Something you should know about me…I am always going to sneak in an Indiana Jones or Star Wars reference when I can. You’re welcome. Snakes might have been more appropriate but then you wouldn’t know I was talking about a Jesuit.
Cardinal Ladaria cautions U.S. bishops on politicians and Communion
VATICAN CITY (CNS) — The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has urged the U.S. bishops to proceed with caution in their discussions about formulating a national policy “to address the situation of Catholics in public office who support legislation allowing abortion, euthanasia or other moral evils.”
Cardinal Luis Ladaria, congregation prefect, reiterated what he said he had told several groups of U.S. bishops during their 2019-2020 “ad limina” visits, namely that “the effective development of a policy in this area requires that dialogue occurs in two stages: first among the bishops themselves, and then between bishops and Catholic pro-choice politicians within their jurisdictions.
Uh, who’s contradicting that? Actually, he seems to have a problem with the brother bishops getting together to discuss it at all. Archbishop Cordileone carefully pointed out in several articles that they can’t just go “off with their heads!” but that they have to have conversations with said pro-abortion politicians explaining their errors and to make sure they have full understanding of the gravity of their actions before anyone could act. Here’s one Q&A article where he states this:
“Sometimes these conversations take place in private — people don’t know about it — and that arrangement can be made. That’s why it’s important that the conversations do take place, and if they become fruitless after repeated attempts, then that’s where a bishop is going to have to make a judgment as to what to do about it.”
and…
“The other aspect of this, Canon 915 — that they’re not to be admitted to Communion — that has happened in the recent history of our country, where bishops have declared that certain people, the ones I’m aware of are politicians, are not to be admitted to Communion — that’s different from excommunication.
Canon 915 is not a penalty: It’s a declaration of a fact, and, pastorally, it can only take place after these conversations. Canon law requires warnings before an excommunication, that the person be warned; and then if they don’t repent, be warned again. And there’s this whole process that has to be observed in order for it to be applied.”
You know who’s a canon lawyer? Archbishop Cordileone. You know who is not? Cardinal Ladaria. Cardinal Ladaria is just a lawyer, and that was from his pre-Jesuit years, so his response makes a lot of sense coming from a lawyer turned Jesuit.
Back to Ladaria’s letter…
In the letter to Archbishop José H. Gomez of Los Angeles, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Cardinal Ladaria also insisted: such a policy cannot usurp the authority of an individual bishop in his diocese on the matter; the policy would require near unanimity; and it would be “misleading” to present abortion and euthanasia as “the only grave matters of Catholic moral and social teaching that demand the fullest level of accountability on the part of Catholics.”
On the first part, do you know who said that first? Oh, yeah, still Archbishop Cordileone. More from the Q&A article above:
“In the end, the bishops have to respect each other’s decision in the matter because each bishop has to make that decision in accordance with his own conscience; and it’s to Almighty God that the bishop will have to render an account for the decision he made within the sanctuary of his conscience.”
So, counselor, you’re arguing against an argument not made.
As to your second point, again, you’re making an argument against an argument not made. “Pre-eminent” doesn’t mean exclusive. It simply means it has priority, and you might actually want to take it up with your boss, Cardinal Ladaria:
https://www.catholicsun.org/2020/01/27/pope-francis-has-our-backs-on-pro-life-cause-says-archbishop/
Archbishop Naumann said Pope Francis had told them, “If we do not defend life, no other rights matter.The Holy Father said that abortion is first a human rights issue.”
On with the Ladaria letter…
The letter, dated May 7 and obtained by Catholic News Service in Rome, said it was in response to a letter from Archbishop Gomez informing the doctrinal congregation that the bishops were preparing to address the situation of Catholic politicians and “the worthiness to receive holy Communion.”
Cardinal Ladaria warned that without the unanimity of the bishops, a national policy, “given its possibly contentious nature,” could “become a source of discord rather than unity within the episcopate and the larger church in the United States.”
So unity is the “pre-eminent” issue?! Well, color me shocked. I thought just maybe it would be children being ripped apart in the womb, Cardinal. Honestly, do these prelates think for just a moment that they may be culpable for the death of many, many children because they spent more time worrying about happily getting along?
Let me help you out, Cardinal Ladaria. Truth, a moral right, nor Canon Law are dependent on unanimity or “near unanimity” as you state.
The cardinal also suggested the discussion “would best be framed within the broad context of worthiness for the reception of holy Communion on the part of all the faithful, rather than only one category of Catholics, reflecting their obligation to conform their lives to the entire Gospel of Jesus Christ as they prepare to receive the sacrament.”
And here comes the whataboutisms of which James Martin, SJ, and his ilk are so fond. Let’s look at the Canon Law which applies here and why we don’t include those with private sin in with public obstinate sinners who should be DENIED Communion. (emphasis mine)
Can. 915 Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.
Can. 916 A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass or receive the body of the Lord without previous sacramental confession unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess; in this case the person is to remember the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition which includes the resolution of confessing as soon as possible.
Let’s look at Canon 915. What does “and others obstinately preserving in manifest grave sin” mean? Manifest means it can be seen. Martin, SJ, and Ladaria, SJ, try to lump the two canons together ALL THE TIME. Can you see when someone is, say, watching porn? Using birth control? Has engaged in contracting a second marriage? Only if they let you in on that little fact. Most sins are private and known only to the people involved. They are not manifest. I’m certainly not shouting mine from the rooftops. But what of the pro-abortion politician who champions abortion PUBLICLY? Or maybe one who contracts a second marriage with no annulment of the first? Or any PUBLICLY announced sin? That’s when Canon 915 kicks in and they are “not to be admitted to holy communion.” That actually means BARRING them. And, as Archbishop Cordileone points out, there are steps to be taken canonically. The sinner has to be informed and instructed by their bishop. Bishops who are not doing this have God to answer to. What Canon 915 doesn’t mean is that the Nancy Pelosis of the world are free to just say “I reject the teaching of the Church and I can do what I want.” Zero to do with Canon 915.
Canon 916 deals with all of us private sinners who know we’re in grave sin. WE are the ones who have to hold ourselves accountable because our sin is not manifest (otherwise we’d revert back to 915). It involves personal accountability. James Martin, SJ, and Cardinal Ladaria, SJ, want you to think the responsibility of these two Canons falls on the individual. They do not. Only one does. They’re just trying to create an “A-ha!” scenario that doesn’t exist.
Given the importance of the issue, which goes beyond the boundaries of the United States, Cardinal Ladaria also said, “Every effort should be made to dialogue with other episcopal conferences as this policy is formulated in order both to learn from one another and to preserve unity in the universal church.”
Oh, yes. Let’s consult Germany! Puh-lease! Again, preserving unity in the teachings of the Church is very important. Preserving unity over evil is not. The dissenters are supposed to bend to the Truth, not the other way around.
The cardinal’s letter also mentioned a reference by Archbishop Gomez to a letter then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger sent in 2004 to then-Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick of Washington about Catholic politicians and Communion. The letter, Cardinal Ladaria said, was in “the form of a private communication” to the bishops and should be read only in the context of the formal 2002, “Doctrinal note on some questions regarding the participation of Catholics in political life.”
Ha-ha! This is the letter that keeps on sticking it to the liberals. It was never supposed to be made public but it was. Theodore McCarrick and then-Bishop Wilton Gregory tried to keep it under wraps and then simply lied about it. No shock there. If you want to know a bit of history on it, Barbara Kralis did a wonderful job on that. https://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=1123
Also worth a read is the piece Sandro Magister did where he published the private document and called out McCarrick for his big old lie on that one.
Cardinal McCarrick, speaking to the bishops gathered in Denver, made himself the spokesman of the concern “that the sacred nature of the Eucharist might be turned into a partisan political battleground.” The real battles, he said, “should be fought not at the Communion rail, but in the public square, in hearts and minds, in our pulpits and public advocacy, in our consciences and communities.”
McCarrick also told the assembly that he had had from the Holy See professions of their trust in the responsibility of the American bishops: thus they may judge whether the refusal of communion is a “pastorally wise and prudent” decision. But there is no trace of any such professions in Ratzinger’s memorandum.
No trace?!? In fact, there’s a big old “must refuse Holy Communion” in there, but Teddy must have been too preoccupied with abusing seminarians to see that.
4. Apart from an individuals’s judgement about his worthiness to present himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, the minister of Holy Communion may find himself in the situation where he must refuse to distribute Holy Communion to someone, such as in cases of a declared excommunication, a declared interdict, or an obstinate persistence in manifest grave sin (cf. can. 915). https://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/7055%26eng%3dy.html
A tad bit different from McCarrick’s rendition to the USCCB. Let’s be honest. McCarrick would have been included in Canon 916. No way he should have been celebrating Mass or receiving Holy Communion.
When the U.S. bishops made their “ad limina” visits to the Vatican in 2004, Cardinal Ladaria said, “it was clear that there was a lack of agreement regarding the issue of Communion among the bishops.”
“At that time, the development of a national policy was not under consideration, and Cardinal Ratzinger offered general principles on the worthy reception of holy Communion in order to assist local ordinaries in the United States in their dealings with Catholic pro-choice politicians within their jurisdictions,” he said.
Then-Cardinal Ratzinger, AKA Pope Benedict XVI for the clueless, gave clear direction, but McCarrick and now-Cardinal Wilton Gregory kept it hidden until it was leaked to Magister. And, yes, there was a task force just for the purpose of a policy of dealing with John Kerry.
“Cardinal Ratzinger’s communication,” he said, “should thus be discussed only within the context of the authoritative doctrinal note which provides the teaching of the magisterium on the theological foundation for any initiative regarding the question of worthy reception of holy Communion.”
“Nothing to see here. Move along!” Oh, OK.
The 2002 note said, “Those who are directly involved in lawmaking bodies have a ‘grave and clear obligation to oppose’ any law that attacks human life. For them, as for every Catholic, it is impossible to promote such laws or to vote for them.”
The 2002 note did not, however, mention reception of the Eucharist.
They’re referring to this note, not Cardinal Ratzinger’s letter, by the way: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html
This is all distraction, though. It’s like Redemptionis Sacramentum was never written.
[91.] In distributing Holy Communion it is to be remembered that “sacred ministers may not deny the sacraments to those who seek them in a reasonable manner, are rightly disposed, and are not prohibited by law from receiving them”.[177]
What’s footnote 177, you may (or rather, should) ask? Canon 915!!!
Cardinal Ratzinger’s 2004 letter, which was never published by the Vatican, said, “Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest — understood in the case of a Catholic politician as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws — his pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.”
“When ‘these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible,’ and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the holy Eucharist, ‘the minister of holy Communion must refuse to distribute it,’” Cardinal Ratzinger wrote, quoting from a declaration of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts on the issue of Communion for divorced and civilly remarried Catholics.
That emphasis was mine. Please note it didn’t say “may”, “could”, etc. It said MUST refuse. But that was the direction Theodore and Cardinal Wilton Gregory chose to hide from the USCCB.
Writing to Archbishop Gomez, Cardinal Ladaria said the U.S. bishops need an “extensive and serene dialogue” among themselves and between individual bishops and Catholic politicians in their dioceses who do not support the fullness of the church’s teaching to understand “the nature of their positions and their comprehension of Catholic teaching.”
As serene as a child being ripped apart?
Only after both dialogues, the cardinal said, the bishops’ conference “would face the difficult task of discerning the best way forward for the church in the United States to witness to the grave moral responsibility of Catholic public officials to protect human life at all stages.”
We’ve had more than enough dialogue as our most helpless are killed over a million times a year and the Eucharist is desecrated consistently.
“If it is then decided to formulate a national policy on worthiness for Communion, such a statement would need to express a true consensus of the bishops on the matter, while observing the prerequisite that any provisions of the conference in this area would respect the rights of individual ordinaries in their dioceses and the prerogatives of the Holy See,” the cardinal said, citing St. John Paul II’s 1998 document on bishops’ conferences.
Cardinal Ladaria specifically pointed to paragraphs 22 of the document, “Apostolos Suos,” which says bishops’ conferences may publish doctrinal declarations when they are “approved unanimously,” but “a majority alone” is not enough for publication without the approval of the Vatican.”
Two things to note in this last statement. It doesn’t have to be unanimous or near unanimous as the Cardinal stated before. It just has to be unanimous or approved, so CARRY ON, MEN! If the Vatican is going to punt, at least that won’t be on your hands. On the other hand, if you do nothing, even with the Cardinal’s overt threat of punting it, that will be on you.
He also cited paragraph 24, which says the bishops’ conference cannot hinder an individual bishop’s authority in his diocese “by substituting themselves inappropriately for him, where the canonical legislation does not provide for a limitation of his episcopal power in favor of the episcopal conference.”
Yeah, yeah, we know. Again, that will be on Cardinals Gregory, Tobin, Cupich, Bishop McElroy, and all the other weak and/or evil men who have aided and abetted the killing of children. The rest of you who care about YOUR souls, as well as the souls of those in your charge, had better start rallying behind those trying to protect the Eucharist and defend life, or you might just have hell to pay.
Many thanks to Archbishop Cordileone and all of the bishops who have put out letters of support. May your efforts to protect the Eucharist and lives be rewarded.
47 thoughts on “Jesuits. Why Does it Always Have to be Jesuits?”
Scary 😨 part is Biden refuses to Name God at all in.the prayers in DC. . .Then he endlessly promotes eugenics abortion by taxpayers expense,. Plus transgender and homosexuals ideology . Yet NOTHING FROM THE JESUITS FROM Martin up to Bergoglio himself. . They Bergoglio included are the Hypocrisy laughing stock.of Christians ✝️
The world over . Yikes
Does Biden advocate for abortion in his personal beliefs or is he just following the law that says it is a women’s right to choose? I think it is the second, although I’ve never had the opportunity to ask him directly. I can’t find anything that says he would ever want his partner to abort his child. Again, he is standing up for the law. It’s a moral choice that people make. I get that you don’t believe in it, but you can’t make that decision for anyone else. Cordileone is making this political. Isn’t God the one that ultimately decides if receiving communion is holy or not? Otherwise, it’s just a wafer of flour and water. Stay out of it.
He’s Catholic. Personally opposed but pubicly supports doesn’t fly with the Church. Your argument is illogical unless you get to tell murderers that it’s their personal choice. And, no your idea about the Eucharist is in error.
TA, unless you are living under a rock, you know that Biden is doing FAR, FAR worse than “just following the law” that allows abortion. In just his first 3 months in office, he has done everything possible to expand, facilitate and subsidize abortion (with taxpayers money) and even force Catholic institutions to provide it. He has made no secret of this, loudly boasting of it, whilst in the same breath proclaiming himself a “devout Catholic”. He is openly mocking the US bishops’ fear of confronting him as well as mocking the Catholic faith itself.
Peter, that is because the law says that abortion should be an option for women. The federal government doesn’t supply much of the funding at all. They also fund Viagra. Go figure. I think he is doing a pretty good job of separating church and state which is in the constitution. Not every American is Catholic and believes as you do.
Uh, can you cite that in the Consitution? Oh please, try.
For someone who has read this blog from the start, you woeful do not read it well. Jefferson’s “Wall of Separation” quote is not in the Constituion. It’s found in his letter to the Danbury Baptists. Please give it a read becasuse it is the most twisted quote ever. Jefferson used it to show that the church was to be protected from the state, not the other way around. Great letter and great quote, it just doesn’t mean what you think it means AT ALL but that’s a California education for you.
Surely you must know that we have strongly established separation of church and state based on the first amendment to the Constitution. Yes, it was established mainly to protect each citizen’s religious beliefs and practices. That applies to Catholics, non-Catholics, other religions, and nonbelievers. Many court cases have reinforced this separation throughout our history.
Surely you’ve never read the Federalist Papers or the Anti-Federalist papers. History. It’s a beautiful thing. Not mandating a national religion (a la England) is far different than separation of church and state. Again, they were protecting the church from the state, not the other way around.
Hard to imagine so many ignorant of our own history but there you go!
Yes, we need to know our own history. Take the time to read on the history of the First Amendment. It started out in one way, but the courts have made interpretations throughout the years. Basically, Jefferson’s words were accepted as most representative of what citizens wanted. Disliking a part of history doesn’t mean you can just remake it!
Read.
Read the history of the First Amendment. Yes, it started out as the government not imposing religion on anyone, or interfering with the practice of religion, but as the years went on, the Courts made interpretations that increased and emphasized the separation of church and state. It’s fairly obvious that’s what we have now. In the United States we have separation of church and state. Period.
“He’s just following the law.” “The law says…” These are the ultimate lame, un-Catholic excuses … and utterly deplorable to hear them from Catholics. That same logic could have been and was applied to slavery. The Dred Scott decision was the Roe vs. Wade of its time. Would it have been moral to say, “Well, the Supreme Court says that slavery is lawful.. and slaves have no rights, so that’s that. I just have to follow the law on this one”? Similarly, Nazi-era laws regarding Jews. Would it have been moral to say, “Law says that I’m supposed to report the whereabouts of my Jewish neighbors so they can be put on cattle cars to Dachau, so, golly, I guess I have to follow the law on this one!”
The bottom line is that we are called, as Catholics, to OPPOSE unjust laws. And any law that allows fetal homicide is an unjust law, that we must oppose.
Also, it’s blatantly obvious here that Ladaria is just doing Soupy’s dirty work. Soups probably ghost-wrote the letter himself as it’s totally of a piece with the Soupy/McElroy/Tobin axis that seeks to provide cover for their Democrat pol heroes.
The Bishops are still not settled on what to do. But a Jesuit has the answers. They may not be right, but they are definitely answers.
People who say we should “Keep out of it” would have been appalled if someone had said that about ending slavery or the civil rights movement. There were a lot of them who said “Don’t get involved in saving Jews in Germany” but they’ve all hidden and I only know of a few from history. These folks are well meaning and probably very nice folks, so long as you don’t mention morality or ask them what the word “woke” means.
Meanwhile, we are watching people yell about acceptance but they are fine with not accepting humans in the womb. Maybe they just need a “time out” and a plastic trophy for participating.
“following the law” No such law. Please state which “law” that gives a woman (not a birthing person) a “right” to abort / kill another human.
Roe v. Wade. “landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the Constitution of the United States protects a pregnant woman’s liberty to choose to have an abortion without excessive government restriction.”
Slavery and segragation were legal too. Legal doesn’t always equal moral. And please stop steralizing the word. Abortion means killing of a child by forcing its death either chemically or tearing the baby apart. I’m glad you can use Wikipedia but, again, it doesn’t make it humane or moral.
92% of abortions occur before 13 weeks. That is not a child. I’m surprised you all aren’t in for punishing women who have spontaneous abortions. As president of the US, Biden has to follow the law. He is no longer in the branch that writes the law. You could make so much better use of your time working on making sure everyone has enough food and money to live ,with a roof over their head, preventing deaths from guns, preventing death from abuse, etc. Killing someone with a gun isn’t moral, either, yet I don’t see anyone here wanting to ban guns. In fact, I think the opposite. People say it violates their individual freedoms and rights. So does forcing a woman to go through a pregnancy they don’t want.
Again, that’s not law. That is a legal opinion rendered in a particular case that has been used as a precedent for following cases. Much like the Dred Scott decision was used as a precedent for further unjust decisions.
Do you really not know this, or are you just pretending? I’d really like to know.
Just for clarification, Linda…. To whom was that directed?
johnfkennedy63
Linda, yes I know. There is no such law. If so, please state the statute. It doesn’t exist. A legal decision from any court including the Supreme Court is not “law”. The Constitution clearly states that ONLY the Legislature can create “laws”.
JFK you are absolutely right. Abortion is NOT the law of land. It is purely a court decision and that is why the pro-abortionists are horrified that a future Supreme Court will over turn the Roe v Wade decision. If and when that happens it will be up to individual states to determine their own laws regarding abortion. Who ever says that abortion is the law of the land is either a liar or ignorant.
Abortion is legal (lawful) in the United States, based on Roe v. Wade. In addition to that there are many LAWS regarding its regulation in all the states. Yes, abortion is against our religious beliefs but denying its legality will not help.
Yes Linda it is legal(within constitutional law) but only because the Court
determined abortion is a right found in the Constitution lol, where? I’m still wondering where the right to kill a child is written in the Constitution. Those who are committed to abortion will somehow find it written somewhere lol. It is not a law passed through Congress but a right that our wise Court Justices believed existed and thought necessary with which to endow the populace and in the blink of an eye they can just as easily remove that right with no Congressional involvement because it is not Congressional law. Funny though, as soon as the Supreme Court gave women abortion rights, babies lost their right to live. Hmmm sounds fair.
We can disagree with the court cases and laws that have made abortion legal (and I do) but denying its legality will not help at all. I have good news for you: Jesus was asked what to do if God’s laws conflict with civil laws and he told us to “give to God what is God’s and to Caesar what is Caesar’s.” So there is much we can do to save the lives of the born and unborn right now:
Pray for God’s help
Support an unwed mother who needs help in order to keep her baby
Advocate for healthcare for the unborn and the born
Advocate for a reduction in gun violence
Encourage your local church and diocese to do more to help impoverished pregnant women
Help those in danger of dying because of hunger, homelessness, disease etc.
Work to change laws that you deem to be unjust. Etc.
The USA laws are against us now, but that doesn’t mean we can’t do anything. Christ told us otherwise.
Mish mash, relativistic clap trap. The same imbecility that has passed for actual thought for far too long in the west and has led us right where we are.
Stick to making felt banners.
Pingback: VVEDNESDAY EDITION – Big Pulpit
” Cordileone is making this political.”
No he is not. The Catholic politicians who publicly support abortion and it’s expansion then present themselves for communion knowing full well their support for abortion is contrary to Church teaching have made this political. Cordileone is defending the teachings and integrity of the Church which is his JOB.
” Isn’t God the one that ultimately decides if receiving communion is holy or not?”
Um…yes. The Church IS Christ. It is through the Church that Christ teaches.
Luke 10:16
“The person who listens to you listens to me, and the person who rejects you rejects me. The person who rejects me rejects the one who sent me.”
So the Church(Christ) has every right to decide.
Again: Matthew 18:15 If your brother sins against you, go and confront him privately. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. 16 But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, regard him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.”
The Church isn’t Christ— that’s heresy. If Jesus came back right now he’d think he was listening to Pharisees!
The Church founded by Christ teaches in His Holy Name. “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.” Luke 10:16-
“Truly….whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Mt. 18:18-
“…[Jesus] breathed on them, and said to them,’ Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven, if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.” John 20: 22-23.
Would he not be looking at Joe Biden when He thought that?
23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. 24 As the church is subject to Christ, so let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands. 25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. 28 Even so husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no man ever hates his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, as Christ does the church, 30 because we are members of his body. 31* “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” 32 This mystery is a profound one, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church; 33 however, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband. (Ephesians 5, stars added)
Biden knows exactly what he is doing. Bergoglio knows exactly what he is doing.
It’s “always the Jesuits” because the jebbies know the Society is a religion unto itself. Yes, there are certain overlaps with Catholicism but,in the end, the SOJ is embarrassed by most things Catholic.
Bet on it.
It seems that there already is a “national policy” – indeed a universal policy – already clearly expressed in…Canon 915.
We see here one of the many flaws inherent in national bishops’ conferences: they are a means to bury necessary bold initiatives under a wet bureaucratic blanket.
USCCB was established I believe, more to insulate individual bishops from having to answer for their votes against Church teaching or their watering down. As a Conference individual bishops can say “well I didn’t agree with them but I was outnumbered.” It’s a perfect excuse for bad votes without having to answer to the faithful.
The Bishops are still not settled on what to do. But a Jesuit has the answers. They may not be right, but they are definitely answers.
People who say we should “Keep out of it” would have been appalled if someone had said that about ending slavery or the civil rights movement. There were a lot of them who said “Don’t get involved in saving Jews in Germany” but they’ve all hidden and I only know of a few from history. These folks are well meaning and probably very nice folks, so long as you don’t mention morality or ask them what the word “woke” means.
Meanwhile, we are watching people yell about acceptance but they are fine with not accepting humans in the womb. Maybe they just need a “time out” and a plastic trophy for participating.
“Now the body is not a single part, but many…. you are Christ’s body, and individually parts of it. (1 Cor. 12:14, 27). The Church is Christ’s body, writes St Paul to Christians in Corinth (even though he was once a Pharisee, I believe him.)
The Church recommends that we walk the straight and narrow path. Jesuits teach us just how close w can get to the left edge before we fall off.
They also teach how to shove their fellow Catholics off at the same time. I believe they bill it as flying lessons though.
It seems to me that someone in the Vatican didn’t like Cardinal Culpich’s comments last month. I think Culpich crossed the Rubicon when he announced “Eucharist for All”( that’s the conclusion I get when he stated the Sacrament was a gift from God, given freely, and no man can prevent its reception. We know that’s horses apples, but’s what he said)
Because by releasing the correspondence between McCarrick and Pope Benedict, Rome finally grew a spine. And anyone who takes the position of “Eucharist for all” are siding with McCarrick, and that’s a bad place to be.
Why was a president who built a wall not a “Christian” according to Francis, but a president who supports the murder of babies, and of unnatural marriage is okay and must be delicately handled according to the CDF? What makes it worse is he is a Catholic who should know better! To which much is given much more is expected! We had no letter from Rome on how to carefully deal with former president, but now we do? Where was the call for a unified position around immigration and the go slow approach back then, but when it comes to abortion we always have to be very, very careful how we handle it!? If the building is on fire and their is imminent danger of millions of deaths we have a go slow approach?? On other less pressing issues, we need to go fast. How would like to have the CDF, or Francis, or Cupich, Tobin, and McElroy running your local fire department or emergency room? Their understanding of what needs immediate care and what is a less pressing issue is incomprehensible! But they know exactly what they are doing. All this other stuff is a distraction. The real issue is that they really don’t think the unborn are worth saving and that abortion is not sinful, it’s birth control and birth control for them is okay. If they really thought abortion were that serious then they would be taking immediate action. Actions speak louder than words. And their actions betray them. If Francis believed abortion was as bad as he says it is, he would do something about it, not just talk. Talk is cheap.
Why? Because Pope Francis is a man of the left. After 8 years, it should be obvious to one and all that Bergoglio default position is “no enemies to the left and no friends to the right.” As such it’s anathema for him to denounce any leftist politicians (even the pro-abortion sort), as they’re allies and fellow travelers. On the other hand, it’s par for the course to bash a Donald Trump for some sin against global political correctness as Trump is so obviously on the other team.
I would like to respond to your comments from a Catholic, and not a political, point of view.
A Catholic follows the teachings of Jesus Christ as well as the teachings of the Church, which is led by the Pope. Catholics believe in the primacy of the Pope and we also believe that he is guided by the Holy Spirit. When he speaks on matters of faith and morals, Catholics listen.
In the New Testament, when Christ was asked what we needed to do to achieve salvation, he said that we are to love God and love one another. He gave very specific examples and one was to welcome the stranger. For this reason, many Americans are not comfortable with “building a wall” or refusing to help foreigners who ask for it. We have the Pope to guide on with this.
In respect to abortion, the Catholic Church and the Pope have made it very clear that killing an unborn child is an abomination. How to stop it is another problem. Will calling people “murderers” help to stop its practice? Will changing the laws help, even though an abortion is now as easy as getting to the nearest drugstore? What will? Perhaps the Pope believes, as I do, that the best approach is to offer financial and emotional support to the pregnant woman. In almost every community in my state, the Catholic Church offers help to a pregnant woman who asks for it. From a religious point of view, I trust the Pope, the leader of the church who is guided by the Holy Spirit. If you renounce him, are you still a Catholic? Should you receive communion? That is between you and God. If your bishop deems you unworthy of communion, would you want it posted on social media? Is that being “Christian?”
There is a schismatic movement in the Catholic Church right now. It is marked by those who renounce the Pope and want to go back to the practices of the church before Vatican II. “Traditional” Catholics will always be led by the Holy Father and the teachings of Jesus Christ. That said, if you want to be part of a new church, that is your right, but if you want to remain Catholic, you must accept Catholic doctrine.
This blog is a political one and not a Catholic one. If you read the comments, you’ll see why. If you are interested in a Catholic point of view, find a blog that is endorsed by Rome.
“Lex iniusta non est lex” originally by St. Augustine, also used by St. Thomas Aquinas and quoted by Martin Luther King during the Civil Rights Movement.
Anyone here ever go to a Pro-life March? Who was there marching? Atheists, people of different faiths and people of no particular faith. Why? Because it is NOT simply a religious issue but an issue of human dignity and value of all innocent human life including the unborn. We cannot enjoy any right if the right to life is not allowed. So BS to the first amendment. It has nothing to do with “lawful” abortion because it is NOT a religious issue.
Yes, many Americans from all walks of life and all religious and non-religious persuasions, are opposed to abortion. I want to reiterate the good news as succinctly as I can:
You can save the life of an unborn baby starting now. Call a shelter in your community to find out how you can help. Encourage your church to devote more time and money to helping pregnant women. Advocate for a reduction in extreme poverty because some research shows this is most effective in reducing abortions.
Yes, you can work to change laws that you consider unjust or unreasonable but you do NOT have to wait to save a life. Start this minute with a prayer.
“You can save the life of an unborn baby starting now. Call a shelter in your community to find out how you can help. Encourage your church to devote more time and money to helping pregnant women. Advocate for a reduction in extreme poverty because some research shows this is most effective in reducing abortions.
Yes, you can work to change laws that you consider unjust or unreasonable but you do NOT have to wait to save a life. Start this minute with a prayer.”
Really? Lol. You think your the only one who does the above? I live in central NH and most if not all our parishes in our Diocese are either involved in some if not all of the above. I’ve been involved since Roe v Wade. So you are preaching to the choir. And who pray tell has renounced the Pope in here? The Pope is not above criticism when he speaks about climate change, or brings a pagan idol like Pachamama onto an alter during Mass or calls for the destruction of our border wall when the Vatican has its on wall. Please Linda, save your holier than thou. The Pope IS the leader of our Church and yes much weight should be given to what he says but the manner in which he expresses himself has cause much confusion and not just amongst us paeons in the pews. Even Archbishops have asked for clarification and receive silence. So please, stop the accusations. I believe that climate changes too just like the Pope, but I do not believe it is cause by man. That is an area of disagreement between the Pope and I. Nothing I have to confess.