I Feel Inexorably Drawn to Bash Father Z Again

I Feel Inexorably Drawn to Bash Father Z Again

Posted by Oakes Spalding on 6/17/16

At the end of an otherwise useful analysis of the Pope’s recent remarks on how most people aren’t really married and many people who aren’t married really are, Father Z whoppered again:

BTW… as I just remarked to someone, the Pope didn’t change the Code of Canon Law or anything else for that matter via off-the-cuff remarks to a layman during Q&A at a conference. What he said may be confusing, and we can use his words as a stimulus to do a better job of marriage prep, but his words change nothing: the Church’s pernnenial teaching and law are today what they were the day before yesterday.
Don’t have a spittle-flecked nutty. Just shake your head with a smile as you flip to another page and say, “Bless him, he sure likes to gab with people, doesn’t he!”

Well, as Camille Paglia might say, what if I want to have a spittle-flecked nuttie?

First of all, the Pope did change Canon Law ten months ago regarding the annulment process. What he’s doing now is explaining why he did it. He did it to make it easier to get an annulment because (we now find out) he believes most marriages are invalid, and thus most married Catholics would be perfectly within their rights to get an annulment.

At the time, some said the change in the annulment rules was tantamount to legitimizing Catholic divorce. The Pope is now confirming that they were correct.

If this isn’t Catholic divorce, nothing is.

No doubt, Father Z would say nothing is.

But secondly, this “he can’t change doctrine” thing has got to stop. It’s idiotic. It’s moronic. It’s very stupid.

If the Pope suddenly declared on a plane, “I’m now going to change doctrine,” that wouldn’t change doctrine.

If the Pope (pardon the image I’m now going to share) suddenly took an AK-47 out of his cassock and opened fire on assembled journalists, that wouldn’t change doctrine either.

If the Pope projected demonic images onto St. Peter’s, that wouldn’t change doctrine.

Actually, he already did that.


And doctrine didn’t change.


But of course, since doctrine can’t change, it’s meaningless to claim that he didn’t change it.

It’s like saying “relax, the Pope didn’t kill God” (after he killed those journalists).

So I propose that everyone just stop saying it. Just stop it now.

Or if you must do it. If you must, so to speak, periodically break into “Everything is Awesome” (because awesomeness can’t change), then you have to pay a tax. Call it the Mahound tax. You can send $10 per utterance of “doctrine hasn’t changed” to my PayPal account.

It will be used for mocking Muhammed, and booze.

Get AQ Email Updates

9 comments on “I Feel Inexorably Drawn to Bash Father Z Again

  1. There are good converts whose contributions to Catholic discussions contain worthy insights. On the other hand, the progressive modernist revolution of Vatican II has weakened many Catholic institutions to the point that some are not being educated and informed, with the result that there is confusion and this is being disseminated by self-appointed popes pontificating in the blogosphere. The issue of the Pope’s recent statement on marriage is not whether Canon Law has been changed but that the Pope has exaggerated the facts and spoken in a sloppy way which will lead to confusion for the faithful and also for non-Catholics. In this particular case, the result will be confusion about the nature of sacramental marriage. That involves Catholic doctrine and sacramental theology, not just Canon Law. When a reigning pope utters statements which confuse the faithful or distort Catholic teachings the problem at hand is that of scandal. The scandal is not papal critics overreacting but the errors and confusion caused by the imprudent statements of the progressive modernist pontiff.

    Now, Bergoglio is a progressive modernist from the modernist fever swamps of South America who engages in dissembling rhetorical bloviation on behalf of modernist confusion and something like Situation Ethics which leads to widespread confusion on Catholic teachings. That in itself is a scandal. No Lutheran, Episcopalian, or Bob Jones University graduate can make this the new normal for Catholicism by sprinkling it down our backs and tell us it’s just raining a little.

  2. “Don’t sprinkle Bergoglio’s dissembling progressive modernism down my back and tell me it’s raining!”

  3. First off, stop going to his site.

    Second, I find it very hard to believe in papal infallibility. I think we go through contortions to justify it.

    • Objectively speaking, “finding it hard to believe in papal infallibility” is an overbroad expression insofar as any Catholic consulting orthodox sources, beginning with the First Council of the Vatican and extending to sound explanations from great theologians over the past 150 years on the matter will be convinced of the legitimacy and dogmatic character of papal infallibility, rightly understood and when exercised under the strict and rare conditions codified in Church law, pursuant to Vatican I.

      Not EVERY word of every pope is “infallible” and there are scores of examples. However, in those cases, no errant pontiff EVER invoked infallibility in order to command the faithful to accept as de fide whatever it was he said; not even the conciliar popes, right up to the present moment.

      It is necessary to study the dogma of infallibility and to make critical distinctions.

  4. When Priests Console by Saying Heresy is Not Being Taught from The Chair of Peter (or Church Teaching didn’t change)

    Posted by TTC (The Tenth Crusade) on 6/18/16

    On this post yesterday, I admired Fr. Zs serenity while we are all discussing the almost daily assaults upon the holy family and the Sacraments coming from the Chair of Peter.

    My post received this response from a reader:

    Yes, Fr. Z is indeed a ‘cool cucumber’, but the way I see it, whether or not he is ‘teaching from the Chair’, he is still ‘teaching’…

    I completely agree.

    This is probably going to sound sexist, but I think the reason why ordained men without children do not comprehend the unprecedented disaster of a pope who publicly contradicts Church teaching and instructs others to do so is, their intimacy is the Church and ours is our family members.

    To a man married to the Church, his vocation finds consolation in the perpetual outcome of teaching – which we all know is preserved. They tend to see things as a soul count in a wider community in the context of perpetuity.

    I don’t exactly see eye-to-eye with his rosy outlook for vocations. The coup working in Rome will significantly change how priests are changed to practice theology and the Sacraments in seminaries. As this cancer matures and grows, bishops make it difficult for priests to teach and practice our religion. As he well knows.

    IMO, the damage being done to the priesthood by Pope Francis, intentional or unintentional, is catastrophic.

    For those of us who chose the vocation of marriage, of course the perpetual outcome of Church teaching is important to us, but the Holy Father is persuading people in our home to practice contradiction to Church teaching when making judgments.

    This has two consequences:

    In the holy family it’s causing great harm to the people in our homes, families, friends and community.

    Our vocation thinks in terms of the people right in front of us.

    If the people right in front of us get lured into practicing contradiction to Church teaching, we have lost our own unborn descendants in perpetuity. Our children, children’s children and so on.

    For this reason, laity is much more distraught about what the Holy Father is doing to the people we love and the inheritance he is robbing from our unborn descendants.

    The reader also said:

    For the life of me, I cannot understand why NO ONE in the hierarchy of the Church is solidly confronting him with his nonsensical yet devastatingly damaging off the cuff remarks.

    We know, with absolute certainty, he has been told.

    He is not a stupid man and he understands that teaching requires oversight of how your audience understood what you were trying to convey. He has the duty to observe this himself, without others having to tell him.

    On top of this duty, there is public knowledge that Cardinals and Bishops have articulated what he already can see and hear.

    In some cases, this places him into the position of being forced to dial something back – such as the case of changing the ‘majority of Catholic Marriages are living in a perpetual state of adultery’ to ‘some’.

    We further have the confessions of Cardinal Kasper who has reported his confidential discussions with Pope Francis to the press and some direct confessions from the Pope himself. While I don’t have the quote in front of me, the Holy Father said something like We know what we are doing will receive opposition and it will not deter us from proceeding.

    As he continues to do it ad nauseum, it is impossible to believe it’s unintentional.

    His credo is ‘make a mess’ and as one Bishop said, mission accomplished.

    Off the cuff remarks are very difficult to manage. This is why 2000 years of Pope’s before Pope Francis did not engage in off the cuff remarks. He obviously believes the wisdom of 2000 years of his predecessors inferior to his intellect.

    John Henry Weston suggested fasting for the Pope yesterday, saying ‘the hour is late’. It is a message I constantly need to hear. I was reminded of the time in Christ’s ministry when somebody was acting up and the Apostles asked Christ why He wasn’t responding to it. He told them some demons can only be driven out with fasting.

    The daily ridiculousness tends to keep us focused on the catastrophic consequences in our families and the righteous anger of being robbed blind.

    It doesn’t have to be a complete fast from food. Even fasting from daily pleasures can be fruitful when coupled with prayer. Tea, coffee, sugar. I love, love, love my morning tea.

    I’m going to do a 30 day fast from these pleasures starting July 1 for the intention of spiritual protection for our Holy Father and the people being affected by it.

    A driving the demons out fast.

    It doesn’t have to be that dramatic. It could be as simple as fasting from one thing when you he says something off of the reservation. God knows we have plenty of reminders in that realm.

    Some food for thought.

  5. [Another bash of Fr. Z on this topic]


    Gianna Jessen Rightly Rebukes The Pope – Father Z, Take Note!

    My post from Friday stated quite clearly that there would be immense fall-out from the heresies regarding marriage and fornication that the pope recently uttered. Father Zuhlsdorf also posted that day; while he seems to understand the nature of the errors, he takes a recklessly dismissive attitude regarding the harm that not only will but is in fact happening right now. Behold his closing statement: “Don’t have a spittle-flecked nutty. Just shake your head with a smile as you flip to another page and say, ‘Bless him, he sure likes to gab with people, doesn’t he!’”

    Bear that most irresponsible suggestion in your mind as you read this statement from Gianna Jessen from her twitter feed. Many in the pro-life movement are familiar with Ms. Jessen, In the late 1970s she survived her mother’s attempt to abort her via saline abortion. She has since gone on to be an advocate for the pre-born and for disability rights (she has cerebral palsy as a result of the abortion).


    never thought a pope could make me cry. and PLEASE don’t tell me i am really not reading what i am reading.

    Is that what Father Zuhlsdorf would call a “spittle-flecked nutty”?? I don’t believe Ms. Jessen is Catholic but I can be fairly certain her sentiments are echoed by thousands who, attempting to live Christian lives (Catholic and Protestant), have once again found themselves mocked by the current occupant of the Chair of Peter. We should be able to expect far better than that. Recently, when Bishop Robert Lynch announced his retirement, Bobby Schindler issued his own statement saying, “in my family’s experience, Bishop Lynch was like the man spitting in the hand of a person in need.” When the pope puked out the heresies regarding both marriage and fornication, he too spit into the hands of those looking to him for spiritual nourishment. In Matthew 7:9-10, Our Lord spoke of those parents who give bread and fish as opposed to stones and serpents. Last Thursday we were all handed a bunch of stones and serpents.

    We also read in Matthew 18:6-7 Jesus’ rebuke of those who cause scandals, saying that “it were better for him had a millstone be hanged about his neck and that he should be drowned..” Was Our Lord simply having a “spittle-flecked nutty”? He took scandals quite seriously. It would behoove us to do the same.

  6. I have said before that I believe in Papal Infallibility because it is Church Doctrine.
    But, I must admit, it requires an act of Faith on my part to continue to believe in the doctrine, with this present occupant of the See of Peter.

    • Fidei, old friend, what I do is concentrate on what distinguishes an infallible pronouncement from one that is, in this instance, clinical grounds for involuntary commitment to Bellevue.

      How long this shtick – a cut-and-paste pastiche of scripts rejected by the Gong Show – will last is anyone’s guess. But it’s not that much of a stretch to predict that Bergoglio will somehow, someday end up as an entry in an updated edition of “The Darwin Awards.”

Leave a Reply