You have a vocation from God

 

You have a vocation from God: No more excuses

"It is Jesus who stirs in you the desire to do something great with your lives, the will to follow an ideal, the refusal to allow yourselves to be ground down by mediocrity, the courage to commit yourselves humbly and patiently to improving yourselves and society, making the world more human and more fraternal.” - Pope John Paul II.

In an essay entitled One Solitary Life which was adapted from a sermon by Dr. James Allan Francis, we are reminded about certain aspects of Jesus' life:

Here is a man who was born in an obscure village, the child of a peasant woman. He grew up in another village. He worked in a carpenter shop until He was thirty. Then for three years He was an itinerant preacher.

He never owned a home. He never wrote a book. He never held an office. He never had a family. He never went to college. He never put His foot inside a big city. He never traveled two hundred miles from the place He was born. He never did one of the things that usually accompany greatness. He had no credentials but Himself...

While still a young man, the tide of popular opinion turned against him. His friends ran away. One of them denied Him. He was turned over to His enemies. He went through the mockery of a trial. He was nailed upon a cross between two thieves. While He was dying His executioners gambled for the only piece of property He had on earth – His coat. When He was dead, He was laid in a borrowed grave through the pity of a friend.

Nineteen long centuries have come and gone, and today He is a centerpiece of the human race and leader of the column of progress.

I am far within the mark when I say that all the armies that ever marched, all the navies that were ever built; all the parliaments that ever sat and all the kings that ever reigned, put together, have not affected the life of man upon this earth as powerfully as has that one solitary life.

Omnia possum in eo qui me confortat. I can do all things in Him who strengthens me. (Phil 4:13).  These words are engraved on a bracelet which I wear.  Do we really believe this?  Or do we let others define who we are?

Issue the battle cry! Let's take back our cities!

Those who walk in the Spirit know no fear. What are we waiting for? The Lord Jesus waits. He grows tired of our excuses:

I’m not holy enough:

Is 6:1-9; Lk 5:1-11

I’m afraid I will fail:

Ex 14:10-31; Lk 15

I’ve made mistakes and I’m a sinner:

Jn 21:15-23; Mt 9:9-13; Lk 7:36-50

I’m too young:

1 Sam 3:1-18; Jer 1:4-10; Lk 1:26-38

I’m not talented enough:

1 Sam 17:32-51; Lk 1:26-38

I want to have a family:

Gn 12:1-3; Mt 12:46-50; Mk 10:28-30

I’m afraid of making a permanent commitment:

Ruth 1:15-17; Mt 28:16-20

I’m afraid of public speaking:

Ex 4:10-17; Jer 1:4-10

I’m not smart enough:

2 Cor 4:7-18; Ex 4:10-17

I’m afraid of being alone:

Ex 3:4-22; Lk 1:28-38

I want to be happy:

Ps 37:4; Mt 5:1-12; Jn 10:10; Mk 10:28-31

I can do all things in Him who strengthens me. There are no obstacles we can't overcome in His holy name.  Even while others attempt to label us and dismiss us as useless, as having no worth.  I knew a young man with developmental disabilities whose father told him he was "worthless."  He was told by his father that the best thing for him would be a bullet in the head. When he asked me one day if he was worthless, I reminded him of his many gifts: his sense of humor, his ability to love others, his ability to pray to God and a litany of other gifts.  And I assured him that he is not "worthless."

We live in a sad, broken world.  There are many people who are heavily burdened with sin who are hurting. And because they are hurting, they want to hurt others.  If you could read some of the comments which have been left at this Blog you would cringe.  Sad time.  Hurting time. And we pray for such people.

But we cannot let others define who we are.  We are children of God who have access to the Holy Spirit's Gifts just by asking for them.

The Son of God loves us.  What does that suggest about those who hate us?

Francis: Blame for homosexual sex abuse belongs to "all of us"

See Francis' letter here

Got that?  Catholics sitting in the pews are ALL to blame for predator priests who molest or sodomize minors according to Francis.

Thanks to Spirit Digest for posting this.  Francis' attitude will not contribute to healing but, instead, will further anger Catholics who are outraged at how the Church has mishandled what is largely homosexual sex abuse against minors.

Breaking news: Building HomoChurch, Homosexual pipeline into the seminaries.  Read here.

Francis and Satanic Pride...Prelude to Antichrist

Colin Donovan says it well:

"...it would be contrary to Church teaching to say that  capital punishment is per se immoral, as some do."

This point is made by Father George Rutler.  He says:

"'Use your brain' is a maxim often heard, but often resented. Such was the case when our Lord confronted professional debaters. At the age of twelve his rhetorical skill astonished the rabbis, who presumably thought that he was just a child prodigy. But later on, the legal experts were not amused when he challenged their logical fallacies; yet he came into the world to win souls and not to win debates. Those experts did not think their souls needed saving, so they cynically used syllogisms to 'entrap him in speech' (Matthew 22:15). They posed a trick question about paying taxes, to which Christ responded that they should use their brains: 'Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s' (Matthew 22:21).

   Using the brain to figure out things of Caesar and of God does not easily answer the question, but it does establish some solid principles. Take for instance the neuralgic challenges to capital punishment. Well-used brains have understood that the death penalty belongs to the just domain of the government. The Catechism affirms this (CCC #2267).

   This principle belongs to natural law, which in classical philosophy, is “. . . the universal, practical obligatory judgments of reason, knowable by all men as binding them to do good and avoid evil.” Saint Paul appealed to natural law: “Ever since the creation of the world, [God’s] invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made” (Romans 1:20).

   Governments exist to maintain “the tranquility of order.” When popes governed the Papal States, they measured out punishments including death. One papal executioner, Giovanni Battista Bugatti, served six popes, including Blessed Pius IX, and personally executed 516 felons.

   That was the civil side of ruling; the spiritual side did everything possible to bring the guilty to confession and a state of grace before meeting God, because happiness is the realization of the purpose of life and is not mere pleasure; and unhappiness is the contradiction of that purpose, and not mere pain. Without that perspective, the death penalty seems an arrogant violation of life, and that is why today opposition to the death penalty increases as religious faith decreases. That dangerous alchemy substitutes emotion for truth and platitudes for reason. Such lax use of the brain is to theology what Barney the Dinosaur is to paleontology.

   Two professors, Edward Feser and Joseph Bessette, have published an excellent book: By Man Shall His Blood Be Shed. Such right use of the brain explains that abuses of punishment are intolerable, and the application of mercy is a permissible use of prudential opinion. But to posit the death penalty as intrinsically evil contradicts laws natural and divine, and no authorities, be they of the State or the Church, have the right to deny what is right by asserting that.

But this is precisely what Francis is asserting.  He has claimed that the death penalty is "contrary to the Gospel."  See here.

It has become obvious that Francis suffers from a Satanic pride.

Not long ago, Francis' niece, Cristina Bergoglio, said that  she sees "...the church as outdated," and added, "that's why I believe life has put my uncle to renew this certain system of thought that was getting stagnated."

That "certain system of thought" is Roman Catholicism.

As Randy Engel has said, "Catholicism is a religion of Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium, the fullness of the Faith, handed down to us from the time of the Apostles. It never was, is, or will be a religion of 'evolution' or 'change' related to dogmatic truths and morals. Yet, Francis continues to maintain an inordinate fascination with 'change,' which amounts to a 'divinization' of change.."

Precisely.  What exactly does Francis mean by change?  His is not the change which is so necessary and so beautifully articulated by the Saint for whom I was named. Writing to the Ephesians, St. Paul said, "Put off the old man who is corrupted according to the desire of error, and be renewed in the spirit of your mind: and put on the new man, who according to God is created in justice and holiness of truth" (Eph. 4:22-24).

And as Dr. Von Hildebrand explains, "These words of St. Paul are inscribed above the gate through which all must pass who want to reach the goal set us by God. They implicitly contain the quintessence of the process which baptized man must undergo before he attains the unfolding of the new supernatural life received in Baptism." (Transformation in Christ, p.3).

Dr. Von Hildebrand goes on to explain in this work of critical importance that there is a certain type of man, "who, while not lacking a certain elan, refuses to take account of his limitations and is thus driven to magnify his stature artificially." He continues: "Suppose he is present at some discussion of spiritually relevant topics: he will take part in the debate as though he were fully equipped to do so; he will claim impressions as deep as the others; he will not yield to any other man as regards intellectual proficiency or even religious stature. Thus he works himself up, as it were, to a level which he has not reached in reality - and which he may not even be able to reach, so far as it is a matter of natural capacities. He is not without zeal; but that zeal is nourished at heart by pride. He misjudges the limitations of the natural talents which God has lent him, and consequently lapses into pretense. He is fond of speaking of things which far transcend the limits of his understanding; he behaves as though a mere mental or verbal reference to such subjects (however poorly implemented with actual knowledge and penetration) would by itself amount to their intellectual possession. This cramped attitude of sham spirituality is mostly underlain by an inferiority complex, or by a kind of infantile unconsciousness. Stupidity in its really oppressive form is traceable to this pretension to appear something different from what one is in fact, and by no means to a mere deficiency of intellectual gifts." (Transformation in Christ, pp.23-24).

Why am I relating all of this? Because, Dr. Von Hildebrand teaches us that such false self-appraisals actually hinder our readiness to change or to "put on the new man" as St. Paul instructs us to do. And what Dr. Von Hildebrand refers to as a "cramped attitude of sham spirituality" is part and parcel of this papacy.

We are witnessing a pontiff who forgets that we stand on the shoulders of giants.  A man who believes it is the Church which must change and that this is so because he is "wiser" than all previous Popes, Saints, Doctors and Fathers of the Church - and even the Word of God!

It was Pius XII, in his encyclical letter Mystici Corporis, who taught that:"..The Church, which should be considered a perfect society in its own right, is not made up of merely moral and juridical elements and principles. It is far superior to all other human societies; it surpasses them as grace surpasses nature, as things immortal are above all those that perish...The juridical principles, on which also the Church rests and is established, derive from the divine constitution given it by Christ.."

Authentic Catholics accept the teaching of Vatican I that, "...the pastors and the faithful of whatever rite and dignity, both as separate individuals and all together, are bound by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, not only in things which pertain to faith and morals, but also in those which pertain to the discipline and government of the Church which is spread over the whole world, so that the Church of Christ, protected not only by the Roman Pontiff, but by the unity of communion as well as of the profession of the same faith is one flock under the one highest shepherd. This is the doctrine of Catholic truth from which no one can deviate and keep his faith and salvation." (Dogmatic Constitution I on the Church of Christ, Session IV).

Sadly these authentic Catholics are not being fed by an authentic Shepherd in Rome. Instead, they are being assaulted by a man who wants to see the Catholic religion neutralized in preparation for the rise of the Man of Sin.

It was Frere Francois de Marie des Anges, in his important work entitled "Fatima: Tragedy and Triumph," who warned that:

"The Apocalypse teaches us that the "false prophet" will act exteriorly as exercising authority in the name of God and in His service, whereas he will be in reality in the service of the Beast.  Our Father Superior comments:

I'm order to bend souls and not only bodies under his domination and obtain their adoration, the political power instigated a religious power completely to his service, and thus the lamb is going to become the vehicle of error.  The church of heresy, schism and scandal is going to make itself voluntarily the slave of the beast and the dragon which have conquered it, the spiritual animator of the empire of Satan.  He will use fire from Heaven, which is the Word of God, anathema, to disarm its enemies and conquer Christians.  Then the lamb will condemn what is holy and consecrate what is of the evil one.  Here we are at the most extreme point of the triumph of impiety, at the hour of the most complete victory of the mystery of iniquity....'" (Fatima: Tragedy and Triumph, p. 285).

Turns out Tom Brady has deflated balls after all....

Tom Brady, enamored with his own celebrity, and completely ignorant of the extent of his intellectual paucity, has referred to President Donald Trump as "divisive" for asserting that NFL Football players should observe respect and proper protocol toward the United States Flag and the National Anthem.  See here.

Of course, President Trump is correct:


"Proper protocol for Star-Spangled Banner is found in a separate code under Title 36 of Patriotic and National Observances, Ceremonies,and Organizations, and listed under Chapter 3, Section 301 on the National Anthem:xx During a rendition of the National Anthem, when the flag is displayed, (a) all present should stand at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart; (b) men not in uniform should remove their headdress with their right hand and hold the headdress at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart; and (c) individuals in uniform should give the military salute at the first note of the anthem and maintain that position until the last note; and (d) when the flag is not displayed, all present should face toward the music and act in the same manner they would if the flag were displayed."

Source:

http://legionstuff.blogspot.com/2011/11/proper-protocol-for-allegiance-natl.html?m=1

But for sniveling simps like Tom Brady, who understand nothing of the sacrifices made by professional soldiers such as my father Joe Melanson and my uncle Arthur, whose body was never recovered, "freedom of speech" includes dissing the United Stated Flag and the National Anthem.

I think he may have received one too many concussions.

Pauline Hanson once said, "To survive in peace and harmony, united and strong, we must have one people, one nation, one flag."

To individuals like Tom Brady, infected by a sophomoric philosophy, the flag is nothing more than a useless symbol, so why respect it? And our national anthem is something to be pissed on in the name of political expediency and appeals to "freedom of speech," akin to Serrano's display of freedom of speech with his "Piss Christ."

Boycott the NFL.  And while you're at it, Tom Brady.

Not all are welcome at Saint Mary's Church in Orange...

From the USCCB:


"The Church continues to affirm the dignity of every human being, and to grow in knowledge and understanding of the gifts and needs of her members who live with disabilities. Likewise, the Church recognizes that every parish community includes members with disabilities, and earnestly desires their active participation. All members of the Body of Christ are uniquely called by God by virtue of their Baptism. In light of this call, the Church seeks to support all in their growth in holiness, and to encourage all in their vocations. Participating in, and being nourished by, the grace of the sacraments is essential to this growth in holiness. Catholic adults and children with disabilities, and their families, earnestly desire full and meaningful participation in the sacramental life of the Church.

In this regard, as it issues a revised and expanded Guidelines for the Celebration of the Sacraments with Persons with Disabilities, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops wishes to reiterate what was said in previous pastoral statements on this issue:

 It is essential that all forms of the liturgy be completely accessible to persons with disabilities, since these forms are the essence of the spiritual tie that binds the Christian community together. To exclude members of the parish from these celebrations of the life of the Church, even by passive omission, is to deny the reality of that community. Accessibility involves far more than physical alterations to parish buildings. Realistic provision must be made for Catholics with disabilities to participate fully in the Eucharist and other liturgical celebrations.."

Because I took exception to a homily given last weekend by Father Piotr Pawlus denigrating Our Lord by asserting that He has "warts," Fr. Pawlus responded this weekend .with hatred and a passive aggressive attitude, passing over my mother at Communion time.

Although my mother is 86 and recovering from back surgery, Father Pawlus refused to give her Holy Communion at the first pew where she was sitting and forced her to stand up and get in line to receive the Eucharist.

This is realistic provision for a Catholic with a disability?  What is this but an act of violence?  What is this but weaponizing the Eucharist and denying the reality of community?

And so we see once again that what passes for Catholicism at Saint Mary's Church in Orange is a counterfeit. Only those who march in lockstep with the modernists at Saint Mary's Church are welcome.  Others will be discriminated against, hated and excluded.

Francis embarrasses himself with criticism of the "Mother of all Bombs."

In advance of President Donald Trump's visit, Francis is engaging in pettiness as he plays with semantics.  The Catholic Herald reports:

"Pope Francis has criticised the US military for naming the largest explosive in its arsenal the 'mother of all bombs'.

He was speaking weeks before he receives US President Donald Trump, who authorised the use of the bomb against ISIS militants in Afghanistan last month.

The 21,600lb (9,800kg) Massive Ordnance Air Blast (MOAB) explosive is nicknamed the 'Mother Of All Bombs' because of its acronym and immense power.

The Pope told an audience of students at the Vatican: 'I was ashamed when I heard the name. A mother gives life and this one gives death, and we call this device a mother. What is going on?'"

Manufactured outrage demeans the office which Francis is supposed to hold.  It is a cheap tactic akin to the nonsense one would expect from organizations such as Black Lives Matter, Greenpeace or Planned Parenthood.

Even one as intellectually unastute as Francis knows that the word mother isn't always used to describe one who gives birth.  There are other usages. Webster's dictionary provides us with another meaning for the word:

"Something that is an extreme or ultimate example of its kind especially in terms of scale; e.g., the mother of all construction projects or the mother of all ocean liners."

Isn't it interesting that Francis issued no such sarcastic commentary before receiving Raul Castro, a sociopath, to the Vatican? See here.

What make ye of this?

I say Francis needs to return to the drawing board.

Father Zuhlsdorf: Authentic shepherd

Father Zuhlsdorf, over at WDTPRS, Just posted this:

"From a reader…

QUAERITUR:

Is there a reasonable hope that all souls will be saved since it is a part of our liturgy?

No.  That is not reasonable.  It is wishful thinking.

Many* will be lost.

The feel good of translations and other aspects in our sacred -or not so sacred – worship have given many more than a rosy prospect.

There is no part of our authentic liturgy as Catholics which suggests that “all” will be saved.

It is time to sober up.

We can lose the gift of membership in the Kingdom of God which Christ opened for us.

We can and we do… when we sin.

GO TO CONFESSION!"


Always nice to find a Catholic priest who isn't, well, insane.  Father Z is most sound of mine and an authentic shepherd.  He cares for souls.  Not all priests, however, are sane.  I do not say this to be uncharitable.  But remember, as Frank Sheed reminded us, good theology and sanity go hand in hand - see here.

Some years ago, in an article entitled "Can Jews, Muslims be saved," Fr. John Dietzen wrote, "Pope John Paul II reflects this Catholic attitude [that non-Catholics may be saved] in his moving and hopeful book, 'Crossing the Threshold of Hope.' God wants to save all mankind in Jesus Christ, he writes. We don't know how God does all this, but we know Christ came into the world for all people and 'has his own ways of reaching them' (pp. 80-83) In other words, God has committed himself to work through baptism and the other sacraments, but he is not bound or limited by them."

It is certainly true that non-Catholics who "..through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience..may achieve eternal salvation" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 847) and that although, "God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism..he himself is not bound by his sacraments." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 1257). I have often quoted these passages to refute the errors of the Feeneyites who insist that only baptized Roman Catholics may be saved.

But it does not follow that because "God came into the world for all people" and "wants to save all mankind in Jesus Christ" that all will be saved. Will some souls end up in hell? Fr. Dietzen concludes from his examination of Pope John Paul II's book that, "We just don't know enough about the mystery of God's saving plan to make such a judgment." He then writes, "Perhaps you know of Father Hans Urs von Balthasar, one of the major Catholic theologians of the 20th century, a friend and close consultant to Pope John Paul II. He wrote much about the possibility of universal redemption, including the book, 'Dare We Hope: That All Men Be Saved,' in which he maintains it is our Christian call to pray and hope that all are reconciled with God. He was named a Cardinal but died before he could receive the red hat."

What of this? Was Pope John Paul II in agreement with Hans Urs von Balthasar? The average Catholic, after reading Fr. Dietzen's article, would certainly get that impression. But they would be wrong. For Fr. Dietzen is not intellectually honest and only cites those passages of Pope John Paul II's book which seem to support this notion. A more careful examination of the Holy Father's book will serve to highlight Fr. Dietzen's dishonesty. For example, in a passage responding to the concern of "great thinkers in the Church," [including von Balthasar] who have been "disturbed" by the problem of hell, Pope John Paul II refers to Jesus' "unequivocal" words: "He speaks clearly of those who will go to eternal punishment (cf. Mt 25: 46)."

Pope John Paul II concludes his remarks (which may be found on pages 185 to 186 of "Crossing the Threshold of Hope") with a series of rhetorical questions which indicate that some sinners will end in hell: "Is not God who is Love also ultimate Justice?," "Can He tolerate these terrible crimes," "Can they go unpunished?," "Isn't final punishment in some way necessary in order to reestablish moral equilibrium in the complex history of humanity?," "Is not hell in a certain sense the ultimate safeguard of man's moral conscience?"

Fr. Dietzen conveniently leaves these passages out of his article in an attempt to convince the faithful that Pope John Paul II and the Church are in agreement with Hans Urs von Balthasar. I have quoted [in another post on Fr. Dietzen] from Lumen Gentium, No. 48 of the Second Vatican Council which teaches clearly that some souls will end up in hell. And faithful Catholics will reflect very carefully on the fact that the Lord Himself speaks about the damned in a form that is grammatically future: "...and those who have done evil will go to the resurrection of condemnation" (Mt 25: 46). Does Fr. Dietzen consider Christ to be a liar? Does he believe Christ to be mistaken?

It's true that Pope John Paul II appointed von Balthasar a Cardinal. But when the Pope appoints someone a Cardinal, he does not authoritatively commend his thought.

I called upon Fr. Dietzen to issue an apology to his readers for his misleading article.  But he never delivered.

The faithful have a right to Catholic teaching in its purity and integrity (Veritatis Splendor, No. 113). Father Dietzen and others who dare to suggest that all men will be saved fail to offer Catholic teaching in its purity and integrity.

*  How do we interpret "many"?  See here.

All men are beginning to fall into the ranks of accepting either the man-god or the God-Man

"As soon as men have, all of them, denied God, man will be lifted up with a spirit of divine Titanic pride and the man-God will appear." - Ivan Karamazov in Fyodor Dostoyevsky's "The Brothers Karamazov."

"It does not take a gift of prophecy to see that humanity is presently polarizing and that all men are beginning to fall into the ranks of accepting either the man-god or the God-Man...Dostoyevsky...knew that atheism had to be associated with the destruction of the old society. There was some suggestion that an overplanned or socialistic society had to be the prelude of an atheistic society...

For the man-god to grow in age and wisdom, two conditions must be fulfilled. The heavens must be emptied, and man must be secularized. Both will be achieved by turning freedom into license. Men will be asked to give up God because His Commandments 'enslave' and because our will often runs counter to His. When finally everyone has his own will and does whatever he pleases, then there will be a chaos due to the conflict of egotisms. It will then be necessary for Big Brother, or the state, to organize this chaos into a closed socialist society and the formulas given by the character, Shigalev, the theorist of the Communism to come: 'Having set out from unlimited freedom, I have ended up with unlimited despotism.'" (Archbishop Fulton John Sheen).

So broad an interpretation of liberty that all manner of perversion will be justified

From Mass Resistance:

Primer: Ten things you need to know about the US Supreme Court “gay marriage” case being heard April 28, 2015

On April 28 the US Supreme Court case will hear oral arguments for the case that will essentially decide whether “gay marriage” is a previously unknown “fundamental right” enshrined in the US Constitution, similar to the Court’s 1973 abortion ruling.

The US Supreme Court building will be ground zero for the latest assault on the nation's culture.

What was once a fringe, unthinkable idea is now on the verge of being imposed on the entire nation.
What is happening? Here are ten things to know about this case:

1. How we got to this point
The popular sentiment against “gay marriage” in the United States has been overwhelmingly one-sided at the ballot box. Since 1998, 30 states have passed constitutional amendments banning it. Some of these amendments were passed by huge margins (as high as 80%). This appeared to everyone to be an insurmountable obstacle to the “gay marriage” movement.
After losing in state after state, the homosexual movement realized that it could never overturn these amendments legitimately. In very blue states, using massive amounts of money, they were able to successfully lobby legislatures and sway elections. But the amendments across the country were a problem.
So they decided to focus on perfecting the strategy that worked in Massachusetts in 2003: using the courts and hand-picked activist judges, along with very shrewd manipulation of the legal process and well-funded legal teams and political strategists. They crafted a plan to get the state amendments declared unconstitutional.
This strategy took advantage of the LGBT lobby’s well-funded propaganda push over the last few decades in law schools, law firms, and judicial chambers, as well as a fresh new generation of radical federal judges appointed by Barack Obama.
Starting with California in 2009, where a homosexual judge overturned the Proposition 8 vote, they soon picked up momentum. Across the country, the various cases began sailing through the state and federal courts largely unimpeded. It was quite frightening for all of us to watch.
Other factors helped keep it going. The almost universal unwillingness of the legal teams on the pro-family side to aggressively confront the other side’s arguments gave them a free pass on what could have been difficult issues to overcome. And a number of pro-gay “marriage” Democrat (and RINO Republican) Governors and Attorneys-General simply refused to properly defend the cases and/or appeal them after losing.
Using both state and federal courts, the LGBT lobby has now gotten activist courts to “overturn” 26 of the 30 state constitutional amendments. (Some of these cases are still being appealed.)
But on November 6, 2014, their string of successes hit a snag, as the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the Ohio constitutional amendment. However, since this disagreed with the other Federal District Court rulings, it bumped the case up to the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear it and make a broad decision.

2. How the 14th Amendment is used to push the radical agenda in the courts
In all these cases (as in countless other “progressive” legal challenges over the years) the radicals have used twisted interpretations of the US Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment to advance their agenda through the courts.
The Fourteenth Amendment says:
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The “due process” and the “equal protection” clauses are the hammers used to smash the existing laws and constitutional amendments. Along with that, the LGBT lawyers start with the assumption (which our side could easily refute, but doesn't) that “sexual orientation” constitutes a class of citizen (based on an immutable characteristic, etc).
Regarding the “equal protection” argument: They argue that “gays” are not allowed to marry the ones they love, but heterosexuals are. They say that “gays” are thus “demeaned,” made “second class citizens,” and kept “unequal” – and this causes them terrible harm.
They further argue that not recognizing “gay marriages” from other states is a violation of due process because of the Constitution’s “full faith and credit” clause.

Of course, this is all legal nonsense. The answer to their “equal protection” argument is simple: Under the law, every person can only marry someone of the opposite sex. The marriage laws apply to every person equally. No legal expert we’ve consulted has disagreed with us on that reasoning. And everyone gets the same “due process” under it. Unfortunately, to our knowledge these points are rarely used to buttress our side’s argument.
Furthermore, the “full faith and credit” clause was never meant to be used to alter the meaning of the word marriage (i.e., plural marriages, incestuous marriages, marriages to young children), but only the application to a marriage case (or a divorce, etc.,) where the meaning of the word marriage was commonly agreed upon. It’s pretty simple – unless you’re an activist judge.

3. What this case is specifically meant to decide
The case is officially named Obergefell v. Hodges, which is a consolidation of four “gay marriage” cases previously brought before the Sixth Circuit.
According to the court documents, this case addresses only two specific questions:
1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?
2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?
On April 28, a total of 90 minutes is allotted for oral argument on question #1, and a total of 60 minutes is allotted for oral argument on question #2. As discussed above, in any normal circumstance this would be a no-brainer.
Not surprisingly, there have been dozens of amicus briefs filed for this case. (You can read them here.) Most of those filed by our side discuss the importance of marriage in society, the historical roots of marriage, how imposing “gay marriage” would divide the country, children needing a father and a mother, etc. None that we’ve seen actually addresses the two questions regarding the Fourteenth Amendment which this case is about. We can only surmise that people are assuming that the Justices are not actually focusing on strict constitutional law but on these unrelated issues.

4. The lawyers arguing this case on April 28
The competition to represent the pro-family side was definitely not as intense as for the “gay marriage side.”
Arguing for the pro-family side:  Eric E. Murphy is the current Ohio State Solicitor, who won the appeal before the Sixth Circuit after losing in District Court. John J. Bursch was Michigan State Solicitor from 2011-2013 and has argued eight times before the US Supreme Court. According to news reports, Bursch’s current firm, Warner Norcross & Judd, supports “gay marriage” and has refused to be involved in this case to help him, so he is working independently.
Both attorneys have a good reputation for competence.
Eric E. Murphy, State Solicitor
Office of the Attorney General        
30 East Broad Street, 17th Fl.          
Columbus, OH  43215-3428
(614) 466-8980
eric.murphy@ohioattorneygeneral.gov

John J. Bursch
Michigan Dept of Attorney General  
P.O. Box 30212        
Lansing, MI  48909  
(517) 373-1124
BurschJ@michigan.gov

Arguing for the homosexual “marriage” side:  Alphonse A. Gerhardstein is a prominent civil rights attorney from Cincinnati. Mary Bonauto is the celebrity lesbian attorney for Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, who won the original Goodridge “gay marriage” case in Massachusetts in 2003. We at MassResistance know Bonauto well. She argued the lawsuit against us (unsuccessfully) in the infamous “Fistgate” case, and we have debated her on television.
We don’t know much about Gerhardstein. In our opinion, Bonauto is not particularly impressive.
Alphonse A. Gerhardstein
Gerhardstein & Branch Co. LPA
432 Walnut St., Suite 400
Cincinnati, OH  45202          
(513) 621-0779        
agerhardstein@gbfirm.com

Mary L. Bonauto
Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders      
30 Winter Street, Suite 800  
Boston, MA  02108
(617) 426-1350        
mbonauto@glad.org

(Contact information is from Supreme Court filings.)

5. Anticipated problems with our side’s arguments
The other side’s arguments rarely bother dealing with the strict constitutional meaning of the text in question. They are almost exclusively based on the assumption that “sexual orientation” constitutes a legitimate legal “class” of people who are “born that way,” and as such have innate rights as a “class.” The concept of a “class” of people is foreign to the text of the Constitution. But it has nevertheless been accepted by courts for decades and undoubtedly by a number of the Supreme Court Justices.
That concept must be vigorously confronted and debunked. Unfortunately, our lawyers have been afraid to do that. Instead they concede to it and attempt to make a persuasive argument within those absurd boundaries — i.e., every child needs a mother and father, marriage is an institution for procreation, etc. This strategy almost always fails.
Why does our side avoid a strong argument? The answer falls into two categories:
1. Fear of being accused of “animus.” Our lawyers have internalized the idea that any perception of “animus towards gays” in their arguments will alienate the Justices. After all, gays are a “class” of people. This forces out any discussion of anything that debunks that, such as the horrible medical consequences associated with homosexual behavior: diseases, addictions, mental health problems, domestic violence, lower life expectancy, etc. Or any suggestion that is an immoral, unnatural perversion. Or the proven damage to children raised in same-sex households.
2. Pandering to “rational basis.” There is an extra-constitutional concept that judges have the authority to overturn a law if it doesn’t appear rational to them. Whether or not it was “rational” to a legislature or to the people makes no difference. Thus, the LGBT lawyers simply state that it’s “not rational” to exclude the class of “gays” from marrying whomever they want. It’s been one the basis for overturning constitutional marriage amendments. Our lawyers fear being judged “irrational” if they bring up the uncomfortable aspects of homosexuality, so they stick to the “comfortable” arguments.
It’s about time to quit doing what doesn’t work. Our fear, unfortunately, is that the lawyers on our side have been working closely with pro-family establishment lawyers in Washington DC (and we all know who they are) who are anything but aggressive or confrontational on these issues.

6. When the Court will issue a decision
The Court will issue its ruling before its current term ends in late June – i.e., within two months.

7. Why Justices Ginsburg and Kagan must legally recuse themselves from this case
Federal law 28 U.S. Code § 455 states:
Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
In the past year Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan have performed same-sex “weddings.”  Ginsburg told people that the acceptance of same-sex “marriage” reflects “the genius of our Constitution.”
Kagan’s aggressive advocacy for LGBT “rights” goes back to her years as Dean of Harvard Law School (2003-2009), and is thoroughly documented in our MassResistance report.
Ginsburg and Kagan are unquestionably biased on this issue and by law must disqualify themselves from this case. Failure to do would call into question the legitimacy of the (feared) ruling on this case, at the very least. Furthermore, a near-universal interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s “due process” clause (above) includes the right of impartial court proceedings. Having biased judges violates that.
Motion for Recusal. We have been informed that Attorney Andy Schlafly (son of Phyllis Schlafly) has drafted a Motion for Recusal, under section 28 USC 144, which will be filed by one of the state Attorneys-Generals in Ohio, Tennessee, Michigan or Kentucky who have standing in the case.  According to Mr. Schlafly, “This will be the first time in the history of our country that a Motion for Recusal will have been filed against U.S. Supreme Court Justices because the above codes are for Federal District Judges, yet the principle of recusal can be expanded to all federal judges including Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court.”

8. Bill filed in Congress to remove the Court’s jurisdiction on marriage
It is possible for Congress to restrict the Federal Courts from hearing certain types of cases.
Article III, Section 2 of the US Constitution gives Congress the ability to restrict the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and federal courts:
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
In the case of marriage, this probably should have been done at least a decade ago.
However, this past week, some action was started. In both houses of Congress, bills were filed to block the federal courts, including the US Supreme Court, from hearing or deciding cases involving the definition of marriage.
In the US House, Rep. Steve King, (R-Iowa) filed bill, H.R. 1968, titled Restrain the Judges on Marriage Act of 2015. (See text of bill here.) As Rep. King describes on his website, “This bill strips federal courts of jurisdiction to hear cases related to marriage. The effect of the bill would prevent federal courts from hearing marriage cases, leaving the issue to the States where it properly belongs.” Read a news report here.
In the US Senate, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) filed bill S. 1080, It is titled The Protect Marriage from the Courts Act. (See text of bill here.)
Will the RINO Republican leadership in the US House and Senate go along with it? We will see. And then Obama must sign it …

9. The latest in the Court’s long history of illegitimate usurpation of power
The problem of the federal courts acting as unelected rulers — contrary to the intent of the Constitution — is not new. In 1861, in his first Inaugural Address, Abraham Lincoln condemned the Supreme Court’s power grab then:
If the policy of the government upon vital questions, affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made, in ordinary litigation between parties, in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.
Over the last several decades it’s only gotten further out-of-control.
In 2005, the Hoover Institution published a paper by Lino Graglia, a law professor at the University of Texas, titled “Constitutional Law without the Constitution: The Supreme Court’s Remaking of America” that described it very well. An excerpt from that article:
The central fact of contemporary constitutional law, however, is that it has very little to do with the Constitution. Nearly all the Supreme Court’s rulings of unconstitutionality have little or no basis in, and are sometimes in direct violation of, the Constitution. Their actual basis is nothing more than the policy preferences of a majority of the Court’s nine justices. The power to assert that the Constitution prohibits any policy choice of which they disapprove has enabled the justices to make themselves the final lawmakers on any public policy issue that they choose to remove from the ordinary political process and to assign for decision to themselves. Over the past half-century the justices have chosen to make themselves the final lawmakers on most basic issues of domestic social policy in American society. These include issues literally of life and death, as in the Court’s decisions on contraception, abortion, capital punishment, and assisted suicide; issues of public order, as in its decisions on criminal procedure, public demonstrations, and vagrancy control; and issues of public morality, as in its decisions on pornography and homosexuality. These are the issues that determine the basic values, nature, and quality of a society. In essence, the Court now performs in the American system of government a role similar to that performed by the Grand Council of Ayatollahs in the Iranian system: voting takes place and representatives of the people are elected as lawmakers, but the decisions they reach on basic issues of social policy are permitted to prevail only so long as they are not disallowed by the system’s highest authority.
That’s what we’ve been up against: Nine justices appointed for life who have made themselves the unelected legislators over us all.

10. Immense pressure from the homosexual movement
It’s difficult to describe the enormous amounts of money and sophisticated planning, political maneuvering, and pressure tactics that the homosexual lobby has used in this nationwide march through the federal courts. Millions of dollars have flowed to them from major US corporations and wealthy donors.  Adding to that is the flood of major media support (including even FOX News!) that the LGBT movement enjoys. Needless to say, it’s unbelievably one-sided.
On the other hand, most wealthy conservative donors have made their peace with the LGBT movement and have abandoned their support at a time when it’s needed most. And virtually no corporations donate money to the pro-family side of this issue.
The LGBT movement has used its resources and power very aggressively. In just the last several weeks, hundreds of corporations and high-profile politicians, including Republicans, have publicly told the Supreme Court that they want “gay marriage” imposed on America by the judiciary. Virtually the nation’s entire legal community now refuses to even engage cases involving challenges to “gay marriage” — an unpresented turn of events.
Will this push a majority of the Supreme Court Justices over the top? In any other time in history, this case would have been laughed out of any courtroom. So anything is possible.
What do we do next?
By any objective measure, this whole case is a mockery of actual Constitutional law. Yet, the odds are that Ginsburg and Kagan will not disqualify themselves and enough of the rest of the judges will rule to force this insanity on all of America — and which among other things will surely lead to the further persecution of people of faith.
Should the worst happen, we’ll certainly have it rubbed in our faces as quickly as possible. As happened in Massachusetts in 2003, the first thing we will see will be adolescent screams of joy and jumping in the streets by the homosexual radicals, celebrated spectacularly in the mainstream media.
But what about our side? We have to fight back, that’s for sure.
What does that mean? There has been a lot of talk about pro-family “civil disobedience” and “taking to the streets.” But let’s be honest. When the Left threatens civil disobedience the local police schedule double shifts (often to protect them). But when we do it, nobody really pays attention. To most conservatives civil disobedience is not mowing your lawn for three weeks or posting strong articles on FaceBook – not exactly rioting.
And the legal system will surely come down even harder on anyone disobeying the new rulings, as well as state and local non-discrimination ordinances...

_____________________

My commentary:

When moral liberty is detached from the Natural Law and the Eternal Divine Law, it soon degenerates into license. It was Pope Leo XIII, in his Encyclical Letter Libertas Humana, who reminded us that:

"Liberty, the highest of natural endowments, being the portion only of intellectual or rational natures, confers on man this dignity - that he is 'in the hand of his counsel' and has power over his actions. But the manner in which such dignity is exercised is of the greatest moment, inasmuch as on the use that is made of liberty the highest good and the greatest evil alike depend. Man, indeed, is free to obey his reason, to seek moral good, and to strive unswervingly after his last end. Yet he is free also to turn aside to all other things; and, in pursuing the empty substance of good, to disturb rightful order and to fall headlong into the destruction which he has voluntarily chosen...Therefore, the nature of human liberty, however it be considered, whether in individuals or in society, whether in those who command or in those who obey, supposes the necessity of obedience to some supreme and eternal law, which is no other than the authority of God, commanding good and forbidding evil. And, so far from this most just authority of God over men diminishing, or even destroying their liberty, it protects and perfects it, for the real perfection of all creatures is found in the prosecution and attainment of their respective ends, but the supreme end to which human liberty must aspire is God."

In Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court allows so broad an interpretation of liberty, that virtually all state laws proscribing evils such as adultery, bigamy, incest, prostitution, sadomasochism, bestiality and pedophilia are now at risk: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas#Broader_implications

An act is immoral if it violates Natural Law or Divine Law. The Supreme Court has imposed a perverse notion of "liberty" which favors unnatural vice over virtue. In Lawrence v Texas, the Court violated its responsibility to uphold a most fundamental principle of the Natural Law. Namely, to do good and avoid evil. As a consequence, homosexuality - and other sexual abnormalities which undermine the family and therefore the common good - will now be constitutionally protected expressions of "liberty."

This is a real moral tragedy and one which will soon lead to intense persecution of Christians (and other people of good will) who oppose violations of both the Natural Law and the Divine Law (see:http://dtf-jayg.blogspot.com/2007/02/whos-persecuting-whom.html ).

When the European Parliament passed a special resolution encouraging the nations of Europe to approve homosexual "marriage," Pope John Paul II responded in protest:

"What is not morally acceptable, however, is the legalization of homosexual acts. To show understanding towards the person who sins, towards the person who is not in the process of freeing himself from this tendency, does not at all mean to diminish the demands of the moral norm (cf. Veritatis Splendor, No. 95)....

But we must say that what was intended with the European Parliament's resolution was the legitimization of a moral disorder. Parliament improperly conferred an institutional value to a conduct that is deviant and not in accordance with God's plan...

Forgetting the words of Christ 'The truth shall set you free' (John 8:32), an attempt was made to show the people of our continent a moral evil, a deviance, a certain slavery, as a form of liberation, falsifying the very essence of the family." (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/angelus/1994/documents/hf_jp-ii_ang_19940220_it.html ).

As the persecution of Christians intensifies, and as our society collapses in on itself under the weight of institutionalized deviance, the words of the prophet Isaiah will echo in our hearts and minds:


"Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil;
Who put darkness for light,
and light for darkness....
Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes,
And prudent in their own sight!"
Isaiah 5:2-21

Pope Francis' devotion to Mary is "more personal" than Saint John Paul II's was?

From CNS:

"Mother and son: Pope Francis shares personal, intimate devotion to Mary

From Easter to Pentecost — and especially during the Marian month of May — Catholics recite the 'Regina Coeli' prayer 'with the emotion of children who are happy because their mother is happy' that Jesus has risen from the dead, Pope Francis said.

Although his devotion to the Mother of God is profound, it is simple in many ways: Mary is a mother to every believer; Jesus would not leave his followers orphans.

While his connection to Mary clearly is a matter of heart and mind, it is also physical. Whenever Pope Francis passes a statue or icon of Mary, he kisses it or allows his hand to rest tenderly upon it.


Honoring the Mother of God, of course, is a solid part of Catholic tradition and a mainstay in the devotion and teaching of the popes. St. John Paul II’s motto, 'Totus Tuus' ('All yours'), and the large M on his coat of arms were just the most graphic elements of a devotion that led to a whole body of teaching about Mary, her role in Catholics’ faith life and the importance of praying the rosary.

Pope Francis would not have an argument with any of St. John Paul’s Marian piety or discourse.

But there are differences.

'The sense of Pope Francis’ devotion to Mary is a little more personal, more intimate' than St. John Paul’s was, said Redemptorist Father Sabatino Majorano, a professor at Rome’s Alphonsianum Institute. Pope Francis expresses 'that feeling that exists between a son and his mother, where I think Pope John Paul’s was more that of a subject and his queen.'

The difference, he believes, comes from their roots: Pope Francis’ Latin roots — not just in Argentina, but also from his Italian family — and St. John Paul’s Slavic, Polish culture."

Francis' devotion to Mary is "more personal" than SAINT POPE JOHN PAUL II THE GREAT?

Really?

Pope John Paul's approach to Mary was less personal and more akin to the relationship between a subject and his queen than a son and his mother?

Is this the same Pope John Paul II who wrote:

"After recalling the presence of Mary and the other women at the Lord's cross, St John relates: "When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, 'Woman, behold, your son!'. Then he said to the disciple, 'Behold, your mother!’" (Jn 19:26-27).

These particularly moving words are a "revelation scene": they reveal the deep sentiments of the dying Christ and contain a great wealth of meaning for Christian faith and spirituality. At the end of his earthly life, as he addressed his Mother and the disciple he loved, the crucified Messiah establishes a new relationship of love between Mary and Christians.

Interpreted at times as no more than an expression of Jesus' filial piety towards his Mother whom he entrusts for the future to his beloved disciple, these words go far beyond the contingent need to solve a family problem. In fact, attentive consideration of the text, confirmed by the interpretation of many Fathers and by common ecclesial opinion, presents us, in Jesus' twofold entrustment, with one of the most important events for understanding the Virgin's role in the economy of salvation.

Jesus completes his sacrifice by entrusting Mary to John

The words of the dying Jesus actually show that his first intention was not to entrust his Mother to John, but to entrust the disciple to Mary and to give her a new maternal role. Moreover, the epithet "woman", also used by Jesus at the wedding in Cana to lead Mary to a new dimension of her existence as Mother, shows how the Saviour's words are not the fruit of a simple sentiment of filial affection but are meant to be put at a higher level.

Although Jesus' death causes Mary deep sorrow, it does not in itself change her normal way of life: in fact, in departing from Nazareth to start his public life, Jesus had already left his Mother alone. Moreover, the presence at the Cross of her relative, Mary of Clopas, allows us to suppose that the Blessed Virgin was on good terms with her family and relatives, by whom she could have been welcomed after her Son's death.

Instead, Jesus' words acquire their most authentic meaning in the context of his saving mission. Spoken at the moment of the redemptive sacrifice, they draw their loftiest value precisely from this sublime circumstance. In fact, after Jesus' statements to his Mother, the Evangelist adds a significant clause: "Jesus, knowing that all was now finished...." (Jn 19:28), as if he wished to stress that he had brought his sacrifice to completion by entrusting his Mother to John, and in him to all men, whose Mother she becomes in the work of salvation.

3. The reality brought about by Jesus' words, that is, Mary's new motherhood in relation to the disciple, is a further sign of the great love that led Jesus to offer his life for all people. On Calvary this love is shown in the gift of a mother, his mother, who thus becomes our mother too.

We must remember that, according to tradition, it is John whom the Blessed Virgin in fact recognized as her son; but this privilege has been interpreted by Christians from the beginning as the sign of a spiritual generation in relation to all humanity.

The universal motherhood of Mary, the "Woman" of the wedding at Cana and of Calvary, recalls Eve, "mother of all living" (Gn 3:20). However, while the latter helped to bring sin into the world, the new Eve, Mary, co-operates in the saving event of Redemption. Thus in the Blessed Virgin the figure of "woman" is rehabilitated and her motherhood takes up the task of spreading the new life in Christ among men."

Astute Catholics will observe how everything Francis says and does is painted in such a light that he is made out to be "better than all previous popes." His devotion to Mary is "more personal" than one of the greatest pontiffs who has ever lived,  raised to the altars, a Pope who consecrated his whole being and ministry to the Immaculata; He draws "larger crowds" to the Vatican than Pope Benedict XVI; he prays three rosaries (he says) every day.

John Paul II prayed 10 hours a day.  But we didn't know that until the mystic died.  Unlike the self-promoting Francis, John Paul II took these words seriously:

“And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full.  But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you." (Matthew 6: 5-6).

Francis is always saying that he cannot abide with Pharisees and hypocrites. Shouldn't he take Our Lord's advice then?

"Woe to you when all men speak well of you.."

 "Am I now trying to win the approval of human beings, or of God? Or am I trying to please people? If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a servant of Christ." (Galatians 1: 10).


Time Magazine has praised Pope Francis.  Now Esquire Magazine is saying that the new Pontiff possesses a humility not seen in recent popes.  See here.

This is just disturbing.  For the recent popes (and in my view Pope John Paul II most especially) have been nothing short of models of the evangelical virtues.  They have been humble servants of Christ Jesus.  But some are saying that Francis' humility hasn't been seen since biblical times.

The secular media continues its public relations campaign promoting Francis as "the people's pope" and as a "sign of hope."

So what is my concern?  Why do I even mention all of this? Because 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.
Father Joseph Esper explains, "Why does the Lord allow failure? According to St. Paul of the Cross, 'The works of God always meet with opposition so that the Divine Magnificence may shine forth. It is when things appear to be crashing to the ground that you will see them even more be raised on high.' Just as 'God is able to write straight with crooked lines,' so His servants, with the help of His grace, are able to grow in holiness in spite of their setbacks. St. John Vianney reminds us, 'The saints did not become saints without many a sacrifice and many a struggle,' and St. John of the Cross offers these reassuring words: 'The Lord measures our perfection neither by the multitude nor the magnitude of our deeds, but by the manner in which we perform them.' Talented and productive hands count for much less in God's eyes than a loving heart; we are therefore advised by Bl. Zeferino Agostini, 'Do not be dismayed by toil or suffering, nor by the meager fruit of your labors. Remember that God rewards not according to results but according to efforts.' By Heaven's standards, faithfulness equals success, especially when serving the Lord involves something contrary to our own preferences. As St. Vincent de Paul notes, 'One act of resignation to the divine will, when it ordains what is repugnant to us, is worth more than a hundred thousand successes according to our own will and pleasure.'.....Once we've overcome our human desire for popularity and success, the world is no longer able to ensnare us or to lead us astray - and on that day we will truly become successful in God's sight." (Saintly Solutions, pp. 108-109, Sophia Institute Press).

The words of Our Lord Himself are most instructive here:

"Blessed are you when men revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so men persecuted the prophets who were before you" (Mt 5: 11, 12)...Woe to you, when all men speak well of you, for so their fathers did to the false prophets." (Lk 6: 26).

The world loves its own.  Which is why worldly types will have nothing for praise for one of their own.  But authentic servants of God will be persecuted, villified, slandered, and criticized at every opportunity.

The fact that the secular media has nothing but high praise for Francis, to the point of describing him as a "sign of hope," is deeply troubling.  And is, in itself, quite possibly a sign we cannot afford to ignore.

Is all of this the result of masonic infiltration into the Church?

Does Father Krzysztof Korcz really believe in the Fatima message or is he all show?

In a previous post, I Noted how Peggy Patenaude, a radical feminist who often conducts retreats at the La Salette Shrine in Attleboro, Massachusetts, will be a guest speaker at this year's "Gather Us In" Conference sponsored by the Diocese of Worcester's "Commission for Women," itself a dissenting organization.

In her newsletter, Ms. Patenaude said that: "In January, I had the privilege of facilitating my first retreat for five gay couples. It turned out to be an affirming experience for all. I was very moved by the warmth, goodness, depth and genuineness of these ten women. The fact that they were so receptive and appreciative confirmed for me the need for such programs in a world that is not always kind to minorities....

It was gratifying to see how much the participants enjoyed and benefited from the weekend. The retreat exceeded my expectations. 'It gave us the opportunity to take time out to focus on us and our relationship which means so much to us,' commented one woman. Another added, 'The retreat was very helpful. It helped my partner and me to communicate better.' The gratitude of all ten women for the supportive and respectful atmosphere was obvious. As one retreatant said, 'We are just people in love…like any other couple.' I am humbled and grateful for the opportunity to have assisted them in keeping their love alive. See here.

So I was not entirely surprised to learn that Father Krzysztof Korcz, "pastor" of Our Lady Immaculate parish in Athol, had decided to promote the "Gather Us In" conference in his parish bulletin.  I am not surprised because Fr. Korcz is anything but a child of Mary, even if he goes through the motions of promoting the Fatima message for appearances sake.   

St. Louis Marie Grignon de Montfort, in his classic work True Devotion to Mary, advises us that, the person who wishes to be led by this spirit of Mary:

p. 259 1) Should renounce his own spirit, his own views and his own will before doing anything, for example, before making meditation, celebrating or attending Mass, before Communion. For the darkness of our own spirit and the evil tendencies of our own will and actions, good as they may seem to us, would hinder the holy spirit of Mary were we to follow them.

2) We should give ourselves up to the spirit of Mary to be moved and directed as she wishes. We should place and leave ourselves in her virginal hands, like a tool in the hands of a craftsman or a lute in the hands of a good musician. We should cast ourselves into her like a stone thrown into the sea. This is done easily and quickly by a mere thought, a slight movement of the will or just a few words as, "I renounce myself and give myself to you, my dear Mother." And even if we do not experience any emotional fervour in this spiritual encounter it is none the less real. It is just as if a person with equal sincerity were to say - which God forbid! - "I give myself to the devil." Even though this were said without feeling any emotion, he would no less really belong to the devil.

3) From time to time during an action and after it, we should renew this same act of offering and of union. The more we do so, the quicker we shall grow in holiness and the sooner we shall reach union with Christ, which necessarily follows upon union with Mary, since the spirit of Mary is the spirit of Jesus.

With Mary

p. 260. We must do everything with Mary, that is to say, in all our actions we must look upon Mary, although a simple human being, as the perfect model of every virtue and perfection, fashioned by the Holy Spirit for us to imitate, as far as our limited capacity allows. In every action then we should consider how Mary performed it or how she would perform it if she were in our place. For this reason, we must examine and meditate on the great virtues she practised during her life, especially:

1) Her lively faith, by which she believed the angel's word without the least hesitation, and believed faithfully and constantly even to the foot of the Cross on Calvary.

2) Her deep humility, which made her prefer seclusion, maintain silence, submit to every eventuality and put herself in the last place.

3) Her truly divine purity, which never had and never will have its equal on this side of heaven.

And so on for her other virtues.

Remember what I told you before, that Mary is the great, unique mould of God, designed to make living images of God at little expense and in a short time. Anyone who finds this mould and casts himself into it, is soon transformed into our Lord because it is the true likeness of him.

In Mary

p. 261. We must do everything in Mary. To understand this we must realise that the Blessed Virgin is the true earthly paradise of the new Adam and that the ancient paradise was only a symbol of her. There are in this earthly paradise untold riches, beauties, rarities and delights, which the new Adam, Jesus Christ, has left there. It is in this paradise that he "took his delights" for nine months, worked his wonders and displayed his riches with the magnificence of God himself. This most holy place consists of only virgin and immaculate soil from which the new Adam was formed with neither spot nor stain by the operation of the Holy Spirit who dwells there. In this earthly paradise grows the real Tree of Life which bore our Lord, the fruit of Life, the tree of knowledge of good and evil, which bore the Light of the world.

In this divine place there are trees planted by the hand of God and watered by his divine unction which have borne and continue to bear fruit that is pleasing to him. There are flower-beds studded with a variety of beautiful flowers of virtue, diffusing a fragrance which delights even the angels. Here there are meadows verdant with hope, impregnable towers of fortitude, enchanting mansions of confidence and many other delights.

Only the Holy Spirit can teach us the truths that these material objects symbolise. In this place the air is perfectly pure. There is no night but only the brilliant day of the sacred humanity, the resplendent, spotless sun of the Divinity, the blazing furnace of love, melting all the base metal thrown into it and changing it into gold. There the river of humility gushes forth from the soil, divides into four branches and irrigates the whole of this enchanted place. These branches are the four cardinal virtues.

262. The Holy Spirit speaking through the Fathers of the Church, also calls our Lady the Eastern Gate, through which the High Priest, Jesus Christ, enters and goes out into the world. Through this gate he entered the world the first time and through this same gate he will come the second time.

The Holy Spirit also calls her the Sanctuary of the Divinity, the Resting-Place of the Holy Spirit, the Throne of God, the City of God, the Altar of God, the Temple of God, the World of God. All these titles and expressions of praise are very real when related to the different wonders the Almighty worked in her and the graces which he bestowed on her. What wealth and what glory! What a joy and a privilege for us to enter and dwell in Mary, in whom almighty God has set up the throne of his supreme glory!

p. 263. But how difficult it is for us to have the freedom, the ability and the light to enter such an exalted and holy place. This place is guarded not by a cherub, like the first earthly paradise, but by the Holy Spirit himself who has become its absolute Master. Referring to her, he says: "You are an enclosed garden, my sister, my bride, an enclosed garden and a sealed fountain." Mary is enclosed. Mary is sealed. The unfortunate children of Adam and Eve driven from the earthly paradise, can enter this new paradise only by a special grace of the Holy Spirit which they have to merit.

264. When we have obtained this remarkable grace by our fidelity, we should be delighted to remain in Mary. We should rest there peacefully, rely on her confidently, hide ourselves there with safety, and abandon ourselves unconditionally to her, so that within her virginal bosom:

1) We may be nourished with the milk of her grace and her motherly compassion.
2) We may be delivered from all anxiety, fear and scruples.
3) We may be safeguarded from all our enemies, the devil, the world and sin which have never gained admittance there. That is why our Lady says that those who work in her will not sin, that is, those who dwell spiritually in our Lady will never commit serious sin.

4) We may be formed in our Lord and our Lord formed in us, because her womb is, as the early Fathers call it, the house of the divine secrets where Jesus and all the elect have been conceived. "This one and that one were born in her."

For Mary

265. Finally, we must do everything for Mary. Since we have given ourselves completely to her service, it is only right that we should do everything for her as if we were her personal servant and slave. This does not mean that we take her for the ultimate end of our service for Jesus alone is our ultimate end. But we take Mary for our proximate end, our mysterious intermediary and the easiest way of reaching him.

Like every good servant and slave we must not remain idle, but, relying on her protection, we should undertake and carry out great things for our noble Queen. We must defend her privileges when they are questioned and uphold her good name when it is under attack. We must attract everyone, if possible, to her service and to this true and sound devotion. We must speak up and denounce those who distort devotion to her by outraging her Son, and at the same time we must apply ourselves to spreading this true devotion. As a reward for these little services, we should expect nothing in return save the honour of belonging to such a lovable Queen and the joy of being united through her to Jesus, her Son, by a bond that is indissoluble in time and in eternity. Glory to Jesus in Mary! Glory to Mary in Jesus! Glory to God alone!"


A true child of Mary does not engage in dissent from Church teaching or in the promotion of dissenting individuals and organizations.  The Commission for Women is a vehicle for such dissent.  See here, here and here for example.  And also here.

If Father Korcz wants to encourage true devotion to Mary and an authentic marian spirit of prayer and obedience at Our Lady Immaculate parish, he will first have to set the example by actually living such

an authentic devotion.

Pope Francis: Shouldn't it be a welcoming Church for all?

It was the philosopher George Santayana who described Modernism thusly: "Modernism...is the love of all Christianity in those who perceive that it is all a fable. It is the historic attachment to his Church of a Catholic who has discovered that he is a pagan...The Modernists are men of the Renaissance, pagan, pantheistic in their profounder sentiment, to whom the hard and narrow realism of official Christianity is offensive just because it presupposes that Christianity is true...As for Modernism, it is suicide. It is the last of those concessions to the spirit of the world which half-believers and double-minded prophets have always been found making; but it is a mortal concession. It concedes everything; for it concedes that everything in Christianity, as Christians hold it, is an illusion." But because the Magisterium faithfully passes down the Tradition of Catholic Teaching received from the Apostles, Santayana, commenting on the modernists' opposition to Rome, notes, "The modernist feels himself full of love for everybody...except for the Pope."

And one might add: those Catholics who are faithful to the Tradition of Catholic teaching.

In an essay on the meaning of evangelization, Father Vincent Miceli, S.J. wrote, "Being the work of God and man in cooperation, it must ever be a thrilling and awesome adventure. We can say, however, that this sanctifying activity proclaims Christ to those who do not know Him, preaches the Gospel to them through catechesis and missionary sermons, confers Baptism and other sacraments and tirelessly exhorts converts to scale the heights of sanctity. Jesus Christ, Himself, the Good News of God, was the very first and greatest evangelizer. He proclaimed an absolute Kingdom of God, making everything else relative. He proclaimed salvation, namely liberation from sin, Satan, death, a liberation that bestowed upon sinners returned to God grace, resurrection in immortality and glorification in the triune God. He proclaimed the price man must pay for his salvation, namely that men must gain Heaven by violence, i.e., through a life of penance, toil, and suffering accepted in the spirit of the Suffering Servant of God. And above all He proclaimed that man must undergo that interior renewal which the Gospel calls metanoia, that is the radical change of heart and mind which destroys 'the old man of sin' and creates 'the new man of grace.'"

Fr. Miceli then explains that there are obstacles to evangelization. He writes, "St Thomas Aquinas teaches that three things are necessary for a soul to find, follow and embrace Christ. First, a person must know what he ought to believe. Second, he must know what he ought to desire. Third, he must know what he ought to do. Now ignorance is the first great obstacle to evangelization. Catholics, therefore, should grow in a profound knowledge of their Faith through a constant reading and reflection on the Gospels and a faithful following of the teachings of the Magisterium. Only thus will they come to appreciate the Catholic Faith as a gift of God that is true, good and beautiful. They then will be moved by the Holy Spirit to bring non-Catholics to share this gift from God with them..."

Finally, surveying the Catholic Church in the United States, Fr. Miceli writes, "Unfortunately, the fact is that the Church in the United States, instead of being the crusading, courageous, evangelizing society Christ founded it to be, has become a cream-puff chaplaincy to the converted - and because of this attitude is failing to hold on even to these...How are we to stir up again the spirit of evangelization? Pope Paul VI in Evangelii Nuntiandi gives us our marching orders:

'On us particularly, the pastors of the Church, rests the responsibility for reshaping with boldness and wisdom, but in complete fidelity to the content of evangelization, the means that are most suitable and effective for communicating the Gospel message to the men and women of our times.'" (Fr. Vincent P. Miceli, citing Pope Paul VI in Evangelii Nuntiandi, No. 40).

Note this passage. What does Pope Paul VI mean by "complete fidelity to the content of evangelization"? The Holy Father means that pastors of the Church must offer the men and women of our times what Pope Benedict XVI has said is the entire plan of God. That is to say, the full content of Catholic teaching - including, and especially, those hard truths which the world does not want to hear but which faithful Catholics must share with hurting souls who wander about without a shepherd. This is what evangelization is all about!

And because I insist upon preaching these hard truths, I am shunned at my own parish and not even permitted to apply for the diocesan priesthood!  Just recently, Pope Francis said that, "In Buenos Aires I used to receive letters from homosexual persons who are ‘socially wounded’ because they tell me that they feel like the church has always condemned them."

It's good to see that the Holy Father is concerned for homosexual persons who have not always been treated with "respect, compassion, and sensitivity" as the Catechism calls for (2358).  But what about faithful Catholics whose vocation is rejected outright simply because they preach the hard truths - what Pope Benedict XVI referred to as "the entire plan of God" - and who also insist, along with the Catechism, that homosexual persons (like everyone else) "are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition"?

Not long ago, I was part of a group of Catholic bloggers accused by the Boston Archdiocese of "harming community" by opposing dissent from revealed Catholic teaching as well as a "Gay Pride" Mass.  See here.   How much longer must faithful Catholics tolerate such nonsense?

"Even in the Church....all one hears about from the pulpit is social justice.."

In my last post, I noted how I am viewed as "strange" or as somehow "fringe" by liberal counterfeit Catholic wreckovators within the Worcester Diocese because I promote and defend the perennial teaching of the Church regarding the "Last Things," or what theologians refer to as "eschatology."

Our "modern world" hates to be reminded of death, judgement, heaven, hell, purgatory and the end of the world.  And anyone today who speaks or writes about these things must be demonized and cast as a freak because the "New Church" Catholics are uncomfortable with these realities.  Pope John XXIII would not have understood this spiritual sickness.  He used as a motto for his whole life the followin, entitled "Four Future Things":

Death, than which nothing is more certain;

Judgement, than which nothing is more strict;

Hell, than which nothing is more delightful;

Paradise, than which nothing is more delightful.

(Journal of a Soul, Appendix 6).


An anonymous individual, who may hardly be described as '"a bright light," left a comment here accusing me of being more Calvinist than Catholic because I adhere to the Church's teaching regarding eschatology.  I was accused of having "little mercy."  And I am not entirely surprised.  So many Catholics have been fed on chaff rather than wheat for so long that authentic Catholic teaching seems to them as something evil or hard-hearted.  Years of consuming a diet of false compassion have wrought much havoc in the souls of these mental and moral midgets.

Father Albert, a Dominican priest, writes, "If Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical on the Holy Rosary could speak (over a century ago) of the forgetfulness of man concerning future goods, what would he say today!  The future goods and the future evils that await all of us after death are buried in total oblivion!  The present life seems to be the BE-ALL and END-ALL of all things.  Even in the Church, since Vatican II, all one hears about from the pulpit is social justice.  To speak of Heaven, Hell, Purgatory, Death and Judgement is considered strangely bizarre.  Meditation on the Glorious mysteries of the Holy Rosary brings us back to reality!" (Dedicated Decades, Winter 2013, pp. 32, 33).

But then, most clerics (be they priest or deacon) no longer pray the Holy Rosary.  They prefer worldly things to the Holy Rosary.  Once prayer is abandoned, doctrine follows.

Today the Catholic Church is infested with many effeminate priests and deacons who are spiritually unable to offer the faithful the sound doctrine and the hard truths which they need to hear.  And parishes are emptying.  One reader noted how Our Lady Immaculate Parish in Athol used to offer four Masses every Sunday.  Today the parish offers only one Mass on Sunday.

By

their fruits ye shall know them.  Related reading on Pope Francis here.