October 30, 2016
by Fr. George W. Rutler
October 30, 2016
by Fr. George W. Rutler
Written by Michael Matt | Editor
So the Vatican has ramped up its preoccupation with sex. As has been widely reported here and elsewhere, they’ve now got their very own sex-education program up and running. Published by the Pontifical Council for the Family, “The Meeting Point: The Adventure of Love,” purports to bring young people up to speed on the question of sex and chastity. And who better to do that than those paragons of virtue over at that Vatican.
Unveiled at World Youth Day (WYD) by Bishop Carlos Simon Vazquez, Undersecretary to the Pontifical Council for the Family, one wonders if parents fully realized when they sent their kids off to Krakow that they’d also signed them up to have this guy teach them a little something about sex:
Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, Head of the Pontifical Council for the Family
American Life League condemns “The Meeting Point” here on their radio broadcast, Liftesitenews has an ALL-sponsored petition calling for the Vatican to recall it, and here’s what the Cardinal Newman Society has to say about this latest scandal out of the Vatican:
“We find that The Meeting Pointmakes frequent use of sexually explicit and morally objectionable images, fails to clearly identify and explain Catholic doctrine from elemental sources including the Ten Commandments and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and compromises the innocence and integrity of young people under the rightful care of their parents.”
Once again, the gutted Catholic Church of Vatican II—responsible for so much spiritual and moral carnage—is coming to the rescue, fresh off the largest clerical sex scandal and subsequent cover-up in history. (You’ve gotta hand it to these guys when it comes to chutzpah.)
And by the way, why is this even necessary after Theology of the Body (TOB) in Catholic schools was supposed to have brought our kids all up to speed on sex and chastity years ago? In my neighborhood, Catholic kids are force-fed TOB for two full years before they can even receive the Sacrament of Confirmation. Do you suppose TOB isn’t all it’s cracked up to be? Impossible! St. John Paul gave TOB to us, and he’s a saint!
So with a straight face, Vatican representatives assured the folks at WYD that their new sex-ed program was developed to “help answer the problem of the deterioration of marriage and the family” as laid out at the 2015 World Meeting of Families in Philadelphia and the Vatican Synod on the Family. (And if you believe that’s what’s really going on here I’ve got a building to sell you on the Via della Conciliazione.)
In his March 21, 2016 letter, Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, President of the Pontifical Council for the Family, tells us that “this vocation to love is the fundamental task of parents in the family. In accomplishing their work, they can count on the help of different moral and educational communities: schools and men and women teachers, as well as on the cooperation of the other members of the church community: the parish priests, the catechists and other Christian faithful.”
That’s right! We really can count on the “church community and the parish priests” to teach our kids all about sex. That’s one thing they’re very good at. But who do these men think they’re kidding with this embarrassing (for them) and transparent attempt to absolve classroom sex education of its intrinsic evil? In his essay, “Classroom Sex Education,” Vernon J. Schaefer makes the point that “classroom sex education initiates children into the sensual. It is the gateway to all forms of sexual immorality.”
But, surely, the Pontifical Council for the Family isn’t attempting to “initiate children into the sensual”, much less build a “gateway to all forms of sexual immorality.” The accompanying graphic for the Fifth Unit of their new sex-ed program, for example, is clearly promoting chastity. Right?
It was probably just an oversight that the young lady preparing to camp out with her boyfriend has her hand on his thigh, while her friend is having her buttocks groped by her respective boyfriend. They’re not getting any younger inside the Vatican…so, maybe they just didn’t notice.
What’s the magisterium have to say about all this — the actual magisterium, that is, as opposed to the imaginary one inside the current Pope’s head. The real magisterium consistently prohibited classroom sex-ed from the very beginning. In his encyclical On Christian Education of Youth, for example, Pope Pius XI teaches that:
Far too common is the error of those who with dangerous assurance and under an ugly term propagate a so-called sex-education, falsely imagining they can forearm youth against the dangers of sensuality by means purely natural, such as a foolhardy initiation and precautionary instruction for all, indiscriminately, even in public.
On March 21, 1931 the Holy Office exhorted the Catholic world to reject all classroom sex education:
Question: May the method called “sex education” or even “sex initiation” be approved?
Answer: No. In the education of youth, the method to be followed is that hitherto observed by the Church and the Saints as recommended by His Holiness the Pope in the encyclical dealing with the Christian education of youth, promulgated on December 31, 1929. The first place is to be given to the full, sound and continuous instruction in religion … Hence, no approbation whatever can be given to the advocacy of the new method even as taken up recently by some Catholic authors and set before the public in printed publications.
In 1951 Pope Pius XII reiterated the constant teaching of the Church against classroom sex education when in his allocution to the Fathers of Families he said:
All Catholic educators, worthy of the name and their mission, are fully aware of the overwhelming importance of supernatural forces in man’s sanctification—youth or adult, married or single. But in the writings mentioned, hardly a word is said about these things, even when the whole matter is not passed over in complete silence. Even the principles so wisely explained by Our Predecessor, Pius XI, in the Encyclical <Divini illius Magistri>, regarding sexual education and the related problems, are pushed aside with a smile of compassion: Pius XI, it is said, wrote these things twenty years ago for his own times! The world has gone a long way since then!
But that was then. Today’s Vatican is very much into classroom sex-ed, with their brand-new course now available in five different languages with a promise to make it available in many more in the years to come and a curriculum that consists of six units, with four or five sections each. And of course Pope Pius XII was absolutely correct–the previous magisterial teachings against classroom sex-ed are “pushed aside with a smile of compassion” since the Vatican of Pope Francis has “gone a long way since then.”
MICAIAH BILGER AUG 29, 2016 | 5:48PM RICHMOND, VA
A small group of Catholics protested peacefully on Sunday outside the Catholic Church where Hillary Clinton’s vice presidential running mate attends.
Tim Kaine, Clinton’s vice presidential pick and a U.S. Senator for Virginia, often says he is a Catholic and “personally pro-life,” but his actions show otherwise. Kaine has a 100-percent pro-abortion voting record from Planned Parenthood so far in 2016.
WTVR 6 reports about a dozen people held signs on the sidewalk outside St. Elizabeth’s Catholic Church in Richmond, Virginia, where Kaine has attended for about 30 years. Among other things, the protesters said they were there to expose Kaine’s pro-abortion position, which is contrary to Catholic Church teachings.
“He is not America’s dad at all,” protest organizer Frances Bouton told the local news station. “If people just scratched the surface, he’s really, all I can say, is evil.”
One protester’s sign read “You can’t be Catholic and pro-abortion,” while another described him as a “CINO,” or Catholic in name only.
Kaine’s church reportedly gave him a standing ovation after Clinton officially nominated him as her vice presidential running mate. Despite evidence to the contrary, Kaine’s priest, the Rev. Jim Arsenault, told NPR that Kaine is “personally pro-life.”
However, the Virginia politician is on record as trying to have it both ways — saying he is both a “traditional Catholic” and a strong supporter of abortion. As LifeNews previously reported, Kaine said he is a “strong supporter of Roe v. Wade.”
He also has refused to say whether he would vote to force taxpayers to fund abortions – a goal both for his running mate and the whole Democratic Party.
As a U.S. Senator, Kaine voted to allow government funding of abortion providers, and he voted against legislation to require an abortionist to notify at least one parent before performing an abortion on a minor girl from another state.
Kaine took his most extreme pro-abortion action yet with his recent co-sponsorship of the so-called “Women’s Health Protection Act” (S.217), known to pro-lifers as the “Abortion Without Limits Until Birth Act.” This bill would nullify nearly all existing state and federal limitations on regulation of abortion, and prohibit states from enacting meaningful pro-life laws in the future. This revamped version of the long-stalled “Freedom of Choice Act” is a priority of the pro-abortion forces in Washington, D.C.
Recently, Washington, DC-based Fr. Thomas Petri sent out a series of tweets addressing the Catholic candidate’s pro-abortion views — with one saying Kaine should not present himself for communion in his church. That was after a Catholic bishop admonished Kaine, saying that he can’t reconcile his Catholic faith with abortion.
His running mate Hillary Clinton’s position is even more extreme. Clinton has said in various interviews that an unborn child just hours before birth has no Constitutional rights. In February, Clinton defended the gruesome partial-birth abortion procedure. She also said she wants to overturn the Hyde Amendment and force taxpayers to pay for abortions, including late-term abortions.
Written by Christopher A. Ferrara
More than three years into the Bergoglian pontificate there is no mistaking its principal line of development, which is Francis’s grand obsession: the admission of unrepentant public adulterers in “second marriages” to Holy Communion, the “Kasper proposal” he has been promoting almost from the moment of his election. To that end, Francis has relentlessly put in place a kind of moral mafia to carry out his design. Let us meet some of its soldiers.
First, meet Archbishop Vincenzo (“the Enforcer”) Paglia, head of the (now) ludicrously misnamed Pontifical Council “for the Family”:
It was Paglia who oversaw the pontifical council’s production of the first Vatican-approved “sex-ed” program in Church history—a document so disgustingly immoral that it has already provoked a petition from the faithful pleading with Francis to order its withdrawal (they might as well be petitioning a pile of cinderblocks). Note Paglia’s rainbow-colored glasses, which are quite in keeping with his sympathy for sodomy: “In the world there are 20 or 25 countries where homosexuality is a crime. I would like the church to fight against all this.”Paglia is just the man for Francis to place in charge of the Pontifical Academy for Life and the John Paul II Institute of Studies on Marriage and Family (as grand chancellor). Paglia replaces the relatively conservative heads of those dicasteries, who, having defended the teaching of John Paul II and Benedict XVI to the contrary, were blocking the road to Holy Communion for unrepentant public adulterers in “second marriages.”
Paglia openly advocates the “Kasper proposal”—that is, the Francis Proposal— for Holy Communion for unrepentant public adulterers in “second marriages.” During the Phony Synod on the Family, Paglia also oversaw publication of a book presenting arguments in a favor of the overthrow of all prior teaching to the contrary, especially that of John Paul II and Benedict XVI, in favor of Kasper’s bogus “penitential path” that would allow some unrepentant public adulterers in “second marriages” to receive Holy Communion while they consider whether they will obey Church teaching regarding their continuing adulterous sexual relations.
Paglia declares that the new titles Francis has bestowed upon him mean that the Pope wishes him to “continue the new course which emanates from the Synod of Bishops and his encyclical [sic] Amoris Laetitia.” And what is this new course? What else: Holy Communion for unrepentant public adulterers in “second marriages.”
Next, meet Monsignor Pierangelo (“the Violinist”) Sequeri:
Msgr. Sequieri, a liberal academic and musician who is often seen in clerical garb, replaces Monsignor Livio Melina as President of the John Paul II Institute (to serve under Paglia as grand chancellor). Melina had “defended the Church’s perennial teachingthat remarried divorcees who are not living as ‘brother and sister’ are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.”
Melina had also bravely insisted that Amoris Laetitia “does not change the Church’s discipline” and that “it continues to be the case that admitting to communion the divorced and ‘remarried,’ (apart from the situations foreseen by Familiaris Consortio 84 and Sacramentum Caritatis 29) goes against the Church’s discipline.” Naturally, Melina had to sleep with the fishes.
Next is the only American member of the moral mafia, a kind of equivalent to the Irish consigliere Tom Hagan in The Godfather. Meet Bishop Kevin (“the Jokester”) Farrell of Dallas:
Francis has just made Farrell head of his newly created super-dicastery: the Pontifical Council for the Laity, Family and Life which will absorb and thus remove any remaining roadblocks to Holy Communion for unrepentant public adulterers in “second marriages” still to be found in the Pontifical Council for the Family and the Pontifical Council for the Laity, both of which will cease to exist on September 1. (While the Pontifical Academy for Life will continue to exist, Paglia’s appointment as its head will remove any roadblock there, including the German philosopher Josef Siefert, who published a devastating critique of Amoris Laetitia, calling upon Francis to correct its errors against the Faith.)
The squishy semi-conservative Farrell, equipped with the appropriate “keen sense of humor, ” is a suitably “pro-gay” prelate. Farrell installed as pastor of a Texas parish a homosexual priest caught participating in a sexually explicit “gay” website. (This pervert was removed as pastor only after a public outcry.) Farrell clearly accepts as a given that there will be homosexual priests, formed and ordained as such with full knowledge of their “orientation.” Citing remarks by Francis concerning “respect” for “homosexual persons,” Farrell declared: “The Church still has the expectation that priests must commit to a life of celibate chastity whether they are homosexual or heterosexual.”
Yes, if you are a homosexual priest, the Church still “expects” you to be celibate! Otherwise, no problem! So much for the Church’s constant teaching that “gay” men are unfit for ordination and must not be admitted to the seminary. But then as Francis so famously declared in the context of questions about the flagrantly homosexual priest he made head of his very household (Msgr. Battista Ricca, who was found trapped in an elevator with a young male object of his attentions): “Who am I to judge?”
One cannot overlook a minor but nonetheless significant player in the moral mafia: meet Thomas (“the Mug”) Rosica:
The virulently pro-“gay” Rosica is the vicious and vindictive English language attaché of the Vatican Press Office whose lawyers bluffed a lawsuit suit against the publisher of the Vox Cantoris blog for telling the truth about him. Rosica is delighted with Farrell’s appointment, hailing it as “one of the most significant restructuring moves and appointments of his [Francis’s] Petrine Ministry” because “Bishop Farrell will have a very special concern for the implementation of Pope Francis’ landmark Apostolic Exhortation, Amoris Laetitia.” That is, Farrell will have a “very special concern” for finding a way to permit Holy Communion for unrepentant public adulterers in “second marriages.”
It was Rosica who huffily declared during Synod 2016: “The jubilee of mercy requires a language of mercy, in particular in speaking about homosexuals or gay persons. We do not pity gay persons but we recognize them for who they are. They are our sons and daughters and brothers and sisters.” Farrell apparently agrees, which is why he staunchly defended Rosica when the latter “denounced a ‘cesspool of hatred’ in the Catholic blogosphere”—meaning lay bloggers who recognize that Rosica is a hissing snake-in-the-grass who needs to be exposed as an enemy of the Faith and driven out of any position of authority in the Church.
Farrell—as if there were any doubt—is fully on board with Holy Communion for unrepentant public adulterers in “second marriages.” As he said of Amoris Laetitia shortly after its publication: “Some feel Pope Francis does not go far enough in addressing the hopes of those in irregular marriages, others who feel it compromises traditional teaching. In my opinion, it reflects the call of Jesus to his church to continue his healing and saving mission.” Farrell “also warmly praised comments on Amoris made by Cardinal Christoph Schönborn of Vienna, Austria, who was among the proponents of opening Communion to the divorced and remarried at the pope’s two Synods of Bishops on the family.”
That brings us to the next member of the mafia. Meet Cardinal Christoph (“the Clown”) Schönborn:
Schönborn is Francis’s designated interpreter of Amoris Laetitia , meaning the one appointed to declare that the doctrine defended by John Paul II has “evolved” to contradict itself, so that the way is now open “in some cases” (meaning all cases eventually) to Holy Communion for unrepentant public adulterers in “second marriages.”
Then there is that famous but lower-ranked oracle of Francis. Meet Antonio (“the Mouthpiece”) Spadaro:
As editor of Civiltà Catholica , Spadaro, Francis’s fellow liberal Jesuit and close confidant, was assigned the task of announcingthat the Phony Synod on the Family had already “‘laid the foundations’ for civilly remarried divorcees to be admitted to the sacraments” and that respecting Holy Communion for unrepentant public adulterers in “second marriages” Amoris Latetia“affirms essentially that all cases cannot be enclosed within a valid general norm for all, always and in every case.”
That is, some unrepentant public adulterers in “second marriages” can be admitted to Holy Communion. But which cases are to be exempted from the “general norm”—that is, from the natural law?
That question brings us, finally, to the capo di tutti capi. Meet Jorge Mario (“the Merciful”) Bergoglio, alias “Father Bergoglio” as he called himself when giving telephonic permission to receive Holy Communion to a woman living in adultery:
Francis insists that he is still Jorge Mario Bergoglio, having renewed his passport under that name. But, under the additional alias “Pope Francis,” Don Mario has dictated every move of his moral mafia according to the policy he reaffirmed in his remarks to a group of Polish Jesuits during his trip to Poland: sexual morality is not black and white, but gray. It all depends on the situation! To quote thetranscript of those remarks, which Don Mario authorized Father Spadaro to publish in Civiltà Catholica:
I want to add something now. I ask you to work with the seminarians. Above all give them that which they have not received from the Exercises [of St. Ignatius]. The Church today has need of growth in the capacity of spiritual discernment. Some plans of priestly formation run the risk of educating in the light of ideas that are too clear and distinct, and therefore of acting within rigidly a priori limits and criteria, and which prescind from concrete situations: “This must be done, this must not be done”….
It is necessary to form future priests not with general and abstract ideas, but with this aim of discerning spirits, so that they can help people in their concrete life. It is really necessary to understand this: in life not everything is black and white. No! In life shades of gray prevail. It is necessary then to teach how to discern in this gray area.
So, Don Mario has given his foot soldiers their orders: We must not have any clear and distinct ideas about sexual morality, but only unclear and indistinct ones, requiring “discernment of spirits” rather than telling people simply that they ought to amend their lives and cease committing sins of the flesh. It’s all a gray area. And where sexual behavior is concerned, there must be a least fifty shades of gray.
Regarding other matters, however, such as “inequality” and the death penalty, Don Mario still demands the sharpest of black and white distinctions: “This must be done, this must not be done” indeed!
Therefore—herewith the fulfillment of Don Mario’s grand obsession—there must be an opening to Holy Communion for unrepentant public adulterers in “second marriages.” But for cohabiters as well! As Don Mario announces in Amoris Laetitia, for the first time in 2,000 years of Church history:
Hence it can no longer simply be said that all those in any “irregular” situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace. More is involved here than mere ignorance of the rule. A subject may know full well the rule, yet have great difficulty in understanding “its inherent values”, or be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently and decide otherwise without further sin.
No longer! Since when? Since Francis! He has decreed that it can no longer “simply” be said that Holy Communion must be denied to unrepentant public adulterers in “second marriages” (like his sister) or cohabiters (like his nephew) because some of them might be in the state of grace even if they know that the Church teaches that what they are doing is immoral. Who knew? Francis knew!
But which lucky few are to be exempted from “the rules” prohibiting adultery and fornication and rendering Holy Communion impossible for those living in adultery or simply “shacked up” without even a marriage certificate? That is for the newly trained masters of “discerning spirits” to find out as they navigate the vast new “gray area” of sexual morality Don Mario discerns where once there was just as much clarity as there is with any other moral teaching of the Church.
To his credit, Phil Lawler notes that Francis has written to Paglia giving him a “list of concerns” he wishes Paglia to address, but that “Conspicuously missing from the Holy Father’s list of concerns were the sort of clear-cut statements on abortion and euthanasia, divorce and contraception, that Catholics came to expect during the pontificate of St. John Paul II.” Given the overwhelming evidence, Lawler wonders whether “Pope Francis is deliberately moving away from the teachings of St. John Paul II on marriage, family, and life.” That is, he wonders whether Francis is deliberately departing from sound orthodoxy. That’s quite a concern for a “mainstream” commentator to express publicly regarding a Roman Pontiff.
Yes, this entire piece is an exercise in mockery. But mockery seems to be demanded in respect to this ongoing and ever-worsening mockery of a pontificate, which will surely go down in Church history as a grotesque anomaly in comparison to which even the pontificate of the anathematized Pope Honorius appears utterly benign.
We are at war for our own souls and the souls of people we love. We are at war for the soul of this culture and nation. And like any soldier, we must train to fight well.
BY MSGR. CHARLES POPE 08/21/2016
There is a growing consternation among some Catholics that the Church, at least in her leadership, is living in the past. It seems there is no awareness that we are at war and that Catholics need to be summoned to sobriety, increasing separation from the wider culture, courageous witness and increasing martyrdom.
It is long past dark in our culture, but in most parishes and dioceses it is business as usual and there is anything but the sober alarm that is really necessary in times like these.
Scripture says, Blessed be the Lord, my rock, who trains my hands for war, and my fingers for battle (Psalm 144:1). Preparing people for war — a moral and spiritual war, not a shooting war — should include a clear setting forth of the errors of our time, and a clear and loving application of the truth to error and light to darkness.
But there is little such training evident in Catholic circles today where, in the average parish, there exists a sort of shy and quiet atmosphere — a fear of addressing “controversial” issues lest someone be offended, or the parish be perceived as “unwelcoming.”
But, if there ever was a time to wear soft garments, it is not now.
The Church of the 1970s-1990s was surely well described as the era of “beige Catholicism” (a term coined by Bishop Robert Barron, and not by way of flattery either). Those of us who lived through that era, especially in the 1970s, remember it as a time when many parish signs beckoned people to “come and experience our welcoming and warm Catholic community.” Our most evident desire was to fit in and be thought of as “normal.” Yes, Catholics were just like everyone else; and we had been working very hard to do that, at least since the early 1960s when John F. Kennedy was elected. Catholics had finally “made it” into the mainstream; we had been accepted by the culture.
Church architecture and interiors became minimalist and non-descript. Music and language in the liturgy became folksy. Marian processions, Corpus Christi processions, many things of distinctive and colorful Catholicism all but disappeared. Even our crucifixes disappeared, to be replaced by floating “resurrection Jesus” images. The emphasis was on blending in, speaking to things that made people feel comfortable, and affirming rather than challenging. If there was to be any challenge at all it would be on “safe” exhortations such as not abusing the environment or polluting, not judging or being intolerant, and so forth.
Again, if there ever was a time to wear soft garments, it is not now. It is zero-dark-thirty in our post-Christian culture. And while we may wish to blame any number of factors for the collapse, we cannot exclude ourselves. We who are supposed to be the light of the world, with Christ shining in us, have preferred to hide our light under a basket and lay low. The ruins of our families and culture are testimony to the triumph of error and the suppression of the truth.