All hands, brace for impact!

All hands, brace for impact!

APR 08, 2016 by HILARY WHITE @

We’ve done everything possible to prepare. You know your jobs and we’re the meanest baddasses in the galaxy. If everybody stays calm and does their job, we’re all going to be OK.

The embargo is up at noon our time, which means y’all are going to be waking up to some very unpleasant news. Sorry, but the initial responses I’ve had from the unfortunate victims who spent the night actually reading the wretched thing range from “appalling” to “direct and immediate danger to souls.”

One of my correspondents said that he is “shocked” at how “direct” he has been about the clearing of the path for Kasper’s “immoral praxis.”

From another, “The modernistic principles that imbue this document need to be mercilessly attacked.”

Ann Barnhardt has given us the paragraph numbers to look up: 186, 79, 302, 303 and 311, that she says are the heart of darkness. [Complete text (all 264 pages!) @ ]

We can’t give you quotes until the journalist embargo is up, but here’s a little forewarning. It seems to be giving the green light for the whole Church for the kind of “situational ethics,” that has been at the heart of the liberal paradigm since the 60s, and that John Paul II resisted so strenuously in his younger days. This means that it is, at last, the total paradigm shift that the Kasperites have been working for all these long years since 1965.

But you know by now what we’re looking at. We have done our best to warn everyone, and to prepare our minds and souls for this disastrous eventuality.

I add for the moment, only the reminder:

The pope is not the Faith
The pope does not give us the Faith
The Faith comes from God, from the ground of being, the source and foundation of all reality
Only the Real counts

The pope can be a heretic and still be the pope.

Don’t freak out. Don’t freak out. DO. NOT. FREAK. OUT.

Get AQ Email Updates

9 comments on “All hands, brace for impact!

  1. Come on. Our Lord warned that “For every tree is known by its fruit. For men do not gather figs from thorns; nor from a bramble bush do they gather the grape.”
    Did any traditional Catholic (aka Catholic) really believe that this apostate currently occupying the chair of Peter was going to uphold the Ten Commandments, the teachings of Christ and His Catholic Church with this Joy of sex encyclical or whatever he’s calling it?!
    He hasn’t for three years why would he start now?!
    Every true Catholic bishop should ignore this heresy and call out Bergoglio for what he is, and for what this letter is!
    Will they? The majority won’t.
    You might have a few that will, some have already, but the majority will drink the modernist Kool-Aid and defend Jorge and his worldly, relativist and secular letter.
    While threatening millions of souls to perdition because of it.

    • Scorecards out!

      APR 08, 2016 by HILARY WHITE @

      Ok, here’s how the game works.

      Take a belt of whatever you’re drinking today for every statement in AL that you predicted. (I recommend beer, perhaps lite beer, rather than something like tequila. Pace yourselves, people.)

      Here’s one for me: the nitty-gritty of what to do to bishops and priests who refuse to toe the line will be kicked down to the National Conferences:

      “Unity of teaching and practice is certainly necessary in the Church, but this does not preclude various ways of interpreting some aspects of that teaching or drawing certain consequences from it. This will always be the case as the Spirit guides us towards the entire truth (cf. Jn 16:13), until he leads us fully into the mystery of Christ and enables us to see all things as he does. Each country or region, moreover, can seek solutions better suited to its culture and sensitive to its traditions and local needs. For ‘cultures are in fact quite diverse and every general principle… needs to be inculturated, if it is to be respected and applied’.”

      Meaning that what is refused in Poland will be granted in Germany.

  2. Shades of Marxist/Maoist self-criticism: “The way we present our Christian beliefs and treat other people has helped contribute to today’s problematic situation [on the family]. We need a healthy dose of self-criticism (#37).”

    A phrase here (for example, “The Church does not disregard the constructive elements in those situations which do not yet or no longer correspond to her teaching on marriage” #292 or “Discernment of the presence of ‘seeds of the Word’ in other cultures (cf. Ad Gentes 11) can also apply to the reality of marriage and the family. In addition to true natural marriage, positive elements exist in the forms of marriage found in other religious traditions [such as polygamy and child marriage in Islam?], even if, at times, obscurely” #77) and a footnote there (351 “In certain cases, this can include the help of the sacraments” [of confession and Eucharist, the latter of which] “is not a prize for the perfect, but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak #371”) can be used to justify the liberal agenda concerning marriage and the family.

    • The invisible elephant: not what it says, but what it doesn’t…

      APR 08, 2016 by HILARY WHITE @

      Our friend Jeanne Smits in Belgium (in crappy autotranslate from French, sorry): It’s not what’s in it. It’s what’s not in it.

      Which reminds me of a conversation I had with a Synod bishop shortly after the end of Synod1. He asked how I was doing in Norcia (he meant financially) and I said it was great because it was the lowest rent I’d paid in about 25 years. And for a way nicer place than I’ve ever had before. He asked why the rents were so low here. I said, “Well, mostly it’s the early results of the Great Italian Die-Off.” Italians have about a 1.4/woman birthrate, and for this reason (and others having to do with a century of monkeying with the economy by socialists and feckin Freemasons) the population has nosedived in the rural areas. If you can figure out how to make a living in the little towns and villages (thank you, Lord, for the innernet!) it’s a great lifestyle. But it means that nearly all the country areas are dying, particularly of their native populations, and this has had the land values spiraling out of control.

      The bishop listened to all this and said, “It’s amazing isn’t it? In two weeks of a Synod held in Italy, not a single mention was made of the demographic crisis, or what might have caused it…” He meant contraception, of course.

      Yeah… “amazing”… that’s what it was …

      Anyway, I give you the very moderate, not-a-trad, Jeanne Smits:

      “A very long text, very talkative, and harboring many ambiguities by multiplying casuistic considerations…it seems clear that many worrying aspects of the report are kept there. It is also widely quoted. But swathes of the issue of family crisis seems tragically absent.

      “This is the case of contraception, mentioned above as a practice imposed by the government and not in its ubiquitous dimension in the Western world and elsewhere, including among the majority of Catholic husbands. Humanae vitae, too briefly quoted, had yet prophetically announced the destruction of the family and the collapse of social order and respect for women by this practice contrary to the laws of God … but can we still speak of God’s laws? Would not it be time to say the link between contraception and divorce?

      The same question arises: will we be able to simply claim a reading consistent with the tradition, as was already the Brandmuller cardinal? Or [will we be obliged to] fight tooth and nail against the text itself?…

      “…The question of the communion of remarried divorced is clearly left open to subjective interpretation in footnote 336. [“336 This is also the case with regard to sacramental discipline, since discernment can recognize that in a particular situation no grave fault exists. In such cases, what is found in another document applies: cf. Evangelii Gaudium (24 November 2013), 44 and 47: AAS 105 (2013), 1038-1040.”]

      The pastoral concern of Pope Francis is no doubt. This is about the salvation of course, but here everything seems to be acceptable as a way of salvation.


      I expect our ever-vigilant friends at Voice of the Family will be adding to the list of issues that are extremely grave that the document totally passes over. They were pretty good on that stuff at the Synods, much to the embarrassment of the pack of shysters they sent to do the press conferences. When VoF comes out with it, I’ll link to it. The negative space is often the most important, as anyone who has ever taken painting lessons will know.

  3. [More of the same from the Catholic League’s Bill Donohue]



    Pope Francis’ apostolic exhortation, “The Joy of Love,” does not change
    a single teaching of the Catholic Church, but he does call on Catholics to
    be more understanding of the irregular family unions that so many find
    themselves in these days.

    The Holy Father acknowledges that there are those, in and out of the
    Church, who harbor “an immoderate desire for total change without
    sufficient reflection or grounding.” These Catholics will be disappointed,
    if not angry, that they did not get what they wanted. This unhappiness
    will also be found among those who possess “an attitude that would solve
    everything by applying general rules or deriving undue conclusions from
    particular theological considerations.”

    In short, Catholics who consider themselves very liberal or very
    conservative will have another opportunity to sulk.

    The pope makes plain how inadequate it is to cast all discussions on
    family issues in terms of the nuclear family. He wants us to address the
    conditions that mark irregular families, and to minister to those in need.
    Priests, in particular, must exercise discernment in tending to those in
    unconventional unions: the ultimate goal is to implement “the logic of
    pastoral mercy.”

    Lest he be misunderstood, the pope is not suggesting that priests exercise
    flexibility outside the limits prescribed by Church teachings. “It is true
    that general rules set forth a good which can never be disregarded or
    neglected,” he says, “but in their formulation they cannot provide
    absolutely for all particular situations.”

    For example, the divorced and remarried must not be treated with
    disdain, and indeed they must be approached with mercy. The same is
    true of those who live in other irregular unions.

    Still, on four occasions in his statement, the pope cites the indissoluble
    nature of marriage; he also restates the Church’s teaching on marriage as
    a union between those of the opposite sex. “There is a failure to realize
    that only the exclusive and indissoluble union between a man and a
    woman has a plenary role to play in society as a stable commitment that
    bears fruit in new life,” he says.

    The pope acknowledges that given the multiplicity of lifestyles, difficult
    moral judgments abound. He cautions against “thinking that everything is
    black and white,” as if there were some kind of theological GPS device
    that can answer these questions with precision. This leads him to
    emphasize the role of conscience in making moral judgments.

    Unfortunately, some commentators are already saying that the pope has
    decided that obeying one’s conscience is all that is necessary to resolve
    moral problems. What is not being reported is that he is speaking about a
    “well-formed conscience,” not some purely individualistic exercise
    absent a tutorial role for the Church. So when he says that “We have been
    called to form consciences, not to replace them,” his emphasis on
    forming consciences cannot be ignored.

    It is worth repeating his exact words on this subject. “Naturally,” he
    instructs, “every effort should be made to encourage the development of
    an enlightened conscience, formed and guided by the responsible and
    serious discernment of one’s pastor, and to encourage an ever greater trust
    in God’s grace.”

    The pope’s comments fit perfectly with what the Catholic Catechism has
    to say: “Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened.”
    The Catechism also stresses that it “can happen that moral conscience
    remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be
    performed or already committed.”

    Thus, those who see conscience as a piece of putty that can be twisted to
    justify any moral act will find no support in the pope’s document or in the
    teachings of the Church.

    The term “gay” is nowhere found in the pope’s apostolic exhortation.
    There is one mention of homosexuals and two mentions of same-sex
    marriage. Nothing is said about the Church’s teaching that the
    homosexual condition is “intrinsically disordered,” meaning that the
    status quo has been upheld. At the same time, the pope wants us to
    respect homosexuals and to refrain from any unjust discrimination
    against them.

    The pope affirms what the Synod Fathers said about same-sex marriage.
    He notes that “there are absolutely no grounds for considering
    homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous
    to God’s plan for marriage and family.” Similarly, he finds attempts to
    pressure Catholics into approving homosexual unions to be

    In short, the pope rejects the role of a scold, and looks askance at those
    who bury their head in the letter of the law. At the same time, he wants us
    to appreciate the wisdom of the Church’s teachings on marriage, the
    family, and sexuality. He has not changed the bar, but he is asking us to
    help everyone clear it.

    • Neo-Catholics like Donohue are IMO just as guilty as Bergoglio and the people who put him on the Chair of Peter. And more broadly for the last fifty years of modernism run wild in the Church by defending the indefensible.
      But it’s no surprise considering people like Donohue make a very good living defending the indefensible.
      A lot more than defending the faith I guess.

  4. So sin is just an “irregular situation” now?

Leave a Reply