An Actual Real Thing for Which Francis Deserves Question and Criticism

The appointment of retired Cardinal Godfried Danneels to the Synod on the Family.

I have no idea what the man actually *does* in relation to the Synod, nor how many other cardinals share his particular duties on the synod (and dilute his influence, presuming he has any), nor whether the position has real clout or is ceremonial due to his age and rank. Nor do I know if Francis was aware of his history when he appointed him (though I find it hard to believe he wasn’t).

What I know is that he has behaved despicably toward the integrity of the victims of sexual abuse and that, as a layperson with children, it sends, shall we say, the wrong message to those of us living the vocation of marriage and family to have him anywhere near the proceedings of a body that is deliberating how the Church should wrestle with these issues (except perhaps has a laboratory specimen of how not to shepherd people victimized by sexual abuse). Personally, I think he belongs behind bars.

Such an appointment is, of course, a prudential judgment and there may be some overriding reason Francis knows and I don’t that prompted him to make the appointment. But as a member of the nobody-important-slob-laity I register my bleat of “What are you thinking?” and hope the Holy Father will either ditch or ignore this man.

"I'm assuming they are speaking about the politics in the Vatican currently...i.e. Scandals, the St ..."

Interviewed Rebecca Bratten Weiss on Connecting ..."
"" It is clear the Vatican does not care about the Church’s traditional teachings and ..."

Interviewed Rebecca Bratten Weiss on Connecting ..."
"Well, I'm going to assume you've changed the wording a bit and flavored it with ..."

Interviewed Rebecca Bratten Weiss on Connecting ..."
"Unfortunately, many pro-life advocates have decided to publicly devour each other. I would recommend the ..."

Interviewed Rebecca Bratten Weiss on Connecting ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • ivan_the_mad

    Here’s the list of synod fathers, including the sub-list of papal appointments, for the extraordinary synod of last month. He is the most senior of the cardinal priests; perhaps that has something do with it?

    N.B. – That’s the list for the past extraordinary synod. This is not the list for the ordinary synod in 2015, which is TBD.

    • chezami

      Hopefully, he will not be appointed, but my money is on it happening, unfortunately.

      • StumbleBumble

        Hoping you’re proved wrong in a good way and that the kindly ol’ Cardinal is taken out quietly and sent on a retreat.

    • http://ephesians4-15.blogspot.ca/ Randy Gritter

      Why was he invited to the extraordinary synod at all? He should be out of consideration for any appointments in Rome. Would they appoint Mahoney?

  • Mike

    Mark Shea admits that the Pope can possibly make mistakes :-O

    • chezami

      I’ve never denied it. What I have denied is that everything he says and does is wrong, which is what his enemies perpetually contend.

      • StumbleBumble

        Amen!

        For some, it must be a “burden” to have to live online scrutinizing everything the Holy Father says/does not say and then breathlessly report it as if fact.

  • anna lisa

    I think *all of us* are waking up to the prevalence of homosexual behavior. Now that I personally look back, I realize that a fair number of my Catholic school friends did some pretty aberrant things with same sex friends. Some turned out gay, others didn’t. In my own experience with children, I’ve had to personally break up all kinds of brow raising activities of my kids, who were acting out under the age of reason. I have to control myself from shouting “that’s disgusting!” so I won’t enforce an idea that *they* are disgusting, but that what they are *doing* offends against modesty. They eventually learn not to do it, but modesty is a huge concept for a four-year-old.

    Every single priest, bishop, and cardinal has heard things in the confessional from *adults* that would make lay people’s hair stand on end–and these priests hear such things constantly! The job of the priest *used to be* the quiet listener and the voice of counsel and healing EVEN when the penitent was confessing *murder*. Historically it was never the priest’s job to be the *enforcer* of justice.

    Let’s look at another heinous act-abortion. It is the ultimate child abuse, –are we breaking down the doors of the rectories to accuse priests for not demanding public restitution from the woman who was crying over her abortion in his rectory office? No, because abortion is *legal*. We know the priest would be regarded as a crazy man if he reported her for murder.

    Times have changed. Thank God the church has a *zero tolerance* policy for
    pedophilia. Studies show that pedophiles generally can’t be rehabilitated.

    So while a pedophile might repent of his actions, he is still a menace to society. This wasn’t always understood.

    Even Ratzinger can be blamed for taking part in the former methodology of the Church toward sexual abusers. Everyone’s eyes have been opened to the extent of the problem, but really, the vast majority of the cases had to do with homosexual priests engaging in homosexual activity with post pubescent young men. Those in positions of authority know the difference, and the stats. There is a *huge* difference between a seven year old victim and a seventeen year old victim who has come out of the woodwork demanding a huge financial settlement.

    I’m sure Pope Francis differentiates between actively gay Church authorities who had leniency for sexual crimes and chaste Church authorities who mistakenly thought a priest could be rehabilitated, and followed the Church’s very flawed protocol.

    It should also be noted that Archbishop Niederauer was promoted by Pope Benedict after Niederauer had been advocating for the financial rights of homosexuals in domestic partnerships, *for years*. This isn’t anything new. The Church doesn’t like this recognition of domestic partnership to be labeled “marriage”, but that just isn’t going to go away, and we all know it. If other Cardinals and Archbishops supported domestic partnerships this shouldn’t shock us–it just shows that they are tending to the *financial* vulnerability of some of the sheep in their flock.

    • ivan_the_mad

      Insightful, although I’m not sure that I agree.

    • Sus_1

      “There is a *huge* difference between a seven year old victim and a seventeen year old victim who has come out of the woodwork demanding a huge financial settlement.”

      Unfair!

      • anna lisa

        You can’t see the difference between a child victim and an adult victim?

        • Ronald King

          17 year old victims are not adults and the perpetrators are predators who pursue those who are vulnerable to being manipulated. Predators are sociopathic and lack empathy thus seeing their victims as objects to be used for their pleasure regardless of age.

          • anna lisa

            Ronald, I have an eight year old boy, and I have a sixteen year old and an eighteen year old. The eight year old doesn’t even know what sex is. YES, there is a vast difference between him and his brothers. Nobody contested the fact that “predators are sociopathic and lack empathy thus seeing their victims as objects to be used for their pleasure”, and nobody contested the fact that a seventeen year old victim is a victim. My 16 year old and 18 year old are young adults. Our family TALKS about these things. Their responses about how they would react to a predator is about the same: “kick to the face”. I agree that it lacks a certain measured maturity, but I find the answer satisfactory.

    • zoltan

      Everyone’s eyes have been opened to the extent of the problem, but really, the vast majority of the cases had to do with homosexual priests engaging in homosexual activity with post pubescent young men. Those in positions of authority know the difference, and the stats. There is a *huge* difference between a seven year old victim and a seventeen year old victim who has come out of the woodwork demanding a huge financial settlement.
      Indeed, more than half of the victims in the John Jay study were 13 or older. This is more of a homosexual problem than a pedophilia problem. The media doesn’t want to report that because homosexuality is their golden calf.

      • anna lisa

        Pope Francis is wise to promote love and acceptance of the homosexual person. It is better that homosexuals live above ground, out in the open. People who know they live a constant lie are more apt to go “all in” when they are tempted. They have two identities –the “respectable”one they present to the public (priesthood was the perfect cover!) and the one that they don’t want anyone to know about. Nobody lives life honorably when they are duplicitous. Acknowledging and respecting the homosexual person is vastly different than paying homage to homosexual acts. Pope Francis isn’t giving *anyone* a free pass on chastity. A hatred of chastity –and a love of licentiousness (non serviam)– seems to be what the media celebrates.

  • HornOrSilk

    Maybe it is a Francis-can moment, where we are to remember the office despite the person. St Francis, after all, went to priests who were quite questionable for that very reason.

  • http://bloggoliard.wordpress.com/ Blog Goliard

    I love the guy, but it does make me kinda crazy that so many of his appointments are straight out of the ’70s. (Either in spirit or, as here, rather literally.)

    But let’s be fair about this one. He probably had no other choice after learning that Rembert Weakland wasn’t available.

    • http://ephesians4-15.blogspot.ca/ Randy Gritter

      I do think he is being played by some of his trusted advisers. He simply does not have much knowledge of who is who on the global episcopal scene. Whoever he is trusting is a huge liberal. Orthodox bishops know there career is going nowhere for the foreseeable future. Liberal bishops are like gold. The think is most of the liberals are older. Cupich is 65 and he is one of the youngest.

  • Willard

    Unfortunate timing. With all the Pope’s critics foaming at the mouth right now, this feels like piling on.

    • chezami

      Right. I’m so well known as a Francis-hater.

      • Willard

        You’re the best known non-Francis-hater in the Catholic blogosphere. Just my opinion, but now is the time when all those who support the Holy Father need to rally around him. I take solace in knowing of his great devotion to Our Lady as he takes what seems like almost daily abuse from the likes of Cardinal Burke.

        • http://chicagoboyz.net/ TMLutas

          Jesus didn’t rally round St. Peter when Peter fouled up in the garden of Gethsemane. If a Pope fouls up, sycophants aren’t actually helping when they do their thing.

          I, frankly, don’t know anything about this situation and am not commenting on Francis, merely on the tribal dynamics you are advocating which are wrong independent of whether the Pope made the correct decision or not.

        • chezami

          If there’s one thing I’ve learned in the past ten years of scandal, it’s the sheer stupidity of circling the wagons in order to fend off facts in defense of a folk hero.

          • Willard

            Fair enough. I didn’t disagree with the substance of your complaint only the timing. I know it must gall you that known Francis haters are responding to the post with the idea that you are “growing up” or “getting it”. That’s good enough for me.

  • Willard

    At the very least, can you not call out Cardinal Burke for going so far in his criticism of the Pope that he is now outright lying?

    He said in an interview today that, “Many of us were horrified with this idea that was presented in the report, that there could somehow be good elements in mortally sinful acts.” Outrageous for a Cardinal to blatantly lie like that and, of course, nobody calls him on it.

    • Daniel G. Fink

      http://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2014/10/13/0751/03037.html

      Paragraphs 50-52…Bruno Forte was clearly including those involved in active homosexuality within the context of “gifts and qualities”…

      • Willard

        Thanks for linking to the document and I won’t belabor the point. Everyone can read it for themselves and see if it in any way justifies Cardinal Burke’s statement that “Many of us were horrified with this idea that was presented in the report, that there could somehow be good elements in mortally sinful acts.”

        • agricola

          Paragraphs 36-39 as well. Civil unions and cohabitations clearly involve sex outside of religious marriage which, according to Catholic doctrine, is still mortal sin.

    • HornOrSilk

      Burke needs to re-read his Augustine. Augustine makes it very clear that there is always some element of good being perverted for sinful acts. The good is distorted, removed from its proper context, over-emphasized, etc, but it is there. Finding those good elements and then finding a way to bring them back into the fullness of the good will help.

      • Athelstane

        If the good is perverted, it is no longer good, Horn.

        • HornOrSilk

          The good within is still a good, as per Augustine. Re-read your Augustine. The good is still a good. And that is what is forgotten in the dualist approach to evil. Your answer is the Protestant answer, the total depravity answer, not the Catholic answer which recognize that evil comes from the perversion of a good, and there always remains an element of that good. After all, there is no pure evil in existence.

          • Dave

            Not sure I agree. There is nothing good about abortion, for example. I would agree that a person is always seeking something they believe is good when they do evil actions.

            • HornOrSilk

              Even with evil, there is a lesser good, such as some sort of pleasure, which they aim for, which is still a good. Again, we are not dualists. We do not believe in essential evil (evil as a nature). Evil is not substance, but a privation of the good, and it thrives on and uses the good to even exist. This is not in question in Catholic theology. As I suggest again, start with Augustine’s On Free Choice of the Will. He makes it clear, every act of the will is for some supposed good, but the problem is they go for the wrong good. The good can be very minor, to be sure.

              • Dave

                Yes, and I’m sure that there is something good, such as freedom, that women having abortions are aiming for, but there is nothing good about the abortion itself. What do you mean by “we don’t believe in intrinsic evil?” That statement needs to be heavily qualified. Evil is not “something” but it exists nonetheless.

                • HornOrSilk

                  Here is Aquinas, which points out the cause of every evil is some good:
                  http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1049.htm
                  And if we consider the special kinds of causes, we see that the agent, the form, and the end, import some kind of perfection which belongs to the notion of good. Even matter, as a potentiality to good, has the nature of good. Now that good is the cause of evil by way of the material cause was shown above (Question 48, Article 3). For it was shown that good is the subject of evil. But evil has no formal cause, rather is it a privation of form; likewise, neither has it a final cause, but rather is it a privation of order to the proper end; since not only the end has the nature of good, but also the useful, which is ordered to the end. Evil, however, has a cause by way of an agent, not directly, but accidentally.


                  http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1048.htm
                  And it cannot consume the whole good:
                  I answer that, Evil cannot wholly consume good. To prove this we must consider that good is threefold. One kind of good is wholly destroyed by evil, and this is the good opposed to evil, as light is wholly destroyed by darkness, and sight by blindness. Another kind of good is neither wholly destroyed nor diminished by evil, and that is the good which is the subject of evil; for by darkness the substance of the air is not injured. And there is also a kind of good which is diminished by evil, but is not wholly taken away; and this good is the aptitude of a subject to some actuality.


                  Once again, I suggest studying the basics.

                  • Dave

                    I don’t think we disagree. Evil actions are done because people are attempting to attain some good. That doesn’t mean the actions themselves are good, however, although in some cases the actions themselves may not be intrinsically evil. If you are actually saying that abortion is not intrinsically evil, please explain.

          • Alex

            Smoke-pumping. Of course the Catholic understanding of evil is as a privation or distortion or misapplication of the good. The murderer might believe his murder is oriented toward a particular good; and the personal qualities that enable him to commit murder — strength, courage, cleverness, patience &c — are in themselves goods (as is the sharpness of the knife that enables him to cut his victim’s throat). None of this means the act of murder itself is anything other than intrinsically evil (disordered).

            I suspect Augustine or Aquinas would describe the practice of ‘bugchasing’ as intrinsically evil.

      • Nordog6561

        What might you nominate as the good element of public proclamations of pride in sodomy that can be brought back into the fullness of the good?

        We can’t reclaim the good lost to sin if we can’t name the sin.

    • Joejoe

      I don’t detect a lie in that. What am I missing?

      Also, Mark should give you a Tina Fey Eye Roll for suggesting nobody criticizes Cardinal Burke. I dare say there is nobody more unnecessarily piled on in the Catholic hierarchy than His Eminence.

      • Willard

        Acts are something you do. Not who you are. I find the following helpful when I’m talking to people in real life.

        Let me use an example from politics. Ronald Reagan is a political hero to many on the right. He is also our first divorced and remarried president. Would anyone deny he had “gifts and qualities”? Does the fact that he lived in an adulterous union disqualify those “gifts and qualities”?

        • Athelstane

          Yes, but those gifts and qualities were in spite of those evil acts, not bound up in them.

          There are no good qualities in mortally sinful acts. That doesn’t mean there aren’t any in the people who commit them.

          • Willard

            That’s exactly my point! The lie of Cardinal Burke was that the document said “there could somehow be good elements in mortally sinful acts.” The document nowhere says that. In fact it says exactly what you wrote.

            • Athelstane

              From Sec 50 of the Relatio: “Are our communities capable of this, accepting and valuing their sexual orientation, without compromising Catholic doctrine on the family and matrimony?”

              How exactly is it possible to “accept,” let alone “value” their homosexual orientation, which is by its nature intrinsically disordered (CCC 2357)?

              • Willard

                And now you’re moving goalposts. Remember, the lie of Cardinal Burke was that the document stated that there “could somehow be good elements in mortally sinful acts.” Acts, Acts, ACTS!

                I’m sure you have desperately searched the document, so you know as well as I do that nowhere in it does it give any support for Cardinal Burke’s lie.

                • Athelstane

                  All right, Willard. Try:

                  1) “…the positive reality of civil weddings and, having pointed out our differences, of cohabitation and “the constructive elements in those situations that do not yet or no longer correspond to that ideal.” (#36). These constitute gravely sinful acts. The Church has never spoken of “positive” or “constructive” elements in these acts, for good reason.

                  2) On civil marriages and cohabitation: “…when a union reaches a notable level of stability through a public bond, is characterized by deep affection, responsibility with regard to offspring, and capacity to withstand tests, it may be seen as a germ to be accompanied in development towards the sacrament of marriage. (#22) This is tantamount to stabilizing a grave sin, not moving a person away from it.

                  3) “…the Church pays special attention to the children who live with couples of the same sex, emphasizing that the needs and rights of the little ones must always be given priority.” (#52) A “priority?” “Needs and rights?” Well, what are they? Not a word – NOT A WORD – about the grave evil of allowing same-sex union adoptions. This is simply appalling. When you identify an act – adoption by homosexuals of children – and fail to condemn it – that is, in fact, a positive valuation of that act, and that is exactly how it has been read.

                  Having given a few examples, I still reiterate my question, which you have yet to answer: “How exactly is it possible to “accept,” let alone “value” their homosexual orientation, which is by its nature intrinsically disordered (CCC 2357)?”

                  • Willard

                    1) “…the positive reality of civil weddings and, having pointed out our differences, of cohabitation and “the constructive elements in those situations that do not yet or no longer correspond to that ideal.” (#36). These constitute gravely sinful acts. The Church has never spoken of “positive” or “constructive” elements in these acts, for good reason.

                    The Church HAS spoken positively about situations much akin to these. For example, Pope Benedict famously taught the following about condoms: “In a book published last month, Benedict said that although condoms were not “a real or moral solution,” in some cases, they might be used as “a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility.” He cited as an example a male prostitute who might use a condom so as not to spread disease.”

                    2) On civil marriages and cohabitation: “…when a union reaches a notable level of stability through a public bond, is characterized by deep affection, responsibility with regard to offspring, and capacity to withstand tests, it may be seen as a germ to be accompanied in development towards the sacrament of marriage. (#22) This is tantamount to stabilizing a grave sin, not moving a person away from it.

                    Disagree. Again take Ronald Reagan as an example. The marriage to his second “wife” was stable and clearly characterized by deep affection. Acknowledging that isn’t tantamount to stabilizing grave sin. It’s saying, hey, we respect you as a person and we appreciate the love you have for your “wife”. Please look into what we teach about the marriage bond and see about rectifying your situation.

                    3) “…the Church pays special attention to the children who live with couples of the same sex, emphasizing that the needs and rights of the little ones must always be given priority.”(#52) A “priority?” “Needs and rights?” Well, what are they? Not a word – NOT A WORD – about the grave evil of allowing same-sex union adoptions. This is simply appalling. When you identify an act – adoption by homosexuals of children – and fail to condemn it – that is, in fact, a positive valuation of that act, and that is exactly how it has been read.

                    So you’re saying the children of same sex couples don’t have needs and rights? What should the Church’s attitude be towards those children who obviously don’t have any say in who adopts them?

                    Having given a few examples, I still reiterate my question, which you have yet to answer: “How exactly is it possible to “accept,” let alone “value” their homosexual orientation, which is by its nature intrinsically disordered (CCC 2357)?”

                    I will leave aside the question of “valuing” their homosexual orientation as that was said by the English fathers to have been a mistranslation. How do we accept it? How can we not accept it when the Courage apostolate itself says the following, “Courage members are under no obligation to try to develop heterosexual attractions, because there is no guarantee that a person will always succeed in such an endeavour. Courage’s aim is to help persons with same-sex attractions develop a life of interior chastity in union with Christ.” Do you agree with this? What would be your approach?

                    • Willard

                      One other point I wanted to make. St. JPII and Pope Benedict wrote many wonderful encyclicals on the truths of Christian morality. Nobody can deny that. And yet, it was precisely during these pontificates that the secular culture moved to the wholesale acceptance of pornography, cohabitation and same sex marriage. Is it not at least acceptable to give His Holiness Pope Francis the opportunity to TRY a different approach without, in the words of the Relatio, “compromising Catholic doctrine on the family and matrimony”?

                    • Athelstane

                      Willard,

                      Yes, it’s true – western culture decayed greatly during those two pontificates. But that decay had long before been set in motion. It’s fair to ask, actually, whether those two popes failed to act more firmly to arrest it (mainly through the selection of better prelates). But it would have been hard even for a Pius X to reverse the Sexual Revolution in the peak of its throes.

                      As for Francis, it remains difficult to make out WHAT his approach really is. The difficulty is that he, or at least (trying to be fair here) many of those around him (like Kasper, Forte, Marx and Baldisseri), do seem to favor a major alteration in the praxis, such that the doctrine becomes altered on the ground even if not “in print” – a backdoor alteration of doctrine by any other name. There’s just no substitute for clarity. Our families deserve at least that much. From time to time Francis has spoken with some clarity, but his ambiguous statements have grabbed all the media attention, which is why so many plainly do believe that he is altering Church doctrine on homosexuality, etc. regardless of whether he is or not.

                      There are vast swaths of modern society deeply intent on seeing the Church abandon its doctrine and conform to the Sexual Revolution – who can deny it? It’s imperative that we resist that effort.

                    • Athelstane

                      Hello Willard,

                      Really, I am astonished that you’re defending this . . . abortion of a “relatio.” But since you are – and yes, you’re doing more than nitpicking Burke’s comments – let me be brief:

                      1) That Pope Benedict “cited as an example a male prostitute who might use a condom so as not to spread disease.”

                      In the first place, Pope Benedict said that in an interview with Peter Seewald – it has exactly zero magisterial authority, just as none of Francis’s interviews have any such authority. In the second place, Benedict added, “But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection. That can really lie only in a humanization of sexuality.” In the third place, even with the caveat, that troubling statement by Benedict is exactly why papal interviews with the media are so dangerous, and should be approached with grave trepidation.

                      2) That Reagan’s “marriage to his second “wife” was stable and clearly characterized by deep affection.

                      The Church assumes the validity of marriages as a canonical matter, even ones not celebrated as Catholic sacrament. If indeed Reagan’s marriage to Jane Wyman was valid, he was living in adultery for his entire marriage with Nancy Reagan, a grave mortal sin, in regards to which he must have hoped for a great reduction of culpability (as a result of ignorance) at his final judgment. At any rate, if one is remarried, there can BE NO “development towards the sacrament of marriage” unless one returns to one’s first spouse. Period. Christ’s words are quite clear on this. And with the grace he provides, he also makes possible such restorations.

                      3) “So you’re saying the children of same sex couples don’t have needs and rights?”

                      Well, of course they do – the right and need to be brought up with a father and mother. And while sometimes a single parent, through no fault of their own, must do this, it can never be licit to have a homosexual couple do so. That constitutes an abuse of those children. That has always been the position of the Church.

                      As for Courage members (and I admire that organization enormously): It is true that “they are under no obligation to try to develop heterosexual attractions,” as indeed is also true of heterosexuals (who may be called to religious life, after all). But they ARE under an obligation to resist such attractions to the same sex, refusing to act on them. And that is the point here – a point that the relatio worked hard to avoid saying, given that its author, Archbp. Forte (and many allies int he episcopate, alas), plainly favors overturning Church doctrine on a wide range of sexual teachings.

                    • Willard

                      Thanks for dialogue Athelstane. You have helped me to understand the conservative position better. I don’t want to respond in detail to all the points you made but I do have a question for you.

                      Do you accept the following from the Catechism of the Catholic Church #2352 regarding masturbation, “To form an equitable judgment about the subjects’ moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability.”?

                      The reason I ask is that it is my best guess that this is where the Pope wants to lead the Church in all issues of sexual morality. Retain the teaching but with the understanding that, due to the influence of secular culture, many people are not in mortal sin and therefore introduce disciplines that reflect that fact.

                      Mind you, I am not saying this IS what Pope Francis believes but just my best guess after studying things like the Relatio, EG, and other of his works.

  • SteveP

    It only makes sense when you understand that Elton John probably admires Cardinal Danneels.

  • http://veniaminov.blogspot.com/ Elliot Bougis

    Mark, you are a good man, and I’m sorry for past vitriol. “… I got better.”

    • chezami

      I wish I believed you. But the reality is, you just like it that I criticized Francis and told you something your itching ears wanted to hear.

      • falstaff77

        The *reality* is? The reality of the hearts of others is not known to me. You?

        • Tweck

          You should both try out my spiritual hug method. I’m promoting it as a way to overcome all the arguing and division and whatnot, and get everyone back in the “They will know we are Christians by our Love!” ranks.

          It goes like this:

          Close your eyes. Imagine yourself hugging that person that annoys you. Now feel jubilant and grateful that that person just gave you a hug, and think fondly about what a wonderful person they are! Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyy!!!!

          *grin* :^D

  • http://www.onepeterfive.com/ Steve Skojec

    It’s almost like you’re growing up.

  • Archie Tremmel

    Mark:
    When I read stuff like this, whether or not there is supporting evidence, I just recall that Michael Voris says that this pope is the most misunderstood religious leader in the world. Thank you for not criticizing him in public. That’s not Catholic.

  • DMReed

    http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/09/shock-with-appointment-of-danneels-to.html?m=1

    Rotate Caeli was all over this one almost two months ago, but it helps to also hear it from you, Mark. Read the Daneels transcript from 2010 in the above link. One would have to be a lunatic to appoint Daneels to the Synod on the family… Just saying….

  • Athelstane

    Mark,

    I’ve been critical of your blog posts on a number of occasions, but I would like to offer my approbation on this one.

    I also don’t know why Cdl. Daneels was appointed, or what the Pope knew when he appointed him. But it’s clear that Daneels is a very salient part of the “problem” on sexual abuse in the Church, and the Holy See has a responsibility to deal appropriately with such prelates – not give them new honors and responsibility. If the Pope did not know, he *ought* to have known. But the same may be said of similar cases under at least one of his predecessors.

  • pete salveinini

    Glad to see you can recognize the Pope is not correct all the time. In fact, one of the benefits of our Pope, and actually his humility, is revealing his foibles a well as his wonderful charism of charity rather than law as the normal approach to pastoral care and especially evangelization. After Vat I there was an obvious creeping attitude that the pope must be by virtue of his election always right in his decisions and even in his opinions. This Pope cures us of that. Still one gives the benefit of the doubt to him. One fact that is overlooked is that starting with Paul VI all the popes have for the first time come from the MIDDLE CLASS, (John Paul I excepted), which explains a lot, especially regarding Liturgy, as the middle class sensibilities are overwhelmingly modern. Thus the ugly new church architecture, overly pragmatic approach generally and many other things.