Ditto Ed Peters' Remarks: "God Bless Fr. LaCuesta!"

Despite having cancer at 39, caring for both my parents on their deathbeds, sitting beside my father-in-law at the moment of his death and dealing with serious situations with my children, I never really knew the depth of suffering until my grandson committed suicide on May 2nd.

The pain and grief defy description, so my heart goes out to the Hullibarger family who are grieving over Maison's suicide. But the media attack on their pastor, Fr. Don LaCuesta, for his funeral homily beginning with Fr. James Martin's ignorant tirade is a disgrace. And I'm disappointed in the Archbishop's decision to punish this priest instead of standing by him. It reminds me of Cardinal Wuerl punishing Fr. Marcel Guarnizo for refusing Communion to a lesbian Buddhist at her mom's funeral.

The Ripples of Ecumenical Confusion Continue: Now It's about the Validity of Anglican Orders

Pope Leo XIII: Anglican Orders are "null
and utterly void." Apostolicae Curae

I recently watched a video that showed an under-ocean volcano that started with strange ripples and
then spewed up rock to make a new island. Fascinating creation in the physical world, eh? But what would such an event do in the spiritual world? And is that what we see happening today in the Church with the constant introduction of new theories about the Catholic faith and the headlong race to knock down all inconvenient obstacles to ecumenism? Are these ripples like an underground volcano that threatens to create a new Church...or turn the Church into one more Protestant sect?

The latest novelty on the ecumenical front (As if eulogizing Martin Luther weren't enough!) suggests that Anglican orders are valid. That's what Cdl. Francesco Coccopalmerio did recently when he made statements that appear to undermine Pope Leo XIII's 1896 papal bull, Apostolicae Curae, stating unequivocally that Anglican orders are “absolutely null and utterly void.”

Canon lawyer Ed Peters in his interesting and informative blog makes a strong case supporting Leo XIII's conclusion that Anglican orders are not valid, at the same time pointing out that they nevertheless can be a source of grace for the recipient.

Score a Major Touchdown for Team Lucifer Thanks to the Maltese Bishops and Amoris Laetitia!

What would Padre Pio say? What would JESUS say?

Bishops of Malta  give adulterers permission to go to Communion if they feel "at peace with God."

The bishops have essentially annulled the doctrine on the indissolubility of marriage and they did it in the name of Amoris Laetitia. NOW will the pope respond to the dubia?

Canon lawyer Ed Peters calls it a "disaster." And, of course, it is.

Follow the Law of the Church Amoris Laetitia Notwithstanding!

detail from Rodin's Gates of Hell

It's clear. It's unequivocal. Those divorced and remarried without annulment are ineligible for Communion. Not Pope Francis, the Argentine bishops, nor any other cleric has the right to abrogate the clear teachings of the Church to implement their faux mercy. 

Check out canon lawyer Ed Peters' article, On the Buenos Aires Directive.

compromising the well-established interpretation of Canon 915 in the case of divorced-and-remarried Catholics necessarily calls into question the law’s applicability to cases of, say, ‘loving’ couples cohabitating outside of marriage, the ‘compassionate’ promotion of abortion or euthanasia, ‘honest’ persons entering “same-sex marriages”, and so on.

Earth to Pope Francis: "Woe to Those Who Call Good Evil and Evil Good."

Get this straight you stinky sheep: If you're married, you're
not really married;  but if you're living together you're married
and have all the graces of the sacrament you rejected. Got it?

"Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil, who change darkness into light, and light into darkness, who change bitter into sweet, and sweet into bitter!" (Isaiah 5:20)

Let's see if I've got this right. Pope Francis said the other day during a Q & A session that the "great part of our sacramental marriages are null.”  On the other hand, he declared himself "sure that cohabitating couples are in a true marriage having the grace of marriage.”

So...to sum up...most of those who marry in the Church aren't really married after all; but those who live together without benefit of marriage are the one's who are really married. Huh? All I can say, is that sure sounds like a modernist Jesuit -- one who is busy as a termite undermining the faith.

Canon Lawyer Ed Peters Weighs in on Recent Papal Statements!

“For an infant to be baptized licitly … there must be a founded
hope that the infant will be brought up in the Catholic religion."
Canon 868        

And calls the pope's comment about most sacramental marriages being null "very bad." He also says delaying the sacrament of Baptism is sometimes used by priests to assist the parents toward "improving their ecclesial situation" and that he's never known of a priest to deny the sacrament only because a mother was unwed. Our pope may talk about mercy but his unmerciful actions speak louder than his words.

The great majority of Christian marriages are valid

And then there was the pope's calling priests who delay baptism "animals."

Instruction, not insults

Ed Peters vs. George Neumayr vs. Cardinal Wuerl

Canon lawyer Ed Peters thinks George Neumayr is making a bad situation worse with regard to his criticism of Cardinal Wuerl over the prelate's handling of Fr. Marcel Guarnizo refusing Communion to lesbian activist Barbara Johnson at her mother's funeral. As one who agrees with George Neumayr, I think it's accurate to say that the cardinal himself made a bad situation worse when he apologized to the lesbian through his auxiliary bishop and then punished Fr. Guarnizo. Talk about scandal -- helping to advance the gay agenda! 

Ed Peters says the conversation has gone on long enough, that everything that could possibly be said has been said (according to his point of view at any rate). He has consistently insisted that his interpretation of Canon 915, etc. is the correct one and that the laity who disagree just don't get it. 

Well, he's right about that from my point of view and many other faithful laity who believed Fr. Guarnizo was correct and Ed Peters was wrong. Call it the "sensus fidelium" if you like. At least one canon lawyer, an anonymous priest, disagrees with Peters and supporst what faithful laity believed all along. He entered the fray to defend Fr. Guarnizo and publicly dissent with his colleague's interpretation of the subject canon laws. One can argue that anonymous opinions carry less weight than public opinions, but in view of what powerful prelates can do to their disrespected underlings whose rights are often violated, anonymity is probably a prudent course of action for a priest. And if this priest serves in the Archdiocese of Washington or another diocese with a bishop who operates llike Cardinal Wuerl, his action is more than understandable. After all, Fr. Guarnizo was denied due process. Why would Cardinal Wuerl hesitate to do the same to any priest who disagreed with him?