Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Monday, February 26, 2007
Paving the way for Antichrist
Hollywood film director James Cameron, of Titanic fame, (who is alleged by some to be a high-ranking freemason) has a new project. Now he's out to convince the world that Jesus did not rise from the dead: http://time-blog.com/middle_east/2007/02/jesus_tales_from_the_crypt.html
Many prophetic events are converging. There is now an all-out war against Christianity and in particular the Catholic Church.
Watch and pray.
Paul.
Some background on director James Cameron's occult society: http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/amorc.html
Many prophetic events are converging. There is now an all-out war against Christianity and in particular the Catholic Church.
Watch and pray.
Paul.
Some background on director James Cameron's occult society: http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/amorc.html
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Persecution Watch: Parental Rights Under Assault in Massachusetts
This is extremely disturbing. Vatican II teaches us that, in raising children, the responsibility of parents is primary: "Since parents have given life to their children, they have a very grave duty to educate them, and so are to be recognized as their primary and principal educators" (GE, No. 3). And Pope John Paul II, explaining the conciliar teaching more fully in Familiaris consortio No. 36, says that: "The right and duty of parents to give education is essential, since it is connected with the transmission of human life; it is original and primary with regard to the educational role of others, on account of the uniqueness of the loving relationship between parents and children; and it is irreplaceable and inalienable, and therefore incapable of being entirely delegated to others or usurped by others."
Canon Law is also very clear on this matter. Canon 793, 1., states that: "Parents as well as those who take their place are obliged and enjoy the right to educate their offspring; Catholic parents also have the duty and the right to select those means and institutions through which they can provide more suitably for the Catholic education of the children according to local circumstances" and Canon 1136 says that: "Parents have the most serious duty and the primary right to do all in their power to see to the physical, social, cultural, moral and religious upbringing of their children."
This inalienable right of parents has been recognized by the United States Supreme Court. In 1922, the State of Oregon attempted to enact legislation that would have forced all children to attend the public schools within that state. But the Supreme Court overturned that decision and established that "The child is not the mere creature of the state; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations."
Paul
Additional reading: http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54420
http://www.massresistance.org/docs/parker_lawsuit/order_motion_to_dismiss_022307.pdf
http://www.spiritdaily.com/whiffpersecution.htm
Canon Law is also very clear on this matter. Canon 793, 1., states that: "Parents as well as those who take their place are obliged and enjoy the right to educate their offspring; Catholic parents also have the duty and the right to select those means and institutions through which they can provide more suitably for the Catholic education of the children according to local circumstances" and Canon 1136 says that: "Parents have the most serious duty and the primary right to do all in their power to see to the physical, social, cultural, moral and religious upbringing of their children."
This inalienable right of parents has been recognized by the United States Supreme Court. In 1922, the State of Oregon attempted to enact legislation that would have forced all children to attend the public schools within that state. But the Supreme Court overturned that decision and established that "The child is not the mere creature of the state; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations."
Paul
Additional reading: http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54420
http://www.massresistance.org/docs/parker_lawsuit/order_motion_to_dismiss_022307.pdf
http://www.spiritdaily.com/whiffpersecution.htm
Saturday, February 24, 2007
Support this Catholic priest in his efforts
Fr. Joseph M. Cooper, a priest of the Diocese of Manchester, New Hampshire, is working to bring the old rite back to the diocese. I would urge Catholics in and around the Diocese to contact him at: (603) 669-3100 ext. 165, and to voice their support of this important endeavour.
Fr. Cooper may also be contacted at: jcooper@rcbm.org
Pope John Paul II, in his Apostolic Letter Ecclesia Dei, given Motu Proprio, had this to say regarding the old rite:
"..respect must everywhere be shown for the feelings of all those who are attached to the Latin liturgical tradition, by a wide and generous application of the directives already issued some time ago by the Apostolic See for the use of the Roman Missal according to the typical edition of 1962."
Our Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI had this to say some years back in the book Salt of the Earth (which is published by Ignatius Press):
"I am of the opinion, to be sure, that the old rite should be granted much more generously to all those who desire it. It's impossible to see what could be dangerous or unacceptable about that. A community is calling its very being into question when it suddenly declares that what until now was its holiest and highest possession is strictly forbidden and when it makes the longing for it seem downright indecent."
Vatican II said that:
"Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites" (Sacrosanctum Concilium -Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy - No. 36).
Bringing the old rite back to the Diocese would only serve to foster both healing and renewal and would have the effect of bringing many Catholics back to the sacraments. The Latin Mass movement is primarily a youth movement. For years I attended the Latin Mass at both St. Benedict Abbey and St. Ann House in Still River, Massachusetts. And I have seldom witnessed more reverence for the liturgy.
Let us all pray for Fr. Cooper. That his efforts will be blessed with success and that he will be filled with every good thing he needs to accomplish God's Holy Will.
Paul.
Fr. Cooper may also be contacted at: jcooper@rcbm.org
Pope John Paul II, in his Apostolic Letter Ecclesia Dei, given Motu Proprio, had this to say regarding the old rite:
"..respect must everywhere be shown for the feelings of all those who are attached to the Latin liturgical tradition, by a wide and generous application of the directives already issued some time ago by the Apostolic See for the use of the Roman Missal according to the typical edition of 1962."
Our Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI had this to say some years back in the book Salt of the Earth (which is published by Ignatius Press):
"I am of the opinion, to be sure, that the old rite should be granted much more generously to all those who desire it. It's impossible to see what could be dangerous or unacceptable about that. A community is calling its very being into question when it suddenly declares that what until now was its holiest and highest possession is strictly forbidden and when it makes the longing for it seem downright indecent."
Vatican II said that:
"Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites" (Sacrosanctum Concilium -Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy - No. 36).
Bringing the old rite back to the Diocese would only serve to foster both healing and renewal and would have the effect of bringing many Catholics back to the sacraments. The Latin Mass movement is primarily a youth movement. For years I attended the Latin Mass at both St. Benedict Abbey and St. Ann House in Still River, Massachusetts. And I have seldom witnessed more reverence for the liturgy.
Let us all pray for Fr. Cooper. That his efforts will be blessed with success and that he will be filled with every good thing he needs to accomplish God's Holy Will.
Paul.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
An encouraging word from Francis Cardinal Stafford
"priests should embrace and encourage the laity.."
- His Eminence, Francis Cardinal Stafford
- His Eminence, Francis Cardinal Stafford
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Fr. Lawrence G. Lovasik and false pretense
In his excellent book entitled, "The Hidden Power of Kindness," in a chapter entitled "Dedicate yourself to truth," Fr. Lawrence G. Lovasik explains that:
"False pretense is a form of lying. You are guilty of this fault if you make yourself out to be something you are not in order to impress others, to appear important, and to be admired. This is a form of vanity. You either exaggerate your standing or accomplishments or make up facts about yourself that will impress others....You practice religious hypocrisy when you pretend to be a very pious and sincere Catholic, yet privately embrace some form of moral evil like adultery, birth control, or corruption in business or politics...
You practice social hypocrisy when you worm your way into the confidence of another, act as if you are solely concerned with giving sympathy and advice, draw out secrets of a personal nature, and then use the information to hurt the one whose confidence you have gained; or when you petend to be unselfishly interested in advancing some good cause - charity, religion, or public welfare - but you have the intention of using the cause, and others who are working for it, to your own advantage....
You practice professional hypocrisy when, in public office or business, you speak against some evil and in reality practice it yourself, or when you complain of losing money while you yourself are making an unjust profit..." (The Hidden Power of Kindness, pp. 138-139).
Paul.
"False pretense is a form of lying. You are guilty of this fault if you make yourself out to be something you are not in order to impress others, to appear important, and to be admired. This is a form of vanity. You either exaggerate your standing or accomplishments or make up facts about yourself that will impress others....You practice religious hypocrisy when you pretend to be a very pious and sincere Catholic, yet privately embrace some form of moral evil like adultery, birth control, or corruption in business or politics...
You practice social hypocrisy when you worm your way into the confidence of another, act as if you are solely concerned with giving sympathy and advice, draw out secrets of a personal nature, and then use the information to hurt the one whose confidence you have gained; or when you petend to be unselfishly interested in advancing some good cause - charity, religion, or public welfare - but you have the intention of using the cause, and others who are working for it, to your own advantage....
You practice professional hypocrisy when, in public office or business, you speak against some evil and in reality practice it yourself, or when you complain of losing money while you yourself are making an unjust profit..." (The Hidden Power of Kindness, pp. 138-139).
Paul.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Test everything
In 1 Thessalonians 5: 19-21, the Holy Spirit teaches us through St. Paul: "Do not stifle the Spirit. Do not despise prophecies. Test everything; retain what is good."
In these latter days, there are many false prophets masquerading as disciples of the Lord Jesus. How may we determine what is true and what is false? There must be a way to discern and promote the good and to determine what is false and what should be ignored. Thankfully, there is.
"Ubi Ecclesia, ibi Sanctus Spiritus!" "Where the Church is, there is the Holy Spirit!" Vatican II, speaking of the charismatic gifts, has said that they, "must be accepted with gratefulness and consolation.." However, at the same time, the Council also taught that, "Judgment as to their genuineness and their correct use lies with those who lead the Church and those whose special task is not to extinguish the spirit but to examine everything and keep that which is good." (Lumen Gentium, No. 2).
This is the mind of the Church: that genuine charismatic gifts are to be thankfully welcomed and it is the Church's role to evaluate their genuineness. A charismatic gift in the Church does not discover any new Gospel. In the words of the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
"Throughout the ages, there have been so-called 'private' revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ's definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church." (No. 67).
All apparitions, private revelations and prophetical utterances must meet this first test of authenticity: conformity with the teachings of the Catholic Faith as interpreted by the Magisterium.
Getting back to false prophets. A woman from Massachusetts (who shall remain nameless) has created two "Catholic" blogs and on these blogs has informed her readers of how she experienced a "Eucharistic miracle." At the same time, this confused woman has said that she finds many of the Magisterium's documents to be "legalistic" and has associated herself with a couple of other bloggers who have promoted Centering Prayer and other New Age/Occult forms of spirituality.
These are red flags. And what they suggest is troubling. False prophets abound in these troubled times. These false prophets claim to have wisdom and to have experienced God's "wonderful love." This as they contradict the teachings of the Church or deride Magisterial documents as "legalistic."
This is not the work of the Holy Spirit. This is the work of the Devil who often comes disguised as an angel of light. "Ubi Ecclesia, ibi Sanctus Spiritus!" - "Where the Church is, there is the Holy Spirit!" No authentic disciple of the Lord Jesus will ever oppose the Magisterium of Christ's Church, deride its official documents, or promote (or associate with those who do promote) New Age Occultism.
Paul.
In these latter days, there are many false prophets masquerading as disciples of the Lord Jesus. How may we determine what is true and what is false? There must be a way to discern and promote the good and to determine what is false and what should be ignored. Thankfully, there is.
"Ubi Ecclesia, ibi Sanctus Spiritus!" "Where the Church is, there is the Holy Spirit!" Vatican II, speaking of the charismatic gifts, has said that they, "must be accepted with gratefulness and consolation.." However, at the same time, the Council also taught that, "Judgment as to their genuineness and their correct use lies with those who lead the Church and those whose special task is not to extinguish the spirit but to examine everything and keep that which is good." (Lumen Gentium, No. 2).
This is the mind of the Church: that genuine charismatic gifts are to be thankfully welcomed and it is the Church's role to evaluate their genuineness. A charismatic gift in the Church does not discover any new Gospel. In the words of the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
"Throughout the ages, there have been so-called 'private' revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ's definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church." (No. 67).
All apparitions, private revelations and prophetical utterances must meet this first test of authenticity: conformity with the teachings of the Catholic Faith as interpreted by the Magisterium.
Getting back to false prophets. A woman from Massachusetts (who shall remain nameless) has created two "Catholic" blogs and on these blogs has informed her readers of how she experienced a "Eucharistic miracle." At the same time, this confused woman has said that she finds many of the Magisterium's documents to be "legalistic" and has associated herself with a couple of other bloggers who have promoted Centering Prayer and other New Age/Occult forms of spirituality.
These are red flags. And what they suggest is troubling. False prophets abound in these troubled times. These false prophets claim to have wisdom and to have experienced God's "wonderful love." This as they contradict the teachings of the Church or deride Magisterial documents as "legalistic."
This is not the work of the Holy Spirit. This is the work of the Devil who often comes disguised as an angel of light. "Ubi Ecclesia, ibi Sanctus Spiritus!" - "Where the Church is, there is the Holy Spirit!" No authentic disciple of the Lord Jesus will ever oppose the Magisterium of Christ's Church, deride its official documents, or promote (or associate with those who do promote) New Age Occultism.
Paul.
Monday, February 19, 2007
Fr. Basil Pennington and Centering Prayer
Fr. Anthony Kazarnowicz, a good friend of mine who was an Associate Pastor of Our Lady of Czestochowa Parish in Worcester, Massachusetts and now serves as a U.S. Army Chaplain, once wrote to thank me for a letter to the Editor which I had written to The Catholic Free Press expressing my concerns over the column of Fr. Basil Pennington of St. Joseph's Abbey in Spencer, Massachusetts.
It was Fr. Kazarnowicz's belief (and mine) that while Fr. Pennington's column represented somewhat of an improvement over that of dissident moral theologian Rev. Richard P. McBrien, still, there was much room for concern.
The link above will take you to an excellent article detailing the problem with Fr. Pennington's "Centering Prayer."
Paul.
It was Fr. Kazarnowicz's belief (and mine) that while Fr. Pennington's column represented somewhat of an improvement over that of dissident moral theologian Rev. Richard P. McBrien, still, there was much room for concern.
The link above will take you to an excellent article detailing the problem with Fr. Pennington's "Centering Prayer."
Paul.
Judging which is acceptable
There are some - even many Catholics, poorly instructed in their faith, who believe that all judging is wrong. These Catholics apparently believe that love of enemies means condoning vice and sin. In the words of Dr. Germain Grisez, one of the finest moral theologians of our time, "It might seem to follow that love must accept everyone, even enemies, just as they are, and to affirm them even in the error or sin which is present in them. But the law of love does not require indiscriminate affirmation of everything about other persons (see Saint Thomas Aquinas, S.t., 2-2, q.34, a.3). One's love must be like Jesus'. He loves sinners and brings them into communion with himself in order to overcome their error and sin. When the scribes and pharisees bring a woman caught in adultery to Jesus, he not only saves her from being stoned to death but warns her not to sin again (see John 8:3-11). In a true sense, Jesus is not judgmental, he sets aside the legalistic mentality, readily forgives sinners, does not condemn the world, and points out that those who refuse to acknowledge their sinfulness are self-condemned by the truth they violate (see John 3:16-21). But he realistically recognizes sinners as sinners and never accepts error as truth...
Similarly, if Christians' love of neighbor is genuine, it not only permits but REQUIRES THEM both to 'hold fast to what is good' and to 'hate what is evil' (Romans 12:9)."And again, according to Dr. Grisez, "Vatican II neatly formulates the prohibition against judging others" 'God alone is the judge and searcher of hearts; for that reason, he forbids us to make judgments about the internal guilt of anyone' (Gaudium et Spes, No. 28). This norm, however, does not preclude JUDGMENTS necessary for determining that one should try to dissuade others from committing sins or to encourage them to repent if they have sinned."
Very often, the poorly instructed Catholic will be heard to remark "I don't like the word 'judge,' or to those of us who defend the Church's authentic Magisterial teaching while exposing error they will say: "You're judging."What if we are? Judging isn't always sinful. It is only sinful when we judge another's interior dispositions, when we judge their soul. But we are entirely free to judge words, ideas and actions which fail to hold up when placed in the Lumen Christi (Light of Christ).
Sacred Scripture (which these confused souls obviously don't spend much time with) makes this abundantly clear: "should you not judge those inside the Church"? (1 Corinthians 5:12), and again: "the saints will judge the world and angels" (1 Corinthians 6:2-3), and again: "the spiritual man judges all things" (1 Corinthians 2:15), and again: "Let prophets speak and the others judge" (1 Corinthians 14:29).
Not all judging is sinful. This is just common sense. Our legal system is structured in such a way that when a person commits a crime, he or she is tried before a judge and sentenced (judged) if found guilty. Likewise, it is our right (and duty) to judge words, ideas and actions which are not in conformity with the Gospels or which fail to conform to the Magisterial teaching of Christ's Church and to expose these as fallacious and/or sinful. In so doing, we are not rendering a judgment against a person. We are following the teaching of the great Saint Augustine (Bishop, Father and Doctor of the Church), who said: "Interficere errorem, diligere errantem" - kill the error, love the one who errs. This killing of what is sinful or erroneous is necessary if our charity - our love of neighbor - is to be genuine. Otherwise, our love is counterfeit. It is a fraud.
Paul Anthony Melanson
There are some - even many Catholics, poorly instructed in their faith, who believe that all judging is wrong. These Catholics apparently believe that love of enemies means condoning vice and sin. In the words of Dr. Germain Grisez, one of the finest moral theologians of our time, "It might seem to follow that love must accept everyone, even enemies, just as they are, and to affirm them even in the error or sin which is present in them. But the law of love does not require indiscriminate affirmation of everything about other persons (see Saint Thomas Aquinas, S.t., 2-2, q.34, a.3). One's love must be like Jesus'. He loves sinners and brings them into communion with himself in order to overcome their error and sin. When the scribes and pharisees bring a woman caught in adultery to Jesus, he not only saves her from being stoned to death but warns her not to sin again (see John 8:3-11). In a true sense, Jesus is not judgmental, he sets aside the legalistic mentality, readily forgives sinners, does not condemn the world, and points out that those who refuse to acknowledge their sinfulness are self-condemned by the truth they violate (see John 3:16-21). But he realistically recognizes sinners as sinners and never accepts error as truth...
Similarly, if Christians' love of neighbor is genuine, it not only permits but REQUIRES THEM both to 'hold fast to what is good' and to 'hate what is evil' (Romans 12:9)."And again, according to Dr. Grisez, "Vatican II neatly formulates the prohibition against judging others" 'God alone is the judge and searcher of hearts; for that reason, he forbids us to make judgments about the internal guilt of anyone' (Gaudium et Spes, No. 28). This norm, however, does not preclude JUDGMENTS necessary for determining that one should try to dissuade others from committing sins or to encourage them to repent if they have sinned."
Very often, the poorly instructed Catholic will be heard to remark "I don't like the word 'judge,' or to those of us who defend the Church's authentic Magisterial teaching while exposing error they will say: "You're judging."What if we are? Judging isn't always sinful. It is only sinful when we judge another's interior dispositions, when we judge their soul. But we are entirely free to judge words, ideas and actions which fail to hold up when placed in the Lumen Christi (Light of Christ).
Sacred Scripture (which these confused souls obviously don't spend much time with) makes this abundantly clear: "should you not judge those inside the Church"? (1 Corinthians 5:12), and again: "the saints will judge the world and angels" (1 Corinthians 6:2-3), and again: "the spiritual man judges all things" (1 Corinthians 2:15), and again: "Let prophets speak and the others judge" (1 Corinthians 14:29).
Not all judging is sinful. This is just common sense. Our legal system is structured in such a way that when a person commits a crime, he or she is tried before a judge and sentenced (judged) if found guilty. Likewise, it is our right (and duty) to judge words, ideas and actions which are not in conformity with the Gospels or which fail to conform to the Magisterial teaching of Christ's Church and to expose these as fallacious and/or sinful. In so doing, we are not rendering a judgment against a person. We are following the teaching of the great Saint Augustine (Bishop, Father and Doctor of the Church), who said: "Interficere errorem, diligere errantem" - kill the error, love the one who errs. This killing of what is sinful or erroneous is necessary if our charity - our love of neighbor - is to be genuine. Otherwise, our love is counterfeit. It is a fraud.
Paul Anthony Melanson
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Wisdom of the world
"The wisdom of the world is that of which it is said, 'I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, i.e. those whom the world calls wise.' 'The wisdom of the flesh is an enemy of God,' and does not come from above. It is earthly, devilish and carnal.
This worldly wisdom consists in an exact conformity to the maxims and fashions of the world; a continual inclination towards greatness and esteem; and a subtle and endless pursuit of pleasure and self-interest, not in an uncouth and blatant way by scandalous sin, but in an astute, discreet, and deceitful way. Otherwise the world would no longer label it wisdom but pure licentiousness.
In the opinion of the world, a wise man is one with a keen eye to business; who knows how to turn everything to his personal profit without appearing to do so. He excels in the art of duplicity and well-concealed fraud without arousing suspicion. He thinks one thing and says or does another. Nothing concerning the graces and manners of the world is unknown to him. He accomodates himself to everyone to suit his own end, completely ignoring the honor and interests of God. He manages to make a secret but fatal reconciliation of truth and falsehood, of the gospel and the world, of virtue and sin, of Christ and Belial. He wishes to be considered an honest man but not a devout man, and most readily scorns, distorts and condemns devotions he does not personally approve of. In short, a man is worldly-wise who, following solely the lead of his senses and human-reasoning, poses as a good Christian and a man of integrity, but makes little effort to please God or atone by penance for the sins he has committed against him.
The worldly man bases his conduct on personal honor, on 'What will people say?', on convention, on high living, on self-interest, on ceremonious manners, and on witty conversation. These seven principles are irreproachable supports on which, he believes, he can safely depend to enjoy a peaceful life.
The world will canonize him for such virtues as courage, finesse, tactfulness, shrewdness, gallantry, politeness and good humor. It stigmatizes as serious offenses, insensitiveness, stupidity, poverty, boorishness and bigotry.
He obeys as faithfully as he can the commandments which the world gives him:
You shall be well acquainted with the world.
You shall be respectable.
You shall be successful in business.
You shall hold on to whatever is yours.
You shall rise above your background.
You shall make friends for yourself.
You shall frequent fashionable society.
You shall seek the good life.
You shall not be a kill-joy.
You shall not be singular, uncouth or over-pious.
Never has the world been so corrupt as it is now, for never has it been so cunning, so wise in its own way, and so crafty. It cleverly makes use of the truth to foster untruth, virtue to justify vice, and the very maxims of Jesus Christ to endorse its own, so that even those who are wisest in the sight of God are often deceived.
Infinite is the number of these men, wise in the sight of the world but foolish in the eyes of God.
- St. Louis de Montfort, Love of Eternal Wisdom
This worldly wisdom consists in an exact conformity to the maxims and fashions of the world; a continual inclination towards greatness and esteem; and a subtle and endless pursuit of pleasure and self-interest, not in an uncouth and blatant way by scandalous sin, but in an astute, discreet, and deceitful way. Otherwise the world would no longer label it wisdom but pure licentiousness.
In the opinion of the world, a wise man is one with a keen eye to business; who knows how to turn everything to his personal profit without appearing to do so. He excels in the art of duplicity and well-concealed fraud without arousing suspicion. He thinks one thing and says or does another. Nothing concerning the graces and manners of the world is unknown to him. He accomodates himself to everyone to suit his own end, completely ignoring the honor and interests of God. He manages to make a secret but fatal reconciliation of truth and falsehood, of the gospel and the world, of virtue and sin, of Christ and Belial. He wishes to be considered an honest man but not a devout man, and most readily scorns, distorts and condemns devotions he does not personally approve of. In short, a man is worldly-wise who, following solely the lead of his senses and human-reasoning, poses as a good Christian and a man of integrity, but makes little effort to please God or atone by penance for the sins he has committed against him.
The worldly man bases his conduct on personal honor, on 'What will people say?', on convention, on high living, on self-interest, on ceremonious manners, and on witty conversation. These seven principles are irreproachable supports on which, he believes, he can safely depend to enjoy a peaceful life.
The world will canonize him for such virtues as courage, finesse, tactfulness, shrewdness, gallantry, politeness and good humor. It stigmatizes as serious offenses, insensitiveness, stupidity, poverty, boorishness and bigotry.
He obeys as faithfully as he can the commandments which the world gives him:
You shall be well acquainted with the world.
You shall be respectable.
You shall be successful in business.
You shall hold on to whatever is yours.
You shall rise above your background.
You shall make friends for yourself.
You shall frequent fashionable society.
You shall seek the good life.
You shall not be a kill-joy.
You shall not be singular, uncouth or over-pious.
Never has the world been so corrupt as it is now, for never has it been so cunning, so wise in its own way, and so crafty. It cleverly makes use of the truth to foster untruth, virtue to justify vice, and the very maxims of Jesus Christ to endorse its own, so that even those who are wisest in the sight of God are often deceived.
Infinite is the number of these men, wise in the sight of the world but foolish in the eyes of God.
- St. Louis de Montfort, Love of Eternal Wisdom
Saturday, February 17, 2007
Fr. Salvany, Deacon Tom and an Authentic Charity
In his classic work Liberalism is a Sin," Fr. Felix Sarda Y Salvany writes:
"Charity is a supernatural virtue which induces us to love God above all things and our neighbors as ourselves for the love of God. Thus after God, we ought to love our neighbor as ourselves, and this not in any way, but for the love of God and in obedience to His law. And now what is to love? Amare est velle bonum, replies the philosopher: "To love is to wish good to him whom we love." To whom does charity command us to wish good? To our neighbor, that is to say, not to this or that man only but to everyone. What is that good which true love wishes? First of all supernatural good; then goods of the natural order, which are not incompatible with it. All this is included in the phrase "for the love of God."
It follows, therefore, that we can love our neighbor, when displeasing him, when opposing him, when causing him some material injury and even, on certain occasions, when depriving him of life. All is reduced to this in short: Whether in the instance where we displease, oppose or humiliate him, it is or is not for his own good, or for the good of someone whose rights are superior to his, or simply for the greater service of God.
If it is shown, that in displeasing or offending our neighbor, we act for his good, it is evident that we love him even when opposing or crossing him. The physician cauterizing his patient or cutting off his gangrened limb may none the less love him. When we correct the wicked by restraining or by punishing them none the less do we love them. This is charity and perfect charity. It is often necessary to displease or offend one person, not for his own good, but to deliver another from the evil he is inflicting. It is then an obligation of charity to repel the unjust violence of the aggressor; one may inflict as much injury on the aggressor as is necessary for the defense. Such would be the case should one see a highwayman attacking a traveler. In this instance, to kill, wound, or at least take such measures as to render the aggressor impotent, would be an act of true charity.
The good of all good is the divine good, just as God is for all men the neighbor of all neighbors. In consequence the love due to a man inasmuch as he is our neighbor ought always to be subordinated to that which is due to our common Lord. For His love and in His service we must not hesitate to offend men. The degree of our offense towards men can only be measured by the degree of our obligation to him. Charity is primarily the love of God, secondarily the love of our neighbor for God's sake. To sacrifice the first is to abandon the latter. Therefore to offend our neighbor for the love of God is a true act of charity. Not to offend our neighbor for the love of God is a sin.
Modern Liberalism reverses this order. It imposes a false notion of charity; our neighbor first, and, if at all, God afterwards."
A false notion of charity puts neighbor before God, if God is recognized at all. It is such a false notion of charity which motivated certain Church leaders to reprimand Deacon Tom McDonnell for a homily in which he took pro-abortion politician Representative Brian Higgins to task for his support of the culture of death.
How else can we explain the rush to reprimand this heroic Deacon? Concern for rubrics? As one reader of this blog commented:
"Why is it that almost no one in this country is ever concerned about the "rubrics" of the Mass (tolerating every sort of liturgical abuse and aberration) but is suddenly so concerned about the rubrics when deacon McDonnell names names in a homily? Such an attitude seems almost perverse to me. Is this simply an effort to muzzle courageous pro-life witness?"
An excellent question. More importantly, as I have already noted, Blessed Cardinal Clemens von Galen used his pulpit to name Hitler and other Nazi officials who were violating the common good. And no one ever reprimanded him for "rudeness" or not following the rubrics of the Mass.
Fr. Salvany was a prophet of sorts. A very long time ago he warned us about a false notion of charity which inverts the order of authentic charity and places more importance on love of neighbor than on love of God. That so many Catholics have been influenced by this false notion of charity goes without saying. This even though the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches clearly in No. 1822 that:
"Charity is the theological virtue by which we love God above all things for his own sake, and our neighbor as ourselves for the love of God."
Bishop Kmiec and others who have rushed to reprimand Deacon Tom McDonnell have forgotten this. They have placed more importance on the respect of men (and especially those considered by the world to be important men) than they have on loving God (and His Commandments) above all things.
Small wonder then that the Church in the United States has suffered so much.
Paul.
"Charity is a supernatural virtue which induces us to love God above all things and our neighbors as ourselves for the love of God. Thus after God, we ought to love our neighbor as ourselves, and this not in any way, but for the love of God and in obedience to His law. And now what is to love? Amare est velle bonum, replies the philosopher: "To love is to wish good to him whom we love." To whom does charity command us to wish good? To our neighbor, that is to say, not to this or that man only but to everyone. What is that good which true love wishes? First of all supernatural good; then goods of the natural order, which are not incompatible with it. All this is included in the phrase "for the love of God."
It follows, therefore, that we can love our neighbor, when displeasing him, when opposing him, when causing him some material injury and even, on certain occasions, when depriving him of life. All is reduced to this in short: Whether in the instance where we displease, oppose or humiliate him, it is or is not for his own good, or for the good of someone whose rights are superior to his, or simply for the greater service of God.
If it is shown, that in displeasing or offending our neighbor, we act for his good, it is evident that we love him even when opposing or crossing him. The physician cauterizing his patient or cutting off his gangrened limb may none the less love him. When we correct the wicked by restraining or by punishing them none the less do we love them. This is charity and perfect charity. It is often necessary to displease or offend one person, not for his own good, but to deliver another from the evil he is inflicting. It is then an obligation of charity to repel the unjust violence of the aggressor; one may inflict as much injury on the aggressor as is necessary for the defense. Such would be the case should one see a highwayman attacking a traveler. In this instance, to kill, wound, or at least take such measures as to render the aggressor impotent, would be an act of true charity.
The good of all good is the divine good, just as God is for all men the neighbor of all neighbors. In consequence the love due to a man inasmuch as he is our neighbor ought always to be subordinated to that which is due to our common Lord. For His love and in His service we must not hesitate to offend men. The degree of our offense towards men can only be measured by the degree of our obligation to him. Charity is primarily the love of God, secondarily the love of our neighbor for God's sake. To sacrifice the first is to abandon the latter. Therefore to offend our neighbor for the love of God is a true act of charity. Not to offend our neighbor for the love of God is a sin.
Modern Liberalism reverses this order. It imposes a false notion of charity; our neighbor first, and, if at all, God afterwards."
A false notion of charity puts neighbor before God, if God is recognized at all. It is such a false notion of charity which motivated certain Church leaders to reprimand Deacon Tom McDonnell for a homily in which he took pro-abortion politician Representative Brian Higgins to task for his support of the culture of death.
How else can we explain the rush to reprimand this heroic Deacon? Concern for rubrics? As one reader of this blog commented:
"Why is it that almost no one in this country is ever concerned about the "rubrics" of the Mass (tolerating every sort of liturgical abuse and aberration) but is suddenly so concerned about the rubrics when deacon McDonnell names names in a homily? Such an attitude seems almost perverse to me. Is this simply an effort to muzzle courageous pro-life witness?"
An excellent question. More importantly, as I have already noted, Blessed Cardinal Clemens von Galen used his pulpit to name Hitler and other Nazi officials who were violating the common good. And no one ever reprimanded him for "rudeness" or not following the rubrics of the Mass.
Fr. Salvany was a prophet of sorts. A very long time ago he warned us about a false notion of charity which inverts the order of authentic charity and places more importance on love of neighbor than on love of God. That so many Catholics have been influenced by this false notion of charity goes without saying. This even though the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches clearly in No. 1822 that:
"Charity is the theological virtue by which we love God above all things for his own sake, and our neighbor as ourselves for the love of God."
Bishop Kmiec and others who have rushed to reprimand Deacon Tom McDonnell have forgotten this. They have placed more importance on the respect of men (and especially those considered by the world to be important men) than they have on loving God (and His Commandments) above all things.
Small wonder then that the Church in the United States has suffered so much.
Paul.
Friday, February 16, 2007
Charity or rudeness?
In his Introduction to the Devout Life St. Francis de Sales, Doctor of the Church, writes:
"If the declared enemies of God and of the Church ought to be blamed and censured with all possible vigor, charity obliges us to cry wolf when the wolf slips into the midst of the flock and in every way and place we may meet him."
Deacon Tom McDonnell understands this. Read here:http://lasalettejourney.blogspot.com/2007/02/as-i-have-already-mentioned-in-previous.html
Meanwhile, in a posting here: http://dealwhudson.typepad.com/deal_w_hudson/2007/01/a_clarification.html, Deal Hudson suggests that Deacon Tom "went overboard." Mr. Hudson also writes, "My thought on this homily is that normally the homilist should not mention any sinner by name. I am not sure what the rubrics of the Mass would say on the subject, but he may deserve a reprimand for that."
But then says that: "However, things are not normal when a sinner is not only publicly open in his contempt for essential Church teachings, those on which all Catholics must agree in full in order to preserve their communion with the Church, but also enacts laws which over-turn Church teachings."
Exactly Mr. Hudson. These are not normal times. Times were not normal when Blessed Cardinal Clemens August von Galen used his pulpit to criticize Hitler and other Nazi officials by name. Was Blessed Cardinal Clemens August von Galen going "overboard" as well? You cannot have it both ways. To suggest that Deacon Tom was being "rude" is to suggest that Blessed Cardinal Clemens August von Galen was also being "rude."
Rubrics of the Mass? Are you kidding me? When we place more importance on such technicalities than on God's Eternal Law (which forbids killing the innocent - read Exodus Chapter 20 - God's fifth Commandment handed down to Moses), we have a serious problem.
Such a pharisaical approach to a matter of critical importance to the common good is, well, idiotic.
Paul Anthony Melanson
"If the declared enemies of God and of the Church ought to be blamed and censured with all possible vigor, charity obliges us to cry wolf when the wolf slips into the midst of the flock and in every way and place we may meet him."
Deacon Tom McDonnell understands this. Read here:http://lasalettejourney.blogspot.com/2007/02/as-i-have-already-mentioned-in-previous.html
Meanwhile, in a posting here: http://dealwhudson.typepad.com/deal_w_hudson/2007/01/a_clarification.html, Deal Hudson suggests that Deacon Tom "went overboard." Mr. Hudson also writes, "My thought on this homily is that normally the homilist should not mention any sinner by name. I am not sure what the rubrics of the Mass would say on the subject, but he may deserve a reprimand for that."
But then says that: "However, things are not normal when a sinner is not only publicly open in his contempt for essential Church teachings, those on which all Catholics must agree in full in order to preserve their communion with the Church, but also enacts laws which over-turn Church teachings."
Exactly Mr. Hudson. These are not normal times. Times were not normal when Blessed Cardinal Clemens August von Galen used his pulpit to criticize Hitler and other Nazi officials by name. Was Blessed Cardinal Clemens August von Galen going "overboard" as well? You cannot have it both ways. To suggest that Deacon Tom was being "rude" is to suggest that Blessed Cardinal Clemens August von Galen was also being "rude."
Rubrics of the Mass? Are you kidding me? When we place more importance on such technicalities than on God's Eternal Law (which forbids killing the innocent - read Exodus Chapter 20 - God's fifth Commandment handed down to Moses), we have a serious problem.
Such a pharisaical approach to a matter of critical importance to the common good is, well, idiotic.
Paul Anthony Melanson
Thursday, February 15, 2007
The Warning at Akita
On April 22, 1984, the Most Reverend John Shojiro Ito, the Bishop of Niigata in Japan, issued a pastoral letter in which he declared the events at Akita to be supernatural. And it was at Akita that Our Lady said to Sister Agnes Sasagawa:
"As I told you, if men do not repent and better themselves, the Father will inflict a terrible punishment on all humanity. It will be a punishment greater than the deluge, such as one will never have seen before. Fire will fall from the sky and will wipe out a great part of humanity, the good as well as the bad, sparing neither priests nor faithful. The survivors will find themselves so desolate that they will envy the dead. The only arms that will remain for you will be the rosary and Sign left by My Son. Each day recite the prayers of the rosary. With the rosary, pray for the Pope, the Bishops, and the priests.
The work of the devil will infiltrate even the Church in such a way that one will see Cardinals opposing Cardinals, Bishops against other 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. The demon will be especially implacable against souls consecrated to God. The thought of the loss of so many souls is the cause of my sadness. If sins increase in number and gravity, there will be no longer pardon for them."
One by one, these prophecies have been fulfilled. We have witnessed the work of the devil infiltrating the Church and Cardinals and Bishops opposing one another. We have witnessed priests who venerate Our Lady being scorned and opposed. We have witnessed churches and altars sacked as parish after parish has been closed. And we have witnessed the sexual abuse of children by priests and consecrated souls who have been pressed by the demon to leave the service of the Lord and a spirit of compromise which has swept over the Church.
On November 5, 1977, Our Lady spoke to Fr. Gobbi in a locution saying:
"Do not stop to consider the ever thickening darkness, the sin which has been set up as the norm of human action, the suffering which is mounting to its peak and the chastisement which this humanity is preparing with its own hands."
Our Lady did not want us to become discouraged by the sin and darkness which is all about us.
But she wants us to acknowledge the reality of sin and to recognize its consequences. Pope John Paul II often spoke of "a loss of the sense of sin." The people of former times were more honest than the people of our present day and didn't blame society, genetics, or a multitude of other factors for their sins. Today, there is a widespread denial of the existence of sin and moral laws (even the Natural Law) and this angers God. This because it makes God appear as the Creator of evil, and this blasphemy (not to mention pride and hypocrisy) on the part of His creature man will have its consequences.
It is necessary now, while it is still "today," to preach about the reality of sin and the need for repentance. Time is running short. Will we embrace the Mercy of God? Or will we continue to embrace a culture of death and immorality, a culture which denies the reality of sin while murdering innocent children in the womb and advancing homosexual "marriage."
"As I told you, if men do not repent and better themselves, the Father will inflict a terrible punishment on all humanity. It will be a punishment greater than the deluge, such as one will never have seen before. Fire will fall from the sky and will wipe out a great part of humanity, the good as well as the bad, sparing neither priests nor faithful. The survivors will find themselves so desolate that they will envy the dead. The only arms that will remain for you will be the rosary and Sign left by My Son. Each day recite the prayers of the rosary. With the rosary, pray for the Pope, the Bishops, and the priests.
The work of the devil will infiltrate even the Church in such a way that one will see Cardinals opposing Cardinals, Bishops against other 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. The demon will be especially implacable against souls consecrated to God. The thought of the loss of so many souls is the cause of my sadness. If sins increase in number and gravity, there will be no longer pardon for them."
One by one, these prophecies have been fulfilled. We have witnessed the work of the devil infiltrating the Church and Cardinals and Bishops opposing one another. We have witnessed priests who venerate Our Lady being scorned and opposed. We have witnessed churches and altars sacked as parish after parish has been closed. And we have witnessed the sexual abuse of children by priests and consecrated souls who have been pressed by the demon to leave the service of the Lord and a spirit of compromise which has swept over the Church.
On November 5, 1977, Our Lady spoke to Fr. Gobbi in a locution saying:
"Do not stop to consider the ever thickening darkness, the sin which has been set up as the norm of human action, the suffering which is mounting to its peak and the chastisement which this humanity is preparing with its own hands."
Our Lady did not want us to become discouraged by the sin and darkness which is all about us.
But she wants us to acknowledge the reality of sin and to recognize its consequences. Pope John Paul II often spoke of "a loss of the sense of sin." The people of former times were more honest than the people of our present day and didn't blame society, genetics, or a multitude of other factors for their sins. Today, there is a widespread denial of the existence of sin and moral laws (even the Natural Law) and this angers God. This because it makes God appear as the Creator of evil, and this blasphemy (not to mention pride and hypocrisy) on the part of His creature man will have its consequences.
It is necessary now, while it is still "today," to preach about the reality of sin and the need for repentance. Time is running short. Will we embrace the Mercy of God? Or will we continue to embrace a culture of death and immorality, a culture which denies the reality of sin while murdering innocent children in the womb and advancing homosexual "marriage."
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Monday, February 12, 2007
As I have already mentioned in a previous post at this Blog, Fr. Thomas Williams, Dean of theology at Rome’s Regina Apostolorum University, has said that: "pastoral prudence and charity would suggest that a preacher refrain from making references to specific persons, regardless of whether the individual is present or not" and that, "Historically, the pulpit has often been effectively used to reprimand the common vices of the congregation, but it is an inappropriate venue for correcting the specific errors of an individual.."
Now, I have already shown how Blessed Clemens August von Galen, a Cardinal who opposed the Nazi regime during the Second World War, used his pulpit to criticize Hitler and the cruelty of the Nazis. Perhaps it is time to examine Fr. Williams argument against using the pulpit to correct the specific errors of an individual in the light of the Magisterial teaching of the Church.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 2489, teaches that, "Charity and respect for the truth should dictate the response to every request for information or communication. The good and safety of others, respect for privacy, and the common good are sufficient reasons for being silent about what ought not be known or for making use of a discreet language. The duty to avoid scandal often commands strict discretion. No one is bound to reveal the truth to someone who does not have the right to know it."
In other words, it would be an offense against truth and charity if a priest were to use his pulpit to publically castigate an individual for personal sins or errors. Again the Catechism:
"The secret of the sacrament of reconciliation is sacred, and cannot be violated under any pretext. ‘The sacramental seal is inviolable; therefore it is a crime for a confessor in any way to betray a penitent by word or in any other manner or for any reason.’" (No. 2490, citing Canon 983 of the Code of Canon Law).
Indeed, as the Catechism makes clear, "Everyone should observe an appropriate reserve concerning persons’ private lives" (No. 2492) and: "The right to the communication of the truth is not unconditional. Everyone must conform his life to the Gospel precept of fraternal love. This requires us in concrete situations to judge whether or not it is appropriate to reveal the truth to someone who asks for it" (No. 2488).
Indeed, there are times in which "prudence and charity would suggest that a preacher refrain from making references to specific persons.." But there are also times in which it is entirely appropriate to use the pulpit for correcting the specific errors of an individual. In the words of Blaise Pascal, "It is as much a crime to disturb the peace when truth prevails as it is a crime to keep the peace when truth is violated. There is therefore a time in which peace is justified and another time when it is not justifiable. For it is written that there is a time for peace and a time for war and it is the law of truth that distinguishes the two. But at no time is there a time for truth and a time for error, for it is written that God’s truth shall abide forever. That is why Christ has said that He has come to bring peace and at the same time that He has come to bring the sword. But He does not say that He has come to bring both the truth and the falsehood."
Was it appropriate for Deacon Tom McDonnell to use his pulpit to correct the errors of U.S. Representative Brian Higgins? In a word, yes. This because Representative Higgins’ support of abortion and related legislation represents a public, open and declared opposition to the teaching of the Catholic Church on the sanctity of every human life. We are not dealing here with private sins or errors which may not be addressed from a pulpit. For that would be inappropriate. But we are dealing here with a direct and public challenge to the teaching of Jesus Christ as made known by His Church:
"..God, the Lord of life, has conferred on men the surpassing ministry of safeguarding life in a manner which is worthy of man. Therefore, from the moment of its conception life must be guarded with the greatest care, while abortion and infanticide are unspeakable crimes." (Vatican II, Gaudium et Spes, No. 51).
"Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed ether as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law..." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 2271).
In the same way that Blessed Cardinal Clemens August von Galen used his pulpit to refer to Hitler and other specific persons who were part of the Nazi regime and to correct their errors (for the sake of the common good), Deacon Tom McDonnell has used his pulpit to refer to a specific person, a politician who undermines the common good through his open and declared support of the culture of death in direct opposition to the teaching of Christ’s Church.
What tremendous courage! What charity!
God love you Deacon Tom.
Paul Anthony Melanson
Now, I have already shown how Blessed Clemens August von Galen, a Cardinal who opposed the Nazi regime during the Second World War, used his pulpit to criticize Hitler and the cruelty of the Nazis. Perhaps it is time to examine Fr. Williams argument against using the pulpit to correct the specific errors of an individual in the light of the Magisterial teaching of the Church.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 2489, teaches that, "Charity and respect for the truth should dictate the response to every request for information or communication. The good and safety of others, respect for privacy, and the common good are sufficient reasons for being silent about what ought not be known or for making use of a discreet language. The duty to avoid scandal often commands strict discretion. No one is bound to reveal the truth to someone who does not have the right to know it."
In other words, it would be an offense against truth and charity if a priest were to use his pulpit to publically castigate an individual for personal sins or errors. Again the Catechism:
"The secret of the sacrament of reconciliation is sacred, and cannot be violated under any pretext. ‘The sacramental seal is inviolable; therefore it is a crime for a confessor in any way to betray a penitent by word or in any other manner or for any reason.’" (No. 2490, citing Canon 983 of the Code of Canon Law).
Indeed, as the Catechism makes clear, "Everyone should observe an appropriate reserve concerning persons’ private lives" (No. 2492) and: "The right to the communication of the truth is not unconditional. Everyone must conform his life to the Gospel precept of fraternal love. This requires us in concrete situations to judge whether or not it is appropriate to reveal the truth to someone who asks for it" (No. 2488).
Indeed, there are times in which "prudence and charity would suggest that a preacher refrain from making references to specific persons.." But there are also times in which it is entirely appropriate to use the pulpit for correcting the specific errors of an individual. In the words of Blaise Pascal, "It is as much a crime to disturb the peace when truth prevails as it is a crime to keep the peace when truth is violated. There is therefore a time in which peace is justified and another time when it is not justifiable. For it is written that there is a time for peace and a time for war and it is the law of truth that distinguishes the two. But at no time is there a time for truth and a time for error, for it is written that God’s truth shall abide forever. That is why Christ has said that He has come to bring peace and at the same time that He has come to bring the sword. But He does not say that He has come to bring both the truth and the falsehood."
Was it appropriate for Deacon Tom McDonnell to use his pulpit to correct the errors of U.S. Representative Brian Higgins? In a word, yes. This because Representative Higgins’ support of abortion and related legislation represents a public, open and declared opposition to the teaching of the Catholic Church on the sanctity of every human life. We are not dealing here with private sins or errors which may not be addressed from a pulpit. For that would be inappropriate. But we are dealing here with a direct and public challenge to the teaching of Jesus Christ as made known by His Church:
"..God, the Lord of life, has conferred on men the surpassing ministry of safeguarding life in a manner which is worthy of man. Therefore, from the moment of its conception life must be guarded with the greatest care, while abortion and infanticide are unspeakable crimes." (Vatican II, Gaudium et Spes, No. 51).
"Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed ether as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law..." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 2271).
In the same way that Blessed Cardinal Clemens August von Galen used his pulpit to refer to Hitler and other specific persons who were part of the Nazi regime and to correct their errors (for the sake of the common good), Deacon Tom McDonnell has used his pulpit to refer to a specific person, a politician who undermines the common good through his open and declared support of the culture of death in direct opposition to the teaching of Christ’s Church.
What tremendous courage! What charity!
God love you Deacon Tom.
Paul Anthony Melanson
Sunday, February 11, 2007
In an article published in the February 11, 2007 edition of the National Catholic Register and entitled "Homilist Names Names," Mr. David Freddoso quotes Legionary Father Thomas Williams, Dean of Theology at Rome's Regina Apostolorum University, as having said that, "Historically, the pulpit has often been effectively used to reprimand the common vices of the congregation, but it is an inappropriate venue for correcting the specific errors of an individual...Pastoral prudence and charity would suggest that a preacher refrain from making references to specific persons, regardless of whether the individual is present or not."
Fr. Williams made these comments in response to Deacon Tom McDonnell's homily given on January 21st of this year in which he took U.S. Representative Brian Higgins to task for his recent vote in favor of federal funding for research that destroys human embryos.
What of Fr. Williams assertion that the pulpit is "an inappropriate venue for correcting the specific errors of an individual....whether the individual is present or not"? If this is the case, how do we explain the actions of His Eminence Cardinal Clemens August von Galen, Bishop of Munster, during the Second World War? As this statement from the ADL makes clear: http://www.adl.org/PresRele/VaticanJewish_96/4616_96.htm:
"Cardinal Clemens August von Galen was Bishop of Munster during the Nazi regime and used his pulpit to criticize Hitler and the cruelty of the Nazis."
Now, I'm not attempting to make a strict comparison between Hitler and Representative Brian Higgins. But the point I'm trying to make is that the pulpit has been seen in the past as an appropriate venue for "correcting the specific errors of an individual." Therefore, Fr. Williams is simply wrong. And while Representative Higgins cannot be compared to Adolph Hitler in the strictest sense, still, both have been on record as supporting a culture of death. Hitler had an extermination plan (a "Final Solution") for killing Jews and Representative Higgins, as this article makes clear: http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/jan/07012502.html:
"..was endorsed in 2006 by the National Abortion Rights Action League and Planned Parenthood for his support of abortion and related legislation."
And the extermination of innocent unborn children is, to an authentic Catholic, another holocaust.
Fr. Williams may believe that the pulpit is "an inappropriate venue for correcting the specific errors of an individual," but His Eminence Cardinal Galen did not share this view. And a statement issued by the Foreign Office [Great Britain] referred to this courageous Cardinal as "the most outstanding personality among the clergy in the British zone."
Fr. Williams (like so many other priests, religious and lay people who have succumbed to what Fr. Vincent P. Miceli referred to as the "Cult of Softness") may believe that "pastoral prudence and charity would suggest that a preacher refrain from making references to specific persons, regardless of whether the individual is present or not." But thank God for the witness of His Eminence Cardinal Clemens August von Galen, who stood publically opposed to the Nazi regime and wasn't afraid to "name names." His was an authentic charity as defined by the Catechism (No. 1822).
Today, Cardinal Galen is now known as "Blessed," having been beatified at St. Peter's Basilica on October 9, 2005.
Say what you will Fr. Williams. I'll stick with the actions of a beatified Cardinal, a Prince of the Church who possessed the Holy Spirit's gift of Fortitude. For although I have no doubt that you are a wise and holy priest and a very educated man, still, the Church has not called you Blessed.
God love you all,
Paul Anthony Melanson
Fr. Williams made these comments in response to Deacon Tom McDonnell's homily given on January 21st of this year in which he took U.S. Representative Brian Higgins to task for his recent vote in favor of federal funding for research that destroys human embryos.
What of Fr. Williams assertion that the pulpit is "an inappropriate venue for correcting the specific errors of an individual....whether the individual is present or not"? If this is the case, how do we explain the actions of His Eminence Cardinal Clemens August von Galen, Bishop of Munster, during the Second World War? As this statement from the ADL makes clear: http://www.adl.org/PresRele/VaticanJewish_96/4616_96.htm:
"Cardinal Clemens August von Galen was Bishop of Munster during the Nazi regime and used his pulpit to criticize Hitler and the cruelty of the Nazis."
Now, I'm not attempting to make a strict comparison between Hitler and Representative Brian Higgins. But the point I'm trying to make is that the pulpit has been seen in the past as an appropriate venue for "correcting the specific errors of an individual." Therefore, Fr. Williams is simply wrong. And while Representative Higgins cannot be compared to Adolph Hitler in the strictest sense, still, both have been on record as supporting a culture of death. Hitler had an extermination plan (a "Final Solution") for killing Jews and Representative Higgins, as this article makes clear: http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/jan/07012502.html:
"..was endorsed in 2006 by the National Abortion Rights Action League and Planned Parenthood for his support of abortion and related legislation."
And the extermination of innocent unborn children is, to an authentic Catholic, another holocaust.
Fr. Williams may believe that the pulpit is "an inappropriate venue for correcting the specific errors of an individual," but His Eminence Cardinal Galen did not share this view. And a statement issued by the Foreign Office [Great Britain] referred to this courageous Cardinal as "the most outstanding personality among the clergy in the British zone."
Fr. Williams (like so many other priests, religious and lay people who have succumbed to what Fr. Vincent P. Miceli referred to as the "Cult of Softness") may believe that "pastoral prudence and charity would suggest that a preacher refrain from making references to specific persons, regardless of whether the individual is present or not." But thank God for the witness of His Eminence Cardinal Clemens August von Galen, who stood publically opposed to the Nazi regime and wasn't afraid to "name names." His was an authentic charity as defined by the Catechism (No. 1822).
Today, Cardinal Galen is now known as "Blessed," having been beatified at St. Peter's Basilica on October 9, 2005.
Say what you will Fr. Williams. I'll stick with the actions of a beatified Cardinal, a Prince of the Church who possessed the Holy Spirit's gift of Fortitude. For although I have no doubt that you are a wise and holy priest and a very educated man, still, the Church has not called you Blessed.
God love you all,
Paul Anthony Melanson
"Jesus came down with the twelve and stood on a stretch of level ground with a great crowd of his disciples and a large number of the people from all Judea and Jerusalem and the coastal region of Tyre and Sidon. And raising his eyes toward his disciples he said:“Blessed are you who are poor, for the kingdom of God is yours. Blessed are you who are now hungry, for you will be satisfied. Blessed are you who are now weeping, for you will laugh. Blessed are you when people hate you, and when they exclude and insult you, and denounce your name as evil on account of the Son of Man. Rejoice and leap for joy on that day! Behold, your reward will be great in heaven. For their ancestors treated the prophets in the same way. But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation. Woe to you who are filled now, for you will be hungry. Woe to you who laugh now, for you will grieve and weep. Woe to you when all speak well of you, for their ancestors treated the false prophets in this way.” (Luke 6: 17, 20-26).
This is precisely what we see today. Catholics loyal to the Holy Father and the Magisterium are routinely insulted, excluded from participation in parish life, and spoken evil of. By contrast, Catholics who are willing to compromise with the world and sinful structures are often welcomed with open arms.
It has always been thus. And always will be. Jesus says in John 15: 18-21:
"If the world hates you, realize that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, the world would love its own; but because you do not belong to the world, and I have chosen you out of the world, the world hates you. Remember the word I spoke to you, 'No slave is greater than his master.' If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they kept my word, they will also keep yours. And they will do all these things to you on account of my name, because they do not know the one who sent me."
The world embraces its own just as Jesus knows who belongs to Him and embraces such a person. The two are ever in conflict. It has always been thus. And always will be.
Paul.
This is precisely what we see today. Catholics loyal to the Holy Father and the Magisterium are routinely insulted, excluded from participation in parish life, and spoken evil of. By contrast, Catholics who are willing to compromise with the world and sinful structures are often welcomed with open arms.
It has always been thus. And always will be. Jesus says in John 15: 18-21:
"If the world hates you, realize that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, the world would love its own; but because you do not belong to the world, and I have chosen you out of the world, the world hates you. Remember the word I spoke to you, 'No slave is greater than his master.' If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they kept my word, they will also keep yours. And they will do all these things to you on account of my name, because they do not know the one who sent me."
The world embraces its own just as Jesus knows who belongs to Him and embraces such a person. The two are ever in conflict. It has always been thus. And always will be.
Paul.
Friday, February 09, 2007
Thursday, February 08, 2007
Lawrence v. Texas: Liberty becomes license
When moral liberty is detached from the Natural Law and the Eternal Divine Law, it soon degenerates into license. It was Pope Leo XIII, in his Encyclical Letter Libertas Humana, who reminded us that:
"Liberty, the highest of natural endowments, being the portion only of intellectual or rational natures, confers on man this dignity - that he is 'in the hand of his counsel' and has power over his actions. But the manner in which such dignity is exercised is of the greatest moment, inasmuch as on the use that is made of liberty the highest good and the greatest evil alike depend. Man, indeed, is free to obey his reason, to seek moral good, and to strive unswervingly after his last end. Yet he is free also to turn aside to all other things; and, in pursuing the empty substance of good, to disturb rightful order and to fall headlong into the destruction which he has voluntarily chosen...Therefore, the nature of human liberty, however it be considered, whether in individuals or in society, whether in those who command or in those who obey, supposes the necessity of obedience to some supreme and eternal law, which is no other than the authority of God, commanding good and forbidding evil. And, so far from this most just authority of God over men diminishing, or even destroying their liberty, it protects and perfects it, for the real perfection of all creatures is found in the prosecution and attainment of their respective ends, but the supreme end to which human liberty must aspire is God."
In Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court allows so broad an interpretation of liberty, that virtually all state laws proscribing evils such as adultery, bigamy, incest, prostitution, sadomasochism, bestiality and pedophilia are now at risk: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas#Broader_implications
An act is immoral if it violates Natural Law or Divine Law. The Supreme Court has imposed a perverse notion of "liberty" which favors unnatural vice over virtue. In Lawrence v Texas, the Court violated its responsibility to uphold a most fundamental principle of the Natural Law. Namely, to do good and avoid evil. As a consequence, homosexuality - and other sexual abnormalities which undermine the family and therefore the common good - will now be constitutionally protected expressions of "liberty."
This is a real moral tragedy and one which will soon lead to intense persecution of Christians (and other people of good will) who oppose violations of both the Natural Law and the Divine Law (see:http://dtf-jayg.blogspot.com/2007/02/whos-persecuting-whom.html ).
When the European Parliament passed a special resolution encouraging the nations of Europe to approve homosexual "marriage," Pope John Paul II responded in protest:
"What is not morally acceptable, however, is the legalization of homosexual acts. To show understanding towards the person who sins, towards the person who is not in the process of freeing himself from this tendency, does not at all mean to diminish the demands of the moral norm (cf. Veritatis Splendor, No. 95)....
But we must say that what was intended with the European Parliament's resolution was the legitimization of a moral disorder. Parliament improperly conferred an institutional value to a conduct that is deviant and not in accordance with God's plan...
Forgetting the words of Christ 'The truth shall set you free' (John 8:32), an attempt was made to show the people of our continent a moral evil, a deviance, a certain slavery, as a form of liberation, falsifying the very essence of the family." (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/angelus/1994/documents/hf_jp-ii_ang_19940220_it.html ).
As the persecution of Christians intensifies, and as our society collapses in on itself under the weight of institutionalized deviance, the words of the prophet Isaiah will echo in our hearts and minds:
"Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil;
Who put darkness for light,
and light for darkness....
Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes,
And prudent in their own sight!"
Isaiah 5:2-21
"Liberty, the highest of natural endowments, being the portion only of intellectual or rational natures, confers on man this dignity - that he is 'in the hand of his counsel' and has power over his actions. But the manner in which such dignity is exercised is of the greatest moment, inasmuch as on the use that is made of liberty the highest good and the greatest evil alike depend. Man, indeed, is free to obey his reason, to seek moral good, and to strive unswervingly after his last end. Yet he is free also to turn aside to all other things; and, in pursuing the empty substance of good, to disturb rightful order and to fall headlong into the destruction which he has voluntarily chosen...Therefore, the nature of human liberty, however it be considered, whether in individuals or in society, whether in those who command or in those who obey, supposes the necessity of obedience to some supreme and eternal law, which is no other than the authority of God, commanding good and forbidding evil. And, so far from this most just authority of God over men diminishing, or even destroying their liberty, it protects and perfects it, for the real perfection of all creatures is found in the prosecution and attainment of their respective ends, but the supreme end to which human liberty must aspire is God."
In Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court allows so broad an interpretation of liberty, that virtually all state laws proscribing evils such as adultery, bigamy, incest, prostitution, sadomasochism, bestiality and pedophilia are now at risk: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas#Broader_implications
An act is immoral if it violates Natural Law or Divine Law. The Supreme Court has imposed a perverse notion of "liberty" which favors unnatural vice over virtue. In Lawrence v Texas, the Court violated its responsibility to uphold a most fundamental principle of the Natural Law. Namely, to do good and avoid evil. As a consequence, homosexuality - and other sexual abnormalities which undermine the family and therefore the common good - will now be constitutionally protected expressions of "liberty."
This is a real moral tragedy and one which will soon lead to intense persecution of Christians (and other people of good will) who oppose violations of both the Natural Law and the Divine Law (see:http://dtf-jayg.blogspot.com/2007/02/whos-persecuting-whom.html ).
When the European Parliament passed a special resolution encouraging the nations of Europe to approve homosexual "marriage," Pope John Paul II responded in protest:
"What is not morally acceptable, however, is the legalization of homosexual acts. To show understanding towards the person who sins, towards the person who is not in the process of freeing himself from this tendency, does not at all mean to diminish the demands of the moral norm (cf. Veritatis Splendor, No. 95)....
But we must say that what was intended with the European Parliament's resolution was the legitimization of a moral disorder. Parliament improperly conferred an institutional value to a conduct that is deviant and not in accordance with God's plan...
Forgetting the words of Christ 'The truth shall set you free' (John 8:32), an attempt was made to show the people of our continent a moral evil, a deviance, a certain slavery, as a form of liberation, falsifying the very essence of the family." (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/angelus/1994/documents/hf_jp-ii_ang_19940220_it.html ).
As the persecution of Christians intensifies, and as our society collapses in on itself under the weight of institutionalized deviance, the words of the prophet Isaiah will echo in our hearts and minds:
"Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil;
Who put darkness for light,
and light for darkness....
Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes,
And prudent in their own sight!"
Isaiah 5:2-21
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
Natural Law: The obligatory point of reference for civil law
In his Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life), Pope John Paul II emphasized a point of critical importance for our times. He wrote, "Democracy cannot be idolized to the point of making it a substitute for morality or a panacea for immorality. Fundamentally, democracy is a 'system' and as such is a means and not an end. Its 'moral' value is not automatic, but depends on conformity to the moral law to which it, like every other form of human behavior, must e subject: in other words, its morality depends on the morality of the ends which it pursues and of the means which it employs. If today we see an almost universal consensus with regard to the value of democracy, this is to be considered a positive 'sign of the times,' as the Church's Magisterium has frequently noted. But the value of democracy stands or falls with the values which it embodies and promotes. Of course, values such as the dignity of every human person, respect for inviolable and inalienable human rights, and the adoption of the 'common good' as the end and criterion regulating political life are certainly fundamental and not to be ignored.
The basis of these values cannot be provisional and changeable 'majority' opinions, but only the acknowledgement of an objective moral law which, as the 'natural law' written in the human heart, is the obligatory point of reference for civil law itself. If, as a result of a tragic obscuring of the collective conscience, an attitude of skepticism were to succeed in bringing into question even the fundamental principles of the moral law, the democratic system itself would be shaken in its foundations and would be reduced to a mere mechanism for regulating different and opposing interests on a purely empirical basis." (EV, 70).
This point is not understood by professor Robert Frakes of the History Department at Clarion University. In an article entitled, "Why the Romans Are Important in the Debate About Gay Marriage," professor Frakes writes:
"Continuing legislative measures attempting to ban gay marriage show that this issue, so critical in our last national election, remains a controversial topic. Since many of our political institutions are derived from ancient Roman precedents, a quick look at Roman laws regarding homosexuality serves to illustrate what may be driving some of the current controversy surrounding gay unions in the United States.
While the world of the ancient Greeks seems to have tolerated homosexuality (as seen in the poems of Sappho and the dialogues of Plato), that of the Romans was more cautious. Romans in the period of the Roman Republic and early empire tended to perceive the Greek acceptance of male homosexuality as less than male and, thus, literally unvirtuous (Vir being the Latin word for man). Indeed, a Roman term for effeminacy was “Graeculus”—“a little Greek!”
The earliest Roman law regarding homosexuality appears to have been the Lex Scantinia that was passed by the Roman assembly at some point in the Roman Republic (perhaps in the second century BC). Although the text of this law itself has not survived, later Roman jurists of the second and third century AD describe how it outlawed the homosexual rape of young male Roman citizens. Consensual male or female homosexual unions apparently were not legislated against. Although there is scholarly debate, Roman literature of the republic and early empire suggests that men who engaged in consensual liaisons were often mocked as unmanly, but consensual homosexual sex itself was not illegal.
This would change in the later Roman Empire. While the first three centuries of the empire saw no legislation as far as we can tell regarding homosexuality, aside from the continuation of the Lex Scantinia as marked by its citation by the Roman jurists, in the fourth century there would be dramatic new laws condemning male homosexuality. Most scholars interpret a convoluted law from the year 342 AD surviving in both the Theodosian Code and the Code of Justinian as a decree from the emperors Constantius II and Constans that marriage based on unnatural sex should be punished meticulously. Although Constans himself was later denounced as having male lovers, this trend of the emperors in condemning male homosexuality in laws would continue. In a law of 390, surviving in the Theodosian Code and the Lex Dei (‘Law of God’), the emperors Valentinian, Theodosius, and Arcadius ordained that any man taking the role of a woman in sex would be publicly burned to death.
These laws certainly demonstrate a change from the Roman Republic where, to be sure, homosexual rape of male citizens was condemned but consensual homosexual sex was tolerated, even if sometimes mocked. Why did this change occur? The answer is fairly straightforward and lies ultimately in the results of the actions of the famous Roman emperor Constantine. In 312, this father of the emperors Constantius II and Constans had reached out to Christianity as the basis for his authority. Throughout the next 25 years of his reign, Constantine supported Christianity and gave financial help to the Church and legal sanction to some of the bishops’ powers. As his sons came of age in an increasingly Christian society, they and many of their advisors would have grown up with Biblical strictures. Thus, the pronouncements of the Book of Leviticus (18. 22, 20. 13) against male homosexuality as an abomination punishable by death in God’s eyes would logically have influenced writers of imperial law. Such strictures were reinforced in the New Testament (Romans 1. 24-27). So, it would appear that the growing influence of the Bible in an increasingly Christian Roman empire led emperors to condemn homosexual unions.
When we look at the current attempts in the United States to ban homosexual marriage, we must clarify what the premises for such measures are. If the drive to stop homosexual marriage ultimately derives from the Hebrew Bible, and its acceptance as religious truth by Christians, would not laws banning homosexual marriage be thus derived from religion? If so, such new legislation may well be an attempt to break down the “Wall of Separation” between Church and State that Thomas Jefferson described as an integral aspect of American government." (Source: http://www.hnn.us/articles/21319.html ).
What shall we make of this? Well, professor Frakes' argument fails to take into account the fact that the Natural Law predates Christianity. For example, fifty years before the birth of Christ, the Roman barrister and statesman Cicero declared that:
"right is based, not upon men’s opinions, but upon Nature. This fact will immediately be plain if you once get a clear conception of man’s fellowship and union with his fellow-men. For no single thing is so like another, so exactly its counterpart, as all of us are to one another…And so, however we may define man, a single definition will apply to all.” [Laws I x 28-30]
Cicero goes on later to draw two conclusions of critical importance, namely that laws exist for the common good, and laws that deny fundamental human rights are not valid laws at all: “It is agreed, of course, that laws were invented for the safety of citizens, the preservation of States, and the tranquillity and happiness of human life, and that those who first put statutes of this kind in force convinced their people that it was their intention to write down and put into effect such rules as, once accepted and adopted, would make possible for them an honourable and happy life; and when such rules were drawn up and put in force, it is clear that men called them ‘laws’. It may thus be clear that in the very definition of the term ‘law’ there inheres the idea and principle of choosing what is just and true.”
Therefore, the drive to stop homosexual "marriage" is not rooted solely in "the Hebrew Bible and its acceptance as religious truth by Christians." It is also rooted in the Natural Law (which may be known through the use of reason alone and without reference to the "Hebrew Bible"), a law which, according to Cicero (and a multitude of ancient philosophers), "is based not upon men's opinions, but upon Nature." And this Natural Law teaches us what is "just and true."
Paul Anthony Melanson
The basis of these values cannot be provisional and changeable 'majority' opinions, but only the acknowledgement of an objective moral law which, as the 'natural law' written in the human heart, is the obligatory point of reference for civil law itself. If, as a result of a tragic obscuring of the collective conscience, an attitude of skepticism were to succeed in bringing into question even the fundamental principles of the moral law, the democratic system itself would be shaken in its foundations and would be reduced to a mere mechanism for regulating different and opposing interests on a purely empirical basis." (EV, 70).
This point is not understood by professor Robert Frakes of the History Department at Clarion University. In an article entitled, "Why the Romans Are Important in the Debate About Gay Marriage," professor Frakes writes:
"Continuing legislative measures attempting to ban gay marriage show that this issue, so critical in our last national election, remains a controversial topic. Since many of our political institutions are derived from ancient Roman precedents, a quick look at Roman laws regarding homosexuality serves to illustrate what may be driving some of the current controversy surrounding gay unions in the United States.
While the world of the ancient Greeks seems to have tolerated homosexuality (as seen in the poems of Sappho and the dialogues of Plato), that of the Romans was more cautious. Romans in the period of the Roman Republic and early empire tended to perceive the Greek acceptance of male homosexuality as less than male and, thus, literally unvirtuous (Vir being the Latin word for man). Indeed, a Roman term for effeminacy was “Graeculus”—“a little Greek!”
The earliest Roman law regarding homosexuality appears to have been the Lex Scantinia that was passed by the Roman assembly at some point in the Roman Republic (perhaps in the second century BC). Although the text of this law itself has not survived, later Roman jurists of the second and third century AD describe how it outlawed the homosexual rape of young male Roman citizens. Consensual male or female homosexual unions apparently were not legislated against. Although there is scholarly debate, Roman literature of the republic and early empire suggests that men who engaged in consensual liaisons were often mocked as unmanly, but consensual homosexual sex itself was not illegal.
This would change in the later Roman Empire. While the first three centuries of the empire saw no legislation as far as we can tell regarding homosexuality, aside from the continuation of the Lex Scantinia as marked by its citation by the Roman jurists, in the fourth century there would be dramatic new laws condemning male homosexuality. Most scholars interpret a convoluted law from the year 342 AD surviving in both the Theodosian Code and the Code of Justinian as a decree from the emperors Constantius II and Constans that marriage based on unnatural sex should be punished meticulously. Although Constans himself was later denounced as having male lovers, this trend of the emperors in condemning male homosexuality in laws would continue. In a law of 390, surviving in the Theodosian Code and the Lex Dei (‘Law of God’), the emperors Valentinian, Theodosius, and Arcadius ordained that any man taking the role of a woman in sex would be publicly burned to death.
These laws certainly demonstrate a change from the Roman Republic where, to be sure, homosexual rape of male citizens was condemned but consensual homosexual sex was tolerated, even if sometimes mocked. Why did this change occur? The answer is fairly straightforward and lies ultimately in the results of the actions of the famous Roman emperor Constantine. In 312, this father of the emperors Constantius II and Constans had reached out to Christianity as the basis for his authority. Throughout the next 25 years of his reign, Constantine supported Christianity and gave financial help to the Church and legal sanction to some of the bishops’ powers. As his sons came of age in an increasingly Christian society, they and many of their advisors would have grown up with Biblical strictures. Thus, the pronouncements of the Book of Leviticus (18. 22, 20. 13) against male homosexuality as an abomination punishable by death in God’s eyes would logically have influenced writers of imperial law. Such strictures were reinforced in the New Testament (Romans 1. 24-27). So, it would appear that the growing influence of the Bible in an increasingly Christian Roman empire led emperors to condemn homosexual unions.
When we look at the current attempts in the United States to ban homosexual marriage, we must clarify what the premises for such measures are. If the drive to stop homosexual marriage ultimately derives from the Hebrew Bible, and its acceptance as religious truth by Christians, would not laws banning homosexual marriage be thus derived from religion? If so, such new legislation may well be an attempt to break down the “Wall of Separation” between Church and State that Thomas Jefferson described as an integral aspect of American government." (Source: http://www.hnn.us/articles/21319.html ).
What shall we make of this? Well, professor Frakes' argument fails to take into account the fact that the Natural Law predates Christianity. For example, fifty years before the birth of Christ, the Roman barrister and statesman Cicero declared that:
"right is based, not upon men’s opinions, but upon Nature. This fact will immediately be plain if you once get a clear conception of man’s fellowship and union with his fellow-men. For no single thing is so like another, so exactly its counterpart, as all of us are to one another…And so, however we may define man, a single definition will apply to all.” [Laws I x 28-30]
Cicero goes on later to draw two conclusions of critical importance, namely that laws exist for the common good, and laws that deny fundamental human rights are not valid laws at all: “It is agreed, of course, that laws were invented for the safety of citizens, the preservation of States, and the tranquillity and happiness of human life, and that those who first put statutes of this kind in force convinced their people that it was their intention to write down and put into effect such rules as, once accepted and adopted, would make possible for them an honourable and happy life; and when such rules were drawn up and put in force, it is clear that men called them ‘laws’. It may thus be clear that in the very definition of the term ‘law’ there inheres the idea and principle of choosing what is just and true.”
Therefore, the drive to stop homosexual "marriage" is not rooted solely in "the Hebrew Bible and its acceptance as religious truth by Christians." It is also rooted in the Natural Law (which may be known through the use of reason alone and without reference to the "Hebrew Bible"), a law which, according to Cicero (and a multitude of ancient philosophers), "is based not upon men's opinions, but upon Nature." And this Natural Law teaches us what is "just and true."
Paul Anthony Melanson
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
Monday, February 05, 2007
Our Sad Time...
A few years back, I wrote a calm, respectful and detailed letter to His Excellency, Bishop John McCormack, regarding the dissident nature of VOTF and imploring him to take appropriate action against this dissent group. In a letter of response, His Excellency accused me of displaying an "angry tone and tenor."
His Excellency had mistaken the firmness of my convictions as "anger." This even though I couldn't have been more respectful or calm and objective. Or perhaps he was not so much mistaken as he was determined to rebuff me with the false accusation of having displayed an "angry tone and tenor." This charge was all the more ironic since (although I have my share of faults to be sure) co-workers and friends have always told me that patience is one of my strongest qualities. Working with the developmentally-disabled for many years, I can tell you that patience is absolutely requisite...though few positions could be more rewarding.
When I politely reminded His Excellency that I was not the one overheard by reporters working for the Associated Press to be shouting at parishioners of St. Patrick's Parish in Jaffrey: http://www.bishop-accountability.org/NH-Manchester/JBMcCormack-2002-10.html , I never did receive a response.
In an article published in the October 7, 2002 edition of The Union Leader, readers were told of how Bishop McCormack got into "several heated exchanges, including one with a parishioner who accused him of ignoring letters of complaint from Jaffrey parishioners." These parishioners of St. Patrick's (many of whom are parents) were alarmed because Bishop McCormack had assigned the Rev. Roland P. Cote to their parish "after Cote admitted having a sexual relationship with a teenage boy years earlier" (The Union Leader, October 1, 2002 edition).
Bishop McCormack's legacy is a sad one. It is a legacy of dismissing the legitimate complaints of devout Catholics who were concerned about the sexual abuse of children and over the problem of dissent.
Pray for him.
Paul.
His Excellency had mistaken the firmness of my convictions as "anger." This even though I couldn't have been more respectful or calm and objective. Or perhaps he was not so much mistaken as he was determined to rebuff me with the false accusation of having displayed an "angry tone and tenor." This charge was all the more ironic since (although I have my share of faults to be sure) co-workers and friends have always told me that patience is one of my strongest qualities. Working with the developmentally-disabled for many years, I can tell you that patience is absolutely requisite...though few positions could be more rewarding.
When I politely reminded His Excellency that I was not the one overheard by reporters working for the Associated Press to be shouting at parishioners of St. Patrick's Parish in Jaffrey: http://www.bishop-accountability.org/NH-Manchester/JBMcCormack-2002-10.html , I never did receive a response.
In an article published in the October 7, 2002 edition of The Union Leader, readers were told of how Bishop McCormack got into "several heated exchanges, including one with a parishioner who accused him of ignoring letters of complaint from Jaffrey parishioners." These parishioners of St. Patrick's (many of whom are parents) were alarmed because Bishop McCormack had assigned the Rev. Roland P. Cote to their parish "after Cote admitted having a sexual relationship with a teenage boy years earlier" (The Union Leader, October 1, 2002 edition).
Bishop McCormack's legacy is a sad one. It is a legacy of dismissing the legitimate complaints of devout Catholics who were concerned about the sexual abuse of children and over the problem of dissent.
Pray for him.
Paul.
Pope Benedict XVI blasts "false compassion."
Astute readers will recognize that this has been one of the main themes of this Blog. I wonder if Pope Benedict XVI will now be accused by advocates of "The New Ecclesiology" of being "legalistic"?
Paul.
Paul.
Sunday, February 04, 2007
A Prayer by Michel Quoist
"I want to love, Lord,
I need to love.
All my being is desire;
My heart,
My body,
yearn in the night towards an unknown one to love.
My arms thrash about, and I can seize on no object for my love.
I am
alone and want to be two.
I speak, and no one is there to listen.
I live, and no one is there to share my life.
Why be so rich and have no one to enrich?
Where does this love come from?
Where is it going?
I want to love, Lord,
I need to love.
Here, this evening, Lord, is all my love. . . .
**********
Listen, son,
Stop,
and make, silently, a long pilgrimage to the bottom of your heart.
Walk by the side of your love so new, as one follows a brook to find
its source, and, at the very end, deep within you, in the infinite
mystery of your troubled soul, you will meet me.
For I call myself Love, son,
And from the beginning I have been nothing but Love,
And Love is in you.
It is I who made you to love,
To love eternally;
And your love will pass through another self of yours -
it is she that you seek;
Set your mind at rest; she is on your way,
on the way since the beginning,
the way of my love.
You must wait for her coming.
She is approaching.
You are approaching.
You will recognize each other,
For I've made her body for you, I've made yours for her.
I've made your heart for her, I've made hers for you.
And you seek each other, in the night,
In 'my night,' which will become Light if you trust me.
Keep yourself for her, son,
As she is keeping herself for you.
I shall keep you for one another,
And, since you hunger for love, I've put on your way all your brothers
to love.
Believe me, it's a long apprenticeship, learning to love,
And there are not several kinds of love:
Loving is always leaving oneself to go towards others. . . .
********
Lord, help me to forget myself for others, my brothers,
That in giving myself I may teach myself to love."
Michel Quoist,
France, 1954.
I need to love.
All my being is desire;
My heart,
My body,
yearn in the night towards an unknown one to love.
My arms thrash about, and I can seize on no object for my love.
I am
alone and want to be two.
I speak, and no one is there to listen.
I live, and no one is there to share my life.
Why be so rich and have no one to enrich?
Where does this love come from?
Where is it going?
I want to love, Lord,
I need to love.
Here, this evening, Lord, is all my love. . . .
**********
Listen, son,
Stop,
and make, silently, a long pilgrimage to the bottom of your heart.
Walk by the side of your love so new, as one follows a brook to find
its source, and, at the very end, deep within you, in the infinite
mystery of your troubled soul, you will meet me.
For I call myself Love, son,
And from the beginning I have been nothing but Love,
And Love is in you.
It is I who made you to love,
To love eternally;
And your love will pass through another self of yours -
it is she that you seek;
Set your mind at rest; she is on your way,
on the way since the beginning,
the way of my love.
You must wait for her coming.
She is approaching.
You are approaching.
You will recognize each other,
For I've made her body for you, I've made yours for her.
I've made your heart for her, I've made hers for you.
And you seek each other, in the night,
In 'my night,' which will become Light if you trust me.
Keep yourself for her, son,
As she is keeping herself for you.
I shall keep you for one another,
And, since you hunger for love, I've put on your way all your brothers
to love.
Believe me, it's a long apprenticeship, learning to love,
And there are not several kinds of love:
Loving is always leaving oneself to go towards others. . . .
********
Lord, help me to forget myself for others, my brothers,
That in giving myself I may teach myself to love."
Michel Quoist,
France, 1954.
Saturday, February 03, 2007
Defend the Faith - Worcester
JayG (Diocese of Worcester, Massachusetts - my old pieds a terre) has a wonderful Blog which tackles some of the more serious issues of our day. I recommend this Blog to those who wish to discuss - and debate - these issues. As moderator of the forum, Jay is both patient and insightful. Several of my regular readers have posted comments there. The Blog link: http://dtf-jayg.blogspot.com/
Paul.
Paul.
A heroic man
Chuck Norris was the reason I started studying martial arts back in 1973. He continues to inspire me today. Not many celebrities would risk career or social status to oppose the culture of death. In fact, there are Catholics who succumb to fear of being disliked and who refuse to oppose abortion. Which is what makes the man all the more remarkable.
Mr. Norris has also used his celebrity to fight drug use and to educate women on how to defend themselves. Rather than using his celebrity for selfish ends, he uses it to advance the common good.
Sometimes good guys do wear black.
Read more from Mr. Norris at World Net Daily.
Paul.
Mr. Norris has also used his celebrity to fight drug use and to educate women on how to defend themselves. Rather than using his celebrity for selfish ends, he uses it to advance the common good.
Sometimes good guys do wear black.
Read more from Mr. Norris at World Net Daily.
Paul.
Blessed Miguel Augustin Pro, S.J., a martyr for Christ the King, once said:
"Debemos hablar, gritar contra las injusticias, tener confianza, pero no miedo. Proclamemos los principios de la Iglesia, el reinado del amor, sin olvidar, como sucede algunas veces, el de la justicia." - "We must speak, cry out against injustice, with confidence and not with fear. We proclaim the principles of the Church, the reign of love, never forgetting that it is sometimes also a reign of justice."
Blessed Miguel Pro refused to compromise with the world and its counterfeit interpretation of love, a "love" devoid of justice and truth. And he was executed for his fidelity to the Church. Archbishop Oscar Romero had also insisted on the truth spoken in love. And he was assasinated during Holy Mass.
These two men of God spoke the truth in love. Even in a climate where the earthly powers were hostile to that truth. They spoke the truth in season and out of season. We are called to do the same. Sometimes this means confronting the status quo. Sometimes this means confronting the status quo within the Church. But our approach should never degenerate into an unholy anger. An individual left a comment at this Blog which I promptly deleted. This anonymous person compared the clergy to "whitened sepulchres." Such a comment betrays an anti-clericalism which is not welcome here.
I have always insisted that we confront those who dissent from Church teaching with the truth spoken in love (even when the truth is a hard truth). And this includes priests and religious who either dissent from Church teaching or who remain silent rather than confronting the evils of our day. But we must never engage in broad generalizations directed against the clergy (many of whom are good and faithful pastors) or religious who have consecrated their lives to God. Nor should we ever render a judgment against persons, against their interior dispositions - read Gaudium et Spes, No. 28).
Anyone who has taken the time to read my posts here knows full well that I firmly oppose such an attitude. At the same time, when an individual (be they lay person, priest or religious) dissents from Church teaching or neglects to speak out against dissent or injustice, such a person is not remaining faithful to Christ or His Church which is the Mystical Body of Christ.
Our attitude should be that of St. Paul, who exhorted us to preach the truth even when it is not welcome. Our attitude should be that of Archbishop Romero or Blessed Miguel Pro. Even if this means suffering martyrdom ourselves, which is the supreme witness of faith. But in so doing, we must never forget to speak the truth in love.
Paul.
"Debemos hablar, gritar contra las injusticias, tener confianza, pero no miedo. Proclamemos los principios de la Iglesia, el reinado del amor, sin olvidar, como sucede algunas veces, el de la justicia." - "We must speak, cry out against injustice, with confidence and not with fear. We proclaim the principles of the Church, the reign of love, never forgetting that it is sometimes also a reign of justice."
Blessed Miguel Pro refused to compromise with the world and its counterfeit interpretation of love, a "love" devoid of justice and truth. And he was executed for his fidelity to the Church. Archbishop Oscar Romero had also insisted on the truth spoken in love. And he was assasinated during Holy Mass.
These two men of God spoke the truth in love. Even in a climate where the earthly powers were hostile to that truth. They spoke the truth in season and out of season. We are called to do the same. Sometimes this means confronting the status quo. Sometimes this means confronting the status quo within the Church. But our approach should never degenerate into an unholy anger. An individual left a comment at this Blog which I promptly deleted. This anonymous person compared the clergy to "whitened sepulchres." Such a comment betrays an anti-clericalism which is not welcome here.
I have always insisted that we confront those who dissent from Church teaching with the truth spoken in love (even when the truth is a hard truth). And this includes priests and religious who either dissent from Church teaching or who remain silent rather than confronting the evils of our day. But we must never engage in broad generalizations directed against the clergy (many of whom are good and faithful pastors) or religious who have consecrated their lives to God. Nor should we ever render a judgment against persons, against their interior dispositions - read Gaudium et Spes, No. 28).
Anyone who has taken the time to read my posts here knows full well that I firmly oppose such an attitude. At the same time, when an individual (be they lay person, priest or religious) dissents from Church teaching or neglects to speak out against dissent or injustice, such a person is not remaining faithful to Christ or His Church which is the Mystical Body of Christ.
Our attitude should be that of St. Paul, who exhorted us to preach the truth even when it is not welcome. Our attitude should be that of Archbishop Romero or Blessed Miguel Pro. Even if this means suffering martyrdom ourselves, which is the supreme witness of faith. But in so doing, we must never forget to speak the truth in love.
Paul.
Friday, February 02, 2007
The abortion holocaust: targeting those with Down Syndrome
"..a tree is known by its fruit." (Matthew 12:33). What then shall we say about a society which kills the unborn? What did Jesus do to the fig tree which didn't bear good fruit?
Paul.
Paul.
Evangelizing in love means speaking the truth
The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines sin thusly:
"Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it i failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity. It has been defined as 'an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law.'" (CCC, 1849).
How are Christians to respond to sin and sinful structures? Again, the Catechism teaches:
"The duty of Christians to take part in the life of the Church impels them to act as witnesses of the Gospel and of the obligations that flow from it. This witness is a transmission of the faith in words and deeds. Witness is an act of justice that establishes the truth or makes it known. All Christians by the example of their lives and the witness of their word, wherever they live, have an obligation to manifest the new man which they have put on in Baptism and to reveal the power of the Holy Spirit by whom they were strengthened at Confirmation." (CCC, 2472).
This duty, this obligation, of the laity to "act as witnesses of the Gospel and of the obligations that flow from it," is too often misunderstood by even those within the Church who emphasize evangelizing in love but who disassociate love from truth. This is unfortunate since an authentic evangelization is always rooted in truth. There is no genuine love in evangelization without the truth. In the words of Archbishop Oscar Romero, the martyred Archbishop of San Salvador:
"A preaching that does not point out sin is not the preaching of the gospel. A preaching that makes sinners feel good so that they become entrenched in their sinful state, betrays the gospel's call. A preaching that does not discomfit sinners but lulls them in their sin leaves Zebulun and Naphtali in the shadow of death.
A preaching that awakens, a preaching that enlightens -- as when a light turned on awakens and of course annoys a sleeper -- that is the preaching of Christ, calling, "wake up! Be converted!" this is the church's authentic preaching. Naturally, such preaching must meet conflict, must spoil what is miscalled prestige, must disturb, must be persecuted. It cannot get along with the powers of darkness and sin."
How serious is this obligation to speak the truth in love as witnesses of the Gospel? Again, Archbishop Romero:
"Not just purgatory but hell awaits those who could have done good & did not do it. It is the reverse of the Beati-tude that the Bible has for those who are saved, for the saints,"who could have done wrong & did not." Of those who are condemned it will be said: they could have done good & did not."
I remember some years back, at a spiritual conference which featured Catholic mystic Eileen George of Meet the Father Ministry (an apostolate which is approved by the Diocese of Worcester, Massachusetts), how Mrs. George publically rebuked (in a strong but loving way) two homosexual men who were in attendance. She told them (without ever having met these men before) that the Lord Jesus had revealed to her that they were living in a homosexual relationship and that He was very sad. She told these two men that they needed to repent and leave that sin behind.
Just recently, a Catholic deacon challenged a pro-abortion politician on his support of abortion, the killing of innocent children in the womb. And both his pastor and his Bishop publically apologized for his homily which embarassed this politician. But which is worse, a moments embarassment or an eternity in hell for supporting the murder of unborn children?
Eileen George, a mystic well-known and loved throughout the world, a woman with tremendous spiritual gifts, knows the answer to this question. Which is why she publically reproved those two men who had been engaging in homosexual acts. She spoke the truth in love.
Are we prepared to do the same? Or will we fear the opinion of men more than the judgment of God?
The choice is ours: serve the Lord Jesus by speaking the truth in love (in season and out of season as St. Paul says - whether the truth is popular or not) or capitulate to political correctness while succumbing to fear of being disliked.
Paul Anthony Melanson
"Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it i failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity. It has been defined as 'an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law.'" (CCC, 1849).
How are Christians to respond to sin and sinful structures? Again, the Catechism teaches:
"The duty of Christians to take part in the life of the Church impels them to act as witnesses of the Gospel and of the obligations that flow from it. This witness is a transmission of the faith in words and deeds. Witness is an act of justice that establishes the truth or makes it known. All Christians by the example of their lives and the witness of their word, wherever they live, have an obligation to manifest the new man which they have put on in Baptism and to reveal the power of the Holy Spirit by whom they were strengthened at Confirmation." (CCC, 2472).
This duty, this obligation, of the laity to "act as witnesses of the Gospel and of the obligations that flow from it," is too often misunderstood by even those within the Church who emphasize evangelizing in love but who disassociate love from truth. This is unfortunate since an authentic evangelization is always rooted in truth. There is no genuine love in evangelization without the truth. In the words of Archbishop Oscar Romero, the martyred Archbishop of San Salvador:
"A preaching that does not point out sin is not the preaching of the gospel. A preaching that makes sinners feel good so that they become entrenched in their sinful state, betrays the gospel's call. A preaching that does not discomfit sinners but lulls them in their sin leaves Zebulun and Naphtali in the shadow of death.
A preaching that awakens, a preaching that enlightens -- as when a light turned on awakens and of course annoys a sleeper -- that is the preaching of Christ, calling, "wake up! Be converted!" this is the church's authentic preaching. Naturally, such preaching must meet conflict, must spoil what is miscalled prestige, must disturb, must be persecuted. It cannot get along with the powers of darkness and sin."
How serious is this obligation to speak the truth in love as witnesses of the Gospel? Again, Archbishop Romero:
"Not just purgatory but hell awaits those who could have done good & did not do it. It is the reverse of the Beati-tude that the Bible has for those who are saved, for the saints,"who could have done wrong & did not." Of those who are condemned it will be said: they could have done good & did not."
I remember some years back, at a spiritual conference which featured Catholic mystic Eileen George of Meet the Father Ministry (an apostolate which is approved by the Diocese of Worcester, Massachusetts), how Mrs. George publically rebuked (in a strong but loving way) two homosexual men who were in attendance. She told them (without ever having met these men before) that the Lord Jesus had revealed to her that they were living in a homosexual relationship and that He was very sad. She told these two men that they needed to repent and leave that sin behind.
Just recently, a Catholic deacon challenged a pro-abortion politician on his support of abortion, the killing of innocent children in the womb. And both his pastor and his Bishop publically apologized for his homily which embarassed this politician. But which is worse, a moments embarassment or an eternity in hell for supporting the murder of unborn children?
Eileen George, a mystic well-known and loved throughout the world, a woman with tremendous spiritual gifts, knows the answer to this question. Which is why she publically reproved those two men who had been engaging in homosexual acts. She spoke the truth in love.
Are we prepared to do the same? Or will we fear the opinion of men more than the judgment of God?
The choice is ours: serve the Lord Jesus by speaking the truth in love (in season and out of season as St. Paul says - whether the truth is popular or not) or capitulate to political correctness while succumbing to fear of being disliked.
Paul Anthony Melanson