So much for the pastoral approach

Here is an example: twice in the last week I have had to deal with Catholics in irregular marriages. One woman married outside the church and told me that she thought it was now okay for her to come to communion because, “The pope has changed all those old rules.” Another man has divorced his wife and is living with another woman. He also assured me very confidently that it was now fine for him to come to communion because, “Pope Francis has changed the rules.” I know you mean well Holy Father, and I admire and like you, but this process on which you have led us is not helping.

Here is another example from my experience as a parish priest: a young couple came for marriage preparation. They do not practice their faith and are living together already as husband and wife. I welcomed them and listened to their story. I told them it was good that they wanted to be married. I said we would help prepare them not only for a Catholic wedding, but for a Catholic marriage. However, when I gently began a conversation about their irregular lifestyle the girl began to pout and accuse me of being “unwelcoming.” Then she said, “I thought with this new pope we would be welcomed.” What she meant by this was, “I expected Pope Francis’ Catholic Church to condone cohabitation.” (Source)

Precisely.  The welcoming initiative sounds good to the unbalanced and imprudent, but on the ground it’s an absolute disaster.

Listen, folks, this is not very complicated.  Let me break it down for you in very basic terms so everyone from grandma in the Pew to the Pope can understand.

We want free sex, anytime, anywhere with anyone.  And we don’t want to feel guilty about.  Period.

That’s it. That all.

That’s what this whole question is about.  Whether it’s man-on-man, man-on-woman (wife or not), man-on-beast.  It doesn’t really matter.

It’s really about the orgasm whatever way we can get it without the Catholic guilt.

Capiche?

One thought on “So much for the pastoral approach

  1. There are three underlying issues at work here. The pope has made references in a recent homily to the Pharisees of the Gospel who considered it impossible to go beyond the law and were a stumbling block for ordinary people. In the context of the Synod of the Family, it is quite clear that he was targeting orthodox bishops who were guilty, at least in his view, of blocking the road to salvation for some people in difficult situations because they refuse the risk of mercy.

    This remark rests on false assumptions. For the listeners in Jesus’ time, the word ‘mercy’ was never a free pass for vice as it became with Martin Luther and `Sola Fides`. If anyone drinks this Protestant poison, they automatically lose the belief in sin – `Sola Fides` is belief in cheap mercy and in a concept of Salvation without consequences. The cultural winds on the planet are driven by America and it is not possible to comprehend the situation without understanding that Christianity in the Western world is mainly Protestant – and with it the belief in cheap mercy without consequences. Unfortunately `Sola Fides` has been adopted by many Catholics – the loss of sense of sin amongst Catholic laity should not be a surprise.

    No cursory reading of the Gospel would lead to an idea like this.

    The prodigal son fully expected, as a price for reconciliation with his Father, to be stripped of all privileges associated with a Son;
    Before starting on his return, he fully realized he was in the wrong. Admittedly his reasons were not of the best calibre since they were laced with self interest; but the story is clear on that point: mercy can only be applied to someone with a sense of sin who admits his wrong and the necessity of a change;
    The Jewish tradition in the Old Testament was equally clear about this: the story of King David show that the King’s assassination of his general and his adultery lead to terrible consequences for his household – a belief in sin is a belief in real consequences; forgiveness is acquired but the consequences play out.

    Homosexuals, remarried people do not believe that they are doing wrong and want approval. In that sense these are spiritual swine who crawl in their muck and insist that they are walking on water.

    Pope Francis cannot be accused of doctrinal waywardness or apostasy as he can be on some Catholic blogs. There is not a shred of evidence for this. But obviously he lives in a world where the Protestants and their ideas do not exist. This assumption was probably quite valid in Argentina. When Pope Francis ascended the throne of Peter, he should have realized and fairly quickly that some of the suppositions which held him in good stead as a Shepherd in Argentina were not longer so in his enlarged arena. There are many people like this who cannot make a transition to a superior role: they are promoted beyond their level of competence. Pope Francis is a dangerous incompetent.

    The correct approach for the Church is simple: the sexual wayward people of all stripes should be recognized as swine destined for hell and unredeemable because the are poisoned with a version of `Sola Fides` and apply the Gospel principle not to throw pearls at them.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *