Governor Jan Brewer serves the Dictatorship of Relativism

Writing for the Associated Press, Bob Christie reports that,  "Republican Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer slapped down the right wing of her own party, vetoing a bill pushed by social conservatives that would have allowed people with sincerely held religious beliefs to refuse to serve gays. The conservative governor said she could not sign a bill that was not only unneeded but would damage the state's improving business environment and divide its citizens.

Senate Bill 1062 had set off a national debate over gay rights, religion and discrimination and subjected Arizona to blistering criticism from major corporations and political leaders from both parties. Loud cheers erupted outside the Capitol building immediately after Brewer made her announcement Wednesday night.
 

Brewer pushed back hard against the GOP conservatives who forced the bill forward by citing examples of religious rights infringements in other states. 'I have not heard one example in Arizona where a business owner's religious liberty has been violated,' Brewer said. 'The bill is broadly worded and could result in unintended and negative consequences.'
 

And she chastised the GOP-controlled state Legislature for sending her a divisive bill instead of working on a state budget that continues her economic expansion policies or an overhaul of Arizona's broken child welfare system, her top priorities.
 

In a reference to the gay marriage debate that has expanded across the nation, she reached out to the religious right with sympathy but said 1062 was not the solution. 'Our society is undergoing many dramatic changes,' she said. 'However, I sincerely believe that Senate Bill 1062 has the potential to create more problems than it purports to solve. It could divide Arizona in ways we cannot even imagine and nobody could ever want.'
 

The bill was designed to give added protection from lawsuits to people who assert their religious beliefs in refusing service to gays or others who offend their beliefs. But opponents called it an open attack on gays that invited discrimination." (See here for full article).

In his Encyclical Letter Redemptoris Missio (The Mission of the Redeemer), Pope John Paul II said that, "The Church proposes; she imposes nothing." (No. 39). Such was the teaching of Vatican II: "The Church strictly forbids forcing anyone to embrace the faith, or alluring or enticing people by worrisome wiles. By the same token, she also strongly insists on this right, that no one be frightened away from the faith by unjust vexations on the part of others." (Ad Gentes, No. 13). And Dignitatis Humanae, No. 10 teaches that: "It is one of the major tenets of Catholic doctrine that man's response to God in faith must be free: no one therefore is to be forced to embrace the Christian faith against his own will. This doctrine is contained in the word of God and it was constantly proclaimed by the Fathers of the Church. The act of faith is of its very nature a free act. Man, redeemed by Christ the Savior and through Christ Jesus called to be God's adopted son, cannot give his adherence to God revealing Himself unless, under the drawing of the Father, he offers to God the reasonable and free submission of faith. It is therefore completely in accord with the nature of faith that in matters religious every manner of coercion on the part of men should be excluded. In consequence, the principle of religious freedom makes no small contribution to the creation of an environment in which men can without hindrance be invited to the Christian faith, embrace it of their own free will, and profess it effectively in their whole manner of life."

But while the Church respects freedom of conscience and shuns any form of coercion, Pope Benedict XVI warned that, "We are building a dictatorship of relativism that does not recognize anything as definitive and whose ultimate goal consists solely of one's own ego and desires.
We, however, have a different goal: the Son of God, the true man. He is the measure of true humanism. An 'adult' faith is not a faith that follows the trends of fashion and the latest novelty; a mature adult faith is deeply rooted in friendship with Christ. It is this friendship that opens us up to all that is good and gives us a criterion by which to distinguish the true from the false, and deceit from truth."

This dictatorship of relativism seeks to impose its immoral agenda on Christians in the name of "tolerance." But this "tolerance" is a sham. It is simply an attempt to make an idol out of a false conception of freedom. Again, Pope Benedict XVI  explained that, "..what clearly stands behind the modern era's radical demand for freedom is the promise: You will be like God...The implicit goal of all modern freedom movements is, in the end, to be like a god, dependent on nothing and nobody, with one's own freedom not restricted by anyone else's...The primeval error of such a radically developed desire for freedom lies in the idea of a divinity that is conceived as being purely egotistical. The god thus conceived of is, not God, but an idol, indeed, the image of what the Christian tradition would call the devil, the anti-god, because therein lies the radical opposite of the true God: the true God is, of his own nature, being-for (Father), being-from (Son), and being-with (Holy Spirit). Yet man is in the image of God precisely because the being-for , from, and with constitute the basic anthropological shape. Whenever people try to free themselves from this, they are moving, not toward divinity, but toward dehumanizing, toward the destruction of being itself through the destruction of truth. The Jacobin variant of the idea of liberation...is a rebellion against being human in itself, rebellion against truth, and that is why it leads people - as Sartre percipiently observed - into a self-contradictory existence that we call hell. It has thus become fairly clear that freedom is linked to a yardstick, the yardstick of reality - to truth*. Freedom to destroy oneself or to destroy others is not freedom but a diabolical parody. The freedom of man is a shared freedom, freedom in a coexistence of other freedoms, which are mutually limiting and thus mutually supportive: freedom must be measured according to what I am, what we are - otherwise it abolishes itself."

In the name of "tolerance," the New World Order seeks to impose its rebellion from truth on all. It will not tolerate any dissent, any disagreement. Coercion is an acceptable tool in a dictatorship.

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). 

My dear Sally......

My dear sally,

We have, succeeded greatly - beyond our wildest expectations in fact - in seducing men and women into making the world an end in itself.  And we are now very close to realizing our ultimate goal which is to convince them that existence without Christ is possible and indeed that Christ is the enemy of existence.  We are now on the verge of destroying all Christian virtues so that these creatures will be ready to reject entirely the notion that this life is a vale of tears and will come to view it instead as a carnival of countless pleasures where the cup of indulgence never runs out. 

Ensure that they are always distracted by entertainments so that they never give a thought to prayer and fasting and do not waste their time examining their conscience.  For this could lead to contrition and penance. On a related note, congratulations are in order for your success in getting people to ignore the message of La Salette and that irritating gadfly of a layman who so tirelessly promotes that outdated notion of reconciliation. 

Let me say Sally that we commend you for your efforts at promoting unbridled hedonism and self-will.  Continue to lull these creatures into a deep sleep with your devilishly-crafted mantra: Life is a cabaret. 

And so it is - Life is a cabaret old chum.  Come to the cabaret!

Dearest Sally,
I am, Yours Respectfully
Uncle Wormwood.

"..a culture that produces weak and vacillating men will produce weak and vacillating priests.."

Some years ago, Brad Miner, in an interview with Zenit, said that: "The notion of the gentleman has been out of fashion for some time, especially because of its connection to boorish, Victorian-era stoicism..."

When asked, "What is a 'complete gentleman?", Miner responded, "First, he is an inheritor of the medieval tradition of knightly prowess, and the Victorian ideal of gentlemanly decorum. As a means for recovering a sense of the complete gentleman, I propose three archetypes: the warrior, the lover and the monk...I say that he is a warrior, because he knows there are things worth fighting for and is willing and able to fight; that he's a lover, because he treasures the woman in his life, gives her what she wants and allows her to free him from the tyranny of his own ego; and that he is a monk in that he values learning and silence.

I think the great, lost virtue in our time is restraint: the recognition that there is a difference between the public and the private. The complete gentleman practices what I call the art of "sprezzatura," which means that he is who he is and does what he does without drawing too much attention to himself in the process.

And when asked, "One commentator has described today's adolescent boys and young men as 'wimps and barbarians.' What has given rise to this phenomenon?"  Miner answered, "I suppose the 'barbarians' are the boys animated by the macho violence of hip-hop culture and the 'wimps' are the kids politicized by the various 'isms' of the New Age...There are many causes of this degradation, but it all comes down to a simple fact: Young people tend to lack a sense of calling or mission. This is partly what Michael Barone is getting at in his recent book 'Hard America, Soft America.' We have teen-agers who seem unable to cope with the rigors of competition and then 30-year-olds who are capable of running the world.

We live in a nation that has achieved an unprecedented level of luxury and in an age in which technology encourages passivity. Young people ought to be physically fit, if possible, morally responsible and intellectually active. If education does nothing but raise doubts, and culture mostly encourages predation, then the 'smart' kids will be weak and 'tough' kids will be cruel.

The antidote to this is balance and restraint. We need scholarship, devotion and self-control."

And then, referring to Cardinal Newman's famous passage describing the Victorian-era gentleman, he added, "Without question, he considered saintliness preferable to gentlemanliness, but his point of reference was an ideal of the gentleman that had long ago lost its connection to chivalry. I believe the complete gentleman recovers that connection, especially chivalry's martial quality.

Newman was reacting to the portraits of the gentleman as drawn by writers such as Lord Chesterfield, Samuel Smiles and Charles Kingsley. Having summarized their views, Newman says they are fine — as far as they go. Trouble is, they don't go far enough. It's as though the man they describe is what he is by virtue of his clothes; that gentlemanliness is merely something you wear. The biblical phrase 'whited sepulchers' comes to mind.

A real man, we might say, was in Newman's view someone who 'discerns the end in every beginning,' which means he lives more fundamentally, less superficially.

He is patient and forbearing on philosophical principles — not on the basis of social expediency; he 'submits to pain, because it is inevitable, to bereavement, because it is irreparable, and to death, because it is his destiny.' This is a flesh-and-blood man with, perhaps, emphasis on the blood..."

And when Zenit asked him, "How can men exhibit the manly virtues, but at the same time exhibit the appropriate sensitivities? In other words, what is authentic manhood"? Miner replied: "At the risk of seeming to duck the question, I have to say that each man must answer in his own way. Authenticity is inseparable from individuality. I have no 'Seven Steps to Manliness.'  But I will say this: We do well to reconsider the ancient qualities of the knight, which are loyalty, generosity, courtesy, honor, courage and restraint. It's fair to say that men in the Middle Ages mostly fell short of the ideal, as probably we will today. But for heaven's sake, let's at least aspire to a higher standard.

If I could give one rather reckless bit of advice to American men, it's this: Learn restraint, learn to fight, remember that you will die, and meditate devoutly on the fact that death is preferable to dishonor....a culture that produces weak and vacillating men will produce weak and vacillating priests."

Increasingly, the Church is being feminized and effeminized. This is a great tragedy because, as Dr. Leon Podles explains, "Since men continue to want to be masculine, they will continue (unless there are major changes in the Church) to put a greater or lesser distance between themselves and the Church....Feminism and homosexual propaganda dominate the liberal churches, and both drive men even further away. Apart from some groups of evangelical Protestants, whose commitment to Scripture has made them aware of the lack of men and led them to use tactics which have had at least initial effectiveness, all other varieties of Western Christianity are totally bent on expanding the role of women in the Church and choose to ignore the absence of the male laity....Catholic and mainline Protestant churches that cultivate a gay atmosphere...will keep heterosexual men away. Fear of effeminacy is one of the strongest motivations in men who will sometimes die rather than appear effeminate....Christianity has within it the resources that allow it to appeal to men, to show that not only will Christianity not undermine their masculinity, but it will also fulfill and perfect it."

But the Church continues capitulate to the Cult of Softness. And we wonder why vocations are drying up. I cannot even apply for the priesthood in Worcester. But the Diocese has ordained men who acted out homosexually or who committed acts of satanic pedophilia.

Rather than trying to cater to the homosexual elements within the Church, our Holy Father should be working to restore sound Catholic doctrine and pastoral practice.

Do we have to be a Church which caters to disorderly tendencies and a criminal subculture?

The crisis faced by the Catholic Church today is, as in every age, a crisis of saints.  As long as the Church continues to promote a distorted feminism and toleration of homosexuality as an ersatz "orthodoxy," the crisis will only deepen.  Events such as the "Catholic Men's Conference" might lead some men into the Church or to deepen their commitment to her in the short term, but if they do not encounter a spirituality which permits them to be both men and Christian at the same time, they will either remain marginalized Catholics or will leave the Church altogether

 

 

Deacon James Connor on the Fall

Deacon James Connor, who serves at Saint Vincent de Paul Parish in Baldwinville, Massachusetts, would apparently like to "correct" God's Holy Word in Sacred Scripture.  For on two separate occasions, while speaking at Holy Mass, Deacon Jim as he is known throughout the parish, has advanced the idea that Adam failed Eve and that the world would be a much better place if only Adam hadn't failed Eve.

Now it is certainly true that Adam was the head of Eve, his wife, and of the whole human race which was to be generated by him  through his wife.  It is also true that Adam, a primordial priest, rejected God.  As first priest and representative of the entire human family, he brought sin and damnation upon this entire family.

But it is a distorted interpretation of Sacred Scripture to suggest that Adam failed Eve and that Eve had no share in the Fall.  This is exactly what Deacon Jim has implied.  Perhaps Deacon Jim has been unduly influenced by some radical Catholic feminist interpretation of the Scriptures.  Perhaps he attended the "Gather Us In" Conference sponsored by the Diocese of Worcester.

At any rate, as Donna Steichen explains in her excellent book Ungodly Rage, "Cunning, the serpent draws Eve into dialogue.  She knows the limits God has set, but she listens as the deceiving voice lures her with a promise of autonomy - the promise that she can be her own God.  When she yields, her disobedience separates her from God and from Adam.....Adam chooses to evade the very duties of leadership that Eve covets.  He is not deceived by the serpent, but he eats the forbidden fruit anyway.  Perhaps he cannot bear to be separated from his bride by her sin.  Perhaps he is intimidated by the prospect of confronting her.  In either case, the head of the first family disobeys his Creator and betrays his patriarchal obligations with his eyes open." (Ungodly Rage, pp. 375, 376).

This is a balanced interpretation of the Genesis account of the Fall.  One which recognizes that both Adam and Eve disobeyed their Creator and that Eve was the one who was deceived and became a transgressor: "..Adam was formed, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor." (1 Timothy 2: 13, 14).

Steichen notes that, "Contemporary Catholic feminists are part of a vivid, and ruinous, re-enactment of that ancient tragedy.  Their history strikingly recalls Eve's susceptibility to false promises, her rebellion against legitimate authority and her presumptuous ambition to make herself  'as God.'  Women, it seems, are more prone than men to such fraudulent spiritual enthusiasms." (Ungodly Rage, pp. 375, 376).

I'm sure that Deacon Jim's one-sided interpretation of the Fall is most appealing to certain confused types who view the Church as "patriarchal" and "oppressive" and who seek to manipulate and politicize language while deconstructing various Scriptural texts with the aim of re-constructing these according to radical feminist ideology.  Many are those who manipulate Scripture to agitate for women's ordination.  But as Mother Teresa warned, "Words which do not give the light of Christ increase the darkness."

Deacon Jim, it should be mentioned, presides over a Bible Study group at Saint Vincent de Paul Parish.  One has to wonder if those in attendance are receiving the Light of Christ or words which increase the darkness.

For those of you interested in a balanced teaching on the Fall, here's what the Catechism of the Catholic Church has to say on the subject: "Scripture portrays the tragic consequences of this first disobedience.  Adam and Eve immediately lose the grace of original holiness.  They become afraid of the God of whom they have conceived a distorted image - that of a God jealous of his prerogatives." (CCC, 399).  And again: "...By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state." (CCC, 404).  And again: "Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human nature wounded by their own first sin and hence deprived of original holiness and justice; this deprivation is called 'original sin.'" (CCC, 417).

Eve believed the serpent's lie.  And bound humanity through her disbelief. But the New Eve - the Virgin Mary - is the Undoer of Knots (which is the title of a popular devotion by the way): "The knot of Eve's disobedience was untied by Mary's obedience: what the virgin Eve bound through her disbelief, Mary loosened by her faith.  Comparing her with Eve, they [the Church Fathers] call Mary 'the Mother of the living' and frequently claim: Death through Eve, life through Mary.'" (CCC, 494).

Just yesterday, at the Vigil Mass, Deacon Jim strongly recommended the upcoming Catholic Men's Conference sponsored by the Worcester Diocese.  This is the same event which Robert Spencer was invited to speak at before Bishop Robert McManus rescinded his invitation.  I would stay away.  Especially given the diocese's history of welcoming unsound speakers while barring good people like Mr. Spencer.

Related reading here:

http://lasalettejourney.blogspot.com/2013/04/bishop-mcmanus-and-dialogue-with-muslims.html

And here:

http://lasalettejourney.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-worcester-diocese-welcomes-heretic.html

Father Felix Sarda Y Salvany and "offensive and uncharitable" discourse.....

In Chapters twenty and twenty-One of his excellent book Liberalism is a Sin, Father Felix Sarda Y Salvany, a noted philosopher of his day, writes: "Liberalism never gives battle on solid ground; it knows too well that in a discussion of principles it must meet with irretrievable defeat. It prefers tactics of recrimination and, under the sting of a just flagellation, whiningly accuses Catholics of lack of charity in their polemics. This is also the ground which certain Catholics, tainted with Liberalism, are in the habit of taking. Let us see what is to be said on this score.

We Catholics, on this point as on all others, have reason on our side; whereas, Liberals have only its shadow. In the first place, a Catholic can handle his Liberal adversary openly, if such he be in truth [i.e., openly Liberal]; no one can doubt this. If an author or a journalist make open profession of Liberalism and does not conceal his Liberal predilections, what injury can be done him in calling him a Liberal? Si palam res est, repetitio injuria non est: "To say what everybody knows is no injury." With much stronger reason, to say of our neighbor what he every instant says of himself cannot justly offend. And yet, how many Liberals, especially those of the easy-going and moderate type, regard the expressions "Liberal" and "friend of Liberals" which Catholic adversaries apply to them, as offensive and uncharitable!

Granting that Liberalism is a bad thing, to call the public defenders and professors of Liberalism bad is no want of charity.

The law of justice, potent in all ages, can be applied in this case. The Catholics of today are no innovators in this respect. We are simply holding to the constant practice of antiquity. The propagators and abettors of heresy, as well as its authors, have at all times been called heretics. As the Church has always considered heresy a very grave evil, so has she always called its adherents bad and pervert. Run over the list of ecclesiastical writers—you will then see how the Apostles treated the first heretics, how the Fathers and modern controversialists and the Church herself in her official language has pursued them. There is then no sin against charity in calling evil; its authors abettors and its disciples bad; all its acts, words, and writings iniquitous, wicked, malicious. In short, the wolf has always been called the wolf; and in so calling it, no one ever has believed that wrong was done to the flock and the shepherd.

If the propagation of good and the necessity of combating evil require the employment of terms somewhat harsh against error and its supporters, this usage is certainly not against charity. This is a corollary or consequence of the principle we have just demonstrated. We must render evil odious and detestable. We cannot attain this result without pointing out the dangers of evil, without showing how and why it is odious, detestable and contemptible. Christian oratory of all ages has ever employed against impiety the most vigorous and emphatic rhetoric in the arsenal of human speech. In the writings of the great athletes of Christianity, the usage of irony, imprecation, execration and of the most crushing epithets is continual. Hence the only law is the opportunity and the truth.
But there is another justification for such usage. Popular propagation and apologetics cannot pre-serve elegant and constrained academic forms. In order to convince the people, we must speak to their heart and their imagination, which can only be touched by ardent, brilliant, and impassioned language. To be impassioned is not to be reprehensible—when our heat is the holy ardor of truth.
The supposed violence of modern Ultramontane journalism not only falls short of Liberal journalism, but is amply justified by every page of the works of our great Catholic polemists of other epochs. This is easily verified. St. John the Baptist calls the Pharisees a "race of vipers"; Jesus Christ, Our Divine Saviour, hurls at them the epithets "hypocrites, whitened sepulchres, a perverse and adulterous generation," without thinking for this reason that He sullies the sanctity of His benevolent speech. St. Paul criticizes the schismatic Cretians as "always liars, evil beasts, slothful bellies." The same Apostle calls Elymas the magician a "Seducer, full of guile and deceit, a child of the devil, an enemy of all justice."

If we open the Fathers, we find the same vigorous castigation of heresy and heretics. St. Jerome, arguing against Vigilantius, casts in his face his former occupation of saloon-keeper: "From your infancy," he says to him, "you have learned other things than theology and betaken yourself to other pursuits. To verify at the same time the value of your money accounts and the value of Scriptural texts, to sample wines and grasp the meaning of the prophets and apostles are certainly not occupations which the same man can accomplish with credit." On another occasion, attacking the same Vigilantius, who denied the excellence of virginity and of fasting, St. Jerome, with his usual sprightliness, asks him if he spoke thus "in order not to diminish the receipts of his saloon?" Heavens! what an outcry would be raised if one of our Ultramontane controversialists were to write against a Liberal critic or heretic of our own day in this fashion!

What shall we say of St. John Chrysostom? Is his famous invective against Eutropius not comparable, in its personal and aggressive character, to the cruel invectives of Cicero against Catiline and against Verres! The gentle St. Bernard did not honey his words when he attacked the enemies of the Faith. Addressing Arnold of Brescia, the great Liberal agitator of his times, he calls him in all his letters, "seducer, vase of injuries, scorpion, cruel wolf".

The pacific St. Thomas of Acquin [Aquinas] forgets the calm of his cold syllogisms when he hurls his violent apostrophe against William of St. Amour and his disciples: "Enemies of God" he cries out, "ministers of the devil, members of antichrist, ignorami, perverts, reprobates!" Never did the illustrious Louis Veuillot speak so boldly. The seraphic St. Bonaventure, so full of sweetness, overwhelms his adversary Gerard with such epithets as "impudent, calumniator, spirit of malice, impious, shameless, ignorant, impostor, malefactor, perfidious, ingrate!" Did St. Francis de Sales, so delicately exquisite and tender, ever purr softly over the heretics of his age and country? He pardoned their injuries, heaped benefits on them even to the point of saving the lives of those who sought to take his, but with the enemies of the Faith he preserved neither moderation nor consideration. Asked by a Catholic, who desired to know if it were permissible to speak evil of a heretic who propagated false doctrines, he replied: "Yes, you can, on the condition that you adhere to the exact truth, to what you know of his bad conduct, presenting that which is doubtful as doubtful, according to the degree of doubt which you may have in this regard." In his Introduction to the Devout Life, that precious and popular work, he expresses himself again: "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."

But enough. What the greatest Catholic polemists and Saints have done is assuredly a fair example for even the humblest defenders of the Faith. Modern Ultramontanism has never yet surpassed the vigor of their castigation of heresy and heretics. Charity forbids us to do unto another what we would not reasonably have them do unto ourselves. Mark the adverb reasonably; it includes the entire substance of the question.

The essential difference between ourselves and the Liberals on this subject consists in this, that they look upon the apostles of error as free citizens, simply exercising their full right to think as they please on matters of religion. We, on the contrary, see in them the declared enemies of the Faith, which we are obligated to defend. We do not see in their errors simply free opinions, but culpable and formal heresies, as the law of God teaches us they are. By virtue of the assumed freedom of their own opinions, the Liberals are bound not only to tolerate but even to respect ours; for since freedom of opinion is, in their eyes, the most cardinal of virtues, no matter what the opinion be, they are bound to respect it as the expression of man's rational freedom. It is not what is thought, but the mere thinking that constitutes the standard of excellence with them. To acknowledge God or deny Him is equally rational by the standard of Liberalism, and Liberalism is grossly inconsistent with itself when it seeks to combat Catholic truths, in the holding of which there is as much exercise of rational freedom, in the Liberal sense, as in rejecting them. But our Catholic standpoint is absolute; there is but one truth, in which there is no room for opposition or contradiction. To deny that truth is unreasonable; it is to put falsehood on the level with truth. This is the folly and sin of Liberalism. To denounce this sin and folly is a duty and a virtue. With reason, therefore, does a great Catholic historian say to the enemies of Catholicity: "You make yourselves infamous by your actions, and I will endeavor to cover you with that infamy by my writings." In this same way the law of the Twelve Tables of the ancient Romans ordained to the virile generations of early Rome: Adversus bostem aeterna auctoritas esto, which may be rendered: "To the enemy no quarter."

---

"It is all well enough to make war on abstract doctrines" some may say, "but in combating error, be it ever so evident, is it so proper to make an attack upon the persons of those who uphold it?" We reply that very often it is, and not only proper, but at times even indispensable and meritorious before God and men.

The accusation of indulging in personalities is not spared to Catholic apologists, and when Liberals and those tainted with Liberalism have hurled it at our heads, they imagine that we are overwhelmed by the charge. But they deceive themselves. We are not so easily thrust into the background. We have reason—and substantial reason—on our side. In order to combat and discredit false ideas, we must inspire contempt and horror in the hearts of the multitude for those who seek to seduce and debauch them. A disease is inseparable from the persons of the diseased.

The cholera threatening a country comes in the persons of the infected. If we wish to exclude it, we must exclude them. Now ideas do not in any case go about in the abstract; they neither spread nor propagate of themselves. Left to themselves—if it be possible to imagine them apart from those who conceive them—they would never produce all the evil from which society suffers. It is only in the concrete that they are effective, when they are the personal product of those who conceive them. They are like the arrows and the balls which would hurt no one if they were not shot from the bow or the gun. It is the archer and the gunner to whom we should give our first attention; save for them, the fire would not be murderous. Any other method of warfare might be Liberal, if you please, but it would not be common sense.

The authors and propagators of heretical doctrines are soldiers with poisoned weapons in their bands. Their arms are the book, the journal, the lecture, their personal influence. Is it sufficient to dodge their blows? Not at all; the first thing necessary is to demolish the combatant himself. When he is hors de combat ["out of the fight"], he can do no more mischief.

It is therefore perfectly proper not only to discredit any book, journal or discourse of the enemy, but it is also proper, in certain cases, even to discredit his person; for in warfare, beyond question, the principal element is the person engaged, as the gunner is the principal factor in an artillery fight and not the cannon, the powder, and the bomb. It is thus lawful, in certain cases, to expose the infamy of a Liberal opponent, to bring his habits into contempt and to drag his name in the mire. Yes, this is permissible, permissible in prose, in verse, in caricature, in a serious vein or in badinage, by every means and method within reach. The only restriction is not to employ a lie in the service of justice. This never. Under no pretext may we sully the truth, even to the dotting of an "i'" As a French writer says: "Truth is the only charity allowed in history," and, we may add, in the defense of religion and society.

The Fathers of the Church support this thesis. The very titles of their works clearly show that, in their contests with heresy, their first blows were at the heresiarchs. The works of St. Augustine almost always bear the name of the author of the heresy against which they are written: Contra Fortunatum Manichoeum, Adversus Adamanctum, Contra Felicem, Contra Secundinum, Quis fuerit Petiamus, De gestis Pelagii, Quis fuerit julianus, etc. Thus, the greater part of the polemics of this great Father and Doctor of the Church was personal, aggressive, biographical, as well as doctrinal—a hand-to-hand struggle with heretics, as well as with heresy. What we here say of St. Augustine we can say of the other Fathers.

Whence do the Liberals derive their power to impose upon us the new obligation of fighting error only in the abstract and of lavishing smiles and flattery upon them? We, the Ultramontanes, will fight our battles according to Christian tradition and defend the Faith as it has always been defended in the Church of God. When it strikes, let the sword of the Catholic polemist wound, and when it wounds, wound mortally. This is the only real and efficacious means of waging war." (Liberalism is a Sin, Chapters 20, 21).

Pope John XXIII taught us in his Encyclical Letter Ad Petri Cathedram: On Truth, Unity and Peace: "Anyone who consciously and wantonly attacks known truth, who arms himself with falsehood in his speech, his writings, or his conduct in order to attract and win over less learned men and to shape the inexperienced and impressionable minds of the young to his own way of thinking, takes advantage of the inexperience and innocence of others and engages in an altogether despicable business." (No. 11).

And what should our response to such a "despicable business" be? Our Beloved Holy Father Pope John XXIII again provides an answer:

"...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." (No. 93).
We are engaged in a peace that is, according to this gentle and loving Pontiff, "ever at war."

What part of this phrase do we not understand?  We are engaged in a spiritual war.  If we succumb to the guilt tactics of those who are advancing a Culture of Death and a Moloch State - the same people who engage in harsh rhetoric toward us - merely to appear more peaceable, we give aid and comfort to the enemy.

President Barack Obama elevates homosexual sex to the level of a "right" and a "fundamental freedom"

Ben Johnson over at LifeSiteNews is reporting that:

"President Barack Obama has elevated the right to have sex with a member of the same sex to the level of universal 'fundamental freedoms' in a new presidential statement criticizing Uganda. But critics say his promotion of homosexuality in a continent that overwhelmingly opposes that behavior amounts to a form of liberal 'cultural imperialism.'

Obama wrote on Sunday that he opposed a proposed bill in Uganda that would criminalize same-sex 'marriages' and impose life imprisonment for repeated homosexual acts, among other provisions, because 'as a country and a people, the United States has consistently stood for the protection of fundamental freedoms and universal human rights.'

Obama said the bill represents 'a serious setback for all those around the world who share a commitment to freedom, justice, and equal rights.'

He added that he had 'conveyed' the message that 'enacting this legislation will complicate our valued relationship with Uganda.'" Read full article here.

President Obama's notion of what constitutes "freedom" is gravely distorted.  Pope Leo XIII, in Libertas Humana, explains that: "Liberty, then, as We have said, belongs only to those who have the gift of reason or intelligence. Considered as to its nature, it is the faculty of choosing means fitted for the end proposed, for he is master of his actions who can choose one thing out of many. Now, since everything chosen as a means is viewed as good or useful, and since good, as such, is the proper object of our desire, it follows that freedom of choice is a property of the will, or, rather, is identical with the will in so far as it has in its action the faculty of choice. But the will cannot proceed to act until it is enlightened by the knowledge possessed by the intellect. In other words, the good wished by the will is necessarily good in so far as it is known by the intellect; and this the more, because in all voluntary acts choice is subsequent to a judgment upon the truth of the good presented, declaring to which good preference should be given. No sensible man can doubt that judgment is an act of reason, not of the will. The end, or object, both of the rational will and of its liberty is that good only which is in conformity with reason.

Since, however, both these faculties are imperfect, it is possible, as is often seen, that the reason should propose something which is not really good, but which has the appearance of good, and that the will should choose accordingly. For, as the possibility of error, and actual error, are defects of the mind and attest its imperfection, so the pursuit of what has a false appearance of good, though a proof of our freedom, just as a disease is a proof of our vitality, implies defect in human liberty. The will also, simply because of its dependence on the reason, no sooner desires anything contrary thereto than it abuses its freedom of choice and corrupts its very essence. Thus it is that the infinitely perfect God, although supremely free, because of the supremacy of His intellect and of His essential goodness, nevertheless cannot choose evil; neither can the angels and saints, who enjoy the beatific vision. St. Augustine and others urged most admirably against the Pelagians that, if the possibility of deflection from good belonged to the essence or perfection of liberty, then God, Jesus Christ, and the angels and saints, who have not this power, would have no liberty at all, or would have less liberty than man has in his state of pilgrimage and imperfection. This subject is often discussed by the Angelic Doctor in his demonstration that the possibility of sinning is not freedom, but slavery. It will suffice to quote his subtle commentary on the words of our Lord:    'Whosoever committeth sin is the slave of sin.'  'Everything,' he says, 'is that which belongs to it a naturally. When, therefore, it acts through a power outside itself, it does not act of itself, but through another, that is, as a slave. But man is by nature rational. When, therefore, he acts according to reason, he acts of himself and according to his free will; and this is liberty. Whereas, when he sins, he acts in opposition to reason, is moved by another, and is the victim of foreign misapprehensions. Therefore, `Whosoever committeth sin is the slave of sin.' Even the heathen philosophers clearly recognized this truth, especially they who held that the wise man alone is free; and by the term 'wise man' was meant, as is well known, the man trained to live in accordance with his nature, that is, in justice and virtue.

 

Such, then, being the condition of human liberty, it necessarily stands in need of light and strength to direct its actions to good and to restrain them from evil." (Nos. 5-7).

As human beings, we possess only contingent rights. Those which have been given to us by God. There can never be a "right" to choose that which is evil. And homosexual acts are evil.
When moral liberty is detached from Natural and Divine Law, it degenerates into license. Pope Leo XIII reminds us in his Encyclical Letter Libertas Humana 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 semblance 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."

President Obama is serving the Devil.  There is no sin in speaking the truth.  And this truth must be acknowledged by Christians who have not apostacized.

The Worcester Diocese, through its newspaper The "Catholic" Free Press, perpetuates a destructive myth

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

The Worcester Diocese welcomes Cathleen Kaveny

Tom, a faithful Catholic of the Worcester Diocese and a contributor to this Blog, writes: "The February 10, 2014, Diocesan Dispatch publicizes the following upcoming pro-abortion speaker at Holy Cross College:

'TALK ABOUT PROPHETIC SPEECH AT HOLY CROSS
Legal scholar and moral theologian M. Cathleen Kaveny, the newly named Darald and Juliet Libby Professor at Boston College, will give a lecture titled “Prophetic Rhetoric in the Public Square” at the College of the Holy Cross on Thursday, Feb. 13 ...'

The Irish Rover, an alternate student newspaper at the University of Notre Dame (where she formerly taught) and the Sycamore Trust, a group of faithfully Catholic Notre Dame alumni have written of her pro-abortion views and of how Notre Dame has lionized its former professor:
Cathleen Kaveny, a Catholic professor of law and of theology, is listed on the Notre Dame News website as an expert in the ethical aspects of assisted suicide, bioethics, biomedical ethics, cloning, death and dying, the pope, and the papacy.

Kaveny expressed pro-choice beliefs during a Princeton University conference on abortion in the fall of 2010: 'I do not believe [the mother] has an obligation to provide life support to the unborn if pregnancy imposes a significant burden on her health or if she was raped,' said Kaveny.  'Under those circumstances I think those actions are describable as intentionally ending the burden of the pregnancy and can be described differently than intentional killing.'

Kaveny also said the unborn have no moral rights until 14 days after conception, a stance that could permit embryonic stem cell research."

This is a clear rejection of Catholic moral teaching. In his Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, No. 57, Pope John Paul II writes, "..by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, and in communion with the Bishops of the Catholic Church, I confirm that the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral. This doctrine, based upon that unwritten law which man, in the light of reason, finds in his own heart (cf. Rom 2:14-15), is reaffirmed by Sacred Scripture, transmitted by the Tradition of the Church and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.

The deliberate decision to deprive an innocent human being of his life is always morally evil and can never be licit either as an end in itself or as a means to a good end. It is in fact a grave act of disobedience to the moral law, and indeed to God himself, the author and guarantor of that law; it contradicts the fundamental virtues of justice and charity. 'Nothing and no one can in any way permit the killing of an innocent human being, whether a fetus or an embryo, an infant or an adult, an old person, or one suffering from an incurable disease, or a person who is dying. Furthermore, no one is permitted to ask for this act of killing, either for himself or herself or for another person entrusted to his or her care, nor can he or she consent to it, either explicitly or implicitly. Nor can any authority legitimately recommend or permit such an action'"

It was Father Thomas Euteneuer who correctly observed that, "Abortion is blood sacrifice of innocent blood to the devil. The clinics are like temples, the doctors are like priests, the medical table is like their altar. It’s a ritualized sacrifice. They have a dogma called choice, a hierarchy called Planned Parenthood, and guardian angels in the form of police guards that will arrest you if you try to stop them."

In the New Order, man has no special value. Human beings will be subject to the tyranny of technological impersonalism in the service of devils. Many have grown weary because they have lost their faith. And barbarism will follow. As men move away from the Church and her sacraments, the world continues to degenerate into madness, or as Fr. Miceli put it: "..a weird brew of sex, flowers, drugs, incense, tear gas, acid rock, rhetoric, bombs and blood. Enter the Antichrist, ruler of the Moloch World?"

The question has to be asked: Why does Bishop McManus tolerate (and at times even approve of) speakers who dissent from revealed Catholic teaching - even on the subject of abortion?

Doctor David Jeremiah engages in historical revisionism as he libels the Catholic Church

Dr. David Jeremiah, senior pastor of Shadow Mountain Community Church in El Cajon, California, in his book entitled "I Never Thought I'd See The Day," which is listed as a "# 1 New York Times Bestseller," engages in historical revisionism as he attempts to portray William Tyndale as a "martyr" for the Bible.

On page 161 of his book, Dr. Jeremiah asserts that, "..because TYndale believed that every English-speaking person deserved to have access to the Bible in English, he labored to produce the first complete New Testament (and part of the Old Testament) in English translated directly from the original Hebrew and Greek texts.  Finding no support for his efforts in England, the Oxford and Cambridge trained scholar, fluent in no fewer than eight languages, left for Germany in 1524, never to see England again..."

What a blessing for England!  Let's begin with Dr. Jeremiah's asinine claim that William Tyndale was a "trained scholar."  Actually, Tyndale was a mediocre scholar at best.  He described himself as, "evil favoured in this world, and without grace in the sight of men, speechless and rude, dull and slow witted."  In other words, he had no special qualifications for the monumentally important task of translating God's Holy Word.  To put it mildly.

Of course this doesn't concern Doctor Jeremiah.  But then why should it?  As with many other anti-Catholic propagandists, Dr. Jeremiah cannot afford to let the truth get in his way or produce the slightest crack in his wall of conviction.  He implies in his book that the Catholic Church didn't want the people to have access to the Scriptures.

Tyndale had fallen under the influence of Martin Luther and his version of the Scriptures was full of Lutheran heresies.  Canon Dixon, an Anglican historian, referring to the fact that copies of Tyndale's Bible were burnt, says: "If the clergy had acted thus simply because they would have the people kept ignorant of the Word of God, they would have been without excuse.  But it was not so.  Every one of the little volumes, containing portions of the sacred text that was issued by Tyndale, contained also a prologue and notes written with such hot fury of vituperation against the prelates and clergy, the monks and friars, the rites and ceremonies of the Church, as was hardly likely to commend it to the favours of those who were attacked."

Bishop Tunstall of London declared that he found more than 2,000 errors in Tyndale's Bible while Saint Thomas More, the Lord Chancellor of England, wrote a treatise against the heretical translation and asserted that to "find errors in Tyndale's book were like studying to find water in the sea."

The Church had to condemn Tyndale's Bible because it was not a true or correct version of the Scriptures.  The Catholic Church had copies of Tyndale's Bible burned.  But it was not the Word of God which Church authorities were destroying but instead a corrupted version of the Scriptures.

In 1531, King Henry VIII, acting upon the advice of his Council and prelates, published an edict ordering that, "the translation of the Scripture corrupted by William Tyndale should be utterly expelled, rejected, and put away out of the hands of the people, and not be suffered to go abroad among his subjects."

Years later, the Royal Defender of the Faith issued another Act entitled "For the advancement of true religion and for the abolishment of the contrary" which said that, "all manner of books of the Old and New Testament in English, being of the crafty, false, and untrue translation of Tyndale....shall be clearly and utterly abolished, extinguished, and forbidden to be kept or used in this realm."

The Catholic Church did not oppose William Tyndale's Bible because he thought people "deserved to have access to the Bible in English."  The Church had to oppose this heretical translation because it is her duty to safeguard the Deposit of Faith.

Dr. Jeremiah needs to apologize for his libel.

"....anyone who rejects propositions which are to be held definitively sets himself against the teaching of the Catholic Church."

 In a recent post I noted that, "The Catholic Church claims, and has pronounced on many occasions, the infallible truth that Christ both willed and established a hierarchical Church.  Father Kenneth Baker, S.J., in his book entitled Fundamentals of Catholicism, Volume 3, notes how, 'In the course of her long history, there have been many heretics and dissenters who have denied, in one way or another, the hierarchical constitution of the Church.  Some have said that Jesus had no intention of establishing a visible Church with bishops, priests and sacred authority; for them, the Church is an internal, invisible reality of the heart that arises from the preaching of the Gospel and faith in Jesus.  Others rejected the special priesthood and the hierarchy, and acknowledged only the general priesthood of all the faithful.  Against them the Council of Trent solemnly declared: 'If anyone says that in the Catholic Church there is no divinely instituted hierarchy consisting of bishops, priests, and ministers: let him be anathema.' (Fundamentals of Catholicism, Vol. III, p. 102, citing Canon 6 of the Council of Trent's Canons on the Sacrament of Order).

The word anathema comes from the Greek meaning hated or accursed.  An anathema is an excommunication.  Saint Paul employs this term to describe  those who have separated themselves from the Christian community by sins such as teaching a false gospel [See for example Galatians 1]."


And then I aserted that: "Those who produce The 'Catholic' Free Press [Diocese of Worcester, Massachusetts] have now separated themselves from the Church's communion by embracing the very notion that the Council of Trent anathematized: that the hierarchical constitution of the Church is not divinely instituted."

An anonymous commenter wondered how I could make such a judgment.  Easily.  Consider the following:


Ad Tuendam Fidem

Pope John Paul II's Apostolic Letter Motu Proprio, by which certain norms are inserted into the Code of Canon Law and into the Code of Canon of the Eastern Churches
(May 28, 1998)

(L'Osservatore Romano explanatory note: On January 9, 1989, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith published new formulas for the Professio Fidei et Iusiurandum fidelitatis in suscipiendo officio nomine Ecclesiae exercendo (AAS 81 [1989], 104-106), to replace the previous formula of 1967. These formulas were approved by the Roman Pontiff in a special Rescript (Rescriptum ex Audientia SS.mi Quod attinet, Formulas professionis fidei et iuris iurandi fidelitatis contingens foras datur, septembris 19, 1989: in AAS 81 [1989], 1169).

Given that the authentic text of the new Code of Canon Law, which had been promulgated on January 25, 1983 and published in Acta Apostolicae Sedis, did not contain the new formula of the Professio Fidei, which, in addition to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, enunciates three categories of truths, it became apparent that the Code of Canon Law, and later the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, lacked juridical, disciplinary and penal provisions for the second category of truths. Consequently, once this lacuna in the Church's universal legislation had become clear, and given the compelling need to forestall and refute the theological opinions being raised against this second category of truths, the Holy Father decided to promulgate the Apostolic Letter Ad tuendam fidem, by which precise norms are established in canon law regarding the second category of truths indicated in the second paragraph of the concluding formula of the Professio Fidei, through modifications to canons 750 and 1371, n. 1 of the CIC and to canons 598 and 1436 of the CCEO.)
________

TO PROTECT THE FAITH of the Catholic Church against errors arising from certain members of the Christian faithful, especially from among those dedicated to the various disciplines of sacred theology, we, whose principal duty is to confirm the brethren in the faith (Lk 22: 32), consider it absolutely necessary to add to the existing texts of the Code of Canon Law and the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches new norms which expressly impose the obligation of upholding truths proposed in a definitive way by the Magisterium of the Church, and which also establish related canonical sanctions.

1. From the first centuries to the present day, the Church has professed the truths of her faith in Christ and the mystery of his redemption. These truths were subsequently gathered into the Symbols of the faith, today known and proclaimed in common by the faithful in the solemn and festive celebration of Mass as the Apostles' Creed or the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. This same Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed is contained in the Profession of Faith developed by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which must be made by specific members of the faithful when they receive an office that is directly or indirectly related to deeper investigation into the truths of faith and morals, or is united to a particular power in the governance of the Church.

2. The Profession of Faith, which appropriately begins with the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, contains three propositions or paragraphs intended to describe the truths of the Catholic faith, which the Church, in the course of time and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit "who will teach the whole truth" (Jn 16: 13), has ever more deeply explored and will continue to explore. The first paragraph states: "With firm faith, I also believe everything contained in the Word of God, whether written or handed down in Tradition, which the Church either by a solemn judgement or by the ordinary and universal Magisterium sets forth to be believed as divinely revealed". This paragraph appropriately confirms and is provided for in the Church's legislation in canon 750 of the Code of Canon Law and canon 598 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches. The third paragraph states:

"Moreover I adhere with submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act".

This paragraph has its corresponding legislative expression in canon 752 of the Code of Canon Law and canon 599 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches.

3. The second paragraph, however, which states: "I also firmly accept and hold each and everything definitively proposed by the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals", has no corresponding canon in the Codes of the Catholic Church. This second paragraph of the Profession of Faith is of utmost importance since it refers to truths that are necessarily connected to divine revelation. These truths, in the investigation of Catholic doctrine, illustrate the Divine Spirit's particular inspiration for the Church's deeper understanding of a truth concerning faith and morals, with which they are connected either for historical reasons or by a logical relationship.

4. Moved therefore by this need, and after careful deliberation, we have decided to overcome this lacuna in the universal law in the following way:

A. Canon 750 of the Code of Canon Law will now consist of two paragraphs; the first will present the text of the existing canon; the second will contain a new text. Thus, canon 750, in its complete form, will read:

"Canon 750 § 1. Those things are to be believed by divine and catholic faith which are contained in the word of God as it has been written or handed down by tradition, that is, in the single deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and which are at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn Magisterium of the Church, or by its ordinary and universal Magisterium, which in fact is manifested by the common adherence of Christ's faithful under the guidance of the sacred Magisterium. All are therefore bound to avoid any contrary doctrines.

"§2. Furthermore, each and everything set forth definitively by the Magisterium of the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals must be firmly accepted and held; namely those things required for the holy keeping and faithful exposition of the deposit of faith; therefore, anyone who rejects propositions which are to be held definitively sets himself against the teaching of the Catholic Church."

Canon 1371 of the Code of Canon Law, consequently, will receive an appropriate reference to canon 750 §2, so that it will now read:

"Canon 1371 The following are to be punished with a just penalty:

"1. a person who, apart from the case mentioned in canon 1364 § 1, teaches a doctrine condemned by the Roman Pontiff, or by an Ecumenical Council, or obstinately rejects the teachings mentioned in canon 750 § 2, or in canon 752 and, when warned by the Apostolic See or by the Ordinary, does not retract;

2". a person who in any other way does not obey the lawful command or prohibition of the Apostolic See or the Ordinary or Superior and, after being warned, persists in disobedience."

B. Canon 598 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches will now have two paragraphs: the first will present the text of the existing canon and the second will contain a new text. Thus canon 598, in its complete form, will read as follows:

Canon 598 § 1. Those things are to be believed by divine and catholic faith which are contained in the word of God as it has been written or handed down by tradition, that is, in the single deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and which are at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn Magisterium of the Church, or by its ordinary and universal Magisterium, which in fact is manifested by the common adherence of Christ's faithful under the guidance of the sacred Magisterium. All Christian faithful are therefore bound to avoid any contrary doctrines.

"§ 2. Furthermore, each and everything set forth definitively by the Magisterium of the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals must be firmly accepted and held; namely, those things required for the holy keeping and faithful exposition of the deposit of faith; therefore, anyone who rejects propositions which are to be held definitively sets himself against the teaching of the Catholic Church."

Canon 1436 § 2 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, consequently, will receive an appropriate reference to canon 598 § 2, so that it will now read:

"Canon 1436 § 1: Whoever denies a truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or who calls into doubt, or who totally repudiates the Christian faith, and does not retract after having been legitimately warned, is to be punished as a heretic or an apostate with a major excommunication; a cleric moreover can be punished with other penalties, not excluding deposition.
"§ 2. In addition to these cases, whoever obstinately rejects a teaching that the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops, exercising the authentic Magisterium, have set forth to be held definitively, or who affirms what they have condemned as erroneous, and does not retract after having been legitimately warned, is to be punished with an appropriate penalty."


5. We order that everything decreed by us in this Apostolic Letter, given motu proprio, be established and ratified, and we prescribe that the insertions listed above be introduced into the universal legislation of the Catholic Church, that is, into the Code of Canon Law and into the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, all things to the contrary notwithstanding.

Given in Rome, at Saint Peter's, on 28 May, in the year 1998, the twentieth of our Pontificate.

IOANNES PAULUS PP. II


The Magisterium is the name given to the Church's teaching office. It derives from the Latin magister, which means "teacher" and refers to the authority of the pope and the bishops united with him in teaching matters of faith and morals. Dei Verbum, of the Second Vatican Council, had this to say about the Magisterium's authority:

"..the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit; it draws from one deposit of faith which it presents for belief as divinely revealed." (No. 10).

In his Encyclical Letter Veritatis Splendor, His Holiness Pope John Paul II reminded us (Nos. 27, 30) that the Magisterium holds the right to interpret authentically the Christian moral message. While dissent from this teaching is "opposed to ecclesial communion" (No. 113).

It's not complicated.

Could this be why so many priests today refuse to preach on the Rosary?

In his Encyclical Letter Ingravescentibus malis, Pope Pius XI insisted that, "Among the various public prayers which we successfully address to the Virgin Mother of God the Holy Rosary occupies a particular and distinct place.  In the time of the Crusades one voice, one single supplication arose from all people throughout Europe.  See here.  Today also, the people must seek by their insistent entreaties to obtain from the powerful Mother of God that the enemies of Christianity and human civilization be deterred, and that true peace may shine upon tired and disturbed men."

If this be true - and it most certainly is - why are our ""shepherds" (for the most part) today in the Catholic Church remaining silent about the efficacy of this most powerful spiritual weapon?  Could it be that many of these clerics are simply anxious to provide cover for the supporters of Satan and their crusade against Christ's Church?

The Universal Living Rosary Association (of which I am proudly a member), in their booklet on Father Mateo's Rosary Meditation, reminds us that, "The Heresy of Worldliness chiefly among the well-to-do and the ruling classes is this: Drink, dance, enjoy yourself, drain the cup of all the illicit pleasures and so make life a carnival and one unending round of pleasure without the least concern about death, judgment and eternity!  The worldling lives or rather vegetates in a noisome swamp.  And, all the while, in the somber underground, devious plots are being woven by secret societies to hold the Church in check, and to counteract Her work through secularized legislation.....The paganized laws of divorce, of the godless school, the secularized state, all tending towards the official ostracism of God and His Christ - all these laws have been nurtured by the modern Sanhedrin of the Masonic associations.  It was the great Pope Leo XIII who wrote the famous encyclicals on the Rosary, ordered the three Hail Marys and the prayer to St. Michael to be said after Mass because he has explicitly in mind these Lodges and their vicious propaganda.  Masonic groups have been solemnly condemned by nine Sovereign Pontiffs under the gravest censures!"

The Rosary Crusade against Satan and his followers is one of pity and mercy for sinners.  It aims at the conversion of these poor lost souls.  The Rosary, as the ULRA remins us, "..had its origin on the field of battle.  It was raised as a fortified wall around the City of God to protect it from invasion by heresies."

Could this be why so many priests today refuse to preach on the Rosary or to encourage its devotion?  In order that the Trojan Horse of Heresy may all the more easily infiltrate into that Holy City?

 I have always viewed the sling which David used to slay Goliath as a harbinger, a sort of figure or sign pointing to the Holy Rosary which would be given to the faithful by Our Lady and by which they would “crush the head of Satan” – “the very seat of his pride” as Saint Louis de Montfort puts it. We read in 1 Samuel 17:

“With his shield-bearer marching before him, the Philistine also advanced closer and closer to David. When he had sized David up, and seen that he was youthful and ruddy, and handsome in appearance, he held him in contempt. The Philistine said to David, ‘Am I a dog that you come against me with a staff?’ Then the Philistine cursed David by his gods and said to him, ‘Come here to me, and I will leave your flesh for the birds of the air and the beasts of the field.’ David answered him: ‘You come against me with sword and spear and scimitar, but I come against you in the name of the Lord of hosts, the God of the armies of Israel that you have insulted. Today the Lord shall deliver you into my hand; I will strike you down and cut off your head. This very day I will leave your corpse and the corpses of the Philistine army for the birds of the air and the beasts of the field; thus the whole land shall learn that Israel has a God. All this multitude, too, shall learn that it is not by sword or spear that the Lord saves. For the battle is the Lord’s, and he shall deliver you into our hands’…David put his hand into the bag and took out a stone, hurled it with the sling, and struck the Philistine on the forehead. The stone embedded itself in his brow, and he fell prostrate on the ground. Thus David overcame the Philistine with sling and stone..” (1 Samuel 17: 41-47, 49-50).

The Devil is the adversary of faithful Christians. And, like Goliath, he seems to cast a big shadow. But when we approach him on the battlefield [“For our struggle is not with flesh and blood but with the principalities, with the powers, with the world rulers of this present darkness, with the evil spirits in the heavens,” Eph 6:12] we have our own sling as a weapon – the Holy Rosary. And every bead, every Hail Mary prayerfully recited, is hurled as a weapon against the Devil’s head, the seat of his pride. Therefore, Montfort exhorts us, “So arm yourself with the arms of God, with the holy Rosary, and you will crush the devil’s head and stand firm in the face of all his temptations. That is why even a pair of rosary beads is so terrible to the devil, and why the saints have used them to fetter him and drive him from the bodies of those who were possessed.” (The Secret of the Holy Rosary, 85).

Related reading here.

The Grammys: Theater of Antichrist

In his excellent and prophetic book Trousered Apes, Professor Duncan Williams documented extensively the banishment of God from society in the West and said that as a result, "the Western world and its culture is saturated with violence and animalism....We are teaching savagery and are naively appalled at the success of our instruction."

Professor Williams continues, "What shocks an audience today will be acceptable tomorrow and thus the contemporary dramatist [or reality show producer, my note] is constantly impelled to seek further excesses to gratify a warped taste which he has himself implanted in the public mind....The whole modern cult of violence and animalism is in essence an admission of defeat.  Since we cannot be men to any idealistic extent, let us lapse into barbaric animalism but, still clinging to vestiges of a past which we hate but cannot escape, let us clothe our defeat in high-sounding terms: 'alienation,' 'cult of unpleasure,' 'realism,' and similar jargon.  Yet all this fashionable phraseology cannot conceal the fact that the Emperor has no clothes....The contemporary playwright or producer might well take as his motto, Apres moi, la secheresse (After me, the drought), and congratulate himself that he is writing before a morbid public appetite demands scenes of such repellent realism that actors and actresses will have to be killed on stage in order to satisfy it."

Welcome to the Theater of Lust, the Theater of Violence, the Theater of Antichrist.  At the Grammys last week, we witnessed a celebration of post-Christian savage "entertainment" produced by those who have accepted and even embraced the spirit of Antichrist.

The program featured a scantily-clad "witch" surrounded by demons in one set and a "gay marriage" ceremony.  The two acts were really consistent as the moral breakdown of America is coinciding with the homosexual juggernaut.  As Father Vincent Miceli explains in his work The Antichrist, "Dr. Abram Kardiner, distinguished physician, psychoanalyst, and anthropologist, states that homosexuality reaches pestilential and plague proportions in morally rotting societies during the final stages of total collapse. The cult of softness is perhaps the most pronounced public phenomenon among nations today. It is certainly responsible for the rotting of the moral fibre of Western Civilization not only in sex but also, in the erosion of Christian truth, in education, in art and in letters, in the repudiation of personal responsibility and in the increasing tendency to side with the forces of crime against the forces of law and order." (The Antichrist, p. 237).

The Reign of Antichrist will witness a celebration of sin and perversion the likes of which few can imagine. Pleasure is the new principle par excellence. If pleasure can justify homosexual behavior (and increasingly that is what our sin-sick society is saying), then other deviant forms of sexual activity which are viewed as pleasurable by some will also be logically justified. This will include pedophilia, pederasty, ephebophilia, gerontophilia, necrophilia, sadism, masochism and bestiality.

Father Pascal Huchede writes, "...how shall he [Antichrist] 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..." And then, after noting that men will abandon the reasonable and supernatural religion of Jesus Christ to worship the demon, Fr. Huchede adds, "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." (History of Antichrist, pp. 13-14).

Where is the outrage?  Just a few short years ago, priests and ministers across the country would have been speaking out against what has become a tidal wave of filth, immorality and the satanic.