The Application of Amoris Laetitia …
In a bulletin from St. Anne Chicoutimi parish in Canada this past April we can see the real effects of the Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia. The Celebration of Fidelity, which up to now celebrated the silver and gold anniversaries of couples in this formerly Catholic parish in Quebec, was replaced by a “Celebration of Love” announced as follows: “We now wish to welcome all couples who want to celebrate their love and renew their commitment to each other, regardless of the type of their commitment (Catholic marriage, civil marriage, common-law or same-sex partners) and regardless of how many years (1 year, 8 years, 25 years, 57 years, 62 years). We consider any couple’s commitment important.”
Let’s be clear: this is not a celebration of love, but rather the egalitarian celebration of sacramental marriage, legal cohabitation, free unions and homosexual relationships. All couples are put on the same level, all presumably having the same exemplary value.
This is not a celebration of love, it is the love of celebration in itself and for its own sake, devoid of all objective content. All that matters is personal commitment, subjective feeling, and sincerity liberated from the Gospel truth of marriage.
This is how the Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia is put into practice in real life. No longer “The Joy of Love”, but the love of joy, emancipated from the Gospel truth of marriage. A sad joy.
That’s the spirit! The God of Surprises strikes again! Well done, Canada!
Comments invited – especially from those who argue that AL didn’t change a thing…
Comments (73)
Wow. Now I’ve seen everything.
TS,
I thought I’d seen everything when Pope Francis was pictured wearing a red nose! LOL!
LOL! For me, it was the pic of him wearing a sombrero!
http://www.gopusa.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/pope_francis_sombrero.jpg
LOL!
Actually, it really makes me want to cry, not laugh. How this pope is diminishing the office he holds.
TS,
I think we’ve all said that over the years. However, this definitely takes (at least) one of the biscuits, that’s for sure!
Here’s an article on AL from One Peter Five (1P5) just in today – I’ve only read the first few comments underneath the article at source, but this one is spot on: The argument of “it’s only a footnote” is a way to downplay what is really being proposed. Besides, footnotes are the usual way to strongly link the text above with Scripture and Tradition, so little footnotes are really bigger than they appear. Ed: this is very true, given that the Canadian parish bulletin “Celebration of Love” event may come to represent a typical response –
Article from One Peter Five…
The retired archbishop of Bologna, Italy, Cardinal Carlo Caffarra – one of the authors of the Five Cardinals Book and a strong defender of the traditional Catholic teaching on marriage – has recently given an interview to the Italian website La nuova bussola quotidiana. In this 25 May interview concerning marriage and the family, Cardinal Caffarra makes clear that even if the state now makes laws allowing so-called same-sex marriages, they “cannot change the reality of things.” He says that “mayors (especially Catholic ones) have to make a conscientious objection” in this matter. To celebrate such a union, Caffarra continues, would be to make oneself partially responsible for such a “gravely illict act on the moral level.” The Italian cardinal sees currently taking place a disjunction between nature and logos with relation to marriage.
When asked whether there are also supernatural causes for this new development, Cardinal Caffarra refers back to the already known and important correspondence he had with Sister Lucia in the 1980s. Caffarra points out that on 13 May 1981 — the very same day that Pope John Paul II suffered the shocking attempt on his life — Caffarra was about to open the Pontifical John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family. He describes how, a few years later, he wrote to Sister Lucia and asked her for her prayers for the newly founded institute, not expecting a response. Caffarra continues: “She wrote back to me – let me remind you that we were then in the early 1980s – and she told me that there will be a time of the ‘final conflict’ between the Lord and Satan. And that the battleground would be over the very constitution of marriage and the family.” Sister Lucia then told Caffarra that “those who will fight for marriage and the family will be persecuted” and that “they should not have fear because the Madonna already has crushed the head of the infernal serpent.”
Caffarra explains this struggle between God and Satan with regard to the redefining of marriage, as follows: “And Satan says to God: ‘See, this is your creation. But I will show you that I can construct an alternative creation. And you will see that the people will say it is better this way.’” [Editor: emphasis added]
It is up to the Church, according to Caffarra, to teach again the fullness of the beauty of the sacramental marriage which makes one out of two and gives the spouses the grace of marital charity in order to have children and educate them. The Church “has to heal the inability of men and women to love,” adds Caffarra.
With regard to the papal exhortation, Amoris Laetitia, Cardinal Caffarra points out that its “Chapter 8 is, objectively, unclear” since it causes “conflicts of interpretations even among bishops.” In such a case, continues the Italian prelate, one has to refer to the continuity of the Magisterium of the past in order to receive clarity. “In matters of Doctrine and Morals, the Magisterium cannot contradict itself,” Caffarra states. With regard to the question of the “remarried” divorcees and their access to Holy Communion, the cardinal makes clear that this cannot be changed and that these couples are still not allowed to receive Holy Communion. He refers here to the previous magisterial teaching of the Church and continues: “Now, if the pope would have wanted to change that teaching – it is very clear – he would have the duty, indeed the grave duty, to say so, clearly and explicitly. One cannot change the age-old discipline of the Church with the help of a footnote, and in an uncertain tone.” Caffarra then here makes reference to the “principle of interpretation” according to which an uncertain magisterial teaching has to be interpreted in continuity with the previous Magisterium.”
This statement of Cardinal Caffarra makes one ask the larger question: “To what extent, in any event, is anything intentionally ambiguous binding on the Catholic conscience?” Source – One Peter Five
Yes, this is what we expected: doctrinal change by the “pastoral” back door, the celebration of public manifest sin. How on earth these people can claim in good conscience to be Catholic is beyond me.
Athanasius,
They can claim to be Catholics but they’re not, if they think this is OK. Surely, this is a case where someone automatically excommunicates themselves if they are going along with it? Surely the priest, if no-one else, is automatically excommunicated?
I think that everyone is so confused just now and because it’s a pope who is peddling this stuff, it’s more difficult to say a priest like the Canadian is automatically, ipso facto, excommunicated. We don’t know his age, he may be badly instructed etc. I think the blame lies at the top and those further down the chain are less blameworthy, if they are truly ignorant. If he’s an older priest who should know better, that would be different.
What is that about an abomination of desolation? Prefigurement here?
Damsel of the Faith,
It is most definitely an abomination, that is very clear. Just think – that priest is holding a public celebration of grave sins, and calling those sins “love”! It’s just beyond the pale.
I am effraid, I find that it is absolutely scandalous!…
I am speechless!
I, too, am speechless. This is a total scandal.
I also think that the fact that there are so few comments on this thread might mean that people are thoroughly sick of Amoris Laetitia. It’s getting to be as boring as the EU debate – LOL!
I don’t mean to trivialise this, but it really is so bad that once you’ve said it’s so bad, there’s nothing much left to say. It’s a terrible document, most shocking in giving priests permission, in fact, to do what this Canadian priest is doing. What else can anyone say?
Here’s a good example of correct moral thinking in a Catholic, from Catholic Family News, putting Pope Francis to rights on the issue of invalid marriages
http://www.cfnews.org/page88/files/c7021c4e6b096449f84172e5e5d6a54e-592.html
Nicky,
I was a bit surprised at the opening statement in the priest’s answer:
Answer: I cannot see how such a person can be retained as an instructor in a Catholic school – at least if her marital status is publicly known
What difference would it make if her situation is publicly known or not, if she is teaching in a Catholic school? That makes is sound as if there has to be a public face of a Catholic school, not so much taking care that pupils are not being influenced by someone who is not living in accordance with the Church’s teaching.
I’ve only had time to skim this thread because I’m so desperately in need of my beauty sleep that I’m even skipping the pubs and clubs tonight, so will catch up properly, hopefully, at some point tomorrow.
For now, I thought this Lifesitenews report is of interest – reporting this scandal and revealing that the priest(s) in question claim the support of the local bishop, while the diocese denies this.
Also, despite a priest willing to offer it and a petition (of around 200 people) the Bishop refuses to provide a TLM so, as the Lifesitenews report notes, there’s something wrong in this diocese, all right. As if we hadn’t worked that out all by ourselves already!
Editor,
I just checked the list of “gay-friendly” parishes in the US and Canada, and that parish in the article isn’t even included. I bet it soon will be!
RCA Victor,
No doubt. It’s truly unbelievable how weak is the faith of that priest (plural?) to so quickly jump on the AL bandwagon. Unthinking and faithless. What has gotten into them. Don’t answer that. I think we all know…
I was going to say here we go with “follow the leader,” but Francis is no leader and no vicar, so this is more of a case of “monkey see, monkey do.”
I saw this article in the Remnant Newspaper this morning and it is quite a long one and titled –
Amoris Laetitia: Anatomy of a Pontifical Debacle.
It comes with descriptions such as “Pope’s Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia is a catastrophe”
and “An addition to the Great Façade of pseudo doctrines”.
http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/2464-amoris-laetitia-anatomy-of-a-pontifical-debacle
Theresa Rose
Many thanks for posting that link to the excellent article by Christopher Ferrara. His writings are a real treasure trove, and this article is no exception, where he puts everything together to make his case so clearly – imagine, a Pope who wishes to permanently change the Church! Incredible.
Bishop Schneider’s reply to the Remnant’s Open Letter:
Dear Mr. Matt: Thank you for your greetings. I wrote an answer to The Remnant‘s Open Letter, which I send to you in the attachment and you can publish. God bless abundantly you and your apostolate for the Catholic faith. With cordial greetings in Jesus and Mary, + Athanasius Schneider May 26, 2016 Dear Mr. Christopher A. Ferrara: On May 9, 2016 you published on “The Remnant” website an open letter to me regarding the question of the Apostolic Exhortation “Amoris laetitia”.
As a bishop, I am grateful and at the same time encouraged to receive from a Catholic layman such a clear and beautiful manifestation of the “sensus fidei” regarding the Divine truth on marriage and the moral law.
I am agreeing with your observations as to those expressions in AL (“Amoris laetitia”), and especially in its VIII’s chapter, which are highly ambiguous and misleading. In using our reason and in respecting the proper sense of the words, one can hardly interpret some expressions in AL according to the holy immutable Tradition of the Church.
In AL, there are of course expressions which are obviously in conformity with the Tradition. But that is not what is at issue here. What is at stake are the natural and logical consequences of the ambiguous expressions of AL.
Indeed, they contain a real spiritual danger, which will cause doctrinal confusion, a fast and easy spreading of heterodox doctrines concerning marriage and moral law, and also the adoption and consolidation of the praxis of admitting divorced and remarried to Holy Communion, a praxis which will trivialize and profane, as to say, at one blow three sacraments: the sacrament of Marriage, of Penance, and of the Most Holy Eucharist.
In these our dark times, in which Our Beloved Lord seems to sleep in the boat of His Holy Church, all Catholics, beginning from the bishops up to the simplest faithful, who still take seriously their baptismal vows, should with one voice (“una voce”) make a profession of fidelity, enunciating concretely and clearly all those Catholic truths, which are in some expressions of AL undermined or ambiguously disfigured. It would be a kind of a “Credo” of the people of God. AL is clearly a pastoral document (i.e., by its nature of temporal character) and has no claims to be definitive. We have to avoid to “make infallible” every word and gesture of a current Pope. This is contrary to the teaching of Jesus and of the whole Tradition of the Church.
Such a totalitarian understanding and application of Papal infallibility is not Catholic, is ultimately worldly, like in a dictatorship; it is against the spirit of the Gospel and of the Fathers of the Church. Beside the above mentioned possible common profession of fidelity, there should be made to my opinion, by competent scholars of dogmatic and moral theology also a solid analysis of all ambiguous and objectively erroneous expressions in AL. Such a scientific analysis should be made without anger and partiality (“sine ira et studio”) and out of filial deference to the Vicar of Christ.
I am convinced that in later times the Popes will be grateful that there had been concerning voices of some bishops, theologians and laypeople in times of a great confusion. Let us live for the sake of the truth and of the eternity, “ proveritate et aeternitate”!
+ Athanasius Schneider, Auxiliary Bishop of the Archdiocese of Saint Mary in Astana ■
I am not sure if this is a direct result of Amoris Laetitia. IN many parishes behind the scenes irregular marriages are being blessed and the bride in white, the groom, and their failed see out as coming home. It is sad that it is all about personal conscience rather than the love of God. And as I say the scandal to children and the destruction to children is immense since the true meaning of love, the way of sacrifice, is just ignored.
John,
That, I’m afraid, was the plan. No pope can announce a change in Christ’s teaching on marriage, so the only way forward (or, more accurately, backward) is to change the practise, by the back door. Clever. Diabolically clever. It’s not like the Pope and the Kasper Cabal are doing anything they didn’t openly say they would do, even if wiser heads suggested consigning it all to footnotes; revolutionary changes is what Papa Francis promised and that is what he is delivering.
I think we all need to show a little bit more love in this thread.
Amazing to see how people are talking about others this is probably why the church is so divided.
Everyone knows right and can’t find any good in the “other”.
thesmilingpilgrim,
Welcome!
I’m surprised that you focus on the bloggers here and your perception of “why the Church is so divided” – be assured, it’s not “divided” because we are commenting on a parish in Canada where the priests are publicly celebrating sin – it’s “divided” because of such unfaithful (to God’s law) priests.
I’ve placed “divided” in inverted commas because the Church cannot be “divided” – those who do not accept the divinely revealed teaching and authority of Christ’s Church, in fact place themselves outside it. The Church, itself, remains one, as it remains holy, catholic and apostolic.
Now, my question to you is this: what is YOUR opinion of the “Celebration of Love” advertised in the Canadian parish, which is the topic of this thread? Do you approve of it?
I think you misunderstood where I was coming from. I wasn’t coming from an attackive spot or even really discussing the issue to be honest.
More of less just bringing something up.
More and more we are turning into the judges and executioners in our tones these days.
It’s frightening people off rather than getting at the gospel message of a God that loves us and is love.
*Not using the love thing to cover or push any issues just mean it in it’s scriptural fashion*
I may not reply again as I get quite busy but hopefully this has cleared up my intent. I have no want to have more conflict especially with my brothers and sisters in this world.
I thought about putting an edit to what I just wrote:
There is a point where reasonable debate/criticism turns into mob mentality and brings out the worst in us rather than the best. This is something that effects people no matter what side of the coin they land on.
And more often than not it turns into a thing at dinner parties and or with friends/communities/blogs where we act and say things in ways in which only cause pain.
Hopefully that helps clarify too as I don’t want to come off as someone attacking from the other side.
THE Smiling Pilgrim,
I wonder if you would let us know what is your opinion about the “Celebration of Love” in the Canadian parish. Do you think it is a good thing?
Don’t hold your breath, Editor. Smiling P just wants us all to be loving and – most important of all non-judgemental, so if s/he answers your question, s/he’ll have to make a judgement, and that may cause conflict, you know. Try to forget what Christ said; it’s only making people angry, and that’s not a good thing. It’s not nice. Maybe He didn’t mean to be so proscriptive?? You have to admit that life would be much easier if that were so, don’t you? We should all just chill out.
Therese,
Do I detect a teensy, weensy, wee bit of sarcy warky cynicism there? Surely not!
We’ll be having a teensy, weensy, wee bit of a chat on 18th June – be warned… you’ll never chill out again! 😀
Editor
Just a wee tad. Looking forward to meeting you on the 18th, and off to buy my train tickets at the weekend, once I’ve emptied my piggy bank and then robbed the local bank. Shh.. say nowt….
Therese,
“a wee tad”? Doesn’t that mean “a wee small”?
You’re losing it, girl. You’re losing it!
Don’t worry about that piggy bank. Athanasius will reimburse you.
Editor
No – it’s smaller than wee but not as large as a tad. Ahem.
No doubt Athanasius will come in disguise now…
Editor,
We’ll be having no talk of a “wee small” on this blog, much less of Therese losing it. Modesty is paramount!
Signed
Rev. W. E. Free.
Piggy banks are a different matter. Whenever there’s talk of these I’m in there like a shot! But I don’t do reimbursments. I ask for them!
Therese
“No – it’s smaller than wee but not as large as a tad. Ahem.”
Let’s call it infinitesimal, but only while we’re sober.
Are we discussing my pay here?
TheSmilingPilgrim
Don’t confuse modern “love” with divine charity.. What I would like to know is: while all this luvvie stuff is going on today, where is love of divine truth? Where is love of God and the Faith of our Fathers? That’s the kind of love that’s important, love of God and souls. The Church would be in a far healthier situation today if our shepherds were more intolerant of sin and error and less the advocates of a superficial love.
I just hope that if I ever (God forbid) go to my doctor for medication to cure a potentially fatal disease he doesn’t refuse me on the grounds that the medicine is unpleasant to take. The disease of Modernism today is very grave and so it needs a strong medicine (within the recommended doses advised by charity, of course). The world is presently on its way to Hell in a hand cart because of modern love, which is really just the sin of human respect.
Athanasius I agree with a lot of what your saying but sometimes how people present it is by disingenuous comparisons or taking things out of context in order to fit their narrative.
There is a reason why certain theological premises are around and they will be resolved by dealing with them at a certain level of honest inquiry.
I’ll give an example outside the Catholic Church so it can be viewed with a semi-unbiased perspective.
There was a movement in the time of John Calvin in reading the scriptures by certain meta-premise points. John Calvin you could say formalized this movement and its ideas in his work on “election”.
Much later Karl Barth and others in the Reformed tradition reinterpreted those ideas in some profound ways.
Regardless if someone likes Calvin and or Barth the point is that you have to recognize why certain things are coming up in philosophy/theology.
Inquiry will always be in a state of movement and unless a side can bring forth very meaningful engagements at a certain level as time continues to pass it will simply become fringe and more and more a refuge for ignorance.
I understand where you are coming from and honestly I agree with you a lot more than you know but seeing articles which present material “skewed” is something I reject from all sides of an interest point.
When I see articles trashing tradionalists and taking their arguments and material out of context and a community getting riled up on that frenzy than I interrupt as well because what is that going to accomplish? Everyone is sour now-a-days no matter where you find yourself in an ideological context. Everyone wants to have an “Other” to vent everything out on.
If we are gonna act just like other people in how we talk about our issues, philosophies, theologies than what sets us apart as the Salt of the Earth.
That is what I am trying to get at.
I’ll leave it at that because I think I’ve clarified that it’s not about not really delving into modernism and it’s faults (Which there are so many!)
But of something else that has been developing alongside modernism which is a culture. A culture of how we speak to each other. A culture of how we regard our fellow brothers and sisters both in the Church and out in the world. How we frame and prejudice our statements. That culture is from modernism too and it’s ugly as well.
The Smiling Pilgrim,
“…seeing articles which present material “skewed” is something I reject from all sides of an interest point.”
Do you see such “skewed” articles on here? If so, please explain.
And I am still awaiting your opinion on the Celebration of Love in the Canadian parish.
It’s a yes/no answer – no deeply theological essay required. Do you think the “Celebration of Love” in the Canadian parish, as advertised in their bulletin, is a good thing?
After all, we directly quoted from their bulletin – we didn’t “skew” the context one bit.
So, I repeat Do you think the “Celebration of Love” in the Canadian parish, as advertised in their bulletin, is a good thing?
TheSmilingPilgrim
You speak of exploring philosophies and theologies as though this were an unrestricted, perfectly normal activity.
but surely you know that post-Vatican II many of these explorations by Catholics exegetes, some of them high prelates and even Popes, have drifted into the forbidden territory of investigative discussion and manipulation of infallibly defined dogma.
Sacred Scripture and defined doctrine are two areas closed to relativist reinterpretation, for example. And Yet, as this thread topic amply demonstrates, there are some who are attempting to alter the moral teaching under the banner of “pastorality” and “love”. Pope Francis himself has prompted this breach by his careless Encyclical and even more careless pronouncements.
It behoves faithful Catholics to speak out vigorously against such a scandal.
With discussion at an intelligent level coupled with open exchange points are taken as worth investigating and exploring.
You like a lot of others have some gifts and all I am saying is we need to start creating a culture of character and discussion that allows those gifts to shine as bright as they are meant.
I agree with a lot of what your saying here.
I think it’s good that you took this back into being a more defined engagement and being well spoken about it.
TheSmilingPilgrim
I’m not altogether certain as to what comments on this thread could have prompted you to respond as you have. Would you be good enough to provide me with some examples of who said what, and when?
We debate robustly on this blog, but not aggressively. Honesty by its very nature demands forthrightness in speech. We leave diplomacy (if that’s what one can call it) to the politicians and the relativists.Our duty is to speak the truth without a shadow of ambiguity. Nothing more, nothing less.
Ok, occasionally someone will contribute some comments that breach the boundaries of charity. Sadly, that’s the nature of public forums these days, encouraged by anonymity. When this happens we try to reason with the person who makes the uncharitable post and encourage them to tone it down a little. The most aggressive contributors are those who come on to the blog as trolls looking for trouble. So I reiterate my confusion and ask if you could perhaps highlight something in particular that prompted you to object.
As regards discussions about the faith, it is precisely the profusion of these unending babbles in our time,initiated by Neo-Modernist Churchmen who know better, that causes this blog and others to fill with comments in defence of divine truth. These so-called discussions we react to usually take the form of calling into question all that was once held and believed by the Church. All theological, Scriptural, moral, Sacramental, etc., discussions that they raise today invariably result in a further weakening of faith.
Outright heterodoxy or near-heresy cannot be met with a diplomatic response. Our Lord said we should let our yes be yes and our no, no. That’s all we try to do here.
Athanasius,
I don’t think TheSmilingPilgrim has any intention of giving a serious answer to our questions. Note he has still not said whether or not he approves of the Canadian parish “Celebration of Love”, despite my repeated requests for an answer. Which leave us to presume the his silence implies consent – he DOES agree with it.
Now, here’s another example of how AL is bringing the poison of sexual immorality out into the open – not that they were exactly hiding their immorality under a bushel in Germany before, but read this to underline what you already know about the German Church, and its influence in the Synod and with the final Exhortation.
Editor and Athanasius,
The problem with TheSmilingPilgrim appears to be that he thinks his vague, warm-and-fuzzy, ostensibly sensitive platitudes are serious, when in fact they have little or no meaning. A few examples:
-The “meta-promise” movement was formalized by John Calvin, reinterpreted profoundly by Karl Barth and others, and that is why “certain things are coming up in philosophy/theology.”
-“Inquiry will always be in a state of movement and unless a side can bring forth very meaningful engagements at a certain level as time continues to pass it will simply become fringe and more and more a refuge for ignorance.”
-“With discussion at an intelligent level coupled with open exchange points are taken as worth investigating and exploring.”
-…”we need to start creating a culture of character and discussion…”
-“…you took this back into being a more defined engagement and being well spoken about it.”
Etc. Good grief, this person doesn’t even know how to speak plain English!
I think Therese had his posts, and his attitude, nailed on the head earlier in this thread. In fact, since we’re talking about the application of AL, I suggest his application fits right in with the Pope Francis approach: “Who am I to judge?”
PS: He reminds me distinctly of the obviously gay seminar professor in that video series you’ve posted before, who pretends that he values everyone’s opinion, and then has a hissy fit when one of his students mentions “orthodoxy.”
Well I had come to the conclusion the English is not his first language!
Elizabeth,
I think you’re right: his first language is Gibberish. Spoken by the inhabitants of Gibber, which might be somewhere in Gulliver’s Travels…
-“…you took this back into being a more defined engagement and being well spoken about it.”
Etc. Good grief, this person doesn’t even know how to speak plain English!
Bless you, RCAVictor. I was getting really worried, seeing Editor’s and Athanasius’s serious replies to TheSmilingPilgrim, that I was the only one who couldn’t understand what he/she was saying! I’ve been wondering if there is some significance in his/her choice of name that is being missed.
Christina, RCA Victor, Elizabeth – you lot!
Well, his first post was an obvious “you lot lack charity” so I answered that as seriously as I could muster but thereafter, if you note, I have focused on getting him to respond to my question about the Canadian scandal. He has not done so, ergo it seems obvious to me that, having refused to express any disquiet, concern, shock, he must be perfectly happy with it.
And that is clear no matter WHAT is his first language!
Editor,
To paraphrase the old verse, “A smile covereth a multitude of agendas.” That said, I’d say you are correct: Smiley-Face came here to accuse us of lack of charity, which, apparently, is his indirect defense of the Canadian scandal.
If I’ve been too blunt about him, I apologize, but I have to admit, any posts that reek of political correctness, as his do, in spades, sets my Latin blood a-boilin’. Reminds me of something a former colleague once said, in referring to some black families who were being rude and raucous during a graduation ceremony, shouting their approval when their children came to the podium to receive their diplomas: “They were using an alternate means of applause.” And she was serious!
Speaking of PC, what was the name of that video series I referred to in my 5:21 post?
RCA Victor,
“Alternate means of applause” – hilarious!
Video series? I think you were referring to Professor Stanford Nutting…
[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmHzYWO6b0k?list=PLB9FDD4C1EE4ABEB5&w=854&h=480%5D
Ahhh, NOW I understand what the smiling visitor was on about. I’m slow, but I get there in the end with a little help from my friends! 😂
Christina,
Like me, you’ll appreciate the “Professor Nutting” videos because they are a fantastic take-off of the kind of approach in schools and colleges from the 70’s on. Teachers were to “facilitate” discussions/learning and everyone was to be “cool”.
I think every student in teacher training should see these videos – to prevent them making idiots of themselves when they qualify!
Is the professor a Jesuit I wonder? Just saying…
Elizabeth,
If my memory serves me correctly, he’s a former seminarian but I don’t think “Jesuit” – not sure.
Editor – that’s the one! Thank you!
RCA Victor,
The one I copied to post is the one entitled “Religion in the Modern World” but now I see that the “What is Truth” video is there instead. I think that’s because there is a set of them together on YouTube, and the “Modern World” film will play in due course. Sorry about that.
Technology, eh? Who needs it…
We do!
Editor,
I clicked on the YOUTUBE button and got through to the set you mentioned. I clicked on the Religion in the Modern World video on the list and it came on, so I’ve copied the embed code and will post it here. I just hope it takes and doesn’t just post yours again. If so, others can click on the YOUTUBE button and watch the “Religion in the Modern World” for themselves on YOUTUBE.
[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmHzYWO6b0k?list=PLB9FDD4C1EE4ABEB5&w=854&h=480%5D
LOL! Didn’t work. Editor, feel free to delete!
I Googled it to get it on its own on YouTube and will try again!
[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmHzYWO6b0k&w=854&h=480%5D
Success at last! LOL!
I’ve just posted the following comment on the One Peter Five blog in response to Hillary White, a one-time member of staff at Lifesitenews. I post it here for the record:
Hillary White,
Sorry, but I have been stunned to read some of your articles on The Remnant site and now this comment here, because – I just have to remind you – we had an email exchange some short years ago in which you were clearly not for criticising the then celebrity pontiff John Paul II. Catholic Truth (in Scotland) and Christian Order, hav been virtually alone in speaking out about the damage to the Church inflicted in the post-Vatican II era, by the succession of modernist popes we’ve had to suffer. Just because Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI spoke out against abortion and other “life” issues, doesn’t change the fact that they were Modernists. We expect a pope to defend the natural moral order. That’s elementary my dear Hillary. What we don’t expect, is for him to endorse and promote the concept that one religion is as good as another, that there are some people who don’t need Christ to be saved, ideas promoted by Pope Francis’s predecessors every bit as much as he now pushes the same heresy. We expect popes to discipline dissenters and keep good order in the Church. None of the post-Vatican II popes did that. Yet most of the now hot potato commentators on the papal office, maintained a complicit silence during those years.
Pope Francis did not appear out of the blue, as the “bad pope” after a succession of “good” (in fact, “canonisable”. Yeah right) popes. No, the ground was being prepared and it is interesting to see how – despite the fact that, yes, more and more Catholics are now, very belatedly wakening up to the dire state of play in the Church, there are still many who will not hear a word against Pope Francis, just because he’s the pope. Papolatrists.
It is my firm belief that if enough of the now “Francis Commentators & Critics Brigade” had spoken out as forcefully during the pontificate of Pope John Paul II, AND the slightly better but still not ideal Pope Benedict XVI, the 2013 conclave just might have turned out differently. It was the silent acceptance, the papolatry which reigned during each of the post Vatican II pontificates that have contributed, hugely, to the current mess.
Having said all of that, I am delighted that you – and Lifesitenews – are now speaking out.
Read original article and comments here
Hillary White called me “that nutbar at Catholic Truth” on the One Peter Five blog.
Me? A “nutbar”?
I’m wounded! I’ve asked for some specifics to uphold the allegation so let’s hope she doesn’t know me well enough to supply some! 😀
Shockingly rude! Who is this Hilary?
Elizabeth,
Hillary White used to be a columnist with Lifesitenews – an online pro-life publication. She seems to have left them but I don’t know where she is working now.
Well Editor,
If it was directed at me, I would find her remark extremely gratifying, further, I wouldn’t contact her again – just in case she changes her mind.
Final Score: OurEd, 1 – 0 ThatWummin
Right Gerontius. “You look good enough to eat” is quite a compliment!
Editor
I’ve tried to post a reply to Hilary White with no success. When I try to open an account I’m told that my e-mail is already in use, and when I try to ask for a new password I’m told that my e-mail is not recognised. Very frustrating.
Actually folks, I am just back at my computer after a long day out and driving away from my computer, already late for an appointment, I regretted alerting you all to that criticism, just in case anyone went in with all guns blazing in my defence. I just tend to see the funny side of things and don’t always think of the offshoots – I really don’t want anyone going on to defend me. That would remove my martyrdom brownie points…
Seriously, please do not respond to her, although thank you, Therese, for trying to do so (unlike the rest of the lazy so & so’s…!) I always simply ask for examples of whatever the latest fault is, but so far never get any. Actually, I did once, when a young man wrote in to say that I was too critical of Catholic schools… Some time later, however, he wrote again to say HE was wrong, and he now realised I was telling the truth, not being unjustly critical ! You see, folks, he had come to a realisation of that eternal truth; that the editor of Catholic Truth might not always be right, but she’s never wrong 😀
It’s not that I’m above criticism, believe me, but these (always incomplete) lists of my character faults are not helpful unless they are accompanied by at least one example.
“Nutbar”? Well, I love nuts in chocolate bars so if that’s what she means, thanks, Hillary, I’m delighted!
Well, if you insist Editor, but I hate to let the cheeky little monkey get away with her arrogant and insulting behaviour, not to mention my disgust at her using the F word, even though it was self-censored. I’ve been a fan of her writing for The Remnant, so I was doubly outraged.
Well folks, here’s the latest from Pope Francis – reported in Zenit. Sorry, I forgot to copy the link and closed down my browser, but if you think I’ve made it all up, just Google Zenit…
Pope’s Morning Homily: To Say ‘This or Nothing’ Is Heretic
At Casa Santa Marta, Reminds Faithful Jesus Called for ‘Healthy Realism’
•June 9, 2016•Deborah Castellano Lubov•Pope’s Morning Homily
L’Osservatore Romano
To say ‘this or nothing’ is not Catholic, it is heretic.
The Pope made this strong statement during his homily at morning Mass in the Casa Santa Marta today, reported Vatican Radio.
Criticizing this mentality, the Pope reminded those gathered that Jesus called for ‘healthy realism,’ which He taught to His disciples.
Francis exhorted faithful to let go of this rigidity which prevents faithful from reconciling among themselves. He recalled how in Jesus’ time the people were divided among themselves since those that were teaching were not coherent in their life witness.
“How many times do we in the Church hear these things: how many times! ‘But that priest, that man or that woman from the Catholic Action, that bishop, or that Pope tell us we must do this this way!’ and then they do the opposite. This is the scandal that wounds the people and prevents the people of God from growing and going forward. It doesn’t free them.”
“In addition,” he continued, “these people had seen the rigidity of those scribes and Pharisees and when a prophet came to give them a bit of joy, they (the scribes and Pharisees) persecuted them and even murdered them; there was no place for prophets there. And Jesus said to them, to the Pharisees: ‘you have killed the prophets, you have persecuted the prophets: those who were bringing fresh air.’”
Jesus, the Jesuit Pope stressed, wants us to let go of these non-Christian, extreme ideas and to remember and live out the Commandments by loving God and our neighbor.
The Pontiff also warned against insulting others, noting when one insults one’s brother it is akin to giving ‘a slap to his spirit.’ Francis also decried when a man of the Church acts contrary to what he says, noting this is ‘a scandal.’
Before concluding, the Pope urged those gathered to always ‘following healthy realism,’ and never idealism nor rigidity. END.
Well, there you have it. AL in the proverbial nutshell. “Healthy realism” (accepting sin) and “never idealism or rigidity” (there’ no such thing as right or wrong.)
Pray for Papa Francis – like there’s no tomorrow…
Following on your last post dear Editor,…”To say this or nothing is heretic(al)” I wish to draw your attention to the latest post from Rorate Caeli which takes up exactly that point. Now, I am aware that you, (and others) are not exactly well disposed to the late Pope St. John Paul II, even though he has been canonised by Pope Francis. I will not now enter the arguments about that, but what Rorate Caeli contrasts is (i) Veritatis Splendor(/i) and that latest outburst from Francis.
JohnR,
I’m not “well disposed” to any allegedly canonised saint when there was no Devil’s Advocate to test the evidence! Crazy. A bit like having a man acquitted in court of a serious crime in a trial where only the defence lawyers were allowed to speak! A trial where the Prosecution evidence was not heard! And so there were some who were left pretty unsure as to the innocence of said accused!
I haven’t seen the Rorate article of which you speak but I know that just about everything Papa Francis says contradicts what has already been said in various other papal documents and, er… Catholic Tradition itself!
In this short article from Remnant Newspaper says that it would make Jesus and Mary weep. And I agree with that.
http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=2576:philosopher-friend-of-john-paul-ii-pope-francis-exhortation-must-cause-jesus-and-mary-to-weep
Here’s the latest from One Peter Five – if AL is applied according to this belief (that 50% of Catholic marriages are invalid anyway) then, what’s the point in promoting Catholic marriage?
N O T I C E . . .
I’ll be closing the May and June threads together, early in July, so if you have any catching up to do, now’s the time!
Comments are closed.