Salt and Light attacks Card. Burke: sticking to the ideal instead of ministering to people

Life Site has a piece about Salt and Light network’s verbal attack on Card. Burke. HERE

As you may know, Fr. Thomas Rosica, who did some work for the Holy See Press Office during the Synod of Bishops, heads up Salt and Light.

Salt and Light TV slams Cardinal Burke as being in an ‘Ivory Tower’

Lauding the Vatican’s Synod on the Family as “huge” change, a producer from Canada’s Catholic TV network Salt and Light, headed by CEO Fr. Thomas Rosica, has criticized outspoken champion of orthodoxy Cardinal Raymond Burke, suggesting that he is in an “ivory tower” and “sticking to the ideal” instead of ministering to people — such as homosexuals and the divorced — caught up in the “messiness of life.”

“There’s finally [?] a realization that maybe the way we’ve been approaching things doesn’t help, or it’s not taking into account that that’s an ideal and real life is messy and we have to be able to deal with the mess, not the black and white,” said Alicia Ambrosio, producer and host of Vatican Connections on Salt and Light Television, to the host of TV Ontario’s The Agenda program last Friday evening, Oct. 17. (Click here to watch the video)

In responding to questions about the highly criticized synod midterm report, Ambrosio gave no indication that it was deemed totally unacceptable to the majority of the synod bishops. In fact, she talked about it as though the document was still credible and its points worthy of consideration. The interview was undertaken sometime Friday since there were references during the discussion to events on Thursday at the synod and therefore Ambrosio had to be well aware of the furor over the midterm report which began Oct. 13.

Ambrosio said that while there will be no doctrinal change in the Church’s teaching regarding homosexuality and divorce, there already is what she called a “change in tone.” [But by all means talk about Card. Burke that way.]

“A change in — you know what — maybe we don’t have to tell people they’re wrong. Maybe we can work with them and find a way to welcome them into our community, even though they might not be perfect in our eyes. So, that’s going to be huge.” [And what does “welcome” look like?  I think the only thing that is going to matter to them is whether or not they can receive Holy Communion, which has become a sign of “belonging” or “welcome”, instead of the Sacrament It is.]

When asked by the host to comment on Pope Francis, Ambrosio called him “realistic” because “he’s the only — not the only — but one of the few popes we’ve had in recent times who has actually worked in the trenches, so to speak.” [Good grief.  And how does she know that?]

Ambrosio said it is cardinals like Burke who have set themselves against the “direction” the pope is trying to move the Church.

“It’s kind of like what you see in politics as well, with left and right. No matter what the other side says, this side is going to freak out. [?] Cardinal Burke comes from a stream that doesn’t believe we should be even having this conversation. [His position can be summed as] ‘this is the truth, this is what should be happening, if you’re not meeting up to the truth, if you’re not living up to this ideal, you’re wrong. And there should be no conversation about how to bend to welcome people in, because then you’re bending on the truth.’”

“So, it’s a mindset. Discussions I’ve had with other journalists and other Catholics – we’re really wondering what’s going to happen to Cardinal Burke and others of his ilk after the Synod, because if this conversation goes down a road that they can’t accept, then what?” she said.

Ambrosio criticized Burke for being “unrealistic.”

“It’s really living with the belief that, ‘this is what we teach, this is the truth. Stick with it, otherwise you’re out. And we shouldn’t be discussing what that truth is because then we’re changing what we are completely.’”

“Just like I could say that Pope Francis is realistic as opposed to progressive, [Ahhhh… that’s what Francis is.] I think statements like Cardinal Burke’s are coming from a place of more of being in an ivory tower, you know, living with the ideal,” she said.

The phrase “ivory tower” is typically used pejoratively to indicate intellectuals caught up in rather useless lofty pursuits that makes them disconnected from the practical concerns of everyday life.

Ambrosio also disparaged the previous papacies of Benedict XVI and Saint John Paul II, suggesting that they were out of touch with the faithful.

“The lay people finally [?] feel like their voice is being heard. Their lives are being reflected in what this pope is saying. And that’s huge. So, we’re getting that change from the top down, and from the bottom up. Because now, to be credible to the lay people — to be credible to the faithful — it’s not just about being really holy, and being really prayerful, and giving a good sermon, it’s about walking the walk.”

When asked about what the Synod means for homosexuals being accepted as homosexuals in Catholic parishes, Ambrosio replied: “It means that on the ground level, in the parish, it’s suddenly not going to be acceptable to other faithful, it’s not going to be acceptable to exclude someone who has a sincere thirst for God and who has a sincere desire to practice their faith, but is either in a same-sex relationship or is divorced and remarried. It’s not going to be acceptable to exclude that person anymore. And that’s huge.” [They have a thirst for God!  Who cares if they reject the Sixth Commandment of the Decalogue!]

Ambrosio agreed with the host near the end of the show that “acceptance” was the first step towards full inclusion of homosexuality within the Catholic Church, but immediately backpedalled, saying that while Church teaching cannot change on divorce or homosexuality, nevertheless, “we are going to see the parish doors open and these people will find a place to live their faith.”

LifeSiteNews asked Ambrosio if it should be sinners who need to change — rather than the Church changing her tone — so that they can live according to God’s ideals as revealed through the Church, but did not receive a response by press time.

 

Please share this post!
Share

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Liberals, One Man & One Woman, Our Catholic Identity, Sin That Cries To Heaven, The Drill, The future and our choices and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

114 Responses to Salt and Light attacks Card. Burke: sticking to the ideal instead of ministering to people

  1. Dr. Edward Peters says:

    Well, Cdl. Kasper said journalists were going to take their revenge, or words to that effect, no?

  2. Elizabeth D says:

    I find all this so baffling. Same sex attracted people have always been welcome. Cardinal Burke obviously wants them to be welcome, and was totally in favor of that at the synod, as attested to strongly by Cardinal Dolan who apparently was part of his English language small group. No one is actually being singled out by the teaching that one must have been absolved of mortal sins before receiving Holy Communion. People in gravely irregular situations may not immediately be able to sort their situation out and be able to receive the Sacrament of Penance and may need to abstain from Holy Communion for a time till they can regularize their situation, go to confession again, THEN approach to receive their Lord in Holy Communion. If people understand their Faith and understand what is going on in the Sacraments, and have a devotion to the life of God in a soul in the state of grace, and a due concern for not giving scandal, this is not a technicality. I don’t see Holy Communion as automatic, fundamental to participation in the Mass. I examine my conscience, I am aware of whether I have observed the Communion fast etc not out of LOVE for Jesus because this is the practice of reverence toward Jesus who is God and is truly present in the Eucharist, and we are supposed to be worshiping Him.

  3. Sam Schmitt says:

    Ambrosio also disparaged the previous papacies of Benedict XVI and Saint John Paul II, suggesting that they were out of touch with the faithful.

    Yes, the huge crowds both popes attracted – particularly of young people – is irrefutable proof of how “out of touch” they were with the faithful.

  4. Rob22 says:

    The problem is whatever side one is on, this Synod has sewn confusion with the Church and maybe more problematic – confusion outside the church.

    The argument of unity being found in the Church has pretty much been dealt a significant blow. All those who converted from Episcopalism because of changes taking place in the church in recent decades are in a deja vu situation.

    No one knows what the final report will be next year and how much of it will be implemented by the Pope. Will he formally allow divorced and remarried to receive communion, will a new blessing of civil unions ceremony be established in the church. Those would be big changes and what follows?

    A 60ish nun told me after Mass today that she wished she was 30 years younger as she sees female deacons coming and ultimately female priests on the horizon.

    Whether she is right or not, everything is in a flux right now.

    The SPPX and other such expect to get an influx of disgruntled Catholics but I don’ see that. The Pope is protected by the Spirit or not. It does not come and go.

    The out-migration to the extent it occurs will be to the Orthodox church IMO. It has been going on steadily for a while. The ironic thing being there is far more unity in the Orthodox church, think their liturgy, than in the Catholic church now. It begs the question – is the Pope a guarantee of unity which the Orthodox don’t accept and which their unity over a thousand years belies.

  5. Jerry says:

    re: “real life is messy ”

    Mostly because we make it messy with our rationalizations.

    As I noted elsewhere, I wonder if the salt in “Salt and Light” is in the form of a pillar?

  6. SaintJude6 says:

    Regarding Ambrosio: My grandmother said that, in this instance, I should just not say anything at all.

  7. Back pew sitter says:

    Who on earth is this Alicia Ambrosio? Why is anyone giving her airtime? Why am I wasting my time paying attention to her opinion? Cliche after cliche…..yawn, yawn, yawn……thank heaven there is a stop button which I have now pressed.

  8. TNCath says:

    I fear a schism coming.

  9. Magpie says:

    Dreadful. Imagine referring to a HOLY Cardinal as ‘ilk’. Cardinals Burke, Pell, & Co. are heros in this sorry mess.

  10. msc says:

    The ivory tower comment is obviously unjust in Benedict’s case, but is ridiculous in John Paul’s, as is the accusation that he was out of touch. Read, if you can, Weigel’s marvellous biography and you will see just how much John Paul was in the trenches, so to speak, and how much practical pastoral experience he had. Perhaps he wasn’t “in touch” with North American ecclesiastical neophiles, but that’s a good thing to most of us.

  11. BobNYCatholic says:

    I didn’t hear anything about sin, conversion, Jesus, freedom from sin in that article. I suffer from SSA and I don’t see any hope in Alicia Ambrosio’s words. Before my conversion life was bleek and I had thoughts of suicide, but God called me back. I went to Mass and I then felt even worse. I knew I had to go to confession. After confession I felt the weight lifted off my back and I made changes to my life. I keep trying to live a holy life and through God’s grace I’ve made some progress. Yes we do need to welcome sinners into our church but there needs to be a message of conversion, a message of hope for new life not just a message of welcome and your present lifestyle is fine. We are the church of the field hospital as Pope Francis has said but the patient needs to realize they are sick before they will take the medicine.

  12. Mike says:

    Nothing prevents any of us from asking Miss Ambrosio to clarify her statements or intentions. If Michael Voris can, so can she.

  13. Rich says:

    The tail is really wagging the dog when an Extraordinary Synod on the Family results in Catholic media outlets entertaining discussions such as this. Didn’t Lenin have a name for such people..?

  14. rtjl says:

    The lay people finally [?] feel like their voice is being heard

    Not this lay person. I feel like my voice was being better heard (and better protected) under Pope Benedict.

  15. JesusFreak84 says:

    …..They’re based in Canada, ne? Well, at least they’ll likely never get a visit from the “Human Rights” Tribunal =-p

  16. Back pew sitter says:

    After putting up with that video I found some light relief. I wasn’t sure which of the men in black is you, Fr Z…..

    http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/dance-off-priests-become-internet-sensation/vi-BBaLnA8?ocid=mailsignout

  17. ghp95134 says:

    Rich: “…Didn’t Lenin have a name for such people..?

    Hehehehe …. yeah: “Useful idiots [Polezniye duraki].

    –Guy

  18. thomas tucker says:

    Contrast all of this blather with what Our Lord says about Hell, and the need for repentance and holiness, in the Gospels. Contrast it with the preaching of the Apostles. There is a huge disconnect here.

  19. Royse87 says:

    “In the trenches”, “in touch with life’s messiness”, “pastoral”, “merciful”, “realistic”. All of these are just euphemisms for “they let me sin by doing whatever I want, regardless of the harm is causes, and not feel bad about it”. That’s the bottom line. Progressives don’t want to be “heard” or “ministered to”, they want to have their sin condoned by the Church and they want the Church, as it was established by Christ, to be destroyed. If that weren’t true, they’d just become episcopalians or Lutherans. It’s not as if they believe what the church teaches anyhow.

  20. marcelus says:

    “Ambrosio said it is cardinals like Burke who have set themselves against the “direction” the pope is trying to move the Church.”

    As I said, The battle for the media, if it matters at all, has been won and widely by the libs. With the only waponn of the mid relatio. simple

    Wordwide it is Conservatives against the Pope. And no matter how proud it may make some. It is not a good thing

    Add to that,Crdl Burke’s unfortunate words about he Pope and now apparently some from another Bishop quoting the Hagan lio.

    In the end, all that remains in the eye of the church going fellow (the mayority BTW) who has no idea who Burke, Kasper and anyonelse is , consider the Church worldwide, is that a group of Cardinal hate PF, speak bad about him-

    AS I said before,, it is soooo wrong to live this a a victory of any kind so loud.

    The libs will have and easy time making things difficult for the rest next time. Francis or no Francis

  21. SimonDodd says:

    “Cardinal Burke comes from a stream that doesn’t believe we should be even having this conversation. [His position can be summed as] ‘this is the truth, this is what should be happening, if you’re not meeting up to the truth, if you’re not living up to this ideal, you’re wrong. And there should be no conversation about how to bend to welcome people in, because then you’re bending on the truth.’” I don’t know whether that is a fair summation of Card. Burke’s position, but it ought to be, because it’s correct, and the wonder is that this was said to fault that position.

  22. Magpie says:

    Royse87, I think they DO believe, they know in their hearts that the sins are wrong, but what they want is for the Church to say ”Well we really don’t know, your sin is probably OK, who are we to judge anyway?” Then once the Church has collapsed, they can comfortably and happily slide into hedonistic agnosticism, knowing that even the Church doesn’t really know Who God is or what He expects. This is why Pope Francis criticism of those who seek ‘doctrinal security’ is so pastorally damaging.

  23. Rob22 says:

    TNCath. I disagree. Schism? So the orthodox Catholics will set up their own church or join the SPPX or one of its off-shoots? In doing that one denies the church and the Pope, unity around that, will not be prevailed against by the gates of Hell. That move is problematic.

    Sure, and I am speaking hypothetically pending what changes the Pope introduces after the close of the 2015 Synod, some will go that route.

    For myself, a convert who read myself into the church (Scott Hahn and others) the unity was the draw and overcame problems I had with Marian dogmas.

    In hindsight, though I read Orthodox apologists who countered Hahn and the others, they were given perhaps too little of my attention at the time. Rod Dreher’s spiritual odyssey has since intrigued me and some niggling questions have resurfaced especially after this synod.

    For me, I am going to do a more thorough reading of history and the Catholic and Orthodox (especially Orthodox which I didn’t study enough previously) writers on this.

    Of course what happens in the next few years will drive that research.

  24. wolfeken says:

    If nothing else, the last year and a half has certainly separated the men from the boys.

    In the words of Bishop Tobin this week: “Pope Francis is fond of ‘creating a mess.’ Mission accomplished.”

  25. LarryW2LJ says:

    The problem with “Progressives” is that welcoming homosexuals into the Church doesn’t mean – “Thank you for coming. Join us in our journey towards God and Everlasting Life”. To them it means,”Thank you for allowing us to be inclusive! Yeah, we know “love” is all kinds of groovy and stuff – so hey, anything goes, right? Who am I to judge? And hey, don’t listen to that stuff about chastity, because we don’t listen to that stuff about cohabitation, or divorce or contraception either”.

    Anyone who doesn’t think like they do is an undereducated, knuckle dragging Neanderthal. Notice her use of the word “ilk” which has very negative connotations – that should tell you all you need to know.

    Finally, yes – life is messy. But isn’t part of our journey supposed to be about rising above the mess, focusing our eyes on Jesus Christ and not being part of the world – and helping everyone else to do likewise – you know, save some souls?

  26. Charivari Rob says:

    “When asked by the host to comment on Pope Francis, Ambrosio called him “realistic” because “he’s the only — not the only — but one of the few popes we’ve had in recent times who has actually worked in the trenches, so to speak.”

    Interesting choice of words.

    Do you think she’s aware that a much younger Karol Wojtyla was (at times) a laborer and probably did literally dig trenches and ditches?

    I daresay Joseph Ratzinger was compelled to dig some literal trenches and foxholes in his youth, too.

  27. Charles E Flynn says:

    I wonder if this important article was overlooked on October 15:

    How an incorrect translation of the synod report created chaos, by Catholic News Agency’s Vatican Observer, Andrea Gagliarducc

  28. Matthias1 says:

    Yes, welcome “everyone,” but by all means disparage intellectuals who, I guess, are not welcome? Seriously, the anti-intellectualism is getting really disturbing but the heterodox know they need to attack intellectuals because reason is: one, hard, and two, leads to orthodoxy. Far easier to sideline reason as “ivory tower,” “caring about theology instead of people etc.” and appeal to emotion.

  29. avecrux says:

    What strikes me is how patronizing this is: poor little lay people… we can’t expect them to actually keep their vows! The “universal call to holiness” in just a phrase to make them feel good. They can’t be chaste.

    It is the same nonsense the safe-sex movement dumps on our teens… because, you know, high expectations are so mean!

  30. RJHighland says:

    Cardinal Kaspers minons are all ready out and on the prowl!!! St. Michael protect us.
    Pope Francis’ regular references to “the God of surprises” and his calls for Catholics to be open to new ways of the Holy Spirit in one of his recent homilies compared to Cardinal Ratzingers 1992 statement in a document, “laws which prohibit homosexuals from adopting children, from jobs as teachers or coaches, from military recruitment, and which deny equivalent family status to homosexual unions, do not constitue discrimination.” One is clear one is very opeque, I prefer clear teaching.

    The surprising thing to me is Pope Francis using Peters vision of the bed sheet filled with foods to explain his “epiphany.” This scares the living daylights out of me, where does our Holy Father plan to go with this?

    What is utterly amazing to me after the incredible financial damage homosexuals/pederests in the clergy have cost the Church that now we are to be accepting and inviting to this group that does not wish to repent of their sin? Doesn’t the Gospel teach to teach all that Christ taught and for those that do not accept His teachings to knock the dust from our sandles and move on, it doesn’t say to bring those that do not accept His teachings along. This is very confusing coming from our Supreme Pontiff. I fear this is going to get much worse before it gets better. We need to pray for Pope Francis without ceasing. What a mess!

  31. Joe in Canada says:

    Fr Rosica created the term “Taliban Catholic” regarding pro-life Catholics, and has never looked back. I have a copy of an email exchange between him and a very reasonable, intelligent, and serious Catholic, and it is nothing but scandalous in his regard.

  32. jhartne says:

    In the above article it said: “Ambrosio also disparaged the previous papacies of Benedict XVI and Saint John Paul II, suggesting that they were out of touch with the faithful.” So is it more important to be in touch with the “faithful” than God? I would choose God.

  33. Ganganelli says:

    How can going to the Orthodox church be an answer? They allow communion for the divorced and remarried.

  34. acardnal says:

    I gave up on Fr. Rosica and his “Salt and Light” organization years ago.

    Christ never accepted or tolerated sinful behavior. He demanded repentance.

    And I think Life Site News should revisit the vote count regarding the paragraph dealing with communion for the divorced and remarried in the Relatio. The MAJORITY voted FOR giving them communion. They just didn’t reach the two-thirds super majority necessary for passage. . . thanks be to God.

    Life Site said this in above article, “In responding to questions about the highly criticized synod midterm report, Ambrosio gave no indication that it was deemed totally unacceptable to the majority of the synod bishops.”

  35. Janol says:

    So glad we all know that public Revelation of the new and definitive Covenant ended, was completed, with the death of the Apostles. And we’ve been warned about anyone later on preaching a “new gospel”.

    Catholics who have a love of truth will understand the difference between development of doctrine and contradiction of doctrine and between the imperatives of the the New Law and its reduction to simple proposed ideals.

    Hopefully all of the confusion of all the foundations falling away, will bring people to pray ardently for enlightenment and discernment to know Truth.

  36. robtbrown says:

    Ambrosio also disparaged the previous papacies of Benedict XVI and Saint John Paul II, suggesting that they were out of touch with the faithful..

    Progressives never change their MO. They always presume to be speaking for “the people”. Thus, those who disagree are out of touch with “the people”. And if the are told they are wrong, they start whining.

    Salt and Light, eh?

    . . . if the salt has become tasteless, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled under foot by men.

  37. anna 6 says:

    I am continually amazed at how many supposedly professional journalists – people who make their living writing about the Church – clearly paid no attention to what previous popes actually said and did about many of these controversial issues.

    Last week I spoke to the news director of a Catholic television station who was shocked to learn that Pope Benedict ever kissed babies and comforted sick people. He literally said, “Really? I never noticed that!”

    There is really no excuse for this, especially when it comes from Fr. Rosica’s station!!!

  38. Deacon Augustine says:

    Fr Rosica was so obviously a part of the synod stitch up and manipulation, that I am not surprised that his TV network is going after Cardinal Burke. The homo-heresy looks like it is the main fault line along which schism in the Church is growing – and Cardinal Pell spotted this before making his intervention. The Kasper coterie strike back, but let us hope there will be enough orthodox fathers at the synod of 2015 to defeat them.

  39. Matthew Gaul says:

    Rob22, if you end up exploring Orthodoxy, you may wish to consider Eastern Catholicism. You get all the unity of Catholicism, with all the positives of Orthodoxy.

  40. Grateful to be Catholic says:

    How appropriate, today’s Gospel reading: “Do you think that I came to give peace upon the earth? No, I tell you, not peace, but division. For henceforth, in one house five will be divided, three against two, and two against three… father against son… mother against daughter.” Lk 12:51ff. Following Christ to the Cross means not following anyone headed in another direction. But the Church of Nice wants us to be “all-inclusive” and “welcoming.” What happened to shaking the dust from our feet and letting the dead bury their dead? I guess the Jesus Seminar has expunged all those inconvenient sayings so we can get on with the real spirit of love and mercy.

  41. Lorenz says:

    Out of touch with the faithful? Did not John Paul II as a young priest and then bishop do extensive work with young people? Did not John Paul II and Benedict XVI draw huge crowds for World Youth Day?

    “one of the few popes we’ve had in recent times who has actually worked in the trenches, so to speak.”
    Again, how does she know that? In my experience with people who unwittingly got caught up with(sometimes out of selfishness, sometimes out of ignorance) sinful sexual practices such as extramarital sex, shacking up, etc. end up hurt, damaged, and broken. Women and men alike who shacked up for a few years and then the partner leaves and the have to go through the heartache and trauma of a divorce. If and when they do get married, they are never able to have a relationship and love in the same way anymore. Fatherless families, abuse by a step-father, rampant STDs, not to mention the rampant promiscuity, dysfunction, and pain in same-sex relations. These are the what are in the “trenches” as Ms. Ambrose claims to know so much about. These people need pastoral care by being taught the truth and not being taught that the sin and source of their pain can have good qualities.

    Father Rosica used to (maybe still does) write in a formerly orthodox magazine called “Catholic Insight” and I always found his columns dull and boring. I never subscribed to his “Salt and Light” channel because from what little I did see of it, it seemed very much lite on the salt.

  42. daveams says:

    Salt and Light, eh? “But if the salt lose its savour, wherewith shall it be salted?”

    Maybe they need a new name. “Dark and Tasteless” maybe?

  43. pseudomodo says:

    Even though I have my doubts that ms Ambrosio has actuallt read St. Paul on these matters, I somewhat agree with her last statement, “we are going to see the parish doors open and these people will find a place to live their faith.”

    They can and do and will have a place in the church.

    The Church is big enough for everyone. I agree (and I believe all faithful Catholics from the Pope on down also agree) that even people who strongly dissent from the teaching of the Catholic Church definitely have a place within the structure of the Catholic Church.

    And that place is called the CONFESSIONAL…

  44. Suburbanbanshee says:

    Some people love intellectuals who are totally out of touch with reality, and call them “grounded.” They hate anybody who actually is grounded (especially those grounded in Christ), and call them “ivory tower.”

  45. Unwilling says:

    acardnal says “Christ never accepted or tolerated sinful behavior.”
    But that intellectual, idealistic Phariseeism is contradicted by Christ who said
    (Luke 5:23a) “I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners…” So there!
    mumble mumble mumble mumble
    (Luke 5:23b) “…to repentance.”

  46. Supertradmum says:

    Disappointed in Salt and Light, as I thought some of their commentary was improving.

    What I cannot understand is the arrogance of lay people criticizing saintly as well as highly intelligent and knowledgeable clerics the status of Cardinal Burke.

    I see some patterns of thought among Catholics under a certain age: one, they have no concept of history or the history of the Church; two, the lack decorum in respecting the office of cardinals or bishops; three, they think they are experts in theology, philosophy when in reality they are merely sound bite masters; four, they are egotistical, lacking in humility and grace.

    Too much bad commentary already…as the ivory tower argument is an old, boring one.

  47. MarkJ says:

    In the secular schools arena, we had “No Child Left Behind”. Now in our parishes, maybe we could start “No Sinner Left Behind”. All we need to do is lower our standards to the point where EVERYONE gets a passing grade, and then we could hand out “Get into Heaven Free” cards. Of course, these cards will be worthless at the Last Judgment, but hey, it’s all about making people feel welcome in the here and now, right?

  48. Matt Robare says:

    So not only did Jesus not mean what He said with “What God has joined together let no man tear asunder,” He also apparently didn’t mean “Be ye perfect, as your Father in Heaven is perfect.”

    And how could we have gotten it wrong for so long? Were the Holy Spirit’s guarentees also not what He meant?

  49. Sonshine135 says:

    When asked by the host to comment on Pope Francis, Ambrosio called him “realistic” because “he’s the only — not the only — but one of the few popes we’ve had in recent times who has actually worked in the trenches, so to speak.”

    That comment was when I was done. St. Pope John Paul II was very much in the trenches, and the champion of the teachings that the present company is attempting to dismantle.

  50. Lorenz says:

    “I see some patterns of thought among Catholics under a certain age…..”

    I don’t know if Ms. Ambrosio falls into this pattern. Looking at her personal website, she promotes herself as a journalist and reporter with an emphasis on Vatican affairs. There is no mention of Jesus Christ, faith topics, etc.

    Probably a cultural Catholic hired by “Salt and Light” which is typical of that channel: Very stale and largely ignorant on faith topics.

  51. John Nolan says:

    ‘Ivory tower’ (turris eburnea) is a symbol of noble purity (cf. Song of Songs 7:4) and is associated with the Church as Bride of Christ, and from the 12th century onwards with Our Lady. Quite a compliment to Cardinal Burke, methinks.

  52. Janol says:

    Perhaps the Church is reconsidering exactly what sin is? That may help to explain things. According to Vatican Radio, HH said to a group of members of the Int’l Assoc. of Criminal Lawyers today: “Corruption is a greater evil than sin…” Here is more:

    “Pope Francis dedicates an ample part of his discourse to corruption. The corrupt person – according to the Pope – is a person who takes the “short-cuts of opportunism” that lead him to think of himself as a “winner” who insults and persecutes whoever contradicts him. “Corruption” – the Pope says “is a greater evil than sin”, and more than “be forgiven, must be cured”.

    “… The forms of corruption that must be persecuted with greatest severity are those that cause grave social damage, both in economic and social questions – for example grave fraud against public administration or the dishonest use of administration”.

  53. iPadre says:

    “The lay people finally feel like their voice is being heard.”

    Not the ones coming to me crying and asking what the hell is going on with the Church!

  54. anna 6 says:

    The S+L interviewer and clerics who espouse the Kasper way remind me of the parents of some of my kids friends and relatives who let them do pretty much what they want. I sympathize, because heaven knows it would be SO much easier than the tough love we sometimes have to serve up.
    Like those parents who actually make my job much harder, the Kasperites will make the job of faithful priests and teachers more difficult as well.

    But in the end I honestly think that my kids are happier and enjoy a deeper sense of freedom than the children of the cool parents.

  55. aviva meriam says:

    Well, THAT was Vacuous.

    Look, I understand it’s not just what is said its also the How, the WHEN, under what circumstances and and WHERE. Tone and Context matters. However, I challenge journalists with the time and resources to produce evidence of Cardinal Burke not being aware of that reality in his role as Priest, Bishop, Cannon Lawyer and Cardinal. Just because he gently but insistently refuses to break from Scripture and the Magisterium does NOT mean he is uncaring.

  56. benedetta says:

    anna6, Your experience brings home that as soon as some anti Catholic media decides collectively a certain preference for a Pope, all of a sudden people who purport to open-mindedly derive their views unfettered by pressure, popularity or other persuasions, suddenly tune in and actually observe or listen to different details? How glorious it must be for some to be told what to believe and then confirm themselves in it by Western media…

  57. Eugene says:

    As a Canadian Catholic I am ashamed that this is a so called Canadian “catholic” TV network.

  58. Janol says:

    @Charles E. Flynn – I’ve seen many reports saying that actually the translation itself was okay, the problem was the text.
    ———-
    acardinal says “The MAJORITY voted FOR giving them communion. They just didn’t reach the two-thirds super majority necessary for passage.”

    Yes, and didn’t all three controversial passages get a majority vote, just not two-thirds. And yet scarcely anyone is speaking of that — perhaps they are just trying not to spread the news ?

  59. Andrew says:

    “… that’s an ideal but real life is messy and we have to be able to deal with the mess, not the black and white.”

    Straight are the paths of the Lord, in them the just walk, but sinners stumble in them. (Hosea 14:10)

    Behold, only this have I found out: God made mankind straight, but people have recourse to many schemes. (Ecclesiastes 7:29)

    I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave of sin. (John 8:34)

    They seduce with licentious desires of the flesh those who have barely escaped from people who live in error. They promise them freedom, though they themselves are slaves of corruption, for a person is a slave of whatever overcomes him. (2 Peter)

  60. frjim4321 says:

    As a rule LSN (hardly a real news outlet) twists words and takes them far out of context and turns them into headlines. When parishioners send me links from LSN (and thankfully only two or three even know what LSN is) I always tell them to go to the original article that is being quoted and them tell me how fairly LSN reported the original article. I almost never hear back.

    This is so funny and coincidental because I was just working on my next bulletin column and it was about Catholic media . . . the whole topic was since there aren’t any viable Catholic media outlets on cable or satellite radio (the available choices being absurd parodies of true Catholicism) where does one go to find Catholic media? The answer is “Salt and Light.” I’ve linked to it on our parish website and FB page.

  61. pac76 says:

    St. John Paul II risked his life to become a priest in the first place, and then fought for the souls and the freedom of his sheep so effectively that the communists tried to kill him.

    He was definitely in the trenches, just not in a way this person would have liked.

    St. John Paul II, pray for us.

  62. Mike says:

    . . . (the available choices being absurd parodies of true Catholicism) . . .

    Disdain, contempt and innuendo are absurd parodies of true Catholicism.

  63. Eugene says:

    @ fr. Jim
    I guess the orthodox EWTN is not good enough for your parishioners…the heterodox Salt and Light will surely enlighten them…how very very sad…,I live in Canada and have had personal dealings with the CEO of this so called “catholic” network and I would not recommend it to anyone…especially after said CEO ran a program where he gushed over a dissenter, ex priest Gregory Baum…but go ahead Fr Jim keep spreading the false message of heterodox Catholicism, that will bring more people into the pews and strengthen their faith life…NOT

  64. david s says:

    ……Mystical rose, pray for us.
    Tower of David, pray for us.
    TOWER OF IVORY, pray for us.
    House of gold, pray for us.
    Ark of the covenant, pray for us.
    Gate of heaven, pray for us…..

  65. thomas tucker says:

    @pseudomod0: That is excellent!

  66. Deacon Augustine says:

    frjim4321, if you really are a priest, I hope you remember that you will have to account to God for every soul in your care who is lost.

  67. albizzi says:

    I was shocked when reading the last article of Rorate-Caeli regarding the forces sharing during the Synod
    The two thirds majority of bishops required for approving the topics about the gay unions and the sacraments to the divorced-remarried was not met, but we can see that much more than a simple majority of bishops approved them.
    This made me wondering about St John’s vision in the Revelation Book of one third of the sky’s stars being swept off by the dragon’s tail.
    I don’t where I read that the exegese likens the stars of the sky to the priests of the catholic Church.
    Are we currently witnessing this prophecy?

  68. Unwilling says:

    This use of the notion of “reality” is superbly unmasked in ch. 1 of The Screwtape Letters.

    acardnal. To be clear, I meant (humorous irony) to agree with and emphasize your point.

  69. frjim4321 says:

    frjim4321, if you really are a priest, I hope you remember that you will have to account to God for every soul in your care who is lost.

    Deacon, I am a pastor of an 850 household parish in the midwest. Someplace where the sun is eclipsing right now, dramatically.

    In your parlance, I think I have saved more souls than I have lost.

    Have I shamed enough people, to the extent that you would approve? Maybe not . . . hopefully not.

    I’m pretty much in touch with my mortality, thanks, and I think I’m okay with the deity.

  70. Lori Pieper says:

    acardnal writes:

    “And I think Life Site News should revisit the vote count regarding the paragraph dealing with communion for the divorced and remarried in the Relatio. The MAJORITY voted FOR giving them communion. They just didn’t reach the two-thirds super majority necessary for passage. . . thanks be to God.”

    What the paragraph actually said is that some bishops were in favor of the “penitential” path toward Communion and that others were not, and that further study was needed. This is what the bishops were voting for; it was not an out-and-out endorsement of communion for the divorced and remarried by any means. And over 40% of the bishops distrusted even this statement. I agree though, the LSN went a bit overboard in their assertion that the bishops had overwhelmingly rejected giving them Communion. Things are a bit iffier than that. But there’s no reason for despair.

    By the way, I completely fail to understand why anyone would go over to the Orthodox because of the Synod. They are the ones who are already giving Communion to the divorced and remarried! They’ve already waffled on contraception as well. We need to trust that the Pope will do the right thing.

  71. acardnal says:

    LoriPieper, no “further study” is needed. Adultery is a grave sin.

  72. David in T.O. says:

    Salt + Light and its Executive Producer have long been an issue. This latest arrogance by this host there on public television to speak for me and the Church is repugnant. On the matter of their insult to Cardinal Burke and his “ilk” I posted this a while ago on my blog, Vox Cantoris. It deserves repeating here.

    +++

    A few years ago, I read a story on the Internet, which I can no longer find; it was written by a man that once suffered from same-sex attraction. He wrote that he was outraged that then Bishop Burke of LaCrosse in Wisconsin would speak out firmly against sodomy. This man sent letters to the Bishop, hateful and spiteful letters. A few years later, he had a conversion to Christ and His Church. By then, Raymond Leo Burke was the Archbishop of St. Louis, in Missouri. The man that harassed him so many times sought him out in St. Louis and was surprised when the Archbishop accepted his request for a meeting. He came to the Archbishop and apologised. Archbishop Burke then went to a closet to retrieve a shoebox. Inside the shoebox were all the letters of harassment and hate that the man had sent to him. Archbishop Burke explained that he would regularly pray over the letters for the man and gave him back his letters with his blessing. I have a personal friend that knows Cardinal Burke personally, I told him this story and his reply was, “I don’t know that I’ve ever heard that but I believe it because that is exactly the kind of thing that Cardinal Burke would do.”

  73. Pingback: Fr. Z Takes on Salt & Light | The Catholic Legate

  74. murtheol says:

    Christ Jesus most certainly forgave the person caught in adultery, but He also demanded a change of behavior.

  75. Son of Trypho says:

    Guess she doesn’t approve of St Simeon the Stylite?

  76. Atra Dicenda, Rubra Agenda says:

    Frjim, do you usually refer to the Holy Trinity as “the deity”?

    Because most Catholic priests use the word “The Holy Trinity” or “God” or “God the Father” or “Jesus Christ” or “The Blessed Lord”. I guess I’ve heard Bill O’Reilly use the term “the deity”, but I know why he prefers the term and it isn’t out of orthodoxy.

  77. Elizabeth D says:

    If salt loses its flavor…

  78. RJHighland says:

    I was just thinking if it is ok to divorce and remarry and it is ok to be in a same sex relationship then it would be ok to have an affair, because you can have sex with someone other than the one you were sacramentally married to and have sex outside of the sacrament of marriage and still recieve communion! Let the games begin!!!! Thank you Pope Francis, love ya padre!!!! (PS Just kidding if my wife heard this I’m toast and my six children would kill me, if my priest would hear about it he would grab me by the neck and drag me to the confessional just for thinking it.) Can anybody please explain to me what it means to be authentically Catholic anymore? I thought I knew, now just about anything qualifies that is except for being practicing the traditional faith. Our faith has been reduced to a Beatles song title “All you need is love” everybody now. I know there are a number of saint Johns and Pauls (Even a John Paul), George yes but Ringo I haven’t heard of a St. Ringo but hey the pontificate has only just begun. Hey John and Paul of the Beatles forever changed music like the Johns and Pauls have forever changed the Church, coinciendence? But shouldn’t Frank have been before John and Paul, just saying?

  79. Atra Dicenda, Rubra Agenda says:

    RJHighland has taken the laugh over cry approach it seems.

  80. HeatherPA says:

    Sometimes after reading the “catholic” news I see posted, and priests supporting it, I really sympathize with Frank Grimes… (and the little boy in the fairy tale “The Emporer’s New Clothes”)…

    Really starts at 1:05, for the impatient.

    http://youtu.be/rOgS8gTATv8

    I think if my priest linked to such a “catholic” news site in our bulletin, I would be very disappointed and sad. But that’s just me.

  81. “he’s the only — not the only — but one of the few popes we’ve had in recent times who has actually worked in the trenches, so to speak.”

    Eyup.

    Angelo Roncalli grew up in a farming family in a village. Probably had to dig some trenches at some point.

    Giovanni Montini was a sickly child from a middle-class family, so probably no actual trenches.

    Albino Luciani was the son of a bricklayer. Quite possibly some trenches were involved at some point, but given that he went to the minor seminary, not many.

    Karol Wojtyla was a slave labourer during WWII. Digging trenches, among other things.

    As a teenager, Joseph Ratzinger did nothing but dig trenches along the Hungarian border in the dying days of WWII. See his autobiography, Milestones, for further details.

    Jorge Bergoglio came from a middle-class family in Argentina. No apparent trenches.

    So the Popes she’s thinking of – the liberal pets – are probably the very ones who never dug a trench in their lives …

    Having said that, even if she was being allegorical, what this lady has said is STILL ridiculous. It’s very good for me to read these things, because it reminds me that there are people out there, living and breathing, who really do think that the world began yesterday and that up till now, the Pope was kept, from childbirth, in a specially sealed container in the Vatican vault.

  82. KingofCharity says:

    Rob22,
    Orthodoxy is NOT the answer. Ironically, one of the reasons you would be running away from the RCC is the proposed loosening of pastoral discipline on Communion for the divorced and civilly remarried, yet the Orthodox allow for this more lax view. In fact, some bishops want to assimilate the Orthodox belief. If you become Orthodox, you have to concede that the Church of Christ is capable of teaching heresy and is NOT indefectible and infallible since the Eastern Patriarchs before and after “the Church of the First Seven Ecumenical Councils” formally taught heresy, e.g. Arianism, Pelagianism, etc. You seem to be fleeing Catholicism because you feel she is slipping into error and forfeiting her claim to indefectible doctrine. Yet, the Orthodox gladly admit that the Church can and has taught heresy many times. Yet, the RCC is indefectible and infallible. The heated debate and divisive bickering we’ve seen from the Synod is NOT the Church and did not overthrow 2,000 years of Apostolic Tradition and Papal teaching. If anything, the debacle only demonstrates very clearly that the modernist zeitgeist has infiltrated the Church since the middle of this century, and that our bishops truly are divided and at spiritual warfare in the Church and that this division can no longer be shrugged off as the stuff of “conspiracy theorists,” schismatics, or Malachi Martin readers. The devil and his legions are in the Church and trying to devour her from within. The Trojan Horse has entered somehow. somewhere. The debate and discussion demonstrates a divided hierarchy about the pastoral and disciplinary direction and tone of the Church. These liberal proposals are pastoral and disciplinary in nature that happen to have detrimental effects and implications on doctrine, so that is the problem. The problem is not that the RCC is on the cusp of formally teaching heresy. She can’t. She is the indefectible and infallible Bride and Body of Christ.

    Many Christians involved in the Catholic/Orthodox debate read Vladimir Guettee’s The Papacy alongside and in conjunction with Francis Patrick Kenrick’s The Primacy of the Apostolic See Vindicated. Kenrick’s book counters a lot of Guettee’s points.
    It is my belief that an analysis of an issue as cumbersome as the primacy of the bishop of Rome and his relationship to the Eastern Churches and what that entails for all of Christendom is too complex of an issue to evaluate through a single lens. For example, using a historical lens to try and evaluate the origins, development, and authentic purpose of Christian ecclesiology, collegiality, the papacy, and Ecumenical Councils. I firmly believe that one can’t make an informed position about Christian orthodoxy regarding the proper function of the papacy and the entirety of Christian ecclesiology through just a secular, non-Christian, historical, academic lens. The orthodoxy of the papacy must be approached like all other doctrinal issues; it must address these six questions: 1) Is it biblical (Old and New Testaments?) 2) Can it be supported by extra-biblical Jewish Tradition (e.g. Mishna and Talmud, etc.)? 3) Is it consistent with Apostolic Tradition and authentic development of doctrine? 4) Is it historical (can objective, secular history verify and falsify certain claims)? 5) Is it logical/reasonable? 6) Is it workable?
    Below is a list of must read books about the papacy; some are more apologetic based and some are even a bit polemical, but all are great, informative reads. I firmly believe that a person must have a thorough understanding of the papacy before they dive into the academic literature. In the end, it all comes down to the authentic nature of the Petrine ministry and how it is revealed in Scripture and developed in secular and ecclesiastical history, and Apostolic Tradition. Remember, part of the capital T Apostolic Tradition is that our understanding of that Tradition can and will “develop.” We are a mustard tree sprung forth from the “mustard seed” of Christ’s Deposit of Faith. Apostolic Tradition is not a museum. It is not stagnant and fixed. It is a living, growing Church guided by the Holy Spirit so that the Truth of the Gospel can always be interpreted to address new developments in human knowledge and combat the “spirit of the times.” It is always the Church’s understanding of the original Deposit of Faith that grows, and NOT the faith itself. In the seed that Jesus left us, every aspect of the faith was present, just in primitive form.
    The list of books below discuss some of the key contentious issues-
    • Peter is the “rock who professes rock.” In other words, he assumes a title that previously would have only been used to describe God precisely because he professes the “rock” or foundation of the Christian faith. Peter is Rock precisely because he professes the “rock” of the New Covenant. God only changes people’s names a few times in Scripture and it is ALWAYS very important and critical. Simon’s name is changed to Rock because he proclaims the rock of the Christian faith—Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ—the Messiah and Son of the living God; therefore, Jesus delegates his authority to Simon, making him the visible, earthly Rock (his visible shepherd, rock, holder of the keys, and confirmer/strengthener of faith), The restored Davidic Kingdom (the eternal Kingdom of God) as the Church Militant or Pilgrim Church (also the Sacramental Church) has its “prime minister,” the Vicar of Christ. RCC has no problem with Matthew 16 interpreted as BOTH Peter and his profession of faith in the divinity of Christ and teaches both as true. Remember, the historical papacy “precedes” the writing of Matthew 16 and its formal canonization. Matt 16 was not a “blueprint” biblical text that early Christians read and used to “invent” a papacy. Matthew 16 only reinforces and presupposes an already existing, historical reality grounded in Apostolic Tradition.
    • The reunion Council of Florence and all that it entails, etc.
    • The Pope is the viceroy or vizier (hence, Vicar of Christ) and not a quasi-prince, emperor, Caesar, King, etc. Now, did the papacy sometimes become overly influenced by the monarchal world around it? Yes.
    • The Canon 6 issue from the Council of Nicea (some claim that this canon “proves” that the early Church saw all bishops as equal)
    • Jurisdiction of regional pastoral and theological issues vs. doctrinal and dogmatic issues. The goal of the Pope is not to be “bishop of the world.” The early ecclesiastical model allows for a lot of pastoral, canonical, theological, and disciplinary freedom and independence on the part of individual bishops
    • The Primacy of the Apostolic See Vindicated Francis Patrick Kenrick (a very old and rare book just recently back in print, it is an ESSENTIAL READ for anyone involved in Catholic Orthodox debate/dialogue)
    • “Guettee’s Papacy Schistmatic: Parts I & II” (article from Catholic World 1867) Orestes Brownson (A MUST READ)
    • Orestes Brownson wrote many reviews and articles in his time, many of which can be located on the Internet. He was an ardent defender of the papacy.
    • Similarly, Ivan “Jean” Gagarin wrote many articles/essays in defense of the papacy/Catholicism (a convert from Orthodoxy to Catholicism, he wrote many articles and reviews in defense of the papacy. He was an apologist and polemicist of his day, but a good writer. Many of his works haven’t been translated into English, yet. But some have.)
    • Studies on the Early Papacy Dom John Chapman
    • The Primitive Church and the See of Peter Luke Rivington (a convert to Catholicism from Anglicanism)
    • The Russian Church and the Papacy Vladimir Soloviev (A MUST READ)
    • The Throne of the Fisherman Thomas Allies (A MUST READ)
    • St. Peter, His Name and His Office Thomas Allies
    • The Keys of the Kingdom: A Tool’s Witness to Truth Stanley Jaki (A MUST READ)
    • And on this Rock: The Witness of One Land and Two Covenants Stanley Jaki
    • The Biblical Basis for the Papacy John Salza
    • The Divine Primacy of the Bishop of Rome and Modern Eastern Orthodoxy: Letters to a Greek Orthodox on the Unity of the Church James Likoudis (A MUST READ)
    • Papal Primacy: From Its Origins to the Present (theology) Klaus Schatz
    • The Eternal City Taylor Marshall
    • The Shepherd and the Rock Michael Miller
    • The Early Papacy: To the Synod of Chalcedon in 451 Adrian Fortescue
    • The Orthodox Eastern Church Adrian Fortescue
    • The Orthodox Eastern Church Before the Schism Adrian Fortescue
    • Orthodoxy and Catholicism: A Comparison Dave Armstrong (a bit polemical in nature, but very good)
    • Rome and the Eastern Churches Aidan Nichols
    • Pope Fiction Patrick Madrid (addresses a lot of the myths and misconceptions about the papacy)
    • Upon this Rock: St. Peter and the Primacy of Rome in Scripture and the Early Church Stephen Ray
    • Jesus, Peter and the Keys: A Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy Scott Butler, Norman Dahlgren and David Hess
    • The Office of Peter and the Structure of the Church Hans Urs von Balthasar
    • The History of the Popes Ludwig Freiherr von Pastor (22 volumes)
    • The Papacy: Continuity and Innovation I.S. Robinson
    • Dogma vol 4 The Church, Its Origin and Structure Michael Schmaus
    • An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine John Henry Newman

    Things to Consider-
    • Orthodoxy has no qualms about “development of doctrine” in the first millennium, e.g. canon of Scripture, Trinity, etc., but becomes very skeptical with later “developments” once they are separated from the See of Peter. This is a huge inconsistency. Although they formally reject Original Sin, Immaculate Conception, RCC understanding of grace, Thomism/Scholasticism, and Purgatory, they have supported the “praying of these beliefs” implicitly for years through the Fathers, saints, and the Western liturgies that they were once “united with” without problem or objection.
    • The early Church and fathers (ante-Nicene) are clear on their rejection of birth control, yet modern Orthodoxy has no real or “official” condemnation of birth control
    • The “Church of the First Seven Ecumenical Councils” is clear on its rejection of birth control as intrinsically evil, yet the RCC alone in modern Christendom holds this faith.
    • The “Church of the First Seven Ecumenical Councils” is clear on the impossibility of divorce and indissolubility of a valid Christian marriage, yet the RCC alone holds this faith.
    • Orthodoxy has rejected Scholasticism. They do not have a long history of embracing science/reason and therefore are not equipped for the ever-increasing battle with aggressive atheism/philosophical materialism. As Catholics, we see all Truth as from God. We see a perfect reconciliation between faith and science, religion and reason, Scholasticism and Mysticism, Scientific methodology, philosophy, and sacramental theology, etc.
    • Is Orthodoxy prepared to fight the New Atheism?
    • Of the original great Four Christian Sees (Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Rome), Rome alone is still Christian (the historical “See of Peter”) Although, it is true that Peter founded Antioch and Mark (who served under Peter) found Alexandria. But, it is a fact of history that all the Sees of Christianity have been conquered by Islam, e.g. Hagia Sophia was a mosque, and now a museum :(
    • Later on in history, Constantinople becomes one of the great Sees, making it a Pentarchy. Rome alone has stood Christianized and untouched by Islam.
    • As an Orthodox Christian, you will believe that the Church is not indefectible and safeguarded from officially teaching heresy/error since there are many times during the “Church of the First Seven Ecumenical Councils” where the Eastern bishops/patriarchs unequivocally and indisputably taught heresy, e.g. Arianism, etc. Catholics believe the Church is first and foremost, indefectible. If Orthodoxy is true, then one is forced into a position where he or she has to reject the indefectibility of the Church since many of the Eastern Patriarchs officially taught undisputed heresy. The so-called “heresies” of the Latin/Roman Church are very debatable. Historically, Rome was the safeguard of orthodoxy and the “go to” See for recognizing and affirming orthodoxy.
    • The Orthodox Church has been very stagnant when it comes to evangelical zeal and the Great Commission. Is the Orthodox Church prepared to evangelize the Earth anew? Are they open to the evangelical fire of the Holy Spirit? In other words, are they too parochial and esoteric to “light the world on fire”?
    • If Ecumenical Councils are the Supreme Authority of the Christian Church, then why have they all but ceased since the Great Schism?
    Final note- if you continue to delve into Orthodoxy, you might want to stick with theologians like John Meyendorff, Vladimir Lossky, Timothy Kallistos Ware, John Zizioulis, Andrew Louth, and Alexander Schmemann, and, of course, the great Eastern Fathers.
    These writers tend to be more ecumenical, fair, objective, and less polemic.
    You might want to avoid writers like Michael Whelton . . .

  83. CharlesG says:

    This really fries my nose, to quote the former Mayor of Boston. Why shouldn’t we be asked to strive for moral ideals? “Be ye therefore perfect, as your father in heaven is perfect”? — out the window. VATICAN II’s universal call to holiness? — out the window. Notice, also, that according to Ms. Ambrosio, not only must there be”welcome”, but one must not tell them they are doing anything wrong. If the Church cannot proclaim what is sin and ask her children to avoid it (something which can be done charitably, by the way), then she is not Christ’s Church. Of course she gives the game away by agreeing that acceptance is a “first step”. Because the goal is the normalization and celebration of homosexual activity and it’s elimination from the category of sin. They may at first emphasize that “doctrine hasn’t changed”, but of course to these moral heretics, that’s just a matter of time. We have seen this movie played out before, in the Episcopal church and other mainstream Protestant churches. At first they just say that the teaching hasn’t changed, but love and mercy means we should not ever mention it. Then, as Father Neuhaus used to say, orthodoxy becomes optional, and finally it is outlawed.

  84. KingofCharity says:

    We can’t respond to all of this as if the RCC formally proclaimed this modernist rubbish ex cathedra. These are “meeting minutes.” Snapshots of orthodox and heterdox debate. Orthodox and Heterodox bishops have always debated within the Church. Go back to every Council and Synod within the Church and one will find faithful, orthodox bishops/popes debating and arguing and spiritually combating heterdox bishops and popes who were inclined towards heresy. Debate has always been here. Spiritual warfare within the Magisterium has always been here. Nothing new under the sun or in Rome. This is a “snapshot” of the kind of debate one would expect to see if the RCC was undergoing a spiritual war from within. And she is. What we are angry about is the fact that we are even having these debates on settled issues. Our orthodox bishops are at war with bishops who have accepted modernist, liberal world views and are spewing liberal buzz words and jargon from within the Vatican.

  85. KingofCharity says:

    St. Paul rebuked St. Peter for not acting like the pope and living up to his own teaching (Ga 2:11). .St. Philip Neri once sent a letter to a Pope admonishing him for his misconduct. Popes can behave in heretical ways because they are sinners and are not impeccable. Papal sin and hypocrisy can always be rebuked. St. Catherine of Sienna pray for us.
    Where are our St. Catherines and St. Paul’s and St. Philips. The RCC might be going through an era where we desperately need a St. Catherine to rebuke the Vicar of Christ and put an end to the “mess.”

  86. Suburbanbanshee says:

    The falling stars and falling green figs in Revelation are usually associated with all kinds of members of the Church running away from being part of her, during any kind of tribulations, afflictions, and persecutions.

  87. St. Epaphras says:

    An outstanding sermon: “On Dogma Free of Change” from an FSSP priest —
    http://files.audiosancto.org/20070506-On-Dogma-Free-of-Change.mp3

    That link is from the romans10seventeen.org site. I suppose it’s still on Audio Sancto too. The sermon is from 2007 but it is relevant for today. Excellent! The priest really lays it out clearly, step by step, how and why what we believe cannot change. Looks as if many in high positions in the Church could benefit from listening. (So can all of us, I think.)

  88. KingofCharity says:

    Bishop Chaput is becoming much more vocal. Always very, very orthodox, he has tended to be more moderate and pastoral when it came to culture wars. But his last few statements regarding the confusion from the Synod have been very blunt and clear. This could get real interesting with Francis coming to Philly next year. Chaput might have to rebuke the Successor of St. Peter for allowing such confusion to enter the church.
    http://ncronline.org/news/faith-parish/archbishop-chaput-blasts-vatican-debate-family-says-confusion-devilhttp://www.philly.com/philly/news/20141023_Archbishop_Chaput_talks_against_reforms_voiced

  89. robtbrown says:

    FrJim4321 says,

    . . . and I think I’m okay with the deity.

    You seem more sure of it than St Paul was.

    1 Cor 4:4
    nihil enim mihi conscius sum sed non in hoc iustificatus sum qui autem iudicat me Dominus est

  90. RJHighland says:

    King of Charity: We have Cardinal Burke, ArchBishop Schnieder, and Cardinal Pell even stepped up. I wish Mother Angelica could jump in on this, that would be a hoot. She was wonderful when her Italian temper flaired up. I can’t think of another out spoken sister that is on the traditional side of this debate and in the public eye, but I am sure there are some out there, I wish they would step up to the plate to trump these nuns on the bus types. (PS When I first came into the Church I would watch Mother Angelica’s show, we even named our third daughter after her. When I recently discovered that they originally celebrated mass ad orientem but her bishop forced them to change to versus populum was another proof she was truly guided by our Lord. You are in our prays Mother and Lord please send us another.)

  91. happyCatholic says:

    BobinNYC,
    May God bless you with abundance of grace to live chastely in accord with the natural and moral law. I watched the movie “The Desire of the Everlasting Hills” and was so struck by the valiant struggles and absolute poignancy of their situations as they discussed their same sex attractions. Your comment reflects their experiences.

  92. stephen c says:

    For me, the takeaway here was “Ambrosio said … there will be no doctrinal change in the church’s teaching regarding … divorce.” Maybe I am more ignorant than I think, but I simply cannot believe in the likelihood of any scenario – any scenario at all – in which a Pope, compos mentis, approves unrepentant and continuing polygamy. And the “penitential path” through “divorce” to polygamy is still a path to polygamy – and, thanks to the news from Rome over the last year, I have, like many others, spent a lot more time that I otherwise would have wondering why our merciful savior Jesus called polygamy nothing better than hardness of heart (I don’t like to think too hard about sins I am not likely to commit and polygamy is near the top of that list, for me). Well, even the liberal or progressive “Ambrosio”, quoted in Fr. Z’s post, said that papal approval of that form of hardness of heart is not going to happen. Of course, in the event that Cardinal Kasper is elected Pope, me and “Ambrosio” will likely be proven wrong … but in that case I imagine that the Vatican will simply move to St. Louis or Philadelphia or Ceylon or some such newly blessed place. Good news for the Italian restaurants in those locations, I guess.

  93. William Tighe says:

    “Salt and Light attacks Card. Burke: sticking to the ideal instead of ministering to people”

    Poor word choice. Replace “ideal” with “truth” and “ministering” with “catering,” and it’s fixed (and clear).

  94. Joe in Canada says:

    The Orthodox have a concept called phronema, or the mind of the Church. This is not the sensus fidelium but thinking like Christ, in a Christly way. Apart from the questionable content of what this lady says, I don’t hear words being chosen in a Christly way.

    Fr Jim4321: what in the LSN article is not supported by the video provided?

  95. Grumpy Beggar says:

    Thanks to Charles G for “fries my nose” (provided a badly needed a smile).

    To expound a little on JesusFreak84’s post, our Canadian government has certain elements in it that have been brainwashing the public for a long time on , um, “political correctness” . Today, if one were, by analogy ,to refer to political correctness as the milk with which we as Canadians are currently being force -fed , then most surely the cream which sits on top of that milk is “Equality”.

    Any time the word “equality” is mentioned, it is immediately perceived as or in the least associated with “gay rights”. The homosexual lobby has not only succeeded in commandeering the word “equality”, but also our Human Rights Commissions in very large part – as if they were sole owners of said commissions. The picture had become so lopsided, that even our present prime minister clearly saw it as far back as 1999 . . . from a MacLean’s magazine interview :

    ” ‘Human rights commissions, as they are evolving, are an attack on our fundamental freedoms and the basic existence of a democratic society,’ he said in a 1999 interview with Terry O’Neill of BC Report newsmagazine. ‘ It is in fact totalitarianism. I find this is very scary stuff.’ He went on to complain about the ‘bastardization’ of the entire concept of rights in modern society. ”

    http://www.macleans.ca/general/harper-must-act-now-to-protect-free-speech/

    In 2008 , an architect of Canada’s Human Rights Commissions – A. Alan Borovoy confirmed ,by way of writing in the Calgary Herald :

    ” ‘During the years when my colleagues and I were labouring to create such commissions,’ he wrote last month in the Calgary Herald. ‘We never imagined that they might ultimately be used against freedom of speech.’ ”

    http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/editorialsletters/story.html?id=0f5a33d8-e27f-4aed-8f38-39a94d1d764f

    Of course, hindsight is always 20/20 . But no one claims to know how to fix it now. Well what if we backtrack to this question : Who the heck broke it ?

    This is the environment we live in, but not necessarily in harmony with, north of the 49th. As unfortunate as some of them are, Ms. Ambrosio’s comments don’t come as much of a surprise to me personally. One would think that if Ms. Ambrosio had actually been um, equally minded, she might’ve pointed out Cardinal Kasper’s “freaking out” over Cardinal Burke’s comments and actions too (you know – give equal sides equal coverage – well, as long they consider themselves qualified to to draw up lines of division for us [um, did someone forget to mention to her that the gift of the Holy Spirit is unity. . . ?] ) , but instead she appears to have been more content to freak out right along with Cardinal Kasper . . . nice and impartial – right ?

    Dissing Pope Benedict XVI and Pope St. John Paul II should feel more uncomfortable to them (Salt & Light) than it appears, since they founded themselves upon the claim that they were going to be an arm of that “new evangelization” that Pope Saint John Paul II called for and initiated and which Pope Benedict XVI continued . But that wasn’t about bringing people into a watered down Gospel and Church – it was about finding new ways to bring the Gospel to those who had distanced themselves.
    http://www.ewtn.com/new_evangelization/Ratzinger.htm

    I hope Father Z remains pitbull with that word “welcome” and doesn’t let go of his grip , because so far, as he is pointing out in several articles now : Have we noticed that no one has volunteered to define to us precisely what “welcome” means in that particular context , yet all the hyped up media personalities seem to be saying this is what we have to do . . . without even being able to delineate the concrete steps which must be taken to do what hasn’t yet been defined ? How’s that for “realistic” ? As long as that concept remains in the abstract as a vague generality , all kinds of wrong impressions are going to be drawn from it and people will continue to get away with all sorts of garbage . “Welcome” can also be synonymous with “acceptance”, and that just leaves the door open even wider for misinterpretation.

    Misinterpretation and confusion come from ambiguous concepts. Cardinal Chaput appears to have concurred with Cardinal Burke that there was a lot of confusion being sown at the synod. In discussion and debate, our definitions have to always be clear beforehand , or we’ll often find ourselves sunk before we even start. Father John Hardon, SJ’s Modern Catholic Dictionary wisely counsels us, that when considering homosexuality from a moral standpoint, “three levels are to be distinguished: tendency, attraction, and activity.” Of the three, the only one which is “morally indefensible” is active homosexuality. The moment we fail to make those distinctions in any debate or discussion – forget it ! We’re toast.
    http://www.therealpresence.org/dictionary/adict.htm

    Cardinal Pell finds it better not even to capitulate to using the word “gay”- “. . . But he refused to use the term ‘gay’ as in ‘gay marriage’ because, he quipped, “homosexuals are just as miserable as the rest of us”.
    http://wyd11spiritofmadrid.wordpress.com/tag/cardinal-pell/

    Here is one expression which can quite easily be misinterpreted: ” If someone is gay, who am I to judge?” Pardon me for putting it this way, but if you’re saying someone is “gay”, you subsequently will have very little idea of whom and what you’re trying to judge. If I belong to the Holy Catholic Church and try to give my assent of faith to Her teachings , then I must make an informed judgement for myself whether a particular act,or situation is sinful or conducive to sin respectively – without judging any person . A clearer way to express the good intention would’ve been to say, “If someone experiences SSA or homosexual tendencies, who am I to judge them personally ? ” Conversely , if two people are committing a homosexual act, it can never be condoned, “welcomed” or accepted. The same applies to pre-marital sex, masturbation , divorced and remarried sex . . . so as St. Paul says, ultimately we discover that we all fall short. Nobody lives the “ideal” which Ms. Ambrosio tries so feebly to imply – as if there were one camp of righteous who is excluding the non-righteous. . . Gee – talk about unrealistic. Wasn’t it the Cure of Ars who said there were only two groups of people: The sinners , and those who the sinners imagine to be holy.

    Commonly, but not exclusively, today when people refer to two people being in a “same-sex relationship”, the connotation is that they are active sexually as well. If that weren’t true , then we could go around saying that every male with a male sibling was in a same-sex relationship with his brother.

    Please, if you’ve read this far, don’t let the following subtlety escape you: At roughly 4:49 of the video Ms. Ambrosio says ” In that room ,bishops were talking about the reality of people who are in same-sex relationships who want to come to Church and have not found their place in their parishes.” Some people in “same-sex relationships” consider themselves married- legally in some cases – How would she propose we “welcome them into the Church” , without having the charity to point out that “living their faith” for every one of us means acknowledging where we fall short ?

    The Church has never said – even to people in a, um “same-sex” relationship “don’t dare enter the place of worship. The Church does mention to each one of us though that we must each be properly disposed to receive Holy Communion. Hence encouraging anyone to deny their sins is not charity.

    So what if two people in a “same sex relationship” attending Mass, but not receiving Holy Communion, decide to be passionately expressive with each other if the presider has asked all to exchange a sign of peace ? To get right down to nitty gritty practicality , what if 2 men in a homosexual relationship attending Mass – but not receiving Holy Communion , decide to kiss each other, or for that matter – to be hugging one another or be arm in arm during part of the Mass in a way that clearly says ( – – – – – – – – – -) and there is a mother behind them or across from them, who is trying to bring her children up according to the faith, but whose children or child sees all of this ?

    Just how “welcoming” are we supposed to be ? Don’t you think that it might simply be affirming their active same-sex relationship – one which they seem to have no indication of wanting to change ? Are they now “finding their place in the Church” or are they, like so much equality legislation has proven to do, actually encroaching on the freedom or legitimate place of others ? . . . Difficult questions when they are brought down to a practical level, and grounded in, well . . . “reality”, aren’t they ? What are the answers now ? Perhaps Ms. Ambrosio could come down out of the clouds long enough to speak to us in our ivory towers and give us the answers – NOT !

    One more for consideration: Ms. Ambrosio again as accurately transcribed in the OP :

    “When asked about what the Synod means for homosexuals being accepted as homosexuals in Catholic parishes, Ambrosio replied: ‘It means that on the ground level, in the parish, it’s suddenly not going to be acceptable to other faithful, it’s not going to be acceptable to exclude someone who has a sincere thirst for God and who has a sincere desire to practice their faith, but is either in a same-sex relationship or is divorced and remarried. It’s not going to be acceptable to exclude that person anymore. And that’s huge.’ “

    It might be preferable if Ms. Ambrosio would do us the honour of finishing her sentence/thought: “Exclude” them from what exactly ?

    “Practicing my faith” means accepting Christ as my friend, my brother , my God AND my Saviour. He saves me from my sins – not from acknowledging them.

  96. Mike says:

    Regarding “who am I to judge?” it must be kept in mind that the Pope made his remark in the context of an objective assessment of a man’s good will. The Holy Father was not asking a rhetorical question.

    The question has been asked rhetorically many times over the millenia, in various phrasings. Sufficiently distorted or truncated of a context of Christian charity — either in the act or in the anecdote — it comes out sounding an awful lot like “am I my brother’s keeper?”

  97. robtbrown says:

    Grumpy Beggar says,

    It might be preferable if Ms. Ambrosio would do us the honour of finishing her sentence/thought: “Exclude” them from what exactly ?

    That seems to be a liberal MO–using verbs without an object: “I believe in the Right to Choose.” Right to Choose what? Bell Peppers and Onions on pizza? Blue over Red? Medical School over Grad School in Biochemistry? Honda over Toyota? Living in Arizona vs living in Seattle? Taking the new job and moving vs staying in the same city?

    Some time ago I decided that Catholic liberals are reacting against their own scrupulousness. Their obsessive reference to opposing rigidity is an indication they are fighting their own rigorism.

  98. pmullane says:

    Its a sure sign of the disgusting self important decadence of the modern west that a person who has grown up in the most fantastically privileged society in the history of mankind, who has known nothing of the horrors that have plagued mankind as a matter of course throughout history (war, famine, destruction by natural disaster, enslavement, tyranny, terrible disease) can accuse two men who grew up under the most evil regimes known to man (soviet communism and German National Socialism) of being ‘out of touch’.

    They are in touch more than you will ever know, sweetheart.

    PS this ‘top down & botto up’ stuff is pure Saul Alinsky.

  99. JARay says:

    I have just read the latest from Sandro Magister in http://www.chiesa and he writes that Pope Francis has already determined to make the reception of Holy Communion by divorced or even unmarried catholics living in sin, as something not to bother about. He instances the Pope doing this doing this in Buenos Aires when he was Archbishop there. His words about traditonalists laying heavy burdens upon such people because of their rigidity to that tradition shows that he has indeed got this laxity in mind. His words on these “rigid” traditionalists clearly show the way his mind is working and it seems that he is minded to ignore those nuisance pieces of Scripture such as 1Corr 11:27 about those who eat and drink unworthily being faced with the judgement of Jesus himself. Why, Christ is the God of surprises and the fount of mercy not a vindictive person who actually means what he says!!!
    I fear the final words which the Pope will issue on this matter.

  100. Venerator Sti Lot says:

    Kingof Charity,

    Thank you for your reading lsit and detailed reflections (23 Oct. 8:51)!

    You write, “As an Orthodox Christian, you will believe that the Church is not indefectible and safeguarded from officially teaching heresy/error since there are many times during the ‘Church of the First Seven Ecumenical Councils’ where the Eastern bishops/patriarchs unequivocally and indisputably taught heresy, e.g. Arianism, etc.”

    I have never (so far as I recall) encountered any Orthodox writer or conversation-partner who would say anything of the sort. Nor do I see, as there was no ‘East-West Schism’ up to and including Nicea II (787) – Carolingian oddities notwithstanding – how this would not be equally problematical for ‘Rome’ as for ‘Orthodoxy’: either those heretical bishops were ‘in Communion’ or not, and if formally in Commuion while they “unequivocally and indisputably taught heresy” or subsequently, either properly censured, or negligently allowed to escape censure. I think something like your 9:16 comment would be likely to apply here, from the Orthodox perspective. But do you have any reading recommendations on this specific point?

    Something I have encountered in a couple different places is:

    https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/russian-orthodox-to-catholics-lets-work-together-to-defend-life-and-family

    Do you happen to know of any indictions of (individual) Hierarchical reactions to the possibility and scope of pursuing this, despite obvious differences?

  101. stephen c says:

    I watched the interview and the interviewee (whose real last name is Ambrosio – before watching the interview I thought “Ambrosio” was a commentator’s “nom de plume” having something to do with Saint Ambrose, who lived in times similar to ours) seemed to competently describe the opinions of many people on one side of the debates at the Synod. Ambrosio’s negative comparison of Cardinal Burke’s recent past to the Pope’s recent past was, I hope, not something she would have put down in print. (As someone who admires Cardinal Burke, I like to think that any fair journalist who tried to learn about him would be impressed). I was surprised, though, that she said nothing about the African bishops when she was asked about the North South divide – but she did say that she covered the North Americans at the Vatican, and did not say her view of things was global.

  102. Gus Barbarigo says:

    Here is how the so-called “Spirit of the Synod” could destroy the Church except for a remnant:

    If the Church becomes more “welcoming” toward homosexuals, the practical effect will lead to classes, at the parish and even parochial-school level, on how to be “nice” and “non-bullying” to homosexuals. “Gay” leaders and advocates will be paraded before our children to “teach” them. Whether or not formal doctrine will be changed, militant homosexuals will have inveigled themselves into the open teaching magisterium of the Church.

    We see this with ecumenism, with Catholic universities having Islamic Studies courses or departments, and with parish-level courses on the ‘meaning’ of the Koran. We see at least one cardinal receive a ‘blessing’ from a female Protestant ‘minister.’

    Will any loyal Catholic parent allow any kid to sit through ‘gay’-agenda indoctrination? What would then stop active, open homosexuals from coaching sports teams, chaperoning children, etc., in a formal Catholic environment? After the sex-scandals rocking the Church, what parent could afford to take that risk? What parent, with any sense of Church teaching for two-thousand years prior to the Rainbow Synod, would risk such a millstone around the neck.

    We talk about people leaving the pews. The progressive ‘gay’ agenda could empty Catholic parochial and secondary schools. The rest of the Church, for the most part, would not be far behind.

  103. marcelus says:

    Well, news today out in the press is that Archbsp Chaput has now spoken against the Synod & by extention, against the Pope, Added to Crdlm Burked and Bsp Tolbin I believe, who mentioned something about making a mess? acomplished ,adressing the pope indirectly.

    Pushed by NCR, they are doing LOTS of harm to the traditional cause.

    It’s all over Latan and maybe the rest of thed world.

    It is traditionalism against Francis real or not. But real in the people’s mind reading the papers .

    These libs know how to play their game, believe me.

    Unless you are confortable in that position, something must be done or said.

    Hearts & minds?

  104. Dave N. says:

    My guess is that at a bare minimum, half of all practicing Catholics in the U.S. dissent willfully from Church teaching. In reality, this percentage is probably much, much higher.

    In my opinion, the success of the Synod can be measured to the extent that a larger percentage of Catholics assent to Church teaching now than before the Synod. I believe that rather than being called to honestly confront their dissent, there are probably MORE Catholics now who feel affirmed in their dissent than there were before the Synod. Therefore, the Synod thus far can fairly be deemed a failure. And I don’t see how this damage can be reversed in a year, if ever.

  105. marcelus says:

    Grumpy Beggar says:
    24 October 2014 at 1:57 am
    “Here is one expression which can quite easily be misinterpreted: ” If someone is gay, who am I to judge?” Pardon me for putting it this way, but if you’re saying someone is “gay”, you subsequently will have very little idea of whom and what you’re trying to judge. If I belong to the Holy Catholic Church and try to give my assent of faith to Her teachings , then I must make an informed judgement for myself whether a particular act,or situation is sinful or conducive to sin respectively – without judging any person .”

    We have written pages on this but. It refers to the action , not the person. Common phrase used by us Argentinians-

    If someone is gay, who am I to judge? Not quite complete.

    The phrase went “:If someone is gay, and seeks the Lord in good will…”

    It must be understood that ALL PEOPLE can seek the Lord in good will. SEEK is the word here to pay attention to. It means nobody can be prevented from or kept from seeking the Lord in good will. Sinners would be cast to hell directly without the possibility of confession.

    Whether that person is in sin is another issue, In order to come into full communion with the Lord, they must repent and change if necessary.

    I believe it does not mean anything else.

  106. The Cobbler says:

    It’s people like this who give “realism” a bad name and who make it hard to defend genuinely nuanced words and actions.

    Those who seem to think the existence of grey in the world means we have to muddy our understanding of white also make it hard to criticize the (relatively few) people whose idea of black and white really is distorted beyond mercy or humanity, simply because they make no distinction between people who refuse mercy or humanity for the sake of denying the grey in life and people who merely refuse to let the grey in life blind them to black and white in principle. You know, I don’t even like newspapers, but the world would be a better place if everyone were familiar with how the “grey” in them is just a combination of black dots and white dots…

  107. KingofCharity says:

    Yeah, the problem with Pope Francis’ open invitation is that it has given the false impression that we , the RCC, want people to “come as they are” without any mention of radical transformation, contrition, repentance, and assenting to the faith in its entirety. The invitation doesn’t mention “putting on Christ.” We believers are called to serve the non-believers and tend to their needs, but non-believers are not called to come to the Church. The Church is called to go out to the non-believers and offer them the Gospel of God’s love and mercy. People have the impression that we are “valuing” their sin rather than valuing their intrinsic dignity that comes from being children of God made in His divine image and likeness. We are all “intrinsically disordered” at some level in our humanity, and we are all called to repent so that the sacraments can infuse transformative grace.

    Also, Pope Francis’ open invitation is welcoming people who don’t care about the Church and her doctrines. As several people on here have noted, these dissidents don’t want to receive mercy, they want to infiltrate the Church and destroy her credibility, authority, and doctrine.
    They don’t want to radically transform themselves . . . . they want to radically transform the Church.

  108. Venerator Sti Lot says:

    Walter Cardinal Kasper has been the recipient of ‘accogliere’ for decades, and at the highest levels. Is there much fruit by which it can be known he has taken proper advantage of this?

  109. Venerator Sti Lot says:

    Pat,

    Thanks for the link!

    Vincent Cardinal Nichols writes, “The first is that we should never identify people by their sexual orientation.” Alas, he does not go on to offer any concrete advice about how we may best be of service to those who insistently do so with respect to themselves.

  110. marcelus says:

    Did I read somewhere Kasper was getting an award in November from an american institution?

  111. Grumpy Beggar says:

    marcelus says:
    24 October 2014 at 5:19 pm

    “Grumpy Beggar says:
    24 October 2014 at 1:57 am
    “Here is one expression which can quite easily be misinterpreted: ” If someone is gay, who am I to judge?” Pardon me for putting it this way, but if you’re saying someone is “gay”, you subsequently will have very little idea of whom and what you’re trying to judge. If I belong to the Holy Catholic Church and try to give my assent of faith to Her teachings , then I must make an informed judgement for myself whether a particular act,or situation is sinful or conducive to sin respectively – without judging any person .”

    We have written pages on this but. It refers to the action , not the person. Common phrase used by us Argentinians-

    If someone is gay, who am I to judge? Not quite complete.

    The phrase went “:If someone is gay, and seeks the Lord in good will…”

    It must be understood that ALL PEOPLE can seek the Lord in good will. SEEK is the word here to pay attention to. It means nobody can be prevented from or kept from seeking the Lord in good will. Sinners would be cast to hell directly without the possibility of confession.

    Whether that person is in sin is another issue, In order to come into full communion with the Lord, they must repent and change if necessary.

    I believe it does not mean anything else.”
    – – – – – – – –

    Thanks for taking the time to write a little more marcelus – it explains a lot to me -has more positive elements than what I wrote. When you put it in context, I can believe it doesn’t mean anything else either. Admittedly, I’ve been visiting Fr. Z’s blog much more frequently since the synod started because reliable reporting wasn’t too easy to find and I’ve always known that what gets posted here is far less prone to the spiritual forces of erosion . . . finally decided to join , but still newbie as a member here. So , I missed a lot . . . just noticed that I referred to Archbishop Chaput as Cardinal Chaput ( * head – hands* ), (maybe it was wishful thinking).

    Yesterday evening I led a Rosary which we pray for the unborn and their mothers every Friday evening in an Adoration chapel. In the format we use, we pray for the Holy Father both at the beginning, and again at the conclusion of the Rosary (made me think I could be praying for him a little more, and writing considerably less).

  112. Grumpy Beggar says:

    robtbrown says:
    24 October 2014 at 7:35 am

    “Grumpy Beggar says,

    It might be preferable if Ms. Ambrosio would do us the honour of finishing her sentence/thought: “Exclude” them from what exactly ?

    That seems to be a liberal MO–using verbs without an object: “I believe in the Right to Choose.” Right to Choose what? Bell Peppers and Onions on pizza? Blue over Red? Medical School over Grad School in Biochemistry? Honda over Toyota? Living in Arizona vs living in Seattle? Taking the new job and moving vs staying in the same city?

    Some time ago I decided that Catholic liberals are reacting against their own scrupulousness. Their obsessive reference to opposing rigidity is an indication they are fighting their own rigorism.”

    – – – – – – – –
    While it remains difficult to tell exactly what is going on in someone else’s mind (can’t tell what’s going on in my own half the time) , what else are we supposed to conclude – given the information on hand ? I agree with your theory. It would appear that some are battling personal prejudices that might well disappear if they were to get out and have a little contact with people.

    To the following statement :
    “Homosexuals have gifts and qualities to offer to the Christian community: are we
    capable of welcoming these people , guaranteeing to them a fraternal space in our
    communities?”

    I would respond to its author:
    Homosexuals – like anyone else, have gifts to offer to the entire world – not just the “Christian community” . Wouldn’t that statement then,initially be making the presumption that the people to whom it is addressed don’t believe homosexuals have gifts or qualities ?

    It also possesses a tendency to promote a type of “us and them” mentality . . . as if absolutely none of us had any members of our own families who were, homosexual, or who experienced SSA ; as if absolutely none of us ever had a co-worker(s) who was homosexual or experienced SSA . . . as if the Catholic Church didn’t already have any of Her members who boldly struggle against the aforementioned.

    Here’s the second part of the statement :

    “Often they wish to encounter a Church that offers them a welcoming home. Are our
    communities capable of providing that, accepting and valuing their sexual orienta-
    tion, without compromising Catholic doctrine on the family and matrimony.”

    I believe the question actually answers itself if we remove the fluff:

    “ . . Are our . . . communities capable of . . . accepting and valuing their sexual orienta-
    tion, without compromising Catholic doctrine on the family and matrimony ?”

    A lot of equality legislation has been passed on false premises (looks like Roe vs Wade has a cousin) – a type of illusion is created – they (the homosexual lobby) begin (in the media) to portray a type of “poster boy” without a face – and before you know it, entire societies acquire a guilt complex “imagining” more or less, a situation which has very little to do with reality.

    Case in point: Roughly one year and a half ago , France legalized gay marriage. When the bill had been adopted by the French parliament , French prime minister Jean-Marc Ayrault remarked- to the press:
    ” Contrary to what those who vociferate against it say — fortunately they’re in the minority — this law is going to strengthen the institution of marriage.’
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/france-s-parliament-passes-gay-marriage-bill-1.1365498

    What minority ? As it turns out – only the minority in prime minister Ayrault’s mind.
    His comments came in spite of the facts that almost 15,000 French mayors got together saying they would refuse to perform “Gay Marriages” ; that young people rallied and marched in huge numbers in the streets and held peaceful protests to oppose the intentions of parliament ; that these young people were even joined in their protest by the founder of one of the largest homosexual associations in France,who proclaimed publicly in January 2013 that most homosexual individuals in the country do not want “gay marriage” or the right to adopt children :

    “Nathalie de Williencourt, a French lesbian and founder of one of the largest homosexual associations in France, said in January that most homosexual individuals in the country do not want ‘gay marriage’ or the right to adopt children.

    ‘I am French; I am homosexual. The majority of homosexuals do not want either marriage or adoption, and we especially don’t want to be treated the same as heterosexuals, because we are different,’ she said. ‘We don’t want equality, but we do want justice.’ ”

    http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/nearly-15000-french-mayors-will-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages/

    The people had spoken, but, he passed the law anyway ! . . . Who was he trying to appease – if not his own conscience ?

    (I think you’re definitely on to something rbtbrown – thanks for posting your comment)

    would further posit that those um , catholics, who give the appearance of arguing most ardently against any kind of discrimination against homosexuals

  113. Grumpy Beggar says:

    I apologize for those last 2 lines in the previous post again guys – they were part of a draft that doesn’t apply – didn’t see them when I posted – time for an extended break –

Comments are closed.