The Games People Play

Oh the games people play now, every night and every day now

Never meaning what they say now, never saying what they mean

Elizabeth Scalia, The Anchoress, over at Patheos said recently that “internet Catholics be crazy.” I think she caught a little bit of flak for saying that. I just got a whiff of some people that might have been offended. I think it was because she didn’t use the word “some”, thus implying that all Catholics on the internet are crazy.  I don’t know for sure, though, I didn’t follow that one. Take it with a grain of salt. However, if people did take offense at what was obviously a tongue-in-cheek remark, if we wasted time in com boxes and twitter discussions over whether or not it is only “some” Catholics and not "all" who be crazy…well…that kind of proves Scalia’s point doesn’t it? To tell you the truth, as a Catholic blogger on the internet, I am going to have to agree with her, sometimes “some” Catholics on the internet just be trippin’.

People walking up to you, singing glory halleluiah

And they’re trying to sock it to you in the name of the Lord

A case in point has been the fervor and sensation created over a priest suing a blogger.  This story began to develop from what would seemingly have been a personal issue between the two men to a cause celebre. It began to take on other implications and even exaggerations. I have already addressed some specifics of that story here and will not continue to beat that horse. For me that story began to become less about the specifics of that situation, nor the actions of those two men, anyway. Rather it became more about how we were reacting to it and how that was impacting the Church. As I said in my previous blog, my next series of posts will be examining what could be happening here. There seems to be a shortage of calm reason and balance but a plethora of emotionally driven and reactionary sensationalism, exaggeration, speculation and deliberate bias prolific in the Church today. Some of it, in my opinion, a concentrated attempt to cast doubt upon the Pope, the Church and the upcoming Synod. There seems to be an interesting propensity to sock it to the Pope and the Vatican in the name of the Lord. Some media outlets and blogs devoting themselves to letting you know exactly how desperate and bad things are. And quite frankly there are people who are lapping it up and passing it on in a true heard-it-through-the-grape-vine manner. I wonder if the Pope had an idea of what was coming when he consecrated the Vatican to the protection of St. Michael in July 2013. They certainly could use that protection in the way that the Pope and the Vatican are beset, besieged and attacked with news stories based exclusively on opinion or speculation. Some of the stories relying on remote or anonymous sources. News that we take at face value, without question because of a deliberate bias against the Vatican or Pope Francis himself. Many are choosing not to trust them right now and will nit pick news stories to find the smallest tidbit to hold against them to prove, justify and promote that mistrust.

Happy are those who fear the Lord, who greatly delight in God's commands...The shall not fear an ill report; their hearts are steadfast, trusting the Lord. Ps 112:1, 7

 Someone steps forward and says they are a childhood friend of the Pope and leaks a bombshell to the press that the two main concerns, the priorities of this papacy, is to overturn the archaic notion of priestly celibacy and give communion to the divorced and remarried. He also reveals that the Holy Father then gave a dispensation for the reception of Communion to a women living in a situation of cohabitation. Everybody is shocked and shaken that this indicates the Pope's agenda to change doctrine. They herald this message of doom and gloom without once questioning the credibility of the source, the inconsistency of the claim or the fact that there is no way to collaborate or substantiate the story. Because it fits the bias that they want to promote. Never mind that the Pope has indicated himself that one of his priorities is to evangelize the Gospel message especially to the peripheries and the marginalized. Never mind the reforming of the Curia, Never mind the plight of Christians facing martyrdom in various areas of the world. Never mind the myriad difficulties the family faces that he found so urgent that he called a Synod to address them. And the list goes on an on. Never mind all of that because according to the best friend of the Pope, (who by the way is close enough to the Pope to know his mind and be in his confidence but does not seem to mind risking that friendship and confidence by revealing private conversations to the press) they had a conversation six months ago (which he is just now getting around to telling us about) that indicated otherwise. Oh and by the way the Pope said somebody could have Communion who really wasn't supposed to according to the teachings of the Church. Never mind that if the Pope were to give that kind of dispensation to someone he would probably  document it in some way with at least a note to their pastor so that they would not face resistance in receiving their dispensation. We seem to believe that the Pope is going around saying "Sure, go ahead. Tell them the Pope sent you" without giving them something to verify it. Or am I the only one who thinks of this stuff? We certainly do believe, fear and sometimes revel in ill reports.

Oh we make one another cry, break a heart then we say goodbye

Cross our hearts and we hope to die

that the other was to blame

There have been quite a few ill reports centering on the Extraordinary Synod last October and leading up to the one in October of this year. The more progressive Catholics are hoping that it will bring a change in doctrine while some traditionalist Catholics fear that it will bring a change in practice that is tantamount to a change in doctrine. Never mind that something like that is not even the purpose of a Synod. The Synod is an assembly of bishops from around the world who assist the Holy Father by providing counsel on important questions facing the Church in a manner that preserves the Church's teaching and strengthens her internal discipline. Pope Francis has recently warned against disproportionate expectations of change leading into the Synod. Funny thing, but we have spent so much time arguing the doctrine (that some hope to change and others fear will change but which in fact never can change) that we have been completely and utterly distracted from thoroughly examining the issues themselves. Or reaching any real solutions regarding them. And in the end if the faithful do not become disenchanted and disheartened in the Church because of the ill reports they most certainly will become disheartened if the Church is disabled from finding practical solutions to assist them in living out an authentic faith in the face of modern issues facing the family. Yep, if my agenda were to disable the Synod, and possibly the papacy as well, that's exactly how I would play it. And no matter which side you are on, the other guy will be to blame.

People have asked the Holy Father to clarify church teaching regarding certain matters. He has in fact made many statements that are clear regarding doctrine. The doctrine itself is clear. We are just not following it. And, quite frankly, no matter how clear the clarification, there would be some on both sides of the spectrum that would insist that he had not made it clear. What I think people are actually demanding is not that Pope Francis clarify teaching but that he clarify his position as being orthodox concerning teaching. Which he has done as well but we aren't listening or it isn't getting reported. There is no drama or sensation created by reporting that the Pope is indeed Catholic. In a recent interview our Holy Father has said that the sacraments aren't a "badge of honor". He expressed that those in second marriages are called to reinstate themselves into the life of the Church. "Some people simplify it, saying that going to church is enough to give Communion for the divorced and remarried," he said. "But with that you don't solve anything. What the Church wants is for you to be part of the Church's life." Many of the articles don't even carry that quote being more attracted by the headline that the Holy Father said his papacy may be short. Or nit picking to criticize a joke that he made.

Some have suggested that the Synod is a charade. Merely a shill so we won't notice a stealth attempt to undermine Church teaching. They have wondered if the Holy Father has stacked the deck of the Synod in order to do so. When in fact he has begun balancing the deck in favor of upholding doctrine with the addition of South African Cardinal Wilfid Napier to the leadership of the next Synod. As well as the recent addition of the Vice-president and professor of sacramental theology of the John Paul II Institute on Marriage as an adviser to the next Synod. Marriage and family are at the core of th study of the JPII institute's scholars who have openly opposed recent proposals regarding the divorced and the remarried. Is it at all possible that the Holy Father's intent in assembling the Synod was to legitimately examine how to confront modern problems in the light of Catholic teaching? How best to assist the faithful in living out those teachings daily in a demonstrable way? How to productively evangelize the Gospel and those teachings to unbelievers and those separated from the Church?  That he might recognize that as a shepherd he is tasked with not only guaranteeing the integrity of those teachings but with the pastoral transmission of those teachings into concrete realities? 

Look around tell me what you see. What's happening to you and me? 

God grant me the serenity to remember who I am

Some Catholics do be crazy. Some be trippin'. Some may be playing games to deliberately shift the power structure of the Church. So that in the end they will have the power to determine what the Church should look like be it one extreme or the other. And woe to anyone, pope or otherwise, who stands in their way. This is a trap that must be avoided. With steadfast hearts we put our faith in the Lord and in the Church he has established. We remember not only who we are but who he is and the divine assistance he has promised through the Holy Spirit. Remember as well the rock on which the Church has solidly been set. So that when the floods come and the winds blow and buffet it, what has been set solidly on rock will not collapse.

That's just my opinion. For what it's worth

"Games People Play"  written, composed and performed by American singer-songwriter Joe South, released 1968.

   

The Saga of Father Thomas Rosica and David Domet

As a blogger I often peruse the internet looking for all things Catholic. I have followed certain stories and read many blog posts. I have noticed certain patterns in how we relate to each other as Catholics, how some of us react to situations we read about and how all of this may be coloring, possibly even clouding our perceptions of what is going on in the Church right now. I have seen how in certain ways these things could be damaging to the unity of the Mystical Body of Christ.

The tag line of this particular blog is from a 60's song by Buffalo Springfield called "For What It's Worth".

There's something happening here. What it is ain't exactly clear...It's time to stop, hey, what's that sound, everybody look what's going down. 

I had planned to write a series of posts that took a look at some of the stories I have been following from the perspective of asking the question, is there something happening here? Something that may not be clearly apparent at first? Is it time to stop and examine what's been going down, to maybe take a good hard look at ourselves?

One of the stories I had planned to devote a couple of posts to was the story of Father Rosica and David Domet. There is a lot to cover concerning that story, and what I have observed in the reactions to it, that just couldn't be properly covered in just one blog. I found, however, that it might be necessary to first tell the story. For some reason, when this story broke, I found myself wanting to look into things myself rather than taking the reports at face value and following in the direction the initial reports were trying to lead me. My concerns with this story are not due to any support of Father Rosica. Rather, I write this story to bring a balance and integrity that may have been lacking in the narrative due to a somewhat sensational, reactionary response of Catholic media and the blogosphere.

Father Thomas Rosica is a Canadian Catholic priest. He is the CEO of Canada's Salt + Light Television network. He is also the English language assistant to the Holy See Press Office. David Domet is a blogger from Canada who writes the blog Vox Cantoris. Mr Domet has written several blog posts that were critical of some of Father Rosica's statements and actions. Recently, Father Rosica issued a cease and desist letter, through his lawyers, against Mr. Domet. The letter stated that Domet made false and defamatory statements against Fr. Rosica and expressed the possibility of future litigation. Michael Voris and CMTV broke the story. Certain circles of the internet lit up with protest, support for David Domet and condemnation for Father Rosica, implicating the Vatican as well. That's the nutshell version.

Most of the background for the long version I got from reading Mr. Domet's blog, Vox Cantoris.  It seems the original focus of his blog was to advocate the traditional liturgy and traditional liturgical music. He basically sticks to posts relating to that premise for the first few years of his blog. His posts averaged anywhere between one a month to several. He writes about the liturgy. He writes about being sympathetic to the situation of the SSPX. He writes about Summorum Pontificum. He expresses respect and affection for Pope Benedict XVI. On occasion he writes a post that is critical of an individual and the tone of those post could be described as derisive. His rate of posting saw a dramatic increase from around the Synod until the present with 41 posts in October, 51 in November, 27 in December, 37 in Jan and 35 in February. Many of them critical of the Synod, Pope Francis, certain members of the Synod, as well of Father Rosica.

Mr. Domet states in his blog that he has had personal experience with Father Rosica going back 20 years. He posts his first criticism of Father Rosica in April 2010. There has been no other individual that Mr. Domet has criticized as many times as he has criticized either Father Rosica or Salt + Light. Many people have wondered why Father Rosica did not write to Mr. Domet to say "David, don't do me like that." Well, it seems that he may have, at least in the past. Mr. Domet makes more than one reference to receiving emails from Father Roscia that he describes as nasty and unbecoming of  a priest. He also makes reference to twitter exchanges. Communications may have broken down at some point, however. Mr. Domet indicates that he was blocked from Father Rosica's twitter.

So why all the detail here? Because there has been much speculation concerning the nature of the action Father Rosica took against David Domet. Speculation associating that action with a stealth attempt by the Vatican to silence bloggers. A "shot across the bow" is how I have seen it described. What I see going on is that there was tension between these two men going back for years and that tension accelerated and intensified over the time of the Synod. Any other implication does not seem to be justified by these details and may indeed be an exaggeration of the facts. It seems that this action was taken not because Mr, Domet dared to express his opinion or that he dared to express an opinion that was critical of the hierarchy. This action was taken because of the WAY that Mr. Domet expressed his opinion concerning Fr. Rosica. In other words, you can have an opinion, you can even have an opinion contrary to some in the Church. You can even express that opinion in any tone that you would like. What we can't do is express that opinion in a way that defames someone. I do not see what happened as an attempt to deny freedom of speech, but rather a question of whether or not that freedom had been misused. Fr. Rosica obviously thought that a line had been crossed in that regard. That is why he took the action that he did

The supporters of Mr. Domet insist that he merely used Fr. Rosica's own words and public statements to expose Fr. Rosica's error. This is true. He did repeat Fr. Rosica's exact words in the my-comments-in-red-fashion that is so frequently used on the internet. What wasn't reported was the mocking way that he spoke of Fr. Rosica; that he openly told people to cancel their Salt + Light subscriptions; when blocked from Fr. Rosica's twitter account, Mr. Domet expressed that there was more than one way to access a twitter account with today's technology. This implies an intention to continue twitter confrontations despite Fr. Rosica's desire to discontinue them. None of this necessarily justifies a lawsuit but it indicates that the postings went beyond mere reasoned correction and contributed to the escalation between them.

The letter. Otherwise repeatedly referred to as the "threatening letter" in many reports. I imagine David Domet did feel threatened and intimidated when he received that letter. It is certainly disconcerting to receive letters from lawyers telling us that we could be facing some sort of legal action. The letter was, in fact your standard cease and desist letter. Stop what you are doing, remove certain offending posts, publicly apologize or we will take further action. The door is left open for future litigation even if you do comply. We're lawyers. That's how we roll. Father Rosica said in a public statement that he never intended to sue. The supporters of Mr. Domet. of course, refer to the letter and say that it clearly states an intention to sue, so Father Rosica is an obvious liar. Not so fast. The fact that he sent a cease and desist letter indicates a reluctance to sue. People who intend to sue just file suit. People who are  reluctant to sue send cease and desist letters hoping that will bring about a resolution without the necessity of a law suit. Just ask David Jenkins, another Canadian blogger who was sued by his Anglican Bishop. Mr. Jenkins has stated that he would have preferred the courtesy of a cease and desist letter. Rather, his bishop, Bishop Michael Bird, brought a suit against him for $400,000 and an injunction to shut down his blog. The case was settled after about a year and at great expense to Mr. Jenkins. Father Rosica did not bring a lawsuit nor any injunctions to shut down Mr. Domet's blog. He sent a cease and desist letter. It is not my intention, however, to minimize the personal impact the letter had on Mr. Domet and his family. It would have been a threat to him. My interest here is more in the public reaction in which the letter was magnified into something more grandiose in an attempt to publicly demonize Father Rosica.

Mr. Domet circulated the letter to certain friends. He says that his first action, as a faithful Catholic, was to take it to the Church. However, he did not take it to his local Bishop who would have been the one with direct jurisdiction over the matter. Nor did he take it to Father Rosica's superiors at the Basilican order. Rather, he wrote to a personal contact he had in the office of the Secretariat of State at the Vatican. Mr. Domet has not revealed exactly who this private contact was. Mr. Domet states in an interview that the response was the contact's "personal advice" and not an official authority. So it would seem that he did not submit the matter to the proper Church authority, but rather wrote to a personal contact for advice. When the contact indicated that he would need Mr. Domet to answer some further questions and suggested that Mr. Domet might consider issuing an apology, Mr. Domet felt interrogated and responded no further to his contact. Mr. Domet indicates that the reason things went as far as they did was due to the lack of immediate intervention from the Vatican, stating "The fact is, intervention could have happened on the first or second day." We will never know, as Mr. Domet discontinued correspondence when he found that further investigation would be necessary and he would not receive an immediate response in his favor.

Very quickly, the letter was forwarded by an anonymous third party to Michael Voris at CMTV. Mr. Voris contacted Mr. Domet and they filmed an interview. Mr. Domet has meet Michael Voris and has previously defended him from criticism on his blog. The day after Mr. Domet received the letter, CMTV broke the story "Vatican Sues Blogger?" The story went public and now became a matter of the court of public opinion. That court seemed to be in favor of David Domet. Blogs were written, opinions were expressed and speculation was rampant. Questions were raised. Was Pope Francis aware of this? How could he not be? Then shame of Pope Francis. And if not aware, poor befuddled Pope Francis who is unaware of the stealth skullduggery going on behind his back at the Vatican. Campaigns were organized to flood the twitter account of Father Rosica and the emails of his superiors. People wanted Father Rosica fired from his post in the press office of the Vatican. Freedom of speech was invoked. A story began to emerge of a powerful Vatican attempting to silence faithful Catholic bloggers from exposing an attempt to overturn doctrine at the upcoming Synod. Father Rosica was described continually as a "Vatican Official", a "Papal Spokesman" and while it is true that he works in a certain capacity at the Vatican, his action against Mr. Domet was never initiated through that position but as a private citizen. Even so he was portrayed as a powerful man, a bully, who unfairly targeted the little guy, an obscure blogger. Yet, at one time Mr. Domet stated on his blog that he received more viewers to his blog a day than Father Rosica and Salt + Light received in a month and previously had felt no intimidation at all, that deterred him from the actions he took against Father Rosica in his blog. He felt no deterrent of intimidation in even disrespectful reference to Pope Francis, as well. Nor did he indicate fear of intimidation when he declared a relentless public pursuit of certain Church officials on his blog.

With the support of the internet, Mr. Domet determined that he would fight the good fight to the point of personal martyrdom if necessary. Indicating  that to give any concessions would then effectively silence him in regard to speaking out before the upcoming Synod. I do not see, however, that being unable to refer to Father Rosica would then impede discussing issues that arose from the Synod. Issues. statements and behavior can be exposed, examined, discussed and debated without resorting to personal comments about anyone.

Father Rosica then released a statement that he had not been acting in the capacity of a Vatican official, that he had not intended to sue Mr. Domet and that the case was now closed.

Well, it would seem that I have concentrated primarily on David Domet. What about Father Rosica? Father Rosica who has made heterodox and even heretical statements, according to some, is a danger to the faith and must be stopped? Father Rosica who has resorted to court action in the past? It might appear that I support Father Rosica, his actions and his views. Not necessarily. If Father Rosica publicly makes statements that are contrary to Church teaching then those statements should be addressed in a reasonable and balanced way. Those who address them can even confront strongly, firmly and candidly. But that is not what happened here. Domet posted his blogs advocating and demanding honestly and transparency from his subjects. His position is that he was justified in merely shining that light on the words and actions of others. In all fairness that same light of honesty and transparency should shine on his public words and actions as well. He brought the story into the court of public opinion. He and his supporters are the ones who framed this story in the way that it was framed. They are the ones who drove this story in the direction that it went with, in my opinion, no attempt to bring balance, but rather encouraging a frenzy of emotional reactions, speculation and exaggeration. What I do not support is the direction that this story took. I do not support the seemingly deliberate implication of Vatican involvement with no supporting facts to justify it. I do not support the public feeding frenzy that resulted. I do not support the sometimes gleeful public flogging of Father Rosica no matter how wrong people thought his actions were. I do not support when an atmosphere of fear and mistrust is created

There's battle lines being drawn. Nobody's right if everybody's wrong...Paranoia strikes deep, into your lives it will creep. It starts when your always afraid, step out of line the men come and take you away

I found this direction to be unnecessarily damaging to the unity of the Body of Christ, deliberately damaging to the reputation of the Church and an attempt to cast doubt on the upcoming Synod.

Those who express themselves on the internet have the power to bring truth and clarity. They can bring the light of Jesus Christ and the Gospel. They can promote the teachings of the Church. They also have the power to open a Pandora's box and release a monster that can get out of control. So did something happen here that wasn't clear, that brought confusion rather than clarity? Do we need to stop, listen to the sounds and take a good look at what actually went down? Do we need to take a good hard look at ourselves and the monsters we can create?

That's what I plan to do in a series of upcoming posts.

That would just be my opinion. For what it's worth.

“Words which do not give the light of Christ increase the darkness” Bl Mother Teresa

Reproductive Rights and Health Care

So I am assuming that Reproductive rights includes the right TO reproduce as much as it does not to...right? And if it makes sense for abortion care it should make sense regarding other types of reproductive care? Or other types of care period?

So if I were having a baby, or outpatient reproductive surgery, or any outpatient procedure at all, I should feel that any attempts to regulate health care facilities that did these procedures were an attempt to deny me proper health care?

I should not feel at risk at all that the doctor at my outpatient facility did not have admitting privileges at the nearby hospital in case I had to be transferred there?

I should feel completely comfortable that my facility would fight such regulations all the way to the supreme court? Or close its doors rather than provide them?

I should not feel at risk that the government would pass a bill so that the state had no right to regulate my healthcare facility? Or to persecute doctors that caused my death?

How many women having a baby, or outpatient surgery or any other kind of medical care would put themselves at such risk?

Tell me again how the Women's Health Protection Act is meant to protect me?

It seems to me that this would constitute a return to the back alley concerning abortion itself and a lack of actual concern for the actual health concerns and needs of all women.

That's how I see it.

Thoughts From A Pregnancy "Survivor"

Well, I guess that pregnancy is a disease now. A disease that is so life threatening that birth control is necessary to me as preventative health care. So necessary, in fact, that I can not only expect, but force, the rest of the country, be it the government or my employer, to pay for it for me. Pregnancy is such an extreme threat to my life that if others will not pay for my birth control I can then consider it a declaration of war against me. I have graduated from being just a uterus to becoming a poor, pathetic victim of my uterus. I guess that makes me a pregnancy survivor...six times. I really beat the odds. I am thinking that pregnancy should have a ribbon like the other terminal diseases. Most likely it should be pink and blue.

Pregnancy is a disease that is such a great threat to my life that I no longer have to take responsibility for my life. I do not have to take responsibility for my sex life in order to avoid pregnancy. I do not have to investigate other options for obtaining affordable birth control myself, but can just force anyone and everyone to provide it for me. I do not have to make the simple choice of changing employers if I don't like their health coverage.  I do not have to think for myself or do for myself because I am nothing but a woman. The weaker sex that they have always portrayed me to be. One who is the victim of her own body. We've come a long way, baby.

A Poem - Horton Hears Truth

Killing The Innocent From Higher Ground

Boy, I hate providing links to articles like this. It just feels like you are somehow spreading it.

http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2014/04/03/abortion-blessing-grace-gift-changing-conversation-reproductive-rights-moral-values/

Abortion as the moral high ground, a sacred gift, assisting God.

Something that struck me though. It seemed that this article was discussing a strategy more than what was truly believed to be a moral truth. They are going to present it as a moral good but in reality it will merely be a shift in strategy... changing the terms and definitions for a more favorable result. Cold, deliberate and strategic.

Soon this will be an abortion discussion
"Abortion kills a living human being"
"We must admit that is true"
"How can you then justify killing another human being?"
"When it is a moral good, a sacred gift and the very work of God"

Just remember as we listen to these arguments for death, before they penetrate and invade the intellect with the smooth, seductive cleverness of the serpent in the garden...remember that the terrorist of 9-11 were convinced that they had a moral high ground and were on a sacred mission to do the work of their god. They knew that human lives would be lost, deliberately so. Many of the wrongs, the atrocities in the history of the world have been committed through such reasoning.

 We do realize that we are talking about human sacrifice right now? Taking innocent human life for the moral good, for the sacred, for God.

That's what I thought.

Concerning Maria Divine Mercy

Maria Divine Mercy is a self-proclaimed seer/visionary. She claims to have been receiving messages from God the Father, Jesus and the Virgin Mary since 2010. She hid behind anonymity. All any knew of her was that she was a wife and mother from somewhere in Ireland. She claims to be the last prophet. It does not appear that she has ever submitted her messages to the authority of the Church for examination. As a matter of fact the messages claim an authority that is greater than the Church. In the last year, several bishops from around the world have condemned her messages. Because she would not reveal her identity it may have been difficult to ascertain which bishop had jurisdiction.  Recently the identity of this seer was discovered and is reported as being Mary McGovern-Carberry of Dublin Ireland. Today, the Bishop of Dublin, Archbishop Diarmuid Martin, issued a statement concerning these messages.  http://www.dublindiocese.ie/content/statement-maria-divine-mercy. He stated that " these messages and alleged visions have no ecclesiastical approval and many of the texts are in contradiction with Catholic theology. These messages should not be promoted or made use of within Catholic Church associations."

Dr. Kelley Bowring, a Catholic theologian had previously endorsed the messages of Maria Divine Mercy. Dr. Bowring has issued a statement that he will comply with the Bishop's statement and would no longer be selling his book "The Great Battle" which relied on the MDM messages as a source. http://twoheartspress.com/blog/compliance-on-mdm/
However, Dr. Bowring also included a link to an article on some statements the Archbishop had made concerning homosexuality that may allow for the questioning of the Archbishop's decision in the future with allegations that he has abandoned Church teaching.

According to the MDM messages, Pope Francis is the False Prophet and many priests and Bishops have lost their authority. I have seen a MDM video that said the Pope would indeed condemn the messages but that his authority to do so is not recognized by them.

Maria Divine Mercy is the seer/visionary. The Warning Second Coming is the website that promotes these message as well as Jesus to Mankind. Jesus to Mankind prayer groups as well as Crusade Prayer groups or Crusade of Prayers prayer groups are associated with Maria Divine Mercy.

There are also books that have been published. The Book of Truth Vol. 1-3 as well as the Crusade of Prayer Book. It has been claimed that the Book of Truth is equal to scripture in its authority.

The MDM messages are not consistent with Church teaching. The messages themselves as well as many who follow them exhibit a disregard for the Pope and the authority of the Catholic Church. The Church through the Bishop with jurisdiction has not given their approval to promote the messages of Maria Divine Mercy. It has now become a matter of believing in the Church or believing in a seer.
There are many who follow these messages that will disregard the ruling of the bishop because the messages have told them to do so. There are some, however, who may not realize that they are a part of the MDM by participating in the prayer groups. I post this for the benefit of those who wish to remain obedient to the Church