Tuesday, July 28, 2015

Cecil the Lion - Killed by a Minnesota Dentist.

I think dentists maybe make too much money.

Cecil the lion – the most famous creature in one of Zimbabwe's national parks – was killed by an American hunter who has boasted about shooting a menagerie of animals with his bow and arrow, The Telegraph can reveal.
Walter James Palmer, a dentist from Minnesota, is believed to have paid £35,000 to shoot and kill the much-loved lion with a bow and arrow. The animal was shot on July 1 in Hwange National Park. Two independent sources have confirmed the hunter's identity to the paper, which has also seen a copy of the relevant hunting permit. - Finish reading here. - Telegraph

The lion was lured out of the park and shot with a bow and arrow.  Rich people spend a ton of money to have these hunts set up.  The hunter doesn't risk much - the hunt is unfair to begin with - and unnecessary killing at that.  Of course Palmer did not know the lion was a park animal and protected...  even after the kill?  Who knows?  What a wicked thing to do.

It's wrong.

Big man Palmer with leopard.

Something else from Dorothy Day: On the practice of 'unnatural sex'.

Before the corruption of minors became curriculum.

Before 'they' started teaching in schools that same sex attraction and gender dysphoria is 'natural', Dorothy Day and most anyone born before 1960 hardly knew anything about such things until at least high school.  (And if they did know, it wasn't discussed.)  In those days 'queer' actually meant queer - that is, strange, unusual, a deviation from what is normal, and so on.  Today, kids learn about this stuff in pre-school, therefore, it's interesting to read Dorothy Day's thoughts on 'unnatural sex' and her reaction to it.  She never considered her attraction to girls she admired to be queer at all - because her attraction was not sexual or romantic or possessive.

Duty of Delight - The Seventies

September 9
I awoke with a heavy sense of a problem nagging at my heart.  It is early morning - just light.  Having prayed briefly and pondered long, I must write now.  I must try to be brief.  St. Paul, who wrote so beautifully, so warmly of love, said 'Let these things be not so much as mentioned angst you,' so great was his repugnance to homosexuality and lesbianism, unnatural sex.  And now - in this perverse generation, it is proclaimed from the housetops.
I must set down my own insights which came to me after prayer.  I only go into this because two of our friends have now written and spoken to me of their acceptance of lesbianism.  Whether this means they are 'practicing it' I do not know.
I am always being confronted in mind and conscience with these words of Christ, 'Do not judge.'  And also these words of Paul, 'Let not these things even be mentioned among you.'
But this practice of 'unnatural sex' is now being 'proclaimed from the housetops' in America.  (Maybe I exaggerate.) Because my heart is troubled.  Why do I have to deal with it, write about it at all?  It's been among us before - and judged with horror and coldness by some in the CW movement and with faithful friendship which endured till death by many others.  One of the latter brought to my attention a treatise on friendship written by St. Aelred centuries ago.
How wide and beautiful is our understanding of the word love - love of children, love of one's brethren, and how it warms and strengthen the heart ... Even in so-called 'natural love' it must be controlled and, if not enlightened by grace, can become a 'delectation in temptation.'
I am sure we all know enough of love to know that first thrill of adolescence when we can exultantly say, 'I have a friend, a bosom friend,' the phrase used to be.
The sun shone brighter, unexpected beauty appeared all around us in all our relationships, in fact, we were in a way in love. -Duty of Delight

Friendship, 'hero-worship', bosom buddies - normal.

I want to stop right there.  Day goes on to describe her feeling for a girl in school - her admiration and fondness for her - though she didn't know her.  What was missing in her account was any notion of lust or desire, any inclination to possessiveness or control, much less envy.  She admired the girl's beauty and intelligence and her example propelled her, inspired her to emulate the ideal the fellow student represented to her.  Dorothy states, "I worked harder at my studies.  She was in a way, a model to me."  This is pure 'same sex attraction' if you will - uncorrupted.  A 'school-girl crush'.  Later she falls for a boy, a handsome football player, and she was physically attracted to him.

Dorothy writes of another attraction, after her conversion.  She was taken with a young woman - attracted to her piety and stately beauty and grace - her example inspired in Dorothy greater devotion to Our Lady.

These examples point to the right ordering of friendship - especially same sex friendship - her examples give us an insight into what disinterested friendship means.  I find it odd we even have to define the term, disinterested - yet that is how screwed up everything has gotten to be.

Continuing her discussion about the lesbians who confided in her their love for one another - a situation which clearly troubled Dorothy's conscience, I will conclude with what amounts to her conclusion on the matter - though she kept it to herself:

I do not narrow that important command of Christ ('not to judge') down to small meanings.
One must judge what is right and wrong and if one considers oneself of the Judeo-Christian faith, one must remember that admonitions in both Old and New Testaments about unbridled sex, practiced today in every form and fashion ... 
... one must be grateful for the state of 'in-love-ness' ... It is this glimpse of Holy Wisdom, Santa Sophia, which makes celibacy possible, which transcends human love.  Oh if only we could grow in faith, hope and love, and the greatest of these virtues is love. 
- The Duty of Delight, The Seventies, September 9, 1975

That's what she said.

One of the reasons I want to write is not only to get the help for myself which comes of writing about such things, also to try more and more to see them in the light of faith. - Dorothy Day

It's interesting - I took that quote from Day's diary, The Duty of Delight - The Sixties.  At that time, the most common difficulty priests encountered were related to alcoholism.  In the same entry, immediately following the above quote, Dorothy Day describes the 'fallen' priest:
''When I think of this or that alcoholic priest, so fallen from so high estate, so filled with self-justification, so well dressed, well-fed, driving the latest model car, enjoying all the luxuries and comforts of a modern rectory, in a wealthy suburb ... I can only forgive him for his banal talk and most boring presence by suddenly seeing him as a victim soul."
I know!  Is she nuts?  A victim soul?  She continues:
"I'm sorry to use these old fashioned expressions but I do not know how else to speak of it.  He is suffering for the vast accumulation of self indulgence and luxury of the priests and lay people who 'can take it' and don't let it drag them down.  Whenever I see or hear of these well-stocked bars, I cannot help thinking of the cost of liquor and tobacco, and remember Fred on Skid Row, too much the thieving drunk, the brawling drunk to have in the house.  Another victim." - Dorothy Day, February 3
That's why she's considered a candidate for sainthood, I guess.  

Monday, July 27, 2015

This is providential: The Forgotten Vice in Seminary Formation

An essay written by Fr. James Mason, Rector and President of Kenrick-Glennon Seminary.

Fr. Mason speaks of the vice of effeminacy:
St. Thomas includes effeminacy under the vices opposed to perseverance. It is from the Latin mollities, which literally means “softness.” Mollities is the verb used in 1 Corinthians 6:9 which deals with the sexual sin of sodomy. It involves being inordinately passive or receptive. What St. Thomas means by persevering is when “a man does not forsake a good on account of long endurance or difficulties and toils.” An “effeminate man is one who withdraws from good on account of sorrows caused by lack of pleasures, yielding as it were to a weak motion.” Thomas states that this effeminacy is caused in two ways. First, by custom, where a man is accustomed to enjoy pleasures and it is, therefore, more difficult for him to endure the lack of them. Second, by natural disposition, less persevering through frailty of temperament, and this is where Thomas compares men with women, and also mentions the homosexual act of sodomy, and the receiver in this act as being effeminate or like a woman. The vice of delicacy for Thomas considers those who cannot endure toils, or anything that diminishes pleasure, and thus delicacy is a kind of effeminacy. Thomas quotes from Deuteronomy 28:56, “The tender and delicate woman, that could not go upon the ground, nor set down her foot for softness.” It may be true that some cultural prejudices are being revealed here with this comparison because a vice is a vice, whether it is found in a man or a woman, but it is also true that some vices are more perverse or disordered when found specifically in men or women. Effeminacy is more pronounced in a man than a woman because women are more susceptible to this vice. Just as the vice of drunkenness is more pronounced or perverse when found in a woman than a man. - Homiletic and Pastoral Review

I'm not going to write another essay on the subject - I've written too much as it is, but it strikes me as fortuitous to come across this article, from a discerning priest/rector of a seminary who is very much aware of these issues.  I highly recommend reading the entire article here.


Fr. Mason addresses modesty for the seminarians, but he isn't regulating it to bathrobes.  He's discussing the deeper understanding of modesty.

St. Thomas also speaks on modesty concerning the outward movements of the body. Here, he quotes Saint Ambrose in stating that, “Beauty of conduct consists in becoming behavior towards others, according to their sex and person.” Thomas states that, “Outward movements are a sign of the inward disposition” and quotes Ecclesiastics 19:29-30, “You can tell a person by his appearance … the way a person dresses, the way he laughs, the way he walks, tell you what he is.” St. Ambrose adds that, “The habit of mind is seen in the gesture of the body,” and that “the body’s movement is an index of the soul.” Ambrose goes on to say, “Let nature guide the movement: if nature fail in any respect, surely effort will supply the defect.” This effort is lacking in most seminary formation. Such things should be noticed and discussed by seminary faculty in both external and internal formation, as they can often be signs of deeper issues.
St. Thomas, moreover, asserts the truth that it is often from our outward movements that other men form their judgment about us. Thomas encourages us to study our outward movements so that if they are inordinate in any way, they may be corrected. Such things need to be addressed in formation because they have a definite effect on our ability to be, and to bring, Christ to others. Does the seminary deal with a seminarian that sways when he walks, who has limp wrists, who acts like a drama queen, or who lisps? It must. This is not about a witch hunt, but about being honest enough to admit that such external behavior affects our ability to share Christ. I knew a seminarian that spoke in a very effeminate manner, and to his credit he recognized this impediment to his future preaching the Gospel, and on his own sought help from a speech instructor. However, the seminary did not see this glaring problem, nor move this man to get assistance. That is the problem.
St. Thomas also speaks on modesty of outward apparel. Moderation, of course, is the rule; and here he warns that the lack of moderation may arise from an inordinate attachment to clothes, with the result being that a man sometimes takes too much pleasure in them. In describing a friend as a “man’s man,” G. K. Chesterton said it best when he stated, “He was not in any case a dandy; but insofar as he did dress well, he was totally indifferent to how other men who were his friends might dress, which is another mark of purely masculine companionship.” The three guiding virtues in dress are humility, contentment, and simplicity. Here, one must always consider the appropriateness of a situation, and the personal motivation behind wearing certain apparel. This is not a new problem, as St. John Chrysostom addressed it in the fourth century in his writing on The Learning of Temperance, when he speaks of the folly of over-adorning oneself with jewels. - Fr. Mason
 One more excerpt - what can be done?
The question, then, is what can be done in helping form and ordain more manly priests? First, seminaries and bishops must recognize effeminacy as a formation issue. In choosing faculty to teach and form our future priests, the question must be asked: Does the candidate exhibit manly or effeminate qualities? Also, bishops need to realize that just because a priest requests an assignment, this does not automatically make him the right man for the job. This is especially true if the priest desires to work in liturgy, campus ministry, teaching, or seminary work where a manly model of priesthood is most needed and, unfortunately, often most often missing. Bishops need to take an active role in knowing and forming their priestly candidates. It is, perhaps, not only his most important decision, but also the decision for which he will be held most accountable. Bishop Carlson is one of the few, if not only, bishops in our country who has every seminarian live at least a summer in his residence. He knows the men he will ordain. He recounts a story of a seminarian he inherited who had already been through five years of formation, and was extremely effeminate. In working with this seminarian, he asked him about his sexual orientation. The seminarian responded he did not know. At that time, he was two years away from being ordained, and neither the rector, nor seminary faculty, saw this as a problem. This is the problem. - Fr. Mason
Archbishop and mentor.

Fr. Mason mentions Archbishop Carlson.  Archbishop Carlson is a bishop who smells like his sheep.  It's my understanding, when he was here as auxiliary, he pretty much formed the diocesan fraternity of priests known as The Companions of Christ in the archdiocese of St. Paul - Minneapolis.  This community of priests is awesome - the priests are men  close to their sheep, solid in their faith, faithful to the discipline of the Church.  They pretty much embody the ideal Fr. Mason promotes in his essay.  One of these guys is the new pastor at my parish.  I can't say enough good about him.

Pray for seminarians, priests and bishops.  A priest models Christ and ministers in his name.  Christ became man and dwells among us.  Men and women need priests to be men - who can correctly relate to us - no matter our weakness.

H/T: D

Catholic Churches Closing in NYC, Our Saviour Catholic Church Sacked by New Pastor ...

Sunday, July 26, 2015

Obama in Kenya: Ambassador for the "ideological colonization" of African family life - American-style.

Obama clashes with Kenyan president over gay rights.
Barack Obama says “bad things happen” when countries don’t accept their citizens’ right to be homosexual ... - Source
Perhaps, after this visit to his homeland, the President would be kind enough to visit ISIS-held territories and encourage them to accept the rights of citizens in those counties to be Christian, and live in freedom from Islamic oppression?   Maybe he could stop by Saudi Arabia and school them while he's in the region.

Why I think gay men are not a good fit for the seminary or priesthood.

A sweeping generalization and more.

The reason gay men are not a good fit is that underlying the same sex attraction and desire is envy, ambition, the need to control and direct and manage - to subjugate the other - to be the alpha/dominant male - to conquer.  The opposite characteristic seeks and craves protection and affection - to be esteemed.  As regards women - there is often an underlying misogyny - fear and hatred of women.  The woman is adopted as a fag hag, confidant, girl-friend, a housekeeper or favorite parish worker.  Generally, women are scorned - especially wives and mothers - ordinary women.  One author calls it, "'queer sexism'—a veiled form of patriarchy that privileges gay men’s ideas of how women should behave and based off how gay men experience oppression."

Likewise, gay men flock together, form cliques, and favor other gay men or those they are attracted to.  Gay men easily convince themselves of this or that attribute or virtue and good intention.  Gay men are especially susceptible to flattery and praise - in fact, they frequently crave some form of approval and preferential treatment.  They easily complain of discrimination or bullying when they don't get the attention, or credit, they believe they deserve.  The reformed gay man, especially seeks approval and congratulations for choosing to be faithful to Catholic teaching.  Gay men are inclined to narcissism and self promotion, which is fueled by an insatiable appetite for affirmation and praise.  Gay clericalism is one of the most insipid examples.

[I told you I would rely on sweeping generalizations.]

Michael Voris was not wrong when he called out an American seminary, questioning the reasoning behind calling for some accommodation for same sex attracted/gay seminarians tempted by the sight of classmates in the state of moderate undress, coming and going from the shower.  He wasn't wrong in questioning the matter.

I was at the grocery store last evening - two young men waited upon me - one did the check out, the other bagged and did the carry-out. High school students. Handsome, well behaved, educated - extremely polite. One looked like an English actor, the other a Polo model.  I left praying so much for them - praying they would never fall into mortal sin, nor ever be the prey of homosexual flattery. I thought of their parents, who would certainly never want their son in a seminary, exposed to a voyeur attempting to become a priest - or indeed, exposed to a priest who would caution them not to be an occasion of sin to another boy. How absurd that entire notion is to normal people. Gay people, and obviously priests, have no idea what an affront this is to the family - to the integrity of a normal young man. They have no idea how corrupting they are.  They have no idea how they are cooperating in normalizing homosexual relations, homosexual lifestyle.

There is more I could say...  I'll leave it at that.

I just want to appeal to spiritual directors and seminary formators - be more selective.  Don't buy into the current theories and research - or therapy to rehab the candidate or novice.

Likewise, be careful how you interpret the following:

“Different, however, would be the case in which one were dealing with homosexual tendencies that were only the expression of a transitory problem – for example, that of an adolescence not yet superseded. " - Instruction Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations with regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies in view of their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders

I say that because the transient problem may have applied to prep-school seminarians, or even some kid just out of little high school on the prairie, but when it comes to college age men - same sex attraction - homosexual inclination - is already pretty much ingrained.  If a seminarian is an adult - with a gay history - it's fairly 'deep seated'.  The more sexual experience, the more fixed.  The experience of a man in his 20's or older is normally not an expression of a transitory nature.

If a priest is gay - he needs to get out of formation.  Why?  Because, "Such persons, in fact, find themselves in a situation that gravely hinders them from relating correctly to men and women."  That applies to seminarians as well.

BTW - the corruption of minors is a crime.
Recently the Archbishop and Auxiliary Bishop, as well as a couple of other priests in chancery positions in the Archdiocese of MPLS/StPaul resigned over sex scandals - especially one involving a gay priest.
When this priest was a seminary candidate, and in a diocesan community, he was corrected for cruising. Later he was called out for other homosexual behaviors. Nevertheless, he was ordained and then was promoted, given a parish; this despite all the warnings. He had sex with boys in a trailer he kept in the parish parking lot. He also tried to pick up teen boys in a book store. The priest is in prison. 
The Archdiocese filed bankruptcy and is selling off some of its prime real estate. The priest in question is not a pedophile - he's gay. Gay is as gay does. Call it same sex attraction - it's gay when it acts out. Keep the terminology up to date - lest the meaning is obscured. Seminary rectors can call it same sex attraction for the sake of decorum - but when it goes to court, even Archbishops can't cover-up the fact it's gay.  - Former priest, Curtis Carl Wehmeyer - a guy the formators missed.

Saturday, July 25, 2015

Happy feast day, pilgrim!

St. James the Moor-slayer, pray for us!
Save the persecuted.
Free the captives.
Protect the Holy Faith.
Defend the Church.

Something from Fr. Hardon: Is sodomy a sign of the Church’s “self-destruction”?

From Pope Paul VI.

Yes, as Pope Paul VI declared in one of his most outspoken denunciations of homosexuality. In context, he is speaking of the immoral practices among professed Catholics who are defending homosexuality:
“The Church finds herself in an hour of disquiet, of self-criticism, one might even say of self-destruction. It is like an acute and complex interior upheaval, which no one expected after the Council. One thought of a blossoming, a serene expansion of the mature concepts of the Council. The Church still has this aspect of blossoming. But since “bonum ex integra causa, malum ex quocumque defectu,” the aspect of sorrow has become most notable. The Church is also being wounded by those who are part of her.” (Allocution to the students of the Lombard Seminary, Dec. 7, 1968)

How did Pope John Paul II describe this self-destruction in our day?

He spoke to the religious and priests participating in the First Italian National Congress on Missions to the People:
“One must be realistic and acknowledge with a deep and pained sentiment that a great part of today’s Christians feel lost, confused, perplexed, and even disillusioned: ideas contradicting the revealed and unchanging Truth have been spread far and wide; outright heresies in the dogmatic and moral fields have been disseminated, creating doubt, confusion, and rebellion; even the liturgy has been altered. Immersed in intellectual and moral “relativism” and therefore in permissiveness, Christians are tempted by atheism, agnosticism, a vaguely moralistic illuminism, a sociological Christianity, without defined dogmas and without objective morality.” (L’Osservatore Romano, February 7, 1981).

How do professed Catholics further promote the practice of homosexuality?

They do so by receiving support from priests, even bishops, and from religious men and women.

What is at the heart of the strategy of the promoters of homosexuality among Catholics?

In one word, the heart of this strategy is gradualism. It is assumed that homosexuality will not soon be approved by all Catholics, and still less soon by Catholic Church authority. The following quotation is lengthy, but it deserves to be quoted in full. Publicly stated by the chairman of the Department of Moral Theology at the Catholic University of Louvain, it clearly expresses the gradualist strategy for the Church’s acceptance of sodomy.
“Is the teaching going to continue to evolve? With respect to the homosexual relationship, will it evolve toward encompassing it? Yes, it will! We have already taken the first step. Begrudgingly as we might like to admit, even the teaching of the Church has recognized the homosexual person, the homosexual orientation. It may be very uncomfortable with its own statements, but it’s there! The homosexual person is a person and no less of a person than anyone else. This is the first step.
The second step is the recognition of the homosexual relationship. I think we are virtually on the edge of accepting the homosexual relationship. The Church will accept the homosexual relationship, like those divorced and remarried: We must live as brother and sister or brother and brother and sister and sister as the case may be… [The audience laughs.] What is important is that the relationship be recognized as a valuable, fruitful, meaningful, affirmative, creative relationship. We are on the verge of accepting this.
The third step is: Can we accept the homosexual act? Before we can talk about the morality of the homosexual act, we have to define it, to understand exactly what it is…. Our whole understanding of human sexuality needs to be rewritten, but rewritten not from a “procreative or reproductive” point of view. It needs to be rewritten from a ‘relational’ point of view” (The Meanings of Human Sexuality, New Ways Ministry, Fourth National Symposium). - Fr. Hardon Archives on Homosexuality

Isn't that interesting?

Song for this post here.

Friday, July 24, 2015

Modesty ... in a robe ...

Song for this post here.

So. Michael Voris got it wrong? Again?

Bathrobes for seminarians.

That's what she said.

I did not know that.  Evidently Voris misrepresented the priest/formator when he reported that the priest in question asked seminarians to wear bathrobes to avoid being an occasion of sin to the gay seminarians.  It appears the priest was suggesting the bathrobes just in case there may be a seminarian with ssa who might be tempted.  The respective corrections here:
Sacred Heart adheres absolutely to the Church’s teaching regarding those who experience SSA. Unfortunately, Voris did not check the story with the formator whose alleged comments he quoted. The formator did not use the term “gay,” but rather “same-sex attracted.” He asked men to wear bathrobes to the shower for the sake of decorum and charity. As an example of potential uncharity he said, “What if unknowingly one of your brothers suffered from SSA? Your lack of modesty would be uncharitable considering your neighbor’s needs.” The men understood this completely.
“…the claim that there is a significant or even nominal presence of homosexuality at Sacred Heart Major Seminary is patently false.” - Source
So the formator didn't use the term 'gay' and did not suggest any of the seminarians were gay or ssa, he was simply asking for greater decorum and modesty, citing an example of charity out of consideration for a brother's weakness.

I still think it's weird.  Although I understand the desire for decorum and to avoid the appearance of a frat house, and so on.  But.

 “What if unknowingly one of your brothers suffered from SSA?"

The example doesn't work for me however.  Like I said, if someone who experiences same sex attraction is in the seminary and feels his classmates are an occasion of sin - or indeed, suffers lustful thoughts and serious temptations against a brother, a fellow seminarian, priest, or any guy - he doesn't belong in the seminary.  If he has issues with masturbation and homosexual fantasy, he doesn't belong in the seminary.

Temptations against chastity are one thing.  Temptations to homosexual behavior is not so worrisome, grabted it be a temptation to unchastity.  Temptation is normal - it tries and proves virtue.  However, the 'habit' of masturbation, as well as the attraction to any guy without a shirt, in a towel, or even naked - as in a shower or at the beach, that's a problem.  Living in a same sex environment and regarding your brothers as an occasion of sin.  That's a huge problem.  That is deep seated homosexuality - and should be considered an impediment to Holy Orders.  It also suggests a creepy - voyeuristic creepy.

Former priest, Curtis Carl Wehmeyer - someone the formators missed.

Recently the Archbishop and Auxiliary Bishop, as well as a couple of other priests in the chancery in the Archdiocese of MPLS/StPaul resigned over sex scandals - especially one involving a gay priest.  When this priest was a seminary candidate, and in a diocesan community, he was corrected for cruising.  Later he was cited for other homosexual behaviors.  Nevertheless, he was ordained and then was promoted, given a parish; this despite all the warnings.  He had sex with boys in a trailer he kept in the parish parking lot.  He also tried to pick up teen boys in a book store.  The priest is in prison.

The Archdiocese filed bankruptcy and is selling off some of its real estate.  The priest in question is not a pedophile - he's gay.  Gay is as gay does.  Call it same sex attraction - it's gay when it acts out.  Keep the terminology up to date - lest the meaning is obscured.  Seminary rectors can call it same sex attraction for the sake of decorum - but when it goes to court, even Archbishops can't cover-up the fact it's gay.  So knock off the pious decorum BS.

Something is off with the formator in Michigan if he's worried about same sex attracted students finding classmates an occasion of sin.  I had a formator like that once ...

The point here is to follow the guidelines long established by the Vatican - yet unfortunately long ignored:
2. Homosexuality and the Ordained Ministry  

From the time of the Second Vatican Council until today, various Documents of the Magisterium, and especially the Catechism of the Catholic Church, have confirmed the teaching of the Church on homosexuality. The Catechism distinguishes between homosexual acts and homosexual tendencies.  
Regarding acts, it teaches that Sacred Scripture presents them as grave sins. The Tradition has constantly considered them as intrinsically immoral and contrary to the natural law. Consequently, under no circumstance can they be approved.  
Deep-seated homosexual tendencies, which are found in a number of men and women, are also objectively disordered and, for those same people, often constitute a trial. Such persons must be accepted with respect and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. They are called to fulfil God's will in their lives and to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter.  
In the light of such teaching, this Dicastery, in accord with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, believes it necessary to state clearly that the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question, cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practice homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called "gay culture".  
Such persons, in fact, find themselves in a situation that gravely hinders them from relating correctly to men and women. One must in no way overlook the negative consequences that can derive from the ordination of persons with deep-seated homosexual tendencies.  
Different, however, would be the case in which one were dealing with homosexual tendencies that were only the expression of a transitory problem - for example, that of an adolescence not yet superseded. Nevertheless, such tendencies must be clearly overcome at least three years before ordination to the diaconate. - Link
Notice the three year chastity time limit - or period to overcome such tendencies.

That needs to be taken seriously way before ordination to the diaconate.  If a seminarian finds his brothers an occasion of sin - he isn't likely to overcome that within any time frame.  Don't kid yourself.  He's the source of his own temptation - it is his desire.

Homosexuality is not normal - that's the mistake formators make.

When you call it same sex attraction, you give the impression it is just another temptation against chastity.

I've known guys who enter religious life/seminary, leave, and immediately fall back into their old patterns of sexual activity - they're not just ssa - they want sex with men - they are gay.  Others enter religious life, continue the habit of auto-eroticism and fantasy.  That's so mature - not.  I know of others, scandalized by something which happened, and boom, picks up where he left off and abandons ship.  That's pretty deep seated stuff.  "Such persons, in fact, find themselves in a situation that gravely hinders them from relating correctly to men and women."  Did you get that part?  "gravely hinders them from relating correctly to men and women."

Perhaps there are success stories - such as Fr. Acton Institute - but it seems rare.  Gay priests tend to form cliques, and tend to attract other similarly inclined men.  I understand that - there's nothing inherently wrong with that, except it creates a sort of culture - it's a sort of gay-clericalism - and it usually amounts to favoritism.

Charitably covering the sins and weaknesses of others is one thing, forming a culture of gay-protectionism is another.  If a priest is gay - who am I to judge?  I'm serious.  The time for discernment is past - he got through the hurdles of seminary life.  If he leaves ministry to marry the choir director, or ends up in jail for having sex with the teenage altar boy - blame the seminary rector and formators who asked the other seminarians to be more considerate and not be a source of temptation to their ssa brothers.

Doesn't anyone else see how absurd this is?  How dysfunctional?

Seriously, spiritual directors are not doing gay men any kindness by encouraging them to become priests.  Just because priests are celibates and gay men are expected to remain celibate doesn't automatically qualify them for priesthood or religious life.  Deep seated homosexual inclination doesn't just suddenly go away - and more frequently or not, it is the default behavior pattern.

Like a dog that returns to his vomit is a fool who repeats his folly. - Proverbs 26:11

"Le souffle au coeur" - Louis Malle

Thursday, July 23, 2015

Iconoclasm in NYC: Removing the iconography of the Church of Our Saviour

The appropriate 'development of doctrine" (in iconography) at Our Saviour.
Solid Catholic teaching for all to see.

Undoing the Sacred at the Church of Our Saviour in Manhattan.

I call it a travesty.  I thought this type of personality 'marking' was gone - that a new pastor just can't show up and attempt to restore a parish to it's 'former glory' on his own initiative.  In this case, there was no former glory, just a bare canvas; allowing for the Church of Our Saviour to be appointed and given its visual glory by it's former pastor, Fr. George Rutler - financed in part by the donations of faithful parishioners.  As one author noted:
Fr. George Rutler was pastor of Our Saviour from 2001 until he was transferred in 2013 across town to St. Michael’s, a less prominent location. In the twelve years of his service to COS, he proved himself a gracious and effective steward. He reversed the parish’s decline, eliminated its debts, enlarged and revivified the congregation. Most visibly, he renovated the church building with great sensitivity. - MM - First Things
I can't tell you the number of churches I have seen 'renovated' in my lifetime.  By bishops, priests, seminary rectors, Catholic schools, religious superiors, liturgy committees, and so on.  Wonderfully appointed 'sacred spaces' white washed overnight, tabernacles exchanged for a lock box, statues winding up in antique shops, architectural details in architectural antique emporiums, and so on.  I worked in a Catholic institution for several years, and almost every time a new superior was appointed, the statuary in the building changed, memorials were ripped out, and replaced with new shrines.  The changes were made to suit the piety of one individual, or in an attempt to get on board with the latest liturgical trend.  It was subjective demolition, and a means of flaunting authority.

Is this diocesan competitiveness?   Is there some sort of vendetta against the former pastor?

It can be argued - perhaps - that Fr. Rutler did the same thing - until of course you examine the art.  The artist/iconographer Ken Woo is a master iconographer.  His work is of the highest quality, theologically, artistically and architecturally.  The interior of Our Saviour has been embellished, quite literally - divinely.  I know Rutler is perhaps 'disliked' by some - he's not your ordinary priest.  He can be off-putting to the more casual observer, since his manner may strike one as a little pompous.  Indeed, I had a hard time getting used to him when I'd see him on EWTN, but he won me over.  There are very few priests as erudite and doctrinally sound as he is.  Likewise he is an expert on art history and church design.  Until now I didn't know he was responsible for commissioning the exquisite design and iconography of Our Saviour.

Is it appropriate use of funds - spending money to 'fix' what doesn't need fixing?

The current wreck-ovation, vandalism, is handed off as a renovation.  That is unfortunate.   It seems to me it is an iconoclastic desecration and rebuke to faithful, devout Catholics as well as the former pastor.  Again, as Maureen Malarkey notes in her essay at First Things:
The new pastor began his tenure by making liturgical changes and, to the dismay of parishoners, by removing fourteen of the most prominent icons. In a gesture mimicking the iconoclasm of sixteenth century Reformers, the denuded pillars were white washed. On Tuesday we learned that the remaining ones, included the magnificent Pantocrator, are slated for eviction. Why? Is Fr. Robbins acting on his own initiative or at the behest of higher-ups? Certainly, a pastor has both his druthers and his prerogatives. But the severity—the totality—of this de-adornment gives off an odor of reprisal. It is hard not to sense malice at work. Whose? To what end? - MM- First Things
Please read the entire essay here, and at the end are instructions on how to contact the Cardinal, to politely ask that the church may be preserved from further dismantling.  Please be respectful.  I'll repost the address here:  Email: archbishop.dolan@archny.org or by phone: 212.371.1011 Ext 2935. Letters marked “Personal and Confidential” can be sent to His Eminence Cardinal Timothy Dolan, 1011 First Avenue, New York 10022.

Taking the spoils and scattering pearls before swine.

There is much talk of why people are leaving the Church, why men no longer go to Mass.  This is one more reason.  When my Italian parish church was 'renewed', the high altar, communion rails, and central tabernacle were removed - as were the memorial plaques of donors.  Old timer Italians, who donated in the name of their deceased loved ones, donated piously to embellish the church with the most noble of furnishings, the best money could buy, for the honor and glory of God.  They were heartbroken when the marble altar rail was sent to a dump.  Now the church belongs to a Christian fundamentalist group - while another parish church of my youth has been desacralized, sold and is now a mosque.

It's a scandal.

Fr. Robert Robbins is the pastor at Our Saviour,
and the man responsible for the take-down.
He is also rehabbing-renovating his rectory:

Katrina Fernandez is updating on this story - check out her blog here: Help Prevent this Church Wreckovation.  Please avoid the innuendo and ad hominem you'll find in the links and commentary if you choose to respond or contact the Cardinal or Fr. Robbins.  Thanks.

The babies are alive ...

Please support David Daleiden and his efforts to expose Planned Parenthood.

I just read something so disturbing.
“In order to get good heart tissue, it has to be processed within five minutes of death. I bet the gruesome fact is that many of those babies are alive when they are harvested.” - Investigator David Daleiden, of the Planned Parenthood Videos
Badger Catholic editor Matt Korger linked to this story yesterday.  I facetiously commented - "I wonder if some of the more famous bloggers will condemn this undercover operation because they lied?"  As in the Lila Rose debates.  I think that is forthcoming.

Too bad - because it will only detract from the original story, as well as the ongoing release of more videos exposing the Cabinet of Dr. Caligari-style abortion procedures conducted in the pristine PP clinics.  If indeed anyone is working unethically and lying, it is the PP operatives and their bioscience clients.  Stunningly, PP lawyers are accusing Daleiden of deceptive practices:
Planned Parenthood’s lawyer issued a five-page letter to the investigating House Energy and Commerce Committee accusing Daleiden of many things, including harassing Planned Parenthood and likely deceptively editing the videos. The letter complains that Daleiden passed as a representative of the fake company Biomax Procurement Services; and that as part of the ruse, he had even set up displays at Planned Parenthood conferences. - NCRegister
Blaming the messenger - in this case, the investigator David Daleiden, and sidetracking this story into an ethics debate about undercover work as lying, will not save lives, nor prevent Nazi-style atrocities occurring and progressing to even worse - if that is possible.

This past weekend I caught a video of someone saying it isn't enough to take the moral high ground about this story - it has to be fought legally.  While it is true it needs to be fought legally - in court and appealing to Congress and the higher courts, we all need to take the moral high ground.  The culture is pretty much completely amoral as it is - some one has to reclaim the moral high ground.

First things first however - and the most serious problem at hand has absolutely nothing to do with undercover investigators posing as potential clients.

It's about human life.  Killing babies.  Harvesting organs - even while the baby is alive.  These are crimes against humanity.  Don't people get that?  War criminals were imprisoned and executed for such crimes.

Though clinically sanitized by PP and in hospital settings, this is what the Aztecs did in human sacrifice - they extracted the hearts of human beings while they were still alive.  This is being done to helpless infants - with their mother's consent.

We have been excusing women and abortion perpetrators for decades now, yet abortion/choice has become, for lack of a better word, inculturated/acculturated, as it were.  In other words, we've grown to accept it - to the degree that even Archbishop Chaput says, “No one should be shocked by this video, this is who Planned Parenthood is and what it does."

Really?  Then why hasn't something been done before this?

The moral high ground is imperative.

"We must not be surprised when we hear of murders, of killings, of wars, of hatred. If a mother can kill her own child, what is left but for us to kill each other." - Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta

Head of child killed in Middle East.

Mothers who have experienced abortion often protest
displaying graphic images of aborted children because it is
too painful.  Imagine how painful it must be for the newborn 
whose heart is being extracted while he is still alive? 
Without that evidence, many people do not believe the
aborted fetus is a fully formed baby.  Perhaps the 
atrocities committed by ISIS is in someway 
the medium for us to understand that we do the exact same thing
to our children in our hospitals and Planned Parenthood clinics.

We have to stop lying to ourselves and others.

Carmelite Feast: Mother of Divine Grace

Eight days after the feast of Our Lady of Mt. Carmel, Carmelites celebrate the feast of Our Mother of Divine Grace.
That Mary obtains for us and distributes to us all graces is a certain doctrine, according to what we have just said about the mother of all men. As mother, she is interested in their salvation, prays for them, and obtains for them the graces they receive. - Garrigou-Lagrange

Wednesday, July 22, 2015

CAUTION: Image may not be appropriate for Michigan seminarians.

Exclusive: Congregation for the Clergy to issue new guidelines for seminarians.

Grab your robes boys!  

Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations

[An excerpt]

In continuity with the teaching of the Second Vatican Council and, in particular, with the Decree Optatam Totius on priestly formation, the Congregation for Catholic Education has published various Documents with the aim of promoting a suitable, integral formation of future priests, by offering guidelines and precise norms regarding its diverse aspects.

Considering how many same sex attracted seminarians are now forced to endure fellow classmates parading through seminary dorms wearing nothing but towels before and after showering,  New norms concerning this specific question, are made more urgent by the current situation, and that is: bathrobes are now mandated in all seminaries.

This Dicastery, in accord with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, believes it necessary to state clearly that the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question, wishes to offer suggestions for appropriate bath-wear in seminaries. - Source

I knew this was coming.  Wait until Michael Voris hears about this.

Editor's note: A longtime reader of this blog - a priest from Rome* - sent me photos of proposals of what bathrobes seminarians - straight or gay - should be wearing to avoid being an occasion of sin for those seminarians who "present deep-seated homosexual tendencies."

A few proposals with commentary:

Suitable attire for the rector and spiritual directors.

Michigan students actually love the bathrobes so much,
they even wear them to class.

When it comes to casual spiritual direction,
or impromptu confession,
the bathrobe is a must.

Sauna wear.  Seminarians may no longer
use the saunas without clothing.
This short robe is perfect.

The monk-robe.
A favorite with the Benedictines.

Don't be fooled - ssa seminarians are watching -
don't be an occasion of sin for your brother.
(Don't tease them by letting it fall open. 
That could be cause for dismissal.)

The macho robe - extra modest with the trunks.
Contemplative with the hood.
No one will mess with this guy.

The Fr. Z Batrobe.  Popular with the more
traditional seminarian - straight or gay.

*H/T Fr. Unnamed source in Rome.

Fr. Rector:  Now we come to the word association test:
When I say scantily clad, what do you think of?

Candidate:  Towels. Wet towels.

Fr. Rector:  Next!

According to the latest polls ... Moses' popularity plummets! Especially among conservatives!

Moses in prayer, arms supported by Aaron and Hur.

The drop is even more marked among conservatives. This year, just 45 percent have a positive opinion of him. - Source

They defiled themselves by their deeds...
They yielded to their cravings in the desert
and put God to the test in the wilderness.
Then they rebelled, envious of Moses and
of Aaron, who was holy to the Lord.
The earth opened and swallowed up Dathan
and buried the clan of Abiram.
Fire blazed up against their clan
and flames devoured the rebels.
They fashioned a calf at Horeb
and worshipped an image of metal,
exchanging the God who was their glory
for the image of a bull that eats grass.
They forgot the God who was their savior,
who had done such great things in Egypt,
such portents in the land of Ham,
such marvels at the Red Sea.
For this he said he would destroy them,
but Moses, the man he had chosen,
stood in the breach before him,
to turn back his anger from destruction.
Then they scorned the land of promise;
they had no faith in his word.
They complained inside their tents
and would not listen to the voice of the Lord. - Ps. 106

"This is the Moses whom the Israelites rejected by saying, 'Who made you our ruler and judge?'" - Acts 7:35

Think about it.  Ponder it.  Meditate and pray.


Tuesday, July 21, 2015

Just when you thought it was safe to leave the house: Michael Voris on the Gay priest cavalcade...

Seminary applicant test.
"Now put your bathrobes on boys."

Michael Voris has a new hard hitting Vortex feature on gays in the seminary.

Amazing, considering my post yesterday on gay priests no longer a problem in the Church - kinda-sorta.  In that post, I noted how Fr. Z said he hoped a priest who came out recently would repent and return to active ministry.  I looked back over my posts and noted that perhaps I protested too much at one time or another regarding Vatican guidelines about admitting gay men to the seminary, and the rumored Lavender Mafia, and so on.  I thought it was common knowledge that gay men are admitted to seminary and are ordained.  Conservative, traditional minded prelates certainly know it.  Ahem.  They even encourage 'reformed' 'chaste for - give or take - 3 years' same-sex-attracted (gay) men to go for the priesthood, and so on.  It's been a constant practice - an accepted practice - even before Vatican II.  And yes - there are same sex attracted bishops.

What to do?  What to say?  I don't know.

But Mr. Voris is pissed and suddenly this topic is a hot one again.

I'm not at all surprised by the fact there are gay seminarians, but I just want to comment on one thing in Voris' report.

The stupidest thing in the entire expose is this:
A faculty member priest in Sacred Heart Seminary here in Detroit recently made an announcement to the entire seminary student collective — about 60 young men — that they need to be sure and wear their bathrobes coming out of the bathroom showers instead of just towels because a number of their brother seminarians are gay, and the guys in towels are occasions of sin for the gay guys. - Gay priest cavalcade

That's the dumbest thing I have ever read.  If someone is so gay they can't shower or change clothes in a locker room with other naked men - they have no business being in the seminary or even in the military - they shouldn't be allowed in a gym.  If a member of the faculty at that seminary - indeed a priest - felt that a candidate was tempted by the site of men in towels - that right there should be cause for dismissal from seminary.  That is just ridiculous.  Imagine a doctor unable to examine a patient because it was an occasion of sin or a turn-on - he wouldn't be a suitable candidate for med school.

Each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. - James 1:14

Joe Prever did a series of posts at one time on the gym as an occasion of sin for gay men - I said it was ridiculous then and I say it again.  It's creepy voyeurism and totally adolescent and immature.  Men lusting after men should be barred from the seminary.  That's the real problem.  The priest who asked seminarians to wear bathrobes should be dismissed.

Snap out of it.

"Is this better, Father?"

Song for this post here.

H/T Les Femmes

For those poor souls who are exhausted trying to explain Pope Francis: A great interview with Gänswein may lift that burden from your shoulders.

The Secretary to two living Popes - Archbishop Georg Gänswein...

In the latest interview, Gänswein seems neither disgruntled or exhausted, much less exasperated.  He's probably closer to these two men than anyone... and he appears to be fine.  I wonder why people completely out of the loop as regards the papacy and life at Santa Marta, are exhausted trying to parse and explain everything that Francis says?

Zenit has the interview - if you're worried about the state of the papal state - maybe read the entire interview.  Monsignor Gänswein is always honest, frank, balanced and faithful.  (I wonder what he'd say about ... never mind.)  I lifted the following quote, which might be reassuring to the critics:
Observing Pope Francis’ Pontificate, one can perceive how the image of the Church has changed for the better. -GG
Gänswein also insists Pope Benedict didn't 'flee the wolves' so obviously I have to let go of that impression.  I'm happy to do that.
That there were individual persons, or even currents against Benedict, was irrelevant in regard to the renunciation. It’s obvious that a person like him had reflected long on a question of such importance. He didn’t allow himself to be intimidated by anyone. He was very clear in his conversation with Peter Seewald, several years before the renunciation: “When there are wolves, when there is danger, the shepherd must not leave his flock.” He didn’t do so then, and he has never done so; his was not a flight. This is the truth and it is the only explanation of the reason for his renunciation. - GG
One of the final questions in the interview reveals the great humility and spirit of obedience which seems to characterize the priestly vocation of Monsignor Gänswein:
Q: The Pope’s day is intense, and I conclude that yours is also: you don’t have time to play tennis, as you certainly would like, or to dedicate yourself to university activity. Would you perhaps have desired another life?
Archbishop Gänswein: I’ve never asked myself this question, because I’ve never said “ I want to do this, or that ...” When a post has come to me, I’ve accepted it. Pope Benedict asked me something, and so I accepted it and did it gladly. The same is true for Pope Francis. - Zenit

Read the entire interview - it's good. 

Monday, July 20, 2015


Leaving the priesthood.

A subject back in the news I guess - I wouldn't know about it if I hadn't read Fr. Z or Fr. Blake posts concerning a priest who came out as gay and left the priesthood.

First let me say this - about any priest who leaves ministry.  The scandal for the 'faithful' is this:  It is similar to a husband and father leaving his family - abandoning his responsibility - forsaking his marital vows.  We are so accustomed to think for ourselves - whatever makes me happy - I must do that.  Parents always say - I just want my kids to be happy.  Married couples who split up say they are no longer happy.  They say they need to take care of themselves.  We all know the reasons.

The problem of scandal.  Real scandal.

What I'm trying to say is this - when a priest leaves it affects families.  The Church is very concerned about the family, isn't it?  That is why there is a Synod this Fall.  See - part of the problem - as I see it - is that it's like cheating in a marriage, and if the priest leaves, it is like divorce - therefore he is complicit in the erosion of marriage. Really. Because the Church expects married couples to work through the tough times - and yet the priests bail when the going gets tough. I think we have to call a spade a spade - show mercy and concern - but call out what's really going on.  I never thought that before a woman I know pointed these things out to me.

Celibate priesthood is not an impossible choice in life - it's worked for hundreds and hundreds of years.  (Neither is chaste celibacy impossible for the unmarried.)

What about gay priests?

We all know they are there - and we all thought they are not supposed to be - considering this Vatican document says that, and that document says this, and some seminaries say no, others say yes - but only if you didn't fantasize about men when you last committed self-abuse.  I'm being facetious but longtime Catholic bloggers know the drill.  That said, they're here and they're queer - sort of - and it's none of my business, unless they make it so.

A few years ago a priest - at least I think it was a priest, and probably one I know - scolded me for writing about the so-called Lavender mafia - the supposed underground of gay priests rumored to be at work in the Church, undermining the liturgy and on the look out for tricks.  In the comment he said such discussion would turn away gay people seeking Theosis - from coming to the Church.  I was full of my own self-righteousness and so I defended myself - saying people don't want me to talk about such things.  Oh Lord!  What an idiot.  Thinking I had some sort of mission to expose the truth.  I don't.

The priest was right however - why do I say that?  Because obviously same sex attracted men are ordained and they appear to have a mission in the Church.  It seems to me they are there to minister to those who deal with such issues - and other serious moral difficulties - and to offer them access to the sacraments.  In this sense:
They exist 'to preach peace to those who are far off and peace to those who are near' - assuring that 'through Christ we both have access in one Spirit to the Father.' - Ephesians 2:18
Without knowing, much worse, judging the moral character of the priest, he is a priest, and without him in the confessional - some people may not have been reconciled with the Church.  Some people may have missed that first step in accepting the Gospel - to change their lives and believe in the Gospel.  But I digress.

The priest who came out and left ministry.

Fr. Z and Fr. Blake both write about a priest who came out and left the priesthood.  Neither seem surprised by the news.  I get the impression that neither priest would see any difficulty, if, as Fr. Z wrote:  He gets his act together and humbly returns to Holy Church and active duty.  (Although Fr. Z seems more concerned about a set of rose vestments than he does the recalcitrant priest.  LOL!)

There are priests who have 'come back' and they are in active ministry.  Apparently that is not the problem we once thought it was.  Obviously, these two very staunch Catholic priests have no problem with it.

Fr. Blake points out that we are not as forgiving with priests as we ought to be.  That may be true.

Some priests aren't all that forgiving either.

Yet moral failures are forgivable.

I must admit - priests who appear to be same sex attracted or gay, are some of the most forgiving I've ever encountered.  The most understaning.  At one time, I wouldn't have been able to make it without them.

That said - the clericalist-careerist priest may sometimes need to fall away, in order for him to return repentant and deeply humbled... like the repentant St. Peter - so that he can strengthen and encourage his brothers - and the faithful.

On a lighter note - if as Fr. Blake says, 
priests are leaving the curia and some are leaving
priesthood as well ... perhaps that means
the long suspected gay lobby 
at the Vatican is now empty?

Song for this post here.

This fits right in with my theme ...

h/t Jeron

Sunday, July 19, 2015

Seems as if everyone is turning against Pope Francis now.

I didn't say that! You said that! Did I say that? I didn't say that! 
I think that's so funny that you think I said that! I didn't say that! 
Why do you think I wouldn't know that! I know that!

Will he even be welcome in the United States when he visits?

The Pope is mean.  Mean spirited.  He's forgetting the middle class normal people ...

He's always haranguing, harping, exhorting, lecturing.

Elizabeth Scalia is tired of it.

Carl Olson complains:
My impression is that many Catholics are weary of the seemingly constant addresses, homilies, interviews, texts—many of which read like lectures—that come from the Holy Father.
Personally, I gave up long ago trying to parse and explain everything that Francis says. - CWR
Who asked you to?

Who appointed these people to parse and explain everything the Pope says?

Who said Catholics have to read or listen to everything the Pope says?

Before MSM and social media obsession with celebrity and gossip, people got along fine - Catholics didn't know what the Pope said or did or didn't do on any given day, and few outside seminaries paid attention to encyclicals. How many people jumped through hoops to implement Humanae Vitae?

On the other hand, how many people grabbed every piece of literature JPII produced and made films and founded institutes and cultural centers to celebrate his every thought?  Nothing wrong with that - but popes like him come along once in a millennium.  Not a few decried the personality/celebrity cult which surrounded him, while liberals thought he was a horror.

What about Benedict - the guy who ran from the wolves?  His doctrine is promulgated and preferred to the way Pope Francis teaches - even if one happens to be Novus Ordo Catholic.  Again, Progressives/liberals hated him.  Yet Francis echoes his predecessors - he simply has a 'pazzi' style.  As Olson points out at the end of his essay: "Popes, as important as they are, come and go; the Word of God endures forever."

That's true.  That's the faith.  Editors, pundits and bloggers come and go too.  

People have to get over the personality cult they wish to create, celebrate, and maintain around those who lead.  It's often a subjective interest to do so on their part anyway, since so many self-appointed apologists are eager to bolster and promote their private opinion and agenda in the first place - getting papal endorsements adds to their credibility.  Look - the pope spoke about idolatry - buy my book on the subject.  Religion is a business, if you haven't noticed.  The Pope isn't a king or a celebrity - much less a CEO, he's not the Second Coming - he is Christ's Vicar on earth.  He occupies the Chair of Peter.  Catholics have lost supernatural faith and judge everything subjectively - while their chief concern often seems to be about how things affect them, how, what the Pope says makes them feel.  I think many online Catholic pundits are disintegrated - so worried the Web spiders aren't picking up their content, they have pretty much forsaken or seriously neglect their spiritual life.  Hence, they focus way too much on matters that are not their responsibility.  

"Then one of the scholars of the law said to him in reply, 'Teacher, by saying this you are insulting us too.'" - Luke 11: 45

Remember the blog, "The Cafeteria is Closed"?   It has never been closed.  We can all be cafeteria Catholics at one time or another - and that's the problem.  Each of us want to be served 'our' way.

I come across bloggers and Catholic writers online who seem to be constantly whining about this or that - and now days, the whine is especially focused upon Pope Francis.  Normal, ordinary people seem to love Pope Francis - but somewhere in the highly-degree'd, upper middle-class-suburban Catholic bourgeoisie is a group of bloggers and media personalities complaining they are offended, put off, alienated, insulted - and abused.  They're just not comfortable any longer.  

C'est dommage.

Fr. Blake says priests are quitting 
the Roman dicasteries ... because the Pope is mean?