A corporal work of mercy.

A corporal work of mercy.
Click on photo for this corporal work of mercy!
Showing posts with label Adulterist Conspiracy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Adulterist Conspiracy. Show all posts

Tuesday 20 September 2016

Protestant "Cardinal" Reinhard Marx praises Martin Luther as "awe-inspiring"

Some days, I wonder what to blog; and then, I wonder no longer. Truly, it has become to easy. The material is just so vast. One need not go looking for it, there is no such thing as a "slow-news day" in the Catholic Church of today. Now you know what was being referred to when the phrase was coined, "you just can't make this stuff up."

Cardinal Marx enjoying the finer things in life and polluting the air

Reinhard Marx, a man whose theology is often best left in the village pub, and an apparent Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church has praised Martin Luther as "awe-inspiring."

In a most cheeky edition from GloriaTV. Reiny said:

In a meeting with the president of the Protestants in Germany, Munich Cardinal Reinhard Marx has again sung the praises of Martin Luther calling him – quote – “an awe-inspiring seeker of God as I would wish my parish-priests and theologians to be.”
David Grey has some of Luther's most outrageous statements. Looking at what he though of chastity in marriage, is it any wonder that Marx, Kasper and Bergoglio think as they do? 
  • “If the husband is unwilling, there is another who is; if the wife is unwilling, then let the maid come.” (ref. Of Married Life).
  • “Suppose I should counsel the wife of an impotent man, with his consent, to giver herself to another, say her husband’s brother, but to keep this marriage secret and to ascribe the children to the so-called putative father. The question is: Is such a women in a saved state? I answer, certainly.” (ref. On Marriage).
  • “It is not in opposition to the Holy Scriptures for a man to have several wives.” (ref. De Wette, Vol. 2, p. 459).
  • “The word and work of God is quite clear, viz., that women are made to be either wives or prostitutes.” (ref. On Married Life).
  • “In spite of all the good I say of married life, I will not grant so much to nature as to admit that there is no sin in it. .. no conjugal due is ever rendered without sin. The matrimonial duty is never performed without sin.” (ref. Weimar, Vol 8. Pg. 654. In other words for Luther the matrimonial act is “a sin differing in nothing from adultery and fornication.” ibid. What then is the purpose of marriage for Luther you may ask? Luther affirms that it’s simply to satisfy one’s sexual cravings “The body asks for a women and must have it” or again “To marry is a remedy for fornication” – Grisar, “Luther”, vol. iv, pg. 145).

To priests reading this; stay the course Fathers. Stay faithful to Our Blessed Lord. Feed His sheep.

Soon, Pope Bergoglio will go to Lund, Sweden to praise the man whose work continues to lead souls to Hell.

As I wrote, you just can't make this stuff up.

Thursday 15 September 2016

Bergoglio's words are now seen as a "green light"


They will tell you he didn't change Canon Law. 

They will tell you it is not magisterial teaching.

They will tell you that a letter to one bishop does not apply universally.

They will tell you he did not say this.

Well, the Irish certainly think he did.

It doesn't matter, they will say.

It does matter. Most Catholics will only read the headline. They will accept that and believe it. This man will lead people this very Sunday coming into sacrilege and mortal sin. 

Who, in this world, will hold Bergoglio accountable for this horrendous action?

It is evil.

Now, if you are a Catholic who is divorced and remarried and has not received a Decree of Nullity and if you are not living as "brother and sister" in other words, if you are having sexual relations, do not go to Holy Communion. The Pope will lead you to Hell.

Yes, he most certainly will.

Thumbs up. bro.



In a dramatic move, Pope Francis has given the green light for divorced and remarried Catholics to receive Communion under certain limited circumstances after they discuss the matter with their priest.
Even then, the couple most likely will have to receive Communion in private so as not to cause conflict or confusion among the rest of the congregation.
When the Pope published his Apostolic Exhortation, Amoris Laetitia (‘The Joy of Love’) earlier this year, much of the attention focussed on whether or not he had given permission for divorced and remarried Catholics to receive Communion in some circumstances. Chapter eight of the document dealt with this but theologians disagreed about whether it gave such permission or not.
But now the Pope himself has cleared up the matter. Bishops in his native Argentina have published draft pastoral guidelines based on chapter eight of Amoris Laetitia in which they say that divorced and remarried Catholics can receive Communion under certain strict conditions. In a letter in response, Pope Francis has said that their interpretation of chapter eight is correct.
He stated in his letter: “The document is very good, and completely explains the meaning of chapter eight of Amoris Laetitia. There are no other interpretations.”
The document, compiled by a group of Argentine Bishops, is called ‘Basic Criteria for the Application of Chapter Eight of Amoris Laetitia’.
It says that divorced and remarried Catholics ideally ought to abstain from sexual relations and live like ‘brother and sister’ if they wish to receive Communion.
However, where a couple won’t do this and there are circumstances that limit the responsibility or culpability of the divorced and remarried Catholic, then “Amoris Laetitia opens the possibility of access to the Sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist”.
There might, for example, be a situation involving a Catholic who is married for a second time to someone who is not willing to cease sexual relations and if the Catholic spouse insisted that they live like ‘brother and sister’, the marriage would come to an end adversely affecting their children.
There are currently no plans by the Irish bishops to issue guidelines about chapter eight but the move by both the Argentine bishops and the Pope may lead to a rethink.

This is an inflammatory headline by the Irish Catholic. Is this what Bergoglio said? Well, it is certainly what he thinks, that we now know.

Still want to argue that Bergoglio is not a heretic? 

Sunday 31 January 2016

Only one bishop?


Monsignor Bregantini, don’t you feel a bit alone? You are the only bishop in this piazza. Is the Church split then on Family day?
Nobody came here in someone else’s name; we had the free choice to come or not and I decided to be here. I came because I felt the need to be beside my people along with the many other people who believe in the family. Certainly, it would have been wonderful to see other bishops in this piazza.

And why didn’t it happen?
On the one hand because they wanted it to be the lay people to do the talking; but on the other, perhaps it’s easier not being here, not exposing oneself…

Thursday 12 November 2015

When prominent, intellectual priests in the public square now say that Francis is trying to "change" the Church, you'd better believe it!

This blogger and others have been saying it for days, weeks, months, some of us even nearly three years. We have given examples of what those closest to the Bishop of Rome, Jorge Bergoglio, have said. We have even finding obscure videos of their talks which disclose much. Whether Thomas Rosica, CSB and his unattributed use of a "professional theologian" comments that "that doctrine changes pastoral contexts shift and new insights emerge" to "Uncle Teddy" Cardinal Mccarrick's "powerful and influential Roman" who tells him, that Bergoglio "could put us back on track" and instructs him to "talk him up" we have been consistent in our warnings. 

Jorge Bergoglio is trying to change the Church and do it by changing doctrine through changing practice.

Now, the  intellectually and highly respected and doctrinally sound priest-journalist Father Raymond J. de Souza of the Archdiocese of Kingston in Canada and columnist with the Catholic Register and the National Post, is saying the same thing. While he says it with more diplomacy and nuance, make no no mistake, the implication is clear. When it gets to the point that a priest such as Fr. de Souza can write what he has today, then you must know that something is gravely wrong.

Father de Souza says it quite boldly, "He (Francis) strongly suggested that he did not agree with the tradition taught by St. John Paul II in Familiaris Consortio or Benedict XVI in Sacramentum Caritatis.

Considering that those two paramount documents are consistent with the teaching of the the Ordinary Magisterium, which is infallible when it concerns faith and morals reiterating the constant, unchanging, consistent, traditional, historical and universal teaching of the popes and bishops through two-thousand years to do otherwise is simply, heretical. 

Are we beginning to see the storm that will come upon this Bishop of Rome should he contradict his two predecessors and two-thousand years of Truth? Are we on the verge of a Christological heresy? 

Is Jorge Bergoglio prepared to create the greatest crisis in the Church since the Arian heresy of the fourth century?

Does he really want history to be an unkind judge?

Francis has steadily prepared the Church for change. It’s foolish to ignore the signs

The synod on the family is over. The Church now awaits what Pope Francis will decide. Those who argued at the synod for maintaining the traditional discipline on admission to the sacraments for the civilly divorced and remarried must be ready for the Holy Father to decide differently.He has steadily prepared the Church for just that. It would be foolish to ignore the signs.
After much back and forth, the synod decided to follow almost exactly what Pope Francis said in his general audience of August 5, during which he strongly suggested that he did not agree with the tradition taught by St John Paul in Familiaris Consortio (1981) and confirmed by Benedict XVI in Sacramentum Caritatis (2007).
He did not explicitly contradict it, and neither did the synod. But he quoted the relevant texts without affirming their definitive conclusion and the synod did the same.
Does silence on John Paul’s formulation token assent? Or does it mean that the traditional teaching is being left aside?
The rest can be read at:
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/issues/november-13th-2015-2/what-will-the-pope-say-his-friends-tell-us/

Wednesday 4 November 2015

BREAKING: Dominican real "theologian" determines Pope Francis' Synod document could lead to "de facto schism"

Sandro Magister has another must-read column. A thorough and superb analysis of the Final Relation from the Synod. We must not allow the heretic priests, bishops and commentators to get away with their modernist interpretations. We must call them heretics because that is what they are.

Here is how the real "theologian" speaks and sums up the situation.

Ultimately, if in one territory the priests encouraged by the “guidelines” of their bishop end up establishing practices that are uniform but divergent from those of other territories, this could lead to a de facto schism, legitimized for both sides by a dual possible interpretation of this document. And so we come to what we had presented back in July as a situation to be feared, if the synod did not succeed in defining a clear approach. And here we are.

The rest can be read at the link below. It is worth reading and sending to every priest you know.

http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1351170?eng=y



Synod of Discord. Toward a “De Facto Schism” in the Church?

Dominican theologian Thomas Michelet lays bare the ambiguities of the synodal text. Which has not brought unity but has papered over the divisions. The conflict between “hermeneutic of continuity” and “hermeneutic of rupture.” The dilemma for Francis

by Sandro Magister



ROME, November 4, 2015 – Two weeks after its conclusion, the interpretations of what the synod on the family said still do not match up.

For some, this uncertain outcome was intentional. Fr. Adolfo Nicolás Pachón, the superior general of the Jesuits whom Pope Francis included on the commission charged with writing the final “Relatio,” openly claimed it as a success just after the synod ended:

“In everyone’s mind, on the commission, the idea was to prepare a document that would leave the doors open, so that the pope could come and go, do as he sees fit.”

And in fact all the expectations are now focused on what Francis will say. Who for his part already on October 28 revealed his intentions by telephone to his friend Eugenio Scalfari, a professed atheist and the founder of the leading newspaper of Italian secularist thought, “La Repubblica,” who promptly transcribed the pope’s words as follows:

“The diverse opinion of the bishops is part of this modernity of the Church and of the diverse societies in which she operated, but the goal is the same, and for that which regards the admission of the divorced to the sacraments, it confirms that this principle has been accepted by the synod. This is bottom line result, the de facto appraisals are entrusted to the confessors, but at the end of faster or slower paths, all the divorced who ask will be admitted.”

Thursday 29 October 2015

The Wuerligig Cardinal keeps spinning and spinning; which way will it face?

















Cardinal Wuerl continues to utter comments in the spirit of the recently held Synod that confound us. The latest is that:
“The frame of reference now is no longer the Code of Canon Law. The frame of reference is now going to be, ‘What does the Gospel really say here?’”
To which canonist Ed Peter’s responds.
“The 'frame of reference' for the mission of the Catholic Church has never, ever been the Code of Canon Law, and no canon lawyer I know of has ever, ever claimed otherwise. The 'frame of reference' for the Catholic Church has always been, and has only been, Christ the Lord."

During the lead-up to the Synod on the Family, the Pope issued a motu proprio modifying the process for declarations of nullity. Some have commented that this motu proprio will mean for the Church that which was previously admonished and ended by Rome in the United States in the early 1970's.

On  April 11, 1973, the  Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, under the authority of Blessed Paul VI, issued a letter to the Bishops of the United States of America on "Invalid Marriages."

SACRED CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
Letter regarding the indissolubility of marriage

This Sacred Congregation, which is responsible for defending the doctrine regarding faith and morals throughout the Catholic world, has been examining with careful attention the dissemination of new opinions which seek to deny or to put in doubt the doctrine regarding the indissolubility of marriage constantly proposed by the Magisterium of the Church.
These opinions are widespread, not only in books and newspapers, but also beginning to circulate even in seminaries, in Catholic schools, and even in the practices in some ecclesiastical tribunals of this or that Diocese.
Furthermore, these opinions, together with other doctrinal or pastoral explanations, have been advanced here and there as a pretext to justify abuses against the current discipline regarding the administration of the Sacraments to those who live in an irregular union.
Therefore, this Sacred Dicastery examined this problem during its Plenary Meeting of 1972, and issued its mandate, approved by the Supreme Pontiff, exhorting the Bishops to attentively insure that all those entrusted with teaching religion in schools or institutes of any grade, as well as those who serve as officials in ecclesiastical tribunals, remain faithful to the doctrine of the Church on the indissolubility of marriage and act in accord with this doctrine in their ecclesiastical tribunals.
Regarding the administration of the Sacraments, local Ordinaries should strive, on one hand, to encourage the observance of the discipline in force in the Church, and on the other hand, to act so that pastors of souls show particular solicitude toward those who live in an irregular union, seeking to resolve these cases through the use of the approved practices of the Church in the internal forum, as well as other just means.
Communicating these things to you with devoted respect, I remain yours,
+ Franjo Cardinal Seper
Prefect
 + Jérôme Hamer, O.P.
Secretary
Rome, April 11, 1973.

The following quote bears reading:
"A Catholic who is knowingly a partner in an invalid marriage is in reality and before God not married to his or her apparent spouse. Hence performance of the marriage act within that union is not a sacred and holy seal of married love, but really a wrongful use of sex. Those who have seriously disobeyed divine or ecclesiastical law by entering into an invalid marriage, and have perhaps committed many sins within that union, have a duty to return to grace as quickly as possible, and certainly to abstain from Holy Communion until they do soSome solution is always possible, even in the most difficult cases. At times one must accept a considerable amount of self-denial and bear the cross generously; but God’s grace is able to make even the most difficult burdens bearable. Even if individuals feel that they do not now have the moral strength to do what the law of God demands of them, they ought not despair. In prayer, faithful attendance at Mass, in doing the works of Christian love, they can with God’s grace gradually acquire the courage to do with peace whatever is necessary. Pastors and diocesan marriage tribunals will try to be of assistance to those in invalid marriages. Those seeking a good conscience in these matters must remember that their consciences are to be formed in the light of Church teachingEvery solution that is reached must be entirely faithful to the command of Christ that consummated and sacramental marriages can in no way be dissolved or treated as though they can be." 
The above quotation comes from page 514-515 from The Teaching of Christ: A Catholic Catechism for Adults published in 1983. (ISBN 0-87973-899-5).

The editors were Donald W Wuerl, Ronald Lawler OFM Cap and Thomas Comerford Lawler.

It would follow then, that Cardinal Wuerl knows very well what The Teaching of Christ is. It is, therefore, incumbent on the Cardinal to provide clarity, not obfuscation, truth and not distortion during his utterances with the media and Catholics in general as it relates to matters discussed at the Synod. 

Perhaps the good Cardinal can start a blog based upon his point at the opening of this post which was challenged by Ed Peters; it could be titled, WDTGRS. I'm sure Father Z wouldn't mind.

A line attributed to St. Thomas More, at least as spoken in the movie A Man for All Seasons, comes to mind.
"We must pray that when your head stops spinning, your face is front again."

Donald Wuerl is not a hypocrite

A few weeks ago, just before the start of the Synod, I was chatting with a priest friend. The subject of the Synod came up and the issue of homosexuality and state sanctioned, so-called marriage, between members of the same-sex and the overwhelming support for it by Catholics. I said that it is because these Catholics who support the abomination of sodomite and lesbian "marriages" are chronic masturbators. They view pornography on a regular basis alone or with their spouses or concubines and keepers. They engage in adultery themselves or have an "open marriage" and engage in "threesomes." They have experimented in the past with orgasms with someone of the same sex. They engage in sodomy in its actual and broadest sense as man and woman and as husband and wife to their own physical and spiritual detriment. They contracept, as a couple or individual. They may have had or aided the murder of their baby in the womb or they may be a closet sodomite or lesbian themselves.

They do this and they call themselves "Catholic." They may go to Mass and if they do, they surely receive the Holy Eucharist. What they do not do is go to Confession. In addition to not accepting the above as sins because they do not see them as sins, the one sin they do accept and would never want to commit is that of hypocrisy. To them, being hypocrite would be the greater sin.

After all, "Who am I to judge," they would ask themselves.

Coincidentally, the afternoon of writing the above, I found this on a Twitter feed.



Donald Wuerl is a lot of things. He is a manipulator and a deceiver to be sure and he may be other things, but what Donald Wuerl is not, is a hypocrite as evident by this comment from Fr. V.F., which appeared overnight in the combox:
Fr. VF said...
Cardinal Wuerl is the foremost spokesman for giving Communion to abortionists in public office.
All his current arguments for giving Communion to adulterers and sodomites are recycled from his many past statements in defense of giving Communion to abortionists in public office.
He pretends that Denial of Communion is a "penalty" that exists ONLY because of canon law--i.e., Canon 915. It is not, of course. It is mandated by the moral law, because: a) a minister of Communion who gives the sacrament to a person obstinately persisting in manifest grave sin is collaborating directly in the sin of sacrilege; b) the faithful are led to believe that the sin of the communicant is not a sin. By pretending that Denial of Communion is a "penalty," Wuerl evades the REAL issue: Giving Communion to person obstinately persisting in manifest grave sin is always grave matter; i.e., a mortal sin.
By pretending that Denial of Communion is a "penalty," he pretends that he is exercising legitimate "discretion" or "prudence" or "pastoral judgment" when he gives Communion to abortionists, adulterers, lesbians, etc. Bishops DO have discretion when it comes to the application of penalties, but Denial of Communion is not a penalty.
Cardinal Wuerl's long-standing PRACTICE--giving Communion to pro-abortion politicians, self-proclaimed lesbians (Cf. the case of Fr. Marcel Guarnizo), and gay couples (at regularly-scheduled "gay Masses in Pittsburgh and Washington), etc., is the reason that he is COMPELLED to insist now that Communion be given to people living publicly in adulterous unions.
Donald Wuerl is being entirely consistent. He could never, ever be a hypocrite. 

Or could he? 

On his blog, Wuerl writes that, "Dissent is perhaps something we will always have, lamentable as it is." Yet, when one reads the whole post, one realises that the real dissenter, is in fact, Donald Wuerl. 

Randy Engel, author of the Rite of Sodomy wrote whilst Wuerl was Bishop of Pittsburgh that, amongst:
"Pittsburgh Catholics, struggling to maintain their Catholic Faith and identity, many believe that what Bishop Wuerl has an obsession (and) a dangerous preoccupation with sex education, homosexual advocacy, multiculturalism, ecumenism, destruction of schools and parishes, feminism, married priests, politics, money, power, and suppression of the Faith."
The question then is not why is Wuerl fomenting confusion over the Synod report?

The question is, what caused Donald Wuerl to long ago accept other matters in so far as he did not see them as a barrier to Holy Communion based on Canon 915?

Or did I answer that in the very first paragraph above?


Post Script

In three weeks (November 12, 2015, Wuerl turns 75 and will offer his resignation as Archbishop of Washington to Pope Francis. He was appointed there and raised to the Cardinaliate by Benedict XVI.l He was consecrated a bishop personally by John Paul II.
http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bwuerl.html

For more on this. Canonist Edward Peters deals specifically with the matter. 
http://canonlawblog.blogspot.ca/2009/05/response-to-abp-wuerls-claims-that.html

Raymond Cardinal Burke gave this overview in 2007.
https://www.ewtn.com/library/CANONLAW/burkcompol.htm

Phil Lawler writes about Wuerl's betrayal of Father Marcel Guarnizo
https://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otn.cfm?id=898

Matt C. Abbott writes of Randy Engel's research into Donald Wuerl, Engel is the author of the Rite of Sodomy and the quote above can be found within. 

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/abbott/060518

Randy Engel also writes of Wuerl's support of "Dignity" Masses over a period of eight  years, and his time as seminary rector.
http://gloria.tv/?media=267622&language=KiaLEJq2fBR

UPI reports that Wuerl eventually ended "Dignity" after nearly ten years. 
http://www.upi.com/Archives/1996/01/30/Pittsburgh-diocese-bans-masses-for-gays/3092822978000/


Wednesday 28 October 2015

Cardinal Kasper is not following the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ



Walter Kasper, the German Cardinal who has created the storm of Holy Communion for those in adultery has been interviewed by Il Giornale.
Il Giornale: Your Eminence, in the Synod your line has predominated, that is to say, the possibility to allow  remarried divorcees to communion through an individual assessment. How do you rate the discussion of the Synod Fathers on this subject?Kasper: I am pleased to open the door to the possibility of the divorced and remarried to  communion.  There is a certain opening, but you do not even talk about the consequences. Now everything is in the hands of the pope, who decides. The Synod has made recommendations. There has been an opening, but the matter is still not completely resolved and needs to be further deepened.
The only truth that this dissenter from it states is that it "is in the hands of the pope, who decides."

Kasper's admission that "there is a certain opening," is a manipulation. The document refers to the "Internal Forum." Every priest knows what that is and what it means. It is spiritual direction and/or confession. The priest must counsel the person as to what the Church teaches. The priest must admonish the sinner and explain God's mercy and put them on a path to find it. That path DOES NOT include Holy Communion and can never include It. To do so, would be to commit the mortal sin of sacrilege. The priest, would have on his conscience, a grievous matter for which he would be held accountable by the very God, Himself.

Paragraph 86 states:
86. The path of accompaniment and of discernment orients these faithful to an awareness of their situation before God. The interview with the priest, in the internal forum, contributes to the formation of a correct judgment on what hinders the possibility of a fuller participation in the life of the Church and the steps that can foster it and make it grow. Given that within the same law, there is no gradualness (cf. FC 34), this discernment must not disregard the needs of truth and charity of the Gospel proposed by the Church. For this to happen, the necessary conditions of humility, confidence, love for the Church and its teaching, in the sincere search for God's will and in the desire to achieve a more perfect answer to it, must be guaranteed.
This paragraph does not say what Kasper says it does. 

Tuesday 20 October 2015

Shut-up you stupid little Catholic. It is I, the great Clericalist Wizard of Coleridge who knows best - The Faith is not "timeless" and I've seen the "risen lord"

This proves that we are getting to them and we must not stop.

It also proves that they don't give a rat's patootie what you or I think.

They are clericalist on top of being heresiarchs.

http://brisbanecatholic.org.au/articles/on-the-road-together-invective-fear-surprise/



On the Road Together – Invective, fear and surprise "Those voices, clinging desperately to some imagined or ideologised past, cannot point the way into the future. History will have its way, however much we try to cling to illusions of timelessness."

Connect with Archbishop Mark Coleridge:
October 20, 2015
Whatever about the press conference itself, the big surprise for me has been the ferocious reaction in some quarters to what I regard as my quite moderate remarks. Twitter has been frothing with invective, which shows what’s out there – by which I mean the fear, even the panic this Synod seems to have provoked in some. That sort of thing doesn’t look like the Holy Spirit to me – red-eyed joylessness cannot be of God. The impression is that, if you touch the slightest jot or tittle not so much of what the Church teaches but of what her pastoral practice has been or how her truth has been expressed, then the whole edifice built up over 2000 years will come tumbling down. If I believed that, I’d be panicking too and hurling lemon-lipped diatribes this way and that. But I don’t believe it and therefore find myself trusting in the path that’s opening before us, with the abuse rolling like water off a duck’s back. Voices of fear, even panic, have also been heard in the Synod Hall and the small groups, but what’s clearer to me now is that those voices within have strong links to similar voices without. It’s also clear that those voices, clinging desperately to some imagined or ideologised past, cannot point the way into the future. History will have its way, however much we try to cling to illusions of timelessness.
(...)
Once we’ve done our work, it goes to the 10-man commission who are writing the final document. They’ve been hard at it, dealing with the first two parts of the working document. Cardinal John Dew told me that they were huddled over the work yesterday afternoon and into the room unannounced walked Pope Francis – like the Risen Lord, though not (I think) walking through a locked door. He simply wished them well in the work and urged them to give him a good document. They promised to try. Another moment of the Pope of surprises. Let’s hope for some surprises from the final document.
Connect with Archbishop Mark Coleridge:

Monday 19 October 2015

San Juan Archbishop Roberto González Nieves supports public outing of adulterers!

Oh for heaven's sake, can you clowns get original? The pillory's been done away with. This moronic cleric wants a public outing of adulterists before they come to Holy Communion. Well, that's merciful, eh?

Who authorised the ordination of this man?  San Juan Archbishop Roberto González Nieves told the 270 prelates at the gathering that the practice of remarried Catholics entering the Communion line with their arms crossed to indicate they wish to receive a blessing, instead of the Eucharist, demonstrates that “spiritual communion is not enough.”
“This gesture shows and suggests several things,” González said of that practice during his 3-minute address to the synod. “It is a manifestation of the desire of sacramental communion and they humble themselves before the community by making clear to all their illegal status; as if to say: Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa!”
Saying he wanted to present proposals to “enter into dialogue with the complexity of the pastoral reality and the salvation of souls,” González suggested to the synod that certain divorced and remarried persons might enter into something akin to an "order of penitents" through participation in "places of encounter with Jesus Christ."
http://ncronline.org/news/vatican/puerto-rico-archbishop-calls-path-communion-remarried

Mark Benedict Coleridge. Is he our latest heresiarch?

Today's press conference from the Synod to destroy the family featured Brisbane Archbishop Mark Benedict Coleridge.

Shall we take a look at what this episcopal eunuch had to day?
The Church has traditionally spoken that the second union is adulterous and I understand why. I understand the teaching and what lies behind it, including the biblical background. But at the same time, not every case is the same and that’s where a pastoral approach needs to take account of the different situations. For instance, just to say that every second marriage or second union whatever you want to call it is adulterous, is perhaps too sweeping. For instance, a second marriage that is enduring and stable and loving and where there are children who are cared for is not the same as a couple skulking off to a hotel room for a wicked weekend.  So the rubric, adultery, in one sense, it’s important but in another sense it doesn’t say enough and I think what a pastoral approach  requires is that we actually enter into what the synod is calling a genuine pastoral dialogue or discernment with these couples and the start of that is for people like me to actually listen to their story not just swamp them with doctrine or Church teaching. (Coleridge's commentary begins just before the 24:00 mark - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=timmt6EvF-0)
 
I had a conversation, not too long ago, with a priest - someone who should have been a bishop except he would not dissent on Humanae vitae back in the late 1970. He opined how angry it made him when he would hear Pope Francis say that priests were not "pastoral" or "merciful." He could not understand who it was that the Pope was speaking about. I have certainly not seen a priest any less than pastoral and merciful provided I was repentant for the wretched things that I had done and brought them to either the confessional or spiritual direction.
 
Coleridge waxes on that a "second marriage or second marriage" if it is nice and all is well, is "different from skulking off to a hotel room" and therefore, not really adultery. Well, what if the second marriage began because one or both skulked off to a hotel room? Would it be adultery then?
 
What if the first wife is at home with the other children and struggling? Is there no sin in that for the person who caused the break-up and now lives in something other than adultery?
 
Truly, who educated these men? Have they all been emasculated?
 
There is something, however, even more troubling.
 
We see and hear lots of heterodox commentary at these daily briefings. Why is there no bishops speaking orthodoxy.

Perhaps Fathers Lombardi or Rosica might wish to comment and let us know.
 
We're waiting.

Tuesday 15 September 2015

Pope appoints pervert priest protector Danneels to Synod on the Family! - Is Francis being blackmailed? Is Daneels a sodomite or hetero pervert?

Rorate reports that the Synod delegates list is now final. In what can only be described as a set-up from the Pope himself, the list includes two retired Cardinals, Walter Kasper and Godfried Danneels who carry an agenda that is against the doctrine of the Church and Holy Scripture with regards to marriage, sodomy and the reception of Holy Communion. They are backed up by Cupich, Wuerl and Maradiaga.

There is an old saying about being known by the company one keeps. 

Who is this Danneels, this quite satisfied pope-maker?

Godfried Danneels second from right with Pope Jorge Bergoglio on the loggia of St. Peter's Basilica









The Fall of the Belgian Church


In Belgium, today, police searched the residence of the Archbishop of Mechelen-Brussels and the crypt of the Archbishop’s cathedral in Mechelen. They were looking for evidence of cover-ups in the ongoing investigation into widespread pedophilia practices within the Belgian church in the decades during which Cardinal Godfried Danneels was Archbishop. Danneels retired in January of this year.
Police also confiscated 450 files containing reports of pedophile offences by members of the clergy, that had been submitted to an investigation committee which was established within the church to deal with pedophilia cases.
Since the revelation in April that Cardinal Danneels’s close friend and collaborator, Mgr Roger Vangheluwe, the Bishop of Bruges, had been a practicing pedophile throughout, and even before, his career as a bishop, victims have gained confidence that they will be taken seriously, and complaints have been pouring in, both to the courts and to the extra-judicial investigation committee of the archdiocese. The new archbishop Mgr. André-Joseph Léonard, has urged victims to take their case to the courts.
His predecessor, the liberal Cardinal Danneels, who was very popular with the press in Belgium and abroad, was Archbishop of Mechelen-Brussels and Primate of Belgium from 1979 until 2010. The sympathy for pedophile attitudes and arguments among the Belgian bishops during this period was no secret, especially since 1997 when the fierce controversy about the catechism textbook Roeach made the headlines. The editors of Roeach were Prof. Jef Bulckens of the Catholic University of Leuven and Prof. Frans Lefevre of the Seminary of Bruges. The textbook contained a drawing which showed a naked baby girl saying: “Stroking my pussy makes me feel groovy,” “I like to take my knickers off with friends,” “I want to be in the room when mum and dad have sex.” The drawing also shows a naked little boy and girl that are “playing doctor” and the little boy says: “Look, my willy is big.”
 The drawing also showed three pairs of parents. Those with the “correct” attitude reply: “Yes, feeling and stroking those little places is good fun.” This “catechism textbook” was used in the catechism lessons in the catholic schools, until one day I discovered it among the schoolbooks of my eldest daughter, then 13 years old. On 3 September 1997 I wrote a letter to Cardinal Danneels, saying:
“When I see this drawing and its message, I get the distinct impression that this catechism textbook is designed intentionally to make 13 and 14 year olds believe that toddlers enjoy genital stimulation. In this way one breeds pedophiles that sincerely believe that children actually think that what they are doing to them is ‘groovy’, while the opposite is the case.”
I told Cardinal Danneels that, although I was a member of Parliament for the Flemish-secessionist party Vlaams Blok, I was addressing him as a Catholic parent “who wishes to remain faithful to the papal authority and also wishes to educate her children this way.” I insisted that he forbid the use of this book in the catechism lessons: “This is why I insist – yes, the days of meekly asking are over – that you forbid the use of this ‘catechism book’ in our children’s classrooms.”
Today this case, that dates from 12 years ago, assumes a new and ominous significance. Especially now that I know that Mgr Roger Vangheluwe, the pedophile child molesting Bishop of Bruges, was the supervising bishop of both institutions – the Catholic University of Leuven and the Seminary of Bruges – whence came the editors in chief of this perverted “catechism” textbook.
Monsignor Vangheluwe not only entertained pedophile ideas, but also practiced them on his 11-year old nephew. Hundreds of children who were not raped physically were molested spiritually during the catechism lessons.
After I started my campaign against the Roeach textbook, many parents contacted me to voice their concerns. Stories of other practices in the Catholic education system poured in. There were schools where children were taught to put condoms over artificial penises and where they had to watch videos showing techniques of masturbation and copulation.
Because Cardinal Danneels refused to respond to requests to put an end to these practices, I and hundreds of concerned parents gathered in front of his palace on 15 October 1997. We carried placards with the text “Respect for parents and children,” and we said the rosary. Cardinal Danneels refused to receive a delegation of the demonstrators. “I shall not be pressured,” he said in the libertine magazine Humo on 21 October 1997. The Archbishop’s door remained closed when we demonstrated again on 10 December 1997.
When we demonstrated at the palace of the Bishop of Antwerp on 19 November 1997, Mgr Paul Van den Berghe received a delegation of mothers that included a local councilor from the Christian-Democrat party and myself. Mgr Van den Berghe, who was the Episcopal supervisor for education, listened to the mothers, wept and promised to investigate the practices in the sex education and catechism lessons. He also announced this intention in a declaration to the press.
He must have been reprimanded by his colleagues, because on 24 November, after a meeting of the Bishops’ Conference, in a press release to the press agency Belga, the Bishop of Antwerp announced that, in spite of his promise, there would be no investigation. Today we know that one of the colleagues present at the Conference was the child molester Vangheluwe, which makes that incident, too, very unsavory indeed.
On 18 February 1998 we were at Cardinal Danneels’s door again, myself and a group of parents. Again the door remained closed. So on 18 March 1998 a group of two hundred parents went to the Papal Nuncio, the ambassador of the Vatican, in Brussels. But the Nuncio, who was a friend of Danneels, also refused to meet us. He had, however, alerted the police, who had several water cannons at the ready just around the corner.
Meanwhile Danneels’s friends in the press started a campaign against me. “Colen continues to pester the bishops,” was the headline in Gazet van Antwerpen. One evening Toon Osaer, Danneels’s spokesman at the time, phoned me to tell me that as a Catholic I had to “be obedient” to the bishops. In Humo Danneels insinuated that I was “conducting my election campaign.”
On 5 January 1998 the daily newspaper Het Volk interviewed Patrick Vanhaelemeesch, a catechism teacher in the diocese of Bruges and one of the co-authors of Roeach. He gave some details about the illustration concerning masturbating toddlers in the catechism book. He said that the illustration was intended to convey the message that “toddlers experience sexual lust.” Vanhaelemeesch revealed that the committee of bishops had mentioned this illustration in an evaluation report of the catechism book. The report stated: “The presentation of the sexual-pedagogical attitudes is rendered ridiculous in the eyes of the pupils by the text balloons.” According to Vanhaelemeesch this criticism “indicates that the bishops had no objections at all to the message conveyed [i.e. toddlers experience sexual lust], but feared that the pupils would not take it seriously.”
When I had exhausted all possibilities and it was clear that the Belgian church did not want to hear the parents, I decided to sever all ties with the Catholic education system. I took my five children out of school and set up a homeschool together with other parents, so our children would be educated in a Catholic environment.
I sent a letter to all the cardinals in the world to inform them about the contents of the Roeach textbook. “Please be assured that this Dicastery will give your report all due consideration, answered Mgr. Clemens, Cardinal Ratzinger’s personal secretary, for the Congregation of the Faith in Rome; Cardinal Gagnon from Rome appreciated “the just battle which you are conducting”; “The matter which you raised is very important,” wrote Cardinal Arinze from Rome.
I received letters of support from cardinals from all parts of the globe. “I share your concern. It is important that you do not leave the matter uncontested,” wrote Cardinal Meisner of Cologne; “You have good reasons to be concerned,” wrote Cardinal Wamala of Uganda; “I feel strongly enough to write to Cardinal Danneels in the hope that he may enlighten me,” wrote Cardinal Vidal of the Philippines; “If I have the opportunity to discuss with Cardinal Danneels the matter you have drawn to my attention, I will do so,” wrote Cardinal Williams of New Zealand; “I shall try to do something in order to help you,” wrote Cardinal Lopez Rodriguez of Santo Domingo; “I am aware that your concerns have been brought to the attention of Cardinal Laghi, Prefect for the Congregation for Catholic Education,” wrote Cardinal O’Connor of New York.
On 27 February 2010 the daily newspaper De Standaard wrote that these letters “enhanced Rome’s perception of the weak church leadership in Belgium.” Hence, the liberal Danneels was replaced by Mgr Léonard. Rome hopes that he will be able to restore the church in Belgium. I share this hope. However, it is a pity that it has taken so long. The damage that has been done is greater than anyone could have imagined.

Dr. Alexandra Colen MP is a member of the Belgian House of Representatives.