Marital Fidelity and God’s Fidelity
Fr. Timothy V. Vaverek, The Catholic Thing:
Marriage radiates the grandeur of the cosmos and the whole of salvation history because it reflects the wondrous purpose of all God’s works: our eternal union with him in Christ. Jesus himself revealed the divine beauty of marriage when he declared himself to be the Bridegroom who embraces us by drawing us to himself and by giving himself to us and for us on the Cross and in the Eucharist.
In this light, Paul was able to declare that the creation of the human race as male and female, husband and wife, was patterned on the union of Christ and the Church. The reality of marriage thus inseparably joins the distinct divine works of creation and salvation. Because God created humanity both in the image of the Trinity and in the image of Christ and the Church, the meaning of the cosmos can be found only in the transformation of the children of Adam and Eve into the adopted children of God, united forever with him in that new creation which is the Wedding Feast of the Lamb and his bride, the Church.
This exalted vision of marriage is the exact opposite of a mere “ideal.” It is the nitty-gritty reality and foundation of our existence as human beings. Our physical bodies, differentiated as male and female and united in the procreative union of husband and wife have been fashioned to reflect the fruitful union of Christ and the Church. Our emotional life and its coordination with our spiritual capacities for knowledge and love are the very basis by which we are enabled to give ourselves and receive one another in the totality of our person, body and soul, within the relations of family, friendship, and marriage.
We would not have this particular physical, emotional, and spiritual structure unless God created us to be capable of personal union with others and, by grace, of union with himself. For this reason, every person is a living witness to the mystery hidden in our body-soul existence, and in the conjugal union of marriage. As individuals and married couples we are embodiments of God’s nuptial plan revealed in Jesus. It is encoded in our DNA.
In Genesis, the union of Adam and Eve is ordered to their sharing of life and labor as cooperators in God’s works of creation and salvation. Similarly, in the New Testament the union of Christ and the Church makes his disciples sharers in his life and saving work as members of his body and bride. When Jesus returns, this participation in the divine life will unite redeemed humanity to the Trinity in eternal joy.
The beauty of this nuptial plan would be shattered were God to be unfaithful to his purpose declared in creation and in Christ. Having fashioned us for union with himself, were God now to alter his will, our existence and that of the whole cosmos would be frustrated to an unimaginable degree. It would, quite simply, make existence Hell because we would never be united to him who is our origin and our goal, our love and our hope, our life and our all.
These marital realities form the foundation of covenant theology in the Scriptures. God is unfailingly faithful in his generous, wise, and loving work of drawing humanity to himself. Neither Israel nor the Church has any claim on him rooted in their own actions, certainly not in the face of sin. He is the faithful spouse; we are the adulterers.
Yet his fidelity expresses an infinite mercy that calls us to conversion and to sharing his life through the outpouring of the Holy Spirit by which he comes to dwell in us and we in him. For that purpose, the Word took flesh and returned to the Father by way of the Cross. He is the faithful spouse who purifies his bride and brings her home. This unwavering fidelity led Paul to assert: “If we are unfaithful, he remains faithful, for he cannot deny himself.” (2 Tim 2:13)
Only on the basis of Christ’s fidelity, poured into our heart by the indwelling of the Trinity, can we hope to remain faithful. Humanly speaking this is impossible, but “with God all things are possible.” (Mt 19:26)
In the present crisis regarding marriage, those who say it is sometimes impossible for Christians to remain faithful to the vow made to a spouse and to God (such as when the marriage is irreparably broken or has been replaced by a second union) have forgotten the meaning of Christ, the human person, marriage, and the cosmos, which all declare the glory of God and his fidelity. This is no development of doctrine or relaxing of Church discipline. It is the complete overthrow of the Christian vision of God and human existence.
Were there a single case in which fidelity to a spouse or to God was impossible for a Christian, this would mean that God’s fidelity had failed. Perversely, infidelity in that instance would be rooted in God’s infidelity of withdrawing his grace and/or misleading us through Jesus and the Church’s false teaching regarding the obligations of the Gospel.
Far from being realistic and merciful, the suggestions being made are heartless and cruel abstractions that imply that Jesus’ fidelity is not always available to us. This makes a mockery of those who have lived chastely, after a broken marriage, in fidelity to their earthly and heavenly spouses. The proponents of these theories must name a case in which God and Christ are unfaithful before they presume to permit a Christian to be unfaithful in the slightest matter. That is the concrete, real, personal truth of the Gospel.
Mercy will not be found in exchanging the beauty of marriage for a lifeless illusion. It will be found, as it ever has been, by allowing Jesus to draw us to himself on the Cross and learning that with him we can be faithful even unto death.
“This column first appeared on the website The Catholic Thing (www.thecatholicthing.org). Copyright 2017. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.”
By Fr. Robert Fromageot, FSSP:
As you know, thanks to the interpretive flexibility in the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia, some dioceses are adopting the novel policy of allowing the civilly divorced and remarried faithful full access to the sacramental life of the Church, while other dioceses are holding fast to the perennial practice of the Church. Last September, as a result of the harm such contradictory approaches are causing, four cardinals (Carlo Caffarra, archbishop emeritus of Bologna; Raymond Burke, patron of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta; Walter Brandmüller, president
 Amoris Laetitia and the Dubia emeritus of the Pontifical Committee for Historical Sciences; and Joachim Meisner, archbishop emeritus of Cologne) submitted five questions (known as dubia) to the Holy Father and to Cardinal Müller, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Such questions are called dubia because their purpose is to seek clarification from the Holy See about some matter about which there exists some doubt. In this case, the five dubia are designed to elicit clarification from the Vatican regarding precisely those ambiguous parts of Amoris Laetitia which are being used as the basis for the above mentioned novel pastoral approach.
For example, in paragraph 301 of AL, we read that the “Church possesses a solid body of reflection concerning mitigating factors and situations.” Later, it concludes: “hence it can no longer simply be said that all those in any ‘irregular’ situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace.” Accordingly, the third dubium asks: “After Amoris Laetitia (301), is it still possible to affirm that a person who habitually lives in contradiction to a commandment of God’s law, as for instance the one that prohibits adultery (Matthew 19:3-9), finds him or herself in an objective situation of grave habitual sin (Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, ‘Declaration’, June 24, 2000)?” Canon 915 declares that those who “obstinately persev[ere] in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy Communion.” The “Declaration” argues that this canon is applicable to faithful who are divorced and civilly remarried. Moreover, it declares that, since the minister of the Eucharist has no means of judging another person’s subjective imputability, “grave sin” is to be understood objectively. Therefore, the judgment implicit in Canon 915 (i.e., the judgment the minister of the Eucharist is expected to make) concerns a person’s objective life situation, not whether he is in a state of mortal sin. The latter determination belongs to the subjective realm, where mitigating factors may very well reduce, even eliminate culpability.
No Answer
So far neither Pope Francis nor the prefect of the CDF have answered the five dubia. This choice to remain silent is not without precedent. In the 7th century Pope Honorius I preferred to withhold judgment so as not to offend those who adhered to the heresy known as monothelitism (the idea that Christ possessed only one natural will). In a private letter he wrote to Sergius I, Patriarch of Constantinople — and a monothelite — he writes: “That our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son and Word of God, by whom all things were made, is Himself one, operating divine and human things, the sacred writings plainly show. Whether, however, on account of the works of the Humanity and Divinity, one or two operations ought to be proclaimed and understood, these things do not belong to us; let us leave them to the grammarians, who are accustomed to display to the young their choice derivations of words.”
It was left to a subsequent Council and Pope to condemn monothelitism and censure Pope Honorius for leaving the meaning of terms to grammarians and thereby failing to exercise his Petrine authority and “illumine this Apostolic Church with the doctrine of the Apostolic tradition,” preferring instead to let it (while immaculate) “be stained by profane betrayal.” Similarly, it may be left to Pope Francis’ successor to answer these dubia and bring Amoris Laetitia out of the shadows of ambiguity into the light of clear magisterial teaching so that it can no longer be used as a basis to oppose the constant pastoral policy of the Church regarding civilly remarried divorcés.
For those who have imbibed the antinomian zeitgeist, laws like Canon 915 represent a serious inconvenience. And anyone who appeals to law in defense of the perennial teaching of the Church is likely to be accused of being no better than a self-absorbed promethean neo-pelagian, a rigid Pharisee who trusts only in his own powers and feels superior to others because he observes certain rules and remains intransigently faithful to a particular Catholic style from the past. Let us be willing to endure such epithets and refuse to join the ranks of those who, in their zeal to include adulterers in the sacramental life of the Church, craftily ignore the law and denigrate what it means to be a living member of the Body of Christ. In the words of Scripture, let us not be “led away with various and strange doctrines” (Heb. 13:9). On the contrary, let us “stand fast and hold the traditions which [we] have learned” (2 Thes. 2:14). And let us pray for our shepherds, especially Pope Francis.
 Fr. Dwight Longenecker By Fr. Dwight Longenecker, Standing on My Head:
There are many problems in the Catholic Church that might be thought to be the ‘smoke of Satan’ entering the church, but for my money one thing, above all others, has been the successful work of Satan, which has undermined the church, emasculated her ministry, sabotaged the aims of the Holy Spirit and captured a multitude of souls.
It is the modernist re-interpretation of the Catholic faith. The reductionist results of modern Biblical scholarship and the infiltration of a modernist, rationalistic and materialistic mindset meant that the supernatural was assumed to be impossible, and therefore the Bible stories (and also any supernatural elements of the faith) had to be ‘de-mythologized.’ Everything supernatural within the Biblical account and within the lives of the saints and within the teaching of the church were assumed to be impossible and had to be ‘re-interpreted’ so they would make sense to modern, scientifically minded people.
So the feeding of the five thousand wasn’t a miracle. Instead the ‘real miracle’ was that everyone shared their lunch. Everything had to be questioned and ‘re-interpreted’ in such a way that it could be accepted and understood by modern people. So when we call Jesus Christ “God Incarnate” what we really mean was that he was so fully human, and that as he reached his potential as a man that he shows us what divinity looks like. When we speak of the Blessed Virgin we mean she was ‘a very good and holy Jewish young woman.’ When we speak of the ‘Real Presence’ we mean that we see the ‘Christ that is within each one of us.”
I hate this crap.
It’s the smoke of Satan, and it’s virtually triumphant within the mainstream Protestant churches, and sadly, the modern Catholic Church in the USA is riddled through with the same noxious heresy. The reason it is so obnoxious and disgusting is because priests and clergy of all sorts still use all the traditional language of the liturgy, the Scriptures and the creeds, but they have changed the meaning of it altogether. They never actually stand up and say that they have changed the meaning, and that they no longer believe the faith once delivered to the saints. They don’t discuss the fact that they have not only changed the meaning, but robbed it of meaning altogether. Instead they still stand up week by week and recite the creed as if they think it is true, but what they mean by ‘true’ is totally different from what their people mean.
So Father Flannel stands up on Easter Day and says, “Alleluia! Today we rejoice in the glorious resurrection of Our Lord Jesus Christ from the dead.” His people think he really believes that Jesus’ dead body came back to life by the power of God and that he went on to live forever. In fact what Father Flannel really means is that “in some way the beautiful teachings of Jesus were remembered and continued by his followers long after his tragic death.” The people don’t know why Father Flannel’s Catholic life is so lightweight and limp and they don’t know why his style is so lacking in substance, and they go on in their muddled way thinking that he really does believe the Catholic faith when, in fact, he doesn’t at all.
Priest Has No Message
Consequently, Fr Flannel doesn’t really have much of a message at all. He doesn’t believe any of the gospel except as some sort of beautiful story which inspires people to be nicer to each other. All that is left of his priesthood, therefore, is to be a nice guy to entertain people with inspirational thoughts and get everyone to be nicer to one another and try to save the planet.
The poor faithful have swallowed this stuff for two or three generations now, and they don’t even know what poison they’re swallowing because the lies are all dressed up in the same traditional language the church has always used. It’s like someone has put battery acid into a milk bottle and given it to a baby, and never imagined that there was anything wrong with doing so–indeed thought it was the best thing for baby.
The faithful don’t know why their church has become like a cross between a Joan Baez concert and a political activism meeting. They don’t understand why they never hear the need for confession or repentance or hear about old fashioned terms like ‘the precious blood’ or ‘ the body, blood, soul and divinity of Our Lord and Savior” The fact of the matter is Father Flannel doesn’t really think that sort of thing is ‘helpful’.
This is why evangelization of the American Catholics in the pew is probably the most difficult task of all. They don’t know what they don’t know. For three generations now they have been given watered down milk and been told it was wine. They actually think that Catholic lite is what it’s all about, and are astounded to think that there are some of us who think that they have actually been fed a version of Christianity that is scarcely Christianity at all.
 Bishop James D. Conley By Bishop James D. Conley, Southern Nebraska Register:
In 1919, almost 100 years ago, a young journalist living in New York discovered that she was pregnant. She was dating an editor, Lionel, who was nine years older than her. He pressured her to have an abortion. He told her that if she had the baby he would leave her and her journalism career would fall apart. Her family was 700 miles away. She had few friends, no real faith in God, and no money.
She went ahead with the abortion – all alone. She later said that the doctor was “dirty and furtive. He left hastily after it was accomplished, leaving me bleeding.”
When she returned to her apartment, she found a note from Lionel, saying that he was leaving her. “It is best” he wrote, “that you forget me.”
The young journalist was Dorothy Day, who later converted to Catholicism and became a great social activist, a holy mystic, and a friend to the poor. Years later, she explained that she felt she had to choose between the child she had conceived and its father; between the love of her boyfriend and her love for the child. She wrote “I wanted the baby but I wanted Lionel more. So I had the abortion and I lost them both.”
Dorothy Day learned that day in 1919 what thousands of women learn painfully each year—that abortion does not solve problems, it only adds to the pain. She learned that abortion does not heal our hurt, it only creates new wounds. Abortion does not protect women, it harms them; it brings not freedom, but coercion. The legal protection for abortion makes it easy for boyfriends, or husbands, or parents, or employers, to coerce women; to tell them that to preserve their jobs, or family life, or relationships, they must sacrifice their own children.
Dorothy Day learned what Saint Teresa of Calcutta learned from her work among women who had suffered abortion, that “abortion is profoundly anti-woman. Three quarters of its victims are women: Half the babies and all the mothers.”
Abortion has been available in our country for more than a century. And, for 44 years, it has been legally protected, in every state of our nation, by the tragic decision of Roe vs. Wade. In those 44 years, abortion has taken the lives of millions of children, and, it has caused untold pain, regret, and coercive harm to millions of women. It is time to end the scandal of legally protected abortion in our nation.
Last Saturday, I joined thousands of Nebraskans in the annual Walk for Life, a witness to the fundamental dignity of every human person, especially the unborn, the most vulnerable among us. At the end of this month, young people from Nebraska and I will travel to Washington, D.C., where we will witness to the dignity of life in the national March for Life with hundreds of thousands of Americans, walking, praying, and witnessing, in the hope of ending legal protection for abortion.
We witness to life because we believe that every single human person is made in the image of God. We believe that children, and women, deserve better than abortion.
The good news is that more young people than ever before report acknowledging the fact that abortion takes a human life, and that abortion harms women. Young people today are more likely to identify as pro-life than at any time since 1973. Millennials want to see legal protection for abortion eradicated. They also want to see policies which support the sovereignty of the family, the protection of women and the dignity of of the poor. And they’re willing to work towards those goals.
We should be encouraged by Catholics, young and old, who are working to end legal protection for abortion in our country. We should be optimistic, though cautiously optimistic, about the possibility of support for life from the incoming administration. We should continue to pursue policies which end legal protection for abortion, and hold our incoming administration accountable to its pro-life promises.
But the story of Dorothy Day reminds us of something important: ending legal protection for abortion is a critically important goal, but it is not the only goal. When Dorothy Day had an abortion, performing the abortion was a misdemeanor in New York State. Both she and the doctor broke the law. But Dorothy Day did so because she felt she had no choice: because she had no family nearby, no community, no material support, or emotional and spiritual support, she was coerced by her child’s father.
Abortion is often a temptation when expectant mothers face the challenges of loneliness, of spiritual emptiness, of unstable relationships and absent families. Poverty is often a factor in choosing abortion, but spiritual poverty, isolation, and hopelessness are far more powerful factors. The Lord calls us to give the gifts of freedom, of healing, of grace—to be conduits of love—in the lives of women and families who might be tempted to consider abortion.
This means that our parish and school communities, our social circles, our Church’s entire life, must seek out, welcome, and support those who might otherwise never find the Lord—those who, absent his love and the love of his Church, might be led into terrible and painful choices.
This January as we commemorate 44 years since Roe vs. Wade, we can be grateful that the tide is turning in our nation, and we have hope for ending legal protection for abortion. Let us also remember those who, like Dorothy Day, need the unity of the Church, and the mercy of God, before considering abortion, or after having one. And let us pray for all victims of abortion—babies, and women—as we work to build a culture of life through Jesus Christ, our Lord.
The Vital Role of a Firm Purpose of Amendment
Fr. Z’s Blog, by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf:
 Have a Firm Purpose of Amendment – Confession Question: Can absolution be granted where no firm purpose of amendment exists? If granted, with no purpose of amendment, does it even ‘take’?
No. And No.
In normal circumstances, when there isn’t danger or some other odd condition, in order to absolve a penitent who is sui compos (conscious, able to make a confession, etc.) the priest must be reasonably certain that the penitent 1) has actually confessed a sin (even a previously confessed and absolved sin is enough), 2) has, in that moment, at least imperfect sorrow for sin (attrition – fear of punishment), and 3) has a purpose of amendment at that time. If any of these three conditions are lacking, the priest MUST withhold absolution.
Since the Council of Trent, Holy Church has taught that the essence of the Sacrament of Penance includes acts of the penitent, that is, the confession of sins, the expression of sorrow, desire for amendment and atonement. On the other hand, we have also the action of the priest, that is, the granting of absolution. The actions of the penitent and of the priest relate to each other as the matter of a sacrament relates to its form.
Most priests do not have psychic powers to read minds and few have the gift from God to read souls. We have to listen to what the penitent says and then discern the truth. A confessor will try prudently and carefully to “tease out”, so to speak, any of the necessary elements that are lacking. “Do you know an Act of Contrition? No? Okay, are you truly sorry for your sins and do you intend not ever to commit them again? Very good. Now I’ll give you absolution….”
However, if finally a person evinces no firm purpose of amendment – that is, she clearly doesn’t intend to avoid sin(s) again – then the priest cannot, must not, give absolution. His absolution would be, in effect, improperly given and would therefore be sacrilegious. He would abuse the Sacrament, to the offense of Christ, the detriment of the whole Church and his own soul as well as the soul of the poor person on the other side of the grate. He would be, in effect, faking it.
How is that compassion? How is that “accompaniment”?
How wicked would that be? To lie to people like that under the guise of compassion.
If you love a powerful courageous priest, than you will love this virtually “unknown” sacramental. Hidden for years,
the Pardon Crucifix is becoming known as the Devil’s thorn. Discover more about the Pardon Crucifix by clicking here.
Your support is greatly appreciated.
This is pertinent to the whole discussion of the objectively ambiguous content of Amoris laetitia, Ch. 8. Any suggestion that a penitent can be absolved if she isn’t sorry for sins and doesn’t say she’ll change is contrary to what we have always held about the Sacrament of Penance.
Keep in mind that, after confession of at least all mortal sins in kind and number, the saying the classic “Act of Contrition” expresses clearly both sorrow for sin (attrition and contrition) and purpose of amendment. Contrition consists of three acts of the will which form a unity: grief or sorrow, detestation, intention.
O my God, I am heartily sorry for having offended Thee, [grief] and I detest all my sins [detestation] because of Thy just punishments, [attrition, imperfect, based on fear] but most of all because they offend Thee, my God, Who art all-good and deserving of all my love. [contrition, more perfect, based on love] I firmly resolve, [intention] with the help of Thy grace, to sin no more and to avoid the near occasions of sin. VARIATIONS INCLUDE … to sin no more, to do penance, and to amend my life.
Sorrow, detestation, intention. If one is lacking, then the matter of the Sacrament is lacking. If the priest knows the matter is lacking, he may not proceed with absolution because he would simulate a sacrament. If the person is unconscious or there is true reason for “general absolution (that is, without auricular confession), the priest can proceed. That’s a whole different growler of beer.
“But Father! But Father!”
Some of you lib screwballs and progressivist sapheads now jibber, “She came, didn’t she, to your retrograde torture booth of uptight patriarchal oppression! Didn’t she? HUH? That must mean that she’s really sorry even if she doesn’t say she is. She… right, or whatever non-judgmental gender… ummm…. YOU ARE MEAN! Why does she have to affirm that she’ll stop committing the sinful acts? What are ‘sins’, anyway!??! What does she… he… umm… have to be ‘sorry’ for anyway? Sin. HAH! That’s an outdated category and the Council says that’s all gone now. This is the time of mercy and caring… and… and, oh yes… ACCOMPANIMENT! The age of hate is OVVVVERRRRRR! Show some COMPASSION, DAMMIT or … or… ooooh yes yes yes we’re gonna GET you! Yessiree. We’ll fix you, you … functionary! You… funeral-faced museum mummy! Sourpuss! Authoritarian fundamentalist! You gloomy moralistic quibbler! We’ll write letters, yes, we will, precious. YOU HATE VATICAN II!”
 Firm Purpose of Admendment I respond, with Lumen gentium, saying:
11. Those who approach the sacrament of Penance obtain pardon from the mercy of God for the offence committed against Him and are at the same time reconciled with the Church, which they have wounded by their sins, and which by charity, example, and prayer seeks their conversion.
Just showing up is enough, eh? NO. That’s sentimental twaddle.
The priest cannot simply assume that the person has the necessary sorrow, detestation and intention by the simple fact that she showed up in the confessional!
I am seeking your conversion and your salvation. And I am going to apply this bitter but effective medicine until it takes effect. If you listen or you don’t listen, I’m going to persevere anyway and thus save my own soul. However, like Augustine, “Nolo salvus esse sine vobis! (s. 17.2).
The confessional is a tribunal of mercy, but it is a tribunal. The confessional is not a “safe space” where tender snowflakes are given hugs and puppies and crayons and affirming coos. There is a juridical character to the confession. The facts of each case must be brought to the Judge, who binds and looses with the power of the keys received in priestly ordination and wielded with the permission of the Church via the faculty granted by proper authority. The penitent is her own Accusatrix and Prosecutrix. The fact that the person has come is a sign that grace is at work. Coming to the confessional is a really good start. But coming is not, in itself, enough.
So, everyone think about the effect of your heinous black sins on yourselves and on the whole world. When you sin, you hurt everyone. Examine your consciences with one eye on the depths of Hell and the other on the gates of Heaven. Choose. Be truly sorry for your sins and …
GO TO CONFESSION! Have a Firm Purpose of Amendment – Confession!
Statement of Archbishop Robert J. Carlson Regarding Proposed City of St. Louis Ordinance Relating to Abortion
ST. LOUIS – Most Reverend Robert J. Carlson, Archbishop of St. Louis, issued the following statement in regards to a proposed ordinance in the City of St. Louis:
 Archbishop Robert Carlson The Board of Aldermen of the City of St. Louis is considering an ordinance (Board Bill 203) that attacks the most deeply held moral and religious convictions of the people of this great city. This proposed ordinance seeks to make St. Louis a sanctuary city for abortion, an act that kills innocent unborn children. This is not what our city should stand for; rather, St. Louis should be a sanctuary for life and compassion, especially compassion for mothers and their developing children.
Board Bill 203 is vague and ambiguous but could have terrible consequences for religious institutions. For example, a Catholic school or Catholic Charities agency could be fined by the City of St. Louis for not employing persons who publicly promote practices such as abortion. In addition, our Catholic institutions could be fined for not including coverage for abortion in their insurance plans.
Board Bill 203 could also allow the City of St. Louis to fine landlords and others who do not want to rent to or be associated with the abortion industry. This proposed ordinance, therefore, would force the people of St. Louis to be complicit in the profound evil of abortion. This would be a flagrant violation of religious liberty and individual rights of conscience.
I urge the citizens of St. Louis to oppose Board Bill 203. Protection and care for human life at all stages of development from conception until natural death is a fundamental moral value shared by Catholics as well as many other people of faith. City ordinances should respect all people, including women facing unplanned pregnancies, unborn children, and people who desire to live their lives in accordance with their religious convictions.
We Will Not Comply
As the shepherd of the faithful Catholics of this region, let me be clear that the Archdiocese of St. Louis cannot and will not comply with any ordinance like Board Bill 203 that attempts to force the Church and others to become unwilling participants in the abortion business. There is no room for compromise on such a matter. This is a matter of fundamental religious and moral beliefs.
Rather than aiding and abetting the abortion industry, the archdiocese, through its various ministries and programs, will continue to extend both spiritual and material assistance to all those in need, especially the poor and those women facing crisis pregnancies who feel they have no one else to turn to for help—both during their pregnancies as well as after their child is born.
I urge the St. Louis Board of Aldermen to defeat Board Bill 203. I appeal to the humanity and the love of all freedom-loving citizens of St. Louis to make their voices heard in defense of human life.
#CatholicSTL
By Fr. Dwight Longenecker, Standing on My Head:
Edward Pentin writes here about the possibility that “in special cases” Protestants might be admitted to receive the Body and Blood of Christ at a Catholic Eucharist.
The debate specifically over intercommunion with Christian denominations follows recent remarks by Cardinal Walter Kasper who, in a Dec. 10 interview with Avvenire, said he hopes Pope Francis’ next declaration will open the way for intercommunion with other denominations “in special cases.”
There are several things which are troubling about this news. The first is the way the modernists attempt change. What they really want is open communion with Protestants, but they know they will never achieve that so they insert the thin edge of the wedge with “special cases.”
 The tool they use to do this is sentimentalism and “tough cases.” So we are presented, for example, with a good Lutheran woman who is married to a Catholic, and with long faces they tell everyone how saddened they are not to be able to receive communion together. They tell how they attended the deathbed of the man’s mother and everyone else received communion with her, but the Lutheran woman was excluded.”
This is the tyranny of tenderness. If you object you are perceived as a rigid hardliner, a tough, legalistic, Pharisaical hypocrite. Everyone says, “Awww. That’s so sad. Those Catholic conservatives are so harsh!”
No one stops and uses common sense and asks why, if receiving Catholic communion is so important for this dear Lutheran lady, that she hadn’t taken RCIA and become a Catholic years ago.
If she honestly does not believe the Catholic faith, we accept and respect her beliefs. What no one asks the lady is, “If you believe the Catholic faith why do you not come into the church? If you do not believe the Catholic faith why do you want to receive communion? No one likes hypocrisy. Why do you not only want to be a hypocrite, but do so publicly, using the Body and Blood of Christ, and why do you expect us to applaud this?”
However, if the murky world of Kasper Church such common sense and plain talking is not appreciated, and this is the second objection. Those who are pushing for change are deliberately keeping the conversation vague. The issue is not vague, however. The church’s teaching is clear and you should always be suspicious of those theologians who say, “Well, of course it’s more nuanced than that…”
Everyone accepts that real life is messier than the rules, but the rules are established to help make sense of the mess and move forward. If we made the rules according to the mess rather than the other way around everything would be chaos.
As a convert from the Church of England, I need to remind Catholics of a few home truths. This ambiguous, sentimentalists version of Christianity doesn’t have much mileage. The deliberately ambiguous language in order to bring about long term change is the tactic of the wolf not the shepherd.
The Church of England started to compromise on the little stuff with the “special cases” and ambiguous language and now the floodgates have opened.
Believe me. It begins with the fuzzy language and “special cases” and then everything else follows. Consider artificial contraception. It began with the Anglicans saying that married couples, “in special circumstances” with advice from their pastor might in some situations use artificial contraception. Now it is a sexual free for all and the whole concept of marriage is in free fall.
The Catholic Church must avoid yielding to the temptation of giving in on what seems a small matter in “special circumstances.”
It might seem harsh to exclude Protestants from communion, but every religious group has boundaries. Protestants claim open communion, but they have boundaries too. Most of them would not welcome Mormons or Moonies or Unitarians or Christian Science devotees. These people claim to follow Jesus Christ, but their theology is not acceptable so they would either be excluded or expected to forsake their false religion and join the Protestants’ church.
Furthermore, when you examine the facts you will also learn that in almost every situation the church already allows for pastoral decisions in special cases.
So, in the issue of communion for non-Catholics, we already allow for special cases. With the bishop’s permission at a family event like a wedding or funeral a non-Catholic may, in some instances receive communion. Also, on their deathbed, if a non Catholic requests the Catholic sacraments the priest is permitted to administer them.
I’ll finish with a very personal story. My own sister got cancer. She was an Anglican. When I went to visit her I took my holy oils and my first class relic of St Therese and learned that she had travelled to Oxford when Therese’s relics were on tour. She went to confession to a Catholic priest and he made an exception and heard her confession. She asked if I would anoint her and since she asked and was in a final illness, I was able to give her the sacrament of the sick. She planned to make a pilgrimage to Lourdes with my other sister–a Catholic, but she died the day she was to depart for Lourdes.
So the church already allows for “special cases” and we don’t need Cardinal Kasper pushing the envelope using ambiguous language and sentimentality to make disastrous changes.
Faithful Catholics: A Message of Hope
Dear Catholic Friend,
I am writing to you to give you a word of encouragement. So I would hope you take this in the fatherly way I want to address you, as one who is a priest of over 32 years and as spiritual director of dozens of people, a priest who very much has personal contact with many of the lay faithful and knows very well the deep concern – anxiety may be a better word – over the present situation in the Church. Take this as if I were in your presence, saying firmly and clearly and with great confidence: Be at peace! Pray more! Calm down and don’t lose heart!
St. Padre Pio, “Pray, hope, and don’t worry.”
Padre Pio is quoted as saying, “Pray, hope, and don’t worry!” I want to aim that especially at people who write those anxiety-filled blogs and articles at the Church’s present situation, but certainly to all the Catholic faithful who are confused, bemused, or just plain angry. I certainly understand your concern; in fact, I share it but my consideration as to what to do is different. I conclude that we should pray more and complain less; besides you might recall the words of Psalm 95 which we priests and religious who recite the Divine Office have the joy of choosing as the invitatory psalm in our daily recitation of the breviary; specifically the verse that says: “Forty years I endured that generation. I said, ‘They are a people whose hearts go astray and they do not know my ways.’ So I swore in My anger, ‘They shall not enter into My rest.’”
What Are You Going to Do?
Let’s not try our Lord’s patience, rather let’s take this as an opportunity to establish a firmer faith, a more secure hope and a deeper charity. After all, what are you going to do? Leave the Church?! Wouldn’t the Evil One then have the victory over your soul?
Think of it!
Aren’t you one who loves that old title given to us at confirmation, “soldiers of Christ.” Well, then don’t walk off the field of battle. These are the times, I’m convinced, that St. Louis Marie de Montfort prophesied, the time of the great saints: “Towards, the end of the world . . . Almighty God and His holy mother are to raise up great saints who will surpass in holiness most other saints as much as the cedars of Lebanon tower above little shrubs.” (St. Louis Marie de Montfort, True Devotion to Mary, article 47). Take it a s a compliment that our father God finds you worthy of these times, that He finds you capable of great sanctity!
I write as one who gives direction to many souls and who is alarmed at the discouragement that has entered so many hearts. I hear it and see it a lot and I must confess that discouragement is not foreign to me, especially given the confusion spread even by those called to strengthen our faith. That being said, I want to tell you what I tell the souls entrusted to me: Pray more! Pray for an increase of faith, hope, and love and make it an apostolic prayer, said with missionary zeal for the sake of others. “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, increase our faith, hope and love!” Not just once, but many times a day, pray this way and you will fulfill your duty as a good soldier of Christ.
Hang in There Friends!
I write this out of gratitude for all the Catholic faithful whose loyalty to Christ and His holy Church has inspired me throughout my life. Hang in there friends! Hang in there with greater faith, hope, and love. “The gates of Hell will not prevail!”
May holy Mary, the woman of great faith and mother of the Church, envelop you in Her most compassionate and immaculate heart. Peace!
Fr. William Moser
|
|
