This is why the Fishwrap is also known as the National Sodomitical Reporter.
Top EU cardinal calls for change in church teaching on gay relationships
In other news…
German cardinal urges lifting celibacy rule for priests
Card. Marx didn’t specify if the bride has to be biologically female, though.
But, hey! The Church has far greater problems than getting all picky about what human orifices are for, those old fashioned ideas about natural law or what priesthood is.
So long as we
CRUSH THE TRADS! THEY’re the problem!
Just think! Twenty-something moms who already have 3 or 4 well-behaved children in all those pews on Sunday mornings!
Long confession lines?!?
THAT’s not the kind of “walking together” they have in mind.
Pffft! Telling “sins” to a priest.
What about those young men kneeling for most of the Mass as if they actually believed God is there?!? Thinking they need forgiveness? Thinking there is Hell?
And they are HAPPY that way?!?
And they like … real … WOMEN!
Pachamama wouldn’t approve.
Loading ...
Please pardon the vulgarity; I am from Indiana after all. We were promised the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church. We were never promised the Church wouldn’t get the crap kicked out of her.
Father, you have it all wrong! The REAL problem today is RIGIDITY. It’s a perversion! So said Pope Francis today:
“The temptation today is go to back and conserve traditions, but with rigidity. Rigidity is a perversion. Behind every form of rigidity lies grave problems. No returning to the past. No rigidity. Let us open our eyes.”
He didn’t specify which kind of rigidity, but we can be sure it’s not the sodomitical kind.
The Lavender Mafia is running the show. Lord have mercy.
Father Z nailed it. It is about legitimizing their secret sin.
While kicking the snot out of trads is obviously the flavor of the month in Rome, it’s hard to believe that anyone not plagued by senility actually thinks they’re the problem. But fallen human nature is ambitious and enjoys hurting others. And Heaven knows that the behavior of the Catholic hierarchy is frequently the example par excellence of the effects of the Fall. On the other hand, married priests would put a big dent in any Lavender Mafia. Sometimes I wonder if God is allowing many of the Church’s problems in order to gently (or not so gently) toward allowing priests to marry. It would cause problems but it would help solve many others.
I do believe that there’s a strong connection between the Vatican’s war on the TLM and attempts to subvert Church teaching on sexuality. In his letter accompanying Traditionis Custodes, Pope Francis asserts that trads have exploited Summorum Pontificum to “encourage disagreements that injure the Church, block her path, and expose her to the peril of division.” How exactly are TLMers encouraging disagreements and “blocking” the Church’s path? What “path” is he talking about? Deep down, I think we all know. The “path” is that of liberal protestantism, that has jettisoned traditional teachings on marriage and sexuality that are deemed outdated and alienating to modern liberal society. It is no coincidence that dioceses like San Diego and Chicago which lead the way in homosexual “Pride” Masses and that sort of thing are also at the vanguard of the crackdown on the TLM. The pesky trads must be cleared out to make way for a Catholic Church that has remade itself in the image of liberal protestantism, complete with same-sex-marriage, out-and-proud homosexual clergy, same-sex-married clergy, etc. etc.
Whenever they talk about married priests, they never want to follow the example of the Eastern Church. That would require discipline & asceticism.
The married priests the Left wants would be the same people who would promote the rest of their liberal reforms.
Since the Left controls the gates to the institutions, that’s exactly who they’ll get.
On the plus side, eventually this is but a stepping stone to the reunification of the church. In the short term Francis has been a disaster for Catholic/orthodox dialogue. On the other hand, we were never getting there without a reconsideration of Vatican 1 and vatican 2 anyway. This sort of nonsense from Cardinals is terrible, but such is the purification necessary in the Church.
My family once had a pastor (NO of course) who would regularly use his pulpit to make room for various mortal sins. Suggesting (never teaching) that the sin discussed was not really so bad and the people needed to be understood, welcomed, accompanied, yada yada yada. I wondered what motivated all that willful nonsense and then came the front page news that he was a long practicing pedophile.
I don’t wonder any longer. Not about any of them.
These modernist liberal wackos (as we KNOW them to be) are working to make the Faith and the Church make room for them and their mortally sinful lives. They have never grasped that the opposite is what Christ requires.
There IS plenty of room for them in a certain place, just not in the Church be She Militant, Penitent, or Triumphant.
I have worked for some of the best and worst leaders America has had to offer. I have been a poor and a good leader myself. I used to train ROTC cadets, so I’ve seen hundreds of future leaders and future failures at leadership, too.
Honest to God, our bishops are the poorest leaders I’ve ever had the displeasure of seeing. I remember begging my former university to expel a couple of cadet sophomores because they were such jackasses I knew they’d get sailors killed. They were better men than our bishops.
My own bishop, Olmsted of Phoenix, is a blessèd exception to my condemnation of his brother bishops. I’m thankful for his orthodoxy and leadership. He’s a good man. We don’t necessarily have to have a military model of leadership. He’s an example of a man who never had any military training yet is a solid, skilled leader.
I’d like to run all priests through a series of leadership courses in seminary and maybe some kind of annual leadership refresher connected to a retreat. It would make them better pastors and eventually better bishops.
@michele421
From a historical vantage point, married Latin Rite priests, when permitted or pervasive, have always caused huge problems and have always resulted in a purification process where the clergy were reformed to a celibate and monastic standard. This is without getting into the theological reasons for the need of celibacy in the Latin Rite. This is without getting into discerning God’s will in the matter (which is not ambiguous).
There are two things that people don’t want to hear on this subject 1.) the dignity of married life is less than the dignity of celibacy for the kingdom. 2.) the episcopate not teaching (and often not practicing this) is a driving force in the priest shortage.
A married priesthood in the Latin Rite as a norm does nothing to address the problems in formation and life of the clergy while adding a host of problems. They are not a solution to clergy with psycho-sexual disorders and their enablers. What @Gaetano said.
Recently, a friend nailed it:
Quisquis is est, timeo Homoes et sacramenta ferentes.
Pingback: THVRSDAY EDITION – Big Pulpit
You can judge a tree by the fruits it bears.
Unfortunately – you think this is bad now – just wait until they get to the Synod on the Synod on the Synod on the Synod of Synodality.
Such members of the episcopate either are unaware of the nature of the subculture to which they give approbation, of what sort of intimacy is practiced by the individuals who inhabit it, or they are perfectly cognizant of both and do not find it repugnant.
Why do I think the later is what is operative, and that perhaps some regret they didn’t jump into that the pool when they had the chance?
No one who has had any exposure to the wasteland of the same-sex subculture or who knows what intimacy has pride of place there could ever encourage anyone to invest their lives, their souls, to such nothingness.
The pastoral malpractice exhibited by such clerics is criminal.
Part of the solution to all the problems is to treat all parishioners as CALLED to either marry or be chastely unmarried. Currently the parishioners who marry are treated as having a valued and meaningful vocation, but those who live devoutly in chaste celibacy for the sake of the kingdom of heaven are given absolutely no pastoral care oriented to their vocation, which is not treated as a vocation. Parish includes many people who are unmarried for many different reasons of circumstance or choice, who include people who are aged, people who have mental or physical disabilities or mental health conditions or autism, people who are same sex attracted or uncomfortable with the sex God made them as, people who are very poor, people who have either repented of sexual sins or been victims of others’ sexual sins or both and for whom seeking to live in healthy chastity is the best wisdom, but today more than ever it’s plain to see that none of these people is OBLIGED to live in chastity of mind and body. Even people who can’t find another individual to agree to sin gravely with them still typically commit grave sins against chastity in our society. I want to say of those in our parishes who commit themselves to live in perfect chastity that they shine like the stars in the sky in the midst of a twisted and depraved generation. The person with a disability who lives in perfect chastity by their free choice is not valued in the Church for his or her vocation, nor given any vocation formation or encouragement. Some of those who are same sex attracted are able to connect with the great organization Courage and I hope they feel valued. But it would make so much sense to value them in the same way as chaste widows, chaste disabled persons, and others, especially those who are practicing a balanced asceticism appropriate to their situation and living a life of prayer and the Sacraments. It would make so much sense to connect devout, chaste celibate parishioners with others of their own sex, inclusive of all I’ve mentioned, and let them have a positive identity as people who, very much unlike secular peers, live in upright chastity for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. They do so without earthly reward. If they do not think they have been given the charism for it, let them pray for it. Monasticism became a mass movement in 4th and 5th century Egypt not simply among middle-class, educated, fully healthy virgins but inclusive of anyone who would give everything up and apprentice himself or herself to a more experienced Abba or Amma to learn virtue and witness to Christ. That society happened to be primed for how and why to value and practice chastity in a way that today’s society simply isn’t. But that makes it all the more confusing why fostering a positive valuation of and encouragement of ordinary parishioners who have a de-facto celibate vocation isn’t a thing. And it’s the PERFECT way to include valued parishioners with same sex attraction, allowing for an identity as a chaste celibate (like others in the parish) rather than an identity based on their attractions, and having friends that aren’t centered mainly on same-sex attraction. In every way it makes sense to value and attend to the ascetical and spiritual formation of ordinary parishioners who have a “private” vocation to celibacy for the sake of the kingdom of heaven, sans all the various human criteria that would exclude many of them from canonical, public vocations. I repeat, every person is meant for either matrimony or living chastely unmarried, and making that stand out in a way that isn’t discriminatory in the parish can be a witness and an invitation to others.
@Elizabeth D
Concurred. It seems to me that a lot of this stems from the marriage crisis but then attempting to solve those issues by utilizing a bunch of Protestant or Protestant-knock off materials/solutions where there really is theologically no place for being single/celibate as a long term or lifelong state of life — everyone is just single until they get paired off and there is something really wrong if you don’t get paired off.
It is going to take a lot of retooling young adult groups so that they are not simply meant for Catholics to meet possible marriage partners. You really have to rethink how things are structured — and given how Catholic identity is in shambles, some sort of mentoring structure to these programs, as you suggested, is probably the way to go.
James C, et al.: Today the Pope spoke about rigid tradition. Meanwhile, just across the Adriatic in Dubrovnik, Cardinal Cupich gave (well, had someone read for him in Croatian) a sermon for the feast of St Blaise, patron of said city. The feast, including a procession with St Blaise’s relics, has been celebrated there for 1,050 years without interruption, so Cupich’s sermon was all about – wait for it! – how good it is to have long standing traditions. I have never read a more hypocritical speech: Let us praise the virtues of tradition, as long as it’s not in Latin, not being celebrated in Rapid City at Easter, or in Chicago at any time. What a magarac.
Elizabeth, while some of the individuals you describe may have a positive calling, i.e. a vocation, to live in the world as an unmarried chaste person and to do things in the world on that unmarried state as a foundation, by far the majority of young adults who are unmarried are so not because they have felt a call to be unmarried, but because they have NOT felt a call to be married to a specific person, or to the religious life: they have not heard definitely a vocational call.
Among those think they may be called to the religious life, they submit their thoughts on being so called to a superior, so as to be confirmed (or not) in that calling. A priest, when he is ordained, is confirmed by the bishop as being called. A religious superior receiving permanent vows of a religious brother or sister does something similar. Thus the person has an independent CHECK on whether they really are called in the way they think they are.
Now that I think about it, so does a person who marries: if I think I am called to marry Sally, but Sally doesn’t, then I am mistaken in my calling.
The Church has never wholly figured out a satisfying MODEL for persons who are in the single state to (a) discern, and (b) confirm, that they are positively called to be and remain single for the sake of the Church and the world. And since they never take any vows to be single, they might (seemingly) CHANGE their single state for the married state at any time, which makes it all the more difficult to be assured they really were called (positively) to be single for the Church and world. I am not saying it doesn’t happen, I am saying that we don’t (yet) have good models for how to discern this state. It should not be surprising, then, that we also don’t have good results in parishes at the grass roots level for supporting such persons.
I don’t have any solutions for this. But I can suggest this: as regards the chastity of an unmarried person who expects to marry, versus the chastity of a person who expects to remain single: the requirements of the virtue will HUGELY overlap, with the differences lying specifically in the practices of chaste courtship itself. But chastity is only one aspect of a life lived unmarried.
If the Church’s teaching on homosexuality should be changed to suit these perverts, then why not pederasty? The schism grows by the day between the Church founded by Our Lord upon St. Peter and this disgusting imposter. Domine, misere nobis. +JMJ+
@TonyO
“..the requirements of the virtue will HUGELY overlap…”
The difference between someone searching for a spouse and someone determined not to search for one is big. The former is ready to give his heart to another one, the second -if he thinks he is called by God to be single- takes care of his affections in a very different way. It is not just a matter of “chaste courtship”, it is much deeper, it is about the way the entire person -in both cases- puts his heart at the service of God.
TonyO, the commenter after me mentioned young adults, but my comment did not mention young people. I mentioned widows and aged people and tried to specify that I am referring to people who are not suitable for canonical public vocations.
I myself do have a positive vocation to celibacy for the sake of the kingdom of heaven, yet not a canonical public vocation. I KNOW there are people who have the same charism for celibacy for the sake of the kingdom of heaven that do not meet official vocations criteria.
It is a MASSIVE problem if unmarried people think they need clergy permission to live chastely in their unmarried state in a purposeful way. It really is okay to consecrated ONESELF to Christ for the sake of the kingdom of heaven and live chastely and seek to live the other virtues even if one is told, as a confessor told me only recently, “you will never be valued in this life.”
To say again the point in my first comment, everyone without any exception is meant to marry or live chastely in the unmarried state. No one at all needs special permission.
People like I am describing, who have disabilities or mental health issues, are aged, are same sex attracted, if they do not marry are all meant to live chastely as celibate (the word means unmarried) quite regardless if they are wanted by Church officials for official consecrated life.
It should NOT be confusing or controversial that all people who are not married are meant to be chaste in their celibate life.
You do not need special permission or approval to live the virtues.
And again, I say they shine like the stars in the night in the midst of a twisted and depraved generation if they do so devoutly and faithfully.
Denis Crnkovic:
His Eminence may have forgotten much of what he learned of the Croatian language, but he retains the tendencies of Nihilistic Balkan Escalation: an obstinancy which is only reinforced when confronted with facts contradicting the narrative; the tendency to double down and dig in when faced with increasing opposition, exacerbated by beckoning the opposition to “bring it on!”; the belief that rules not made by himself or his people don’t apply to him (and getting very nasty if you dare go over his head); and going scorched-earth if he can’t get his way. Mind you, by no means is every Croatian/Serbian/Bosniak/Macedonian/Bulgarian like this, nor is His Eminence this way just because of his ethnic heritage. But having grown up around those groups, and having seen a parish and school run to near-ruin because of the traits described applied, I know the mindset, and I see it in His Eminence.
Excommunicate and laicize Marx and all the other German Bishops (except the few remaining faithful ones like Voderholzer and Mueller).
And wall off Germany from the rest of the world.
Papa Ratzinger notwithstanding, Evelyn Waugh nailed it sixty years ag0:
“I think it is a great cheek of the Germans to try and teach the rest of the world anything about religion. They should be in perpetual sackcloth and ashes for all their enormities from Luther to Hitler.”
I understand the animosity to the Luxembourger cardinal’s statement, though I think he seems only to be asking for reconsideration and not making a declarative pronouncement. Still, I know you consider this a closed matter.
And I understand the animosity to the German cardinal’s call for re-examining clerical celibacy. (That particular cardinal really should have had his head rolled for his failures to keep children safe.) But I didn’t think this was a dogmatic matter? Or am I wrong?
But I feel like the thread connecting these two things to each other and then to “crush the trads” is visible only to trads. So some explication would help.
The European Cardinals situation sounds like the Parable of the Dishonest Manager on steroids. Fixing tickets to curry favor with the world and with worldly sinners.
After the 1999 Synod of European bishops, St. John Paul II wrote the 2003 exhortation Ecclesia in Europa:
3. With a loving gaze the participants in the Synod did not hesitate to look at the present reality of the Continent, noting both its light and its shadows. There was a clear recognition that the current situation is marked by grave uncertainties at the levels of culture, anthropology, ethics and spirituality.
The icon of the Book of Revelation
5. “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the Churches” (Rev 2:7). In proclaiming to Europe the Gospel of hope, I will take as a guide the Book of Revelation, a “prophetic revelation” which discloses to the community of believers the deep and hidden meaning of what is taking place (cf. Rev 1:1). The Book of Revelation sets before us a word addressed to Christian communities, enabling them to interpret and experience their place in history, with all its questions and its tribulations, in the light of the definitive victory of the Lamb who was slain and who rose from the dead. At the same time, it sets before us a word which calls on us to live in a way which rejects the recurring temptation to construct the city of man apart from God or even in opposition to him. For should this ever happen, human society itself would sooner or later meet with irreversible failure.
The Book of Revelation contains a word of encouragement addressed to believers: beyond all appearances, and even if its effects are not yet seen, the victory of Christ has already taken place and is final. This in turn causes us to approach human situations and events with an attitude of fundamental trust, born of faith in the Risen One, present and at work in history.”
6. At a time of persecution, tribulation and bewilderment for the Church (cf. Rev 1:9), the message resounding throughout the vision of the writer of the Book of Revelation is a message of hope: “Fear not, I am the first and the last, and the living one, I died and behold I am alive for ever more, and I have the keys of Death and Hades” (Rev 1:17-18).
9. European culture gives the impression of “silent apostasy” on the part of people who have all that they need and who live as if God does not exist.
____
The Book of Revelation is addressed by John to the “seven churches in Asia” (western Asia Minor or modern day western Turkey).
Ephesus: a port city on the Aegean and center of the Artemis (Diana to the Romans) cult. The image of Artemis in the ancient Ephesus temple may be connected with a meteorite as Artemis was said to have fallen from heaven. Her temple was one of the Seven Wonders of the World, considered so sacred and thus inviolable that the temple was also used by kings, wealthy citizens and foreign merchants as a money depository (see Dio Chrysostom). The Artemis Temple is mentioned in Acts 19:27.
Ephesus was also known for the occult: several obscure Greek Magical Papyri, fragments of which exist today and are known as the Ephesian Letters (which may syncretize Artemis and Hekate), contain various pronunciations (involving many vowels creating meaningless words to be chanted) of “the sacred name of God.” See Acts 19:19 for burning of “magical books.”
Rev. 2:4-5 is addressed to Ephesus: “Yet I hold this against you: you have lost the love you had at first. Realize how far you have fallen. Repent.”
Most of the letters to the churches in Revelation contain rebukes. The one to the Church in Laodicea contains a blunt rebuke for being lukewarm.
An anomaly.
From the first article linked above, “Top EU Cardinal calls for change in church teaching” dated 2 Feb 2022:
“Luxembourg Cardinal Jean-Claude Hollerich, a Jesuit who leads the pan-European Catholic bishops’ conference, has called for a change in the church’s teaching on homosexuality.
“In an interview with Germany’s Catholic News Agency (KNA), the president of the Commission of the Bishops’ Conferences of the European Union (COMECE)…”
…
“I believe that the sociological-scientific **foundation** of this teaching is **no longer correct,”** Hollerich said.”
Next, Taylor Marshall on 9 Feb:
https://www.twitter.com/TaylorRMarshall/status/1491541243540742144?cxt=HHwWgIC50fi2grMpAAAA
Without elaborating on “Scott Bailey CSSR” and possibly without any research himself to verify this accusation, Marshall simply posted this accusation against Lithuanian Archbishop Gintaras Grusas, who currently maintains a firm position of deterrence against Putin’s aggressive behavior. Marshall accused Grusas of “public heresy” and “scandal,” then repeated his undocumented accusations against Grusas during a 10 February video on his YouTube channel.
Archbishop Gintaras Grusas is the President of the Bishop Conferences of Europe (CCEE).
As for “Scott Bailey Cssr” there’s this:
https://www.twitter.com/BackwardsFeet/status/1472787493883990017
An anomaly.