Dave Armstrong takes off the gloves

And goes full Mark Shea on those who dare suggest Pope Francis has been nothing but orthodox regarding the blessing of people in same sex unions.  You can read the post and all the gracious and humble comments on his facebook page here.

So-Called "Conservative" Catholic Media and "Conservative" American Catholicism Have Gone to Hell ("Big Pulpit" and "Fiducia Supplicans")

+++++++++++++++++

"Big Pulpit" is a website that collects noteworthy Catholic articles and links to them. I've been cited there many times. In yesterday's edition, it featured a section called "Fiducia Supplicans (FS) Scandal" (note how even the *title* is thoroughly slanted and biased), featuring some 40-50 articles: ALL critical of the new document, with the exception of a Catholic Answers' roundtable, which is of mixed opinion (and doesn't include arguably its two best apologists: Tim Staples and Jimmy Akin).

This is an absolute disgrace, and shows that "conservative" Catholic media is now as incompetent and untrustworthy as the mainstream radically secular liberal media. It merely spews one-sided propaganda and slander, where the pope is concerned.

Imagine: a venue that bills itself as "Catholic" and collects Catholic articles, can't bring itself to publish even a SINGLE example of a pure defense of the new document, "Fiducia Supplicans" and a defense of the Holy Father. It's casually assumed that there couldn't *possibly* be such an explanation or take. Not a single one is allowed to be aired in their venue. There aren't two sides; there is supposedly only one: just as in Communist and fascist societies. We now have no free speech in most of the "big" conservative Catholic venues. It's like the old Soviet newspaper, Pravda. I've experienced it myself, in submitting articles that defended Pope Francis.

I'm proud of the fact that the host of my blog, Patheos Catholic -- for all its faults -- , actually allows free speech. I've never had one word of nearly 4,000 articles there censored. I have complete editorial control. I can defend the pope, and I currently have 228 articles posted there that do exactly that. Bravo for true free speech and the exchange of ideas! Catholic365, where I have recently posted some articles, too, also allows this diversity of opinion. So there are still some, thank God.

And this current fashionable skepticism, cynicism, and yes, pseudo-modernism and postmodernism entails -- when all is said and done -- the presupposition that the magisterium can defect from the faith in a matter of faith and morals. It's a denial of the doctrine of papal indefectibility, which was stated in Vatican I in 1870 in the same document where papal infallibility was defined at the highest level of authority. I'll be writing about that again soon, by the way.

The folly of the now-farcical so-called "conservative Catholicism" is manifest to one and all. It has now decided to in effect equate Catholicism with Anglicanism. The Catholic Church (so this mentality would have it) can put out a document that is vastly contradictory to past received tradition. This makes us no different (such folks seem utterly unaware) from Anglicans or any other Protestant denomination that doesn't even *claim* infallibility or indefectibility.

There are very few Catholic apologists who even seem to be aware that the Church and the pope are indefectible and who openly explain and defend those things. I have told you who they are: Pedro Gabriel, the website "Where Peter Is," Michael Lofton, and Tim Staples. My friend, Dr. Robert Fastiggi, a renowned systematic theologian, also defends the pope. As all my readers know, so do I. There are others who don't make it a *habit* of defending the pope. I can certainly understand why, and we apologists have many topics that we have to address. So I won't mention them, but they're out there, and they haven't jumped on the bandwagon.

As in all fascist societies, and now in "conservative" Catholic circles, not only is one single view allowed, but also those who dare to contradict it must be mocked and called names and marginalized. And so those of us who defend Pope Francis are called "popesplainers" (the latest idiotic epithet), "ultramontanists," "papolaters," or "hyperpapalists" or just plain "modernists" or "liberals." And those are just the ones that I can repeat in polite company. I'm proud to be called all these names. Bring it on! You only show yourself to be a fool if you sling these stupid insults around.

I have provided resources of defenses of the pope for those who wish to remain faithful, orthodox Catholics and to avoid the clueless, faith-challenged verbal diarrhea sadly seen almost everywhere today in "conservative" and reactionary Catholic circles. Catholic ecclesiological "conservatives" by and large, now, think no differently than dissident, "progressive" heterodox, theological liberals. I am simply an orthodox Catholic. That's what I have always called myself (if "Catholic" isn't enough).

They pick and choose whatever papal decree they like, and reject at will whatever their subjective opinion dislikes. They make themselves their own popes. They are not a whit different from Martin Luther in this respect. He thought ecumenical councils could err and contradict each other, as well as papal decrees. So do the pope-bashers today (apparently being blissfully aware of the history and the irony). I've studied the history in great depth. It's primarily what made me become a Catholic.

There is also a milder form of pope-bashing or "papal nitpicking", whereby it's admitted that a given document or statement is itself orthodox, BUT it's terrible pastoral guidance, imprudent, unwise, etc. This mentality is also widely used regarding Vatican II. A true Catholic view, I contend, that extends proper deference, reverence and respect towards popes, would be most reluctant to express itself in this way (if it is ever necessary). To do so is to immediately second-guess the pope and the magisterium of the Catholic Church, as if it (and/or the pope) knows less than any Joe Blow Catholic sitting in the pew. It's arrogant and presumptuous in the highest degree. I hate to be so blunt, but for the love of God, just SHUT UP! No good can come from all this dissent and infighting.

In my collection of writings from others, "Pope Francis Defended: Resources for Confused Folks," I provide (currently) 317 articles. I have seven articles up so far, that defend the new document and the pope. I will add more as I find out about them. Here they are:

311. “Despite everything, always blessed” [blessings for homosexuals] (Mike Lewis, Where Peter Is, 12-18-23)

*

312. Catechism on the New Gay Blessings Document (by a “very holy priest” & Michael Lofton, Reason & Theology, 12-19-23)

*

313. Demystifying ‘Fiducia Supplicans’: Answering 7 Frequently Asked Questions [blessings for homosexuals] (Pedro Gabriel, The City & the World, 12-20-23)

*

314. If Social Media Was Around in Christ’s Day [satire] (anon. priest, Reason & Theology, 12-20-23)

*

315. Blessings: A pastoral development anchored in tradition (Rocco Buttiglione, Vatican News, 12-20-23)

*

316. Does The Catholic Church Now Allow Same-Sex Unions? (Fr. Pablo Migone, Labyrinthine Mind, 12-21-23)

*

317. Cardinal Fernández: Same-sex blessing ‘does not validate or justify anything’ (Edgar Beltran, The Pillar, 12-23-23)

*

If you want to actually read a different opinion from the one-note tune propaganda, groupthink, and assumed "self-evident truths" of the pope-bashers, these articles will allow you to do so. If you want to remain a truly "traditional" faith-filled Catholic (which includes belief in papal and ecclesial indefectibility) they'll help you quite a bit, I think. If you're brave enough to be a nonconformist in the present fascist, death-of-critical-thinking, "no one can disagree" intellectually and spiritually toxic atmosphere, here is your chance.

*

If I didn't have such a sunny, optimistic temperament by nature, and a very strong, God-given faith, I would be in deep despair over what has happened to orthodox Catholics (I'd be crying all day long, and feeling like Jeremiah did). I can't -- and don't -- think about it too much or for very long. It's too disturbing. It's the devil's victory. He has divided and conquered because we're so stupid and blind and ignorant of doctrinal development and history and Catholic teachings alike.

*

Orthodox Catholicism (i.e., the group of those who *actually* accept -- or *claim* to accept all that the Church teaches) is now a laughingstock, and we are making pathetic fools of ourselves --ruining any good witness for evangelism that we have. We're self-destructing. My own job is made much more difficult now because of all this idiotic nonsense and lack of faith going on. But I will continue. That you can depend on. By mostly ignoring this garbage, I can better continue the work that God called me to.

*

Yes, I know I said I was done talking about this stuff. I intend to keep to that policy, but I also said there might be exceptions on occasion. I posted about the communion of saints today (doing my "regular" work), and then I received notice of Big Pulpit in my mail and saw this surreal fascism that they have adopted as regards the pope, and I just HAD to speak out against it. I couldn't possibly not address such an indefensible outrage (especially since it seems so few others are protesting).

*

So this constitutes my own "jeremiad" on the topic. A jeremiad is not an argument; it's an impassioned "prophetic" proclamation. It's "screaming bloody murder" and warning folks of spiritual danger. I'm not angry (in the raging, furious, intemperate sense). I'm not out-of-control. Don't even try to make that charge. You don't get it if you think that, and have very little familiarity with me as a person. I'm cool as a cucumber, as I always am. But I'm passionate. I'm very upset about what is happening to the Church (mostly in America). And so I "loudly" condemn it in this post.

*

The arguments and rational defenses are in the seven articles I noted in the OP. I also have many sustained arguments regarding papal indefectibility on my Papacy web page, if you want to better understand that, so that you can believe it and not reject it, as is massively happening today.

*

So take note. I will discuss this topic in *this* thread, but that's it. Please don't bring it up in this venue, or in PMs. If you know of a good pro-pope, pro-magisterium article, please let me know in a PM and I'll add it to the collection. Someone notified me of one today (#317 above).

*

My contribution to this controversy will be to continue collecting positive, *truly* traditional Catholic articles.

*

Now, I usually don't provide links in posts because that kills them in the feed (no one sees them). But I think this post will generate enough interest, to be able to avoid that. So here it is:

https://www.patheos.com/.../pope-francis-defended-helpful...

I'll also provide a link to the collection of my own articles in the combox.

Please like and share this post, if you agree. Spread the word. Thanks. Relatively few read my material. You can help make it possible for many more to do so, if you think what I expressed here is important. So please like, share, and comment (actual civil, charitable discussion). If you troll, you'll be deleted, and if you persist, you'll be blocked.

The sad part isn't what he writes.  The sad part is that it was entirely predictable.  As I said, when people either swing to the Left or defend parts of it, they must:

1. Do that which they once condemned, and

2. Use block, delete, and ban to shut down having to deal with dissenting views, and 

3. Assume worst motives through calumny, accusation, name calling and other childish tricks

I've said a thousand times that these things are hardly unique to the Left.  But they are almost universal among those who must defend anything from the Left.  It's worth noting that, on the whole, these reprobate outlets and individuals like those at Big Pulpit are pretty much the same as they've been for the last several decades.  What has changed is, well, those who are trying to keep next to decidedly leftwing issues and ideologies.  

That Dave once condemned such tactics when it came to attacking Catholics who supported Trump or - and this is rich - back in the day, those who had problems with Pope France, just proves #1. We won't even discuss the laughable whining about Free Speech given his propensity for blocking or banning people who dare challenge him on his pet issues.  Again, it's always disappointing to watch someone become what they once mocked or condemned.  

Not surprisingly, I notice Orthodox Christians are having a field day with this.  Because they see it for what it is.  This is where the Catholic assurance that the Church will never teach error and that no Pope can change Church teaching hits the rock of reality.  All we can do is either be honest, or do, well, what Dave has done, and that's just a long, multi-paragraph version of 'because their mamas wear army boots and dress them funny.'  Again, sad but predictable.