Cleansing Fire

Defending Truth and Tradition in the Roman Catholic Church


Rocco Palmo goes all out with liberal spin

March 3rd, 2015, Promulgated by benanderson

Those who have followed Rocco Palmo’s “Whispers in the Loggia” site to get news on Church happenings over the years will have noticed an increasing liberal bent over the last year or so. I’m not sure if it’s always been there or if it’s just become stronger more recently, but it certainly has been thick as of late.

Case in point is his latest article on San Diego’s new appointment, SF Auxiliary Bishop McElroy, where he states:

Already a familiar figure in the pages of the Jesuit-run America magazine while still a parish priest – including a 2005 piece where he memorably shredded the then-nascent movement to bar Catholic office-holders from receiving the Eucharist over their support for legal abortion.

Shredded, huh? Pretty strong words. I was curious, so I read then-Msgr. McElroy’s article, “Prudence and Eucharistic Sanctions“. Upon reading it, I must say that canon 915 remains anything but shredded. This is an argument that I haven’t followed all that closely as I find canon 915 to be rather obvious (sort of like communion for re-“married” Catholics). However, I recalled John-Henry Westen’s recent article, “Cardinal Wuerl calls Cardinal Burke a ‘dissenter’: pot calls the kettle black” where he states:

In 2004, Pope John Paul II had the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith intervene in the US Bishops deliberation over the question of Communion for pro-abortion politicians. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, later to become Pope Benedict XVI, wrote in his letter titled “Worthiness to receive Holy Communion,” that a Catholic politician who would vote for “permissive abortion and euthanasia laws” after being duly instructed and warned, “must” be denied Communion.

Well, that rather sharply contradicts what I just read in America Magazine. It’s always best to go to the sources, so I googled “Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion” and found the document a few places, one of which is on EWTN’s site (have you thanked God yet today for Mother Angelica?)

For anyone interested, I’d suggest comparing then-Msgr. McElroy’s article with Cardinal Ratzinger’s letter and decide for yourself which one does the shredding.

And of course, it’s no surprise that Bishop McElroy follows Cardinal Kasper’s proposal, which along with ignoring canon 915, completely lacks coherence and instead puts “mercy” and the “pastoral” at odds with doctrine and reason.

As the final document of the extraordinary Synod of Bishops on the family declared, “People need to be accepted in the concrete circumstances of life,” he said. This means, for example, re-examining whether divorced and remarried Catholics can receive Communion. Why can a murderer confess and be allowed to receive Communion while a divorced Catholic in a faithful second marriage cannot? McElroy asked.

Recite the Act of Contrition. The answer lies therein.


14 Responses to “Rocco Palmo goes all out with liberal spin”

  1. avatar annonymouse says:

    I don’t know what is more troubling – that a cleric would ask such a blatantly stupid question, or that the Holy Father would elevate him to the Order of Bishop.

  2. avatar Diane Harris says:

    I really think that well before the next Synod session (like NOW!) the laity ought to be petitioning for the removal of every prelate who voted for the Relatio to contain positions against Church Doctrine, and any cleric who gave scandal by publicly opposing Church Teaching. They have revealed themselves as unfaithful and should no longer be allowed to put souls at risk. Is there any organization capable of beginning such an effort among the laity? Ideas?

  3. avatar Hopefull says:

    I’ve just been finishing “The Last Secret of Fatima,” and enlightening myself on the controversy of whether or not what Sr. Lucia wrote is what has really been released. First, I want to note great disappointment in the book by Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone which is written like a response to an interview, but provides little or no substance. Especially distressing was an almost arrogant dismissal of those who raise questions. After reading, I tried to understand more of the controversy and why what was expected to be released wasn’t the nature of what was released. I was surprised to find so much on Wikipedia

    What I hadn’t expected to encounter is a view that fits right into the events of the Synod, if one has eyes to see that possibility. Anyone can read it on line, but what struck me is the following:

    “…a news article quoted former Philippine ambassador to the Vatican, Howard Dee, as saying that Cardinal Ratzinger had personally confirmed to him that the messages of Akita and Fátima are “essentially the same.”[44] The Akita prophecy, in part, contains the following: “The work of the devil will infiltrate even into the Church in such a way that one will see cardinals opposing cardinals, bishops against bishops. The priests who venerate Me will be scorned and opposed by their confreres … churches and altars sacked; the Church will be full of those who accept compromises and the demon will press many priests and consecrated souls to leave the service of the Lord.”[45][46]

    … Malachi Martin was consistent all the way through; he believed that the Third Secret of Fatima had to do […] with the internal problems of the Catholic Church.”[32] On a syndicated radio broadcast, Father Malachi Martin was asked the following question by a caller: “I had a Jesuit priest tell me more of the Third Secret of Fatima years ago, in Perth. He said, among other things, the last pope would be under control of Satan… Any comment on that?” Fr. Martin responded, “Yes, it sounds as if they were reading, or being told, the text of the Third Secret. But it’s sufficiently vague to make one hesitate— it sounds like it.”[31]

    In a taped interview with Bernard Janzen, Fr. Martin was asked the following question: “Who are the people who are working so hard to suppress Fatima?” Fr. Martin responded, “A bunch, a whole bunch, of Catholic prelates in Rome, who belong to Satan. They’re servants of Satan. And the servants of Satan outside the Church, in various organizations; they want to destroy the Catholicism of the Church, and keep it as a stabilizing factor in human affairs. It’s an alliance. A dirty alliance, a filthy alliance, but a very good alliance.”[47]

    …other theologians believe that the secret concerns an apostasy of cardinals, bishops and priests. For instance, Cardinal Ciappi, personal theologian to Pope John Paul II, is quoted by sources as saying, “In the Third Secret it is foretold, among other things, that the great apostasy in the Church will begin at the top.”[48] In addition, on a syndicated radio broadcast, Fr. Malachi Martin stated that the Third Secret “doesn’t make any sense unless we accept that there will be, or that there is in progress, a wholesale apostasy amongst clerics, and laity in the Catholic Church …”.[49]

    I don’t mean any of this as accusations about anybody, but you don’t get half the prelates voting against Catholic Doctrine without something really evil going on. God help us!

  4. avatar Scott W. says:

    Why can a murderer confess and be allowed to receive Communion while a divorced Catholic in a faithful second marriage cannot?

    I’m with anonymouse. That question is so stupid it burns. And from a bishop?

  5. avatar Ben Anderson says:

    here’s another head scratcher from Rocco:
    “An Honor, Not An Honorific” – At Scarlet Bowl, Pope Calls Cardinals to “Kindness”

    Having shattered what no less than a Vatican statement termed the “chains” of his Senate’s traditional makeup with his picks from the “peripheries” of the Catholic world, as one op summarized what Francis had done going into today: “What’s amazing isn’t that these [new cardinals] can elect the next Pope – it’s that one of them can be the next Pope.”

    And in the event that should happen, well, two words suffice: “Game over.”

    Game Over? What in the world does he mean?

  6. avatar Richard Thomas says:


    Are U referring to those who are divirced, had their marriages annuled and then remarried. There is no question about that. They can receive Communion. But for those who are divorced and remarried without an annulment, unfortunately, they are living in sin, regardless of their being faithful. But a murderer who confesses his sin, receives the forgiveness of Christ and should receive.

  7. avatar christian says:

    I do agree with the group founded by Abbé George de Nantes that the prophecy about a Pope being killed points to Pope John Paul I, rather than Pope John Paul II.

    I side with those who had viewed the original letter, that it was contained on one sheet of paper rather than the 4 sheets of paper released by Vatican officials. We may never know the true extent of the prophecy, at least in this world, but we have to discern everything that is brought across as church policy or doctrine, even if it comes from the very top at the Vatican.

  8. avatar Scott W. says:


    Let’s pick apart the bishop’s sentence:

    “Why can a murderer confess and be allowed to receive Communion while a divorced Catholic in a faithful second marriage cannot?”

    He can only be referring to one thing: people who remarried without an annulment. It must be this because any bishop knows that someone with a annullment who remarries is eligible for the Sacraments. So the bishop is either collosally ignorant of ramifications of the indissolubility of marriage, or he is subtely denying indissolubility itself in the form of a ludicrous rhetorical question.

  9. avatar christian says:

    Ben Anderson – I read the article to the link you posted and I agree with you, “Game Over? What in the world does he mean?”

    I watched the Incardination Service – Making New Cardinals. I was rather concerned with Pope Francis’ appearance at this service. He thought he looked and acted tired.

    It was apropos that Cardinals were being made on the Feast of St. Valentine and the homily’s theme was of love and charity.

  10. avatar militia says:

    Some nut case is going to do it — kill their spouse, get forgiven, and be free to remarry (even if in jail.) And the defense will say that (at least subliminally) a Catholic Bishop suggested it. Wait and see.

  11. avatar Richard Thomas says:

    I am just amazed at the bishop’s statement for he puts more emphysis on faithfulbess than the sin the couples are committing by living together and having sexual relations outside of marrriage.

  12. avatar christian says:

    Correction: For my previous post in reference to Pope Francis at the Ordinary Public Consistory for New Cardinals -02-14-2015 – I was rather concerned with Pope Francis’ appearance at this service. I thought he looked and acted tired.

    There is probably a lot of disturbing confidential matters that is brought to a pope’s attention which the laity and other prelates,especially outside of the Vatican, are not aware of. In addition to his duties that take him globe-trotting, he seems to be misquoted and misinterpreted on an ongoing basis, especially among those who are opting for a prelate in the Chair of St. Peter who sides with their liberal views of gay/lesbian “marriage,” divorce and remarriage, homosexual clergy, women clergy, and condones their lifestyles regarding these situations. When attempts to be loving and compassionate like Christ regarding, regarding the difficult circumstances people find themselves in, he is then seen as condoning their views and lifestyles.

    I have even come across Facebook posts with extremely-liberal views and wording accredited to Pope Francis, also containing his photo, which I do not believe he ever proposed or said, but are shared and spread through social media via Facebook (and probably Twitter).

    I think we need to pray for our Pope!

  13. avatar christian says:

    militia – I hope “some nut case” does not kill their spouse, get forgiven, and then is free to marry.

    If you have watched shows like 20/20 and Dateline you would know that is exactly what many spouses have done within the legal system, particularly men. They often took a life insurance policy on each spouse. It says something about our legal system when a man can marry and kill their spouse and be out again to continue the process from 2 – 3 more times. In some cases, the men changed their name and the state they were living in.

    As far as the Catholic Church is concerned: If someone were to kill their spouse, get forgiven, then marry again – they would first have to convince church officials/tribunal that they were fit and capable of entering into a marriage contract. While they may be forgiven for the mortal sin of murder, it’s another thing to be considered marriage material.
    The only thing I can see happening with this process is:

    1: Confession is Confidential and if the murderer was never convicted, there would be no written record of the murder having been convicted and serving time.

    2: Even if a murderer was convicted and served time, if officials/tribunal do not do a criminal background check, and if the murderer never reveals his/her crime and conviction to his/her spouse to be, and to church officials/tribunal, the murderer could get the approval to marry.

    3: If the murderer was never married in the Catholic Church before, or any other Church, they would not encounter difficulty if they kept their murder conviction and time served a secret, or if they were never arrested or convicted for the murder they committed and did not admit to it openly to their spouse to be, and church officials/tribunal.

    These processes were be further facilitated if the murderer changed their name, especially if they had not been married in the Catholic Church before, or any other church.

    Also, with regard to being Forgiven: The priest is Jesus Christ’s representative and in the Sacrament of Confession, gives Absolution in the name of Jesus Christ.
    There has to be True Contrition on the Part of the Penitent for their Sin(s) to be Truly Forgiven and the Absolution to take Effect. We have to examine what leads or causes us to sin and to sincerely make amends to avoid temptation and circumstances, and change our outlook and modify our behavior, so that by the Grace of God, we do not enter into that sin again.
    There needs to be a True Desire To Be Holy. It is not a Holiness that is used to elevate oneself over others, or to parade in front of others, or to boast of.
    It is a Desire To Be Holy Because God Is Holy. It is an Interior Holiness which causes a desire to be closer to God, consumed with God, and to be within His Holy Will By His Grace. Interior Holiness guides our actions toward others and directs our path in life, and assists us in making the right choices. (This Interior Holiness also Signals To Us when we have fallen short and assists us in having True Repentance).

    In the End, it is between Oneself and God.

  14. avatar Ben Anderson says:

    and again:

    in the spotlight of the nation’s seventh-largest city [San Diego] and an American Catholic chattering class which often shows a weakness at discerning the difference between the Gospel and its secular politics.

    I’m guessing he’s referring to “Catholic Answers”. This will be interesting considering Cardinal Brandmueller recently used the “h” word regarding the position taken by now-Bishop McElroy

    I used to listen to “Catholic Answers Live” frequently, but haven’t for several years now. Anyone know how they’ve been handling the question of communion for the divorced and re-“married”? I wonder what this will mean for that organization that has done so much good in bringing people into the Church.

Leave a Reply

Log in | Register

You must be logged in to post a comment.

-Return to main page-