Dear brother in Christ,
I am Paul and I am appalled.
For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his Son, that without ceasing I make mention of you always in my prayers. But verily I say unto thee, methinks my prayers for thee are not always answered.
As thou knowest, I keep a watchful eye on God’s creation, and methinks its affairs are not as serene as my surroundings up here. So what is it I hear about thou now letting priests bless “homosexual and other ‘irregular’ couples”?
“God welcomes everyone”, thou sayest, and, I have it on good authority, that is God’s own truth. Yea, God welcomes everyone. But He does not welcome everything. One thing He does not welcome is sin. Verily I say unto you, He hates it. ‘Tis the sinner He loves, not the sin.
People receiving a blessing, thou sayest, “should not be required to have prior moral perfection.” So yea, by all means, bless sinners singly, as Christians. But bless not two of them together for the sin they commit together.
He who lyeth with mankind or she who lyeth with womankind is welcome to be blessed in the house of God. But the sin shall be condemned.
And I have told thee three times if I have told thee once that mankind lying with mankind or womankind with womankind is a sin. It is unseemly, I wrote to Romans. Such people shall not inherit the kingdom of God, I explained to Corinthians. Same-sex lying, I taught Timothy, is contrary to sound doctrine.
Leviticus had said the same thing before me: “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.”
I say unto you that sex is in no wise righteous betwixt two men, and two women also. That is to say it is a sin. And thy remit is not blessing sin, doest thou not agree? I spoke to my friend Peter, whose chair thou occupieth, and he sayeth the same thing: condemn sin or get off my chair.
Thou sayest “same-sex and ‘irregular’ couples” shall be blessed. What irregular couples doest thou mean? Art thou referring to sex betwixt brother and sister or father and daughter? Or betwixt mankind and fowl of the air or beasts of the field? Thy namesake did bless fowl and beasts, but not for lying with mankind or womankind.
Change thy ways, brother, for tomorrow thou may well die.
Thy Cardinal Fernández sayeth thou art “firm on the traditional doctrine of the Church.” Methinks I am no longer part of it, and neither is the Old Testament. Didst thou decide to expel us on thine own?
Thou hast the “pastoral vision” of “broadening” the appeal of our church, thou sayest. I am with thee on this vision. Verily I say unto you, I had the same vision and was persecuted for it, going to heaven before my time. But I broadened the appeal of Christ Jesus by damning sin, not blessing it.
Francis, verily I say unto you, thou art in danger of hell fire. Take thought for the morrow for the morrow is nigh.
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with thee, but look out. And my love be with you in Christ Jesus, but thou triest my patience. Amen.
“[C]ondemn sin or get off my chair.” Wonderful stuff. Francis and his ilk have forgotten two of the most important words in the Bible. It is not, “Go, and sin.” It is, “Go, and sin no more.” That is an extremely important distinction that they tend to gloss over.
I do not understand this idea of “broadening its appeal”. The Truth has its own appeal. It appealed to people when accepting it and preaching it meant death. Torture and murder did not stop its spread. What has stopped its spread is diluting the message so that it no longer means anything. Man was meant to search for truth and higher things. When those higher things are brought down to man’s own level (or destroyed) he looks for something else. The point of the Catholic Church is to get as many members into Heaven as she can. If the message is that all men go to Heaven, that no man needs to change in order to get to Heaven, then what is the point of the Church? “God loves and accepts you as you are” is a message that destroys the Church. It does not broaden her appeal, it makes her superfluous. Attendance at Mass for the past 60 years confirms this. If the only point of the club is to pay weekly dues to the bishops’ coffers, what is the point of joining?
And thank you for asking about “irregular unions.” It is broadly understood to mean divorced and remarried, but it is ambiguous enough to encompass all that you enumerated – and more! (Shudder)
It is horrible to ask, but I constantly wonder: is Francis evil or just stupid?
A stupid man is also evil when he wields tremendous power, I’d suggest. So that’s a distiction without a difference. The scary thing is that Francies has stacked up the College of Cardinals with his own men. That means that, when he goes, we’ll get another Francis, not another Benedict.
Yes, that is a problem. One egregious example of those cardinals is McElroy in nearby San Diego. He is a know protector of predators in his diocese and is outspoken in his defense of abortion-promoting politicians. He went straight from bishop to cardinal, while archbishop Gomez in Los Angeles was passed over – possibly for comments like those he made criticizing Black Lives Matter (still, most would not consider him a strong conservative). It might be two or three generations before the current influx of tradition-minded seminarians begin to have any influence in the hierarchy.
“Or betwixt mankind and fowl of the air or beasts of the field?”
They used to have that ranch in Montana USA where persons could engage in romance with various animals. I think they closed the place down.