La Salette Journey

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

2012-01-31T08:07:00.000-08:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Experimental setup:

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

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

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

Blind experimentation:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sample summary of Experiments performed:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Summary of Results:

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

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

Conclusion:

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

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

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

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

2012-01-30T07:15:00.000-08:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2012-01-29T15:28:00.000-08:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related reading here.

Recommended reading: Catechism of the Catholic Church, 675.

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

2012-01-29T11:06:00.000-08:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is Clark University really committed to free thought?

2012-01-28T07:26:00.000-08:00

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

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

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

"Clark students

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

•Embrace issues and take action.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2012-01-27T07:20:00.000-08:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related reading here.

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

2012-01-26T07:44:00.000-08:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clark University is, in effect, attempting to criminalize reason

2012-01-25T07:55:00.000-08:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Catholic Church respects reason and the Natural Law. And because she does, she understands, as Cicero articulated so well, that, "..right is based, not upon men’s opinions, but upon Nature. This fact will immediately be plain if you once get a clear conception of man’s fellowship and union with his fellow-men. For no single thing is so like another, so exactly its counterpart, as all of us are to one another…And so, however we may define man, a single definition will apply to all." [ Cicero, Laws I x 28-30]

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

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

"Democracy cannot be idolized to the point of making it a substitute for morality or a panacea for immorality. Fundamentally, democracy is a 'system' and as such is a means and not an end. Its 'moral' value is not automatic, but depends on conformity to the moral law to which it, like every other form of human behavior, must be subject: in other words, its morality depends on the morality of the ends which it pursues and of the means which it employs. If today we see an almost universal consensus with regard to the value of democracy, this is to be considered a positive 'sign of the times,' as the Church's Magisterium has frequently noted. But the value of democracy stands or falls with the values which it embodies and promotes. Of course, values such as the dignity of every human person, respect for inviolable and inalienable human rights, and the adoption of the 'common good' as the end and criterion regulating political life are certainly fundamental and not to be ignored.

The basis of these values cannot be provisional and changeable 'majority' opinions, but only the acknowledgement of an objective moral law which, as the 'natural law' written in the human heart, is the obligatory point of reference for civil law itself. If, as a result of a tragic obscuring of the collective conscience, an attitude of skepticism were to succeed in bringing into question even the fundamental principles of the moral law, the democratic system itself would be shaken in its foundations and would be reduced to a mere mechanism for regulating different and opposing interests on a purely empirical basis." (Evangelium Vitae, No. 70).

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

2012-01-24T14:38:00.000-08:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2012-01-23T07:39:00.000-08:00

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

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

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

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

* Attacks on an individual or a group of people

* Depictions of self harm, excessive violence or drug use

Please keep this in mind before uploading new photos."

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

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

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

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

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

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

The USDOJ and Christianophobia: See here.

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

2012-01-21T11:15:00.000-08:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2012-01-20T06:56:00.000-08:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And the new evangelization has suffered because of it.

Clark University in Worcester: Demonizing religious opposition toward homosexuality

2012-01-19T06:39:00.000-08:00

Clark University in Worcester, Massachusetts is engaging in what the French philosopher Gabriel Marcel labelled the "techniques of degradation."

In his work of critical importance entitled "Man Against Mass Society," Marcel explains, "I understand by 'techniques of degradation' a whole body of methods deliberately put into operation in order to attack and destroy in human persons belonging to some definite class or other their self-respect, and in order to transform them little by little into mere human waste products, conscious of themselves as such, and in the end forced to despair of themselves, not merely at an intellectual level, but in the very depths of their souls.." (p. 42).

Through the fanatical employment of such techniques, radical homosexual activists hope to smash down their opponents, to categorize them as mentally ill (suffering from a "phobia"), as hate-filled "bigots" who cling to "worn out arguments" based upon an "archaic morality" which is rooted in Divine Revelation and Natural Law, as superstitious and backward people who need to be re-educated in order to fit into the new Culture of Sodomy.

Marcel writes, "Having abandoned the behaviour of a thinking being, he [the fanatic of any stripe who seeks to impose rather than propose] has lost even the feeblest notion of what a thinking being, outside himself, could be. It is understandable therefore that he should make every effort to deny in advance the rights and qualifications of those whom he wishes to eliminate; and that he should regard all means to this end as fair. We are back here again at the techniques of degradation.." (p. 149).

In the New Order, those who oppose homosexuality on moral grounds must be degraded. They must be placed in a ghetto. Just as the National Socialists employed the techniques of degradation in their propaganda war against the Jewish People, portraying them as rats emerging from a sewer, as subhuman people who stood in the way of a new republic and a more glorious era, so too radical homosexual activists seek to demonize any and all moral opposition toward homosexuality and will use any and all means to achieve that end.

Clark University, the same institution which employs Doctor Abbie Goldberg, a radical homosexual activist, is most anxious to demonize those who oppose homosexuality on moral grounds [Divine Revelation and/or the Natural Moral Law] and to paint such people as hateful and discriminatory. Those who believe that marriage is between a man and a woman are categorized as "heterosexists," as people who mistreat homosexuals and lesbians and who have the audacity to believe that heterosexual relationships are the norm. The University asserts:

"Heterosexism is the systematic, day-to-day, institutional mistreatment of gay, lesbian, transsexual and bisexual people by a heterosexually dominated culture. At its core, heterosexism assumes that heterosexual relationships represent the norm and are, therefore, implicitly superior to gay, lesbian, transsexual or bisexual relationships. Out of heterosexism stems homophobia which is the fear and/or hatred of gays, lesbians, transsexuals and bisexuals because of their sexual orientations." (See here).

By affixing the homophobic label on those who oppose the deviancy of homosexuality, Clark University (as with other institutions which seek to impose the radical homosexual agenda) hopes to intimidate those who oppose the psychopathology by dismissing their arguments based on right reason as "irrational fears."

Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, in their blueprint for propagandizing Americans to accept homosexuality entitled "After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear & Hatred of Gays in the 90s," write that, "By conversion we actually mean something far more profoundly threatening to the American Way of Life, without which no truly sweeping social change can occure. We mean conversion of the average American's emotions, mind, and will, through a planned psychological attack, in the form of propaganda fed to the nation via the media." (p. 153).

These tactics are employed not only via the media but by college campuses across the nation. As this article makes clear, the propagandists will stop at nothing to desensitize the "average American" and will even resort to violence if all else fails:

"In 1989, Dr. Chuck McIlhenny, pastor of San Francisco's First Orthodox Presbyterian Church, exercised his Constitutional rights of free speech and assembly and helped engineer the defeat of a domestic partnership law that would have forced the public to accept homosexual immorality by compelling everyone to treat two sodomites as a family.

McIlhenny and his family soon became the focus of intense and vicious sodomite hate. For three years, they received thousands of threatening and harassing phone calls 24 hours a day, and many callers swore to sodomize and then kill the McIlhenny's three daughters.

His home and church were firebombed. In 1990, sodomite groups repeatedly vandalized the church and home with graffiti like 'Dykes for Choice,' and attacked the crisis pregnancy center housed in the church. Cowardly, skulking sodomites broke the church's windows so many times the parishioners boarded them up permanently.

Institutions such as Clark University are encouraging this sort of climate by portraying Christians and others who oppose homosexuality on moral grounds as "bigots" who suffer from irrational fears and as religious fanatics (see here).

Clark University is fomenting hatred and Christianophobia. This shouldn't really come as a surprise. The Church proposes but the world imposes. See here.

Abbie Goldberg: Objective scientist or homosexual propagandist?

2012-01-17T07:49:00.000-08:00

Abbie Goldberg, a psychologist at Clark University in Worcester, Massachusetts, is asserting that her research shows homosexual parents "tend to be more motivated, more committed than heterosexual parents on average, because they chose to be parents." Goldberg says that, "That translates to greater commitment on average and more involvement."

According to this Huffington Post article, "research indicates that kids of gay parents show few differences in achievement, mental health, social functioning and other measures, these kids may have the advantage of open-mindedness, tolerance and role models for equitable relationships, according to some research.."

Homosexual parents are motivated and committed? That's just wonderful. But then, a serial killer is also motivated and committed to his cause. Does this justify his end?

Is Ms. Goldberg an objective scientist/researcher interested in drawing honest conclusions or is she merely another homosexual propagandist who could care less if the hand that rocks the cradle is warped in personality? Dale O'Leary, a writer and researcher for the Catholic Medical Association, says that, "...adoption agencies have disregarded the evidence that persons with same-sex attractions are far more likely to suffer from psychological disorders than the general public."

In an interview with ZENIT, which may be found here, O'Leary says that the CMA has found in its research that, "..the social workers in the adoption field are disproportionately homosexual themselves or are extremely sympathetic to homosexual adoptions and are directing children to same-sex couples, when there are married heterosexual couples available. She is extremely concerned about this trend.

I asked how could so many same-sex couples qualify, given the evidence that persons with same-sex attractions are far more likely to suffer from psychological and other problems than married heterosexual couples. She replied that it appeared to her that many of the same-sex couples who adopted had psychological and other problems that would have disqualified a married man and woman from adoption.

This, of course, is only anecdotal evidence, but well-designed studies that compare persons with same-sex attractions with the general public have found that persons with same-sex attractions are far more likely to suffer from psychological disorders.

A same-sex couple has, by definition, two persons at high risk for psychological disorders. The studies published in the Archives of General Psychiatry found that persons self-identified as homosexual in comparison to the general public had almost double the rate of suicidal ideation or attempts, substance abuse problems and psychological disorders. One of the studies found that 78.6% of the gay, lesbian or bisexual group suffered from multiple disorders.

And there are other problems: Domestic violence is more common among same-sex couples. Men with same-sex attractions are more likely to become infected with a STD, including HIV, hepatitis or HPV, which can lead to cancer. Thus, several studies suggest that 50% of men who have sex with men will become HIV positive before age 50.

Any of these problems would negatively affect an adopted child. When dealing with married heterosexual couples, agencies have been extremely strict in ruling out couples with risk factors, yet seem to be ignoring real risk when evaluating same-sex couples who want to adopt."

But Goldberg, who is less interested in science and objective reality than she is with engaging in radical homosexual agitprop, insists that same-sex couples with adopted children living in states with "anti-gay" adoption laws and attitudes had more mental health issues in their first year of parenthood than couples with adopted children living in more accepting states." You see what Ms. Goldberg is doing here? She is assigning blame for the mental-health issues of homosexual parents on the communities in which they live. She insists that, "..anti-gay attitudes [which obviously have their root in Christian moral opposition toward homosexuality] reflected in anti-gay adoption policies are likely to 'trickle down into community attitudes' and that her data suggests this can have a negative effect on the mental health of gay and lesbian parents." (See here).

The mental health of gay and lesbian parents? Is Ms. Goldberg serious? Dutch psychologist Gerard J.M. van den Aardweg, Ph.D., a specialist on homosexuality, says that the claim that homosexuality is normal is one of those statements that are "so foolish that only intellectuals could believe them." It is like saying that anorexia nervosa is healthy. Dr. Aardweg notes that, "The term neurotic describes such relationships well. It suggests the ego-centeredness of the relationship; the attention-seeking instead of loving...Neurotic, in short, suggests all kinds of dramas and childish conflicts as well as the basic disinterestedness in the partner, notwithstanding the shallow pretensions of 'love.' Nowhere is there more self-deception in the homosexual than in his representation of himself as a lover. One partner is important to the other only insofar as he satisfies that other's needs. Real, unselfish love for a desired partner would, in fact, end up destroying homosexual 'love'!" (Dr. Gerard J.M. van den Aardweg, The Battle for Normality, Ignatius Press, 1997, pp. 62-63).

The term neurotic describes the homosexual relationship well. And neurosis is not the foundation of healthy parenting.

Abbie Goldberg: scientist or propagandist?

Pope Benedict XVI calls for educating young people in the true meaning of justice and peace

2012-01-16T07:02:00.000-08:00

Vatican City, Jan 13, 2012 (CNA/EWTN News).

In a bid to end violence against Christians and other religions, Pope Benedict XVI used a Jan. 13 speech to Italian police to call for educating young people in the true meaning of justice and peace.

“Even the past year, unfortunately, was marked by violence and intolerance,” he said in the Vatican’s Apostolic Palace on Jan 13.

“Frequently, in different parts of the world, the object of reprisals and attacks were Christians, who paid with their lives for their adherence to Christ and to the Church.”

The Pope made his comments to a gathering of those Italian state police who are charged with patrolling and protecting St. Peter’s Square and the Vatican.

The Pope said that while young people often hear the words “justice” and “peace” being mentioned, not enough is done to explain what the terms really mean.

“Justice,” he explained, “is not a mere human convention.” If it is viewed as such, he added, it can end up being dominated and subverted by the “criteria of utility, profit and material possession.” Pope Benedict said that when justice is corrupted in this way, the value and dignity of people can be “trampled underfoot.”

In reality, justice is a virtue that guides the human will “prompting us to give others what is due to them by reason of their existence and their actions,” he said.

Similarly, “peace” is not merely defined as the “absence of war, or the result of man’s actions to avoid conflict.”

Instead, it is primarily “a gift of God which must be implored with faith, and which has the way to its fulfillment in Jesus.” Therefore, “true peace” must be “constructed day after day with compassion, solidarity, fraternity and collaboration on everyone’s part,” the Pope said.

The Pope’s comments reflected his message earlier this month when he dedicated the Church’s 45th World Day of Peace on New Year’s Day to the education of the young in justice and peace.

He concluded his remarks today by holding up the police officers present as “true promoters of justice and sincere builders of peace,” and commending all present to Mary “the Mother of God, Queen of Peace.”

“To her we entrust this year of 2012, that everyone may live in mutual respect and strive after the common good, in the hope that no act of violence will be committed in the name of God, supreme guarantor of justice and peace.”

___________________________________________________________________

True peace must be constructed day after day with compassion, solidarity, fraternity and collaboration on everyone's part. And of course, it must be remembered that there is no authentic peace without prayer and a genuine love for truth. In the words of Pope John XXIII: "...as long as we are journeying in exile over this earth, our peace and happiness will be imperfect. For such peace is not completely untroubled and serene; it is active, not calm and motionless. In short, this is a peace that is ever at war. It wars with every sort of error, including that which falsely wears the face of truth; it struggles against the enticements of vice, against those enemies of the soul, of whatever description, who can weaken, blemish, or destroy our innocence or Catholic faith." (Ad Petri Cathedram No. 93).

Pope Paul VI, in his Apostolic Exhortation Recurrens Mensis October (The recurrence of the month of October), 1969, said that, "Undoubtedly, peace is the concern of men and a good common to all. As such, it must be the constant care of everyone...Despite much good will, there are many interests in opposition; much selfishness is shown; many antagonisms increase; many rivalries conflict with one another. Who does not see, then, the unflagging action demanded from each and all in order that love may triumph over discord and that peace may be restored to the city of men?"

There is no peace without God. And no peace without prayer. Which is why there is no peace among men. Most men do not pray - even many of those who give lip service to prayer. Pope Paul VI continues, "..peace is also the concern of God. He has placed in our hearts the ardent desire for peace. He urges us to work toward it, each doing his share, and for that purpose He sustains our feeble energies and our vacillating wills. He alone can give us a peaceful soul, and confirm in depth and solidity our efforts for peace. Prayer, by which we ask for the gift of peace, is therefore an irreplaceable contribution to the establishment of peace. It is through Christ, in whom all grace is given us, that we dispose ourselves to welcome the gift of peace. And in that undertaking, how can we do otherwise than to depend lovingly upon the incomparable intercession of Mary, His Mother, of whom the Gospel tells us that she 'found favor with God'?"

A call to false irenicism is not the answer. Sticking our heads in the sand of denial and pretending "all is well" is not the answer. Selfishness and self-will, obstacles to authentic peace [and justice], are overcome only through constant prayer. As Pope Benedict XVI explained back in 2009: "Conflict and lack of reconciliation in the world stem from the fact that we are locked into our own interests and opinions, into our own little private world. Selfishness, both individual and collective, makes us prisoners of our interests and our desires that stand against the truth and separate us from one another. Awake, the Gospel tells us. Step outside, so as to enter the great communal truth, the communion of the one God. To awake, then, means to develop a receptivity for God: for the silent promptings with which he chooses to guide us; for the many indications of his presence..." (Christmas homily 2009).

Our youth must be educated in the truth that the Church is a communion of persons with the Living God, brought about by the Lord Jesus in the Holy Spirit. And, as Pope John Paul II teaches in Christifideles Laici, No. 64, "..an awareness of a commonly shared Christian dignity, an ecclesial consciousness brings a sense of belonging to the mystery of the Church as Communion. This is a basic and undeniable aspect of the life and mission of the Church. For one and all, the earnest prayer of Jesus at the Last Supper, 'That all may be one' (Jn 17: 21), ought to become daily a required and undeniable program of life and action." When we understand what is meant by the Church's communion, the words of Pope Benedict XVI make perfect sense: "..In order to remain in unity with the crucified and risen Lord, the practical sign of juridical unity, 'remaining in the teaching of the apostles' is indispensable." (Pilgrim Fellowship of Faith: The Church as Communion, p. 69, Ignatius Press).

Sadly, not all Catholics understand this. For some, the "unity of charity" has come to mean little more than a false irenicism. Which is why they castigate those who defend the truth. But as Dr. Dietrich von Hildebrand explains, "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.’"

"If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a slave of Christ."

2012-01-14T12:35:00.000-08:00

It was Blaise Pascal who said that, "It is as much a crime to disturb the peace when truth prevails as it is a crime to keep the peace when truth is violated. There is therefore a time in which peace is justified and another time when it is not justifiable. For it is written that there is a time for peace and a time for war and it is the law of truth that distinguishes the two. But at no time is there a time for truth and a time for error, for it is written that God's truth shall abide forever. That is why Christ has said that He has come to bring peace and at the same time He has come to bring the sword. But He does not say that He has come to bring both the truth and the falsehood."

Not all Catholics understand this. One just wrote, "There are writers who, even as they say they are faithful to the Magisterium, attack priests and bishops publicly. Some attack the Pope. That is harmful to the unity of charity."

Now obviously those who attack the Pope are placing themselves in spiritual danger. It was Pope St. Pius X, the Pope of the Eucharist, who said that: "When people love the pope, they do not discuss his orders; they do not question the extent of their obedience, nor in what matters they are to obey. When people love the pope, they do not pretend that he has not spoken clearly enough, as if he were obliged to whisper in each one's ear that which he has often expressed so clearly in words and encyclicals. They cannot cast doubt upon his order under the pretext so commonly adduced by those who are unwilling to obey, that it is not the pope who commands but those who surround him; they cannot limit the ground on which he may and ought to exercise his authority; in matters of authority, they cannot give preference to persons whose ideas clash with those of the pope, however learned these may be, for though they be learned, they are not saints."

That is precisely the creed of this Blog. Which is why I have made so many enemies [and even more friends] over the years. I stand with the Holy Father and those Bishops who are in communion with him. Deacon Nick Donnely of Protect the Pope [himself a real gift to the Church] knows this. He has said that this humble Blog was the inspiration for his website. I stand with the Pope because obedience and loyalty to the Holy Father are the hallmarks of true Catholics. And true Catholics - as opposed to those counterfeit Catholics who are comfortable with the Magisterium being attacked and undermined - fully agree with Pope Pius XII who, in his Encyclical Letter Humani Generis, stated clearly that: "...God has given to His Church a living Teaching Authority to elucidate and explain what is contained in the deposit of faith only obscurely and implicitly. This deposit of faith our Divine Redeemer has given for authentic interpretation not to each of the faithful, not even to theologians, but only to the Teaching Authority of the Church."

But standing with the Holy Father and the Magisterium of the Church does not require us, as faithful Catholics, to look the other way while the seeds of dissent are being sown by clerics who have lost, or are in the process of losing - their Catholic Faith. Which is why when Cardinal Francis George suggested that the Church's teaching relative to homosexuality and same-sex "marriage" may have to change, I took him to task publically. You see, not even a Cardinal may contradict the Magisterial teaching of the Church. And because sodomite priest Father Bernard Lynch is actively engaged in a campaign to promote radical homosexual agitprop, I publically took him to task.

St. Francis de Sales, a Doctor of the Church, in his Introduction to the Devout Lfe, expresses himself: "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." Charity obliges us to oppose the wolf, "in every way and place we may meet him." Both those wolves which attack within the Church. And those wolves which attack from without.

Our attitude should be that of St. Paul: "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach (to you) a gospel other than the one that we preached to you, let that one be accursed! As we have said before, and now I say again, if anyone preaches to you a gospel other than the one that you received, let that one be accursed! Am I now currying favor with human beings or God? Or am I seeking to please people? If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a slave of Christ." (Galatians 1: 8-10).

Sadly, many Catholics confuse criticism with condemnation - as evidenced in a recent post at this Blog. Even some clerics confuse the two. See here.

Related reading: Fr. Robert Hoatson's constructive criticism for Cardinal O'Malley.

See also the series entitled The Boston Virus over at Bishop Rene Gracida's Blog Abyssus Abyssum Invocat. His Excellency is a friend of mine, a faithful servant of God and example to all.

If we only knew what makes for authentic peace. See here.

In France: No Conscientious Objection for Pharmacists Required to Sell RU-486

2012-01-13T07:39:00.000-08:00

In France: A Rising Dictatorship of Relativism

Europe for Christ is reporting that:

"The pill to terminate intrauterine pregnancies known as RU-486 ['morning after pill'] has been available in France since May 1988. The French government has given the drug a non-prescription status under civl law, making it available on request from pharmacists who are required to have it in stock. The cost of the drug is 65% reimbursed under national health insurance, and available for free from family planning clinics. In December 2000, the French Assembly passed a law allowing public and parochial high school nurses to provide emergency contraception. In January 2002, French officials issued a decree allowing minors to obtain emergency contraceptives from a pharmacy at no cost and without parent's consent. Pharmacists are required to counsel young women and provide them with information about other forms of birth control. Since 1999, over 1.5 million such pills have been sold in France, 97% without a prescription. As of 2006, abortion using RU-486 was 46% of the total amount of abortions.

Catholic French pharmacists have tried to challenge the regulation under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights (freedom of conscience and religion) with no success. The European Court of Human Rights in its ruling of October 2, 2001 described the refusal to sell RU-486 as 'illegal' because Article 9 does not always guarantee the right to act according to personal convictions in public, adding that if the sale of a product is legal, pharmacists should not impose their beliefs to refuse the sale of the product. The Direction Générale de la Santé (Health General Department) rejected the claim of conscientious objection based on the fact that pharmacists do not deliver the drug 'directly' to the patient, but it is the patient who actually takes it at home in exercise of her free will. The Catholic Association of French Pharmacist has underlined the right to work respecting life and the human person as stated in Article R4235-2 of the French Code of Public Health, and requested the amendment of Article L. 2212-8 to include pharmacist among health professionals entitled to claim conscientious objection.

This request is also supported by the Parliamentary Assembly of Council of Europe (PACE) on its October 7, 2010 resolution which rejected Christine McCafferty's proposal to reduce conscientious objection. PACE understands the fundamental principle to defend and promote the right of medical personnel to conscientious objection. The new resolution now says that 'no hospital, institution or person can under pressure be responsible or suffer discrimination of any kind for refusing to perform, allow or assist an abortion, miscarriage caused or euthanasia, or to submit to, or for refusing to perform any action to cause the death of a fetus or an embryo, whatever be the reasons.'

This resolution applies to both individuals and institutions, hospitals and clinics, public and private. It also protects medical personnel objectors against the pressures and discrimination that can be exercised against them.

The European Parliament has also established a a new clause (Article L. 2151-7-1) on bioethics that states 'no scientist, no engineer, technician or research assistant of any kind, no medial doctor or auxiliary is required to participate in any capacity whatsoever to research on human embryos or embryonic cells.' Therefore, pharmacists should be allowed to claim the same rights granted to other health professionals." See here.

Pope John Paul II, in his Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae, says that: "...in the democratic culture of our time it is commonly held that the legal system of any society should limit itself to taking account of and accepting the convictions of the majority. It should therefore be based solely upon what the majority itself considers moral and actually practises. Furthermore, if it is believed that an objective truth shared by all is de facto unattainable, then respect for the freedom of the citizens-who in a democratic system are considered the true rulers-would require that on the legislative level the autonomy of individual consciences be acknowledged. Consequently, when establishing those norms which are absolutely necessary for social coexistence, the only determining factor should be the will of the majority, whatever this may be. Hence every politician, in his or her activity, should clearly separate the realm of private conscience from that of public conduct.

As a result we have what appear to be two diametrically opposed tendencies. On the one hand, individuals claim for themselves in the moral sphere the most complete freedom of choice and demand that the State should not adopt or impose any ethical position but limit itself to guaranteeing maximum space for the freedom of each individual, with the sole limitation of not infringing on the freedom and rights of any other citizen. On the other hand, it is held that, in the exercise of public and professional duties, respect for other people's freedom of choice requires that each one should set aside his or her own convictions in order to satisfy every demand of the citizens which is recognized and guaranteed by law; in carrying out one's duties the only moral criterion should be what is laid down by the law itself. Individual responsibility is thus turned over to the civil law, with a renouncing of personal conscience, at least in the public sphere..." (No. 69).

In No. 74 of the same Encyclical Letter, the Holy Father warns that: "Christians, like all people of good will, are called upon under grave obligation of conscience not to cooperate formally in practices which, even if permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to God's law. Indeed, from the moral standpoint, it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil. Such cooperation occurs when an action, either by its very nature or by the form it takes in a concrete situation, can be defined as a direct participation in an act against innocent human life or a sharing in the immoral intention of the person committing it. This cooperation can never be justified either by invoking respect for the freedom of others or by appealing to the fact that civil law permits it or requires it. Each individual in fact has moral responsibility for the acts which he personally performs; no one can be exempted from this responsibility, and on the basis of it everyone will be judged by God himself (cf. Rom 2:6; 14:12).

To refuse to take part in committing an injustice is not only a moral duty; it is also a basic human right. Were this not so, the human person would be forced to perform an action intrinsically incompatible with human dignity, and in this way human freedom itself, the authentic meaning and purpose of which are found in its orientation to the true and the good, would be radically compromised. What is at stake therefore is an essential right which, precisely as such, should be acknowledged and protected by civil law. In this sense, the opportunity to refuse to take part in the phases of consultation, preparation and execution of these acts against life should be guaranteed to physicians, health-care personnel, and directors of hospitals, clinics and convalescent facilities. Those who have recourse to conscientious objection must be protected not only from legal penalties but also from any negative effects on the legal, disciplinary, financial and professional plane."

The Fathers of Vatican II, in their Declaration on Religious Freedom (Dignitatis Humanae) stressed the importance of religious freedom and the right of the individual, or groups, to be free from coercion:

"This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.

The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself. This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right.

It is in accordance with their dignity as persons-that is, beings endowed with reason and free will and therefore privileged to bear personal responsibility-that all men should be at once impelled by nature and also bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth. They are also bound to adhere to the truth, once it is known, and to order their whole lives in accord with the demands of truth However, men cannot discharge these obligations in a manner in keeping with their own nature unless they enjoy immunity from external coercion as well as psychological freedom. Therefore the right to religious freedom has its foundation not in the subjective disposition of the person, but in his very nature. In consequence, the right to this immunity continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it and the exercise of this right is not to be impeded, provided that just public order be observed."

But while the Church respects freedom of conscience and shuns any form of coercion, our Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI reminds us 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, our Holy Father explains 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. Soon, the New Order will use violence to achieve its goals and not just coercion and propaganda. In the end, every dictatorship must rely on violence in its vain attempt to hold onto power.

What should be our attitude toward the Magisterial teaching of the Church?

2012-01-12T07:23:00.000-08:00

In her most recent blog post, Stacy Trasancos, a Catholic writer who contributes a regular column for The Catholic Free Press, writes, "One thing I learned very quickly about Catholicism was that Catholics argue a lot. I wanted to be faithful to the Magisterium but I was often confused about the details. If I listened to this argument from a trusted theologian, and learned it, then I thought I was being sufficiently faithful. I thought, naively, that theologians all learned the same things, kind of like mathematicians, and they just taught it. I even began a Masters degree in theology with that purpose in mind — I want to be able to communicate the faith better.

Then I began to encounter opposing theological arguments, and that left me confused. Who is right? 'Wait! I thought we all just learned the catechism and spread the word.' It’s not so simple. Theologians, laity all the way to the Pope, often disagree. Church Councils dealt with disagreements. There have always been disagreements, even among the Apostles. Over time I realized something really quite profound. Catholics, unified though we are, are also supposed to challenge each other, and in doing so they aid in the maturation of our understanding of revealed truth. In this way we aid the Magisterium, remaining in service to this authority, not in opposition to it. We grow together." (See here).

What of this? May a Catholic disagree with [dissent from] the Magisterial teaching of the Church? Is there such a thing as "faithful dissent"? In a word, no. In its 1990 Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith addressed this matter in detail and, in so doing, provided us with a helpful commentary on the nature of what Vatican II (Lumen Gentium, No. 25) refers to as "religious submission of soul" or of "will and mind" which all of the faithful - including theologians - must give to authoritative Magisterial teachings, even when they are proposed noninfallibly.

First of all, let's see what Lumen Gentium of the Second Vatican Council had to say:

"Among the principal duties of bishops the preaching of the Gospel occupies an eminent place. For bishops are preachers of the faith, who lead new disciples to Christ, and they are authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach to the people committed to them the faith they must believe and put into practice, and by the light of the Holy Spirit illustrate that faith. They bring forth from the treasury of Revelation new things and old, making it bear fruit and vigilantly warding off any errors that threaten their flock. Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking."

Getting back to the CDF's Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian, the document clearly differentiates, in No. 24, between questioning and dissent [or disagreement] by ephasizing that "the willingness to submit loyally to the teachings of the Magisterium...must be the rule" when questioning Magisterial teachings. Any questioning of Magisterial teachings by the theologian must take place within the context of the religious submission of mind and will which is owed to the more-than-human authority within the Church. What do we mean by "more-than-human-authority"? Read the second sentence of Lumen Gentium 25 above: "For bishops are preachers of the faith, who lead new disciples to Christ, and they are authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ.."

The CDF Instruction goes on to clearly repudiate the false claim that dissent is somehow reconcilable with Church teaching. In his Encyclical Letter Veritatis Splendor, No. 113, Pope John Paul II emphasizes that, "dissent, in the form of carefully orchestrated protests and polemics carried on in the media, is opposed to ecclesial communion and to a correct understanding of the hierarchical constitution of the People of God."

May Catholics challenge the Magisterium by disagreeing with it? Not if they wish to remain in communion with the Church. It is important to recall the teaching of Dei Verbum of the Second Vatican Council: "..the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively 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 this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed."

The issue here is: Who speaks for the Church? Who has the authority from Christ Jesus to settle disputes which may arise within the Church? The answer is that is that this authority is vested exclusively in the Pope and the Bishops in communion with the Holy Father. The Church is Mater et Magistra (the title of an Encyclical Letter of Pope John XXIII), Mother and Teacher. The Magisterium alone has been entrusted with the task of authentically interpreting the Word of God, whether found in Sacred Scripture or Tradition.

This post should not be interpreted as a criticism of Stacy Trasancos' person. She comes across as a delightful young lady who is bright and personable. She has so much good to offer. It is offered only in the service of truth and charity.

Code of Canon Law:

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.

Related reading on the sensus fidelium here.

Churches in Hawaii threatened by government...

2012-01-11T07:11:00.000-08:00

A new law in Hawaii can force churches to make their property available to homosexuals for civil union ceremonies. Under this law, if a church should refuse to allow the ceremonies on their property they could be subject to sanctions or fines. See here. In in its Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons, No. 17, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith emphasized the fact that church property should not be used for promoting homosexuality in general or same-sex unions. The CDF said that such activity, "..is contradictory to the purpose for which these institutions were founded" and that such activity would be "misleading and..scandalous."

Dignitatis Humanae of the Second Vatican Council insists that, "The freedom or immunity from coercion in matters religious which is the endowment of persons as individuals is also to be recognized as their right when they act in community. Religious communities are a requirement of the social nature both of man and of religion itself.

Provided the just demands of public order are observed, religious communities rightfully claim freedom in order that they may govern themselves according to their own norms, honor the Supreme Being in public worship, assist their members in the practice of the religious life, strengthen them by instruction, and promote institutions in which they may join together for the purpose of ordering their own lives in accordance with their religious principles.

Religious communities also have the right not to be hindered, either by legal measures or by administrative action on the part of government, in the selection, training, appointment, and transferral of their own ministers, in communicating with religious authorities and communities abroad, in erecting buildings for religious purposes, and in the acquisition and use of suitable funds or properties." (No. 4).

These rights are now under attack in Hawaii. As the article notes, "Now churches throughout America await the effects of this dangerous law and the inevitable attempt by homosexual activists to force them to use their property in violation of their religious convictions."

Once again, homosexual activists are attempting to use force to impose their agenda.

Related reading here.

"Educating is very demanding...But educating becomes a marvelous mission if it is done in collaboration with God.."

2012-01-10T07:37:00.000-08:00

Pope Benedict XVI, on the feast of the Baptism of the Lord, exhorted parents to understand that prayer is the first step in educating children and said that, "Educating is very demanding...But educating becomes a marvelous mission if it is done in collaboration with God, who is the first and true educator of every man...It is very important for you parents and also for you godfathers and godmothers to believe strongly in the presence and the action of the Holy Spirit, to call upon him and welcome him in you through prayer and the sacraments...He is the one in fact who enlightens the mind, who makes the heart of the educator burn so that he or she knows how to transmit the knowledge of the love of Christ. Prayer is the first condition for educating, because in praying we create the disposition in ourselves of letting God have the initiative, of entrusting our children to him, who knows them before we do and better than us, and knows perfectly what their true good is. And, at the same time, when we pray we open ourselves to the inspirations of God to do our part better, which in any case is our duty and we must accomplish. The sacraments, especially Eucharist and Penance, permit us to perform the educative action in union with Christ, in communion with him and continually renewed by his forgiveness.."

Our Holy Father has said it: educating children becomes a marvelous mission if it is done in collaboration with God. But can homosexual parents honestly be said to be collaborating with God in the mission of transmitting the knowledge of the love of Christ when they are engaging in gravely sinful acts and doing violence to their children? The Archdiocese of Boston has said that homosexual parents can collaborate with God in the task of educating children. See here.

This is most unfortunate. The CDF has said, quite clearly, that adoption of children by homosexuals "would actually mean doing violence to these children," by placing them "in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development." Besides being gravely immoral, adoption of children by homosexuals violates the principle that "the weaker and more vulnerable party" must always be favored and protected. (Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons, No. 7).

How can those who are actually doing violence to children be said to be collaborating with God?

Cardinal O'Malley?

Cardinal Francis George: The Church's teaching on homosexuality may have to change

2012-01-08T10:10:00.000-08:00

The sin of homosexuality [here we are speaking of homosexual acts] is condemned in both the Old and New Testaments.* Saint Peter, our first Pope, in his Second Epistle, says:

"And reducing the cities of the Sodomites, and of the Gomorrhites, into ashes, God condemned them to be overthrown, making them an example to those that should afterwards act wickedly. And he delivered just Lot, oppressed by the injustice and lewd conversation of the wicked." (2 Peter 2: 6-7).

The sin of homosexuality has been condemned by Fathers and Doctors of the Church, and by the Popes, for 2,000 years. And with good reason, Saint Peter Damian [himself a Doctor of the Church] explains that the sin "should not be considered an ordinary vice, for it surpasses all of them in enormity." (The Book of Gomorrah).

The Catechism of the Catholic Church tells us that: "Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that 'homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.'" (2357). Which is why, in his 1994 Angelus Address, protesting against a special resolution crafted by the European Parliament encouraging the nations of Europe to approve homosexual "marriage," Pope John Paul II said that, "What is not morally acceptable, however, is the legalization of homosexual acts. To show understanding towards the person who sins, towards the person who is not in the process of freeing himself from this tendency, does not at all mean to diminish the demands of the moral norm (cf. Veritatis Splendor, No. 95)...

But we must say that what was intended with the European Parliament's resolution was the legitimization of a moral disorder. Parliament improperly conferred an institutional value to a conduct that is deviant and not in accordance with God's plan...Forgetting the words of Christ 'The truth shall set you free' (John 8:32), an attempt was made to show the people of our continent a moral evil, a deviance, a certain slavery, as a form of liberation, falsifying the very essence of the family." (See here).

But Cardinal Francis George is now suggesting that respect for homosexual persons, which should consist of an authentic charity which shows them the unnatural lie they have embraced and that they should view with horror the sin in which they find themselves, might mean changing the Church's teaching. As noted here, Cardinal George asked, "Does respect [for homosexual persons] mean that we have to change our teaching? That's an ongoing discussion, of course."

Really? The Church teaches otherwise. The CDF has taught authoritatively that, "There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God's plan for marriage and family. Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law. Homosexual acts 'close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved." (Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons, 4).

Cardinal George has also referred to the homosexual movement as the "gay liberation movement." But again, Pope John Paul II rebuked the European Parliament for presenting "a moral evil, a deviance, a certain slavery, as a form of liberation."

Why is Cardinal George suggesting that Church teaching may have to change and that this is an "ongoing discussion"? It would appear that he is succumbing to the darkness. Today there is a demand for sex without love, for a licentiousness in sex which has wrought a heartless society in which individuals do not care for anyone but themselves. The fruit of this demonic theology is the slaughter through abortion and euthanasia of human beings created in the Imago Dei. It is a theology of violence which is rooted in hatred of truth. For at the heart of immorality is falsity, the hatred of truth. Fr. Vincent P. Miceli, in an essay entitled "The Taproot of Violence," explains:

"...violence entered creation from the rebellion of Lucifer. This rebellion arose from the heart of pride. But the sin of pride is the offspring of the vice known as hatred of truth. Hatred of truth is the result of the creature's attempt to rearrange God's hierarchy of beings and values into an order which the creature prefers to the plan of God. This attempt immediately produces the violence of disorder, the chaos of falsity and immorality. For hatred of truth is really hatred of God who creates all things wisely and governs them lovingly. Lucifer, the Morning Star, was instantly deformed into the Prince of Darkness because he attempted to live a lie. He wanted to dethrone God and become God himself..."

* C.f. Gen 19: 1-19; Lev 18: 22; Deut 22: 5; 2 Pet 2: 6-7; Rom 1: 24-27; 1 Cor 6: 9-10, Jude.

Cardinal George, bereft of the Cardinal Virtue of Fortitude, apologizes for warning that the homosexual hate movement could morph into something similar to the Ku Klux Klan

2012-01-07T07:48:00.000-08:00

Readers of this Blog know that I agreed with Cardinal Francis George when he said, "You don't want the gay liberation movement to morph into something like the Ku Klux Klan, demonstrating in the streets against Catholicism." See here. Now the Cardinal is apologizing for his comments made last month. Click on the title of this Blog post for full article.
The problem? He has nothing to apologize for. The homosexual movement is a hate movement. And it has already engaged in violent anti-Catholicism as well as attacks against other Christian and Mormon churches. See here. The LGBT Movement has never expressed regret for violent acts such as this.

When Jose Nunez was assaulted outside a Catholic Church for promoting Prop 8, the goal of which was to define marriage as only between a man and a woman in California, and he was sent to a hospital where he received 16 stitches for a wound below his left eye, where were the apologies from what Cardinal George has unfortunately referred to as the "gay liberation movement"? Does the Cardinal believe that sin is somehow liberating? If not, why would he refer to the LGBT Movement as a "liberation movement"?

As I've warned so many times before at this Blog, the same radical homosexual activists who continually cry for more "tolerance" are anything but tolerant. This is a spiritual war. The homosexual movement is not a civil rights movement. It is an attempt at moral revolution. An attempt to change people's view of homosexuality. Writing in the Chicago Free Press, even homosexual activist Paul Varnell admitted this. He wrote, "The fundamental controverted issue about homosexuality is not discrimination, hate crimes or domestic partnerships, but the morality of homosexuality. Even if gays obtain non-discrimination laws, hate crimes law and domestic partnership benefits, those can do little to counter the underlying moral condemnation which will continue to fester beneath the law and generate hostility, fuel hate crimes, support conversion therapies, encourage gay youth suicide and inhibit the full social acceptance that is our goal. On the other hand, if we convince people that homosexuality is fully moral, then all their inclination to discriminate, engage in gay-bashing or oppose gay marriage disappears. Gay youths and adults could readily accept themselves. So the gay movement, whether we acknowledge it or not, is not a civil rights movement, not even a sexual liberation movement, but a moral revolution aimed at changing people's view of homosexuality." (Paul Varnell, "Defending Our Morality," Chicago Free Press, Aug 16, 2000).

At the Beatification of Joan of Arc on December 13, 1908, Pope St. Pius X said that: "..the greatest asset of the evilly disposed is the cowardice and weakness of Catholics. Oh! If I might ask the divine Redeemer, as the prophet Zachary did in spirit: 'What are those wounds in the midst of your hands?' the answer would not be doubtful. 'With these I was wounded in the house of those who did nothing to defend me and who, on every occasion, made themselves the accomplices of my adversaries.' And this reproach can be levelled at the weak and timid Catholics of all countries."

Yes Your Holiness. Even certain Cardinals and Bishops.

Fr. Vincent Miceli, S.J., my mentor, once said, "Fortitude is that virtue which enduringly resists difficulties of mind and body while persistently seeking, defending and spreading the truth and holiness of the Gospel. St. Thomas reminds us that fortitude is especially concerned with overcoming the fear of performing difficult deeds for the glory of God. This virtue prevents a soldier of Christ, and above all officers in Christ's army such as bishops and priests, from fleeing the field of battle, from betraying the brethren when real or imaginary obstacles present themselves. The great fault of the pusillanimous is that they succumb easily to irrational fears and leave the field of battle to enemy forces. This moral deformity reveals a lack of faith in the cause of Christ and a distrust of the assurance he gave his followers when he said to his Apostles: 'Have confidence, I have overcome the world.' The defect of irrational fear weakens virtue and renders Christians cowards. All the Apostles except Judas overcame this fear when they received the gift of Fortitude from the Holy Spirit on Pentecost Sunday. And priests should pray daily for this gift which the Holy Spirit will never deny them."

Pray for Cardinal George and all those priests and bishops who lack the Cardinal Virtue of Fortitude. Without it, they will continue to flee the field of battle and leave the faithful in disarray.

"No one will enter the New World Order unless he or she will make a pledge to worship Lucifer.."

2012-01-05T13:15:00.000-08:00

“And they adored the beast, saying, who is like to the beast? And who shall be able to fight with him?” (Revelation 13:4).

As Rev. P. Huchede explains in his book History of Antichrist, “All vile parasites of fortune, astonished at the rapidity with which Antichrist achieves his conquests and also at the unlimited sway of his power, deceived by his prodigies, will prostrate themselves before him and adore him as their god. As soon as he believes himself master of the bodies and souls of all peoples, he will decree and proclaim his divinity and establish a new religion. According to the Apostle, he will lift himself up above all that is called God or that is worshipped, so that he sitteth in the temple of God showing himself as if he were God (2 Thessalonians 2:4). He will command all peoples to place his statue in the public places to be worshipped, the image of the beast whose wound was healed (Revelation 13: 13-15)…..Then he shall think himself able to change times and laws – religious, political, and sacred – by which the world had been governed up to his advent (Daniel 7: 25)…None but adorers of this new god can enjoy the possession of riches or honors. This god shall increase their glory and shall give them power over many and shall divide the land for nothing (Revelation 13: 7)….Those who will refuse to obey his impious orders shall be the object of a terrible and universal persecution….No language can give an adequate idea of the atrocity and effects of this frightful persecution. “I beheld and lo that horn made war against the saints, and prevailed over them” (Daniel 7: 21). The beast shall make war against the saints and shall overcome them and kill them (Revelation 11: 7). And he “shall crush the saints of the Most High” (Daniel 7: 25). And he will put to death all those who will not adore the image of the beast (Revelation 13: 15). Then the truth shall be oppressed. The Church shall see her children apostatize in vast numbers, and in the agony of her heart-rending grief, she will cry out in the words of her divine spouse, ‘My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?’ (Mark 15: 34). Then by order of the tyrant the continual sacrifice shall be abolished (Daniel 9: 27). The holy sacrifice of the Mass shall no longer be offered up publicly on the altars. The Church shall be devastated; the sacred vessels desecrated; the priests shall be scattered and separated from their flocks and put to death….The Church has taken up her abode in the catacombs.” (History of Antichrist, pp. 23-26, Tan Books).

In order for the new religion of humanitarianism to succeed, all dissenting voices will have to be either converted, silenced or removed. The Reign of Antichrist, which will be presented as an age of “love and harmony” will have to be brutally violent in order to achieve world unity. There are already many voices which have called or are calling for such a “global purge” or “cleansing action.” Harvard historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr, in the July-August 1995 edition of Foreign Affairs, said that, “We are not going to achieve a new world order without paying for it in blood as well as in words and money.” Likewise, David Spangler, Director of Planetary Initiative at the United Nations, has said, “Lucifer comes to give us the final Luciferic initiation…that many people now and in the days ahead, will be facing – for it is an initiation into the New Age…No one will enter the New World Order unless he or she will make a pledge to worship Lucifer. No one will enter the New Age unless he will take a Luciferian initiation.”* Benjamin Crème, another prominent New Age “prophet,” on page 128 of “Maitreya’s mission,” insists that those who refuse to join in this World Initiation will find themselves in the minority and will have to “withdraw from this life.” Creme exhorts his followers to, “Be not afraid, therefore, when the ‘men of cloth’ raise their voices against the Great Lord, naming Him anti-Christ and arch-deceiver, for they know little of the laws which underlie their faiths and act and speak from ignorance and fear.” (April, 1997).

In the New Order, a Police State will employ the use of various technologies to keep the citizenry in line. In the words of Zbigniew Brzezinski, “The Technocratic Age is slowly designing an every day more controlled society. The society will be dominated by an elite of persons free from traditional values who will have no doubt in fulfilling their objectives by means of purged techniques with which they will influence the behavior of people and will control and watch society in all details…it will become possible to exert a practically permanent watch on each citizen of the world.” Mr. Brzezinski is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations who has attended meetings of the Bilderberg Group.

Related reading: Obama primed to create New World Order

* http://lasalettejourney.blogspot.com/2011/06/department-of-veterans-affairs.html

Obama pushing the radical homosexual agenda around the world

2012-01-05T03:52:00.000-08:00

"The Western world in general has been hard at work promoting sterile sex for nearly a century now. We began by sanctioning the break-up of families through ever-easier divorce. Divorce is a kind of pretense that the marital covenant is ultimately sterile, in the sense that children do not matter. Next we embraced contraception so that our sexual pleasures could not be diminished through responsibility. Promiscuity inevitably followed, and with it abortion, which is simply fruitfulness in denial. We’ve covered our eyes and stopped our ears. “Nyah, nyah, nyah, I can’t SEE you! I can’t HEAR you!”

A culture like this, a culture which embraces these values, has no argument against homosexual sex, no case against homosexual marriage. A huge percentage of our marriages are deliberately and totally sterile; most of the rest are deliberately sterile much of the time. Huge numbers of marriages, by deliberate design, result neither in children to preserve the race nor in future citizens to enhance and develop the social order. There is no conceivable public interest in such unions, and no significant personal interest in them either, apart from the fuel they temporarily provide for the couple’s doomed egoism à deux.

Far from having a natural revulsion against homosexual intimacy, modern Western culture can hardly help seeing it as the jewel which crowns and protects its own warped vision of sex. We recognize and defend a right of men and women to engage in sexual intimacy without fruit. It follows that rank prejudice must be the only reason anyone could possibly oppose the same freedom between men and men or women and women.

No group is more hateful to modern society than the perceived moralistic prigs who, out of what most perceive as religiously-motivated prejudice, seek to diminish the personal sexual liberty of others. Nothing could be more obvious in our current culture than that such people must be silenced and, if necessary, restrained. Moreover, it seems only right and just that their denunciation of the gay lifestyle and their opposition to gay marriage should be criminalized. In fact, it should be criminalized in the name of liberty. That is why gay marriage is the lie that will create the next Gulag.

The insistence on ignoring vice is the hallmark of a debased culture, but the insistence that a lie be publicly affirmed as true is the hallmark of ideological totalitarianism." - Dr. Jeff Mirus

I'll be back later today with another post.

Homosexual activists such as Michael Bayly see Jesus as a "sissy." On the Dies Irae, they will learn the truth

2012-01-03T08:45:00.000-08:00

In their zeal to promote the Cult of Softness and effeminacy in general, many homosexual activists attempt to portray the Lord Jesus as being soft and effeminate Himself. For example, at the homosexual Blog The Wild Reed, Michael J. Bayly, referring to the work of Dr. David Rankin, writes, "I’ve had a cassette tape of Rankin’s talk, 'Jesus Was A Sissy,' floating around for years. I can’t recall when and how I obtained it, and an Internet search for Rankin provides little information about him or when and where he gave this particular talk. Listening to it again this evening I realized that it actually dates back to the 1980s, as Rankin mentions that Ronald Reagan is president.

Regardless of all of this, I found much of what Rankin had to say still very pertinent, and so thought I would share it on this day that we honor the Sacred Heart of Jesus.

A fraud

Rankin begins his talk by noting that perhaps, in a sort of secret way, we have always known that Jesus was a sissy. All efforts to align him with soldiers, marching, battles, banners, and wars (as, for example, in hymns like 'Onward Christian Soldiers') are part of a widespread fraud – 'a pious, well-intentioned fraud,' says Rankin, 'but a fraud nonetheless. For Jesus was a sissy.'

Rankin himself was taught from an early age that male success was synonymous with aggressive physical behavior. Indeed, he internalized this message so well that he became a professional fighter – 'Rocky Rankin'! 'Violence was rewarded,' he remembers, and all his teachers were proud of him.

He has since learned that human behavior has been 'arbitrarily categorized as masculine and feminine,' that societies have 'carefully defined sexual stereotypes that lead to victimization,' and that 'according to our own particular stereotypes, Jesus was not a ‘soldier marching to war,’ but an honest-to-goodness sissy.' To insist otherwise is to feed into a 'dangerous and damaging fraud.'...Rankin declares his thesis absolutely inescapable: Jesus was a sissy. After all, Jesus was able to feel and express a wide range of tender emotions. He wept without shame, even raved and screamed and moaned and won no battles. He was an intuitive thinker, often the victim of wild imaginings and flights of fantasy. He responded to beauty, embracing the birds of the air and the lilies of the field. He nurtured little children, relating to them in the manner of a mother. He freely touched other men and kissed them.

'Does Jesus really fit the American ideal of manhood?' Rankin asks. Can we imagine Jesus as a United States Marine? As a linebacker for the Detroit Lions? As the Marlboro Man? 'By almost every standard in our culture,' concludes Rankin, 'Jesus was a real live honest-to-goodness sissy.'" (See full post here).

What of this? Was Jesus a "sissy"? The Sacred Scriptures show otherwise. In the wonderful Catholic classic entitled "My Meditation on the Gospel," published by the Confraternity of the Precious Blood, Rev. James E. Sullivan provides us with the following meditation on Christian Fortitude:

"After a few days' stay at Capharnaum, Jesus and Mary and the first five Apostles made the journey to Jerusalem for the Passover. When they entered the Temple, they heard its usual peace broken by a great uproar. Men were shouting and bargaining, oxen and sheep were bleating. Jesus stiffened, His Father's house made into a market place! A fierce, set look came over His features. His hands seized some cords and tied them into a whip. His eyes never left the scene before Him. He walked forward then, arms outstretched. 'Take these things away!' He cried out. His voice was strong, yet trembling with anger. An uneasy fear came over the crowd, as His eyes burned into theirs. They hurried away their oxen and sheep, those in back urging on those in front. The money-changers alone held their ground. Jesus seized the end of their tables and sent them flying end over end. They became panic-stricken then. They grasped what coins they could and ran. Jesus stood alone in the courtyard. Peace settled again over the Temple.

My Lord, how I admire You in ths scene! We are so liable to think that being a Christian means being a weakling and a 'mouse'! How wonderful to see that distorted notion so firmly dispelled by the example of Your magnificent courage! Your Father's house was being desecrated; there was reason for the fighting - so You fought! You didn't care what they thought or what they would say. His glory was primary! Nor did it matter to You that You were alone against them all. Your courage was so great and Your cause so just that the entire crowd fled before You."

Does the cleansing of the Temple come across as the action of a "sissy"?

Jesus' Apostles were hardy men. They were men used to hard labor and were by no means effeminate in any way. But Jesus rebuked them for being frightened when it appeared their ship would capsize in the story Sea of Galilee:

"He got into a boat and his disciples followed him. Suddenly a violent storm came up on the sea, so that the boat was being swamped by waves; but he was asleep. They came and woke him, saying, 'Lord, save us! We are perishing!' He said to them, 'Why are you terrified, O you of little faith?' Then he got up, rebuked the winds and the sea, and there was great calm. The men were amazed and said, 'What sort of man is this, whom even the winds and the sea obey?'

The Apostles were afraid for their lives. And they cried out to Jesus. Sissy? How many real men would cry out to a sissy for help when their lives are in danger?

Jesus is presented in the Gospels as one who taught with authority. In fact, an evil spirit, so fearful of Him, instantly fled at His command:

"Then they came to Capernaum, and on the sabbath he entered the synagogue and taught. The people were astonished at his teaching, for he taught them as one having authority and not as the scribes. In their synagogue was a man with an unclean spirit; he cried out, 'What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are—the Holy One of God!' Jesus rebuked him and said, 'Quiet! Come out of him!' The unclean spirit convulsed him and with a loud cry came out of him. All were amazed and asked one another, 'What is this? A new teaching with authority. He commands even the unclean spirits and they obey him.' His fame spread everywhere throughout the whole region of Galilee." (Mark 1: 21-28).

Jesus came to die for our sins. And His death involved a level of torture that was almost indescribably horrific. Hardly the actions of a "sissy."

No, Dr. Rankin's idea of Jesus as "sissy" is the one which is a fraud. And on the Dies Irae (the Day of Wrath) those who bought into his asinine idea will learn just how wrong he was. For the King of Kings, the Lion of Judah, is not going to return as the suffering and sacrificial Lamb. He tells us:

"..Behold, I make all things new..I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To the thirsty I will give a gift from the spring of life-giving water. The victor will inherit these gifts, and I shall be his God, and he will be my son. But as for cowards [read sissies if you will], the unfaithful, the depraved, murderers, the unchaste, sorcerers, idol-worshipers, and deceivers of every sort, their lot is in the burning pool of fire and sulfur, which is the second death." (Revelation 21: 5-8).

Jesus a sissy? Don't kid yourself. The Word of God assures us that: "It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God." (Hebrews 10: 31).

Now why would it be a fearful thing if Jesus were a "sissy"?

"A day will come when the civilized world will deny its God..."

2012-01-02T11:17:00.000-08:00

"Suppose, dear friend, that Communism [one of 'the errors of Russia' mentioned in the Message of Fatima] was only the most visible of the instruments of subversion to be used against the Church and the traditions of Divine Revelation...

"I am worried by the Blessed Virgin's messages to Lucy of Fatima. This persistence of Mary about the dangers which menace the Church is a divine warning against the suicide of altering the Faith, in her liturgy, her theology and her soul....

"I hear all around me innovators who wish to dismantle the Sacred Chapel, destroy the universal flame of the Church, reject her ornaments and make her feel remorse for her historical past.

"A day will come when the civilized world will deny its God, when the Church will doubt as Peter doubted. She will be tempted to believe that man has become God. In our churches, Christians will search in vain for the red lamp where God awaits them, like Mary Magdalene weeping before the empty tomb, they will ask, "Where have they taken Him?" (Pope Pius XII, quoted in the book Pius XII Devant L'Histoire, pp. 52-53, by Msgr. Georges Roche).

How will this be accomplished? Pope St. Pius X, the Pope of the Eucharist, warned back in 1907, in his Encyclical Letter Pascendi Dominici Gregis, that the enemies of the Church, knowing that external persecution of Her actually brings about Her greater growth ("The blood of the martyrs is the seed of Christianity" - Tertullian), would focus in the future on destroying Her through infiltration.

Our Lady told Fr. Stefano Gobbi of the Marian Movement of Priests: "I am weeping because the Church is continuing along the road of division, of loss of the true faith, of apostasy and of errors which are being spread more and more without anyone offering opposition to them. Even now, that which I predicted at Fatima and that which I have revealed here in the third message confided to a little daughter of mine (i.e. Sister Lucia) is in the process of being accomplished. And so, even for the Church the moment of its great trial has come, because the man of iniquity will establish himself within it and the abomination of desolation will enter into the holy temple of God." (To the Priests, Our Lady's Beloved Sons, No. 362, September 15, 1987, p. 572.)

And again: "The black beast like a leopard indicates Freemasonry; the beast with the two horns like a lamb indicates Freemasonry infiltrated into the interior of the Church, that is to say, ecclesiastical Masonry, which has spread especially among the members of the hierarchy. This Masonic infiltration, in the interior of the Church, was already foretold to you by me at Fatima, when I announced to you that Satan would enter in even to the summit of the Church. If the task of Masonry is to lead souls to perdition, bringing them to the worship of false divinities, the task of ecclesiastical Masonry on the other hand is that of destroying Christ and his Church, building a new idol, namely a false christ and a false church." (To the Priests, Our Lady's Beloved Sons, No. 406, June 13, 1989, p. 649)

The false church Our Lady refers to was also foretold by Anne Catherine Emmerich (1774-1824), a German Augustinian nun, stigmatist, and miracle-worker, who subsisted entirely on water and Holy Communion for many years. Venerable Emmerich received numerous visions of the future crisis in the Church and the infiltration of the Masons. In her visions, she describes men in aprons destroying the Church with a trowel, The Masons wear aprons and their symbol is the Mason's trowel. The following excerpts are from page 565 of the Life of Anne Catherine Emmerich, Vol. 1, by Rev. K.E. Schmöger, Tan Books, 1976:

"I saw St. Peter's. A great crowd of men was trying to pull it down whilst others constantly built it up again. Lines connected these men one with another and with others throughout the whole world. I was amazed at their perfect understanding." The demolishers, mostly apostates and members of different sects, broke off whole pieces and worked according to rules and instructions. They wore WHITE APRONS bound with blue riband. In them were pockets and they had TROWELS stuck in their belts. The costumes of the others were various."There were among the demolishers distinguished men wearing uniforms and crosses. They did not work themselves but they marked out on the wall with a TROWEL where and how it should be torn down. To my horror, I saw among them Catholic Priests. Whenever the workmen did not know how to go on, they went to a certain one in their party. He had a large book which seemed to contain the whole plan of the building and the way to destroy it. They marked out exactly with a TROWEL the parts to be attacked, and they soon came down. They worked quietly and confidently, but slyly, furtively and warily. I saw the Pope praying, surrounded by false friends who often did the very opposite to what he had ordered..."

We have witnessed the gradual emergence of this false church within Christ's Church. And that which this false church proposes is a new religion in which man, and not God, is the object of worship. And all will be accomplished in the name of humanitarianism. Through one of his characters in his prophetic book The Lord of the World, Fr. Robert Hugh Benson describes this humanitarian religion: "Humanitarianism...is becoming an actual religion itself, though anti-supernatural. It is a pantheism. Pantheism deifies all nature, God is the world, but naturally, man above all is God since he is the highest expression of nature. It is a religion devoid of the 'super' natural, because since God is nature itself, there is no longer a distinction between Creator and creature. The creature is God and hence arbitrator of his own destiny and establishes the moral law for himself. Nature, and man is its highest expression, has all the divine attributes. Humanitarianism is a religion devoid of the supernatural. It is developing a ritual under Freemasonry; it has a creed, 'God is man'; and the rest. It has, therefore, a real food of a sort to offer religious cravings: it idealizes, and yet makes no demands upon the spiritual faculties. Then, they have the use of all the churches except ours, and of all the Cathedrals; and they are beginning at last to encourage sentiment. Then they may display their symbols and we may not: I think they will be established legally in another ten years" (Introduction, p. xvii).

The new humanitarian religion of Antichrist has already taken root within the true Church founded by the Lord Jesus. This new humanitarian religion will embrace homosexuality. As Father Vincent Miceli, S.J., has explained, "For the Modernist dogmas are tentative, provisional formulas, the outcome of on-going religious experience, as changeable as that experience itself. The Collective Conscience of the many sharing similar dogmas forms the Church. And Church authority originates from the Collective Conscience." John Smeaton, writing for LifeSiteNews, explains that, "Only two months ago I watched him [Archbishop Vincent Nichols] in an exchange on Catholic teaching and gay unions during an interview on BBC's Hardtalk (Friday, 2nd July). Stephen Sackur, the Hardtalk interviewer, asked the archbishop:

"Some of their vicars are also prepared to sanction gay unions. That church is showing flexibility. Is the Catholic church not going to have to do the same eventually?"

To which the archbishop replied

"I don't know. Who knows what's down the road?"

Faithful Catholics, now a remnant, do know "what's down the road." They are able to read the "signs of the times." And they know in advance what is coming.

Archbishop Vincent Nichols: Respect for the Holy Eucharist and Church Teaching?

2012-01-01T11:14:00.000-08:00

The Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments, in its document entitled Immensae Caritatis: On Facilitating Reception Of Communion In Certain Circumstances, provided for the use of Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist under rather strict guidelines and said that "The faithful who are special ministers of communion must be persons whose good qualities of Christian life, faith, and morals recommend them. Let them strive to be worthy of this great office, foster their own devotion to the eucharist, and show an example to the rest of the faithful by their own devotion and reverence toward the most august sacrament of the altar. No one is to be chosen whose appointment the faithful might find disquieting." (No. 6).

Apparently Archbishop Vincent Nichols could care less about this teaching. For one of his Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist is Mr. Terence Weldon, a radical homosexual activist and propagandist who has engaged in blasphemy against the Lord Jesus and who routinely dissents from the Church's teaching on homosexuality while holding the Bishops of the Church up to ridicule. As I noted in my last post, Mr. Weldon's hatred for the Holy Catholic Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, is so intense that, referring to the CDF document entitled "Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons," which says that the homosexual inclination is intrinsically disordered, he writes, "I just don’t buy that. The claim may be in the notorious CDF document, but anybody who is prepared to swallow every disordered statement on human sexuality from the Vatican, just because it has been written by sexually repressed, celibate theologians with no real-life experience of the subject they are able to admit to, is not living on the same planet as the rest of us. (See here).

An individual who has such disdain for the Lord Jesus, His Church, and the Bishops who serve in His name and with His authority cannot honestly be said to possess those "good qualities of Christian life, faith and morals" which the Church demands in its Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion.

Additionally, Archbishop Nichols continues to tolerate the scandal of the so-called "Soho Masses," a bizarre experiment in liturgical terrorism where Christ is mocked in the Eucharist and Church teaching is relegated to the waste bin. So much for the teaching of the Catechism of the Catholic Church that the Eucharist is properly the sacrament of those who are in full communion with the Church (1395).

In a Keynote Address entitled Good Shepherd: Living Christ's Own Pastoral Authority, which was delivered at the 10th Annual Symposium on the Spirituality and Identity of the Diocesan Priest on March 18, 2011, Bishop Samuel J. Aquila had some important things to say about the role of Bishops. His Excellency noted that:

"Perhaps most difficult for us who lead in the Church today, due to the influence of the secular world with its rejection of God and the authority of God, along with a real skepticism of authority, is the exercise of the office of governance. Benedict XVI reminds us as bishops and priests again to turn to Jesus Christ to learn how to exercise this authority. No one is really able to feed Christ's flock, unless he lives in profound and true obedience to Christ and the Church, and the docility of the people towards their priests depends on the docility of the priests towards Christ; for this reason the personal and constant encounter with the Lord, profound knowledge of him and the conformation of the individual will to Christ's will is always at the root of the pastoral ministry. (General Audience, May 26, 2010).

Jesus at times was direct in calling people to conversion – to change their way of acting and thinking. This directness makes many of us uncomfortable today. We should follow his example and language, even if we do not use his precise words. His language is good to contemplate and definitely should challenge us to look at how we correct the faithful, including priests and bishops, and speak the truth especially with those who say they are with Christ and the Church but do not accept the teaching of Jesus and the Church.

One has only to read Matthew 23 to hear the forceful language Jesus uses when speaking with the Pharisees and Scribes. He refers to them as ―hypocrites, blind guides, and white washed tombs and towards the end asks them the question, ―You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell? In our politically correct world this type of language would never be tolerated today, and yet the Gospel writers were not hesitant to pass on these exhortations of Jesus.

Furthermore, when Peter began to remonstrate with Jesus about going up to Jerusalem, he did not softly tell Peter, ―You do not understand. Rather Jesus spoke the vigorous words, ―Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me; for you are not on the side of God, but of men (Mt 16:23). Jesus speaks these words with force to the apostle he has chosen and the one whom he made first among the apostles. In love Jesus makes these direct statements to open the eyes of those whose hearts and minds are hardened. His straight talk, given in love for the person, desires the conversion and holiness of the person to the ways of God.

Jesus provides the Church and her leaders with the criteria for correcting a brother or sister. ―If your brother sins against you; go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector (Mt 18:16-17).

The steps in this passage are clear and Jesus is teaching us, but do we listen and follow his example? If this criteria had been followed with dissenting theologians, priests, religious and faithful in 1968 with the encyclical, Humanae Vitae, would we still be dealing with the problem today of those who dissent on contraception, abortion, same sex unions, euthanasia and so many other teachings of the Church?

One must honestly ask, how many times and years may a Catholic politician vote for the so called ―right to abortion, ―murder in the words of John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae (58), and still be able to receive Holy Communion? The continual reception of Holy Communion by those who so visibly contradict and promote a grave evil, even more than simply dissent, only creates grave scandal, undermines the teaching and governing authority of the Church and can be interpreted by the faithful as indifference to the teaching of Christ and the Church on the part of those who have the responsibility to govern. If we honestly pray with the Gospel we can see that hesitancy and non-accountability are not the way of Jesus Christ, but rather are a failure in the exercise of governance.

Bishops and priests, as an act of loving obedience to Christ, must return to a full exercise of the governing authority of Christ witnessed in the Gospel. If we do not exercise that authority, are hesitant to exercise it, or doubt it, then it only leads to the ―father of lies taking hold of the minds and hearts of the faithful, and their continuing to act in the ways of man and not the ways of God.

Pope Benedict XVI, in his conversation with Peter Seewald in the book Light of the World, made the following observation concerning the sexual abuse crisis among clergy, after speaking with the Archbishop of Dublin. In their conversation they spoke to a mentality prevalent after Vatican II. ―The prevailing mentality was that the Church must not be a Church of laws but, rather, a Church of love; she must not punish. Thus the awareness that punishment can be an act of love ceased to exist. This led to an odd darkening of the mind, even in very good people. Today we have to learn all over again that love for the sinner and love for the person who has been harmed are correctly balanced if I punish the sinner in the form that is possible and appropriate. In this respect there was in the past a change of mentality, in which the law and need for punishment were obscured. Ultimately this also narrowed the concept of love, which in fact is not just being nice or courteous, but is found in the truth (emphasis added). And another component of truth is that I must punish the one who has sinned against real love (Pages 25-26)." (Full Address here).

Is Archbishop Nichols being a good and caring shepherd of souls? Or are his actions [and lack of] merely ensuring that the Father of Lies [John 8: 44] will take hold of the minds and hearts of the faithful who have been entrusted to his care?

As I ponder this, I cannot help but think of the words which came forth from St. John Chrysostom, Doctor of the Church, "The road to Hell is paved with the skulls of many bishops." Strong words from a great saint who was known for his pacific spirit and outstanding charity.

Dear Lord, mercy.

Meditation: Luke 12: 48.

Calling all Catholics: Let's offer prayers of reparation for Terence Weldon's blasphemy against Christ at "Queering the Church"

2011-12-31T07:36:00.000-08:00

In a previous post I examined Terence Weldon's blasphemy against the Lord Jesus at his website "Queering the Church." Specifically, Mr. Weldon was asserting that Jesus may have been a homosexual. See here. In another Blog post, an individual purporting to be a Catholic priest joined Mr. Weldon in his blasphemy. Mr. Weldon proudly proclaims, while referring to his blog, "Here be Demons."

As New Advent Encyclopedia explains: "Blasphemy, by reason of the significance of the words with which it is expressed, may be of three kinds.

1.It is heretical when the insult to God involves a declaration that is against faith, as in the assertion: "God is cruel and unjust" or "The noblest work of man is God".

2.It is imprecatory when it would cry a malediction upon the Supreme Being as when one would say: "Away with God".

3.It is simply contumacious when it is wholly made up of contempt of, or indignation towards, God, as in the blasphemy of Julian the Apostate: "Thou has conquered, O Galilaean".

Again, blasphemy may be (1) either direct, as when the one blaspheming formally intends to dishonour the Divinity, or (2) indirect, as when without such intention blasphemous words are used with advertence to their import.

The malice of blasphemy

Blasphemy is a sin against the virtue of religion by which we render to God the honour due to Him as our first beginning and last end. St. Thomas says that it is to be regarded as a sin against faith inasmuch as by it we attribute to God that which does not belong to Him, or deny Him that which is His (II-II.13.1). De Lugo and others deny that this is an essential element in blasphemy (De just. et jure caeterisque virt. card., lib. II, c. xiv, disp. v, n. 26), but as Escobar (Theol. mor., lib. xxviii, c. xxxii, n. 716 sqq.) observes, the contention on this point concerns words only, since the followers of St. Thomas see in the contempt expressed in blasphemy the implication that God is contemptible--an implication in which all will allow there is attributed to God that which does not belong to Him. What is here said is of blasphemy in general; manifestly that form of the sin described above as heretical is not only opposed to the virtue of religion but that of faith as well. Blasphemy is of its whole nature (ex toto genere suo) a mortal sin, the gravest that may be committed against religion. The seriousness of an affront is proportioned to the dignity of the person towards whom it is directed. Since then the insult in blasphemy is offered to the ineffable majesty of God, the degree of its heinousness must be evident. Nevertheless because of slight or no advertence blasphemy may be either a venial sin only or no sin at all. Thus many expressions voiced in anger escape the enormity of a grave sin, except as is clear, when the anger is vented upon God. Again, in the case where blasphemous speech is uttered inadvertently, through force of habit, a grave sin is not committed as long as earnest resistance is made to the habit. If, however, no such effort is put forth there cannot but be grave guilt, though a mortal sin is not committed on the occasion of each and every blasphemous outburst. It has been said that heretical blasphemy besides a content directed against religion has that which is opposed to the virtue of faith. Similarly, imprecatory blasphemy is besides a violation of charity..."
It is clear that in his zeal to justify the homosexual lifestyle and inclination, Mr. Weldon will stop at nothing. Including blaspheming against the Lord Jesus. And so I call upon all Catholics who read this Blog post to offer prayers of reparation to the Sacred Heart of Jesus. Let us begin with this prayer:

"O Jesus, my Savior and Redeemer, Son of the living God, behold, we kneel before Thee and offer Thee our reparation; we would make amends for all the blasphemies uttered against Thy holy name, for all the injuries done to Thee in the Blessed Sacrament, for all the irreverence shown toward Thine immaculate Virgin Mother, for all the calumnies and slanders spoken against Thy spouse, the holy Catholic and Roman Church. O Jesus, who has said: "If you ask the Father anything in My name, He will give it to you," we pray and beseech Thee for all our brethren who are in danger of sin; shield them from every temptation to fall away from the true faith; save those who are even now standing on the brink of the abyss; to all of them give light and knowledge of the truth, courage and strength for the conflict with evil, perseverance in faith and active charity! For this do we pray, most merciful Jesus, in Thy name, unto God the Father, with whom Thou livest and reignest in the unity of the Holy Ghost world without end. Amen."

And let us pray for Mr. Weldon. For he is in dire need of our prayer. His hatred for the Holy Catholic Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, is so intense that, referring to the CDF document entitled "Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons," which says that the homosexual inclination is intrinsically disordered, he writes, "I just don’t buy that. The claim may be in the notorious CDF document, but anybody who is prepared to swallow every disordered statement on human sexuality from the Vatican, just because it has been written by sexually repressed, celibate theologians with no real-life experience of the subject they are able to admit to, is not living on the same planet as the rest of us. (See here).

Once again I urge the Church to address Mr. Terence Weldon's blasphemy and his hateful attacks against the teaching authority of the Church.

Terence Weldon's "Queering the Church" Website Continues to Blaspheme Against Christ

2011-12-30T08:04:00.000-08:00

At his latest Blog post, radical homosexual activist and propagandist Terence Weldon insists that he is not guilty of blasphemy. An individual purporting to be a Catholic priest and calling himself smply "FrJohnQ," left a comment at this post defending Mr. Weldon while criticizing me. He writes:

"What's really telling to me about the attack on Terence as a 'blasphemer' is the definition of blasphemy that Paul Anthony Melanson uses: 'It consists in uttering against God...words of hatred, reproach, or defiance; in speaking ill of God; in failing in respect toward him in one's speech; in misusing God's name' (Catholic Catechism). Melanson assumes that by speculating that Jesus might have had a same-sex inclination Terence is being hateful, reproachful, and disrespectful toward God. My question is: Why? Why is it hateful to suggest that Jesus might have been what we now term "gay"? Why is it disrespectful? It's only so if you believe that being gay is a bad thing. Terence clearly does not, and neither do I, and neither, frankly, does God.

In my own prayer life I have a sense of a Jesus who was not gay, but perhaps this is simply a failure of my own imagination. Jesus was, as Terence points out, fully human; this means that he was (and is) a sexual being and that he loved, though selflessly. To make Jesus sexless is to deny his humanity. In any case, if someone labels me as gay--which I am--I do not take this as a gesture of disrespect, hatred, or reproach. I take it as an accurate estimation and as a compliment.

Why would God be offended by being associated with gay people? He socialized during his time on earth with others seen by many as outcast and inferior--prostitutes, tax collectors, etc. Would he not now sit down for a fabulous banquet with the gays? Why not? God loves us."

Now, I never said that Jesus would not associate with persons who suffer from a homosexual inclination. So "Father John Q" is being dishonest here. But it is blasphemous to suggest that Jesus may have been a homosexual. One would think that a Catholic priest (if this individual is indeed a Catholic priest) would understand that.

Let's let Fr. Kenneth Baker, S.J., explain: "Our Lord Jesus Christ is both God and man. The union of his human nature and his divine nature is effected in the Person of the Word, the second Person of the Blessed Trinity. Because of the Hypostatic Union, Christ's human nature is said to be substantially holy. The reason for this is that the Word of God, who is uncreated holiness itself, imparts a special holiness to his own created human nature. Since the relationship between Jesus' human nature and the Word of God is in the substantial order by virtue of the Hypostatic Union, then it is legitimate to say that his humanity is endowed with substantial sanctity or holiness. For, it is impossible to have a more intimate union between a creature and God than the Hypostatic Union in Jesus Christ. A suggestion of Jesus' substantial holiness is given in Luke 1:35, 'And so the child will be holy and will be called Son of God.'..

In addition to the special 'grace of union,' as the above is called, Christ's soul is also holy by reason of the fullness of sanctifying grace with which it is endowed. By 'sanctifying grace' here is meant the created habitual grace that inheres in the soul of the justified. Jesus possesses the fullness of that grace. Thus Pope Pius XII said in his encyclical letter on the Mystical Body in 1943: 'In Him (Christ) dwells the Holy Spirit with such a fullness of grace that greater cannot be conceived.' Basing their opinion on the Gospel of St. John, all theologians ascribe sanctifying grace in its fullness to the human soul of Christ: 'And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us...full of grace and truth....And of his fullness we have all received, grace for grace' (John 1: 14, 16). In Acts 10: 38 we read that 'God annointed him with the Holy Spirit'; in St. Luke we find that Jesus was 'filled with the Holy Spirit' (4: 1); he also quoted Isaiah and said, 'The spirit of the Lord has been given to me, for he has annointed me.' (4: 18).

St. Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologica III, q. 7, art. I), bases the sanctification of Jesus' humanity through sanctifying grace on three facts: 1) on the Hypostatic Union which demands the fullness of grace in Christ's soul according to the principle, 'The nearer an effect is to its cause, the more it partakes of its influence'; 2) on the nobility of Christ's soul which enjoys the immediate vision of God; 3) on the relationship of Christ to all men since he is the Head and source of their grace." (Fundamentals of Catholicism, Volume II, pp. 260-261).

The Council of Constantinople II condemned those who defended the impious Theodore of Mopsuestia who asserted that Christ "was troubled by the sufferings of the soul and the longings of the flesh" and declared such people anathema (excommunicated). To suggest that Jesus may have had a homosexual inclination is blasphemy because Jesus is perfect in both His natures - divine and human, He is the Head and source of all grace. The Magisterium of the Church teaches authoritatively that, "Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder." (Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons, No. 3).

Deacon Nick Donnelly has noted in one of his Blog posts over at Protect the Pope that Mr. Weldon is an Extraordinary Minister of the Eucharist. Now an individual purporting to be a Catholic priest is standing with him in blaspheming against the Lord Jesus.

The Bishops need to address this most serious matter immediately.

Pope Benedict XVI: "...the first step towards salvation.."

2011-12-29T05:36:00.000-08:00

A few days ago, before giving the traditional Christmas blessing to the City of Rome and the world ("urbi et orbi"), Pope Benedict XVI reflected on the Child of Bethlehem as Savior. His Holiness said (in part): "He was sent by God the Father to save us above all from the evil deeply rooted in man and in history: the evil of separation from God, the prideful presumption of being self-sufficient, of trying to compete with God and to take his place, to decide what is good and evil, to be the master of life and death.."

The Holy Father said that human beings cannot save themselves from this sin, "unless we rely on God's help, unless we cry out to him: 'Veni ad salvandum nos! -- Come to save us!'"

He affirmed, though, that "the very fact that we cry to heaven in this way already sets us aright; it makes us true to ourselves: We are in fact those who cried out to God and were saved."

The Bishop of Rome spoke of God as the physician, while we are the infirm. And to realize this, he said, "is the first step towards salvation, towards emerging from the maze in which we have been locked by our pride. To lift our eyes to heaven, to stretch out our hands and call for help is our means of escape, provided that there is Someone who hears us and can come to our assistance."

"Jesus Christ is the proof that God has heard our cry," the Pope declared. "And not only this! God's love for us is so strong that he cannot remain aloof; he comes out of himself to enter into our midst and to share fully in our human condition. The answer to our cry which God gave in Jesus infinitely transcends our expectations, achieving a solidarity which cannot be human alone, but divine. Only the God who is love, and the love which is God, could choose to save us in this way, which is certainly the lengthiest way, yet the way which respects the truth about him and about us: the way of reconciliation, dialogue and cooperation." (See here).

There is a famous hymn written by Martin Luther which begins, "A mighty fortress is our God, a bulwark never failing.." For all too many people today (including sadly, many Catholics) the conscience has become a "mighty fortress" built so as to shelter one from the exacting demands of truth. In the words of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, "In the Psalms we meet from time to time the prayer that God should free man from his hidden sins. The Psalmist sees as his greatest danger the fact that he no longer recognizes them as sins and thus falls into them in apparently good conscience. Not being able to have a guilty conscience is a sickness...And thus one cannot aprove the maxim that everyone may always do what his conscience allows him to do: In that case the person without a conscience would be permitted to do anything. In truth it is his fault that his conscience is so broken that he no longer sees what he as a man should see. In other words, included in the concept of conscience is an obligation, namely, the obligation to care for it, to form it and educate it. Conscience has a right to respect and obedience in the measure in which the person himself respects it and gives it the care which its dignity deserves. The right of conscience is the obligation of the formation of conscience. Just as we try to develop our use of language and we try to rule our use of rules, so must we also seek the true measure of conscience so that finally the inner word of conscience can arrive at its validity.

For us this means that the Church's magisterium bears the responsibility for correct formation. It makes an appeal, one can say, to the inner vibrations its word causes in the process of the maturing of conscience. It is thus an oversimplification to put a statement of the magisterium in opposition to conscience. In such a case I must ask myself much more. What is it in me that contradicts this word of the magisterium? Is it perhaps only my comfort? My obstinacy? Or is it an estrangement through some way of life that allows me something which the magisterium forbids and that appears to me to be better motivated or more suitable simply because society considers it reasonable? It is only in the context of this kind of struggle that the conscience can be trained, and the magisterium has the right to expect that the conscience will be open to it in a manner befitting the seriousness of the matter. If I believe that the Church has its origins in the Lord, then the teaching office in the Church has a right to expect that it, as it authentically develops, will be accepted as a priority factor in the formation of conscience." (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Keynote Address of the Fourth Bishops' Workshop of the National Catholic Bioethics Center, on "Moral Theology Today: Certitudes and Doubts," February 1984).

In the same address, Cardinal Ratzinger explains that, "Conscience is understood by many as a sort of deification of subjectivity, a rock of bronze on which even the magisterium is shattered....Conscience appears finally as subjectivity raised to the ultimate standard."

A broken conscience, an ill-formed conscience, becomes a mighty fortress which shuts the truth out. Have we built an interior castle, as did St. Teresa of Avila, which remains open to the demands of truth and the promptings of the Holy Spirit? Or has our conscience become a mighty fortress built to prevent our encounter with truth?

Related reading: Catechism of the Catholic Church, Nos. 1783-1785.

Terence Weldon: Homosexual activist

2011-12-28T07:40:00.000-08:00

Terence Weldon, a homosexual activist who authors the "queering the church" Blog, writes, "The Gospel of John is of particular interest to queer people of faith for its repeated references to the “beloved disciple”, or to “the disciple that Jesus loved”. These references make clear that whoever he was, this disciple had a relationship with Jesus of particular intimacy. There’s the well-known scene from the Last Supper where he rests his head on Jesus’ breast (or lap), and at the crucifixion, he is the only man standing among the women at the foot of the cross. He is the one to whom Christ entrusts the care of his mother – rather as a surviving spouse in marriage would assume some responsibility for the care of a mother-in-law. The existence of this special relationship provides much of the argument for the proposition that Jesus’ sexual orientation may have been what we call “gay”. See here.

Like most homosexual activists who seek to justify the sinfulness of homosexuality and even to "baptize" the disordered lifestyle, Mr. Weldon has a perverse tendency to twist facts and to engage in outright falsehood. He refers to the "disciple whom he loved" (John 13:23) in a blasphemous attempt to convince others that Our Lord Jesus had a homosexual orientation. What Mr. Weldon does not mention, being the ardent propagandist that he is, is that the Greek word agapan used in this passage implies the idea of disinterested, pure and dispassionate love. In other words, the love mentioned here has absolutely nothing to do with a homosexual relationship.

In his Encyclical Letter Deus Caritas Est (God is Love) Pope Benedict XVI explains that: "of the three Greek words for love, eros, philia (the love of friendship) and agape, New Testament writers prefer the last, which occurs rather infrequently in Greek usage. As for the term philia, the love of friendship, it is used with added depth of meaning in Saint John's Gospel in order to express the relationship between Jesus and his disciples. The tendency to avoid the word eros, together with the new vision of love expressed through the word agape, clearly point to something new and distinct about the Christian understanding of love.
(Deus Caritas Est, No. 3).

Agape, as our Holy Father explains, refers to a "love grounded in and shaped by faith" as opposed to eros, a term which indicates "worldly" love which is possessive or covetous. (Deus Caritas Est, No. 7).

Terence Weldon has engaged in blasphemy against the Lord Jesus. Blasphemy, as Father John Hardon, S.J., explains, "..is every form of speaking against God in a scornful or abusive way. Blasphemy need not be expressed in speech. It can be purely internal in thought or desire. And it can become externally manifest in actions that are blasphemous twice over: once because of the internal contempt for God which inspires the action, and once again because the blasphemer goes so far as to profess his opposition to God so that others are scandalized by the blasphemy." (Pocket Catholic Catechism, pp. 237-238).

The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches us that: "Blasphemy is directly opposed to the second commandment. It consists in uttering against God - inwardly or outwardly - words of hatred, reproach, or defiance; in speaking ill of God; in failing in respect toward him in one's speech; in misusing God's name. St. James condemns those "who blaspheme that honorable name [of Jesus] by which you are called." The prohibition of blasphemy extends to language against Christ's Church, the saints, and sacred things. It is also blasphemous to make use of God's name to cover up criminal practices, to reduce peoples to servitude, to torture persons or put them to death. The misuse of God's name to commit a crime can provoke others to repudiate religion.

Blasphemy is contrary to the respect due God and his holy name. It is in itself a grave sin." (2148).

Blasphemy is in itself a grave sin. In other words, a mortal sin. And if unconfessed, a mortal sin will lead a soul to Hell.

Mr. Weldon has sunk to a new low in his desire to propagandize for the "queer gospel." Pray for him. That he repents and returns to the Lord Jesus and the Church He founded - the one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church.

Related reading: Deacon Nick Donnelly on Terence Weldon.

"The great trial has arrived for all humanity..."

2011-12-26T14:05:00.000-08:00

"Before the war breaks out again, food will be scarce and expensive. There will be little work for the workers, and fathers will hear their children crying for food. There will be earthquakes and signs in the sun. Toward the end, darkness will cover the earth.

When everyone believes that peace is assured, when everyone least expects it, the great happening will begin. Revolution will break out in Italy almost at the same time as in France. For some time the Church will be without a Pope." - The Ecstatic of Tours, 19th century.

Our Lady told Fr. Stephano Gobbi on November 15, 1990, at Malvern Pennsylvania: "I announce to you that the hour of the great trial is on the point of arriving. The great trial has arrived for your country. How many times, as a concerned and sorrowing mother, have I endeavored to urge my children to follow the path of conversion and of return to the Lord. I have not been listened to. You have continued to walk along the way of rejection of God, and of His law of love. Sins of impurity have become ever more widespread, and immorality has spread like a sea which has submerged all things. Homosexuality, a sin of impurity which is against nature, has been justified; recourse to the means of preventing life have become commonplace, while abortions - these killings of innocent children, that cry for vengeance before the face of God - have spread and are performed in every part of your homeland.The moment of divine justice and of great mercy has now arrived.

You will know the hour of weakness and of poverty; the hour of suffering and defeat; the purifying hour of the great chastisement. The great trial has arrived for your Church. How great is your responsibility, O Pastors of the Holy Church of God! You continue along the path of division from the Pope and of the rejection of his Magisterium; indeed, in a hidden way, there is in preparation a true schism which could soon become open and proclaimed...And then, there will remain only a small faithful remnant, over which I will keep watch in the garden of my Immaculate Heart.

The great trial has arrived for all humanity. The chastisement, predicted by me at Fatima and contained in that part of the secret which has not yet been revealed, is about to take place. The great moment of divine justice and of mercy has come upon the world."

This prophecy is now being fulfilled. And no economic "bailout" will save the day. Only prayer and penance, mortification and a sacramental life. But these are not considered "fashionable" today. And so our sin-soaked society, which is morally, spiritually and intellectually bankrupt, looks for secular answers to what is essentially a spiritual problem.

Signs....

2011-12-25T14:15:00.000-08:00

“Seventy weeks are decreed for your people and for your holy city: Then transgression will stop and sin will end, guilt will be expiated, Everlasting justice will be introduced, vision and prophecy ratified, and a holy of holies will be anointed.

Know and understand: From the utterance of the word that Jerusalem was to be rebuilt. Until there is an anointed ruler, there shall be seven weeks. In the course of sixty-two weeks it shall be rebuilt, With squares and trenches, in time of affliction.

After the sixty-two weeks an anointed one shall be cut down with no one to help him. And the people of a leader who will come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. His end shall come in a flood; until the end of the war, which is decreed, there will be desolation.

For one week he shall make a firm covenant with the many; Half the week he shall abolish sacrifice and offering; In their place shall be the desolating abomination until the ruin that is decreed is poured out upon the desolator." (Daniel 9: 24-27).

Related reading: Ezekiel 47.

Related reading here.

"..the lay faithful's role in the well-being of the Church is essential..."

2011-12-24T08:41:00.000-08:00

In his Address to the Bishops of the Episcopal Conferences of the Pacific and of New Zealand on their Ad Limina visit, Pope Benedict XVI reminded the Bishops that, "..the lay faithful’s role in the well-being of the Church is essential since the Lord does not expect pastors 'to undertake by themselves the entire saving mission of the Church' (Lumen Gentium, 30). I understand from your reports that your task of spreading the Gospel often depends on the assistance of lay missionaries and catechists. Continue to ensure that a sound and ongoing formation be afforded them, especially within the context of their associations. In so doing, you will equip them for every good work in the building up of the body of Christ (cf. 2 Tim 3:17; Eph 4:12). Their zeal for the faith under your continued leadership and support will surely bear much fruit in the vineyard of the Lord." See here.

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

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

Pope Paul VI, in an allocution given on July 2nd, 1975, warned against this attitude:

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

Pope Leo XIII rejected this perverse attitude of doctrinal detente writing:

"We cannot consider altogether blameless the silence which purposely leads to the omission or neglect of some principles of Christian doctrine, for all the principles come from the Author and Master, 'the Only Begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father.' ...Concerning this point Vatican Council - says: 'All things are to be believed with Divine and Catholic Faith which are contained in the Word of God, written or handed down, and which the Church, either by solemn judgment or by her ordinary and universal Magisterium, proposes for belief as having been Divinely revealed.' Let it be far from anyone's mind to lessen or to suppress for any reason, any doctrine that has been handed down. Such a policy would tend rather to separate Catholics from the Church than to bring in those who differ. There is nothing closer to our heart than to have those who are separated from the fold of Christ return to it, but in no other way than the way pointed out by Christ." (Apostolic Letter Testem Benevolentiae).

At my parish, I have been shunned for upholding the Church's teaching regarding abortion and homosexuality. Because I objected to the promotion of the "Catholic" Campaign for Human Development (CCHD) in the parish bulletin, I am now persona non grata. While our Holy Father insists that, "the lay faithful’s role in the well-being of the Church is essential," there are priests who actively suppress and shun members of the lay faithful who take their vocation seriously.

Cardinal Francis George: LGBT Movement could morph into Ku Klux Klan

2011-12-23T07:43:00.000-08:00

CathNewsUSA is reporting that "Cardinal Francis George, the Archbishop of Chicago, this week told a Chicago news station that he agreed with a local Roman Catholic church’s objections to the city’s recently-adjusted Gay Pride Parade route passing by its doors and warned that the parade could 'morph into the Ku Klux Klan.'

George made the comment Sunday on Fox Chicago when asked about Our Lady of Mount Carmel’s complaints that the parade passing by its Belmont Avenue location would force the church to cancel its morning mass. The church recently launched a petition urging the city to force parade organizers to adjust their plans.

'I go with the pastor,' George told Fox. 'He’s telling us that he won’t be able to have services on Sunday if that’s the case. You don’t want the gay liberation movement to morph into something like the Ku Klux Klan, demonstrating in the streets against Catholicism.'" (See here).

Readers of this Blog know that I have already drawn comparisons between the LGBT Movement and the Ku Klux Klan. In a post from April of 2010, I wrote: "Historian John Higham once described anti-Catholicism as 'the most luxuriant, tenacious tradition of paranoiac agitation in American history.' Historian Arthur M. Schlesinger, Sr. characterized prejudice against Catholics as 'the deepest bias in the history of the American people.' And conservative commentator Peter Viereck has said that 'Catholic baiting is the anti-Semitism of the liberals.'

But nowhere is this 'paranoiac agitation' and hate-filled prejudice against Catholics more deeply ingrained than in today's Homosexual Hate Movement. There are parallels between this hate movement and the Ku Klux Klan at the early part of the twentieth-century. When the Klan enjoyed a resurgence in the 1920s, anti-Catholic rhetoric intensified to such a degree that it led to violence against Catholics and the burning down of a Catholic Church. Just two weeks after the Church of the Little Flower was erected in 1925, the Klan burned a cross in front of the church. Later the church would burn down in a fire.

Today, hate-filled rhetoric is being levelled against the Catholic Church by rabidly anti-Catholic extremists and this extreme rhetoric has led to open violence against Catholics and Catholic churches (not to mention Protestant and Mormon churches)....One radical anti-Catholic activist has compared the Holy Father to a vampire who is nothing but a bigot (See here). One of his associates (a professor of Sociology) has written that, 'The Pope and the Vatican, modern day Pharisees, and their minions, have caused untold suffering to countless numbers of people, and no decent person, no Christian, no LGBT person, has any business giving credibility to that institution by his/her presence and money.' (See here). Of course, this bright light offers no evidence to support his wild and irresponsible claims against the Church. But then how can we expect such an individual to be concerned with facts in the face of such blanket condemnations of a Church comprised of more than 1 billion people? The classic definition of prejudice: 'Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion.'

The LGBT Movement is very much like the Klan. It has shown that it will resort to intimidation and violence to get its way.

Is the LGBT Movement interested in dialogue? You discern.

Presidential frontrunner Ron Paul warns that martial law is being established in America

2011-12-22T06:33:00.000-08:00

As this article explains, "Leading GOP candidate Ron Paul has warned in recent interviews that the amendments passed in the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) are not only dangerous, but authorize the establishment of total martial law inside the United States. Not only does the bill, in sections 1031 and 1032, declare the unconstitutional right to detain Americans indefinitely without trial, but it authorizes an Internet offensive and online Pentagon takeover under the pretext of cybersecurity and stopping online piracy."

People are being gradually desensitized and lulled into a false sense of security. Most simply aren't aware of the dangers which are advancing steadily. William Parker, in an article entitled "Your fourth amendment rights under attack by Obama, DOJ," writes: "There is no talk of 'the slippery slope' anymore, which so many people used as an argument against many policies enacted by the Bush administration. Yet, now more than ever, it seems the slippery slope has given way to the sheer drop from the cliffs of sanity. There are intentional actions already in progress to simply take from us the rights we have apparently taken for granted. The Dept. of Justice apparently believes that U.S. citizens do not enjoy a "reasonable expectation of privacy" with respect to cell phone use, and have been attempting to acquire the ability to simply demand user information from the cell phone companies without going through standard procedures to obtain a warrant for specific information on specific individuals for use in specific prosecutions. They are assaulting the fourth amendment in yet another case, asserting that "email over 181 days old should not be protected from warrantless search and seizure."

Where is the outrage? These are not things that are occurring as a consequence of, or as a by-product of, some other action being taken for some otherwise lofty purpose. The government means to take these freedoms, piece by piece, with the hopes that nobody will care until it's too late." Full article here.

In his Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus, Pope John Paul II warned us that, "....totalitarianism arises out of a denial of truth in the objective sense. If there is no transcendent truth, in obedience to which man achieves his full identity, then there is no sure principle for guaranteeing just relations between people. Their self-interest as a class, group or nation would inevitably set them in opposition to one another. If one does not acknowledge transcendent truth, then the force of power takes over, and each person tends to make full use of the means at his disposal in order to impose his own interests or his own opinion, with no regard for the rights of others. People are then respected only to the extent that they can be exploited for selfish ends. Thus, the root of modern totalitarianism is to be found in the denial of the transcendent dignity of the human person who, as the visible image of the invisible God, is therefore by his very nature the subject of rights which no one may violate — no individual, group, class, nation or State. Not even the majority of a social body may violate these rights, by going against the minority, by isolating, oppressing, or exploiting it, or by attempting to annihilate it.." (No. 44).

In England, censorship is being advanced. And the driving force behind this effort is an organization known for its pro-homosexual ideology. Under Erich Scholz, Minister of the Interior for the Third Reich, the Reich Broadcasting Corporation became nothing but a propaganda tool where dissenting ideas which were deemed dangerous or "degrading" were simply excluded. In the words of Erich Scholz, "The German radio serves the German people. That which degrades the German people is excluded from German radio." How much longer before the Bible is deemed "hate literature" because it says that homosexual acts are gravely sinful? How much longer before Christian websites and Blogs are silenced forever because they promote and defend God's Revelation? How much longer before the Holy Father's words are deemed "degrading"? Already, a German website has called our beloved Holy Father "anti-human" and "anti-democratic."

Ron Paul is gravely concerned. As are many other scholars. Shouldn't we all be?

U.S. Capitol Christmas Tree: Homage to Obama but not Jesus

2011-12-21T06:20:00.000-08:00

CNS News reports that "The 63-foot Sierra White Fir lighted at the U.S. Capitol Grounds on Dec. 6 as the official 2011 Capitol Christmas Tree includes a prominently displayed ornament paying homage to President Barack Obama, but includes no ornament readily visible to a person standing near the tree's base that uses the word “Christmas,” or includes an image of the Nativity, or bears the name or image of Jesus Christ. (See here).

I am reminded of what Pope Benedict XVI had to say at the General Audience of December 20, 2006: "The Advent liturgy also exhorts us to be sober and watchful in order not to let ourselves be burdened by sin and excessively worldly concerns. Indeed, it is by watching and praying that we will be able to recognize and accept the splendour of Christ's birth. St. Maximus of Turin, a Bishop of the fourth and fifth centuries, said in one of his homilies: "The time warns us that the Birth of Christ the Lord is at hand. The world with its own apprehensions speaks of something imminent that will renew it, and desires with impatient expectation that the splendour of a brighter sun may illumine its darkness.... This expectation of creation also persuades us to wait for Christ, the new Sun, to rise" (cf. Hom. 61a, 1-3). Creation itself, therefore, leads us to discover and recognize the One who must come.

But the question is: is the humanity of our time still waiting for a Saviour? One has the feeling that many consider God as foreign to their own interests. Apparently, they do not need him. They live as though he did not exist and, worse still, as though he were an "obstacle" to remove in order to fulfil themselves.."

Is this our attitude? Do we consider Jesus as an obstacle to our own interests? Do we pay lip service to Jesus while living as if we don't need Him? Father James Sullivan writes, "How I should love Your Name, my Jesus! And what personal love and devotion I should feel for You! Yet I am cold. Your presence in the Eucharist doesn't move me; Your reflection in others I overlook. I pass so much of the day without any recollection of Your presence, Your nearness or Your goodness all around me. And I act on natural likes and dislikes when every affection of my heart should be loyally and lovingly dedicated to the King Who is my Saviour." (My Meditation on the Gospel, p. 28).

This Advent Season, are we waiting for Christ, the new Sun, to rise in our hearts? Or are we constrained by ego and selfish desires?

"..as long as their parents support the Catholic mission of the school and do not offer a serious counter-witness to that mission in their actions."

2011-12-18T05:25:00.000-08:00

In an editorial for Catholic Insight entitled "Those who attack the Catholic Faith cannot be part of Catholic schools," Fr. Alphonse de Valk writes, "I am writing this editorial in the third week of Advent, just after Gaudete Sunday. Gaudate is Latin for rejoice. Yes, we rejoice in the coming (advent) or Our Lord Jesus Christ and nothing can, nor should, take away the joy in the Son of God becoming “man” and thereby preparing the way for mankind’s delivery from sin and the devil. Jesus did break the bond of sin created by Adam and Eve’s fall for disobeying God. He did re-open the road to Eternal Life, which, however, we will not, and cannot, enter unless we obey his invitation to accept His commandments. ”My yoke is easy, my burden is light.” If only we believe it.

The magazine enters its 20th year of publication with this issue. From the beginning, the defence of the dignity of each human life has been our chief concern, first the assault on life itself—abortion—and its forerunner contraception—then the associated evils which were to follow—sterilization, homosexual behaviour, euthanasia (the killing of the elderly and the sick), assisted suicide, pornography.

In our first year, 1993, we exposed the false teaching of the priest/professor André Guindon at St. Paul’s Theological University in Ottawa. From then on, after contraception-abortion, Catholic Insight took the homosexual agenda as the most virulent threat to society. Why? Because unlike abortion which does not leave any survivors, only victims, those practising same-sex relations grow in number and ruthlessness as their agenda is strengthened by newly coined “rights” in law and public acceptance. Supported by the enormous popularity of modern pornography, assisted by prostitution and the elimination of old restrictions on human behaviour mostly through judicial fiats, their own insatiable immorality demands public approval for more and more deviant behaviour.

During the last ten years, Catholic Insight has traced the expansion of same-sex relationships throughout the Western hemisphere with special attention to the activity of the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the enshrinement of homosexual behaviour as a human right in Canada in 2005. Since then, we have tracked its expansion in Europe and the U.S., to the newest announcement from American President Barach Obama and his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, on December 5, 2011, to link American foreign aid to the promotion of homosexuality-based “rights” abroad. Just as every American embassy earlier had become an outpost for the promotion of abortion, so they will now become sources for bribing and bullying the whole world but especially African, Asian and South American countries dependant on aid. The great Imperialist of yore has been replaced by the Ugly American of today, interfering in the internal affairs of countries everywhere and doling out hundreds of million of dollars to corrupt their people. Kenya, the Philippines, and South America have been targeted already. Nigeria is on the list.

The mission of Catholic schools has not changed over time. The main purpose of religion, as Archbishop Charles Chaput, then of Denver, now of Philadelphia, wrote two years ago.

“[T]o form students in Catholic faith, Catholic morality and Catholic social values. … Many of our schools also accept students of other faiths and no faith, and from single parent and divorced parent families. These students are always welcome as long as their parents support the Catholic mission of the school and do not offer a serious counter-witness to that mission in their actions …

“That’s the background. Now to the human side of a painful situation. The Church never looks for reasons to turn anyone away from a Catholic education. But the Church cannot change her moral beliefs without undermining her mission and failing to serve the many families who believe in that mission …

“The Church does not claim that people with a homosexual orientation are bad, or that their children are less loved by God … But what the Church does teach is that sexual intimacy by anyone outside marriage is wrong; that marriage is a sacramental covenant; and that marriage can occur only between a man and a woman. These beliefs are central to a Catholic understanding of human nature, family and happiness, and the organization of society. The Church cannot change these teachings because … they are the teaching of Jesus Christ…” (See CI July/August 2010, p. 21)

These words are clear and concise. They apply to Canada and especially to Ontario Catholic schools. Bishops in Quebec and Newfoundland allowed state officials to pull the wool over their eyes. This must not happen in Ontario. (See article “Same-sex relations rampant in Toronto Catholic schools” in this issue, p.28.) If OECTA accepts the same-sex relationship motion in March 2012, it should have the title “Catholic” removed and its Charter as a union for Catholic teachers revoked." See here.

Reflect very carefully on these words: "Many of our schools also accept students of other faiths and no faith, and from single parent and divorced parent families. These students are always welcome as long as their parents support the Catholic mission of the school and do not offer a serious counter-witness to that mission in their actions..."

The Archdiocese of Boston has said that it will tolerate parents who offer a serious counter-witness to the Catholic mission of the school in their actions. Cardinal O'Malley believes that Catholic schools can partner with homosexual parents. See here.

Which view is Catholic and which view represents compromise with the Culture of Death?