Since the day I accidently discovered that the Vatican pulled the Bible from their web site I’ve been racking my brain for a logical reason why in the internet age Rome would decide that Sacred Scripture had no place at Vatican online and would instead choose to send people searching for scripture to the sites of local authorities.  There are in fact arguments one can make for the change

One can suggest that it’s a lot less work to send people elsewhere  handle a dozen different languages on the site, except of course that they site already existed. One can argue that the Holy See doesn’t want to endorse one “official” version when there are several good translations there but that could be handled by a banner disclaimer.  One might even suggest that it solves the problem of the Psalms which were put up with only a single link meaning that you had to either start at Psalm 1 and go forward or Psalm 150 and work backward which while it would be a pain to fix could not be more than a couple of days work at the most for even the least competent programmer.  One could even claim this is part of the shepherds getting closer to the sheep by pushing traffic to the sites of local

Unfortunately there is one logical conclusion that given the divisions that have rocked the church since Amoris Laetitia makes the most logical sense.

Say you are the Bishops of Malta have decided to interpret the controversial parts of Amoris Laetitia as loosely as possible when it comes to admitting those practicing unrepentant Mortal Sin to communion when scripture inconveniently says this

For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread, and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, “This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”  For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.  

Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord.  A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup.  For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.

1 Corinthians 11:23-29 (via USCCB Site)

Rather than trying to make specious argument to counter 2000 years of tradition and a clear translation on the Vatican Site might it not be easier to eliminate such a passage online, footnote it to redefine it while one commissions a different translation that rephrases these inconvenient passages to push toward your flock.  It might take some time and cost some money but once it’s done then you can claim that what was once universally considered mortally sinful is no big deal and point to “scripture” to prove it.  You might even get to the point where those pointing out Mortal Sin and considering it unacceptable behavior would be accused themselves of sinfulness for doing so.

Of course a Bishop or an Episcopal Conference doing such a thing would be endangering not other the souls of their parishioners but their own souls as Christ emphatically states in Matthew:

Whoever causes one of these little ones* who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. Woe to the world because of things that cause sin! Such things must come, but woe to the one through whom they come!

If your hand or foot causes you to sin,* cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter into life maimed or crippled than with two hands or two feet to be thrown into eternal fire.

And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter into life with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into fiery Gehenna.

Matthew 18:6-9 via USCCB

Then again the Bishops in question can always decide to re-interpret that passage too

Now you might say “DaTechGuy that’s just paranoia.”  I’d like to think you’re right but I’m old enough to remember that it was just 20 years ago here in America that people from Nancy Pelosi to Bill Clinton were insisting that anyone suggesting legalizing Civil Unions would lead to Gay Marriage was crazy and less than tens years ago that anyone suggesting gay marriage would lead to laws where you can be punished for not allowing people with a penis to use the ladies room would be a nut.  And I would further remind people that there are not only many priests who are publicly pushing to redefine sin but we have the example of the collapse of churches like the Episcopal church of the US to know what redefining sin leads to for a church.

Horrible Exit Question:   Does the Vatican and Pope Francis consider this possibility a bug or a feature of leaving the Bible off the Vatican site.

The latest in our series on Amoris Laetitia as it is vs how it is spun:

 

The Pope talks about the family being a place where we are happy for each other

110. When a loving person can do good for others, or sees that others are happy, they themselves live happily and in this way give glory to God, for “God loves a cheerful giver” (2 Cor 9:7). Our Lord especially appreciates those who find joy in the happiness of others. If we fail to learn how to rejoice in the well-being of others, and focus primarily on our own needs, we condemn ourselves to a joyless existence, for, as Jesus said, “it is more blessed to give than to receive” (Acts 20:35).  The family must always be a place where, when something good happens to one of its members, they know that others will be there to celebrate it with them.

Seeking other’s happiness is the opposite of the grievance society..

And in the very next paragraph the grievance society is addressed

112. First, Paul says that love “bears all things” (panta stégei). This is about more than simply putting up with evil; it has to do with the use of the tongue. The verb can mean “holding one’s peace” about what may be wrong with another person.  It implies limiting judgment, checking the impulse to issue a firm and ruthless condemnation:  “Judge not and you will not be judged” (Lk 6:37).  Although it runs contrary to the way we normally use our tongues, God’s word tells us: “Do not speak evil against one another, brothers and sisters” (Jas 4:11). Being willing to speak ill of another person is a way of asserting ourselves, venting resentment and envy without concern for the harm we may do. We often forget that slander can be quite sinful; it is a grave offense against God when it seriously harms another person’s good name and causes damage that is hard to repair. Hence God’s word forthrightly states that the tongue “is a world of iniquity” that “stains the whole body” (Jas 3:6); it is a “restless evil, full of deadly poison” (3:8). Whereas the tongue can be used to “curse those who are made in the likeness of God” (3:9), love cherishes the good name of others, even one’s enemies. In seeking to uphold God’s law we must never forget this specific requirement of love.

One could argue that this paragraph is a direct assault on the entire raison d’être of the left.

 

And the next paragraph again flies in the face of the current cultural wisdom on marriage.

113. Married couples joined by love speak well of each other; they try to show their spouse’s good side, not their weakness and faults. In any event, they keep silent rather than speak ill of them. This is not merely a way of acting in front of others; it springs from an interior attitude.  Far from ingenuously claiming not to see the problems and weaknesses of others, it sees those weaknesses and faults in a wider context.  It recognizes that these failings are a part of a bigger picture. We have to realize that all of us are a complex mixture of light and shadows. The other person is much more than the sum of the little things that annoy me. Love does not have to be perfect for us to value it. The other person loves me as best they can, with all their limits, but the fact that love is imperfect does not mean that it is untrue or unreal. It is real, albeit limited and earthly. If I expect too much, the other person will let me know, for he or she can neither play God nor serve all my needs. Love coexists with imperfection. It “bears all things” and can hold its peace before the limitations of the loved one.

The most effective weapon the cultural left has played in their war on marriage has been the unrealistic expectations game.

 

And part of that expectations game is discouragement

116. Panta elpízei. Love does not despair of the future. Following upon what has just been said, this phrase speaks of the hope of one who knows that others can change, mature and radiate unexpected beauty and untold potential. This does not mean that everything will change in this life.  It does involve realizing that, though things may not always turn out as we wish, God may well make crooked lines straight and draw some good from the evil we endure in this world.

As CS Lewis pointed out in screwtape the trick of the enemy is to make you panic over a bunch of different futures that can’t all happen.  That’s another tool in the war on marriage they has been particularly effective and or the press to acknowledge these realities would undo decades of hard fighting in that war.

The latest in my series of showing Amoris Laetitia as it is vs what some pretend it to be.

Just a reminder Patience is a virtue and also makes things work

92. Being patient does not mean letting ourselves be constantly mistreated, tolerating physical aggression or allowing other people to use us. We encounter problems whenever we think that relationships or people ought to be perfect, or when we put ourselves at the centre and expect things to turn out our way. Then everything makes us impatient, everything makes us react aggressively. Unless we cultivate patience, we will always find excuses for responding angrily. We will end up incapable of living together, antisocial, unable to control our impulses, and our families will become battlegrounds. That is why the word of God tells us: “Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamour and slander be put away from you, with all malice” (Eph 4:31). Patience takes root when I recognize that other people also have a right to live in this world, just as they are. It does not matter if they hold me back, if they unsettle my plans, or annoy me by the way they act or think, or if they are not everything I want them to be. Love always has an aspect of deep compassion that leads to accepting the other person as part of this world, even when he or she acts differently than I would like.

But our society and the left doesn’t like patience because it gets rid of the excuse to do what one wants at once and as I’ve always said the worst thing in the world is an excuse.

The Pope also talks a bit about a particular deadly sin, envy.

95. Saint Paul goes on to reject as contrary to love an attitude expressed by the verb zelói – to be Spiritual Exercises, Contemplation to Attain Love jealous or envious. This means that love has no room for discomfiture at another person’s good fortune (cf. Acts 7:9; 17:5). Envy is a form of sadness provoked by another’s prosperity; it shows that we are not concerned for the happiness of others but only with our own well-being. Whereas love makes us rise above ourselves, envy closes us in on ourselves. True love values the other person’s achievements. It does not see him or her as a threat. It frees us from the sour taste of envy. It recognizes that everyone has different gifts and a unique path in life. So it strives to discover its own road to happiness, while allowing others to find theirs.

Love and envy are simply not compatible however in our consumer society envy is a driver.

And he brings us something not blaming other and looking at ourselves.

107. Today we recognize that being able to forgive others implies the liberating experience of understanding and forgiving ourselves. Often our mistakes, or criticism we have received from loved ones, can lead to a loss of self-esteem. We become distant from others, avoiding affection and fearful in our interpersonal relationships. Blaming others becomes falsely reassuring. We need to learn to pray over our past history, to accept ourselves, to learn how to live with our limitations, and even to forgive ourselves, in order to have this same attitude towards others.

One must forgive oneself before one can forgive others but one must also look at oneself honestly, and boy the left hates that.

Plus the base of our ability to forgive others is the willingness of God to forgive us:

108. All this assumes that we ourselves have had the experience of being forgiven by God, justified by his grace and not by our own merits. We have known a love that is prior to any of our own efforts, a love that constantly opens doors, promotes and encourages. If we accept that God’s love is unconditional, that the Father’s love cannot be bought or sold, then we will become capable of showing boundless love and forgiving others even if they have wronged us. Otherwise, our family life will no longer be a place of understanding, support and encouragement, but rather one of constant tension and mutual criticism.

This is a big reason why marriage fails, When you considered that God has forgiven you it’s easier to forgive each other, but one a society rejects Christianity and forgiveness then it becomes harder to forgive and easier to just walk away from marriage and family.

The latest in a series of post looking at Amoris Laetitia as it’s actually written as opposed to how it’s spun.

Did you know that marriage has obligations in terms of parenthood? This pope does

68. “Blessed Paul VI, in the wake of the Second Vatican Council, further developed the Church’s teaching on marriage and the family. In a particular way, with the Encyclical Humanae Vitae he brought out the intrinsic bond between conjugal love and the generation of life: ‘Married love requires of husband and wife the full awareness of their obligations in the matter of responsible parenthood, which today, rightly enough, is much insisted upon, but which at the same time must be rightly understood… The exercise of responsible parenthood requires that husband and wife, keeping a right order of priorities, recognize their own duties towards God, themselves, their families and human society’ (No. 10). In the Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Nuntiandi, Paul VI highlighted the relationship between the family and the Church”.

I can see Amanda Marcotte pulling out her hair now.

And did you know that ministering to those in “imperfect relationships” is about leading them to matrimony?

78. “The light of Christ enlightens every person (cf. Jn 1:9; Gaudium et Spes, 22). Seeing things with the eyes of Christ inspires the Church’s pastoral care for the faithful who are living together, or are only married civilly, or are divorced and remarried. Following this divine pedagogy, the Church turns with love to those who participate in her life in an imperfect manner: she seeks the grace of conversion for them; she encourages them to do good, to take loving care of each other and to serve the community in which they live and work… When a couple in an irregular union attains a noteworthy stability through a public bond – and is characterized by deep affection, responsibility towards the children and the ability to overcome trials – this can be seen as an opportunity, where possible, to lead them to celebrate the sacrament of Matrimony”.

And if not possible to get matrimony to seek conversion, and remember seeking conversion implies something is wrong.

Oddly enough the media that has been so anxious to cheer Amoris Laetitia seems to have skipped this part on abortion. (emphasis mine)

83. Here I feel it urgent to state that, if the family is the sanctuary of life, the place where life is conceived and cared for, it is a horrendous contradiction when it becomes a place where life is rejected and destroyed. So great is the value of a human life, and so inalienable the right to life of an innocent child growing in the mother’s womb, that no alleged right to one’s own body can justify a decision to terminate that life, which is an end in itself and which can never be considered the “property” of another human being. The family protects human life in all its stages, including its last. Consequently, “those who work in healthcare facilities are reminded of the moral duty of conscientious objection. Similarly, the Church not only feels the urgency to assert the right to a natural death, without aggressive treatment and euthanasia”, but likewise “firmly rejects the death penalty”.

This was not just stated, but URGENTLY stated and note the property reference drawing the parallel to slavery.

And here is one paragraph that should be shouted from the rafters. emphasis mine again

84. The Synod Fathers also wished to emphasize that “one of the fundamental challenges facing families today is undoubtedly that of raising children, made all the more difficult and complex by today’s cultural reality and the powerful influence of the media”. “The Church assumes a valuable role in supporting families, starting with Christian initiation, through welcoming communities”. At the same time I feel it important to reiterate that the overall education of children is a “most serious duty” and at the same time a “primary right” of parents. This is not just a task or a burden, but an essential and inalienable right that parents are called to defend and of which no one may claim to deprive them. The State offers educational programmes in a subsidiary way, supporting the parents in their indeclinable role; parents themselves enjoy the right to choose freely the kind of education – accessible and of good quality – which they wish to give their children in accordance with their convictions. Schools do not replace parents, but complement them. This is a basic principle: “all other participants in the process of education are only able to carry out their responsibilities in the name of the parents, with their consent and, to a certain degree, with their authorization”. Still, “a rift has opened up between the family and society, between family and the school; the educational pact today has been broken and thus the educational alliance between society and the family is in crisis”

If I was the school choice movement I would emblazon those excepts of this paragraph at the head of every single document and press release put out.

You would think that this coming from an official document authored by the MSM’s favorite Pope would be news, but nothing the Vatican does that oppose the left’s memes is considered news.

I went back to my room and thought to myself, “This has happened fr the best. Everyone will see that he’s mad and lock him up…But—would you believe it —-Caligula’s divinity was accepted by everyone without question.

Robert Graves I Claudius 1934

It’s now been 48 hours since the firing of Curt Schilling and all I can think of is the Emperor’s new clothes.

The gist of the story for those who don’t know it is that a pair of con men convince an emperor that they can make cloth that is invisible to those who are incompetent fools and convinced that their inability to see said cloth confirmed their own feelings of inadequacy everyone goes along with it until a young child seeing the Emperor marching in his new clothes says: “But he has nothing on!” and the whole crowd joins the chant.

In the ESPN/Disney version the child is removed from his parents and reeducated and the parents severely punished for daring to contradict the official version of events and held up as an example for those who might be tempted to do the same while at the same time trying to deny that the child ever existed.

Now the logical protest to this would be for men to go to ESPN & and to Disney its parent company put on a wig and enter the ladies rooms and stay there.

Of course one might assume that given their reaction to Mr. Schilling their restrooms might be all unisex, however when somebody asked

After repeated attempts to contact the media giant by the time of this publication, Disney failed to comment to CR on whether or not it would implement gender-neutral bathroom standards at its parks in Southern California and Orlando, Florida. The question was posed in multiple calls made Thursday morning to Disney’s Corporate Communications headquarters, but to no avail. As of the time of this writing, Disney has still not responded to multiple questions about whether it will adopt gender-neutral bathroom policies.

Given their reaction to Mr. Schilling I think the answer to that question at both ESPN and Disney would be obvious but you see while Disney fears being targeted by the organized and well funded LGBT community they fear even more announcing a policy that might persuade parents of children to decide that perhaps the Magic Kingdom isn’t the safest place to take their kids.

Because the real issue isn’t the infinitesimally tiny amount of people who are deluded enough to believe the are a different sex than they actually are, the issue is creating a set of rules that will empower much greater amount of predators who will take advantage of these rules to enable their less than honorable goals.

It’s a combination of fear and narcissism combined that is driving this and the only answer to it is courage and truth.

And that brings us to Pope Francis.

Yesterday I continued my series quoting the Pope’s document Amoris Laetitia that despite being well received & highly spun by the left is packed from beginning to end with orthodox Catholic teaching.

In the aforementioned post I noted this paragraph: (emphasis mine)

56. Yet another challenge is posed by the various forms of an ideology of gender that “denies the difference and reciprocity in nature of a man and a woman and envisages a society without sexual differences, thereby eliminating the anthropological basis of the family. This ideology leads to educational programmes and legislative enactments that promote a personal identity and emotional intimacy radically separated from the biological difference between male and female. Consequently, human identity becomes the choice of the individual, one which can also change over time”. It is a source of concern that some ideologies of this sort, which seek to respond to what are at times understandable aspirations, manage to assert themselves as absolute and unquestionable, even dictating how children should be raised. It needs to be emphasized that “biological sex and the socio-cultural role of sex (gender) can be distinguished but not separated”. On the other hand, “the technological revolution in the field of human procreation has introduced the ability to manipulate the reproductive act, making it independent of the sexual relationship between a man and a woman. In this way, human life and parenthood have become modular and separable realities, subject mainly to the wishes of individuals or couples”. It is one thing to be understanding of human weakness and the complexities of life, and another to accept ideologies that attempt to sunder what are inseparable aspects of reality. Let us not fall into the sin of trying to replace the Creator. We are creatures, and not omnipotent. Creation is prior to us and must be received as a gift. At the same time, we are called to protect our humanity, and this means, in the first place, accepting it and respecting it as it was created.

We must conclude therefore by the standards of Disney & ESPN that Pope Francis by publicly making such statement to the world is a bigot who would not be suitable for employment by them.

I think that I would be very interested in seeing Disney & ESPN’S opinion on the subject wouldn’t you?

*******************************************************************

The advantage to working for myself is that nobody can fire me for saying the truth, no matter how unpopular aloud.

The disadvantage is that doing so only pays what you are willing to give.

I think we do good work at this site. If you agree I urge you to hit DaTipJar.




Olimometer 2.52

Please consider Subscribing.

If less than 1/3 of 1% of our readers subscribed at $10 a month we’d have the 114.5 subscribers needed to our annual goal all year without solicitation.

Plus of course all subscribers get my weekly podcast emailed directly to you before it goes up anywhere else.


Choose a Subscription level



The latest in our series of looking at what Amoris Laetitia actually says vs how people are spinning it:

Trigger warning for any of the feminists mentioned by Stacy McCain on the next paragraph

55. Men “play an equally decisive role in family life, particularly with regard to the protection and support of their wives and children… Many men are conscious of the importance of their role in the family and live their masculinity accordingly. The absence of a father gravely affects family life and the upbringing of children and their integration into society. This absence, which may be physical, emotional, psychological and spiritual, deprives children of a suitable father figure”.

Men as breadwinners? Praising masculinity? The need for a father figure? Our friends on the left must be fainting dead away.

And if that paragraph doesn’t give today’s culture the vapors this next one will

56. Yet another challenge is posed by the various forms of an ideology of gender that “denies the difference and reciprocity in nature of a man and a woman and envisages a society without sexual differences, thereby eliminating the anthropological basis of the family. This ideology leads to educational programmes and legislative enactments that promote a personal identity and emotional intimacy radically separated from the biological difference between male and female. Consequently, human identity becomes the choice of the individual, one which can also change over time”. It is a source of concern that some ideologies of this sort, which seek to respond to what are at times understandable aspirations, manage to assert themselves as absolute and unquestionable, even dictating how children should be raised. It needs to be emphasized that “biological sex and the socio-cultural role of sex (gender) can be distinguished but not separated”. On the other hand, “the technological revolution in the field of human procreation has introduced the ability to manipulate the reproductive act, making it independent of the sexual relationship between a man and a woman. In this way, human life and parenthood have become modular and separable realities, subject mainly to the wishes of individuals or couples”. It is one thing to be understanding of human weakness and the complexities of life, and another to accept ideologies that attempt to sunder what are inseparable aspects of reality. Let us not fall into the sin of trying to replace the Creator. We are creatures, and not omnipotent. Creation is prior to us and must be received as a gift. At the same time, we are called to protect our humanity, and this means, in the first place, accepting it and respecting it as it was created.

The Pope is declaring that we have to accept ourselves as we are? What an oppressor.

The next paragraph seems written for all those feminists Stacy has written about who avoided marriage and children

61. Contrary to those who rejected marriage as evil, the New Testament teaches that “everything created by God is good and nothing is to be rejected” (1 Tim 4:4). Marriage is “a gift” from the Lord (1 Cor 7:7). At the same time, precisely because of this positive understanding, the New Testament strongly emphasizes the need to safeguard God’s gift: “Let marriage be held in honour among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled” (Heb 13:4). This divine gift includes sexuality: “Do not refuse one another” (1 Cor 7:5).

Note that last sentence applies to married couples, not to hook-ups.

And what better way to have liberal heads explode that to emphasize Jesus talking about marriage as an indissoluble union.

62. The Synod Fathers noted that Jesus, “in speaking of God’s original plan for man and woman, reaffirmed the indissoluble union between them, even stating that ‘it was for your hardness of heart that Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so’ (Mt 19:8). The indissolubility of marriage – ‘what God has joined together, let no man put asunder’ (Mt 19:6) – should not be viewed as a ‘yoke’ imposed on humanity, but as a ‘gift’ granted to those who are joined in marriage… God’s indulgent love always accompanies our human journey; through grace, it heals and transforms hardened hearts, leading them back to the beginning through the way of the cross. The Gospels clearly present the example of Jesus who… proclaimed the meaning of marriage as the fullness of revelation that restores God’s original plan (cf. Mt 19:3)”.55

Marriage as a gift from God? No wonder so many feminists reject it.

The latest in a series of posts looking at what the Pope’s document Amoris Laetitia actually says vs the spin that has been applied to it by examining individual paragraphs that nobody is talking about:

Trigger warning to our friends on the left: Assertion of Objective Truth imminent:

34. When these factors affect our understanding of the family, it can come to be seen as a way station, helpful when convenient, or a setting in which rights can be asserted while relationships are left to the changing winds of personal desire and circumstances. Ultimately, it is easy nowadays to confuse genuine freedom with the idea that each individual can act arbitrarily, as if there were no truths, values and principles to provide guidance, and everything were possible and permissible. The ideal of marriage, marked by a commitment to exclusivity and stability, is swept aside whenever it proves inconvenient or tiresome. The fear of loneliness and the desire for stability and fidelity exist side by side with a growing fear of entrapment in a relationship that could hamper the achievement of one’s personal goals.

I don’t know what’s more offensive to the left the idea that there are objective truths or that marriage is not a coat to be tossed if it becomes uncomfortable or out of date.

And here is a ditty about actually understanding how things work

37. We have long thought that simply by stressing doctrinal, bioethical and moral issues, without encouraging openness to grace, we were providing sufficient support to families, strengthening the marriage bond and giving meaning to marital life. We find it difficult to present marriage more as a dynamic path to personal development and fulfilment than as a lifelong burden. We also find it hard to make room for the consciences of the faithful, who very often respond as best they can to the Gospel amid their limitations, and are capable of carrying out their own discernment in complex situations. We have been called to form consciences, not to replace them.

Part of the job of a pastor and the church is to teach. How can people understand it and make good decisions in adulthood if after confirmation the church stops forming conscience at age 16?

And it’s to those uninformed conscience that the state and the “birth control mentality” or the heavy hand of the state kicks in.

42. Furthermore, “the decline in population, due to a mentality against having children and promoted by the world politics of reproductive health, creates not only a situation in which the relationship between generations is no longer ensured but also the danger that, over time, this decline will lead to economic impoverishment and a loss of hope in the future. The development of bio-technology has also had a major impact on the birth rate”. Added to this are other factors such as “industrialization, the sexual revolution, the fear of overpopulation and economic problems… Consumerism may also deter people from having children, simply so they can maintain a certain freedom and life-style”. The upright consciences of spouses who have been generous in transmitting life may lead them, for sufficiently serious reasons, to limit the number of their children, yet precisely “for the sake of this dignity of conscience, the Church strongly rejects the forced State intervention in favour of contraception, sterilization and even abortion”. Such measures are unacceptable even in places with high birth rates, yet also in countries with disturbingly low birth rates we see politicians encouraging them. As the bishops of Korea have said, this is “to act in a way that is self-contradictory and to neglect one’s duty”.

Or as Stacy McCain’s dad put it, if you wait to have kids until you can afford it, you’ll never have them. And let’s not forget a lot of our liberal friends are big into dangling aid contingent on birth control and abortion.

Here is one that will really send the left into a tizzy

52. No one can think that the weakening of the family as that natural society founded on marriage will prove beneficial to society as a whole. The contrary is true: it poses a threat to the mature growth of individuals, the cultivation of community values and the moral progress of cities and countries. There is a failure to realize that only the exclusive and indissoluble union between a man and a woman has a plenary role to play in society as a stable commitment that bears fruit in new life. We need to acknowledge the great variety of family situations that can offer a certain stability, but de facto or same-sex unions, for example, may not simply be equated with marriage. No union that is temporary or closed to the transmission of life can ensure the future of society. But nowadays who is making an effort to strengthen marriages, to help married couples overcome their problems, to assist them in the work of raising children and, in general, to encourage the stability of the marriage bond?

Even if he didn’t directly state that “same-sex unions…my not simply be equated with marriage” the whole idea that the nuclear family if vital to society attacks everything they believe in.

They way some people are reacting you would think this paragraph didn’t exist.

The first of a long series of posts highlighting parts of Amoris Laetitia that are getting little or no attention

Can you say RESPECT

17. Parents have a serious responsibility for this work of education, as the Biblical sages often remind us (cf. Prov 3:11-12; 6:20-22; 13:1; 22:15; 23:13-14; 29:17). Children, for their part, are called to accept and practice the commandment: “Honour your father and your mother” (Ex 20:12). Here the verb “to honour” has to do with the fulfilment of family and social commitments; these are not to be disregarded under the pretence of religious motives (cf. Mk 7:11-13). “Whoever honours his father atones for sins, and whoever glorifies his mother is like one who lays up treasure” (Sir 3:3-4).

In an age where we are taught that the Child is the superior of the parent the idea that not only is it up to the partent to educate the kid (can you say home schooling?) But the idea that it is incumbant on children to repect their parents rather than question them is positively radical.

And we see yet another chapter of God’s not dead.

22. In this brief review, we can see that the word of God is not a series of abstract ideas but rather a source of comfort and companionship for every family that experiences difficulties or suffering. For it shows them the goal of their journey, when God “will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning nor crying nor pain any more” (Rev 21:4).

Is this pope suggesting to the world that God and scripture is reality rather than a bunch of ideas that are NBD, what will the press say?

Even worse is the suggestion that every family has issues, even the holy family.

30. Every family should look to the icon of the Holy Family of Nazareth. Its daily life had its share of burdens and even nightmares, as when they met with Herod’s implacable violence. This last was an experience that, sad to say, continues to afflict the many refugee families who in our day feel rejected and helpless. Like the Magi, our families are invited to contemplate the Child and his Mother, to bow down and worship him (cf. Mt 2:11). Like Mary, they are asked to face their family’s challenges with courage and serenity, in good times and bad, and to keep in their heart the great things which God has done (cf. Lk 2:19, 51). The treasury of Mary’s heart also contains the experiences of every family, which she cherishes. For this reason, she can help us understand the meaning of these experiences and to hear the message God wishes to communicate through the life of our families.

You mean we’re supposed to trust in God and deal with real life instead of blaming others and consider ourself victims? Ridliclious, why our whole modern culture is based on it!

By now you have seen plenty of spin on Amoris Laetitia from journalists, from pundits all telling you that this is all about either the Pope advancing their values or in the case of a few betraying the church.

It’s why I said this on day 1:

It brings to mind Laudato Si where our friends on the left who constantly praise it conveniently ignore huge chunks of it that they despise.

So my plan was, in the interest of making sure you know the truth so it can set you free from media spin, let me, once again, give you a few paragraphs from this papal document that the media might want you to forget.

However when I cut and pasted the paragraphs I found significant as I read them in the end they totaled over 16,000 words.

That’s a bit much for a single post so here is what we are going to do.

I’m going to give you some general impressions of the document in this post and then in a series of MANY posts over the next couple of weeks (or months) go through these specific paragraphs in some detail.

So here goes:

My first thought on reading this to the end was: What was all the fuss about?

The document is basically a “how to” guide on marriage and family for people thinking of getting married, for married couples and for clergy. It’s remarkably detailed and gives solid advice all around.

While this is a document for all it’s very clear the primary audience is the faithful.

For people considering marriage the advice given here stresses preparation and realistic expectations both in terms of the benefits of marriages and what to expect.

For married couples it’s about keeping those expectations realistic as life goes on, as you age and as troubles keep up.

For clergy the advice is GET INVOLVED from day one and stay involved.

In all of these cases prayer is stressed keeping the eye on God and following the example of Christ.

The section that struck me the most was on Paul’s statement on Love in 1 Corinthians 13 detailing every single statement and how it applies to a couple. If there is only one section that everyone need to read, that’s it.

I was struck by how many times Adam & Eve are mentioned in this piece. We keep hearing how they are not considered real. Don’t try to tell that to this Pope.

The only thing the media seems to care about concerning this document is the small section on “irregular” relationships, the advice given to clergy here is not only NOT in contradiction to church teaching but is, for the most part, common sense. It comes down to this:

Find ground to work on and inch them toward the right direction as best you can while doing the best you can for any children who are not responsible for any irregular situation.

It’s sort of the reverse of what the Screwtape letters says: trying to create the cumulative effect of edging the man out of the nothing and toward the light.

Pope Francis highlights the observations of Bishops from several lands in the piece, they bring solid observations to the table.

The biggest problem I can see here is that while the advice for clergy is pretty good, I just don’t see how they’re going to make the time to do all that is suggested here given that, at least in the US their workload is already incredible.

The media spin on this is for the most part laughable and seems to come from their complete ignorance on what the church actually teaches and what the catechism says. It’s as if every single thing they know about the church is a parody, like it came from a George Carlin sketch.

I have absolutely no doubt that there will be some liberal catholics who will attempt to spin this, particular the parts about discernment by clergy in situation as a green light to legitimize sin. From my reading this is patently dishonest and dishonorable.

To my fellow conservative Catholics  I repeat my advice from the top read the document yourself, if you do unless you’ve got Francis on the brain you’ll find that all your fears about this document were wildly overblown.  That’s not to say there aren’t some who would have liked to make all your fears come true, but all they got from this document were crumbs.

This is a long read, if you want to understand it you’ll need to take the time to take it all in, but you’ll be glad, and well-informed if you do.

*******************************************************************

I’m back trying to get that very elusive $61 a day for DaTipJar

I’d like to think we do good work here If you’d like to help us keep up the pace please consider hitting DaTipJar




Olimometer 2.52

Please consider Subscribing. We are currently 116.3 subscribers at $10 a month to make our goal every day without further solicitation but the numbers are even more interesting:

If less than 1/3 of 1% of our readers subscribed at $10 a month we’d have the 114.5 subscribers needed to our annual goal all year without solicitation.

Plus of course all subscribers get my weekly podcast emailed directly to you before it goes up anywhere else.


Choose a Subscription level