I hope Pope Leo is wrong

Denied!

So the press, opponents of Israel and America and Trump, and all Catholics who swing left of center are no doubt dancing in the streets as Pope Leo has strongly and loudly proclaimed:

[Jesus] does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war, but rejects them

Yep.  Take that George Washington.  Take that Founding Fathers.  Take that FDR.  Take that Eisenhower. Take that Pope Urban II.  Take that Joan of Arc.  Take that - any leader who has ever waged war in or out of the Bible.  Apparently God has ignored every prayer by these and others because - of course He does.  

He's the God of Love and Peace.  Not right or wrong.  Not defending the innocent against evil. Not justice.  Not good or bad.  Not anything really.  Just the assurance that as long as we don't wage war against evil, whatever evil does is small beans. Barney the Dinosaur never said it so well. 

Of course I'm reading into this.  It was likely just a swipe against Trump and the war against Iran. Likely without much thought about the larger, yet entirely logical, ramifications of what he just said.  A lazy, sloppy, social media era postmodern dig. Like most of our postmodern leadership and scholarship. It's true now because it jabs Trump.  It tells us what we want and owns the other guy.  Later it will be revised for obvious reasons that a modicum of historical studies will reveal.  Such is post-Truth modernity.  We won't even get into the Protestant anti-Catholic talking point that Catholics believe popes and God merely swap nameplates.  Which is why, apparently, popes can always say just what prayers God is and isn't listening to.  

Like his predecessor, I'm getting the feeling that Pope Leo will speak the words beloved of modern post-Western globalism, whether or not it stands up to common sense scrutiny, much less historical Catholicism.  Like Pope Francis, he speaks the words the modern World wants to hear.  The impact it has on the faithful, the faithless, or the Faith in general, increasingly seeming to be of little concern.  

The nowhere pope of the postmodern age

So I noticed something.  In the months following the election of Pope Francis, the news media lit up like a solar flare.  This was especially true after his famous 'who am I to judge' remark about the LGTBQ movement.  Every week, if not every day, there seemed to be stories about Pope Francis.  All of which gushed with praise and adoration and optimism about how Pope Francis was beginning the good work of finally burning that old time religion to the ground.  For example, this one always comes to mind, from the rag dedicated to proselytizing our youngest into a world of Sodom and Gomorrah debauchery and nihilism: 

That was just part of the new age of post-modern propaganda that rotated around Pope Francis like a hurricane.  Reminds you of the messianic visions of Obama in 2008, don't it. 

Anyway, I notice in comparison to that, the press has been rather quiet about Pope Leo XIV. But so has everyone else.  Certainly in comparison to the almost daily posts unpacking the latest Pope Francis interview or talking point.  Oh, people mention Pope Leo here and there.  For instance, those of more traditional sympathies noted that on June 1st, otherwise known as our last month long foray into post-Christian paganism and dreams of a post-Western world for the year, Pope Leo chose to talk about families and mom and dad and having those babies.  

So naturally, this is what I saw after June 1st on most media outlets that bothered to mention him at all:

At least Vatican News added the family admonition to the important news

Over at Where Peter Is, where every word that proceeded from the mouth of Francis seemed to warrant its own special column (except his trashing of transgender activism), I saw no mention of his June 1st musings.  Just a column reflecting on how Pope Leo can effectively continue the reforms and activism of Pope Francis, and one reflecting on the real meaning of his emphasis on unity.  

Whether it's the Church righting itself, or people wanting to refrain from rushing in, or what, I don't know.  Clearly Pope Leo is not what the press initially hoped or imagined.  By now we know that thing we used to call the news media is merely tabloid propaganda.  They have no desire to cover news, merely promote.  And so far, it seems whatever they want to promote and what they see in Pope Leo XIV are not one and the same.  At least it looks that ways thus far.  So we'll see.  Just something I've noticed.  

For a bonus giggle, here is a Youtube video (posted on WPI) in which we realize Pope Leo and Pope Francis will be, well, the same but with different name tags.  And unity properly understood is when we realize it's the fault of those traditionalists and more conservative types misreading what Pope Leo no doubt intends to mean:

Heh.  That sort of thing always makes me chuckle.  The old leftwing trick of asking why can't conservatives stop being so damn divisive and just admit it's all their fault.  I find the stunning lack of self-awareness among those, including Christians, who tack Left is usually the most amazing thing.  And most annoying.  

An odd observation from Pope Francis

So apparently Pope Francis came out and warned against religion that stokes divisions.  Mr. Divisions himself.  But then, he is the postmodern pope.  And with postmodernity, our 'yes' is forever 'maybe', and our 'no' is 'it depends'. 

It's true.  Pope Francis seems to have no problem saying that it's a sin to apply adjectives to people - like those rigid types over there.  He condemns those who are too rigid while being about the most rigid person  I know when it comes to promoting his own views.  So it shouldn't be surprising that a pope who has more than once invoked the 'me vs. them' template is suddenly bothered by religious leaders who cause divisions.  

And as for those who have felt marginalized by Pope Francis and targeted by Pope Francis and villainized by Pope Francis, I have seen the following Bible verse quoted time and time and time again: 

Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and one’s foes will be members of one’s own household.

Yep.  Because apparently our Faith is all about dividing the sheep from the greatest of all time, all about bringing a sword, all about speaking in parables for the expressed purpose of the inner circle enlightened Catholics who always get it.  Yet now, it turns out religion shouldn't do what his supporters have more than cheered him for doing, which he himself seems to have had no problems doing time and again.  

I fear Pope Francis, while having made some good points over the years, has nurtured two very, very bad developments in modern thinking: 

    1. That Christianity is entirely optional as opposed to the importance of fealty to worldly narratives and     agendas.  Oh it's nice to have and Jesus and all, but one can happily reject the Gospel as long as you are     in line with the proper activism and political advocacy.  And

    2. Words definitely speak louder than actions, which is why 'do as I say and not as I do' is a perfectly         appropriate approach to ministry in the postmodern global spotlight.  Something that almost defines, I      should add, those Catholics who proudly hang on every word of Pope Francis unless he criticizes             something left of center. 

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.  

Blessing individuals in same sex unions

Here are two of the millions of guesses as to what this means:  

This one from Larry Chapp

This one from Dawn Eden Goldstein

If you don't like either, fear not.  The different readings of this latest declaration are indeed legion, for they are many.  And perhaps, more than anything, that is the saddest part of this entire papacy. After a decade of Pope Francis, I'm afraid modern Catholics could teach Protestants a thing or two.  

When I read the translation of Pope Francis' response to the cardinals' dubia

 Why did this come to mind? 

I really, really hope and pray that what I think I'm seeing happen in the Catholic Church isn't what is happening.  

Pope Francis and those rascally Mongolians

So everyone was buzzing about Pope Francis' usual off the cuff remarks.  In this case, praising the history of Imperial Russia, giving high fives to China without qualifiers and, in a shock to many, praising the glories of the Mongol Empire.  

Now, this is standard leftwing boilerplate.  If it's west of the Danube or from North America, then it's a watermarked Swastika.  Otherwise, eh.  It's generally pretty awesome.  In this Washington Post piece, we learn just how cool the Mongols were, as oppose to those backward Europeans and Christians who were all about thinking on how cool the Mongols were. 

When I was in high school and college in the 1980s, the uber-narrative of history was that the world still owed the Western Tradition big time.  Though you could find glimmers of good things here and there throughout the ages, the whole package came together in the West like no other time or place in human history.  The wealth and luxury, the medical and technological breakthroughs, the basic creature comforts we take for granted that would have been science fiction a century before.  Not to mention the full package deal of democracy, equality, human rights, and rule of law. All came together in the West and culminated in the American Experiment like never before.

With that said, in the post-60s and 70s, we were also being called on to revisit the sins of our past.  It wasn't enough to say it was bad we used to own slaves, but isn't it awesome we stopped?  We had to bring back the sins and repent, repent and repent again.  We also had to admit that, at our worst, we were just as bad as any other culture in history.  Likewise, in different ways, those cultures could at times be as good as us.  OK, fair enough.

But by the time my boys entered public school in the 2000s, that narrative was gone. Two decades of a corrupted view of multi-culturalism, injected with leftwing and Marxist sympathies, threw that narrative out the window.  By the time my sons came along, we had long proved the Mormons had to be wrong.  Jesus never came to the New World.  He wasn't good enough.  The Americas, like anywhere outside of Europe/ North America, were perfect and beautiful and filled with perfect and beautiful people.  Think Dances With Wolves.  

The rest of the world was the same.  I recall seeing a children's book about the Aztecs in a children's book section.  Beautiful people those Aztecs.  Peace loving, gentle, innovative, hard working.  A virtual paradise.  Back in 2011, I posted on a book pitched on CNN about how awesome was the Mongol Empire.  When I read my son's high school world history book, it was pretty much that.  Beautiful empires in beautiful cultures and beautiful societies with beautiful people.  Except the West.  That's where the racism, sexism, phobias and bigotry ran rampant, usually with a boorish and backward people who ate dirt and never bathed.  The only bright spot in the West being shout outs to figures like Lenin, Mao, and Marx. 

So not really sure why the shock here. As typical, Pope Francis is simply repeating leftwing narratives and templates since that's where he abides.  Just like his dig early on in his pontificate about America and the Holocaust.  He apparently accepted the old canard about how we could have stopped the Holocaust by bombing a couple rail lines. Easy-peasy.  But no.  Not America. You know us and our racism.  Which is why he has hated January 6th, but has loved BLM. 

One of the core messages of the Left is that the world was nearly a perfect paradise, especially where knowing the importance of population control and animal pleasures are concerned.  But then came the vile Western Tradition, which visited all the evils of the world upon humanity.  So bad is it presented now, that anything associated with white, European and American Christians can and should be reimagined or outright rejected.  Among such things are ideals like forgiveness, reconciliation, equality and liberties traditionally understood. I expect more will be added to the list at the rate we're going.  And I seriously doubt Pope Francis will stand in the way. 

Dawn Eden and what Catholics told me

When I was going through RCIA, I was told that the Catholic Church - apparently unlike Protestants - doesn't elevate our religious leaders to celebrity status.  We don't make it about them. We make it about God.  And that's how we like it.  No spotlight ministries or rock star pastors.  Catholics always point to Christ, not ordained celebrities. 

I thought of that when I saw this:

We'll set aside Ms. Eden's ongoing crusade to perpetually condemn the sins of Catholics where antisemitism is concerned.  That's what comes from swinging left of center.  As one of my boys has said, when your resume of generational accomplishments is as blank as ours, condemning the sins of those who came before is about all you have left. 

But the 'Pope Francis Generation' caught my attention.  Sorry, but that seems very celebrity-spotlight-rock star-ordained minister to my eyes.  We're not the Catholic, the faithful, or even the 21st Century Catholic generation.  We're the Pope Francis Generation!  I'm trying to recall any Protestants I remember saying that we were the Billy Graham generation or the Rick Warren generation.  Nope.  Not remembering it. 

But these are the values inspired by Pope Francis. Not only are we at our best when we perpetually call out the sins of those not-me Catholics-who-lived-before-me.  But the rules, like not celebrating the priesthood as rock stars the way Protestant do, can change to keep up with the always improving times.  Which might be the true legacy of Pope Francis.  In the end, there is nothing that can't be changed when it comes to changing what can't be changed. 

Pope Francis and ideological commodities

I don't hate Pope Francis.  I don't think he is the Antichrist.  I don't think he sneaks around and throws banana peels in front of nursing homes just for fun.  I don't  go home every night and stick pins in my little Pope Francis doll.  

True, I don't care for how he conducts himself.  I don't like his 'do as I say, not as I do' schtick.  I don't care for his inconsistencies and at times incoherent ramblings.  I disagree with his political liberalism and nakedly Marxist based Liberation Theology.  I don't like the priorities he has established, where fealty to various leftwing (let's be honest) political agendas are the deal breakers versus fealty to the Gospel, the teachings of the Church, and the virtues of Christian living.

With that said, he has pointed out things I do agree with. One has been calling out the practice of seeing human beings as nothing but commodities. I don't think there is an issue with commodities per se.  But humans are not a commodity.  And he is correct in pointing that out.

But there are many ways to turn humans into a commodity.  One way that has become almost universal in our modern media culture is humans as ideological commodities.  That is, humans, human lives, human suffering, and human death matter only insofar as they can be shamelessly exploited to defend established narratives or advance political and social activism and agendas. 

This is most flagrantly demonstrated by the modern news media not giving two damns or a hell about human misery, struggles, pain or even death unless they can be used to further the press's pet objectives.  For instance, the killing of three black victims by an avowed white racist.  

There are literally dozens of Americans murdered in the country every day.  Most go unreported beyond a local news story.  Many are all but ignored even then.  Then why this?  We've had killings of multiple people in our neck of the woods over the last few weeks.  Why haven't they made the national news?  Earlier in the year a young newlywed who was not black was hacked to death by a black man with a machete.  Why didn't CNN or ABC or the NYT or other outlets rush out here and make that front page news?  Why is this killing of three people suddenly round the clock, top of the hour, international front page news?  Why is it still making news a week later? 

For obvious reasons, that's why.  I won't belabor the point or insult your intelligence by writing it all out as if you're too dense to know why.  This is a grave sin and intrinsic  evil, to so use and exploit, or ignore and dismiss, human death and misery simply based on ideological convenience. I'd like to think when Pope Francis calls hellfire down on the idea of making human beings into commodities, at the front of his mind is the modern media's flagrant exploitation of human beings for the sole purpose of advancing an agenda.  For using human beings as nothing more than ideological commodities. I'd really like to think that's on his mind when he speaks of such sins. 

Pope Francis is the pope the World has been hoping for

Because of the example he sets: 

                          

This is what I expect on Social Media. Or a middle school locker room. Or an elementary school playground.  Not from the spiritual leader of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. 

Note there is no humility.  No concern.  No caring about those who might have been hurt by what he said.  He clearly doesn't care.  And there's nothing our modern age loves more than someone who affirms our right to care or not care based on expediency. 

Rolling Stone: this time being prophetic

Imagine what Pope Francis could accomplish

If he spent half as much time encouraging people to be faithful Catholics as he does disparaging people who try to be faithful Catholics.  

Pope Francis can rest easy

 I don't think this is the big problem confronting the Catholic Church today:

Instead, it's that most Catholics don't believe basics of the Catholic Faith, and a significant majority don't even pretend to care what the Church teaches about morals and actual living.  In almost any survey of religious traditions and beliefs, Catholics hover near last when it comes to fealty to their own tradition's doctrines and values.  

This is likely a big reason that many orders and the clergy in general are struggling.  Give up a life of worldly pleasures for a Church that acts like it believes you can get a train to Hogwarts more than it does the teachings of the Faith?  I don't think so.  Not to mention that 'former Catholic' feels like one of the fastest growing Christian traditions in the world.  If Pope Francis looks at this and concludes the big problem is Catholics striving for righteousness and seeking to follow Church teaching, then that probably explains a lot.

Some have said that Pope Francis is the pope the modern Church deserves.  I can't speak to that.  But based on his priorities and the general faith walk of a majority of Catholics, I'd say he's the pope the modern Church has desperately wanted.  

Pope Francis follows the way of mainline Protestant denominations

That is, the Church teaches it - until the World says otherwise.  It's going to be a long, dark voyage for faithful Christians in the upcoming years.  After all, even as an Evangelical I appreciated that the Catholic Church was a rock against which the waves of the latest tended to break.  Thanks largely to Pope Francis, that reputation is quickly fading. 

The remnant will remain, but the winnowing is going to be staggering.   It will be from the ashes of whatever world emerges from our genius that people will start looking at the last century or so and conclude mistakes were made, and it's time to do a Josiah.  

A Halloween reflection: Vampire plagues and progressive Catholics

Early onset vampirism in Salem's Lot: Know the signs!

So for fun this year, I reread Salem’s Lot.  I’m not much of a Steve King fan.  Marcus Grodi once said he believed King to be the greatest American author.  I assumed he meant in modern times.  Since he was my boss at the time, I didn’t debate the statement.  Suffice to say I don't consider King to be near the top of American writers. 

But I do like a couple of his books. One is Salem’s Lot.  It strikes all those little chords: the haunted house, the small town secrets, the cemetery, the vampire hunter team.  Fun stuff.  It also does a neat ‘vampire plague’ spin, being what Dracula wanted to accomplish in London but didn't.

As the story unfolds and the plague of vampires grows, you can see the main characters grapple with reality as they come face to face with pure, legendary evil.  You feel them recoil as one after another, people in the town vanish or, worse, begin to show signs of becoming the latest victims of this plague of evil enveloping their home town.

I thought of that as I reflected on my last discourse with Catholic apologist Dave Armstrong.  I have followed Dave for years.  He did the heavy lifting with Catholic apologetics, often going after unfair or false accusations leveled against the Church.  His was never a blog to read with only two or three minutes to spare.  He would take his time and unpack some pretty hefty issues down to the nitty gritty.  That was more than worth the visits to his website.

For a long time, he also railed against other Catholics who were beginning to draw a line in the sand between good, GOP hating, Francis loving, new pro-life Catholics with stars on their bellies, versus stupid Francis hating Catholics who refuse to get in the progressive line.  More than once he posted long, almost tiresome attempts to reason with these Catholics who gave only one option, and that was to glorify them, the left, Pope Francis, and all that was pure Catholicism 21st Century style or pay the piper. 

Well, that was then.  Below is the discourse I had with him over a post dealing with Vatican II.  The whole of the post is here.  I have posted his end of the article summary, and my response.  My accounts of what happened are in bold, his answers and writings in italics.  The parts with no special font designs were my original posts in his actual comments section:

Brazilian Catholic writer Oliveira Leonardo has decided to start bashing and trashing Vatican II. I defend it and note that his oppositional zeal is utterly misplaced.

To which I responded with this comment:

I don't know, I think the discussion can be had.  I'm not sure the individual in question was claiming 100% of the problems in the Church are Vatican II.  There might be some who think that, but most I've read or listened to don't think that.  In fact, I've heard many not necessarily 'trashing or hashing' Vatican II, but who look at the state of the overall Church and wonder what went right, wrong and downright screwy after Vatican II.  I've heard more than one (including our priest) who clearly supports and celebrates Vatican II, but who also equally admits it was misused and abused by far too many Catholics to simply dismiss the subsequent decades as 'nothing to see here folks.'

I went back to see if there were any responses.  I noticed my comment was missing.  So I posted a question about what happened to it.  Seeing my question appear, I reposted my original comment.  Then I returned a day or so later and saw all of my comments were removed.  So I asked what’s up. And then Dave  answered:

I don't allow anti-Vatican II rhetoric on my pages unless I am in the mood for debating it (as I did in this exchange). Just take it somewhere else. I've had enough of it.

At that point, I responded:

Wait, was that my post? It couldn't have been, since it wasn't 'anti-Vatican II rhetoric' by any stretch of the phrase. All I said was the discussion about Vatican II can be had, and that most I know don't trash Vatican II as much as they try to figure what went wrong in the following decades. Which is true. So where did my comments go? I don't see them. Again, since again my posts were in no way close to 'anti-Vatican II rhetoric' I can't figure where they end up going.

Dave then responded:

That was my decision on my web page. If you don't like it, you can lump it.

With that pleasant little response, I answered thus:

You may do as you wish of course.  I wouldn't advise it since we've seen where others have ended up going with 'I have posted, now agree or be deleted.'  Mark Shea, of course, leaps to mind.  Best not to have comments at all if the only thing commenters are allowed to do is agree.   But again, despite seeing where others have gone with that approach, if that's where you wish to go, it is your blog.

Dave then responded once again:

If you bitch about it one more time, that'll be three strikes and you're out. What you are doing is universally agreed upon as trolling: continuing to strongly disagree on the policy of a site (how someone chooses to run his own pages), when the owner has made his view clear, that it crosses a line. Webmasters are benevolent dictators in their own domains. You don't like that? Get your own site and work for 29 years to build up name recognition, as I have.

You can pretend I am against free speech if you like. I guess that would be why I have 1,000+ dialogues, with my opponents' view (often, their complete article) on display for my readers. It's a standard lie when someone disagrees with me. Feel free to join the crowd there and make a fool of yourself.

I've dealt with THIS stuff for 25 years. St. Paul tells us to separate from contentious people. No one who is ever being contentious and divisive admits that he is.

This is my way of applying his command, while I still occasionally debate the issues, as I did in the OP.

With that, I then answered:

Well, there's not much I can say is there. Though I will say I had no intention of claiming you are against free speech. You might want to dial back the assumptions on that one. I would ask that you wait for me to do something before you begin piling on the problems with me if I do it. My only statement was questioning the wisdom of giving combox commenters no choice but to agree, given the track record of that approach to online discourse. Nonetheless, as you say, it is your blog and you may do with it as you wish. I'll respect your right to do so and drop the subject.

Dave then answered this way:

Wise choice. I just wrote elsewhere:

I have been totally banned for years at reactionary sites like The Remnant and Taylor Marshall's trash site. Peter Kwasniewski used to talk with me a bit. Now I am banned on his site, etc. One Peter Five banned me (under Skojec) when they had comments.

I only ban people who are persistently uncivil and hostile and won't follow my discussion rules: NOT because of what they believe. But I don't allow Vatican II-bashing or pope-bashing.

Certain folks call that "censorship." I call it Catholicism and Catholic unity.

"Best not to have comments at all if the only thing commenters are allowed to do is agree." If this lie from h e l l is NOT claiming I am against free speech on my blog, then we must have totally different brains, logic, and understandings of grammar and sentence meanings.

My final response, and my final comment on Dave’s social media platforms, was this:

With that, I'll leave you to it.

It’s worth noting this was not Dave Armstrong, c. 2006 when I first ran into him.  Or for that matter, it wasn’t him in 2016, ten years later.  It is, it should be pointed out, very similar to the likes of Mark Shea by 2016. 

I was informed it was becoming Dave Armstrong a couple years or so ago.  That was after Dave had a eureka moment, realized Pope Francis was absolutely right about banning the death penalty, came to realize the wonders of Pope Francis, and began banning people who hadn’t seen the light.  

I posted on this phenomenon of Catholics warming up to Pope Francis and growing in their intolerance of those who fail to agree, and how this was part of the war on EWTN waged by Pope Francis and his followers.  Not that those on the left, progressive Catholics or fans of Pope Francis are the only ones who do this.  But it seems an almost universal trait among those who are in those camps.

Because of that, I mentioned Dave was starting to sound strangely Sheaish in his dealings, which is never a good thing.  Dave visited my blog and protested that I had wrongly portrayed his approach to things.  He said this, despite the fact that I was going by people who he had banned for merely disagreeing with Pope Francis.  I accepted his perspective and figured fine, if he’s not going the direction that almost every Catholic who throws in with Pope Francis or progressive leanings seems to go, I’ll concede the point.

But now it’s this.  It’s like the feeling Ben Mears and Susan Norton have in Salem’s Lot as they begin to see more and more of the town show symptoms of being vampires.  As one after another shows the signs – bothered by sunlight, tired, sick feeling, strange dreams – they recoil all the more, for they know where this vermin plague of vampirism goes.

As I watch so many follow Pope Francis and inevitably end up going in the same direction in terms of intolerant behavior and vitriolic treatment of others; as I see so many jump in bed with the emerging Left, who inevitably follow the similar ‘I have spoken, celebrate or be banned’, I get the same feeling.  If it was just vampirism it wouldn't be so bad.  I fear it is much, much worse. 

If Dr. Phil was pope

I can't think of many differences between a letter he would write to an LGBTQ outreach event, and this one from Pope Francis: 

Dear brother,

Thank you for the letter you sent me a few weeks ago, along with the “Outreach 2022” brochure. Congratulations for having been able to make the event happen this year in person.

I am aware that the most valuable thing is not what appears in the brochure or in the photos, but what happened in interpersonal encounters. In fact, the pandemic made us seek alternatives to shorten the distances. It also taught us that certain things are irreplaceable, among them the possibility to look at each other “face to face,” even with those who think differently or those whose differences seem to separate or even confront us. When we overcome these barriers, we realize that there is more that unites us than separates us.

I encourage you all to keep working in the culture of encounter, which shortens the distances and enriches us with differences, in the same manner of Jesus, who made himself close to everyone.

I assure you of my prayers. Don’t stop praying for me. May Jesus bless you and the Blessed Virgin care for you.

Fraternally,

Francis

No mention of anything of religious substance.  Just 'hang in there' levels of pep-poster talk.  Nothing about wanting to help people come closer to God, Christ, a moral life, or anything.  The idea of leaving a sinful lifestyle isn't even worth mentioning.  Where Jesus and Mary and God exist at all, is where they exist in our modern paganism - at best to bless me no matter what I do or want, otherwise stay out of my way. Which is just what one would hear listening to the latest installment of Oprah Winfrey.  

In fact, apart from how he spends his Sundays, I can't really think of anything that makes Pope Francis sound any different than any one of a thousand talking heads, pop psychiatrists, television commentators, and self-help gurus in our modern world.  If there is a bigger problem with a pope, I'm at pains to imagine what it is. 

Pope Francis embraces one of the Left's most important weapons

The weapon of division.  The perpetual 'us vs. them' or 'me vs. you' mentality.  It is part of the anti-Western revolution's primary strategy.  First learn to hate America and the West.  Then learn to hate yourselves.  Finally learn to hate each other. 

I've said many times that I've seldom known a religious figure to spend so much time constantly calling out the sins of 'those believer over there.'  He has practically based his papacy on that. 

More than that, he has encouraged a generation of Catholics to continually thank God, or at least Pope Francis, that they aren't a bunch of rigid reprobates like those Catholics over there.  Almost as if on cue, when Pope Francis blasts some other Catholics, these Francis Catholics will take to the digital world and rejoice that he has once again called out those other sinful slops who are the problem. 

Thus once again, Pope Francis embraces the 'you ladies and them men fight' call of old feminism and tells nuns to fight when treated unfairly by 'men' of the Church.  Not unfairly by the Church.  But specifically 'men' of the Church.  Those dirty, nasty men.  And the world rejoices there's a pope like Pope Francis. 

Group A vs. Group B is key of course.  Today the number of groups who must be at each others' throats is legion, for they are many.  Pope Francis either misses this fact, or rejoices in it.  And always knowing, apparently, that wherever the groups fall, he will always be among the groups with a star on their bellies. I wager this because he so seldom bothers with the first person plural in his appraisal of the Church's problems, but almost always uses the third person plural. 

Pope Francis asks believers to take off the armor of God

Yep. In even more Pope Francis news.  Read it here. 

Put on the full armor of God, so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.

Pope Francis apparently approves this modification to Scripture. 

I've never seen in my lifetime a prominent religious leader like Pope Francis.  His entire pontificate seems wrapped in the call to do as he says, not as he does.  As one writer said, he loves nothing more than telling us not to apply adjectives to people like those rigid believers over there. And for a pope made famous by his catchphrase 'who am I to judge', he sure spends a monster crap ton of his time judging.  

He judges - but not the sins of the Left.  When he condemns the sins of the Left, he never judges the sinners.  He's made it clear that while abortion might be murdering babies and homosexuality incompatible with marriage, he nonetheless would consider you a faithful Catholic if you advocate and indulge in both.  Not so for those who choose to serve and love Jesus in the context of the Latin Mass.  It's for believers who don't see an easy alliance between leftwing and Marxist politics and the Faith who Pope Francis reserves his fiery judgmentalism. 

Of course the biggest and best thing Pope Francis has taught his flock is to thank God they aren't like those believers over there, clinging to the Truth.  The not-Francis type of Catholics.  

One of the most common responses to Pope Francis's latest rants is Catholics rejoicing that Pope Francis has unloaded yet again on those other Catholics over there.  Take this example. Note well, Mark doesn't seem to stop for even a nanosecond and wonder if Pope Francis is talking about him.  According to the Reuters piece, Pope Francis mentions nobody by name, but like so many Catholics in the Francis era, Mark knows exactly who Pope Francis is challenging, and it ain't him.  Nope.  It's all those rigid Not-Mark Catholics.  The group Pope Francis has taught Catholics, and the world, to condemn and judge with impunity. 

Because it isn't only Catholics who know Pope Francis is always talking about those other Catholics over there.  The press knows it.  Note the Reuters story.  It knows exactly who Pope Francis is condemning.  The press knows it's people serious about their faith who Pope Francis seems to judge and condemn, while it's those who wallow in death, slaughter for sex and drug, hedonism and secularism that he loves.  As long as they align with politics. And the press, as well as modern godless paganism in general, absolutely approve of this Pope Francis message. 

Somewhere Pope Francis seems to have forgotten the punch line of one of liberalism's favorite passages:

Truly I tell you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are going into the kingdom of God ahead of you. For John came to you in the way of righteousness and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes believed him; and even after you saw it, you did not change your minds and believe him.

Note well, they get into the kingdom of God because they believed.  They don't get into heaven because they are tax collectors and sinners.   The Pharisees and scribes miss out because they impose their religion on others, but fail to live the heart of the law themselves.  Like labeling people and then accusing people of labeling people, they have a religion built for their convenience but burdensome for others.  Imagining themselves above it all, they condemned those sinners over there but failed to repent themselves. 

But the sinners don't just get to heaven because they're sinners.  It's because they meet Jesus (or before Him, John the Baptist), and believe.  I'd like to see the numbers for Pope Francis.  How is he doing actually getting people to convert ot the Gospel and believe?   Or does he even think that's important?  That's a question I've asked, and I see no clear answer other than he doesn't, as long as I conform to his politics and align with various leftwing agendas and narratives.  

And that's not a Catholicism worth caring about.  I could get that belonging to the latest leftwing political action committee. Plus, I'd have Sundays off and could sleep in. 

Pope Francis is more political activist than pope

Though he's hardly alone in that.  It's just Catholicism, unlike Protestantism, has a few restrictions that make simply tossing out an old teaching you no longer like a bit difficult.  And therein lies the tension I think.

Pope Francis uncritically takes leftwing talking points and narratives at face value.  He just does.  On those rarest of occasions where he calls out a leftwing sin - say homosexuality or abortion - he's ever so careful to make sure he only condemns the sin, not the sinner.  And then, to hedge the bet, he also makes it clear it doesn't really matter if you endorse or engage in these sins.  Not optimal perhaps, but certainly not a deal breaker. All one big, happy family.  The important thing is that you accept at face value, as he accepts at face value, an endless string of leftwing narratives, platforms and agendas: global warming, immigration, gun control, systemic racism, the latest Covid-19 solutions, and on and on.

His wrath is forever aimed at faithful Catholics who believe that Catholicism is somehow uniquely important.  What's worse, they believe its teachings are really non-negotiable.  Or they attend the Latin Mass, which seems to bother Pope Francis more than Larry Flynt bothered Jerry Falwell.  And if you question these various leftwing narratives or agendas, he comes down on you like white on rice.  Not only does he condemn your position, but he's not adverse to hyper-politicized rhetoric, and even some select judgementalism aimed at your motives and inner thoughts. 

Sorry, but that's as useful to Catholicism, or even authentic Christianity, in the modern world as an accordion is for deer hunting.  The fact that the majority of Catholics no longer believe entire reams of Catholic teaching doesn't seem to bother him.  In fact, what appears to bother him is that there are Catholics who care that the majority of Catholics no longer believe in Catholic teaching.  And Catholics who jettison Church morals for some abortion, sex, drugs and hedonism?  Again, it doesn't seem to bother him.  If confronted, that's when we learn how little he wants to judge anyone. 

Sometimes it's like Ohio State's football team letting Michigan's coach coach us in the big game.  I don't think Pope Francis cares if I, or anyone really, is necessarily Catholic.   If we are and agree with his politics as first priority, that's fine. Maybe even the best.  But he's made it clear by his rhetoric and his priorities that he'd rather you reject God altogether and never grace the doors of a Church as long as you agree with him on his political stances.   Hate to say it so bluntly, but I have as difficult a time seeing Pope Francis as a religious leader as I do seeing late night activists as comedians. 

Time to be honest

 

Some years ago, I posted this post, in which I mused on this strange phenomenon that is Pope Francis. Given the events of the last week, I see no reason to take that back.  It appears being a Catholic faithful to actual Church teaching is entirely up for grabs.  Nice if you do, if you don't, eh.  But standing in the way of particular political and socio-economic narratives and policies regarding issues like economic injustice, global warming, immigration reform and racial justice will get the hammer dropped on you every time.   Therefore I was right.  There is no need to change Church teaching if you've made fealty to Church teaching part of the optional rules for being Catholic. 

Understanding 21st Century Catholicism in two easy images

Potentially good Catholics:

Most likely really bad Catholics:

Learn it, repeat it, remember it.  This is what will or won't make you a good Catholic for the foreseeable future.  At least in the eyes of some. 

After all, we have it on the highest of authorities that this is the new standard for all Catholics who would live life enthusiastically, which is what God apparently really wants (bonus 3rd Image):

Babylon was a gold cup in the hand of the LORD, making the whole earth drunk.  The nations drank her wine; therefore the nations have gone mad.   Jeremiah 51.7