Update on Clark University's "Freethought Society"...It's "okay" to mock Christianity

It was brought to my attention by a student at Clark University that Paul Agne, a Clark Student and member of the Christianophobic "Freethought Society," wrote the following:


"Even if we do criticize/mock Christianity, there is nothing wrong with that. If I see irrational dogma, bigotry, intolerance, etc it is not exempt from criticism/ridicule just because it is someone's religious (or political/cultural/etc) be...lief. And furthermore, as Christianity is the dominant religion in the US, and inserts itself into our lives daily it will of course be more relevant to us, and we will have more to say about it than, say, Jainism."

There you have it. Members of the Clark University "Freethought Society" have such a hatred toward Christianity that they justify mocking the religion.  Christian dogma is presented as "irrational," "bigoted" and "intolerant."

Ironically, many who commented in the discussion thread of a previous post, asserted that Clark University is "tolerant" toward religious viewpoints.  Yes, I can see that.  An individual who posted a comment as "Dr. Halpern" wrote: "As a Clark University alum, I can honestly say that in my 4 years there I did not encounter any anti-Christian sentiments. I would describe the atmosphere at Clark as supportive, intellectually stimulating, and encouraging of healthy, thoughtful debate... As an alum concerned with investing in the future of the institution, I would like to counter BostonCatholic by ENCOURAGING Christian parents to send their children to Clark. It is through inclusiveness that we learn about the world we live in, and everyone's viewpoints are equally important in that learning process."

Oh boy.

Molly Burman wrote, "I am a Catholic student at Clark University. I learn and live in an accepting environment. This acceptance includes people of all faiths, sexualities, and races. One of our mottos is "Categorizing is not something we do here." This means not judging a person based on his or her sexuality OR religion."

Unless of course that religion is Christianity.  Then it's "okay" to mock.

Yesiree, healthy, thoughtful debate is alive and well at Clark University.  That's why I was called an "ass...." for simply challenging Clark University professor Abbie Goldberg.

With friends like that...

Bishop Philip Boyce accused of "incitement to hatred" for preaching against a Godless culture

Donegal Daily is reporting that, "The Catholic Bishop of Raphoe Dr Philip Boyce is being investigated by the Director of Public Prosecutions following a formal complaint that a sermon in Knock amounted to 'incitement to hatred', it was revealed today that Gardai have confirmed to former Fine Gael election candidate John Colgan that they have prepared and forwarded a file to the DPP after he made allegations that the address by Dr Boyce was in breach of the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act, 1989.

The homily, entitled: "To Trust in God" was delivered to worshippers during a Novena in Knock last August where the Bishop referred to the church being under attack by a 'Godless culture.'

Kildare man Mr Colgan, a humanist, made a formal complaint over two passages in the Donegal bishop's sermon.

Dr Boyce had referred to the church being "attacked from outside by the arrows of a secular and godless culture".

A second passage, which was included in the complaint, stated: "For the distinguishing mark of Christian believers is the fact they have a future; it is not that they know all the details that await them, but they know in general terms that their life will not end in emptiness."

Today Mr Colgan told a newspaper: "I believe statements of this kind are an incitement to hatred of dissidents, outsiders, secularists, within the meaning of the [Incitement to Hatred] Act, who are perfectly good citizens within the meaning of the civil law.

"The statements exemplify the chronic antipathy towards secularists, humanists etc, which has manifested itself in the ostracising of otherwise perfectly good Irish citizens, who do not share the aims of the Vatican's Irish Mission Church."

How about statements such as this one, delivered by the website Atheist Ireland and written by an anti-Catholic bigot who refers to himself/herself as "Nozzferrahhtoo" - a play on the name Nosferatu:

I have long heard claims being made, specifically in the Catholic faith, that during certain ceremonies, when certain propitiations are made, that normal Cracker Bread is changed “literally” into the body of a long dead Jewish Human Male who displayed later Zombie tendencies to refuse to stay in the grave.


There are those of course that claim that the transformation is symbolic not literal, which I have not concerned myself with here as they are essentially saying nothing. I limit my inquiry only to those who claim a literal transformation.

I decide some time ago therefore to investigate over a 2 year period these claims. Since the results of this have been sitting on a shelf for some time I thought it useful to disseminate a short summary of my tests and summary of my results to the internet. The hope is that further testing can be suggested that I might have missed and which I can now take up the mantel again and continue to engage in.

Experimental setup:

As a setup I obtained “normal” and “consecrated” hosts in sufficient numbers and continued to do so over the 2 year period to make sure that I was working with both “fresh” and “dormant” samples. Both are surprisingly easy to obtain as those that have them seem keen to be rid of them."

What else is this but blasphemy in the name of inciting hatred and ridicule against the Catholic Faith?  "Nozzferrahhtoo" the anti-Catholic bigot continues:

"As the transformation was meant to be into something resembling human flesh I, where possible, also used volunteer skin samples in my tests.

Blind experimentation:

To remove and risk of bias in the experiments I performed ALL experiments in the following fashion. I used 4 cracker samples in all cases.

Sample A: Chosen randomly by me from the “normal” pile.

Sample B: Chosen randomly by me from the “consecrated” pile.

Sample C: Chosen randomly by a third party from either pile without informing me which it was from.

Sample D: Chosen randomly by a third party from the other pile without informing me which it was from.

Sample E: Collection of random skin samples from human volunteers, myself included.

The order of the samples was then hidden and mixed from me by another separate party so that until the results were in I would not know if the results connected to samples A, B, C or D.


Sample summary of Experiments performed:

The samples were then subjected to many tests of which this is a random but not exhaustive sample list:

1 ) Burning tests, testing energy released in burning, burning time, change in mass of sample between before and after burning, color of flame (light wavelengths measured).

2 ) Chemical testing: Disolving in various chemicals and measuring energy releases, mass changes, chemical composition of diluted samples.

3 ) Degradation testing: Observing the differences in samples left to their own devices to measure differences in chemical breakdown due to food “going off” etc.

4 ) Luck testing: Engaged in various tests of luck in the presence of, or following the consumption of Samples from each group. Dice Games. Lottery Ticket use. Guessing Games and much more.

5 ) Emotional testing: Gauged personal subjective impression of mood changes in a group of volunteer subjects in the presence of, or following the consumption of, Samples from each group over 24 hour periods.

6 ) Priest testing: Proffered Samples to a selection of priests who were unable to identify which crackers were “normal” and which were “consecrated”.

7 ) Float testing: Tested the floating properties of each Sample.

8 ) Mass testing: Tested for differences in mass, density and other physical properties between samples, including aerodynamic abilities and resistance to physical stress such as piercing with nails (rusty and normal), tearing, toasting, hammering, bending, stamping and more. It has been suggested to me independently a number of times… seriously by those of a theistical bent, and jokingly by those who are not… that I rename this section the “Torture Testing”.

Summary of Results:

There was in ALL tests absolutely NO difference between the samples at any stage except for minute expected differences in mass between all samples (even internally among each sample group) which are within expected tolerances for normal human food manufacturing variances.

There was in ALL tests NO significant overlap of comparative results between any crackers and any human skin samples.

Conclusion:

There is no basis at this time apparent to support any claims that there is any form of “literal” transformation in the “consecrated” samples." (See full post here).

An atheistic website which ridicules Catholic teaching, referring to the Holy Eucharist as "magic crackers" and by extension ridiculing the faith of those who believe in the Real Presence, is this not an "incitement to hatred"?
Is this not an example of the Church being "attacked from outside by the arrows of a secular and godless culture"?  Are not atheists "godless"?  And is this not an attack?  And there are many more examples of this sort of anti-Catholic hatred.

Mr. Colgan's complaint is without merit.  And Bishop Boyce's observations are, sadly, entirely true.

Father Robert Bruso: "It seems as if we can no longer have a disagreement without questioning the other's integrity.."

In a guest commentary written for the January 27th edition of The Catholic Free Press, Father Robert D. Bruso of Saint Anthony of Padua Parish in Fitchburg, Massachusetts writes, "We've all witnessed the negative TV ads of the presidential primary.  It seems as if we can no longer have a disagreement without questioning the other's integrity....It's a battle between the forces of goodness and truth (anyone who agrees with me) versus the forces of evil and darkness (anyone who disagrees with me).  In the Church, we should be able to do better."

But sometimes it is necessary to question another's integrity.  Especially when that person is dissenting from the Church's teaching.  Catholics faithful to the Church must resist dissent for the sake of an authentic peace.  Pope John XXIII said that, "...as long as we are journeying in exile over this earth, our peace and happiness will be imperfect. For such peace is not completely untroubled and serene; it is active, not calm and motionless. In short, this is a peace that is ever at war. It wars with every sort of error, including that which falsely wears the face of truth; it struggles against the enticements of vice, against those enemies of the soul, of whatever description, who can weaken, blemish, or destroy our innocence or Catholic faith." (Ad Petri Cathedram No. 93).


So we are involved in "a battle between the forces of goodness and truth versus the forces of evil and darkness."  Father Bruso presents all disagreement within the Church as being nothing more than a clash of different "opinions" and personalities each seking to demonize the other: "anyone who agrees with me" versus "anyone who disagrees with me."  But this is too simplistic.  When the faithful Catholic defends the Church's teaching and exposes those who seek to undermine it, he is not insisting that everyone must agree with his opinion, he is instead insisting that every Catholic must conform to the teaching of the Church.  And that teaching is not opinion.  The Church's teaching represents the mind of Christ.

Pope John Paul II, in his Encyclical Letter Veritatis Splendor, No. 113, reminds us that: "While exchanges and conflicts of opinion may constitute normal expressions of public life in a representative democracy, moral teaching certainly cannot depend simply upon respect for a process: indeed, it is in no way established by following the rules and deliberative procedures typical of a democracy. Dissent, in the form of carefully orchestrated protests and polemics carried on in the media, is opposed to ecclesial communion and to a correct understanding of the hierarchical constitution of the People of God. Opposition to the teaching of the Church's Pastors cannot be seen as a legitimate expression either of Christian freedom or of the diversity of the Spirit's gifts."

In a previous post at this Blog, I noted that "Father Robert Bruso of Saint Anthony Parish in Fitchburg, Massacusetts, was among many area Catholics who signed a May 14, 2004 statement which read: "On May 17th the Commonwealth of Massachusetts will begin issuing civil marriage licenses to same sex couples. This has provoked considerable controversy. Many in our state are opposed and many are in favor. As members of the Catholic community and people of faith, we are reminded of the pastoral message the United States bishops issued to parents of homosexual children, 'always our children,' and recall the guidance they offered with reference to a previous Vatican document:

'Respect for the God-given dignity of all persons means the recognition of human rights and responsibilities. The teachings of the church make it clear that the fundamental human rights of homosexual persons must be defended and that all of us must strive to eliminate any forms of injustice, oppression, or violence against them.' (cf. the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons, 1986, No. 10).

But, as this article makes clear, the controversial document 'Always Our Children' was issued on October 1, 1997, without following the bishops' normal review procedures. It was subsequently revised in June 1998 after a firestorm of criticism erupted over its theological flaws, including its advice to parents to adopt a 'wait and see' approach toward adolescent children suspected of experimenting with homosexual behavior. The admonition has since been eliminated from the document, amidst other modifications made following protests by Father John Harvey, founder of Courage, a Catholic group that helps people struggling with homosexuality live chastely, and other concerned Catholics."

The theologically-flawed document was co-authored by Father James Schexnayder, the founder of the National Association of Catholic Diocesan Lesbian and Gay Ministries, a radical organization which has been unapologetic in its support of the homosexual "lifestyle" and same-sex "marriage."

Among the others who signed the statement with Father Bruso were Father Richard Lewandowski (who was removed from any and all pastoral duties), Deacon Ben Nogueira of the Newman Center at Fitchburg State College and Professor James Nickoloff of Holy Cross College, a former Jesuit priest who has admitted that he is personally engaged in homosexuality and is "married" to another man."

Is this why Fr. Bruso is now so concerned about questioning "the other's integrity"?  Because he has now faced questions about his commitment to Church teaching?

For Father Bruso, everything today is cast "in apocalyptic terms."  Could that be because, as Pope John Paul II warned us, "We are now facing the final confrontation between the Church and the anti-Church, of the Gospel and the anti-Gospel...It is a trial which the whole Church ...must take up." (Wall Street Journal, November 9, 1978 edition).

Could it be that many of the laity are waking from their slumber and realizing, as Archbishop Fulton John Sheen said, "We are living in the days of the Apocalypse - the last days of our era...The two great forces of the Mystical Body of Christ and the Mystical Body of Antichrist are beginning to draw up the battle lines for the catastrophic contest."  Got that?  The two great forces of the Mystical Body of Christ and the Mystical Body of Antichrist!  So it is a case of "us versus them" after all isn't it?  The battle lines are now becoming ever clearer and the dissidents are upset.  That's because it's becoming ever more difficult to fool people.  Camps are being formed.  Each side can see the other more clearly now.  Isn't this what really upsets Fr. Bruso?


Even within the Church the smoke of Satan has entered and those who have succumbed to practical atheism turn on their fellow Catholics with hatred and enmity. Our Lady told Father Gobbi that, "Practical atheism spreads by false ideologies, by the sects, by the errors which are spreading more and more, even within the Church...Practical atheism has spread everywhere the wound of unbridled egoism, of violence, of hatred and of impurity. Impurity is proposed as a value and a good, and it is propagated throughout all the mass media. Sins of impurity are presented as a way of exercising one's personal freedom, and so impure sins against nature [e.g., homosexuality], which cry for vengeance in the sight of God, become justified and exalted. The world has now been reduced to an immense desert, completely covered with filth." (September 2, 1996).

The enmity between the Children of Mary and the Children of Belial is intensifying as St. Louis de Montfort prophesied it would:

"Mary must become as terrible as an army in battle array to the devil and his followers, especially in these latter times. For Satan, knowing that he has little time - even less now than ever - to destroy souls, intensifies his efforts and his onslaughts every day. He will not hesitate to stir up savage persecutions and set treacherous snares for Mary's faithful servants and children whom he finds more difficult to overcome than others.

It is chiefly in reference to these last wicked persecutions of the devil, daily increasing until the advent of the reign of anti- Christ, that we should understand that first and well-known prophecy and curse of God uttered against the serpent in the garden of paradise. It is opportune to explain it here for the glory of the Blessed Virgin, the salvation of her children and the confusion of the devil. 'I will place enmities between you and the woman, between your race and her race; she will crush your head and you will lie in wait for her heel' (Gen. 3:15).

God has established only one enmity - but it is an irreconcilable one - which will last and even go on increasing to the end of time. That enmity is between Mary, his worthy Mother, and the devil, between the children and the servants of the Blessed Virgin and the children and followers of Lucifer."

So it IS a battle between the forces of goodness and truth versus the forces of evil and darkness after all according to St. Montfort.  He continues:
Thus the most fearful enemy that God has set up against the devil is Mary, his holy Mother. From the time of the earthly paradise, although she existed then only in his mind, he gave her such a hatred for his accursed enemy, such ingenuity in exposing the wickedness of the ancient serpent and such power to defeat, overthrow and crush this proud rebel, that Satan fears her not only more than angels and men but in a certain sense more than God himself. This does not mean that the anger, hatred and power of God are not infinitely greater than the Blessed Virgin's, since her attributes are limited. It simply means that Satan, being so proud, suffers infinitely more in being vanquished and punished by a lowly and humble servant of God, for her humility humiliates him more than the power of God. Moreover, God has given Mary such great power over the evil spirits that, as they have often been forced unwillingly to admit through the lips of possessed persons, they fear one of her pleadings for a soul more than the prayers of all the saints, and one of her threats more than all their other torments.

What Lucifer lost by pride Mary won by humility. What Eve ruined and lost by disobedience Mary saved by obedience. By obeying the serpent, Eve ruined her children as well as herself and delivered them up to him. Mary by her perfect fidelity to God saved her children with herself and consecrated them to his divine majesty.

God has established not just one enmity but 'enmities', and not only between Mary and Satan but between her race and his race. That is, God has put enmities, antipathies and hatreds between the true children and servants of the Blessed Virgin and the children and slaves of the devil. They have no love and no sympathy for each other. The children of Belial, the slaves of Satan, the friends of the world, - for they are all one and the same - have always persecuted and will persecute more than ever in the future those who belong to the Blessed Virgin, just as Cain of old persecuted his brother Abel, and Esau his brother Jacob. These are the types of the wicked and of the just. But the humble Mary will always triumph over Satan, the proud one, and so great will be her victory that she will crush his head, the very seat of his pride. She will unmask his serpent's cunning and expose his wicked plots. She will scatter to the winds his devilish plans and to the end of time will keep her faithful servants safe from his cruel claws.

But Mary's power over the evil spirits will especially shine forth in the latter times, when Satan will lie in wait for her heel, that is, for her humble servants and her poor children whom she will rouse to fight against him. In the eyes of the world they will be little and poor and, like the heel, lowly in the eyes of all, down-trodden and crushed as is the heel by the other parts of the body. But in compensation for this they will be rich in God's graces, which will be abundantly bestowed on them by Mary. They will be great and exalted before God in holiness. They will be superior to all creatures by their great zeal and so strongly will they be supported by divine assistance that, in union with Mary, they will crush the head of Satan with their heel, that is, their humility, and bring victory to Jesus Christ." (True Devotion to Mary, 50-54).

We are now living these times. At my last parish, the homilies never mentioned sin or the need for repentance. There were no homilies condemning abortion, homosexual acts, contraception, fornication etc. Not a word. But there was something which absolutely angered the clerics there; something which filled them with rage: my arriving early for each Holy Mass to pray the Holy Rosary. For I was looked upon with scorn and even attacked while praying the Holy Rosary during Christmas Mass.

And we're not in a spiritual war?  These are not apocalyptic times?  Guess again.  There is apostasy and there is dissent posing as Catholicism.

"Then the Church shall be scattered, driven into the wilderness, and shall be for a time, as it was in the beginning, invisible; hidden in catacombs.."

“The apostasy of the city of Rome from the vicar of Christ and its destruction by Antichrist may be thoughts very new to many Catholics, that I think it well to recite the text of theologians of greatest repute. First Malvenda, who writes expressly on the subject, states as the opinion of Ribera, Gaspar Melus, Biegas, Suarrez, Bellarmine and Bosius that Rome shall apostatize from the Faith, drive away the Vicar of Christ and return to its ancient paganism. ...Then the Church shall be scattered, driven into the wilderness, and shall be for a time, as it was in the beginning, invisible; hidden in catacombs, in dens, in mountains, in lurking places; for a time it shall be swept, as it were from the face of the earth. Such is the universal testimony of the Fathers of the early Church.”- Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, The Present Crisis of the Holy See, 1861, London: Burns and Lambert, pp. 88-90)

Protect the Pope is reporting that, "In his address to the plenary session of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith Pope Benedict has warned that the Faith is in danger of being snuffed out in vast areas of the world due to a loss of the religious sense:


‘As we know, in vast areas of the world the Faith is in danger of being snuffed out like a flame that no longer has any sustenance. We are at a profound crisis of faith,at a loss of a religious sense that constitutes the greatest challenge for the Church of today.

The renewal of the faith must therefore be the priority in the undertaking of the whole Church in our times. I hope that the Year of Faith can contribute,with the cordial collaboration of all the members of the People of God, to bring God back anew to this world and to open to men an access to the faith,to a reliance on the God who loved us to the end (cf John 13,1), in Christ Jesus,crucified and risen.’

The Year of Faith is an ’opportune moment to point out to all the gift of faith in the Risen Christ,the clear teaching of the Second Vatican Council and the invaluable doctrinal synthesis offered by the Catechism of the Catholic Church’."  See here.

Everywhere we look today, signs of persecution against the Church are emerging. Our Lady told Father Gobbi of the Marian Movement of Priests that, "My Adversary will one day think that he is celebrating a complete victory: over the world, over the Church, over souls. It will be only then that I will intervene - terrible and victorious - that his defeat may be all the greater when he is certain in his conviction that he has conquered once for all...You, my sons, have been called to live through these events. It is now the time for you to know this, that you may be consciously prepared for the battle. This is now the time for me to begin disclosing part of my plan. First of all, it is necessary that my Enemy have the impression of having conquered everything, of having everything now in his hands. This is why he will be permitted to penetrate even into the interior of my Church, and he will succeed in plunging the sanctuary of God into darkness. He will reap the greatest number of victims from among the ministers of the sanctuary. This will in fact be a time of great falls on the part of my beloved sons, my priests. Satan will seduce some of them by pride, others by love of the flesh, others by doubts, others by unbelief, and still others by discouragement and loneliness.." (October 18, 1975).


Our Lady, speaking to Barbara Reuss on April 25, 1946 at Marienfried, said that, "There are dark incomprehensible events. In the place where the greatest confidence is found and where the people are taught I can do everything, I will make preparations for peace. I am the sign of the living God. I place my sign on the foreheads of my children. The star (Lucifer) will persecute the sign. But my sign will conquer the star."

While Our Lady is placing her sign on the foreheads of her children [those who are consecrated to her and who live out a true devotion to her], the Devil is also placing his mark on the foreheads of his children. Our Lady explained to Father Gobbi that, "These are the times when the followers of him who opposes himself to Christ are being signed with his mark on the forehead and on the hand. The mark on the forehead and on the hand is an expression of a total dependency on the part of those who are designated by this sign. The sign indicates him who is an enemy of Christ, that is to say, the sign of the Antichrist. And this mark, which is stamped, signifies the complete belonging of the person thus marked to the army of him who is opposed to Christ and who fights against his divine and royal dominion. The mark is imprinted on the forehead and on the hand. The forehead indicates the intellect, because the mind is the seat of the human reason. The hand expresses human activity, because it is with his hands that man acts and works. Nevertheless, it is the person who is marked by the mark of the Antichrist in his intellect and in his will. He who allows himself to be signed with the mark on his forehead is led to accept the doctrine of the denial of God, of the rejection of his Law, and of atheism which, in these times, is more and more diffused and advertised. And thus he is driven to follow the ideologies in mode today and to make of himself a propagator of all the errors..."

I'm not a pessimist.  I will respond - as I have been for many years - to the Holy Father's call for working to renew the faith.  But all of us have to understand, as the prophetic Stefan Cardinal Wyszynski once said, "Certain events are willed by the Lord of history, and they shall take place."

Related reading here.

Recommended reading: Catechism of the Catholic Church, 675.

"My dear Friends of the Cross..Be prepared..to be forsaken by men and angels..."

"In the evening of life, we will be judged on love alone." - John of the Cross

"Then the devil took him up to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in their magnificence, and he said to him, 'All these I shall give to you, if you will prostrate yourself and worship me.' At this, Jesus said to him, 'Get away, Satan! It is written: 'The Lord, your God, shall you worship and him alone shall you serve.'" (Matthew 4: 8-10).


"Matthew and Luke recount three temptations of Jesus that reflect the inner struggle over his own particular mission and, at the same time, address the question as to what truly matters in human life. At the heart of all temptations, as we see here, is the act of pushing God aside because we perceive him as secondary, if not actually superfluous and annoying, in comparison with all the apparently far more urgent matters that fill our lives. Constructing a world by our own lights, without reference to God, building on our own foundation; refusing to acknowledge the reality of anything beyond the political and material, while setting God aside as an illusion - that is the temptation that threatens us in many varied forms." (Pope Benedict XVI, Jesus of Nazareth, p. 28).

As Christians who strive to live a holy and authentic life in the Lord Jesus, there is something which becomes immediately apparent as we survey this broken world. And it is this: while as disciples of the Lord we receive the power of God and His gifts which include wisdom and fortitude (courage), often we are hesitant or slow to do good or when we do choose to do good we meet almost constant opposition. By contrast, those who receive the power of the devil appear to be tireless in their activities as they work frenetically to discover new ways of doing evil or deceiving others and everything seems to come to them very easily.

There is an important spiritual lesson here. The world we live in is under the dominion of Satan, the "Prince of this world." When we witness an individual achieve outstanding success without any real setbacks, opposition or persecution, there is a very real possibility that such a person is an adept of the Prince of this world and is receiving his "gifts": "All these I shall give to you, if you will prostrate yourself and worship me." By contrast, often lack of success and persecution are sure signs that one really stands for God.

In his Letters to the Friends of the Cross [and this would exclude the vast majority even of those who profess to be Christian], St. Louis de Montfort explains how to embrace the Cross and to suffer in the right spirit.  He writes, "My dear Friends of the Cross...Be prepared..to be forsaken by men and angels, and seemingly by God himself; to be persecuted, envied, betrayed, slandered, discredited and abandoned by everyone; to suffer hunger, thirst, poverty, nakedness, exile, imprisonment, the gallows, and all kinds of torture, even though you have done nothing to deserve it. 

Finally, imagine that you have been deprived of your possessions and your good name, and turned out of your home, like Job and St. Elizabeth of Hungary; that you are thrown into the mire, like St. Elizabeth, or dragged on to the dung heap, like Job, all covered with ulcers, without a bandage for your sores or a piece of bread to eat - something people would not refuse to a horse or a dog.  Imagine that, in addition to all these dreadful misfortunes, God leaves you a prey to every assault of the devil, without imparting to your soul the least feeling of consolation.

You should firmly believe that this is the highest point of heavenly glory and of genuine happiness for the true and perfect Friend of the Cross."  To help us suffer in the right spirit, St. Montfort reminds us that, "..God..like a great king from the height of a tower, observes with satisfaction his soldier in the midst of battle, and praises his courage.  What is it that attracts God's attention on earth?  Is it kings and emperors on their thrones?  He often regards them only with contempt.  Is it great victories of armies, precious stones, or whatever is great in the eyes of men?  No, 'what is thought highly of by men is loathsome in the sight of God.' (Luke 16:15).

What, then, does He look upon with pleasure and satisfaction, and about which He inquires of the angels and even the devils?  It is the one who is struggling with the world, the devil, and himself for the love of God, the one who carries his cross cheerfully.  As the Lord said to Satan, 'Did you not see on earth a great wonder, at which all heaven is filled with admiration?  Have you seen my servant Job, who is suffering for my sake?'" (Letters to the Friends of the Cross, Nos 54, 55).

The world loves its own, celebrates its own, promotes its own, listens to its own.  But the world and everything in it is passing away, and much of it will sink into Hell.  By contrast, Friends of the Cross, those who truly love God and who belong to Him, will be hated and despised.  Should this surprise us?  Our Lord has said it: "If you find that the world hates you, know it has hated me before you.  If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own; the reason it hates you is that you do not belong to the world.  But I chose you out of the world.  Remember what I told you: no slave is greater than his master. They will harry you as they harried me.  They will respect your words as much as they respected mine.  All of this they will do to you because of my name, for they know nothing of him who sent me." (John 15: 18-21).

When the world hates you because of His name, rejoice.  It is not without reason that Our Lord insisted that anyone who aspires to be his follower must deny himself and hate his very life.  And He told us that anyone who loves his life shall lose it and anyone who hates his life shall save it.  The world ignores this truth because it doesn't want to hear it.  It clashes with the gospel of success, the gospel of materialism, of lust and of power.  But as St. Montfort reminds us: "..Our Lord, who is infinite Wisdom, and does not give commandments without a reason, bids us hate ourselves only because we richly deserve to be hated.  Nothing is more worthy of love than God and nothing is more deserving of hatred than self." (True Devotion to Mary, No. 80).

The Church is faced with many dangers today. And the greatest of these dangers lies within ourselves.  If we are to overcome the evil which has poisoned our society, we must first rid ourselves of the evil within. The evil which is rooted in pride and self-importance.  We must learn humility.  We must [properly understood] hate ourselves for the love of God.

Is Clark University really committed to free thought?

Just recently, Pope Benedict XVI said that, "It is imperative that the entire Catholic community in the United States come to realize the grave threats to the Church's public moral witness presented by a radical secularism which finds increasing expression in the political and cultural spheres."  One of those grave threats is discussed here.

Cardinal George Pell of Australia has correctly noted that, "Some secularists seem to like one way streets..Their intolerance of Christianity seeks to drive it out not only from the public square, but even from the provision of education, health care and welfare services to the wider community. Tolerance has come to mean different things for different groups." See here.

Indeed. And this intolerance of tolerance is in evidence at Clark University in Worcester.  At its website, we read that:

"Clark students


•Are passionate about ideas, causes and events beyond themselves.

•Embrace issues and take action.

•Approach life with open minds and a global perspective."  See here.

And yet, because I questioned the research findings of one of Clark University's professors, Dr. Abbie Goldberg (see here), one of the university's approved student groups - the Clark "Freethought" Society, posted my photo with the following commentary from Clark Student Brian Seitzman: "He's a delusional nutter who spends a lot of time posting photos of aborted fetuses on FB [Facebook]*...He also appears to have some major persecution fantasies...In short, the guy's pretty much of an ass.... but you'd likely figured that much out already."  Apparently Mr. Seitzman would consider Pope Benedict XVI and Cardinal Pell - not to mention a growing number of the Church's hierarchy - to be "delusonal nutters" who suffer from "persecution fantasies."

Pope John Paul II reminded us in Centesimus Annus that, "Authentic democracy is possible only in a State ruled by law, and on the basis of a correct conception of the human person. It requires that the necessary conditions be present for the advancement both of the individual through education and formation in true ideals, and of the 'subjectivity' of society through the creation of structures of participation and shared responsibility. Nowadays there is a tendency to claim that agnosticism and sceptical relativism are the philosophy and the basic attitude which correspond to democratic forms of political life. Those who are convinced that they know the truth and firmly adhere to it are considered unreliable from a democratic point of view, since they do not accept that truth is determined by the majority, or that it is subject to variation according to different political trends. It must be observed in this regard that if there is no ultimate truth to guide and direct political activity, then ideas and convictions can easily be manipulated for reasons of power. As history demonstrates, a democracy without values easily turns into open or thinly disguised totalitarianism."


Authentic Christians have always and everywhere accepted a "healthy pluralism." At the same time, such Christians have also understood that they have an obligation to acknowledge their beliefs and to preach the moral message given to them by the Lord Jesus. The follower of the Lord Jesus possesses a qualified certainty regarding the tenets of Natural Law and other truths which are revealed by God and help guide the conduct of man. Consequently, the authentic Christian understands that Christian ethical principles inform human society. Secular Humanists and those committed toward advancing the radical homosexual agenda have their own agenda and will do everything in their power to censor the Christian view.

The authentic Christian [or any person of good will] will reject the sophism of those who declare that anyone who does not buy into the Dictatorship of Relativism (a pluralism of opinions which rejects any and all absolute truth or even its possibility) is a "fanatic" or a "fundamentalist." On the contrary, such people will defend the truth in a positive manner. And while respecting persons and living out charity, they will proclaim the truth without fear.

This is the mind of Christ. As Pope John Paul II taught us in his Encyclical Letter Veritatis Splendor, No. 95:

"The Church's teaching, and in particular her firmness in defending the universal and permanent validity of the precepts prohibiting intrinsically evil acts, is not infrequently seen as the sign of an intolerable intransigence, particularly with regard to the enormously complex and conflict-filled situations present in the moral life of individuals and of society today; this intransigence is said to be in contrast with the Church's motherhood. The Church, one hears, is lacking in understanding and compassion. But the Church's motherhood can never in fact be separated from her teaching mission, which she must always carry out as the faithful Bride of Christ, who is the Truth in person. As Teacher, she never tires of proclaiming the moral norm... The Church is in no way the author or the arbiter of this norm. In obedience to the truth which is Christ, whose image is reflected in the nature and dignity of the human person, the Church interprets the moral norm and proposes it to all people of good will, without concealing its demands of radicalness and perfection...

In fact, genuine understanding and compassion must mean love for the person, for his true good, for his authentic freedom. And this does not result, certainly, from concealing or weakening moral truth, but rather from proposing it in its most profound meaning as an outpouring of God's eternal Wisdom, which we have received in Christ, and as a service to man, to the growth of his freedom and to the attainment of his happiness."

Clark University's "Freethought" Society has one post after another on Facebook ridiculing religious belief (especially Christianity) and has numerous links to radical secularist groups which seek to drive Christianity out of the political and cultural spheres and to relegate it to the margins of society.  In short, far from encouraging authentic dialogue and a healthy pluralism, the university-approved student group apparently has the sole purpose of demonizing any and all religious expression.

Free thought?  Or slavery to what Pope Benedict XVI has referred to as the "Dictatorship of Relativism"?  And why is the institution slandering Pope Pius XII?  See here.


*  For the record, in some three years on Facebook, I have posted two photographs of aborted babies.  Therefore I do not, as Mr. Seitzman has falsely asserted,  spend "a lot of time posting photos of aborted fetuses on FB."  But why should photographs of aborted babies upset Mr. Seitzman so much?

Religious liberty under assault in the United States: Preparation for Antichrist

Bishop Frederick Campbell of the Diocese of Columbus, Ohio, has issued a statement warning that, "The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced last week that almost all employers, including Catholic employers, will be forced to offer their employees health coverage that includes sterilization, abortion-inducing drugs, and contraception...In so doing, the Administration has cast aside the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, denying to Catholics our nation's first and most fundamental freedom, that of religious liberty...as a result, unless the rule is overturned, we Catholics will be compelled either to violate our consciences, or to drop health coverage for our employees (and suffer the penalties for doing so).

The French government, in its zeal to promote the Culture of Death, is also attempting to force part of its citizenry, those who work as pharmacists, to violate their consciences by selling the so-called "morning-after pill" irregardless of their religious or moral convictions. See here.

Monsignor Michel Schooyans has said, "As can be seen from many recent documents from UN agencies like UNFPA, there is a trend for the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights to be supplanted by documents such as the Earth Charter. Man is considered to be the result of the evolution of matter, and he must agree to submit himself to the Great Whole. This, we are told, is the price to pay for "sustainable development". This view of Mother Earth denies man the central place in the world that was assigned to him in the 1948 Declaration. We must return to this anthropocentrism and this universalism, which was inspired by the Roman, Jewish, and Christian traditions and was brilliantly reaffirmed by the Renaissance, if we wish to save and protect human capital. The quintessential value is man and not the environment. Without men properly prepared to become responsible managers of Nature, Nature itself cannot but deteriorate and man cannot but vanish. This view of man and his relationship with nature necessitates a fully humanistic conception of development. This conception prompts us to revisit current educational, health, and food policies. It also prompts us to reconsider policies relating to women and families."


Speaking about the Earth Charter and related globalism, Msgr. Michel Schooyans said, "In order to consolidate this holistic vision of globalism, certain obstacles have to be smoothed out and instruments put to work. Religions in general, and in the first place the Catholic religion, figure among the obstacles that have to be neutralized."

According to its founders, the Earth Charter is "a declaration of fundamental principles for building a just, sustainable, and peaceful global society in the 21st century." The Earth Charter Commission hopes that the Charter will become the common standard "by which the conduct of all individuals, organizations, businesses, governments, and transnational institutions [such as the Roman Catholic Church, my note] is to be guided and assessed."

The globalists who are behind the Earth Charter seek to promote a New Age religion which will neutralize the supernatural faith of Roman Catholicism. In the words of Archbishop Javier Lozano Barragan, "Clearly, we are faced with the total denial of Christianity."  Which is why Mikhael Gorbachev, at the three separate press conferences at the RIO + 5 Conference, said that, "The Ten Commandments are out of date.  They will be replaced by the [then] fifteen principles of the Earth Charter.

The Termite Nations have dispensed with God and His Commandments in their quest for unbridled hedonism. We are being prepared for the Reign of Antichrist. The Rev. P. Huchede, in his work entitled "History of Antichrist," explains the religious preparation, both intellectual and moral, for the Reign of Antichrist which will arrive after economic collapse: "But how shall he deprive the world of Christianity and have himself adored as God? Alas, it is only too true that the minds and hearts of men are admirably disposed for revolution and consequently ready to accept and bear the cruel yoke of such a tyrant. Revolution as the word itself implies means a subversion, but a subversion of all that is true, good, beautiful, and grand in the universe. It is the subversion of religion, representing its dogmas as myths and its moral teachings as tyranical. It is the subversion of authority. Licentiousness under the name of liberty becomes the order of the day; each one is invested with the right to govern himself. It is the subversion of reason: and do we not find leading minds in some of the most enlightened nations denying the principle of contradiction and maintaining the absolute identity of all beings? Revolution is therefore essentially destructive, and it becomes cosmopolitan by the action of secret societies scattered throughout the world. Is it not true to say that the 'mystery of iniquity' is prepared in secret revolutionary dens? But it does not suffice to destroy; it is absolutely necessary to build up again. The world cannot subsist long in a vacuum. It must have a religion; it must have a philosophy; it must have an authority. Revolution will furnish all these. Instead of the reasonable and supernatural religion of Jesus Christ, Revolution will preach Pantheism. The God-humanity will impart the theurgic spirit and thus lead men to adore the demon as the author of universal emancipation...What frightful immorality must follow in the train of this shameless prostitution of religion! Never has the threefold concupiscence made greater ravage among mankind. And this is the religion sought and hoped for as the cherished boon of the aspirations of our modern free thinkers. To our Christian philosophy, the honor of humanity's revolution will substitute a babel of extravagant and absurd ideas. Instead of a mild and efficient authority consecrated alike by Church and state, despotism and anarchy will rise up and contend for the shreds of religious liberty and human policy...if the state of perversion continue for a while longer, he [Antichrist] will find the world prepared to receive and serve him." (Rev. P. Huchede, History of Antichrist, pp. 13-14, Tan Books).


Related reading here.

More on Clark University and its definition of heterosexism...

Some of those students who attend Clark University have suggested that Clark University, through its definition of "heterosexism," is merely trying to protect a certain segment of the school's population from "harassment."  This is, of course, ludicrous.  Even a cursory read of Clark's definition   will reveal that much more is intended here.

Lest there be any doubt about where Clark University stands, let's look at the definition of "heterosexism" provided by Clark University's homosexual propagandist-in-residence.  In an article co-authored with JuliAnna Smith of the University of Massachusetts Amherst, we read from Dr. Abbie Goldberg that heterosexism is, "an ideological system that denies, denigrates, and stigmatizes any nonheterosexual form of behavior, identity, relationship, or community."

Got that?  Any moral opposition to the homosexual lifestyle is, then, deemed heterosexism, a form of discrimination.  Goldberg and her co-propagandist for the radical homosexual agenda continue: "At the societal level, institutionalized heterosexism takes the form of antigay legislation such as laws preventing same-sex couples from marrying or adopting children." (See here for full article).

In other words, the Catechism of the Catholic Church is "heterosexist" because it insists that homosexual acts are "intrinsically disordered," "contrary to the natural law," and "under no circumstances can they be approved." (CCC, 2357).  And, according to Goldberg and associate, any institution which opposes same-sex "marriage," such as the Catholic Church, is guilty of "institutionalized heterosexism."

The U.S. Bishops, see here, teach us that: "The natural structure of human sexuality makes man and woman complementary partners for the transmission of human life. Only a union of male and female can express the sexual complementarity willed by God for marriage. The permanent and exclusive commitment of marriage is the necessary context for the expression of sexual love intended by God both to serve the transmission of human life and to build up the bond between husband and wife (see CCC, nos. 1639-1640).

In marriage, husband and wife give themselves totally to each other in their masculinity and femininity (see CCC, no. 1643). They are equal as human beings but different as man and woman, fulfilling each other through this natural difference. This unique complementarity makes possible the conjugal bond that is the core of marriage.

Why is a same-sex union not equivalent to a marriage?

For several reasons a same-sex union contradicts the nature of marriage: It is not based on the natural complementarity of male and female; it cannot cooperate with God to create new life; and the natural purpose of sexual union cannot be achieved by a same-sex union. Persons in same-sex unions cannot enter into a true conjugal union. Therefore, it is wrong to equate their relationship to a marriage.

Goldberg's definition of "heterosexism" is nothing less than an assault on Catholic moral teaching.  As Pope John Paul II said, in his Encyclical Letter Veritatis Splendor, "In teaching the existence of intrinsically evil acts, the Church accepts the teaching of Sacred Scripture.  The Apostle Paul emphatically states, 'Do not be deceived: neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the Kingdom of God.'" (Veritatis Splendor, No. 81, citing 1 Corinthians 6: 9-10).

Dr. Goldberg's definition of "heterosexism," which has obviously been fully embraced by Clark University, takes no account of the Natural Law and is merely an exercise in chronological snobbery or what the French philosopher Jacques Maritain referred to as"chronolatry" in his work "Le paysan de la Garonne" - The Peasant of the Garonne. Maritain defines chronolatry as the idolatry of what is newest or latest in time. This is the characteristic flaw of today's "progressive" who looks upon the wisdom of the ages and dismisses it as nothing more than "theories" which belong to the past.

Clark University is indeed suffering an intellectual crisis.  A crisis which has resulted in institutionalized arrogance.

Clark University is, in effect, attempting to criminalize reason

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in its document entitled Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons, emphasized that: "Homosexual unions are totally lacking in the biological and anthropological elements of marriage and family which would be the basis, on the level of reason, for granting them legal recognition.  Such unions are not able to contribute in a proper way to the procreation and survival of the human race." (No. 7).

Homosexual unions violate the common good on both the individual and social plane. On the individual plane, as Dr. Germain Grisez explains, "...although it is true that partners in sodomy also could conceivably share in a committed relationship with sincere mutual affection and express their feelings in ways that would be appropriate in any friendship, the coupling of two bodies of the same sex cannot form one complete organism and so cannot contribute to a bodily communion of persons. Hence, the experience of intimacy of the partners in sodomy cannot be the experience of any real unity between them. Rather, each one’s experience of intimacy is private and incommunicable, and is no more a common good than is the mere experience of sexual arousal and orgasm. Therefore, the choice to engage in sodomy for the sake of that experience of intimacy in no way contributes to the partners’ real common good as committed friends."


On the social plane, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith explains that, "The inevitable consequences of legal recognition of homosexual unions would be the redefinition of marriage, which would become, in its legal status, an institution devoid of essential reference to factors linked to homosexuality; for example, procreation and raising children. If, from the legal standpoint, marriage between a man and a woman were to be considered just one possible form of marriage, the concept of marriage would undergo a radical transformation, with grave detriment to the common good. By putting homosexual unions on a legal plane analogous to that of marriage and the family, the State acts arbitrarily and in contradiction with its duties." (Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons, No. 8).

At Vatican II, the Council Fathers spoke on fostering the nobility of marriage and the family and said, "The well-being of the individual person and of human and Christian society is intimately linked with the healthy condition of that community produced by marriage and family. Hence Christians and all men who hold this community in high esteem sincerely rejoice in the various ways by which men today find help in fostering this community of love and perfecting its life, and by which parents are assisted in their lofty calling. Those who rejoice in such aids look for additional benefits from them and labor to bring them about.

Yet the excellence of this institution is not everywhere reflected with equal brilliance, since polygamy, the plague of divorce, so-called free love and other disfigurements have an obscuring effect. In addition, married love is too often profaned by excessive self-love, the worship of pleasure and illicit practices against human generation. Moreover, serious disturbances are caused in families by modern economic conditions, by influences at once social and psychological, and by the demands of civil society..." (Gaudium et Spes, No. 47).
In No. 48 of this same document, the Fathers of Vatican II teach that, "The intimate partnership of married life and love has been established by the Creator and qualified by His laws, and is rooted in the conjugal covenant of irrevocable personal consent. Hence by that human act whereby spouses mutually bestow and accept each other a relationship arises which by divine will and in the eyes of society too is a lasting one. For the good of the spouses and their off-springs as well as of society, the existence of the sacred bond no longer depends on human decisions alone. For, God Himself is the author of matrimony, endowed as it is with various benefits and purposes. All of these have a very decisive bearing on the continuation of the human race, on the personal development and eternal destiny of the individual members of a family, and on the dignity, stability, peace and prosperity of the family itself and of human society as a whole. By their very nature, the institution of matrimony itself and conjugal love are ordained for the procreation and education of children, and find in them their ultimate crown. Thus a man and a woman, who by their compact of conjugal love "are no longer two, but one flesh" (Matt. 19:ff), render mutual help and service to each other through an intimate union of their persons and of their actions. Through this union they experience the meaning of their oneness and attain to it with growing perfection day by day. As a mutual gift of two persons, this intimate union and the good of the children impose total fidelity on the spouses and argue for an unbreakable oneness between them.

Christ the Lord abundantly blessed this many-faceted love, welling up as it does from the fountain of divine love and structured as it is on the model of His union with His Church. For as God of old made Himself present to His people through a covenant of love and fidelity, so now the Savior of men and the Spouse of the Church comes into the lives of married Christians through the sacrament of matrimony. He abides with them thereafter so that just as He loved the Church and handed Himself over on her behalf, the spouses may love each other with perpetual fidelity through mutual self-bestowal.

Authentic married love is caught up into divine love and is governed and enriched by Christ's redeeming power and the saving activity of the Church, so that this love may lead the spouses to God with powerful effect and may aid and strengthen them in sublime office of being a father or a mother. For this reason Christian spouses have a special sacrament by which they are fortified and receive a kind of consecration in the duties and dignity of their state. By virtue of this sacrament, as spouses fulfil their conjugal and family obligation, they are penetrated with the spirit of Christ, which suffuses their whole lives with faith, hope and charity. Thus they increasingly advance the perfection of their own personalities, as well as their mutual sanctification, and hence contribute jointly to the glory of God."

And No. 50 says that, "Marriage and conjugal love are by their nature ordained toward the begetting and educating of children. Children are really the supreme gift of marriage and contribute very substantially to the welfare of their parents. The God Himself Who said, "it is not good for man to be alone" (Gen. 2:18) and "Who made man from the beginning male and female" (Matt. 19:4), wishing to share with man a certain special participation in His own creative work, blessed male and female, saying: "Increase and multiply" (Gen. 1:28). Hence, while not making the other purposes of matrimony of less account, the true practice of conjugal love, and the whole meaning of the family life which results from it, have this aim: that the couple be ready with stout hearts to cooperate with the love of the Creator and the Savior. Who through them will enlarge and enrich His own family day by day."

The Catholic Church respects reason and the Natural Law.  And because she does, she understands, as Cicero articulated so well, 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." [ Cicero, Laws I x 28-30]

But Clark University does not respect the Natural Law, which is known through the use of reason alone.  Having succumbed to radical homosexual ideology, that institution is attempting to impose a false morality on the rest of society while attempting to criminalize those who respect the Natural Law.  And this pseudo-morality rests on the philosophical premise that objective moral norms do not exist and that the individual's choice, and that alone, should determine human behavior.

Clark University officials would do well to ponder this warning from Pope John Paul II in his Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae:

"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 be 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." (Evangelium Vitae, No. 70).

Clark University not only promotes radical homosexual agitprop but seems to embrace historical revisionism

During the Second World War, the Nazis had a special hatred for Pope Pius XII.  The Reich Central Security Office had no doubts about where this great Pontiff stood with regard to the Jewish People. They considered him "the mouthpiece of the Jewish war criminals."


Following Pope Pius XII's sermon at Christmas, 1942, the Reich Central Security Office prepared a detailed analysis of the Pope's address for Reinhard Heydrich which was submitted on January 22, 1943:

"In a manner never known before, the Pope has repudiated the National Socialist New European Order. His radio allocution was a masterpiece of clerical falsification of the National Socialist Weltanschauung. It is true, the Pope does not refer to the National Socialists in Germany by name, but his speech is one long attack on everything we stand for....God, he says, regards all peoples and races as worthy of the same consideration. Here he is clearly speaking on behalf of the Jews...That this speech is directed exclusively against the New Order in Europe as seen in National Socialism is clear in the Papal statement that mankind owes a debt to 'all who during the war have lost their Fatherland and who, although personally blameless have, simply on account of their nationality and origin, been killed or reduced to utter destitution.' Here he is virtually accusing the German people of injustice towards the Jews, and makes himself the mouthpiece of the Jewish war criminals."

But Deborah Dwork, Director of Clark University's Strassler Center for Holocaust & Genocide Studies, doesn't see it that way.  Speaking of the fact that Pope Benedict XVI named Pope Pius XII as Venerable, Ms. Dwork replied, "Who the Church elevates is its business, but history is MY business, and Pius XII failed Europe's Jews miserably, unconscionably."  See page 21 of this pdf file.

I think Ms. Dwork needs to find another line of business.


The Israeli consul, Pinchas E. Lapide, in his book, Three Popes and the Jews (New York: Hawthorn Books, Inc., 1967) critically examines Pope Pius XII. According to his research, the Catholic Church under Pius XII was instrumental in saving 860,000 Jews from Nazi death camps (p. 214). Could Pius have saved more lives by speaking out more forcefully? According to Lapide, the concentration camp prisoners did not want Pius to speak out openly (p. 247). As one jurist from the Nuremberg Trials said on WNBC in New York (Feb. 28, 1964), "Any words of Pius XII, directed against a madman like Hitler, would have brought on an even worse catastrophe... [and] accelerated the massacre of Jews and priests." (Ibid.)

Yet Pius was not totally silent either. Lapide notes a book by the Jewish historian, Jenoe Levai, entitled, The Church Did Not Keep Silent (p. 256). He admits that everyone, including himself, could have done more. If we condemn Pius, then justice would demand condemning everyone else. He concludes by quoting from the Talmud that "whosoever preserves one life, it is accounted to him by Scripture as if he had preserved a whole world." With this he claims that Pius XII deserves a memorial forest of 860,000 trees in the Judean hills (pp. 268-9). It should be noted that six million Jews and three million Catholics were killed in the Holocaust.


We must remember that the Holocaust was also anti-Christian. After Hitler revealed his true intentions, the Catholic Church opposed him. Even the famous Albert Einstein testified to that. According to the December 23, 1940 issue of Time magazine on page 38, Einstein said:

Being a lover of freedom, when the revolution came in Germany, I looked to the universities to defend it, knowing that they had always boasted of their devotion to the cause of truth; but, no, the universities immediately were silenced. Then I looked to the great editors of the newspapers whose flaming editorials in days gone by had proclaimed their love of freedom; but they, like the universities, were silenced in a few short weeks...Only the Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler's campaign for suppressing truth. I never had any special interest in the Church before, but now I feel a great affection and admiration because the Church alone has had the courage and persistence to stand for intellectual truth and moral freedom. I am forced thus to confess that what I once despised I now praise unreservedly.

I invite readers of this Blog to visit the website of The Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights to read the extensive documentation on Pope Pius XII which shows clearly that this saintly Pontiff was nothing less than heroic.  My father had an audience with Pope Pius XII in April of 1958, just six months before the Holy Father died.  It was an experience he would always cherish. 

All too often, the record of history is clouded with the prejudices and presumptions of those who are commenting and reporting on it.  Often history is twisted and reinterpreted for ideological purposes.  We have seen that Clark University has embraced the radical homosexual agenda. It would appear that the university also embraces historical revisionism.  Is this an attempt to discredit the Catholic Church because of its moral opposition toward homosexuality and same-sex "marriage"?

Facebook doesn't want Americans to see abortion...

At the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, there are many photographs such as this one documenting the brutality of the Nazi regime and its use of excessive violence against the Jewish People and others who were deemed "unfit" by the National Socialists.  The USHHM describes itself as, "A living memorial to the Holocaust" which "inspires citizens and leaders worldwide to confront hatred, prevent genocide, and promote human dignity."

Yesterday, on the 39th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, while President Barack Obama was hailing the day and telling the news media that he remains "committed to protecting a woman's right to choose," I posted a photograph of an aborted baby on Facebook.  The photograph was almost immediately removed by Facebook and I received this notice:

"One of Your Photos Was Removed. One of your photos was recently removed because it was found to violate Facebook policies. As a reminder, the following types of photos are not permitted:


* Content that is pornographic or contains nudity, or is inappropriately sexual

* Attacks on an individual or a group of people

* Depictions of self harm, excessive violence or drug use

Please keep this in mind before uploading new photos."


The message is clear: Facebook doesn't want Americans to see what an abortion really is. It's socially acceptable to kill a child in the womb. But Facebook doesn't consider it socially acceptable for another person to show the result of an abortion through a photograph.  Facebook knows that Father Frank Pavone is right when he says that, "America will not reject abortion until America sees abortion."  And they are obviously intent on ensuring that Americans will not see the result of an abortion on Facebook.  At least Facebook freely acknowledges that President Obama supports what amounts to "excessive violence."

As this article explains, "Once they succeeded in ending democracy and turning Germany into a one-party dictatorship, the Nazis orchestrated a massive propaganda campaign to win the loyalty and cooperation of Germans. The Nazi Propaganda Ministry, directed by Dr. Joseph Goebbels, took control of all forms of communication in Germany: newspapers, magazines, books, public meetings, and rallies, art, music, movies, and radio. Viewpoints in any way threatening to Nazi beliefs or to the regime were censored or eliminated from all media.


During the spring of 1933, Nazi student organizations, professors, and librarians made up long lists of books they thought should not be read by Germans. Then, on the night of May 10, 1933, Nazis raided libraries and bookstores across Germany. They marched by torchlight in nighttime parades, sang chants, and threw books into huge bonfires. On that night more than 25,000 books were burned. Some were works of Jewish writers, including Albert Einstein and Sigmund Freud. Most of the books were by non-Jewish writers, including such famous Americans as Jack London, Ernest Hemingway, and Sinclair Lewis, whose ideas the Nazis viewed as different from their own and therefore not to be read.

The Nazi censors also burned the books of Helen Keller, who had overcome her deafness and blindness to become a respected writer; told of the book burnings, she responded: "Tyranny cannot defeat the power of ideas." Hundreds of thousands of people in the United States protested the book burnings, a clear violation of freedom of speech, in public rallies in New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, and St. Louis.

Schools also played an important role in spreading Nazi ideas. While some books were removed from classrooms by censors, other textbooks, newly written, were brought in to teach students blind obedience to the party, love for Hitler, and antisemitism. After-school meetings of the Hitler Youth and the League of German Girls trained children to be faithful to the Nazi party. In school and out, young people celebrated such occasions as Adolf Hitler's birthday and the anniversary of his taking power." 

Today, censorship is beginning to be used against Christians to silence moral opposition to abortion and homosexuality. Today's censors do not have to gather up thousands of books, march by torchlight in nighttme parades and throw books into huge bonfires. They have merely to strike a few keys from the comfort of their offices.  And this at a time some university campuses are attempting to demonize moral opposition toward homosexuality.  See here.

The USDOJ and Christianophobia: See here.

Clark University in Worcester: Those who oppose homosexuality on moral grounds akin to rapists and those who sexually assault others?

In a previous post I noted how Cardinal Raymond Burke told the Catholic News Agency that he can envision a time when the Catholic Church in the United States "even by announcing her own teaching" will be accused of "engaging in illegal activity, for instance, in its teaching on human sexuality."

Those who are promoting the homosexual agenda are using time-proven tactics which have been employed by secular humanists for some time now. In the words of Ralph Martin, "First, a plea is issued for a dominantly Christian society to 'tolerate' what appears to be a deviant behavior. Then pressure is applied to place the deviant behavior on an equal footing with traditional Christian values. Secular humanists argue that a pluralist society cannot do otherwise. They then try to make the deviant behavior seem normal and behavior governed by Christian values seem abnormal - a threat to a pluralist society. The last step is often to use the legal system to protect immorality and to undermine what Christians have always considered righteous behavior." (A Crisis of Truth, pp. 101-102).


Professor James Hitchcock, in his excellent work entitled Catholicism and Modernity (New York: Seabury Press, 1979, p. 86), explains the role of the media in this entire process: "The media's alleged commitment to 'pluralism' is at base a kind of hoax. The banner of pluralism is raised in order to win toleration for new ideas as yet unacceptable to the majority. Once toleration has been achieved, public opinion is systematically manipulated first to enforce a status of equality between the old and the new, then to assert the superiority of the new over the old. A final stage is often the total discrediting, even sometimes the banning, of what had previously been orthodox."

Dr. Jeff Mirus gets it. He writes, "The writing is on the wall. Gay marriage is the lie that will create the next Gulag. Indeed, gay marriage is the perfect totalitarian wedge, not least in a country like the United States.." (See full article here).  There is reason for concerm.  In the comments section of a previous thread, I wrote:

"Clark University's definition of 'heterosexism' is nothing less than an assault on Catholic moral teaching. The university, in its definition of the term, asserts that, 'At its core, heterosexism assumes that heterosexual relationships represent the norm and are, therefore, implicitly superior to gay, lesbian, transsexual or bisexual relationships. Out of heterosexism stems homophobia which is the fear and/or hatred of gays, lesbians, transsexuals and bisexuals because of their sexual orientations..'


The Catholic Church does not fear homosexual persons nor does she have a hatred for such persons. On the contrary, the Church teaches rather emphatically that homosexual persons, '..must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided..' (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2358).

The key phrase here is 'unjust discrimination.' Not all discrimination is unjust. As the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith makes clear, 'no ideology can erase from the human spirit the certainty that marriage exists solely between a man and a woman.' (Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons, No. 2).

The CDF document continues: 'There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way analogous to God's plan for marriage and family. Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law. Homosexual acts 'close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.' (ibid, No. 4).

Obviously this teaching is not accepted by everyone. But the suggestion that this teaching is unjustly discriminatory and that it leads to 'hatred' and 'fear' toward homosexual persons is both mean-spirited and, in itself, evidence of discrimination. In this case, Christianophobia."

And then a reader named Wendy left a comment asking, "..why does the Dean of Students place the definition of 'heterosexism' alongside other terms such as 'rape' and 'sexual assault' while indicating that they are 'related terms'? http://www.clarku.edu/offices/dos/survivorguide/definition.cfm

A good question.  Do administrators at Clark University view moral opposition toward homosexuality as something akin to criminal activity?  If not, why does the institution label such opposition "heterosexism" and lump it with the crimes of rape and sexual assault?

Pope Benedict XVI: "Once more we see the need for an engaged, articulate and well-formed Catholic laity..."

Joining his voice with that of the U.S. Bishops, Pope Benedict XVI warned of "certain attempts being made to limit that most cherished of American freedoms, freedom of religion."  And then the Holy Father said something most significant, something which most likely fell on deaf ears for the most part:

"..once more we see the need for an engaged, articulate and well-formed Catholic laity endowed with a strong critical sense vis-à-vis the dominant culture and with the courage to counter a reductive secularism which would delegitimize the Church's participation in public debate about the issues which are determining the future of American society...The preparation of committed lay leaders and the presentation of a convincing articulation of the Christian vision of man and society remain a primary task of the Church in your country; as essential components of the new evangelization, these concerns must shape the vision and goals of catechetical programs at every level.."

In a previous post, I noted that: "Vatican II, in its Decree on the Mission Activity of the Church (Ad Gentes), has this to say: 'The Church has not been really founded and is not yet fully alive, nor is it a perfect sign of Christ among men, unless there is a laity worthy of the name working along with the hierarchy. For the Gospel cannot be deeply grounded in the abilities, life and work of any people without the active presence of laymen. Therefore, even at the very founding of a chrch, great attention is to be paid to establishing a mature, Christian laity. For the lay faithful fully belong at one and the same time both to the People of God and to civil society...They also belong to Christ, because they were regenerated in the Church by faith and by Baptism, so that they are Christ's in newness of life and work (cf. 1 Cor 15: 23), in order that in Christ, all things may be made subject to God, and finally God will be all in all (cf. 1 Cor 15: 28).' (Ad Gentes, No. 21).

And then I added, "One of the reasons for the rapid decay which is corroding the Catholic spirit in the United States and elsewhere is the spread of a so-called liberalism (neo-modernism) which fosters a secularist attitude in Christians, one that creates an animus against the Faith and works against evangelization. The lay faithful who remain committed to the Church's teaching and who take seriously their vocation to convert those outside the Church are most often not encouraged. Often they are discouraged (in the name of an unhealthy pluralism) from engaging in evangelization...Pope Paul VI, in an allocution given on July 2nd, 1975, warned against this attitude:

'In practice many people who call themselves Christians think so [that the field of faith can be separated from that of activity], believing that the adherence to religion does not involve other duties than some specific observances, such as Sunday Mass and the fulfilling of the paschal precept. We must note, in fact, a certain allergy on the part of modern Christians to action qualified by their own religious sentiments, owing to a misrepresentation of so-called pluralism, as if every doctrinal opinion were admissible, and therefore it was not worthwhile to propose as necessary one's own faith to others; or because of an exclusive authority attributed to subjective conscience, to the detriment of the objective principle that must inform conscience itself.'"

In his Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Christifideles Laici (The Lay Members of Christ's Faithful People), Pope John Paul II reminded us that, "The voice of the Lord clearly resounds in the depths of each of Christ's followers who, through faith and the sacraments of Christian initiation is made like to Jesus Christ, is incorporated as a living member in the Church and has an active part in her mission of salvation." (No. 3).


Sadly, there are all too many clerics who haven't really embraced this authentic teaching of the Magisterium. For such clerics, the laity are second-class citizens who are tolerated but not really embraced fully as collaborators in the life and mission of the Church. This is most unfortunate. It was Pope Pius XII who said that, "The Faithful, more precisely the lay faithful, find themselves on the front lines of the Church's life; for them the Church is the animating principle for human society. Therefore, they in particular, ought to have an ever-clearer consciousness not only of belonging to the Church, but of being the Church, that is to say, the community of the faithful on earth under the leadership of the Pope, the head of all, and of the Bishops in communion with him. These are the Church..." (Pius XII, Discourse to the New Cardinals, February 20, 1946: AAS 38 (1946), 149).

The truth of lay participation in the priesthood of Christ follows logically from the doctrine of the Mystical Body. Everyone who is incorporated into the Mystical Body participates in the dignities, honors, and offices of the Mystical Head (Jesus). "Because Christ is our head," says St. Thomas Aquinas, "that which was conferred upon him, was also in him conferred upon us" (Summa Theologica, III, q. 58, a.4, ad 1). Or, as Pope John Paul II put it: "Referring to the baptized as 'new born babes', the apostle Peter writes: 'Come to him, to that living stone, rejected by men but in God's sight chosen and precious; and like living stones be yourselves built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ ... you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God's own people, that you may declare the wonderful deeds of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light' (1 Pt 2:4-5, 9).

A new aspect to the grace and dignity coming from Baptism is here introduced: the lay faithful participate, for their part, in the threefold mission of Christ as Priest, Prophet and King. This aspect has never been forgotten in the living tradition of the Church, as exemplified in the explanation which St. Augustine offers for Psalm 26: 'David was anointed king. In those days only a king and a priest were anointed. These two persons prefigured the one and only priest and king who was to come, Christ (the name "Christ" means "anointed"). Not only has our head been anointed but we, his body, have also been anointed ... therefore anointing comes to all Christians, even though in Old Testament times it belonged only to two persons. Clearly we are the Body of Christ because we are all "anointed" and in him are "christs", that is, "anointed ones", as well as Christ himself, "The Anointed One". In a certain way, then, it thus happens that with head and body the whole Christ is formed..'

In the wake of the Second Vatican Council, at the beginning of my pastoral ministry, my aim was to emphasize forcefully the priestly, prophetic and kingly dignity of the entire People of God..." (Christifideles Laici, No. 14).

The Church's witness in the United States has been crippled because the laity, for the most part, have not been taken seriously.  It is pointless to argue this.  Why else would our Holy Father be speaking of the pressing need for "an engaged, articulate and well-formed Catholic laity" unless he felt that this was lacking in the United States?

The Church in the United States has failed to appreciate that every member of the Mystical Body of Christ has a vocation which involves more than simply sitting in a pew and dropping money in a collection basket.  It has been forgotten (if not denied altogether by some) that every member of the Church has a definite function to perform.

And the new evangelization has suffered because of it.