I urge elected officials to run far away from anything remotely connected to “reproductive justice” – aka the ability to contracept and to abort – which has nothing to do with justice. I can’t believe I have to still say this to women who claim Catholicism as their reason for doing whatever, but killing children is never just nor is separating the procreative and unitive aspects of marriage.]  Abortion is often viewed as a single issue, but women do not make decisions in isolation. [Again, there is no justification for contraception or killing children. None.]  The lack of quality health care, the high cost of raising children, poverty wages for workers, sexual violence and rape, and the racial gap in maternal mortality rates all impact how women make decisions about our reproductive lives. [Regardless of the truth in any of this, still does not excuse abortion and contraception. I wonder how many more times I’ll have to say that one.] Reproductive justice [Buzz phrase that sounds all great but means killing children and contracepting] is a holistic framework that makes these connections and rejects binary or single-issue solutions. [The solution is not to abort and contracept. The solution is to love. The solution is to teach every human being the beauty of God’s will. If everyone did this, we wouldn’t have a problem, would we? Because people don’t do this is not a reason to ignore God’s will for life and marriage. I mean, are you really going with “Well, people are going to sin so we just have to mitigate the cost to society?” How loving. It’s right up there with “People are going to have sex so we should just give them contraception even though it will kill their souls, kill their children, kill their marriages, etc.” It’s been brilliant for society, hasn’t it? So much less out of wedlock sex going on, more stable marriages, fewer dead children…or not.]

Our nation’s social safety nets fail to provide women with the support they need to have children and raise families in safe and healthy environments. [Killing them works so much better.]  The March of Dimes reports that more than two million women of childbearing age live in maternity care deserts where there is no hospital offering obstetric care, no birth center and no obstetric provider. [Newsflash: Abortion and contraception don’t solve that problem, and I’m also not going to listen to an organization that supports abortion – especially the abortion of those they claim to care about.] Women in states with abortion bans are now nearly three times more likely to die during pregnancy or childbirth or soon after giving birth, according to a January 2023 report from the Gender Equity Policy Institute. [There were FAR fewer maternal deaths in 2022 than in 2021. FAR fewer. And with Roe going down mid-way through the year, that number should have skyrocketed by all their rhetoric, but it did not. But, by all means, let’s look at the “Gender Equity Policy Institute’s” dire predictions. No preying on fear over reality there. That’s all they’ve got – fear and lies.]

Some states that ban abortion have chosen not to expand Medicaid, which covers about 40 percent of all births and the majority of births for low-income families. [Wait! Wait! Wait! You mean Obamacare didn’t work?! Say it ain’t so!]

Even before the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, states with the most restrictive abortion laws had some of the worst maternal and child health outcomes in the country. [Again, the nation’s maternal mortality rates decreased since Roe went down, which is exactly the opposite of what we were told would happen.] In 2021, the United States had one of the worst rates of maternal mortality in the country’s history, according to a report from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention. [And let’s note that was when abortion was totally legal] For Black women in the U.S, the maternal mortality rate is nearly three times higher than the rate for white women. In Mississippi, bipartisan legislation recently passed that extends postpartum Medicaid coverage for new mothers to one year after birth, a move that we applaud and that addresses the moral scandal that most new mothers in the state lose Medicaid coverage after sixty days. [Yes. However, NONE of this has anything to do with abortion being legal. It’s illegal now and the nationwide rates have dropped. At that point, one has to ask why this isn’t the case in Mississippi and, again, it’s not because abortion is restricted there and contraception is not illegal, so these ladies have problems with the causation problem. While looking at Mississippi is convenient for them, they also might want to look at the other abysmal states for maternal mortality. 8 out of 10 of them are blue. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/09/opinion/roe-abortion-women-death.html ]

We call on lawmakers to expand Medicaid; implement child tax credits that have proven to significantly decrease child poverty; support full, paid parental leave [note parental and not maternal] after the birth of a child; do more to help families cover the high cost of childcare; and ensure that workers are paid living wages. All of these policies are rooted in principles of solidarity, the dignity of work and the common good found in Catholic social teaching. [And just think, the “all-male hierarchy” said this all without your help.] We recognize that even many of our own Catholic institutions are not doing nearly enough to support policies that help women, children and families flourish. Catholic institutions should be national models for paying just wages to our workers, offering comprehensive pre-and post-natal health insurance coverage, and guaranteeing fully paid parental [Again with the “parental.”] leave after the birth of a child.

We end with an invitation for more Catholics and other people of faith to join us in our effort to create better public conversations about abortion and reproductive justice that reject tired labels and grapple with complexity. [There’s a reason that these two misguided conversations aren’t in the Compendium on Social Doctrine. They aren’t doctrine, they run counter to it. They are a hazard to society and are anything but just. How about we stick to Catholicism?] Each of us have deeply personal and often different views about abortion, [But we shouldn’t because it’s evil.] and we respect the fact that people of goodwill have sincere disagreements on these issues. [Uh, because they are evil.] By sharing our stories, [Your stories don’t matter when it comes to killing children and contraception.] convening dialogues and building new coalitions, together we can do our part to reject divisive culture wars and focus on uniting behind a comprehensive agenda that supports women and families. [Take abortion and “reproductive justice” out of your proposal and we might have something to talk about. Death of body and soul isn’t on the table.]

[A note to faithful Catholic parents: If you are writing checks to one of these Catholic in name only schools, please demand that their teachers adhere to the Catholic faith, CC the bishop of their diocese and send it to the Papal Nuncio while you’re at it.]

 Signed,

Bitter catholic Feminists [Yeah, I added that. True though.]

Natalia Imperatori-Lee, Ph.D.

Professor and Chair, Religious Studies

Director, Catholic Studies Program

Manhattan College

 

María Teresa [MT] Dávila, Ph.D.

Associate Professor and Chair, Religious and Theological Studies

Merrimack College

 

Lisa Sowle Cahill

Professor of Theology

Boston College

 

Jeanné Lewis

Interim CEO

Faith in Public Life

 

Neomi De Anda, Ph.D.

Associate Professor

Department of Religious Studies

Marianist Educational Associate [MEA]

Human Rights Center Research Associate

University of Dayton

Past President, Academy of Catholic Hispanic Theologians of the United States

 

Amy M. Doorley, M.A., M.S., P.C.C.

Coordinator of Graduate Studies

Department of Religious Studies

University of Dayton

 

Cecilia González-Andrieu

Professor of Theology

Loyola Marymount University

 

Nancy Pineda-Madrid

Professor and T. Marie Chilton Chair of Catholic Theology

Loyola Marymount University

 

Nicole M. Flores

Associate Professor of Religious Studies

Director of Health, Ethics, & Society Minor

University of Virginia

 

Jeannine Hill Fletcher

Professor of Theology

Fordham University

 

Nancy Dallavalle

Associate Professor of Religious Studies

Special Assistant to the Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences

Fairfield University

 

Brenna Moore

Professor, Department of Theology

Fordham University

 

Therese Lysaught, Ph.D.

Professor

Neiswanger Institute for Bioethics and Health Policy, Stritch School of Medicine

Loyola University Chicago

Pontifical Academy for Life

Editor, The Journal of Moral Theology

 

Kathleen Maas Weigert

Professor Emerita, Department of Sociology

Loyola University Chicago

 

Hille Haker

Professor of Catholic Ethics

Loyola University Chicago

 

Susan A. Ross, Ph.D.

Professor of Theology, Emerita

Loyola University Chicago

 

Mariana M Miller, M.A.

Assistant Dean for Continuing Education

Institute of Pastoral Studies

Loyola University Chicago

 

Mollie Wilson O’Reilly

Editor at Large, Commonweal magazine

 

Marie Dennis

Senior Program Director, Catholic Nonviolence Initiative

Pax Christi International

 

Emily Reimer-Barry, Ph.D.

Associate Professor, Department of Theology and Religious Studies

University of San Diego

 

Susie Paulik Babka, Ph.D.

Associate Professor of Theology and Religious Studies

University of San Diego

 

Karen Teel, Ph.D.

Professor, Department of Theology and Religious Studies

University of San Diego

 

Mary Doak, Ph.D.

Professor of Theology

University of San Diego

 

Elisabeth T. Vasko

Associate Professor of Theology

Duquesne University

 

Jacqueline M. Hidalgo

Professor of Latina/o Studies and Religion

Williams College

 

Christina R. Zaker, D. Min.

Director, Field Education

Assistant Professor of Pastoral Ministry

Catholic Theological Union

 

Vanessa White, OFS, D.Min.

Associate Professor of Spirituality and Ministry

Catholic Theological Union

 

Kimberly M. Lymore, M.Div., D.Min.

Director, Augustus Tolton Pastoral Ministry Program

Catholic Theological Union

Convener, Black Catholic Theological Symposium

 

Michele Saracino

Professor, Department of Religious Studies

Manhattan College

 

Stacy Davis

Professor of Religious Studies and Theology

Saint Mary’s College, Notre Dame IN

 

Lisa Fullam, D.V.M., Th.D.

Professor emerita, Moral Theology

Jesuit School of Theology

Santa Clara University

 

Dolores L. Christie, Ph.D.

Retired Executive Director

Catholic Theological Society of America

 

Kaya Oakes

Continuing Lecturer

College Writing Programs

University of California, Berkeley

 

Kate Ward

Assistant Professor of Theology

Marquette University

 

Colleges and universities are included for identification purposes only. 

#CupichCannotDeliverUs

Pope Francis, you have two years to remake the US hierarchy. Get to it.

BY MICHAEL SEAN WINTERS

March 22, 2023

Wow! Can’t you just see him snapping his fingers? They are all saying the quiet part out loud now. I guess they figured it worked for Germany, so why not? Pope Francis should understand this is really how the hypocritical Catholic left really sees him. He’s their lap dog, a tool for them to get all their pet sins approved and nothing more. “Get to it, Pope!” Again, wow. I wonder if, some days, Pope Francis thinks, “I totally sided with the wrong people”? Would he rather have this: “The sending of the letter to His Holiness Pope Francis by four cardinals derives from a deep pastoral concern.” or this: “Pope Francis, you have two years to remake the US hierarchy. Get to it.”?

I’ve been saying this for a while: Pope Francis has been told that Cardinal Cupich can deliver us. However, I’m sure he is in enough of a papal bubble to not know how much Cardinal Cupich is disliked by us, or even why. He’s quite polarizing. He’s literally such a tyrant that many of the run of mill pew sitters finally had their eyes opened. How do I know? I get notes from them all the time. They just want to go to Mass. They’re doing their corporal works of mercy like they’ve been doing for decades, and then they get whacked on the head by something their bishop says. They don’t want to think negatively about their bishops but, sadly, they can’t ignore the atrocities anymore. That’s a bad thing and, yet, not a bad thing. Being from California, I know they can fight against it and win, but they need to know that, too. And, yes, bishops/cardinals can be evil. Let’s all remember McCarrick and those who championed him, especially almost all of our current cardinals. Let’s remember Cardinal Mahony and his ilk. It’s time to whip out the old saying, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” We need all good men. We need to listen to St. Catherine of Siena: “WE HAVE HAD ENOUGH EXHORTATIONS TO BE SILENT! CRY OUT WITH A HUNDRED THOUSAND TONGUES: I SEE THE WORLD IS ROTTEN BECAUSE OF SILENCE.” Now is the time, people. Don’t let others tell you that you must be silent, that you’re a big meanie or schismatic. Believe me, they will. The Catholic left, who will tell you that in a heartbeat, clearly isn’t silent. I think the message should be made very clearly – #CupichCannotDeliverUs. Wouldn’t it be fun to see that trending?

On with the command from the almighty Michael Sean Winters!

When will Pope Francis start making some legacy appointments in the U.S. church? When will he, and those who can help him, throw long, aim for the end zone, in naming new bishops? Those are the questions beneath the surface of my colleague Brian Fraga’s article about the many dioceses and archdioceses that are coming open in the next few years.

In Canada, the pope just threw long, naming 51-year-old Bishop Francis Leo as the next archbishop of Toronto, the largest diocese in the country. Leo had only been a bishop for five months when he was named to replace Cardinal Thomas Collins. That is more than throwing long; that is placing a big bet.

I don’t really know much about Bishop Francis Leo. He’s in the Mariological Society of America and seemingly big into the Virgin Mary (It’s amazing how little liberals speak of her), so I’m going to hope she guides him. He also wrote the words that liberals now loathe to hear when he was working for the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops:

The Catholic Church is a decentralized structure. Each Diocesan Bishop is autonomous in his diocese. Although Roman Catholic Bishops relate to their national Conference of Bishops, they are not accountable to it.” https://www.cccb.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Information_from_CCCB_-_House_of_Commons_and_Senate_of_Canada.pdf

Ouch! We used to call it “collegiality.” They claim to want it this way and they claim it’s happening under Pope Francis, but yet they whine endlessly when bishop after bishop stands up and disagrees with, say, Cardinals Cupich and McElroy. Then? Then those who say they believe the Catholic Church is a decentralized structure then talk about sowing division. Which is it, gentlemen? It’s only true when it goes your way? Of course.

In the United States, Francis has made major appointments. His 2014 decision to elevate Bishop Blase Cupich to the archbishopric of Chicago was the first that clearly indicated a new direction for the U.S. hierarchy. Cupich had long been a voice of sanity at meetings of the U.S. hierarchy, for example, opposing efforts to deny Communion to politicians based on their voting records and other culture war approaches.”

Wait? What?! Sanity??? Oh yeah. That’s the first thing I think of about Cardinal Cupich – especially when he locked people out of churches for the Triduum and discouraged pro-lifers, including priests and seminarians, when he was a bishop. Sane as any tyrannical ruler, I guess. Sanity is clearly in the eye of the beholder.

Appointing Bishop Robert McElroy to San Diego the following year and transferring Archbishop Joseph Tobin from Indianapolis to Newark, New Jersey, in 2016 sent a similar signal: The pope passed over more conservative candidates and, in all three cases, sources tell me the decision was made in spite of the urgings of the apostolic nuncio at the time, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò.

All three appointments were also named cardinals, Cupich and Tobin in 2016 and McElroy in 2022, further demonstrating the pope’s confidence in them.”

Yeah, Archbishop Vigano snuck in a few great appointments, but once Cardinal Cupich was elevated, he could no longer pull it off. Cardinal Cupich can come off as such a great yes man. He’s a master manipulator, but the mask slips quite a bit at times. He usually just taps his media buddies to do his dirty work. If he’s confronted, well, he just loses it. He’s probably even having Cardinal McElroy do his dirty work so that he can keep his halo all shiny. The problem is, Cardinal McElroy is really bad at it. Whatever is happening, Cardinal Cupich is definitely in charge of the three-ring cardinal circus. The problem is, he’s still having a lot of trouble delivering the rest of the bishops and faithful. He didn’t even stay at the last USCCB meeting. The prior one was pretty ugly for him because he and Cardinal McElroy got schooled.  Really, everyone has pretty much had enough. He can’t even post his calendar for fear people will be there to protest (and they should), which is why he’ll be off to Rome soon enough. This is also why Winters is begging to make a slam of liberal appointments. The show of “collegiality” is usually the sticking point. Hard to look like you’re being collegial when you are, say, appointing auxiliary bishops who the current bishop doesn’t want. And, by the way, people have started noticing the lack of auxiliary appointments where there are faithful bishops. For instance, Archbishop Gomez in the largest diocese in the country has two, while Cardinal Cupich with half the diocese has eight. No punishment going on there. https://www.cal-catholic.com/only-two-active-bishops-in-l-a-nations-largest-diocese/

The decision in 2019 to transfer Archbishop Paul Etienne from Anchorage, Alaska, to Seattle showed a similar determination for a different style of episcopal leadership. Retiring Archbishop Peter Sartain had requested a coadjutor and many anticipated it would be Bishop Robert Barron, a close friend of Sartain. But the pope selected Etienne, a man whose charisma matches that of the telegenic Barron, but whose ecclesiological leanings are more obviously in line with those of Francis. Etienne has never done a dog-and-pony show with Jordan Peterson, for example.”

“Ecclesiological leanings?” That’s an interesting term. Can you define that Mr. Winters?

Other appointments showed the pope’s desire for more pastoral, less culture-warrior prelates. Sending Archbishop Wilton Gregory to Washington in 2019, and then naming him cardinal, guaranteed there would be no showdown over denying Communion in the nation’s capital.

Huh? The liberal club of cardinals are all culture warriors and anything but pastoral. They’re literally fighting for the culture, not souls.

Similarly, the appointment of Bishop Shelton Fabre last year to the venerable see of Louisville, Kentucky, indicated that same preference for pastors over bomb-throwers. And replacing Bishop Thomas Olmsted with Bishop John Dolan in the nation’s fastest-growing city, Phoenix, was another great appointment.”

Great appointments if you don’t want people to understand the Catholic faith.

There is an old saying in the Vatican diplomatic corps about how to remake a hierarchy in the face of opposition: “Two for us, one for them.” The idea is that the church is a large ship, and people stake their souls on its practices and beliefs, so if you wish it to move in a new direction, you must turn it slowly.

Pope Francis has been pope for 10 years and, in an unprecedented way, many U.S, bishops refuse to get on board. It is time to turn decisively, not slowly, by selecting new bishops who are not stuck in the past.

Get on board with what? And pick bishops not stuck in the past?!?! We’re looking at the 70’s revisited with some recent appointments and, quite frankly, it’s likely to have the same effect. Plummeting church attendance and sexual abuse.

Last fall, the U.S. bishops selected Archbishop Timothy Broglio as the president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. There were a variety of reasons for the choice, and some bishops whom I think of as being very pro-Francis did not realize that they had chosen someone with a history of bad blood with Francis, nor were they aware of his sketchy connection to the late Cardinal Angelo Sodano, with all that implies.

I’m sorry. What does that imply? First of all, a guy dies and then accusations are hurled at him. Next, a secretary of his who leaves that post long BEFORE accusations were hurled is somehow a protector of abusers? Slander much? Let’s just state the facts, he turned out to be a little too faithful to Catholicism for you, so now he must be destroyed.

Broglio showed his indifference to the task of uniting the conference when he published a sermon he recently delivered in Washington. In it, he contradicts McElroy without mentioning him, quoting from an article by E. Christian Brugger in The Catholic World Report. The Brugger article repeatedly misrepresented McElroy’s argument, a fact Broglio ignored.”

Uniting the conference in what??? Liberalism and heresy? Uniting for the sake of unity would be stupid. If unity is the be all and end all for the USCCB, how about Cardinals McElroy, Cupich, Tobin, etc., etc., get on board with the rest of the bishops? Cardinal McElroy somehow didn’t consult them. Please, the only ones trying to blow the whole thing up are Cardinal Cupich’s dancers.

I was not surprised to find Broglio was unsympathetic toward the position staked out by McElroy, but I was surprised to find out he had found a way to be, at the same time, divisive in attacking McElroy and cowardly in not naming him. We should expect more from the president of a bishops’ conference.

And yet you seem to know who he was talking about perfectly well. If he had thrown out his name, as you are, you’d be whining about that too. Deal.

The recent election of Archbishop Alexander Sample to the executive committee of the U.S. bishops’ conference only confirms the anti-Francis sentiment of the U.S. bishops. Sample has distinguished himself mostly for his active support for the Tridentine rite, even suggesting that all seminarians should learn to perform the old rite.

Unity! Remember? You’re adorable. Far more bishops were on board with this than against. Again, jump on the unity train. This is why you’re freaking out about appointing as many liberals as possible. It’s not for unity’s sake. It to stomp on anyone you perceive to be an enemy. Might these bishops be worrying about the flocks of their dioceses which THEY know well and you do not?

Still, it was a different election at last November’s meeting of U.S. bishops that showed why the nuncio, the Dicastery for Bishops and the pope himself must really scrutinize their candidates for the episcopacy carefully, and be willing to take some risks.

No. For unity, wouldn’t he want to appoint more just like them? Let’s just admit unity was never your concern. Your concern was pretty much giving the Eucharist to anyone who wanted it and the notion of sin to go away. Well, at least if it’s a sin you’re OK with.

In selecting a new secretary for the conference, the bishops last year chose Oklahoma City Archbishop Paul Coakley — who had issued a statement of support for Viganò when Viganò called for the pope to resign — over Tobin by margin of 130-104. Coakley has never retracted his encomium to the now-disgraced former nuncio. He is also the “ecclesiastical adviser” to Tim Busch’s Napa Institute, the place where Catholic social teaching goes to die. Yet Coakley beat Tobin by 26 votes.

Whoa! Catholic social teaching goes to die there? Wow! I’m wondering how much the attendees dole out to charities every year? I’m sure it’s a wee bit more than Michael Sean Winters.

But let’s talk about that election. If your liberal favs can’t get elected, doesn’t it show you where the rupture lies? It’s with them, not the rest. The reason you guys are so driven to get liberals into the episcopacy is because, well, again, Cardinal Cupich looks like he looks to the rest of the U.S., ridiculous. Can’t have Pope Francis know that he’s not delivering.

Twenty-six votes need to be flipped within the next three years so that, in 2025, the U.S. bishops can select a new president who is committed to that most basic understanding of Catholic ecclesial life: The unity of the Roman Catholic Church is founded on communion with the bishop of Rome. Period

Oh my goodness, man! This is not politics. For one whose ilk denounces playing politics (unless it helps them, of course) you are in it to win it. This is the FAITH. I feel like you’re bucking for some job Cardinal Cupich might get you someday and you’re trading political favors. Stop. It’s super unbecoming.

That is why for the next few years the motto cannot be “two for us, one for them.” Now it must be “30 for us, nothing for them.”

Us and them?! This is a very, very sick way to look at the Church. “Crush your enemy into the ground. They get nothing!” Your slip is showing, Michael. Again, this shouldn’t be a problem if Cardinal Cupich is all you guys make him out to be. He’s not. He never was. While German faithful may fold, we’re Catholics in America. We are scrappy and we will fight for the Faith.

#CupichCannotDeliverUs

%d