Cardinal Marx is supposed to be Catholic. He is not, yet he is not honest or decent enough to do the manly thing, to resign and leave. Instead, like a tapeworm feeding on its unsuspecting host, he works from within to shelter and feed himself while slowly killing his host, the Church. Having no regard for the Magisterium, Sacred Scripture or Jesus, he would do what he will, because he knows better. He was interviewed recently by America Magazine, the self-important Jesuit screed of heterodoxy so beloved by those in the Church that have not the decency or honesty to leave and start their own Church or join in with the Episcopalians who have already set up a “church” that they would just love. Cardinal Marx has said quite a bit in this interview, and his view that the young Catholics are drawn to the traditional practice and teaching of the Faith will lead them to become terrorists has been widely mocked, ridiculed and condemned by many over the past few days. Of course, the prospect of that is terrifying to those like Cardinal Marx who are seeing in those young people the demise of their warped “spirit of Vatican II” program, which is more truthfully the spirit of ’68.
I have found a more disturbing statement by him in that interview, a statement which belies his contempt for real Catholicism, the Church, the Eucharist and even Our Lord. Only someone who has no belief that this is Truth could be so arrogant and defiant with no fear of his eternal damnation, nor concern for the potential loss of salvation for millions of others because of his scandal. This is a cardinal, a cardinal that advises our pope and even deigns to indicate that he and the pope agree.
Two issues at the present synod are divorced and remarried Catholics and gay Catholics, especially those in relationships. Do you have opportunities to listen directly to these Catholics in your present ministry?
I have been a priest for 35 years. This problem is not new. I have the impression that we have a lot of work to do in the theological field, not only related to the question of divorce, but also the theology of marriage. I am astonished that some can say, “Everything is clear” on this topic. Things are not clear. It is not about church doctrine being determined by modern times. It is a question of aggiornamento, to say it in a way that the people can understand, and to always adapt our doctrine to the Gospel, to theology, in order to find in a new way the sense of what Jesus said, the meaning of the tradition of the church and of theology and so on. There is a lot to do.
I speak with many experts—canon lawyers and theologians—who recognize many questions related to the sacramentality and validity of marriages. One question is: What can we do when a person marries, divorces and later finds a new partner? There are different positions. Some bishops at the synod said, “They are living in sin.” But others said, “You cannot say that somebody is in sin every day. That is not possible.” You see, there are questions we must speak about.
. . .
The Eucharist and reconciliation are necessary for people. We say to some people, “You will never be reconciled until your death.” That is impossible to believe when you see the situations. I could give examples. In the spirit of “Evangelii Gaudium,” we have to see how the Eucharist is medicine for the people, to help the people. We must look for ways for people to receive the Eucharist. It is not about finding ways to keep them out! We must find ways to welcome them. We have to use our imagination in asking, “Can we do something?” Perhaps it is not possible in some situations. That is not the question. The focus must be on how to welcome people.
You are not stupid. You understood what he said correctly. These “questions” are not settled at all, even if they have been, even though Jesus says otherwise, quite clearly. To him Jesus just gave a “sense” of what He meant. Any child reading the Gospel would tell you otherwise. He talked to experts, you understand, canon lawyers and theologians. Who knows these things better than them and him? Jesus, Saint Paul, countless saints and popes, Thomas Aquinas? Nah, they don’t understand the “sense” of what was really meant. Only he and his enlightened counterparts in the hierarchy, and his esteemed canon lawyers and modern theologians have it all figured out.
He wants to give people the “medicine” of the Eucharist even if they have not repented and even though they are in mortal sin, despite the clear understanding that to receive the Eucharist unworthily is to eat and drink judgment upon oneself. He’s not concerned with that at all. Again, he is much smarter than Jesus and Saint Paul and all the other saints through the ages.
And that tells us everything we need to know as to why this man should be exiled to a monastery to spend the rest of his life doing penance. Instead, he’ll do his modernist heretical best to inflict his damage of the Church and the souls of Catholics. Of course, he’s contending not just with nit-wit dupes in the pew but with Jesus. We shall see how this pans out.