Saint Mary's Church in Orange, Massachusetts continues to promote a priest who has misrepresented Catholic teaching..

As noted here, Father Jonathan Morris, a Catholic priest of the Archdiocese of New York as well as a Fox News contributor, misrepresented the Church when asked what conscientious objectors should do if they work for an agency issuing same-sex marriage licenses.

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in its document entitled Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons, warns that even where homosexual unions have been legalized, "clear and emphatic opposition is a duty." (No. 5). This important document stresses that, "any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws" and even any "material cooperation on the level of their application" must be avoided. "In this area," states the document, "everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection."


Considerations makes it abundantly clear that, "The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behavior or to considerations of homosexual unions." (No. 11). In other words, there can be no doubt that all Catholics have a moral duty to oppose the homosexual agenda.

And yet, knowing that Father Jonathan Morris has misrepresented the Church's teaching in this area, Saint Mary's Church in Orange, Massachusetts continues to promote this cleric on its Facebook page even while blocking orthodox Catholics faithful to the Magisterium from commenting on that same page.

It is unclear where the parish stands with regard to Considerations.

Because President Donald Trump opposes the pedophile maggot culture, the hatred against him is intensifying

As reported here, "Donald Trump has vowed to tackle the child abduction crisis in the United States by giving pedophiles a fast trial resulting in the death penalty. In October of 2012, Donald Trump tweeted that there are 'too many incidents' and something 'must be done about these perverts.'"

This is yet another reason why the "cultural elites" who represent our maggot culture want to destroy Trump at any cost.  They secretly, and sometimes not so secretly, are in favor of pedophilia.

It should come as no surprise that The New York Times published a 1,225-word obituary entitled "Harry Hay, Early Proponent of Gay Rights, Dies at 90."  For, as Dudley Clendinen wrote in this long eulogy, Hay was the founder of the Mattachine Society which, "proved to be the catalyst for the American gay rights movement." (Dudley Clendinen, "Harry Hay, Early Proponent of Gay Rights, Dies at 90," The New York Times, October 25, 2002).

Harry Hay, who deserted the Catholic Church after having homosexual relations at the age of 14 (with a sailor ten years his senior), was himself a proponent of man-boy sex and gave a speech at an October 7, 1984 conference of NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association) in San Francisco.

Harry Hay spoke frequently at NAMBLA events and periodically came to the defense of the organization when other homosexual groups attempted to prevent it from partipating in "Gay Pride" parades.

So, one of the founders - some would say the founder - of the American "gay rights" movement, was a proponent of sexual relations between men and boys. Why doesn't this trouble those in the mainstream media?  Because the mainstream media has bought fully into the radical homosexual agenda and is incapable of any objectivity whatsoever with regard to the subject of homosexuality.

Within the Church, homosexuals and pedophiles are now in control and are most anxious to have young boys served up to satisfy their filthy desires. See here.

A Cardinal who preyed upon boys has finally been removed.  The question remains: What did the Vatican know and when?  See here.

Pray for President Trump.  He is a man who hasn't bought into the Culture of Pederasty.  And, because of this, those who have embraced the filth hate him. Even to the point of suggesting that his son should be served up to pedophiles. See here.

The Athol Daily News: Fake News to Trump bash

In an editorial entitled, "Taking children away from their parents unforgivable," The Athol Daily News engages in fake news, asserting that: " Neither the Obama nor George W. Bush administrations separated migrant children from their parents, and if families were detained at the border, they were held together."

Really?  As The Daily Caller notes:

"The media and political class become more and more outraged over the Trump administration’s decision to detain and prosecute immigrants illegally crossing the border.

Lost in the debate is any acknowledgment that President Obama’s administration also used detention facilities.

Current U.S. immigration laws, when enforced, have the consequence of temporarily separating adults who arrive with children into separate detention facilities in order to prosecute the adults.

The policy of prosecuting immigrants for crossing the border illegally has been in place for multiple administrations. The Obama administration prosecuted half a million illegal immigrants and similarly separated families in the process. So did the Bush administration.

The Athol Daily News has long had a bias in favor of the Democratic Party and in opposition to Conservative principles.  The paper routinely bashes President Trump.

Residents of Athol who are Republican or who support President Trump should simply boycott the paper.

Democrats are suddenly concerned with the welfare of children?

American Thinker makes the point that open borders are not pro-life here.

Daniel Sobieski writes: "Having ignored an earlier border deal that would have made the issue moot, Democrats have stooped to a new low by comparing the separation of children from their illegal alien parents as required by current law to the mass murder of the unborn, including the harvesting and sale of fetal body parts. That is what Charles C. Camosy, a board member of Democrats for Life, an oxymoron if there ever was one, does in the June 16 New York Times opinion section in a piece with the Orwellian title 'You Can’t Be Pro-Life And Against Immigrant Children'."

Nobody should be surprised at this blatant hypocrisy.  After all, the Democratic Party is the party of the Ku Klux Klan - see here as well as the party which supports the genocide of the unborn and attacks against religious freedom - see here.

A Democrat pretending to be concerned about the welfare of children is about as credible as Ted Kennedy giving a lecture on the virtue of chastity.

Here again, we are confronted with bovine Scatology.

Intelligent people of good will are able to discern bovine scatology..

Remember when Francis chided President Donald Trump for wanting to build a border wall?  He referred to the President as "Non-Christiano."

Why was he silent about this?


Is Francis really interested in the Gospel of Life and Gospel values or is he merely a liberal partisan looking to prop up a political party which has become a tool of the Devil?

 As Dr. David Carlin has said, "..when clerical leadership is weak or foolish, we can't be surprised when the quality of lay Catholicism sinks." (Can a Catholic Be a Democrat? How the Party I Loved Became the Enemy of My Religion," p. 106).

Pope Benedict XVI once said that while, "everyone has the right to leave home to seek better conditions of life in another country...At the same time, states have the right to regulate migration flows and to defend their own frontiers, always guaranteeing the respect due to the dignity of each and every human person."

Pope Benedict XVI also said that immigrants have the duty to integrate into their host countries and respect their laws and national identities.

The challenge, as the Holy Father noted, is to "combine the welcome due to every human being, especially when in need, with a reckoning of what is necessary for both the local inhabitants and the new arrivals to live a dignified and peaceful life”.  See here.

Why is it that President Trump is demonized as a "bigot" and "non-Christian" for defending the United States frontier when President Obama was given a free pass to do the same?

Clerics such as Francis and Cardinal Dolan (see here) need to provide us with an answer.

In the meantime, intelligent people of good will can see through the bovine scatology.

Replacing the Nicene Creed with the Apostles' Creed every Sunday and the gravity of liturgical abuse

The USCCB instructs that:

"In many Masses, the Nicene Creed follows the homily. The Nicene Creed is a statement of faith dating from the fourth century. In certain instances, the Nicene Creed may be replaced by the Apostles’ Creed (the ancient baptismal creed of the Church in Rome) or by a renewal of baptismal promises, based on the Apostles’ Creed."

See here.

Note the wording: "In certain instances the Nicene Creed may be replaced by the Apostles' Creed.."  Usage of the Nicene Creed remains the norm.

Some priests, motivated often by a false irenicism or even a syncretistic agenda, prefer to use the Apostles' Creed every Sunday.  As Wikipedia explains:

"Because of the early origin of its original form, it [the Apostles' Creed] does not address some Christological issues defined in the Nicene and other Christian Creeds. It thus says nothing explicitly about the divinity of either Jesus or the Holy Spirit. This makes it acceptable to many Arians and Unitarians."

Dr. Dietrich von Hildebrand warned that, "False irenicism is motivated by a misconceived charity at the service of a meaningless unity. It places unity above truth. Having severed the essential link between charity and defense of the truth, irenicism is more concerned with reaching a unity with all men than with leading them to Christ and His eternal truth. It ignores the fact that real unity can be reached only in truth. Our Lord’s prayer ‘that they may be one’ implies being one in Him and must not be separated from His words in John: ‘And other sheep I have that are not of this fold. Them also I must bring and they shall hear my voice. And there shall be one fold and one shepherd.’"

Many Catholics today, priests and laity as well as consecrated religious, possess a lust for innovation which they use to assault the stability of sacred rites. Referring to these liturgical terrorists who seek to violently replace divine forms with their own reckless innovations, John Henry Cardinal Newman warned that, "No one can really respect religion and insult its forms.  Granted that forms are not immediately from God, still long use has made them divine to us; for the spirit of religion has so penetrated and quickened them, that to destroy them is, in respect to the multitude of men, to unsettle and dislodge the religious principle itself.  In most minds usage has so identified them with the notion of religion, that one cannot be extirpated without the other.  Their faith will not bear transplanting...Precious doctrines are strung like jewels upon slender threads." (John Henry Cardinal Newman, Parochial and Plain Sermons, Vol. II, Christian Classics Inc, pp. 75-76).

Those who are bent on making their own unauthorized changes to the liturgy often fail to appreciate how such an endeavor can constitute grave sin.  I know this because some have accused me of making a mountain out of a molehill for my opposition to various liturgical abuses.

Dr. Germain Grisez explains: "There are many reasons why it is wrong for priests intentionally to make unauthorized liturgical changes.  Two are especially important.  First, such changes sometimes embody or imply deviations from Catholic faith; even when they do not, they often omit (see here for example) or obscure something of the liturgy's expression of faith.  Thus, the Church teaches: 'The law of prayer is the law of faith: the Church believes as she prays.  Liturgy is a constitutive element of the holy and living Tradition' (cf. DV 8).  For this reason no sacramental rite may be modified or manipulated at the will of the minister or the community.  Even the supreme authority in the Church may not change the liturgy arbitrarily, but only in the obedience of faith and with religious respect for the mystery of the liturgy.' (CCC, 1124-1125).

Dr. Grisez continues, "..in the Eucharist, a priest acts in the person of Christ, who joins humankind to the Father; but in making unauthorized changes, a priest obscures Jesus' action, focuses attention on himself, and becomes an obstacle to the relationship between God and His People that priests are ordained to serve...Priests are agents ordained to deliver God's gifts to His People.  If they deliver some substitute for what Jesus has entrusted to them, they interpose themselves between - and defraud - both God and His People...

There are five additional reasons why unauthorized changes should not be made in the liturgy.  First, the liturgy is the worship of the Church as a body, and those who are ordained act as Church officials in performing liturgical roles.  So, insofar as a priest makes unauthorized changes, he misrepresents as the Church's what is in fact only his or some limited group's. Even if this misrepresentation deceives no one and is intended for some good end, it is at odds with the reverence necessary for true worship.  Second, this essential irreverence and the obvious arbitrariness of intentional unauthorized changes strongly suggest that the Eucharist is not sacred, and this suggestion tends to undermine not only faith in Jesus' bodily presence in the consecrated elements, but faith that the Eucharist is Jesus' sacrifice made present for the faithful to share in.  Third, a priest who makes intentional, unauthorized changes acts with deplorable clericalism by imposing his personal preferences on the laity and violating the rights of those who quite reasonably wish only to participate in the Church's worship.  Fourth, intentionally making unauthorized changes sets a bad example of serious disobedience to the Church's norms, and this bad example is likely to encourage some people to think and do as they please not only in liturgical and canonical matters, but in matters of faith and morals.  Fifth...unauthorized liturgical changes often become a needless, divisive issue for the faithful, thus impeding the charity that the Eucharist should express and foster."

Still think that liturgical abuse is a small matter of little significance?  If so, this reflects on your own immaturity and not the objective truth that liturgical abuse constitutes grave matter.  How grave?  Again, Dr. Grisez:

"The reasons why priests should not make unauthorized liturgical changes also make it clear..that a priest's intentionally doing so is of itself matter of grave sin.  Of course, many changes are in themselves very minor, and a few perhaps even are real improvements.  But though this kind of sin admits  parvity, such small changes also are scandalous, not only because they give the faithful a bad example of disobedience but because they contribute to a clerical culture in which liturgical abuse is widely tolerated and sometimes even expected, so that some are encouraged to engage in far graver abuses.  Now, even a sin venial in itself becomes grave scandal when one foresees that it is likely to lead others to commit grave sin; thus, the element of scandal makes grave matter of even minor liturgical abuses likely to encourage more serious abuses by other priests.  Due to widespread confusion and negligence of some bishops, many priests undoubtedly lack sufficient reflection regarding this sin."

Serious matter this.

Cardinal Burke: Bishops and Vatican have failed to defend morality

Cardinal Burke notes how our Bishops and the Vatican have failed to defend morality.  In a recent interview, His Eminence, speaking of the crisis in the Church, Said: “The situation in the Church is very alarming, first of all, because the fundamental truths of faith are undermined, put into question.”

He went on to lament that “there is no strong leadership from Rome that could explain and clarify these matters.”

The time for lying is over.  I have been saying this for years.  Back in 2009, Archbishop Charles Chaput noted that, "40 years of American Catholic complacency and poor formation are bearing exactly the fruit we should have expected...We can't talk about following St. Paul and converting our culture until we sober up and get honest about what we've allowed ourselves to become.  We need to stop lying to each other..." (See here).

The lying must stop.  For this to happen, we need priests and Bishops who fear God more than they do men.  Cowards will not lead us out of the valley of death.  Only shepherds who have the spiritual strength, the Cardinal Gift of Fortitude, to brave the risk of worldly criticism, will be able to lead the American Catholic Church out of the valley of the Culture of Death and back on the road to the Civilization of Love which Pope John Paul II spoke of so often.

Why have so many priests succumbed to fear?  Why is it that their preaching no longer points out sin?  Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange provides us with an answer:


"The reason for this is not difficult to find.  A sermon is the result of the combined effort of all the priest's powers; it reveals his entire person; it is his struggle against the vices of the surrounding world."  In other words, if the preaching is unsound, it is because the priest's spiritual life is unsound.  Fr. Lagrange continues, "Everything in the priest cooperates in his preaching - study, reflection, his powers to compose and revise, the activity of his intellect, his imagination, his memory, his feelings, his voice.  Therefore, when he preaches, the priest stands exposed for all to study; some will be attracted, others will not.  Some will accept what he says, others will simply criticize.  So if the priest approaches his task from the human angle, he will say to himself: 'I cannot afford to lose my reputation; people of weight in the parish who take offense easily must be spared their feelings and not provoked; I must proceed warily so as not to incur criticism.'  In that way Christian eloquence is invaded by a profane eloquence in which the preacher looks after his own interests, not the glory of God or the saving of souls." (The Priest In Union With Christ, p. 156).

I've never been a fan of lying.  And this because Our Lord tells us that the Devil is the Father of all lies (John 8:44),  If it's lying you want, this Blog is not for you.  Forty years of lying has wrought so much damage to the American Catholic Church.  Archbishop Chaput is right, we are merely reaping the fruit of what we've planted.  St. Paul tells us that, "...the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control.." (Galatians 5: 22).  But what fruit have we witnessed in the American Catholic Church?  The Church has been infected with dry-rot as so many Catholics have succumbed to the works of the flesh.

We need heroic shepherds.  Men who, like Blessed Miguel Pro, S.J., are willing to give their very lives for the Catholic Church and her teaching.

Archbishop Eamon Martin: Killing children should be "safe, legal and rare."

Archbishop Eamon Martin of Ireland has said that abortion should be "safe, legal and rare."  See here.

"Therefore, 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". (Pope John Paul II, Evangelium vitae, No. 57).

We are living in a time which has been spiritually crippled by a diabolical disorientation.  And this should hardly comes as a surprise.  As Dr. Germain Grisez has explained, "Insofar as they are in sin or remain emotionally attached to it, people not only cling to thoughts and feelings inconsistent with moral truth but are unreceptive to other thoughts and feelings without which they will probably not reach it, will perhaps not recognize it if it is reached, and will hardly welcome it if it is recognized.  Sin leads them to shun the bright light of moral truth; living in sin, they prefer the shadows of self-deception and rationalization (see Jn 3:19-20).  Like a blind person unable to tell that he or she is in the dark, one cannot discover one's evasions of moral truth and root them out by any direct effort.  The only way to get rid of them is by praying for the healing of the Spirit and making good use of the sacrament of penance, with sincere contrition for one's sins (see Ps 51: 6-12).

The only way to get rid of them is by praying for the healing of the Spirit and making good use of the sacrament of penance.  This is what Pope Benedict XVI said a few years back as he warned of danger for the Church.  See here.

Diabolical disorientation under Francis and its consequences.  See here.