Fr. Z Defies Pope Francis, With Merch

Fr. Z has stooped to a new low. He is selling cheap, bland, and ugly merchandise, generically built for quick and cheap profits, that does more than to merely invert or make light of paragraph 94 of Pope Francis’ recent exhortation, Evangelii Gaudium. Fr. Z goes further, by identifying himself, proudly, to be the very thing that the Pope decries when he wrote:

94. This worldliness can be fuelled in two deeply interrelated ways. One is the attraction of gnosticism, a purely subjective faith whose only interest is a certain experience or a set of ideas and bits of information which are meant to console and enlighten, but which ultimately keep one imprisoned in his or her own thoughts and feelings. The other is the self-absorbed promethean neopelagianism of those who ultimately trust only in their own powers and feel superior to others because they observe certain rules or remain intransigently faithful to a particular Catholic style from the past. A supposed soundness of doctrine or discipline leads instead to a narcissistic and authoritarian elitism, whereby instead of evangelizing, one analyzes and classifies others, and instead of opening the door to grace, one exhausts his or her energies in inspecting and verifying. In neither case is one really concerned about Jesus Christ or others. These are manifestations of an anthropocentric immanentism. It is impossible to think that a genuine evangelizing thrust could emerge from these adulterated forms of Christianity.

For those concerned about translation, here it is, in Spanish:

94. Esta mundanidad puede alimentarse especialmente de dos maneras profundamente emparentadas. Una es la fascinación del gnosticismo, una fe encerrada en el subjetivismo, donde sólo interesa una determinada experiencia o una serie de razonamientos y conocimientos que supuestamente reconfortan e iluminan, pero en definitiva el sujeto queda clausurado en la inmanencia de su propia razón o de sus sentimientos. La otra es el neopelagianismo autorreferencial y prometeico de quienes en el fondo sólo confían en sus propias fuerzas y se sienten superiores a otros por cumplir determinadas normas o por ser inquebrantablemente fieles a cierto estilo católico propio del pasado. Es una supuesta seguridad doctrinal o disciplinaria que da lugar a un elitismo narcisista y autoritario, donde en lugar de evangelizar lo que se hace es analizar y clasificar a los demás, y en lugar de facilitar el acceso a la gracia se gastan las energías en controlar. En los dos casos, ni Jesucristo ni los demás interesan verdaderamente. Son manifestaciones de un inmanentismo antropocéntrico. No es posible imaginar que de estas formas desvirtuadas de cristianismo pueda brotar un auténtico dinamismo evangelizador.

In other words, Fr. Z has come up with, and is selling, this claim that directly opposes Francis exhortation: “I am a self-absorbed promethean neopelagian, and proud of it.”

This may seem funny to some people, making light on what, at first glance, seems like an impenetrable phrase. But anyone who so often defends obscure and technical ecclesial words, and who claims to have respect for etymology and language in general, should have very little trouble figuring out what this phrase means.

Fr. Z understands what “self-absorbed promethean neopelagianism” means and his rebellious rejoinder shows a degree of intentionality that is worst than obtuse — it is defiant.

By describing himself in the exact words Francis used to describe something negative and dangerous, and encouraging others to join him, Fr. Z is — as Tom McDonald puts it — giving Pope Francis the finger. He is also projecting what is most obvious: Fr. Z felt Francis pointing in his direction and decided to strike back, with merch.

These are the days when the Vicar of Christ is defended from the “orthodox” and “faithful” Catholics…

  • Alfred Prescott

    Wow! It’s humor…fr z probably thought about it for 2 seconds and slapped it on a mug. He’s really not declaring ww3 against the pope or biting his thumb at him.

    Take a few steps back and breathe….and try not to take fr z’s coffee mugs sooo seriously

    • texastwist

      If Fr Z did what you suggest, that’s just as bad. For a man who professes first and foremost to love Jesus and his vicar to look simply for an opportunity to turn his comments into sound bites, cheapens his own standing in the community. I think Z puts his head on the pillow each night and imagines himself to be Bill O’Reilly. Same ilk,

  • Tyler

    Rise of the Neocon Catholic hegemon vs the oft caricatured oft painfully described in dramatic and detailed controlling narrative with patented Bose amplified echo blogosphere chamber by neocons……”Teh reaction…errr..traditionalists”….,will it ever end in the Blogosphere?! Grab some popcorn…..meanwhile what are the Jesuits teaching our children now at the University?!?……meh…..heh You! Yeah You! Look over here! Bonk!

  • Illinidiva

    Father Z has been freaking out about Pope Francis since his election.. There was the snark about “Bergoglio class” a few months back and his obsession with Francis’ Ford Focus, but this is a new low for him. Father Z is going to ultimately snap because his view of the priesthood (making Father Z rich) is different from Pope Francis’ idea of service.

    • Tyler

      Illinidiva you don’t really think Father Z is doing this to get rich do you? He hasn’t been freaking out…….he has actually been very instructive and measured as usual. Father Z is obviously a traditionalist…..what I eternally do not understand is if you want to see over reaction, freaking out, or misinterpretation…..try any liberal catholic blogger, commentator, catholic journal or msm catholic commentator on francis…whether in time magazine or Washington posts on faith… comments on their real hysterics…the microscope is on the Father Z is it?..the meticulous and rather exacting usually very careful writer who is apparently a frothing freakish lunatic..that is a new one…….I’m getting really tired of this….almost calculated neocon catholic red herring crap going on…..there are way worse things going on by so called Catholics in positions of supreme power than single blogging priests with a computer selling cheap coffee mugs…..

      Bizarro world

      • Illinidiva

        Yes, actually I do think that he is doing just that. And while I do celebrate the fact that Burke lost his stranglehold on U.S. bishops today, I also agree that bishops like Finn and the guy in St. Paul who are convicted of covering up clerical abuse by priests should be fired. However, that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t condemn the petty excesses of a man like Father Z.

        • Jonenred

          I heard you’re a well known heretic…

          • edsilvey

            ^^ lol
            Alleluja, Jonen!

          • Illinidiva

            Because I’m not a mindless drone that does exactly what the bishop (and menfolk in general tell me)

          • Jonenred

            You like the sissy type of priests, no?

          • Illinidiva

            First, I don’t consider a priest that likes to play lacy dress-up as “manly.” I don’t know many blue collar types who like to do those sorts of things. Secondly, I think that priests should be pastoral – i.e. willing to listen to their parishioners’ problems and help them out. These sorts of priests can be either traditionalist or liberal. However, unfortunately, many traditionalist types adhere to a strict hierarchy and view themselves as “lords” and the laity as “peasants.”

          • Jonenred


          • texastwist

            Baloney yourself! And talking about sissy priests, what about those priests who even today like to walk around in their capes and birettas? Are they sissy priests?

          • Almario Javier

            Careful there. We are as Catholics supposed to obey our superiors in all that is not sin. To an extent we all, men and women. Are usually supposed to do what the hieearchy asks of us. I think Fr. Zuhlsdorf went over the line in his defiance of the Holy Father, but that’s no excuse to stoop to his level.

          • Illinidiva

            I dismiss the notion that Father Z is somehow my superior and I somehow need to obey him. Just because he is an ordained priest doesn’t make him better than me. I live in 21st century America, not feudal Europe. The priests and bishops aren’t sovereign lords that hold dominion over us peasants. And I definitely dismiss the notion that I must “obey” my husband.
            Frankly, the strict hierarchy in the Church where the laity (especially laywomen) are treated like medieval serfs is why the Church is in such bad shape in the first place. It created generations of bishops, like Cardinal Burke, who see themselves as Renaissance princes, not servants. It created a climate where bishops thought they were “above” the civil authorities and therefore didn’t need to report abusive priests. So it would be better if we all made a bit of “lio” in the future rather than acting as yes men.

          • Almario Javier

            I meant obeying our bishops, Illinidiva who are successors to the Apostles.The Catholic Church by its nature is hirearchical. God at the top, then the bishops and other ordinaries, of which Peter is head, then the priests, then the laity in the context of their parish or community and in keeping with the rights due to them. By no means was I referring to Zuhlsdorf, who, for all his virtues and vices, is not our superior. Your bishop, however, is. You don’t have to like him particularly. But if he asks you to do something he has a right to ask, and it is not sinful (so covering up sex abuse does not count), we all should obey as we would obey the civil authorities in what is not sinful. I know this concept of obedience is hard for Americans to get, but it’s one of the Commandments. Obedience is not about acting like yes men, it is about doing what they ask, when what they ask is not sin. It also means not showing contempt toward their authority, like, for example, when a priest says he is proud of being a neo-Pelagian (which last I checked is a heresy, though the term used these days tends to be Jansenism), and encouraging ridicule of the Pope, who is the superior of us all.

            I honestly don’t get the animus against Cardinal Burke. Maybeit’s because I’ve never lived in St. Louis, but he’s a man with his virtues and his vices. Just an aside.

          • Illinidiva

            I think that it is okay to criticize bishops, including the Pope, for matters that aren’t sinful. For instance, I think that Benedict’s decision to hold talks with the SSPX wasn’t a wise choice; of course, there weren’t any sins involved but it was just a bad decision on Benedict’s part. Same with some of the poorly worded statements that come out of the bishops mouths. I think that some of Burke’s statements fall into this category.

            As for Burke himself, I think that many people dislike his unpastoral approach to things. He is the antithesis of who Pope Francis is.

          • Almario Javier

            There’s nothing wrong with criticizing bishops, provided it is done respectfully and with due deference (for example, I agree that Pope Benedict shouldn’t have continued talks with Fellay). The issue is obedience. One can criticize a decision of the Bishop. But when the bishop (including the Pope, or rather especially the Pope) makes a decision, we are supposed to abide by it. Then there is also respecting their authority, or their right to make decisions and teach their flock. This means, for example, that we don’t tell the world that we proudly subscribe to a heresy condemned by the Holy Father (and several of his predecessors), and stick that statement on coffee mugs which we sell in the market.

            I think this attitude(by which I mean all this nonsense) explains why this sort of think usually involves Americans. We Americans are a naturally rebellious people. Obedience isn’t something that comes easily, especially given the fact that our Protestant bretheren seem to think religion should be decided by popular vote, and that Volksgeist infects even our thoughts.

            As for Burke, perhaps you might know better if you lived in his former jurisdiction,but I distinctly recall at least one attempt where he showed pastoral initiative regarding someone attracted to the same sex in a religious community. Certain “conservatives” openly defied him in public, until the CDF had to intervene to calm things down. That’s the big problem. You’re damned when you do, you’re damned when you don’t, as far as the pewsitters are concerned. And that is why many saints dreaded the day they even heard rumors of them being given a see. To some extent, I would not wish a bishopric today on my worst enemy. I will note, however, that as he’s on the Rota now, he can put his talents to full and proper use.

          • Tyler


            There are hard truths in Christianity and always will be. They have to be discussed…because they are doesn’t mean a Bishop like Burke isn’t being pastoral like francis

          • Illinidiva

            Considering that my only role in Burke’s world is as a submissive wife and mother, I don’t think that Burke is pastoral. He treats women as lesser than men. And there are also better ways to convey message about abortion than how Burke does it (snarling and pouting at people.) Francis is a much better messenger for the pro-life movement than Burke is.

          • texastwist

            When you have nothing to say and are reduced to name calling, you have lost your argument. You prove your case to be emotional and not logical. Point goes to the Illini.

          • Tyler

            Texastwist I am going to quote Professor Peter Kreeft on his topic about “Woman Priests….or why only Men can be the Daddies..a quote taken straight from the manly.Mr. Rogers of Mr’ Rogers Neighborhood”

            ……What Feminists in the Church need, like what we all need is go before the cross, the altar, the creator of the entire universe, then “unclench the fist…..and bend the knee.”

          • texastwist

            Right, Tyler, feminists are like all of us. Glad you point that out. No better, no worse, just human beings in need of love, humility and salvation.

          • Tyler


            I am tired this evening but I want you to know now that I am “engaged” as I feel a great many of your points are a long winded sophistry possibly intended to mask some hidden unresolved anger. I am up for it so I will begin to go to work on “your positions” tomorrow. As per this “point”…..your possible sarcasm aside…the answer is “no…you missed the previous point “…rather I n the context of Dr. kreeft…..he was pointing out that in fact feminists in the church are distinctly not like us….this can be discerned in the way Kreeft sarcastically points out something that most Catholics know across a wide range of background, education and intelligence levels…….get as angry and obtuse as you want with the divine creator and his church…when your done with the extended tantrum…you will note that other parties with grievances have been on their knees in repentance for awhile now.

            See you tomorrow!

          • texastwist

            Tyler, you can reply or not, but you’ve already shown me that you can’t really discuss issues. Your agenda looms so large in your view that it shows up before your ability to reason kicks in. Without knowing anything about me you have already assumed quite a bit and now you’re into psycho analysis! Plus, your explanation of the Peter Kreeft quote doesn’t match the quote. I don’t really think you’re up to discussion with me. I’ve been very kind and quite generous with you thus far, but I don’t think I care to spend a lot of time with someone who is so uninterested in a genuine discussion. Keep telling yourself you’ve got all the answers and you’ve got all the skills. That’s the problem we have in this country overall –thoughtless ideology is more important than honest problem solving. If you took the time to read what I wrote and think about it, even pray about it, you might find that your perspective opens up and your ability to discuss such topics becomes enriched. Instead you’ll just turn back to ignoring what I write and pompously post unrelated responses in the hope of proliferating your small world view.

          • Tyler


            Dismissing the person you are in dialogue with isn’t an argument….it’s a debate tactic…’s even a debate tactic if you are rather, long-winded, elequent, and/or grammatically articulate or even pompous in your elaborate marshaling of it. It’s also emotionalistic in that it’s like a child who doesn’t want to hear or take correction so plugs their ears and says “I”m not listening….I’m not listening!”.

            I learned a long time ago Texas that some people need to understand that if we are going to have a debate or conversation….it’s best to grab one by the nose and say….wait a minute weren’t we talking about this…..this is and still is the topic…right?!? This is why there are trained debate moderators in formal settings…to referee these kind of carny maneuvers masquerading as legitimate points.

            Will try again tomorrow… :)

          • texastwist

            Where’s the substance of your argument and what is your topic? You keep telling me I’m this, I’m that, I’m a carny maneuverer, I’m emotional, I’m angry, you know what I’m thinking, I’m a child, etc., but nothing of substance crosses from you. You have made it clear that you think that sexism is mildly bad, maybe a venial sin on a good day, but nothing you’re concerned with. You think that feminism is a big sin, even though it’s a socio-political movement and can be no such thing. I’ve put plenty of text on the board for you, asked you questions, made many statements, but all that interest you seem to be my emotions, which, I guess, intrigue you because I haven’t put them on the board. You are, though, predictable. You did just what I said you would do. Ignore substance and post an unrelated response.

            I dunno, Tyler, I’m beginning to think you’re a real touchy feely kinda guy and you just can’t help letting your heart rule your head. Right now your heart seems stuck on women and it looks like they’re scaring you. ;)

        • Tyler


          You realize that the secular philosophy known as “feminism”..that puts gender above all things, is the primary engine of abortion, continually attempts to deconstruct gender as a kind of man made simulacra and finally pits genders against one another is a heresy, poisonous and a other words its evil..dont you sister? Women have dignity without the aid of civilization destroying philosophy as that.

          Please stop this now

          • Illinidiva

            You can be a “feminist” without endorsing abortion. For me, feminism means that I am treated equally as a man and that I am not seen only in terms of a wife or a mother. That I can contribute to society, my community, and the Church in ways other than having tons of children. I have a MBA, and while I don’t enjoy corporate America, I couldn’t imagine staying in the house 24/7 with small kids. I want the freedom associated with talking to other adults and making my own money. I cannot cook and I simply despise cleaning and household chores. When I was in school, I bested the boys in subjects like math and was at the top of my class.
            Conservative Catholics like Burke, Father Z, and all the rest are as guilty as NOW as viewing things only through the prisim of gender and sex. Burke and Father Z only see my worth in terms of being a submissive wife, mother, and maid. Because I can carry a baby, my only role in society and in the Church is to have babies (or if a nun, iron the priests’ vestments and dust the sacristy). I must be automatically a nurturing person who loves children and a good cook and housekeeper. And apparently the ability to carry children makes me dumb and weak and in need of the constant protection of men. This is as much a caricture of who I am as a person as Carrie Bradshaw in Sex and the City.

          • Tyler


            I don’t think they view you that way. I think they view you like I view you as a woman with dignity. I see you trying to walk a thin somewhat angry line on the issue of gender roles. Is it really that important an issue to you to be this upset about it? Come on now…lighten up. :)

          • Illinidiva

            The fact that an influential portion of the Church views my only worth as a subservient stay-at-home wife and mommy does annoy. I’ll think that the Church’s view of women has entered the 21sth century when they get rid of the paternalistic notion that the man is head of the household.

          • Tyler


            Gotcha…well I guess you can debate the finer points of that issue in its proper understanding with the Apostle Paul, in whatever scripture verse talks about roles etc.

            There is non paternalistic conspiracy there is only the natural law, reality and God’s intentions.

            Joan of Arc is a saint Illinidiva so I think you will be okay…the Church venerates rightly so the greatest human being who ever lived, Mary, a woman. Mystic, Spiritual Masters & Doctors of the Church are saints and women…however I doubt any of them would have embraced feminism in its current form.

          • texastwist

            Tyler, are you promoting a literal reading of Scripture? What is critical about Scripture is the Spirit of the Author, not the word for word reading. I don’t think you’re in a position to doubt what any person past or present would embrace. It’s easy to speak for the dead, but that has no value. I am quite confident that women in the past, just as women in the present, would be very much in favor of ending mindless and crippling discrimination against women, but I sure won’t get specific on what current movements one or another may or may not sympathize with.

          • texastwist

            Tyler: Do you think that sexism is a sin? How important is it to you and where would you place it on the list of sins against humanity? That is, if you do consider it a sin at all. If you don’t consider it a sin, why not and how can you justify that stand?

            And what is it should be stopped? You have the right to speak and she doesn’t?? Wow. I guess you’re a guy who believes strongly in your own superiority. A Z man all the way. Sad.

          • tyler


            The Strawman force is strong with you…I get it. In regards to your left field questions.

            1. Depends on what you mean by sexism…if by Sexism you mean that it is wrong to identify differences between the genders…than no I don’t think its a sin. If by “Sexism” you mean that one should elevate one gender above another and they are not equal in dignity…than Yes…that would be a sin.
            2. I understand this is very important to you…I’m going to go out on a limb here and say one of the fruits of feminism has been a greater acceptance of “Emotionalism” as a licit means to argue and shut down opposition. I know that may be a splash of cold water in some people’s faces but yeah that is my opinion. But on to your question about lists etc..I will place feminism near the top of the list of sins because it is a false ideology that creates disharmony among the genders, pits them against each other, argues for sexual libertinism which is against the teachings of the church, elevates and destroys the meaning of a gendor, and is the primary philosophical mechanism which has killed hundreds of millions of human babies across the globe. So nope…I don’t think much of it, I think its evil and its amusing how good folks are working 24x7x365 to try and “Redefine” or “Change It” so that it is harmonious to the church instead of just *&itcanning the whole thing and starting over.
            3. Once again “Emotionalism”…I didn’t tell her she doesn’t have the right to speak…I’m trying to reason/plead with her to quit saying things that on a a practical level look and sound objectively evil. P.S I welcome return corrections from my brother and sisters.
            4. I am man who believes strongly in the things I learned and experienced by the Grace of God always open to the idea that I may be wrong, per Chesteron’s argument, that supremely confident people are supremely insane. P.S Is there some other way I should be?
            5. I am my own man :)

          • texastwist

            Tyler, I did not ask you if you thought feminism is a sin, nor where you would place that on a list of sins. Your response though, was really about feminism not sexism, which is revealing. And no, I did not propose a strawman argument.

            You have made many assumptions about me in your response, which also is a flag to me that you aren’t listening here, but spouting. If you cared to know who I am and what my positions are you would ask me questions as I did you. Instead you told me who you think I am and even presume to know what I am thinking, “I understand this is very important to you.”, eg. I can deal with that, I’m a woman who has had more than her fair share of men trying to tell her who she is, what she thinks, and what she needs to do to become a new and improved version of the one God created. That helps me know your weaknesses and exposes the lack of discernment with which you participate here.

            The reason I asked you about sexism is because it is the bigger issue. What you claim as the sin of feminism is looking at things with a small word view. Sexism is the large world view. If Sexisim is a sin, then certain things would logically follow that premise and we would have to look at the topic in a balanced way. What theories apply to one gender would apply to another or the truth would be absent. Feminism, then, would only be part of a larger picture that is sexism at best. So, based upon your somewhat convoluted response, you would rate feminism, and so sexism, as very high on the sin list. Good. We’ve got a starting point, even though we may disagree on some points.

            Another reason I asked about sexism and not feminism is that feminism is not something that can easily be defined. Sexism is. You can look it up in the dictionary and it’s pretty clear. Feminism being a socio-political movement is much harder to define. I know many who would call themselves feminists who are far removed from your description. As an example, until just very recently I called myself a Republican. I had never belonged to any other party. But because, like feminism, that is a socio-political group with masses of people associating with it, that group was defined differently depending upon who was doing the defining. I found myself out of sync with the extreme conservative direction of the party as a whole and finally disassociated. Same thing happens with feminism. So, at best we might include it in sexism, but really it doesn’t even belong there.

            It might be that you have a sexist bent in your tone. I’d hate to make that claim and paint you with a brush you don’t deserve, but when you start talking about “Emotionalism” in the context used, it comes across as though you think women to be emotional and not rational beings. That would be truly sad and rather silly, so maybe I’ve misunderstood you. After all, reading the posts on these blogs you can find any number of posts based in the emotional rather than the rational or factual, and the predominant numbers of posters appear to be men. Hmmmm. IlliniDiva is clearly a woman and so am I. I don’t think your emotionalism theory holds water with either of us. Both of us are rational and more than capable of debating and defending our respective stances intellectually. The knee jerk responses I’ve read on this website seem to be predominantly male. I’m thinking you didn’t build a good case there.

            You blame feminism (which, as I alluded to earlier on, can’t be a sin because it’s a socio-political movement) for creating “disharmony among [Sic] the genders”. I think that a bit myopic. The feminist movement arose as a result of disharmony between the genders it is not author of that agitation. It is very much like the civil rights movement. That didn’t create disharmony, it grew out of it. Any movement you look at will more than likely follow the same pattern.

            Now if you were to say that the feminist movement had no value whatsoever, I would know you have not genuinely considered what it is like to be a woman nor have you ever sat in prayer and contemplation to ask for enlightenment on this topic. Surely the feminist movement has done much to bring to the forefront abuses against women perpetrated by men, women and institutions and it is responsible for giving your daughters the opportunity to be free to develop as they will without stigma.

            I have yet to see a political movement that even comes close to emulating God’s perfection, so the feminist movement, like the Republican party has always had its flip side. But whether or not abortion is legal, it is not mandated and if we actually set the example Jesus requires of his followers, our message of love would be strong enough to dissuade any woman of the need for such a sad resolution. Sadly, this is not our behavior as a rule.

            When we begin to know our beauty and sacred purpose, both female and male, we will come to act with respect for all. When we recognize that both young men and young women need to be taught in action not words that they are precious before they can even hope to have healthy and robust sexual identities and that becomes the norm, abortion falls by the wayside. It is not the fault of a movement, but the fault of discrimination that such extreme solutions exist in our American society. And I do add American for a particular reason. Catholicism is not an American institution and so much of the debate here is simply distorted because it is filtered through an American perspective alone. There’s a big world out there and when it comes to living Christianity, there are much better examples in other locations.

        • texastwist

          I can tell from your posts that you clearly know who you’re talking about. You have hit the bullseye. Shameless peddling of wares among other things. You would think that if Z had enough genuine priestly work, he would have neither the time nor the need to hawk his wares on the internet.

    • wyllow

      Up until about a week ago I would have strongly disagreed with you. Father Z recently mentioned he is considering Italian sunglasses which run $300. I agree with quality items, however $300 sunglasses are ridiculous and excessive even for those who did not take a vow of poverty.

  • Steve31

    Hey, I heard Francis just promoted “Wuerl the Girl”

  • $16977560

    “We Tradies love and respect the Holy father, unlike the thrice accursed Liberals.”
    There are no depths to which political Catholics who self-identify as either :Left” or “Right” will not de4scend in advancement of their agenda, which is not about Christ, but about Power.
    “T’were better to rule in Hell than serve in Heaven.”

  • Maggie Sullivan

    Sam, my man it is clear Francis really dislikes traditional Catholics. That’s fine, he’s the Pope he can do what he wants but chill out a little with your hatred just because we try to find some humor in the Francis-deconstruction of the moral teachings of the Church.

  • Baptismal Vows

    Fr. Z will never do the type of damage already done to the Church by the largely liberal/modernist/progressive/masonic/gay & abortion tolerant/non-traditional/non-orthodox/disobedient/social justice/condom promoting Catholic crowd. You know the ones I’m talking about.

  • AugustineThomas

    God bless Father Z! His guardian angel, pray for God to protect him from his leftist enemies!

    • texastwist

      God is neither right nor left. God is the balance between the two. I’m glad you pray for Fr. Z. Maybe he’ll come to his Prussian senses soon.

      • turn2

        Hmm, according to that logic, Tex, God’s a middle-of-the-roader when it comes to abortion and same-sex “marriage.” Try again.

        • texastwist

          Actually, I only just saw this. And God is balance, not extremism. God takes no political position and loves all sinners. So, if that makes God a middle-of-the-roader, being a middle-of-the-roader must be a good thing. Moderation in all is wisdom.

          • Mike Blackadder

            I think God must certainly take a position against us killing innocent babies in the womb, and must take a position about the most basic and most important design of human society – which is the family formed through the monogamous union of a man and a woman. If you dismiss this conviction about the decisive disposition of God then you are saying He is something that He is not. This isn’t a new idea, it’s a form of Gnosticism to ignore the dogma of fallen man, of sin to instead assign to God the good and the bad of reality as though it was His intention. To say that God must reside in the middle, in moderation suggests an indifference to morality when different versions of morality are trying to pull us in opposite directions. If you want to see how much God hates sin then simply regard what Christ did to sin when he placed it upon the Cross.

          • turn2

            God doesn’t have a position on abortion? He doesn’t have on same-sex “marriage”?

            He may not take “political” positions, as you say, but he certainly does when it comes to morality.

            Whatever it is you’re smoking, I strongly advise you toss it in the trash as it’s impairing your reasoning abilities.

            Moderation in all things…except virtue!

  • Guest

    Hey Shea. Time you grew up and quit wearing your “brand” of Catholicism on your sleeve and have a little sense of humor. If the Holy Father meant what he said in his exhortation, he just pointed his guns at Pope Benedict as well…an untenable position to defend.

    • Illinidiva

      Benedict said the same things, but the traditionalists ignored him because he wore a fanon and sparkly vestments and said Mass ad-orientem a few times.

  • Guest

    Hey Shea. Time you grew up and quit wearing your “brand” of Catholicism
    on your sleeve and have a little sense of humor. Fr. Z lines up with B XVI on this. If the Holy Father’s exhortation had any weight, he just pointed his guns at Pope
    Benedict as well. That’s an untenable position to defend.

  • rodlarocque1931

    This sentence shows exactly why the pope is not interested in traditional Catholics:

    “…It is impossible to think that a genuine evangelizing thrust could emerge from these adulterated forms of Christianity.”
    It shows that the pope’s liberal prejudices are so strong that it has blinded his thinking… he clearly admits it,,, saying “It is impossible to think…” of course based on what evidence? Just his own inner rationalizations.
    Visit any SSPX parish or church dedicated to the TLM and one will see families with many children, people praying, asking real questions searching for spiritual meaning and trying to put the spiritual inheritance and wealth of tradition into practice is this evil world to save their souls. People don’t question doctrines but try to understand and live them. The most noticeable thing at TLM parishes is that everyone actually believes what the Church teaches and don’t pick and choose on doctrine and morals.
    The pope needs to get out of his Jesuit mind trap and meet some real traditional Catholics.

    • texastwist

      Hmmmm. I notice this, “. . .trying to put the spiritual inheritance and wealth of tradition into practice is this evil world. . .”, and wonder if you really believe the world is evil. I also wonder if you might be able to enlighten me as to the typical stance of those of your affiliation in re the death penalty.

      I find it difficult to see your point about the Pope’s blinded thinking. It seems very clear to me. I think the use of the word genuine is critical to understanding just what kind of evangelization he is referring to.

      I have attended SSPX liturgies and spent much time listening to those members who genuinely feel as though they alone are upholding the true branch of Catholicism. If I were to be the type to ridicule and harass them, I could not evangelize to them, could I? If I were to be with them without judgment and lovingly listen to their concerns, I may have the opportunity to plant a seed with them that even only one may later find worth contemplating. I, like the Pope, do not find the SSPX adherents to be evil, but neither do I find them to be getting the fullness of the Faith, and so, they are less able, if at all, to project what they are lacking, the Spirit who is the Evangelizer. This makes them wanting when it comes to evangelization. When the primary reason for existence is based on one particular language to be used in the liturgy, for example, it has to be considered that the Spirit, who speaks all language, is being held back, or rather, limited, by the group. That cripples evangelization at best and prohibits genuine evangelization at worst. What it will do is encourage those who want for a time long past to hope for a future in the past. And that, my brother, is not possible. God knows no time and is all time in one time, the present, I AM.

      • rodlarocque1931

        The SSPX position is more than just about the language of the liturgy….
        Frankly liturgy isn’t their biggest concern, it is the doctrinal crusade against the modernist distortions following V2.

  • SamRocha

    This is why we cannot have nice things.

    • texastwist

      ??? Maybe I’m dense, but I don’t follow.

      • Almario Javier

        This backbiting and defiance among American Catholics is why we have a lot of problems in the Church today, I gather.

  • Frank McManus

    Bingo. Exactly right.

    I guess this vicious nonsense from Fr. Z. and his screechy defenders explains a bit about what you’re getting at in your most recent posts.

  • Porpoise Lunae

    Many things I disagree with in Fr. Z’s views, and many things I don’t like about him. But he says he doesn’t know what the phrase means, and he is the kind of person who speaks what he means. Frankly, I can’t take seriously anyone who claims they know what the phrase means. The phrase looks like it should have meaning, but none of our normal ways of interpreting its components work! Meaning is revealed only in the explanation that occurs right afterwards, which takes aim at certain traditionalists. But in that case the phrase merely comes across as an insult. I believe it is this insulting quality that Fr. Z is rightly or wrongly responding to.