A Plot Against Pope Francis Not Wholly Implausible?

Or so says Fr. Alexander Lucie-Smith in the Catholic Herald.
I suppose that could mean many different things, mostly depending on how the good father would inflect the word "wholly" were he to speak his headline aloud.
One of the main intents of my partial Facebook/Twitter fast is to not comment on the Holy Father's words or actions, and more, to put a pause on my arrogant advice giving. I should say this up front, and I will avoid it, I hope.
But this struck me as wrong -

The fact that this “plot” has leaked could mean one of two things. It could be that the feeling the Pope should retire is now so widespread, that it cannot be kept secret – in other words there are too many people in on the plot. But it could mean something else entirely, namely that the plotters are very few in number and are airing their idea to see if it gains traction. Their idea might be to launch a snowball that then turns into an avalanche in the way of which nothing can stand.

I can think of a third possibility.
Could it not have been brought out in the open by one who does not wish its success, to make it less likely to happen?
I read somewhere once that Alan Sheperd was the first American astronaut because John Glenn had been selected to be.
What? you ask.
Apparently, President Johnson, who had some say in the matter, was so furious at the news having been leaked that he chose to rub the noses of the leakers or the media in it by making them wrong, even if it meant not doing what he had wanted to do in the first place. (Another axiomatic "nose" comes to mind, something about cutting and spiting, but I digress.)
And there is also the shining of light on cockroaches, who then freeze, in the hope that if they make no further moves they will remain unnoticed and safe.
Hmmm... I do not mean to insult those who might wish to compass the Holy Father's resignation, so instead of insects, let me instead compare them to valiant French partisans engaged in near-suicidal espionage against the Nazis under cover of darkness.
Shhhh... ne bougez pas un muscle. Le gardien vient de faire ses rondes, il va éteindre la lumière dans un moment et aller pour le café.
And even the "near-suicidal" may not bee so far-fetched... Guam, anyone?

Drat. I said I wasn't going to do that.

Harpies Attacking Holy Place, a Shepherd Shirks His Duty, and the Demonic Offers More Proof of Its Existence.

You see, this "MUA" atrocity happens every year in some lucky Argentinian city.
According to police reports, the "National Women's March"...

 ...attempted to burn down the Cathedral Basilica Shrine of Our Lady of the Rosary in the city of Rosario...The attack was planned for the night of Sunday 9th September during the 31st National Women's march attended by 70,000 women. Maximiliano Pullaro, the Minister of Security for Santa Fe, acknowledged that if police had not intervened with tear gas and rubber bullets the protesters would have burnt down the cathedral with eight firebombs.
In previous weeks pro-abortionists had used social media to incite protesters to burn down the cathedral. In response to this, the group Argentina Alert circulated a petition calling on the authorities and police to protect the cathedral, collecting over 13,500 signatures. A barrier was erected around part of the cathedral in an attempt to protect it from arson.
In recent years the National Women's March has been the occasion for violent and blasphemous attacks against the cathedrals in which the protests have been held. In 2013 1500 young Catholic heroes formed a human shield to protect the Cathedral of San Juan Bautista

But this year, there was a special twist.
The police intervened! (Hard to fathom, but they don't, always.)

 During Saturday afternoon semi-naked women danced around an effigy of Pope Francis chanting slogans demanding the legalisation of abortion... [the mob] made a determined attempt to burn down the cathedral with a group tearing down the protective barrier in order to enter the cathedral. A squad of police emerged from inside the cathedral to push back the attackers with their shields. The feminists attacked the police with stones, bottles and iron bars, injuring some of the police. One was injured by a gunshot and another policeman was burnt by a Molotov bomb thrown by an abortionist. The battle to protect the cathedral from being firebombed by the protesters lasted 30 minutes. 

 Sadly, there was another surprising feature of the Rosario event

The Archbishop of Rosario, Eduardo Martin, did not support the action taken by the young men to defend the cathedral by praying the rosary and putting themselves in harms way. Archbishop Martin went so far as to describe them as "ultras" whose presence provoked the women.

Watch the video linked on the EWTN site to see on which side the blame for "provocation" lies.
I weep, every year, in gratitude to, and pride in, the men, and this year some young women, who pray and protect the churches.
And I weep, for shame that other members of my sex would behave so shamefully, and I weep in utter in mortification that a member of the Catholic hierarchy could be so spineless, and could be so cruel as to criticize those laypersons who were DOING  HIS  JOB.

I wouldn't depend on that shepherd to lay down his life for his sheep....

And yet more proof, were it needed that support for abortion -- not those who support abortion, mind you, but the support itself -- that support for abortion is diabolical.

US Bishops Laud Amoris Laetitia's 'Hopeful, Positive Tone"

The USCCB says they like the "hopeful, positive tone" of the Holy Father's post-synodal exortation on marriage.
What a joyful optimism must the Holy Father enjoy, to be hopeful and positive about unions, 50% of which he guesses are invalid.
I just don't think it is "myopic" to see the contradictions and ambiguities that rise almost to the level of error, nor do I think to call attention to them indicates a lack of love for or obedience to the Pope.

I had a friend in theatre who used to say of appearing in a lousy vehicle and still giving the best performance you know how, "It's like draggin' a dead horse around the stage and pretending it don't stink."

The USCCB has set itself the task of dragging a rather noisome animal there.
God bless them.

Profanation of the Eucharist, the Sanctity of Marriage, and "Venue Shopping"

I am, if it is not too glib to say so, a great "fan" of the Church's "annulment" process. (The scare quotes are in recognition that there is no such thing as annulment in the Church, rather, there is a process for discovering the nullity of a putative marriage.)
The gracious and generous manner in which the process is handled in this country, at least, has benefited me greatly.
I note this to admit upfront that I am hardly a disinterested party.
It is for this reason that while it seems wrong to me, I cannot oppose the Holy Father's reform of said process - I know that the American experience is not the universal expedience, and another discipline may be necessary in other parts of the Catholic, and catholic, world.
And the fact is, I also was slightly injured by the process in a specific case, that the Tribunal's office is to find the truth, not to kiss boo-boos and make them better.
As it happens, in the case I mention, there were 3 plausible defects, and two of them would have been evident to a blind pig.
Alas for me, a hotshot lawyer, (only newly canon lawyer, after half a lifetime of practicing civil law in his civilian life,) was fascinated by the less obvious one, and insisted upon arguing it, delaying the final decree by months, and moving us past a window of easy attendance by my immediate, far-flung, and fecund family.

All that being stipulated -  HOW  IS  IT  IN  ANYONE'S  BEST  INTEREST  TO  HAVE  BISHOPS'  CONFERENCE  IN THE CATHOLIC  CHURCH DECIDE  THESE MATTERS  LOCALLY?????
Patently, it is not.

One of the disgraces of the annulment process in the United States, (again, stipulating that I am eternally grateful to the process and to those who promulgated it, tho venue shopping didn't come in to it,) was the disparity in the application of Canon Law from diocese to diocese, and the practice of those who were aware of it, to venue shop.

Whatever one makes of the merits of the dispute, one conclusion seems ineluctable: Whether by design or not, what Pope Francis effectively has done is to opt for decentralization on one of the most contentious issues in Catholic life today.Barring some further clarification or decree from Rome, what we now have is individual bishops, or regional groupings of bishops, determining whether the answer is “yes” or “no” in the territory under their jurisdiction.

Yes, exactly - so what is to discourage venue shopping now on a global scale?
"Oh, no, I live here but I belong to the GERMAN/Roman Catholic Church so I'm allowed to...."
(I use the Germans as an example because I have little doubt that anyone willing to pay the tax will be admitted, parochial boundaries be damned.)

How would this possibility enhance the unity/fidelity/sanctity of the Body of Christ?

Maine Restaurateur, Second Amendment Rights, and the Sin of Sodom?

"The outcry against Bishop Galantino is so great, and his sin so grave, that I must go down and see whether or not his homily fully corresponds to the cry against him that comes to me. I mean to find out."
OK, not really. But this reading, the Sodom and Gomorrah one did come up recently. And if news blog?.... curmudgeon reports are to be believed, the head of the Italian bishops' conference is so ignorant of scripture, even by our Catholic standards, that he didn't realize that, gee, hate to break it to His Excellency, after all that... uhm, God does send down fire and brimstone and Will Ferrel movies and destroys the evil cities.
Is that a real school of thought, that Abraham schooled the Father in mercy the way at least some Jesuits think the Canaanite woman schooled the Son?

At any rate, anyone who discussed the little S & G incident found his combox inundated with Right-minded Persons making sure that everyone "knew" what they themselves professed to "know", (learn a new concept, "virtue signalling",) by hastening to announce, just a wee bit off topic, that oh and by the way, the Sin of Sodom was not what you prudes think is an attempt to force nasty sex on the disguised angelic individuals, but LACK  OF  HOSPITALITY.
Contrast that with the fact that  just a little before that in the cycle of readings, we learned that due to his hospitality Abraham was given a son, (and a nation, and all that.)

This was not really germane to the discussion at hand, the point of which was, nope, Bish, Sodom was NOT saved, and isn't necessarily true, but let's say for the mo it is --

I was just tickled at the NYTimes running a piece, (can't find it to link, because without subscription it would use up by limited access for the month, but this is another media outlet berating the Times for it,) about a liberal provider of public accommodation, who in her anti-gun zeal, (which I, full disclosure, share with her,) will not serve 2nd amendment supporters or certain types of gun owners in her diner.
I could be wrong, but food seems to me a more basic right than, oh, I dunno, wedding flowers? but the Times twisted itself into knots not to condemn the woman.

But isn't that, we don't serve your kind in here! the very definition of being inhospitable?

So the Down East restaurateur was guilty of the sin of Sodom, right?
At least, in the thinking of the New Church we've Sung Into Being, low these past few decades...

"Demythologizing the Papacy"

And absolutely fascinating report by the wonderful Edward Pentin on a presentation by Archbishop Georg Gänswein.

Archbishop Gänswein, who doubles as the personal secretary of the Pope Emeritus and prefect of the Pontifical Household, said Benedict did not abandon the papacy like Pope Celestine V in the 13th century but rather sought to continue his Petrine Office in a more appropriate way given his frailty....

Drawing on the Latin words “munus petrinum” — “Petrine ministry” — Gänswein pointed out the word “munus” has many meanings such as “service, duty, guide or gift”. He said that “before and after his resignation” Benedict has viewed his task as “participation in such a ‘Petrine ministry’.

“He left the Papal Throne and yet, with the step he took on 11 February 2013, he has not abandoned this ministry,” Gänswein explained, something "quite impossible after his irrevocable acceptance of the office in April 2005.“

Instead, he said, "he has built a personal office with a collegial and synodal dimension, almost a communal ministry...

“Therefore he has also not retired to a monastery in isolation but stays within the Vatican — as if he had taken only one step to the side to make room for his successor and a new stage in the history of the papacy.” With that step, he said, he has enriched the papacy with “his prayer and his compassion placed in the Vatican Gardens....

“So it is not surprising,” he said, “that some have seen it as revolutionary, or otherwise as entirely consistent with the gospel,  while still others see in this way a secularized papacy as never before, and thus more collegial and functional, or even simply more humane and less sacred. And still others are of the opinion that Benedict XVI, with this step, has almost — speaking in theological and historical-critical terms — demythologized the papacy.”

I will not deny that I miss Pope Benedict every day, but I utterly denounce this insistence on pitting the theology and faith and Catholicity of Francis against that of Benedict, or vice versa.
Different styles, different ways of expression, (there is no doubt to which I incline,) different personalities... different reserves of prudence? of the prudence of reserve?  but they are brothers in arms.
Cooperatores Veritatis , indeed.
The unseemly backroom machination against the popes are no surprise, but I did not know about the sister who had been killed in the car accident.
That is the kind of blow that can be hard to bear at any stage in life.
Any way, good read, thank you Catholic Register.
I am finding, with the raging partisanship that seems to have invaded every kind of social and institutionalized information supplying, that there is very little that we can depend on.
Sometimes our enemies tell us the truth, and our allies lie.
Did you hear what....? Well, no, so and so said that what really.... But it said in.... But were there actual quotations, or did someone mischaracterize... Yes, he wrote that but in context he clearly....
And yes, I have been troubled by some things actually said, and other things imputed to Pope Francis, and I don't always think he has phrased things as felicitously as he might have, or taken into account likely misinterpretations.
But so long as neither Ratzinger nor Gänswein has turned on him, neither shall I dare to do such a thing.

Heroism, the Average Man and the Subtle Condescension of Lowered Expectations

(Yes, "man," I consider myself included in the term, I am part of mankind.)
I have to confess, (mea culpa, mea culpa, mea minima [?] culpa,) since the organ in which it appeared its not one from which I find I receive much information nor food for thought, I had not actually read the entire interview in which a German prelate had opined that "heroism is not for the average Christian."

It is a ludicrous statement, a theologian might as well say that sanctity or sainthood is not for the average Christian, the grandeur of Heaven is not for the average Christian, the doing more than the minimum to get by is not, or the Beatific Vision, or the effort to live without sin...
Not called to holiness, not called to grapple with the prince of this world and his rules for  going along to get along...
One might as well say that the Glory of having been created in the image and likeness of God is "not for" you.
You.
There.
You commonplace persons, you member of the hoi polloi, you sad little average person.
Not everyone agrees.
There was a link to a FOCUS article about heroism in my inbox, and some pretty solid advice, (though the trendy jargon of "being present in the moment," I could have wished had been worded differently.) An excerpt:

1.     Pray.
Build and solidify your relationship daily with Jesus Christ, the most heroic among us.
2.     Practice saying no to yourself.
Build a habit of saying no to the things you want. This will make you the master of your own will.
3.     Be present in the moment.
Become interested in the people you’re with.  Don’t wish your life away.
4.     Lead someone else.
As you try to grow in virtue, teach someone else those same virtues which you are building — and then show them how to teach someone else.

Also, instead of merely reading the money quotes as reported elsewhere, I did read the rest of the Cardinal Kasper interview. His "hero" line in context:

To live together as brother and sister? Of course I have high respect for those who are [living together as brother and sister]. But it’s a heroic act, and heroism is not for the average Christian. That could also create new tensions. Adultery is not only wrong sexual behavior. It’s to leave a familiaris consortio, a communion, and to establish a new one. But normally it’s also the sexual relations in such a communion, so I can’t say whether it’s ongoing adultery. Therefore I would say, yes, absolution is possible. Mercy means God gives to everybody who converts and repents a new chance.
I have high respect for such people [those who say that absolution requires penance, and that entails a firm purpose of amendment]. But whether I can impose it is another question.

'Zat really any better? As a confessor or spiritual director he "can't say whether it’s ongoing adultery"? Of course you can't impose any penance or absolution fort that matter FOR SOMETHING YOU CAN'T SAY IS A SIN.
Oh, one last section, which I will not criticize, but which leaves me flummoxed:

CWL: When you talk about a divorced and remarried Catholic not being able to fulfil the rigorist’s requirements without incurring a new guilt, what would he or she be guilty of?
Kasper: The breakup of the second family. If there are children you cannot do it. If you’re engaged to a new partner, you’ve given your word, and so it’s not possible.

"Engaged"? "Given your word"?
Perhaps by "engaged" he means something other than the immediate association most anglophones have.
But is there guilt in breaking your words when the very giving of it breaks and earlier one?
And yes, children, if there are any, should be the first consideration.
This, of course, includes children from the previous union.
But is it good for a child to live in an environment where at least one of his parents has come to the realization that, whether fully culpable or not, his participation in conjugal relations is sinful, and is not willing to forgo them?
In fact, if one parent would like to live chastely and the other insists on them, isn't that the very definition of an abusive relationship?
Which almost anyone would say, one should extricate oneself from, no?

The Paper of Record Axe-grinding?

(You may notice, I have resumed complaining following my Holy Week fast.)
Mother Mary Angelica, nee Rita Rizzo, in the words of the President of the USCCB, an “extraordinary woman, devout believer and media pioneer,” merited a fairly long obit in the au gust ful New York Times, and rightly so.
She had an influence on both mass media and religion in his county such as has not been seen since Billy Graham, I would opine.
The Times, of course, was desperate for a death to outrank hers on their obituary page. They didn't actually find one, though they pretended otherwise.

What struck me in their "reporting" was that they found two American prelates whose opposition to her and her work they could include in the piece.

Well, no, not really that.
Of course anyone who actually accomplishes anything is going to make, at the very least, frenemies.

I think the Cardinal and the Archbishop the Time cited qualify as actual enemies.

But seriously, (and just to let you know where I'm coming from, I have never been a particular fan of Mother Angelica, though I admire her work immensely, and have grown to admire her more and more over the years,) how could you quote a liberal churchman or two with whom she had run-ins without noting that one of them resigned in disgrace and the other was relieved of ministerial duties in his disgraced retirement because, um, SHE WAS RIGHT?
Their liberal "morality" and ecclesiology was bankrupt.

Would you quote Cardinal Law on Church governance without noting ... a lack of credibility?

Another Day, Another "Wait, WHAAAT? ....That's Not What He Said"

One of my husband's siblings has a calling, in life: to take the joy and fun out of any pleasant reminiscences by droning, "That's not the way it happened...."
Now, I don't mean this person corrects libels, our postman, growin' up, killed his best friend so that he could marry the widow, I always heard) or contradicts life-threatening advice, (yup, gramps drank a quart of motor oil every day, and that's why he lived to be 103.)

No, this is more like interrupting to deliver unnecessary information such as that the rooster that attacked the five of them that day at the swimming pond was red, not white, and belonged to to Old Man Otto, not the Pederesons, and anyway, we shouldn't have skipped school -- thereby sucking the life out of the presentations of some very, very gifted Blarney-mongers.

But I am here to apologize for the ill-will this has provoked in me over the 15 years I've known the family, as I now see such people are absolutely vital.
Several of them should travel with the Pope at all times, and others should be dispatched to  keep an eye on every journalist who thinks to report on what Francis is purported to have said.

What can be done about bloggers, I don't know....

Francis stopped reading the written text and said... Communion is a vital form of the Church and the unity of Her Pastors is evidence of Her veracity… There is no need for “principles” but for a community of witnesses to the Lord.

Huh?
We need not have PRINCIPLES??!??!??
Well, no.
"Princes."
He said the Church don't need no stinkin' "princes".
An honest mistake by Rorate, or Google translate, or whoever, the two words are the same in Italian.
So I think we need not to get worked up about what was said to have been said, as I said.

But here's the other problem - official translations coming out of the Vatican seem, often, to be very slow in coming, (not this case.)

Whose fault is this?

Doesn't at least a little of it devolve on the person who insists on going off script, not giving those who serve him any kind of heads up, ignoring the fact that the Prince of Lies is having a field day with those of us who think what the Pope has to say might be important and so WANT to pay attention, and tossing handfuls of ammo to those whose agenda is to destroy this "communion", this "unity"?

Just a thought, Holy Father.

And Interwebs, how about a little compassion for the Mexican episcopacy, who need to try to hear and understand him even more urgently than we laity do - isn't it possible some of their reaction is to what it was said that the Holy Father said rather than what he actually said? For that matter, my Spanish is lacking, but some of the reaction to their statement may be based on faulty understanding of what they said and what they meant.
Charity.

A Tale of Two Cities Washingtons, Catholic Edition

Yeah, ones a state and ones a city, so...

I suppose I could have called it a tales of two blondes...
Have you ever noticed how only women are ever identified as such nominalized adjectives? as if their hair color were the sum total of their identities, or at least among the most important facets thereof. It's a kind of synecdoche, isn't it? or is it a metonym? or are they the same thing?
In an case, it's demeaning, (when it is not ironic.)
Strangely, I think it's meant to be complimentary.
A frazzled, homely, overweight woman is never identified in headlines as "the brunette," is she?
I digress.

Anyway, there are many difference in the two situations, but the points of similarity make the whole thing deliciously risible.
I think it's funny that a famous, out-spoken blonde, invited to speak at a Catholic institution, in one case causes the sponsoring organization to be denied any promotion or publicity for the event within the diocese because on another topic entirely she has opposing views to that of the local bishop on a prudential matter although the bishop hasn't really come up with any specifics to which he objects; and in the other, when her entire claim to fame is as the nation's most notable champion of a grave sin that cries out to heaven on which her view is opposed to the Truth always and everywhere by the Church Universal, in a matter that is non-negotiable, it's um, you know... free expression, and people of good will agreeing to disagree, and of course she's publicly welcomed!
It's just funny.
Sad, but funny.
(And I say this as someone who would probably agree with the bishop in the first case, if he were to make his objections known, and who doesn't hold with most of the views of his blonde.)

Really? REALLY???

That's right... in your FACE, pro-lifers!

One last thing - can I just say how smarmy I think it is that Georgetown University values their "faith tradition" as opposed to valuing the actual Faith?

Initiates and the Uninitiated

When I as a young whipper-snapper, the catechesis of callow Catholics was in a dormant stage, at least in my neck of the American woods.
We painted rocks and sang along with a guitar wielding high school girl from red plastic books, (the red plastic books may be a false memory, as Glory and Praise had not yet blighted the landscape - on the other hand, the girl in question, a friend of our family, was a world traveller, very sophisticated, she may have brought it back from somewhere exotic, like France. I'm just remembering, she was also the one who explained the meaning of "to sleep with." At a drive-in, us little ones tumbling in the back of the station wagon like pajamed puppies, adults and semi-adults in the two bench seats, there was a "coming attraction" touted which I now think must have been the Cardinal, while we waited to see something like 3 Lives of Thomasina. In it, a woman in a confessional said, "I slept with a man." I asked her later how sleeping could be a sin, and she explained that not much sleeping often occurred during the act of "sleeping with.")
Until Confirmation class virtually anything I learned about the Faith was from the way people behaved in church, which was very powerful, and from my parents, both by osmosis and deliberately.
As is only right.
But I digress.)
In any case, until I was an adult I never heard the specific phrase "sacraments of initiation." (My own confirmation was a good long ways after what we now know should have been the final of the three, I had skipped a grade and was allowed to make my Communion with my older class-mates, but according to the diocese, IIRC, had to wait for the Seven Gifts until I was the "right age." Although I was lucky, very lucky, suddenly, after years of strum and hum and craft projects, they wheeled an ancient nun with a hair-sprouting mole out of the back, wearing a mask like Hannibal Lecter, who TAUGHT us actual THINGS. You know, facts, and precepts and principles and doctrines. I shall be forever grateful to Sister Clare Cornelius.)
Another digression, sorry.

ANYWAY.

Since I am now in possession of this expression, the sacrament of initiation,  I was struck rather forcefully by a snippet I read.
"Family Day" in Italy was apparently an enormous outpouring of popular support for the Traditional, might I say Normal? notion of "family," despite possible neglect by, or at least ambiguity from the Pope and outright hostility on the part of some Italian bishops.
In following links to see what manner of man was head of the bishops' conference, I came across this from some time ago. It was,

reported that he said the Eucharist “is and must remain a ‘universal assembly’”, and that it must also be an “eloquent sign of the divine and his free gift for the ‘uninitiated’.”

I have nothing to say.
That was kind of a long way to go, I suppose for nothing to say.
Maybe I AM the Dutiful Brother.
But I want my prodigal brother to come home, I want him to!
But not to pop in for dinner, drop off his laundry for Mom or the servants to do and take off again, after pawning the finest robe and ring and sandals so he could squander the proceeds by resuming his life of dissipation.

Is that just me being selfish? Or is it me remembering that the spiritual acts of mercy are "not a devotion," they are required of us who dare to bear the name of Christian?

“When in the evening of life, we are asked if we fed the hungry and gave drink to the thirsty, we will also be asked if we helped persons come out of doubt, if we were committed to receive sinners, admonishing and correcting them, if we were capable of combatting ignorance, especially that concerning the Christian faith and the good life. This attention to the works of mercy is important: they are not a devotion. It is the concreteness of how Christians must carry forward the spirit of mercy.”

Girl Scouts and Catholic Values

As it happens, I am allergic to Girl Scout cookies.
That said,
Each year [the Girl Scouts]

contribute over one million unrestricted dollars in membership dues to the [World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts]. ...WAGGGS has indicated to GSUSA that less than 3% of its budget is allocated towards advocacy efforts which cover a number of topics, including basic education and health care.
The [US bishops] recognized that both GSUSA and WAGGGS have been responsive to particular concerns. However, GSUSA’s limited purview to address particular positions within WAGGGS that are objectionable based on Catholic teaching and the natural moral law (e.g., “sexual and reproductive health/rights”) is a concern. [ya think?]In addition, with regard to the unrestricted membership dues, any monetary amount applied to advocacy or educational efforts deemed problematic is still a concern. [Because, say it with me boys and girls, MONEY IS A FUNGIBLE COMMODITY.]
In sum, GSUSA’s relationship with WAGGGS over the years is understandable ["understandable" as, "permitting of comprehension", or "understandable" as in "deserving of our understanding"?] given the history and purpose of the organizations; however, the current relationship remains a concern due to WAGGGS’ problematic promotion of “sexual and reproductive health/rights” and other matters.

The USCCB LMFLY, as far too often, says the right thing, but says it in Catholish, so that the take away can be whatever you want it to be.

"Reproductive rights" doesn't mean anything other than access to contraception and abortion on demand any more than "states rights" in the 19th century meant anything other than legal chattel slavery.

"Excesses"? The Germans Really ARE a Tolerant Bunch!

I like to give the benefit of the doubt to someone whose words I can only read in translation.

I have no German outside of a few art song phrases.

So when I read that after what some think is too long a period of time, (might one say, an "excessive" delay...?) a German bishop has spoken out about the organized gangs of molesters and thieves that plagued New Year's celebrations in their country, and he is quoted as decrying the disturbing and intolerable "excesses in Cologne and other large cities," I figure something was lost in translation.

But here is the German:

Die Exzesse in Köln und anderen Großstädten sind für unsere Gesellschaft zutiefst verstörend und können in keiner Weise toleriert werden.

"Excesses," to me, implies that which in moderation is perfectly acceptable, no?
As if a little bit of pickpocketing and grab-ass with unwilling victims would have been fine, all fun and games? but the perpetrators just went a bit too far?

Ah, the Germans....

Italian Archbishop on the Sin of Halitosis, and the Automatic Excommunication It Incurs

If he's not discussing bad breath so heinous as to knock another down, (or the unpleasantness attendant upon people who spit when they talk,) and this is not a translation problem,  I am hard pressed to know what in the world Archbishop Rino Fisichella means here:

“I would say that we need to understand well ‘physical violence,’ because sometimes words, too, are rocks and stones, and therefore I believe some of these sins, too, are far more widespread than we might think.”

"Physical," in common with many words, has an actual meaning, you know?
It means something.
Harsh words are "physical violence"?..."PHYSICAL VIOLENCE"?
Really?

"'Literally'? .....'LITERALLY'?"

The Way One "Lives Ones Sexuality"?

[A newly appointed Catholic archbishop has] said, “I have much respect for gays,” including “their way of living their sexuality.”

While that statement may be open to interpretation, it certainly will be seen as far more gay-friendly than [the new archbishop's predecessor].
No disrespect to either of the prelates in question, or to John Allen who reports this, but what are these multifarious interpretations?
Unless celibates are under discussion, I am having difficulty in ascribing more than one meaning to praise of a homosexual's "living [his ]sexuality."

Help me out here?

Joel Grey Deeply Dissappointed at Synod?

It seems so.

“The bishops writers at NCR are currently trapped in the old trendy theology they learned in the seminary or at America magazine. They are afraid of new ideas the concept of eternal Truth and disappointing the secular world and are not consulting with theological experts the people with whom I'd agree who could show them other options what I want. As a result, it is unlikely that new pastoral  approaches any heresy or sanctioning of practices inimical to Revealed Truth will be coming forth from this synod. 
“Some progressives aging hippies still hope that Pope Francis can somehow magically pull victory from the jaws of defeat sing a new church into being. I don’t think so."

"Yeah, he's really sorry, so if you could just apologize to him...."

 

It is a staple of sitcoms and rom-coms, dating back at least to "Much Ado,", (so I guess, dating back to whatever the source from which Shakespeare lifted the plot of MAAN,) that two people have a falling out, and their circle, either because the enmity of the two is just wearing on their friends, or simply for sport, try to convince each that the other has more or less expressed contrition, so can't we put all this animosity behind us?

Can't we all just get along?

I keep thinking of the innumerable iterations of this situation as we hear, over, and over, and over the words "mercy," and "repentance," and "forgiveness" and "amendment."

Mercy, as I have always understood it, is as unmerited as Grace.  

If I am entitled to something, my receipt of it does not require mercy from anyone but simple justice.

You can extend forgiveness to anyone who has sinned against you, whether he asks for it or not; and God can extend mercy to and pardon whom He wills.

But does the Church have the authority to forgive someone who doesn't ask for it?

Mercy invites the sinner and it becomes forgiveness when one repents and changes one’s life. The prodigal son was greeted with an embrace from his father only when he returned home .

-- from the Synodal intervention of Cardinal Jorge Urosa Savino of Caracas

She can, She must show mercy, to all sinners, (that is, to all human beings, everyone of us,)  in inviting to repentance, but can she forgive them, on behalf of all Her members and especially on behalf the those who may have been wronged by the sin, if it is not sought by the sinner?

And if he "asks for forgiveness" *wink *wink, for a "sin" *nudge, *nudge, that he does not believe is a sin and in which he intends to continue to engage, is not "the last imposture worse than the first"? (Am I queering my own argument by using the words of the chief priests and Pharisees?)

And I fear sometimes, that those in high places urging admittance to the sacraments for those in "irregular" marriages, (is "irregular" like "disordered" and "indissoluble"? is it too harsh to say?) not those in the marriages themselves, urge with such fervor not because they think mercy is required but because -- and I apologize, this is a serious accusation I make --  because, ultimately, they do not see such situations as sinful.

Now I am not the kindest of human beings, and yet more than once I have apologized to someone when there was no question in my mind that nothing I had done merited remorse or regret much less a mea culpa.
But it made people feel better, or calmed someone down, or just seemed the easiest way out....

And as I said, not the most gentle or conciliatory, so if I've done this, EVERYONE has probably done it at one time or another.

So is that dishonesty on my part? is that a sin against the eighth commandment?

And to bring the conversation full circle, that is a staple of prison dramas, the innocent man, falsely imprisoned, who serves years longer than he needed to because he will not perjure himself by confessing to and showing contrition for a crime he did not commit.

When I was a kid, expedience being one of my core values, I always thought such nobility was the mark of a sucker and a patsy.
(So, another mea culpa.)

Voting On the Relatio Finalis

I am both confused and curious.
Confused because I thought I had understood, no, I am quite sure I heard more than once that some of the rhubarb heading into Synod 2015 was anger over a new procedure wherein the Synod Fathers only option would be to vote, either up or down, the relatio in its entirety rather than paragraph by paragraph.

But this a.m. I heard Joan Lewis on the radio talking about how they would be voting point by point.

Were we previously misinformed or was this simply one of the little changes that may have been wrought in the wake of the "secret" letter to the Pope from the 13 Cardinals?

Another thing that piques my curiosity is the matter of translation. Incompetence and shenanigans in this area were both matters that Ratzinger had to deal with in his tenure, so I understand that rapid, reliable work presents a problem.

But everything only in Italian? with no translations freely available?

Is this something new in post-VC II Vatican operations?

Instead of Latin, or French, (the language of diplomacy?) Italian is the default?

Has it been for a while?

How does that aid in de-centralization, or in breaking the purported stranglehold of the Curia and other Roman insiders, one wonders....

"Adultery?" No, tell us what you really think; Conflating Righteousness and Respectability

A few years ago some women's magazine I was reading had an article about Ashley Madison Adultery Marketplace, the website for cheaters who want to pretend they're doing something new and edgy, (look! it's modern! it's online! it's nothing like when Great Aunt Ermengarde ran off with the mailman, or that time the whole neighborhood saw Mr Katz without his pants at Mrs Nussbaum's cook-out and laughed themselves silly!)
The writer, or perhaps the editor, was turning verbal cartwheels and engaging in all sorts of contortions to try to claim it might have some redeeming value, that its use might once in a while be justified, but couldn't avoid admitting that it was inherently a creepy, unsavoury thing.
Who are we to judge? was an unsuccessfully attempted subtext.
They were able to allow as how, yeah, it was kinda sordid.

First Things asks, does is Church prepared to "oppose sin, or only sordidness"?

How is the institution tasked with upholding and teaching values we believe are handed down by the Creator to help us discern right from wrong when She shies away from even saying "wrong," much less labeling any action as such?
It's kinda refreshing when a periodical is this forthright:

[According to] the bishops advocating for a more accommodating approach to the divorced and remarried at the Vatican’s Synod on the Family... while the details of their proposals have varied, the basic thrust has not. If done with sufficient “stability”—that is, if the couple stays together, has children, and gets involved in the community—adultery can be looked at in a more positive light. [emphasis added]

St John Fisher would be proud.
(Although I must confess, I think words like "sin" and "sinful" and "adultery" are also for the chopping block, along with "disordered.")

Inviolability of the Conscience? Help Me Out Here....

I'm not a theologian or a philosopher, heck I'm not even a very good or very smart or very industrious person --
But my understanding of the concept of the inviolability of conscience was essentially that a person must not be compelled to do something he, after sufficient formation and study and prayer, believes is wrong.

NOT that every person is entitled do anything he thinks is right.

“If people come to a decision in good conscience [i.e. that something the Church teaches is sinful is not sinful] then our job is to help them move forward and to respect that."

 The Church's job is to respect a decision to do something sinful? Her JOB?

Not just get out of the way, (well, he thinks it's okay so it's okay for him,) but help them to persevere in that sin.

(I knew I shoulda gone to seminary so I could understand episcospeak.)

Conscience can remain in ignorance or make erroneous judgments. Such ignorance and errors are not always free of guilt.

And what about the conscince of him who helps the sinner to move forward, respects the sinful decision, enables the sin? 
(The story the good bishop tells is beautiful and touching but not really to the point - the woman in question did not come to any decision. Or rather, she seemed to have come to a decision that she knew what the Church's practice was, and at least in that one instance, she would obey Her.)