We interrupt our usual intermission…

Sorry I’ve been so inactive here lately. I’ve been swamped with work and family things, and have been limited mostly to “micro-blogging” on-the-fly via my Twitter account. As always I intend to get articles out which readers have requested but I’m just going to have to get through some obstacles first. Thank you for your prayers, and stay tuned!

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Catholic Priest threatens Mum of 3 with legal action, because she told him off for saying that the Holy Spirit is female, and then he lies on Twitter about her!

The Codgitator (A Cadgertator):

This is astonishing, depressing, and all too indicative if what’s headed our way. The smell of the sheep is a good thing, as long as the sheep don’t put on too much orthodox cologne, I guess.

Originally posted on Faith in our Families:

Fr-Dan-Fitzpatrick Fr. Dan Fitzpatrick

This is not a spoof post. This actually happened.

So my in previous article I wrote about how Fr James Martin SJ and Fr. Dan Fitzpatrick had been tweeting about how the Holy Spirit was female:

Father james martin

dan fitz

And how both of them had been sharing posts saying that ‘Ireland is for gay marriage because it is Catholic’.

Fr. Dan 1

And I gave them both a jolly good clip round the ear about openly contradicting the teachings of the Catholic church. Well, this morning I got a message from Fr Dan threatening me with legal action because I was ‘defaming his character’.

Fr dan legal 1

I messaged him back saying:

“Would you like to tell me the 2 statements that cause you upset? I would be happy to rephrase anything that is not correct.”

He messaged back with:

Fr dan legal 2

Edited out some of the abusive comments??! I did nothing of the sort! The truth is…

View original 626 more words

Posted in Uncategorized | 9 Comments

On the aiding and abetting of schism and theological bafflegab…

[UPDATE: I added some material to the end of this post in a footnote.]

“We may speak freely of notorious and infamous sinners, but still with charity and compassion, avoiding arrogance and presumption, and not rejoicing in another’s ill, which is the sure sign of an evil, cruel heart. Of the enemies of God and His Church we must needs speak openly, since in charity we are bound to give the alarm whenever the wolf is found amongst the sheep.”

St. Francis de Sales, An Introduction to the Devout Life, III, 29.

When the shepherd becomes a wolf, the first duty of the flock is to defend itself.”

Dom Gueránger, The Liturgical Year, Volume 4, Septuagesima, pp. 379-380ff.

True to form, Pope Francis once again recently ruffled faithful feathers with some remarks he made to a Protestant worship gathering in Arizona on May 23. Here is a private video recording of the address as it was delivered to the 1500 participants in Phoenix that day. And here is an official upload of the message via CTV/Catholic Media Ministry, the latter of which a little more presently.

Also true to form, Jimmy Akin jumped into apologetical action to pen yet another clarification on behalf of the Argentine pontiff, titled, “Did Pope Francis say it doesn’t matter what kind of Christian you are? 9 things to know [and share]“. (I originally read and posted my comment at Mr. Akin’s personal blog, where my comment is still awaiting moderation, but then moved it to his NCR blog and changed the URL.)

I have done my best to avoid commenting on the ongoing spectacle that is the current papacy, and I am still very conflicted about the way we are to handle such, ahem, head-scratchers from the mouth of Rome, but I was so frustrated by Mr. Akin’s treatment of the issue that I decided to leave a comment at his blog. I’m reproducing my original remarks here, because, well, that’s just something bloggers do. I don’t see a need to delve into the magisterial basis for most of my remarks below. If you know, you know; if you don’t, please ask.


First of all, the Spanish is much less delicate than the common translation to which we’re all being treated. “Y me viene a la mente decir algo que puede ser una insensatez, [pregnant 4-second pause] o quizás una herejía, no sé.” There is no subjunctive  in it and no mention of what anything “might sound” like. It came to mind, Pope Francis explains, “to say something that can be a folly/nonsense, or perhaps a heresy, I don’t know.” How is an official, public address to a body of schismatic Christians unofficial and informal, and why must we coddle this pope as if he didn’t know how his words will come across? These were prepared remarks, which came from his own heart, and therefore surpass his usual “off-the-cuff” gaffes. There’s nothing “informal” about the message, even if it’s not being spoken ex cathedra.

Second, he never defines EXACTLY in what Christian unity CONSISTS. He refers to a number of symptoms or lesser signs of unity, but he never speaks of unity in creed, worship, and governance (or, “creed, code, and cult”), which is what Christian unity IS. It follows that, if he is merely praying for secondary and tertiary manifestations of Christian unity (prayer, labor, conviviality, etc.), then he’s not praying for true Christian unity. Not coincidentally, the promo video for this John 17 event begins with the claim that “unity is not something that can be defined,” which is totally false, otherwise one of the four marks of the Church could not be defined, and, thus, not recognized or preserved. In the same vein, Francis (whose opinion of theology is exceedingly low) denies that theological unity is attainable this side of the Eschaton, which logically implies that Christian unity does not entail or require doctrinal unity.

Third, the biggest problem arises from his claim that the wound of division exists “in the body of the Church”. This is utterly false, and in the “heretical” kind of way, to be sure. The Church is ONE and SPOTLESS; all such “division” is extrinsic to Her. Ironically enough, the divisions Pope Francis is addressing are themselves the result of schismatic Protestant history and an ongoing refusal to seek communion with Rome. So, by calling such divisions the work of the Devil, he’s right–all schism is diabolical, including that fostered by the organizers of the John 17 Movement!

Fourth, by saying that “from 9 in the morning to 5 in the afternoon, [he] will be with [the John 17 participants] spiritually,” and that he desires to “join [them] as just another participant” in the event, he vaults over the otherwise safe area of merely praying with non-Catholics and dives into formal co-celebration with them. The event in Arizona included Bible teaching and worship, not mere prayers, so, by uniting his person and intentions with the participants, Pope Francis has formally and publicly united himself as a member of Protestant worship,* which is a no-no, even in the post-Conciliar age (cf. Unitatis Redintegratio, no. 8). But, hey, who am I to judge?

Not that any of the above matters, of course. It doesn’t matter what this pope says, whose pious ears he offends, what traditional doctrine and laws he undermines and obscures. He’s the pope, after all. It’s all his show. As “faithful Catholics” we’re just expected to smile and nod.


* Interestingly, at about 10 minutes into the second part of the footage of the John 17 event (footage hosted, oddly enough, by something called Catholic Media Ministry), full size portraits–arrayed in triptych form, no less–of various prominent Christians were placed on-stage (explained by the artist from about 2:44:30 onward): William Wilberforce, Pope Francis, and Dietrich Bonhoeffer at stage right; St. Teresa of Avila, Desmond Tutu, and William Tyndale at stage left.

Screenshot (123)

Screenshot (124)

Screenshot (126)

Then beginning about 19 minutes in, a handful of Protestant pastors deliver video messages to the gathering, which segues into a plenary address by pastor Giovanni Traettino, with whom Pope Francis has held semi-private and closed gatherings at least twice since last year. When Traettino finishes, a video of our man Cdl. Bergoglio, being prayed over by charismatic Evangelicals in Argentina in 2006, is shown, followed by the final Protestant pastoral video message–from the Bishop of Rome. The effect, obviously, is to situate the authority and message of Pope Francis upon one long, unbroken spectrum of Christian witness, and it is to this spectrum of indifference that Pope Francis publicly united himself as a participant and supporter.

The objection will be that The Leader did not know exactly what would happen at the gathering, so he can’t be blamed for ecumenical excesses. Well, first of all, we don’t know how much Francis knew about this gathering. As a close friend of Traettino, and having participated in an ecumenical gathering with evangelical pastors only weeks earlier, it stands to reason that he knew quite well the basic structure of such an event. It’s not his first ecumenical rodeo, after all.



pope francis with pastor giovanni traettino and others

But aside from that, it’s precisely because he did not know what might transpire that the pope should not have given a carte-blanche endorsement of the event. I may not know exactly what will happen if I give my car keys to a ten-year-old boy, which is why I would never give him such perilous power in the first place.


Insofar as Catholics are to submit themselves in all things to the shepherding of the Vicar of Christ, whoever he may be, it behooves faithful Catholics to submit to, embrace, defend, and even propagate Pope Francis’s position on this matter. We must follow the pope where he leads the flock, even, apparently, if it leads to encouraging worship with Protestants and a post- or non-theological account of the Church’s unity. So, in that sense, I commend Mr. Akin for following the winds of the Spirit wherever they continue to blow.

As for my other readers, I hear Pope Francis asking you, “Who do you say that I am?”  If one will not let oneself be taught, be molded, by those whom they recognize as the vicars of Christ, then those same persons refuse to submit themselves to the shepherding of the Christ in His divinely appointed vicars. And if they are only selectively molded, then they are only selectively obedient, that is, only selectively faithful.

Posted in Uncategorized | 33 Comments

Happy thoughts from the front that dare not speak its name…

“[T]here is no true civilization without a moral civilization, and no true moral civilization without the true religion….”

— Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.

As is my wont, in this post I shall try to let cited passages, which I recently discovered in the course of my catch-as-catch-can reading, do most of my speaking for me. To wit:

A considerable body of Christians, untrained in the Christian philosophy of life, are allowing themselves to absorb principles which undermine the constructions of Christian thought. They do not realise how much dangerous it is for Christianity to exist in an atmosphere of Naturalism than to be exposed to positive persecution. In the old days of the Roman Empire those who enrolled themselves under the standard of Christ saw, with logical clearness, that they had perforce to cut themselves adrift from the social life of the world in which they lived–from its tastes, practices and amusements. The line of demarcation between pagan and Christian life was sharp, clearly defined and obvious. Modern Christians have not been so favorably situated. As has been stated already, the framework of the Christian social organisation has as yet survived. This organisation is, to outward appearances, so solid and imposing that it is easy to be blind to the truth that the soul had gradually gone out of it. Under the shelter and utilising the resources of the organisation of life created by Christianity, customs, ways of conduct, habits of thought, have crept in, more completely perhaps, at variance with the spirit of Christianity than even the ways and manners of pagan Rome. …

The Christian of to-day thinks that he is living in what is to all intents and purposes a Christian civilisation. Without misgivings he follows the current of social life around him. His amusements, his pleasures, his pursuits, his games, his books, his papers, his social and political ideas are of much the same kind as are those of the people with whom he mingles, and who may not have a vestige of a Christian principle left in their minds. He differs merely from them in that he holds to certain definite religious truths and clings to certain definite religious practices. But apart from this there is not any striking contrast in the outward conduct of life between Christian and non-Christian in what is called the civilised world. Catholics are amused by, and interested in, the very same things that appeal to those who have abandoned all belief in God. The result is a growing divorce between religion and life in the soul of the individual Christian. Little by little his faith ceases to be a determining effect on the bulk of his ideas, judgments and decisions that have relation to what he regards as his purely “secular” life. …

The sincerely religious–and there are many such still–are beginning to realise that if they are to live as Christians they must react violently against the milieu in which they live. It is beginning to be felt that one cannot be a true Christian and live as the bulk of men in civilised society are living. It is clearly seen that “life” is not to be found along those ways by which the vast majority of men are hurrying to disillusionment and despair. Up to the time of the recent cataclysm the average unreflecting Christian dwelt in the comfortable illusion that he could fall in with the ways of the world about him here, and, by holding on to the practices of religion, arrange matters satisfactorily for the hereafter. That illusion is dispelled. It is coming home to the discerning Christian that their religion is not a mere provision for the future. There is a growing conviction that it is only through Christianity lived integrally that the evils of the present time can be remedied and disaster in the time to come averted.

— Fr. Edward Leen, The Holy Ghost (Sheed and Ward, 1953), pp. 6-9.

Fr. Leen explicated sixty years ahead of me what I have for some time referred to as “squatting/squatters in the cathedral.” This is the phenomenon wherein post- and anti-Christian masses execrate Christian tradition and morality in one breath, but then take the deliverances of that same moral tradition for granted in the next. They are, in effect, squatting in a structure to which they pay no tribute, and which they desecrate and dismantle until it is too late, and the inevitable jackals of pre-Christian hegemony attack them and drag them into the darkness of social chaos.

This is precisely what has led to the further apostasy in Ireland recently, concerning the nation’s popular decision to ratify same-sex so-called marriages. Ireland’s social order, moral assumptions, and even its constitution are suffused with Christian reality, yet all those things have become only so much kindling to tend camp fires in the cathedral. The same goes for the bishops of that nation, and others like it. They are so sure that “the teaching of the Church is clear,” that they have mostly not bothered to proclaim said teaching. After all, the Church’s position is clear, and they are loyal sons of the Church, so why waste time rehashing stale orthodoxy? Surely it would be better to gin up “new ways” of speech, initiate “new historical dynamics” in the conciliar romance of “encounter”. Indeed, what the faithful need are not bishop-pilots but liberated pastoral guides who can listen, accompany, commiserate, accommodate, and adapt, right?

Fortunately, this “blind and unchecked passion for novelty” and the attendant syphilitic imbecile lust for compromise is but the flavor of our age, and not an expression of the Church’s true pastoral mindset. That mindset was profoundly expressed on Christmas day, 240 years ago, by Pope Pius VI, when, in the thick of the spiritual cataclysm caused by the French Revolution and Liberal/Rousseuavian philosophy, he wrote the following in Iscrutabile:

Beseech, accuse, correct, rebuke and fear not: for ill-judged silence leaves in their error those who could be taught, and this is most harmful both to them and to you who should have dispelled the error. The holy Church is powerfully refreshed in the truth as it struggles zealously for the truth. In this divine work you should not fear either the force or favor of your enemies. The bishop should not fear since the anointing of the Holy Spirit has strengthened him: the shepherd should not be afraid since the prince of pastors has taught him by his own example to despise life itself for the safety of his flock: the cowardice and depression of the hireling should not dwell in a bishop’s heart. Our great predecessor Gregory, in instructing the heads of the churches, said with his usual excellence: “Often imprudent guides in their fear of losing human favor are afraid to speak the right freely. As the word of truth has it, they guard their flock not with a shepherd’s zeal but as hirelings do, since they flee when the wolf approaches by hiding themselves in silence…. A shepherd fearing to speak the right is simply a man retreating by keeping silent.”

Amen, and amen!

Now, if only the hirelings higher-ups read my blog.

Posted in Uncategorized | 5 Comments

My latest at @OnePeterFive: “Pope’s Ghostwriter Clashes with Head of CDF over Eco-Encyclical?” @Pontifex

Pope’s Ghostwriter Clashes with Head of CDF over Eco-encyclical?

… According to Vaticanist Sandro Magister [LINK], Pope Francis has decided to postpone the publication of his long-awaited encyclical on the environment. The reason, according to Magister, is that the Pope realized that the document in its current state had no chance of receiving the approval of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith….

Continue reading at One Peter Five and add your two cents.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Love is love is love is love…

“Trent has a powerful and well-placed serve, the occasional devastating smash, and volleys efficiently at the net when she gets into position. Vatican II possess only an ordinary serve, but plays a wide variety of strokes including topspin [sic], and is fast and agile around the court.”

— George Cardinal Pell, Foreword to The Council in Question, Moyra Doorly & Aidan Nichols, OP (Charlotte, NC: TAN Books, 2011)

[A]s soon as the corruption of each mischievous error begins to break forth, and to defend itself by filching certain passages of Scripture, and expounding them fraudulently and deceitfully, immediately, the opinions of the ancients in the interpretation of the Canon are to be collected, whereby the novelty, and consequently the profaneness, whatever it may be, that arises, may both without any doubt be exposed, and without any tergiversation be condemned.”

— St. Vincent of Lerins, Commonitory, #72

“38 Now it came to pass as they went, that he entered into a certain town: and a certain woman named Martha, received [Jesus] into her house. 39 And she had a sister called Mary, who sitting also at the Lord’s feet, heard his word. 40 But Martha was busy about much serving. Who stood and said: ‘Lord, hast thou no care that my sister hath left me alone to serve? speak to her therefore, that she help me.’ 41 And the Lord answering, said to her: ‘Martha, Martha, thou art careful, and art troubled about many things: 42 But one thing is necessary. Mary hath chosen the best part, which shall not be taken away from her.'”

— The Gospel according to St. Luke 10

“’Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?’ Jesus replied: ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’”

— The Gospel according to St. Matthew 22:36-37

“[H]e who wrests the sacred Scripture from its true and genuine sense to the dogmas of the impious and to heresies, treats the word of God most injuriously…. It is also a shameful and base contamination of sacred Scripture, to pervert its words and sentences, which should be revered with all veneration, to profane purposes, as nefarious men do, namely, to scurrility, fable, vanity, flattery, detraction, fortune-telling, satirical libels, and the like. Such profanation of the divine word, the sacred council of Trent commands to be punished [cf. Session iv., sub. fin.].”

Catechism of the Council of Trent (trans. Rev. J. Donovan [Dublin: James Duffy, 1867]), part III, chapter III, question XXVII

“[I]n order to curb impudent clever persons, the [Tridentine] synod decrees that no one who relies on his own judgment in matters of faith and morals, which pertain to the building up of Christian doctrine, and that no one who distorts the Sacred Scripture according to his own opinions, shall dare to interpret the said Sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which is held by holy mother Church, whose duty it is to judge regarding the true sense and interpretation of holy Scriptures, or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers, even though interpretations of this kind were never intended to be brought to light. Let those who shall oppose this be reported by their ordinaries and be punished with the penalties prescribed by law….”

The Council of Trent, Session IV, second decree [trans. J. Waterworth (London: Dolman, 1848)]; cf. Dz. 786/DS 1507

“‘There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition’ (Auctor Tract. de Fide Orthodoxa contra Arianos). The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium.”

— Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, #9 (1896)

[We must] guard the proper way of expressing [orthodoxy], lest our careless use of words give rise, God forbid, to false opinions regarding faith in the most sublime things. St. Augustine gives a stern warning about this when he takes up the matter of the different ways of speaking that are employed by the philosophers on the one hand and that ought to be used by Christians on the other. ‘The philosophers,’ he says, ‘use words freely, and they have no fear of offending religious listeners in dealing with subjects that are difficult to understand. But we have to speak in accordance with a fixed rule, so that a lack of restraint in speech on our part may not give rise to some irreverent opinion about the things represented by the words.’ And so the rule of language which the Church has established … is to be religiously preserved, and no one may presume to change it at his own pleasure or under the pretext of new knowledge.”

— Pope Paul VI, Mysterium Fidei, ##23-24 (3 September 1965)

“According to the almost unanimous opinion of believers and unbelievers alike, all things on earth should be related to man as their center and crown. … God, Who has fatherly concern for everyone, has willed that all men should constitute one family and treat one another in a spirit of brotherhood. … For this reason, love for God and neighbor is the first and greatest commandment. … [For] man … is the only creature on earth which God willed for itself….”

Gaudium et spes, chapter I, #12, chapter II, #24 (7 December 1965)

“[Observing all that Jesus commanded means honoring] above all the new commandment, the first and the greatest of the commandments, and the one that best identifies us as Christ’s disciples [is]: ‘This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you’.”

— Pope Francis, Evangelii Gaudium§161 (24 November 2013)

+ + +

There has been some discussion recently of the above topics at One Peter FiveRorate Caeli, Theological Flint, and, I’m sure, in many other venues.

In what follows I shall provide two parallel translations of highly pertinent passages from the Catechism of the Council of Trent concerning the first and greatest commandment. I shall emphasize and minimally gloss what I think are the most pertinent lines of the quotations.

The translation on the left is from The Catechism of the Council of Trent (trans. J. A. McHugh and C. J. Callan [Rockford, IL: TAN Books, 1982]), while that on the right comes from Catechism of the Council of Trent (trans. Rev. J. Donovan [Dublin: James Duffy, 1867]).

All of the following is worth reading, but the punchline is in the last passage cited.

+ + +

Part III, chapter I, question I

“[T]he Decalogue is the summary and epitome of all laws…. For if carefully examined and well understood, whatever else is commanded by God will be found to depend on the Ten Commandments which were engraved on those two tables, just as these Ten Commandments, in turn, are reducible to two, the love of God and of our neighbour, on which “depend the whole law and the prophets. “[T]he Decalogue is a summary and epitome of the entire law … because on those ten precepts…, if carefully examined with a view to be rightly understood, are found to depend all other things that God has commanded; as again do those same ten commandments on these two, namely, the love of God and of our neighbor, on which ‘dependeth the whole Law and the Prophets.‘”

Part III, chapter II, question III

“The pastor should teach that the first part of the Decalogue contains our duties towards God; the second part, our duties towards our neighbor. The reason (for this order) is that the services we render our neighbor are rendered for the sake of God; for then-only do we love our neighbor as God commands when we love him for God’s sake. The Commandments which regard God are those which were inscribed on the first table of the Law.” “The parish-priest will teach [his flock] that, in the Decalogue, the precepts that regard God occupy first, and those that regard neighbor, the second place; because the services that we render our neighbor, we render him for the sake of God; for then only do we love our neighbor according to the precept of God, when we love him for God’s sake….”

Part III, Chapter II, question VI — “Thou shalt not have strange Gods before Me”

“After this it should be added that [to love and worship God alone above all else] is the first and principal Commandment, not only in order, but also in its nature, dignity and excellence. God is entitled to infinitely greater love and obedience from us than any lord or king [and, implicitly, to fellow human beings].” “These matters explained, [the pastor] must add, that [to love and worship God alone above all else] is the first and greatest of all the commandments, not only in order, but also in nature, dignity, excellence; for God ought to have with us infinitely greater love and authority than are due to master, to monarch [and, implicitly, to fellow human beings].”

Part III, chapter V, question III

“Let him begin by showing that the divine precepts of the Decalogue were written on two tables, one of which, in the opinion of the holy Fathers, contained the three preceding, while the rest were given on the second table. This order of the Commandments is especially appropriate, since the very collocation points out to us their difference in nature. For whatever is commanded or prohibited in Scripture by the divine law springs from one of two principles, the love of God or of our neighbor: one or the other of these is the basis of every duty required of us. The three preceding Commandments teach us the love which we owe to God; and the other seven, the duties which we owe to our neighbor and to public society.” “[T]he parish-priest must … explain … that the divine precepts of the Decalogue were engraved on two tablets, one of which, as we have received from the holy Fathers, were comprised those three which [pertain to God], and on the other the remaining seven [which pertain to Man]. For us this description was most apposite, that their very order might distinguish the nature of the commandments; for whatever is commanded or prohibited in the sacred Scriptures by the divine Law, springs from one of two principles; for either the love of God or of our neighbor is had in view in every moral duty. Now the three preceding commandments teach the love of God; in the other seven is contained what appertains to domestic and public society.”

Part III, chapter V, question IV

“In the first three Commandments, which have been explained, God, the supreme good, is, as it were, the subject matter; in the others, it is the good of our neighbor. The former require the highest love, the latter the love next to the highest. The former have to do with our last end, the latter with those things that lead us to our end. Again, the love of God terminates in God Himself for God is to be loved above all things for His own sake; but the love of our neighbor originates in, and is to be regulated by, the love of God.” “For, in the three preceding commandments … the subject matter as it were, which they treat, is God, that is the Supreme Good; but in the others, the good of our neighbour: in the former is proposed supreme, in the latter, secondary love; the former regard the ultimate end, the latter those things that are referred to that end. Besides, the love of God terminates in God himself, for God is to be loved above all things solely for his own sake; but the love of our neighbour has its origins in the love of God, and is to be directed to it as to a certain rule….”

Part III, chapter V, question V

“Moreover, no honor, no piety, no devotion can be rendered to God sufficiently worthy of Him, since love of Him admits of infinite increase. Hence our charity should become every day more fervent towards Him, who commands us to love Him with our whole heart, our whole soul, and with all our strength. The love of our neighbor, on the contrary, has its limits, for the Lord commands us to love our neighbor as ourselves. To outstep these limits by loving our neighbor as we love God would be an enormous crime.” “Moreover, no honour, no piety, no worship is rendered to God, sufficiently worthy of him, towards whom love admits of infinite increase; … but the love with which we embrace our neighbor is circumscribed within its own proper limits, for the Lord commanded us to love our neighbour as ourselves; and if any one outstep these limits so as to give equal love to God, and his neighbour, he commits a most grievous crime….”

obi wan continuity looking for


* Here is the translation of the above passage from the Council of Trent, session 4, second decree, as provided by J. Waterworth (London: Dolman, 1848)]:

“…in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,–in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, –wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,–whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,–hath held and doth hold; or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published. Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries, and be punished with the penalties by law established.”

Incidentally, reference to punishment/penalties for contravening the sense of Scripture is omitted in the latest (43rd) edition (San Francisco: Ignatius, 2010) of Denzinger-Schönborn.

Posted in Uncategorized | 4 Comments

Family fun with the Codgitator’s Semiotic Slip ‘N Slide…

Q: “… You certainly have brought about a Copernican revolution in terms of language, lifestyle, behaviour and witness on the most considerable issues at the global level, even with atheists and with those who are far from the Christian Catholic Church. … Your linguistic, semantic, cultural revolution, your evangelical witness is stirring an existential crisis for us priests. What imaginative and creative ways do you suggest for us to overcome or at least to mitigate this crisis that we perceive?”

Pope Francis: “You said a word that I really like. It is a divine word. If it is human it is because it is a gift of God: creativity. And the commandment God gave to Adam, ‘Go and multiply. Be creative.’ It is also the commandment that Jesus gave to his disciples, through the Holy Spirit, for example, the creativity of the early Church in its relations with Judaism: Paul was creative; Peter, that day when he went to Cornelius, was afraid of them, because he was doing something new, something creative. But he went there. Creativity is the word.”

— from an exchange during a papal meeting with priests of Caserta (28 July 2014)

By now I’m sure you’ve seen the logo for the upcoming Jubilee of Mercy:

jubilee of mercy logo

And I’m pretty sure you’ve seen at least a few reactions to it, ranging from the nonplussed Simcha Fisher to the outraged Eric Gajewski, who discusses numerous semiotic ‘resonances’ which the logo shares with Masonic lore. The image, reports the National Catholic Register, was created by Jesuit Father Marko Rupnik, also shows one of Jesus’ eyes merged with the man’s to show how “Christ sees with the eyes of Adam, and Adam with the eyes of Christ.” Incidentally, here is a slideshow of Fr. Rupnik’s other artwork; note the faces in the first painting.

Be that as it may, Unamsanctam wryly notes, “The motto of the Year of Mercy is ‘Merciful Like the Father’, despite the fact that Pope Francis says the purpose of the year is to the demonstrate ‘the church’s maternal solicitude.'”


The logo has triggered countless strong reactions, and is going to be plastered all over Catholic Parishdom for the next year and a half or so. You can expect more reactions to emerge and return as time goes by. One reaction in particular that will persist, to cite Unamsanctam again, concerns the motives and pastoral liabilities behind the jubilee as such:

“Lest you have any doubt that this Year of Mercy will be used as a propaganda tool to push for greater acceptance of deviant lifestyles, Archbishop Reno Fisichella, spokesman for the Year of Mercy, stated that ‘The motto, “Merciful Like the Father,” serves as an invitation to follow the merciful example of the Father who asks us not to judge or condemn but to forgive and to give love and forgiveness without measure.'”

In the same vein, Louie Verrecchio, with his trademark subtlety, sees the logo as one more tile in the revolutionary mosaic that he believes Pope Francis is crafting over the surface of the Church. To wit:

harvesting the fruit - masterful mercy logo kasper francis

Others shall persist in seeing Masonic winks and nods in the logo. To wit:

masonic hints in year of mercy logo

Such speculation is par for the course with Pope Francis, since his every move has been analyzed as never before by Catholics and non-Catholics alike. Photos like the following are trip wires for conspiracy speculation:



(According to one guide to Lodge decorum, “The proper attitude of prayer is to stand with your arms crossed over your chest, with the left arm over right arm.”)

As if he were begging to be misunderstood by conspiracy theorists, below is the pectoral cross which the pope has worn even when he was a bishop:


(Note the sheep carried on the man’s shoulder’s, and how his arms are crossed.) 

In any case, let us return to the logo itself. We cannot know how much input Pope Francis had in the composition of the logo, but two facts do seem pertinent. First, the image clearly hearkens to his pectoral cross, with sheep-like Adam resting on the Lord’s shoulders. Second, there is a famous photo of Pope Francis which is remarkably similar both to the logo’s design and to his own pectoral cross:

pope francis holding sheep shoulders


jubilee of mercy logoCertainly the easiest explanation is that Fr. Rupnik was aware of the pope’s pectoral cross and the photo with the lamb, and incorporated those elements into the design of the logo. Yet, I wonder if Rupnik’s influences were as uncomplicated as we might like to imagine. Or, assuming he was aware of the following video, we must wonder what it says about Pope Francis’s own theological cogency.

On 11 November 2013, Pope Francis had a video interview with Fernando Solanas, an Argentinian environmental activist. During the exchange, Pope Francis made the following remarks, among others:


(“You said a word that I really like.”)




(“Creativity is the word.”)


(“God is a God of surprises.”)


(“You certainly have brought about a Copernican revolution in terms of language, lifestyle, behaviour and witness…”)

For those of you still keeping score at home, here, as one friend pointed out to me, is how Shiva is depicted:


Namely, with three eyes.

But that is not all, as my own curiosity revealed.

One legend involving Shiva concerns the death of his beloved Sati, and the rage into which Shiva flew to avenge her. “According to [one] version,” Wikipedia informs, “Shiva placed Sati’s body on his shoulder and ran about the world, crazed with grief. The Gods called upon the God Vishnu to restore Shiva to normalcy and calm.”

Here is how the story is often depicted in Hindu art:

Shiva carries Sati

jubilee of mercy logo

shiva carries sati highlighted

Logo for Holy Year of Mercy

IMG_0379Oh, who knows? It’s probably just Fr. Rupnik’s way of vivifying what Pope Francis wrote in Evangelii Gaudium, #254:

“[D]ue to the sacramental dimension of sanctifying grace, God’s working in them [i.e., non-Christians] tends to produce signs and rites, sacred expressions which in turn bring others to a communitarian experience of journeying towards God. While these lack the meaning and efficacy of the sacraments instituted by Christ, they can be channels which the Holy Spirit raises up in order to liberate non-Christians from atheistic immanentism or from purely individual religious experiences. The same Spirit everywhere brings forth various forms of practical wisdom which help people to bear suffering and to live in greater peace and harmony. As Christians, we can also benefit from these treasures built up over many centuries, which can help us better to live our own beliefs.”

The lesson is, I guess, that as every time you ‘encounter’ this curious logo in the parish bulletin, countless Catholic blog sites, on a spiritual retreat, in the confessional, as a bumper sticker, in your weirdly burnt toast, etc., you can have your faith enriched by thinking on the loving rage of the Hindu god of destruction, Shiva. After all, we may be living the myth of Shiva in our day, so it can’t hurt to know that we can always lean on his shoulders when times get tough. After all, creativity is the word.

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments