Saturday, August 4, 2018

Trads/Conservatives Become The Ultimate Cafeteria Catholics

Just as I wrote a couple of days ago, the Catholic(?) Internet and blogosphere has lit up with indignation and outrage at Pope Francis for changing Church teaching to say that capital punishment is always inadmissible.  All of this self righteous indignation really blows my mind.  These are people who call themselves followers of Jesus Christ - the Creator who came to earth to save each and every human being, no matter how sinful, from eternal damnation and who did so by paying the highest price possible in the entirety of the universe, which price was His Precious Blood.  These so-called followers of Jesus Christ are overcome with outrage against Pope Francis because he doesn't want to kill people, but instead wants to give them every chance at repentance and salvation.

I honestly don't understand how a person can call him or herself a Christian and at the same time, want to kill people. Ah, you say, we are talking about wicked violent people who pose a threat to society. They are a threat to each and every one of us and don't deserve to live! And yet, these would be the very people that Our Lord would most want to reach. As Our Lord told us, He did not come to save the righteous but sinners. Undeterred by this clear statement from Jesus Christ, the trad/conservative blogosphere wants the right to put people to death.

Yes, as has been explained by the Vatican, there was a time when it was necessary to defend society against those who meant it harm. But we live in a very different age now. We have very powerful governments with strict control over us. In some ways that is good and in some ways not. But certainly governments are much more in control of those who transgress their laws. We don't need to kill people to protect the rest of society. Any state killing now is little more than an act of vengence.

Now we can actually concentrate on helping people turn their lives around if they so wish. This is the great vision of Pope Francis, Pope Benedict XVI and Pope St. John Paul II.

The underlying argument in all of those who oppose Pope Francis is that of mercy versus judgment. People hate Pope Francis because he dared to say that it is not up to him to judge gay people. Pope Francis says that we must show mercy and compassion to the divorced and remarried. He has even reached out to others outside the Catholic Church. This heretic pope actually washed the feet of Muslims and other non believers, including women!

And now Pope Francis is showing mercy to the most hated group in society - convicted murderers, and by doing so, in the opinion of his enemies, he has put all of us at risk by allowing these heinous people to live. And he has gone against the traditional teaching of the Church, thus invalidating everything he says.

To further get around this teaching by Pope Francis, these so-called Catholics are now saying that we are not necessarily bound by the teachings of the Catholic Catechism! Father John Zuhlsdorf, whom I maintain is dangerous to the faithful, has actually written the following in response to Pope Francis:
So, if you say “I reject the content of the CCC” you reject the Catholic Faith in its entirely: it is comprehensive. If you say that you reject a doctrine in the CCC which is at the very core of the Catholic Faith, such as the Trinity or the Incarnation or the Resurrection, you reject the Catholic Faith: you cannot believe as a Catholic if you reject the Trinity. If you reject some highly controverted teaching that involves moral contingencies, such as the just war teaching of the Church or such as capital punishment, you do not reject the whole of the Catholic Faith, for the Faith doesn’t depend on those murky issues.
Zuhlsdorf also hints in this outrageous post that one of the reasons for making this change at this time is to push Cardinal McCarrick out of the headlines, despite the fact that Pope Francis has been vocal in his opposition to the death penalty for his entire pontificate.  And of course we will also ignore the fact that Pope Francis announced this change in 2017 and only now made it official.  Zuhlsdorf has the unmitigated gall of accusing Pope Francis of being political and not caring at all about extending the mercy and compassion of Jesus Christ when it is actually he, Zuhlsdorf, who seems to care nothing for others.  I truly fear for the soul of John Zuhlsdorf.

Another reason given for rejecting Pope Francis is that this teaching is not ex cathedra.  Well, if we are going to get technical, these have only been two times in the entire history of the Catholic Church when Popes have spoken ex cathedra, and that was the pronouncement of the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary.  So yes, technically, Pope Francis has not spoken ex cathedra.  But if you go by the technical definition of ex cathedra, no Pope in Church history has ever spoken ex cathedra in regard to the death penalty or any other issue.

But Pope Francis has definitely spoken with the full authority of the Papal office.  This was not said in an interview or a sermon or any other "informal" setting.  This was done officially and the change has been made to the official teaching of the Church.  We as Catholics are obligated to accept this teaching or we are in opposition to the Church.

If we can reject this teaching, then others who have rejected Humane Vitae are free to reject Church teaching on artificial contraception.  And the list can go on and on.  Rejecting this teaching on capital punishment opens the door to those who reject Church teaching on contraception, abortion, women priests, etc.

Canon law makes it clear that all of these magesterial teachings are binding on the faithful.

Canon 747, paragraph 2 says:
It belongs to the Church always and everywhere to announce moral principles, even about the social order, and to render judgment concerning any human affairs insofar as the fundamental rights of the human person or the salvation of souls requires it.
Canon 750, paragraph 2 says;
Each and every thing which is proposed definitively by the magisterium of the Church concerning the doctrine of faith and morals, that is, each and every thing which is required to safeguard reverently and to expound faithfully the same deposit of faith, is also to be firmly embraced and retained; therefore, one who rejects those propositions which are to be held definitively is opposed to the doctrine of the Catholic Church.
Canon 751:
Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.
According to the above definition, those who oppose Pope Francis are heretics and in schism.  This is clear and unambiguous and no small matter.  

Those who oppose Pope Francis need to do some deep, introspective thinking and ask themselves, why do I believe it is right and good to kill another human being? Is this really the reason Jesus died, so that we can make prudential judgments about whether someone else lives or dies?

I truly believe that the Internet is one of the most spiritually dangerous places on earth for Christians. The Internet is Satan's playground. It is Satan's recruitment office. It is, in far too many ways, a straight path to hell. We can expect this from secular forces.  But much of what calls itself Catholic is actually far more dangerous, because as St. Paul warned us, they appear as angels of light, but are really ravenous wolves seeking to devour the sheep, and seem to be succeeding in an alarming numbers.  

Read Scripture.  Read the saints.  Listen to the Church.  Spend time in adoration.  The Internet has no authority whatsoever.  Do not base your faith on what you read on the Internet.  

And don't forget to pray, pray, pray.


  1. I have to wonder if the time has come to bring this Zulsdorf and the things he's saying to Molino. Over the last couple of years he's run amok. Recently this so called"Holy priest when responding to a question about how Mac Carrick would be addressed ge said to give him the finger. He is a major cafeteria Catholic. I personally am getting tired of the conservative converts thinking they are going to set things right. Most were not even around before the council but seem to know all about the precouncil church.

    1. I don”t think that Molina is not his bishop. Zuhlsdiorf is incardinated, I believe, in Velletri-Segni in Italy. That may have changed. I have thought about contacting his bishop as well, but they have to be aware of what he is doing. He never gets a reprimand from anyone, so I guess the powers that be think he is good for business.

    2. I looked up Zuhlsdorf’s comment about McCarrick. This is truly disgusting coming from a Catholic priest. As I have written, he is a danger to the faithful.

      “Anyway, how to address former Cardinal McCarrick….. How to address… him.

      It sure as hell ain’t “Cardinal Emeritus”. There’s nothing merited in that one.

      How to address … McCarrick….

      Lemme see.

      How about… “Hey, you!”

      Perhaps with a jab of the finger. Rather… a finger. A finger-jab.

      If you are from S. Philly, S. Boston, or S. Bronx you might try a fervent, “Hey, a******!” See also finger comment, above.

      There is also, I believe, a special greeting sound called the Raspberry (aka Bronx Cheer). That might work. If it’s good enough for the Fishwrap, after all, its good enough for him.

      If you are from more reticent places, such as Minnesota or Wisconsin, “Ummm, excuse me…?”, might be widely understood, though – as I think about it – also not merited.

      For me, however, the best bet would be not to address him at all. Perhaps a cold and still stare? People who know me well, well know the stare I’m talking about.

      Unless it is in the confessional. Then I would have a few more things to say. And, thanks be to God, I’d be behind a grate… for his sake.

      In any event, did you know that the index finger was called in Latin by our ancient forebears the digitus salutaris? The Salutary Finger? Salute Finger? Ancient Romans held up their index fingers when greeting people. I believe that in modern usage, at least on roadways, a different finger is more commonly employed.

      I’d recommend a return to the use of the digitus salutaris, at least among frequenters of the Traditional Latin Mass. Be sure that your visitors don’t mistake what is being done.”

  2. As a Wisconsinite, I'm worried about the state of the Church in Madison (Zulsdorf is the standout symptom of that problem) likes to stay separate from the general public (which is mostly EXTREMELY liberal) and doesn't reach out as our Holy Father wants the Church to. (As Jeff Cavins has pointed out in the case of the Pharisees, they're essentially bragging about being grounded)

    I hope Francis stays Pope long enough to name Bishop Morlino's successor...

    1. People like Father Zuhlsdorf are not interested in reaching out to the public. They are convinced of their own righteousness and look at others as beneath them. That attitude can be clearly seen in Zuhlsdorf’s comments about Cardinal McCarrick. He doesn’t want to see McCarrick repent. Zuhlsdorf just want to sit in judgment and condemnation. It makes him feel good. Zuhlsdorf and his followers are their own church. Pray for him and those who look up to him. They need to somehow find their way back to the Catholic Church.

  3. I am glad I found your blog, it has been truly disturbing to listen to EWTN news commentators and hear them making not so subtle jabs at the Pope and putting their own interpretation of events and teaching up as superior to that of the Pope and the church authorities. They are trying to make God and the church as small as they are, so they can remake it in their own image.

    1. It is very disconcerting and very sad. I use to be almost an EWTN junkie. It was instrumental in my return to the Church. But I cannot deny what is happening with that organization

  4. Personally speaking I am 100% opposed the death penalty in all cases here in the U.S. because we have the facilities to keep criminals locked up for life.

    Other countries do not- to allow a serial killer to go free because they have no prison system is a huge threat to that country. (this point was made on EWTN and I agree with it).

    My problem with the pope changing the catechism is what else will he change? Holy Communion for non-Catholics? Oh yeah, he already did that. So what next? Gay marriage? Birth control?

    Where does it stop? What is next? That is what I want to know.

    1. Julie, just to let you know. Pope Francis has not allowed communion for non Catholics.

    2. You are correct, what I meant to say was he is allowing adulterers in mortal sin to have Holy Communion, thus damning them to Hell if they don't repent before death.


  5. "We" (get that) "have the resources ... "

    Yeah but the "we" in question [the polity] is not the Catholic Church and does not exist for the benefit or by the leave of Pope Francis. And as his judgment has been shown to be lacking in so many respects, and his prejudices so deep, it is difficult to take what the man has to say about prudence seriously ... especially when it flies in the face of centuries of opposed tradition. He just makes it up as he goes along.

    One wonders if there would be anything that he might say or do - including the 'rehabilitation and inclusion' of Lucifer 'based on new understandings brought to us by psychology and the Gospel call to inclusion and compassion', that would give you pause.

    I've tried to give your commentary a fair reading over time. But you just become more and more an example of where masochistic fideism leads. It leads to self-contradiction, to a socially insupportable dead end, to institutions undermined by vicious nesting perverts, and to apologists like yourself mumbling to themselves.

    And who's to blame? Those who are too learned are to blame, you say. Or those who are too virtuous, or too competent, or too judgmental, or simply too morally and physically revolted by the greasy manner, and sulfurous smell of these unrepentant child rapists who you insinuate to be those weak who will inaugurate the kingdom. What kingdom, could that possibly be?

    When obvious masochists start jabbering in terms of "we", well, it's time to find a new "we". Nothing like the incongruity of listening to a weak enabler talk about "our" need to do this or that in order to correct a mess which their social ideology has largely brought about.

    Catholic in Brooklyn: I don't think you could protect your own kids, or even would if their lives depended on it; if it came to a choice between that, and gratifying your neuroses.

    1. It must be difficult to be so right when everyone else is wrong, especially when the earthly leader of your Church is wrong. You carry a heavy burden.

    2. Not everyone and not so burdensome, as I have 2,000 years of Catholic tradition, Scripture, popes of unquestioned orthodoxy, and right reason to bear most of it.

      Popes come and go. As American progressives have found to their chagrin, the sword that slices away the tradition of stare decisis, cuts both ways, depending on who captures it. And the dictates of one legislator privileged to innovate, can be erased or revised in light of a ... more complete understanding ... by another.

      Thus, the politically inspired maneuvers of a vengeful Peronista with a chip on his shoulder because he hails from a failed and corrupt polity, are less weighty than they are a sad spectacle for the Church. Apparently "catching the wave" worked no better for the Church when Francis was enthroned, than it did when Obama was ensconced in the White House.

      Since Francis is apparently impotent with regard to ending the homosexual abomination of desolation practiced before the sacred tabernacles, and within his own Vatican, he feels he can at least distract and jibe; especially the Yankee who he resentfully relies upon to keep up that broader global civil order upon which he depends.

      You write:

      "This teaching is now binding on all Catholics. It is directly from the Chair of Peter and cannot be challenged by any Catholic. To do so is to put any such Catholic in direct opposition to the Church's teaching.

      I am personally thrilled about this change ...

      Any Catholic who challenges Pope Francis on this teaching should immediately be dismissed as a heretic. We will truly see, without any doubt, who is a loyal Catholic and who is not..."

      ... And yet the Band of sexually perverted brothers plays on and on while Francis does nothing truly effective. That tells one all that one really needs to know about the destination to which your admittedly tortuous journey has led you.

    3. As I wrote above, being so right when everyone else is so wrong is a heavy burden. You must be a very strong person.

    4. It's just part of being a rational animal, and thereby, a man. But don't feel I'm particularly burdened. After all Francis' writ doesn't run here, and he seems to himself be at odds with two recorded millennia worth of his predecessors in seizen in "a faith the same today, tomorrow, and forever"

      Thus your enthusiasm is not likely to reach precisely the prosecutorial climax you seem to seek. But who knows: given half a chance Francis may set up an inquisition-lite to root out counter revolutionaries and wreckers.

      That should cement his reputation nicely.

  6. What he said:

    1. I actually use to listen to Prager on a regular basis, and agree with much of what he said. Now I disagree with him on almost everything political. As far as religion is concerned, he is Jewish, not Catholic or Christian. I certainly don’t put any merit in his theological opinions.


Related Posts  0