This Disastrous Papacy

Author: 

koinonia , Randal Mandock ,  claude-ccc2991 , rjbennett1294 , MWCooney01 , Retired01 , rickt26170 , Jason C., DrJazz , Travelling , MatJohn ,  feedback , howland5905 , bkmajer3729, claude-ccc2991                  

Date: 
Wednesday, March 8, 2017 - 00:00
Article link: 

 

  • Posted by: koinonia - Mar. 01, 2017 8:54 PM ET USA

    Most points are well-taken. Most are intellectually honest and reflect reality; if they sound harsh so be it. The supreme law of the Church is the salvation of souls, and we baptized must be invested in each other's spiritual welfare. Unfortunately, it must be honestly admitted that Pope Francis cannot-and he should not- be made a scapegoat. He is a "next step", he is a catalyst, he's part of a decades' long process. But he's not alone. Pope Francis is problematic, but he is no fluke.

  • Posted by: Randal Mandock - Mar. 02, 2017 3:36 AM ET USA

    Amen. When I walk into the classroom on Sunday morning and find my 8th-grade students discussing weighty matters of faith and morals (no kidding), often they are lamenting the current state of the Church and the un-Catholic way the pope can speak. I let them talk and I sometimes ask questions to find out if they are as fully informed as they seem to be. They usually are. From time to time, when the opportunity arises, we may even spend a couple of minutes of class time discussing their concerns.

  • Posted by: claude-ccc2991 - Mar. 02, 2017 4:08 AM ET USA

    Some say AL changes nothing. But I can't square Jesus' answer to the rich man's question re inheriting heaven with AL's thesis that some irregular unions are "not culpable, or fully such." Jesus says adultery (Mk 10:11-12) absent repentance precludes heaven (Mk 10:17-19). St. Paul is equally unyielding (1 Cor 6:9). Sadly, it seems what's next is overturning infallible teaching of a previous pope. Will Francis ignore JPII's infallible Ordinatio Sacerdotalis by opening the diaconate HO to women?

  • Posted by: rjbennett1294 - Mar. 02, 2017 7:48 AM ET USA

    I am definitely one of those who feel "oddly reassured" when I read that Phil Lawler considers this papacy a disaster. At the same time, I feel a sense of sadness and bewilderment that such a disaster is possible. I deal with that feeling mainly by praying that God will give me the continuing certainty that He is protecting the Church as He promised to do, protecting it from people like Bergoglio and his enablers.

 

  • Posted by: MWCooney01 - Mar. 02, 2017 10:01 AM ET USA

    I know that this essay was painful to write, and I have felt such pain in writing comments to complain about the deep problems presented by our current Pope. But to deny that those problems exist, and that they are exceedingly serious, is to become an accomplice. Please do not lose your courage or cool perspective on this, for the words I find here and with others of your colleagues does give a certain relief at not feeling alone. And, as you said, PRAY!

 ...

  • Posted by: Retired01 - Mar. 02, 2017 3:21 PM ET USA

    Dear Mr. Lawler, I believe you are 100% right. Pope Francis is doing great damage to the Church. I also hope that I am wrong, but I believe he is a wolf in sheep's clothing. May God have mercy on his Church!

 

  • Posted by: rickt26170 - Mar. 03, 2017 2:48 AM ET USA

    You are not wrong. I think we would have to go back to Leo X who was so worried about Florentine politics and his Medici family that he utterly botched Luther's challenge. Francis is not a corrupt libertine, but he has shown extraordinary interest in accommodating the secular world at the expense of the Church and appears willing to risk schism to please Euro bishops and secular progressives in the West. He is succeeding and displaying frightening hubris.

 

  • Posted by: Jason C. - Mar. 03, 2017 10:48 AM ET USA

    Those accusing the current Pope of causing schism are wrong; he is only revealing what has been there since the birth of the Modernist heresy and exacerbated by Vatican II. There are a *lot* of self-identified Catholics who agree with everything Pope Francis says and does. Why is that? How can this be? Because we have had two "churches" for decades now. (Obviously there's only One Church but you get the point.)

 ...

  • Posted by: DrJazz - Mar. 03, 2017 10:49 AM ET USA

    It is amazing that the Papacy could be so degraded in such a short time. Popes who were gifted teachers and saintly men are all I have known in my lifetime. Now, it feels as though the father has left the house. It was a bad idea for Benedict to resign. It is true that he is not the “real” Pontiff, but the fact that he is alive forced you to address the possibility. It also tempts us. If he hadn't resigned, we would have avoided Francis and enjoyed additional years of orthodox guidance.

 ...

  • Posted by: Travelling - Mar. 03, 2017 5:11 PM ET USA

    Was it not the case that the " bad Popes" showed disdain for the Church's teaching by their i oral personal lives. In that regard at least they were consistent! I can't hope thinking of Alice von Hildebrand in all this and her search for refinement. Pope Francis lacks refinement. I think this is a common state now for most people who are products of the Western/ affluent/ pop "culture". It is rather a lack of culture. We must get it back and quickly!

...

  • Posted by: MatJohn - Mar. 03, 2017 11:12 PM ET USA

    Catholics are now divided spiritually as much as our country is politically. But when 8 th graders are lamenting the state of the Church and the un-Catholic way our Pope speaks, that is a vigorous sign that our future Church's teachings will prevail as they have for two millennia. Thank you Phil for the difficult message and the precise reasoning that our Holy Father's needs must consist of our fervent prayers.

 ...

  • Posted by: koinonia - Mar. 04, 2017 7:20 AM ET USA

    "Maybe my entire argument is wrongheaded. I have been wrong before, and will no doubt be wrong again; one more mistaken view is of no great consequence." Since the early Church, there's been a characteristic of Christianity that is essential. The martyrs manifested Christian confidence to a striking degree. Confidence cannot be removed from Christian life. "First, Catholics can rely on the constant teaching of the Church..." Yes. We can. For too long we've relinquished this confidence.

...

  • Posted by: feedback - Mar. 04, 2017 7:35 AM ET USA

    The real danger to the Church and to the Faith comes not so much from heresy, which can be easily refuted, but from the persistent lack of clarity in matters of grave importance. Lack of clarity is what divides the Church and opens wide roads to heresies. Let this be a valuable lesson for the future Papal conclaves.

 ...

  • Posted by: howland5905 - Mar. 04, 2017 8:11 AM ET USA

    Dear Phil, I read the report on Pope Francis's homily. Frankly I don't see what made you "snap." As I see it, our Pope hasn't said or done anything to contradict Church teaching. What he has done is to urge a more pastoral approach rather than a legalistic approach. Does this make him a "disastrous" Pope? I hardly think so. With best wishes, John

  • Posted by: bkmajer3729 - Mar. 04, 2017 4:04 PM ET USA

    How can Catholics be divided "spiritually"? The perceived division is one of understanding not spirituality. Heresy can be easily refuted...really? I keep asking but no one has shown where the Pope has made statements contrary to Catholic teaching or doctrine. Maybe all this concern is really fear of being challenged in how we accept how the Church exercises pastoral care? All of this concern for how bad things are because of Pope Francis is truly disturbing and disappointing.

  • Posted by: feedback - Mar. 04, 2017 10:26 PM ET USA

    @bkmajer3729's comment, quote: << Maybe all this concern is really fear of being challenged in how the Church exercises pastoral care? >> Cardinal Sarah actually wrote about this two years ago in his book 'God or Nothing': "The idea of putting magisterial teaching in a beautiful display case while separating it from pastoral practice, which then could evolve along with circumstances, fashion, and passions, is a sort of heresy, a dangerous schizophrenic pathology."

  • Posted by: koinonia - Mar. 05, 2017 8:43 AM ET USA

    "Moreover they lay the axe... to the very root, that is, to the faith... And having struck at this root of immortality, they proceed to disseminate poison through the whole tree,... Further, none is more skilful, none more astute than they, in the employment of a thousand noxious arts;... and this so craftily that they easily lead the unwary into error;..." Pius XII, describing the modernists, and the manner in which poison constituting a "danger to the faith" is introduced. Phil is dead on.

  • Posted by: claude-ccc2991 - Mar. 06, 2017 6:31 AM ET USA

    Pity the blind man who alleges that his blindness is proof that sight doesn't exist.

 

Own comment: 

There are many good comments on the piece, one in which Phil Lawler tells us he has finally snapped as a result of Bergoglio twisting clear Scripture to promote his licentious agenda once again.

I shall only highlight 2 of them. In the first one, Travelling writes:

Was it not the case that the " bad Popes" showed disdain for the Church's teaching by their i oral personal lives. In that regard at least they were consistent!

To that I respond that even if we were to disregard Bergoglio's promotion of adultery, sodomy and abortion, either directly through words which seem to justify these things or indirectly through acts which downplay their moral gravity, as not being immoral, we are left with the fact that we simply do not know what Bergoglio does in his private life.

I submit that no man who undermines the moral order as much as Bergoglio does can be leading a moral life. That Bergoglio is a pervert we know from his own corprophagous admission, and there are many rumours about scandalous deeds attributed to him, which nobody follows up simply because the Church's enemy is content to have him destroying the Church, and accompanying souls to eternal hellfire. Frankly, I shudder to think what Bergoglio does or has done behind closed doors, but I suspect they are the sort of things which would make weak stomachs turn.

As the last comment we have claude-ccc2991 who wrote:

Pity the blind man who alleges that his blindness is proof that sight doesn't exist.

That was in response to some of the more prideful idiots coming and writing that they have no proof of what Bergoglio has said that is heretical. I share his pity for such people. Either they know not what Bergoglio has written or said, or they know not what the Church teaches, and they are not ashamed to flaunt their ignorance.

To anybody who is tempted to think similarly I answer: Pick up any Catechism written before 1960, or even the New Catechism of the Catholic Church, and read the sections on the Eucharist, sin, absolution, marriage, contraception, fornication, the necessity of belonging to Holy Mother Church, the necessity of dying in a state of grace, the sacraments, the 4 last things, and pretty much anything else. Then take that text and compare it to pretty much anything Bergoglio has written in an official capacity, and failing that, virtually any homily that he has given from the hotel in which he gives his almost daily rants and nonsensical verbiage.

After that, if you still haven't seen the problem, consult a dictionary, and try again!

If even non-Catholics can see that Bergoglio is a heretic in papal drag, then you ought to be worried that you cannot see it.