"And related intolerance..."

The United Nations is concerned about hate speech.

As Breitbart reports:

Governments around the world 'have a legal obligation to stop hate speech and hate crimes,' UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein reportedly said Tuesday, adding a call on people everywhere to ‘stand up for someone’s rights,'” the press release about the event said.

“It is not an attack on free speech or the silencing of controversial ideas or criticism, but a recognition that the right to freedom of expression carries with it special duties and responsibilities,” Al Hussein said in a statement.

“Words of fear and loathing can, and do, have real consequences,” Zeid said.

In his statement, Zeid said that U.N. member states “do not have any excuse to allow racism and xenophobia to fester.”

States “have the legal obligation to prohibit and eliminate racial discrimination, to guarantee the right of everyone, no matter their race, color, national or ethnic origin, to equality before the law.”

“At the Summit for Refugees and Migrants in September 2016, U.N. member states adopted a declaration strongly condemning acts and manifestations of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance,” the press release said. “The Summit also sparked the UN’s Together initiative to change negative perceptions and attitudes aimed at refugees and migrants.”

And related intolerance?  Is there any doubt that what is meant by this is moral opposition toward "LGBTQ" ideology and agenda?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Jeff Mirus gets it. He writes, "The writing is on the wall. Gay marriage is the lie that will create the next Gulag. Indeed, gay marriage is the perfect totalitarian wedge, not least in a country like the United States.." (See full article here).

A reader comments on Saint Faustina and I respond.....

Reader:

"If you have access to Saint Faustina's Diary, read entry #823 and #824. It references the day of her greatest suffering, which happens to be 12-17-36, Bergolios Birthday!"


My response:

I do. And those messages concern Saint Faustina's experience of Gethsemane. Gethsemane, where Our Lord experienced great anguish and shed tears of blood.

There are no coincidences in the spiritual life. I believe the secret which Saint Faustina indicates she alone knows is the identity of the False Prophet, preparing the way for the Antichrist who will bring the Church to Calvary, following in the footsteps of her Master (CCC, 675).

This could be why St. Faustina is made aware of this secret on Bergoglio's birthday.

On reverence in prayer and toward others...

Recently I was approached just prior to Holy Mass and asked to lead a public Rosary.  I agreed.  And in the middle of reciting a decade, I was interrupted by another parishioner who began to lead the prayer.  I simply followed along silently for the rest of the Rosary.  What is so disturbing about this is not that I was cut off (I'm quite content with praying the Rosary quietly, something I do every day and before every Holy Mass).

No, what is disturbing is the attitude of irreverence which this reveals.  Dietrich von Hildebrand explains that, "Reverence in its primitive form is not only the basis of every religion, and, above all, of the receptiveness to the Lumen Christi, to the word of God; but it is also a constitutive element of faith, hope, and love of God.  Complete, fully ripened reverence is a component of a true relationship with God and specifically with the God of Revelation." 

In addition, reverence is the basis of all true personality.  Again Dr. Hildebrand explains: "The significance of reverence for the full personality can easily be grasped.  The greatest natural endowment, the greatest latitude of talents and capacities can never lead to true personality if reverence is lacking.  For the latter is the basis of the second essential component of personality, the perceiving of values, an organic contact with the world of values, and - most ultimate of all - the dying to oneself, the preparation of inner room for Christ.  The man without reverence is necessarily flat and limited.  This lack is an essential mark of stupidity.  Even he whose mind is obdurate and helpless, but who possesses reverence, does not manifest that offensive, tactlessly persistent stupidity of which it is said that 'even the gods struggle against it in vain.'" (Liturgy and Personality, pp. 50-51).

Because lack of reverence may have two roots, Dr. Hildebrand notes that, "..there are two different types of men who lack reverence: the arrogant person and the senseless, blunt one.  The root of the first is to be found in pride.  The man who lacks reverence because of pride and arrogance approaches everything with conceit and presumption, imagines that he knows everything, that he sees through everything.  He is interested in the world only insofar as it serves his self-glorification, insofar as it enhances his own importance...He thinks himself always greater than that which is not himself.  The world holds no mystery for him.  He treats everything tactlessly, with easy familiarity, and everything seems to him to be at his disposal.  To his insolent, conceited gaze, to his despotic approach, the world is sealed, silent, stripped of all mystery, deprived of all depth, flat and limited to one dimension.  He stands in desolate emptiness, blind to all the values and secrets of being, circling endlessly around himself...

There is however another form of irreverence, one which is born of concupiscence.  The concupiscent man is interested in the world only as a means of procuring pleasure for himself.  His is a dominating position in the face of being - not because he wills domination as such but because he wants to use being   for his pleasure.  He, too, circles around in the narrowness of his own self.  He does not face the world with arrogance and conceit but with a blunt stupidity.  Stubbornly imprisoned in his own self, he violates being, and seeing it only from the outside, he thus misses its true meaning.  To this type of irreverent man the world also refuses to disclose its breadth, height, and depth, its richness of values and mysteries." (Liturgy and Personality, pp. 49-50).

And so, this parishioner approached the most holy mysteries of the Rosary with irreverence.  The need to be "in control," to dominate the prayer in effect, undermined any reverence for objective value.  St. Louis de Montfort assures us that, "A single Hail Mary said properly [in other words, with reverence] is worth more than a hundred and fifty said badly." (The Secret of the Rosary, Forty-first Rose).

In his Forty-fourth Rose, St. Montfort explains that one fault, "commonly committed in saying the Rosary is to have no intention other than that of getting it over with as quickly as possible.  This is because so many look upon the Rosary as a burden, which weighs heavily upon them when it has not been said...It is sad to see how most people say the Rosary.  They say it astonishingly fast, slipping over part of the words.  We could not possibly expect anyone, even the most important person, to think that a slipshod address of this kind was a compliment, and yet we imagine that Jesus and Mary will be honored by it!"  In his Forty-fifth Rose, St. Montfort says simply, "I would like to add that the Rosary ought to be said reverently.."

All around us, we are witnessing a world which has succumbed to pride and arrogance.  The result is that so many desire to control everyone and every thing around them - including conversation (tell me with a straight face that you haven't experienced this).  This is characteristic of the irreverent man.  As Catholic Christians, we are called to put on the new man.  The Catholic formed by the Liturgy and by the authentic spirit of the Rosary will be reverent toward his neighbor.  He will not treat his neighbor as an obstacle to be smashed down or dominated.  Not if he expects his prayer to have any value.  Not if he expects his prayers to be answered.

Archbishop Loris Capovilla has "reservations" about Fatima and Marian devotion in general

All around us there are signs in abundance that the Apostasy is spreading.  Parishes are emptying, more and more Catholics who have remained are approving of same-sex "marriage" and other forms of dissent.  Preparation for the Reign of Antichrist is in full swing.  Does this trouble Archbishop Loris Capovilla?  One would wonder.  For instead of addressing the myriad evils of our time, the Archbishop has chosen to address something which does concern him: the Fatima apparition and Marian devotion in general.  As noted here, Archbishop Capovilla has "reservations" about Fatima and what he refers to as "excessive focus on Marian devotion."

God preserve us from such nonsense!

Without rendering judgment on the Archbishop's personal motives, it is very troubling that he should attempt to downplay devotion to Our Lady.  For, as St. Louis Marie de Montfort reminds us in his Treatise on True Devotion to the Blessed Virgin, "An infallible and unmistakable sign by which we can distinguish a heretic, a man of false doctrine, an enemy of God, from one of God's true friends is that the heretic and the hardened sinner show nothing but contempt and indifference for our Lady.  He endeavors by word and example, openly or insidiously - sometimes under specious pretexts - to belittle the love and veneration shown to her.  God the Father has not told Mary to dwell in them because they are, alas, other Esaus....But you, my dear Mother, will have for your heritage and possession only the predestinate represented by Israel.  As their loving Mother, you will give them birth, feed them and rear them.  As their queen, you will lead, govern and defend them." (True Devotion, Nos. 30-31).

Archbishop Capovilla employs the specious argument that devotion to Mary can actually harm ecumenism.  But as Dr. Scott Hahn, himself a convert to Catholicism, reminds us, "Authentic ecumenical progress is not simply the result of our own human energies.  Even more, it is not caused by compromise, on either side.  'Here it is not a question of altering the deposit of faith,' writes Pope John Paul II, 'changing the meaning of dogmas, eliminating essential words from them, accommodating truths to the preferences of a particular age...The unity willed by God can be attained only by the adherence of all to the content of revealed faith in its entirety' (Ut Unum Sint, 18).  Ecumenical unity thus requires a special grace and the word of God, who acts for the sake of his family.  Accordingly, we should not expect him to work apart from but through the Mother he gave us to serve as the symbol and source of family unity."

Archbishop Capovilla, who appears to be full of himself and lacking in humility, says that he would lecture the Mother of God on her own words: Do as He tells you - which she spoke at Cana - and remind her that Jesus Himself told us to repent.  It is entirely true that Jesus is the one Mediator Who brings us the Good News and Who calls us to repentance.  But as Pope John Paul II said in his audience of October 1, 1997:

"Mary's maternal mediation does not obscure the unique and perfect mediation of Christ.  Indeed, after calling Mary 'Mediatrix,' the Council [Vatican II] is careful to explain that this 'neither takes away anything from nor adds anything to the dignity and efficacy of Christ the one Mediator' (Lumen Gentium, No. 62)....In addition, the Council states that 'Mary's function as Mother of men in no way obscures or diminishes this unique mediation of Christ, but rather shows its power' (Lumen Gentium, No. 60). 

Therefore, far from being an obstacle to the exercise of Christ's unique mediation, Mary instead highlights its fruitfulness and efficacy...In proclaiming Christ the one mediator (cf. 1 Tim 2: 5-6), the text of St. Paul's Letter to Timothy excludes any other parallel mediation, but not subordinate mediation.  In fact, before emphasizing the one exclusive mediation of Christ, the author urges 'that supplications, prayers, intercessions and thanksgivings be made for all men' (2: 1).  Are not prayers a form of mediation?  Indeed, according to St. Paul, the unique mediation of Christ is meant to encourage other dependent, ministerial forms of mediation.  By proclaiming the uniqueness of Christ's mediation, the Apostle intends only to exclude any autonomous or rival mediation, and not other forms compatible with the infinite value of the Savior's work.

In fact, 'just as the priesthood of Christ is shared in various ways both by his ministers and the faithful, and as the one goodness of God is radiated in different ways among his creatures, so also the unique mediation of the Redeemer does not exclude but rather gives rise to a manifold co-operation which is but a sharing in this one source' (Lumen Gentium, No. 62)....In truth, what is Mary's maternal mediation if not the Father's gift to humanity."

In the latter times right up to the Reign of Antichrist, the enmity between the children of Mary and the children of the Devil will intensify.  St. Louis de Montfort:

"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.

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." True Devotion, Nos 50 - 52).

The Spotless Virgin, the Immaculata, has a special "ingenuity" in exposing the Devil's plans and tactics.  Which is why the Devil often uses others - sometimes other Catholics - to try to influence us to abandon our devotion to Mary, or at least to water it down under the pretext that it is "excessive" or "harmful to ecumenism."  

The Devil knows that those consecrated to the Immaculata will be protected in a special way in this time of Apostasy.  Which is why he attacks their true devotion.  Again St. Louis de Montfort: "Since Mary alone has crushed all heresies, as we are told by the Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit (Office of B.V.M.), a devoted servant of hers will never fall into formal heresy or error, though critics may contest this.  He may very well err materially, mistaking lies for truth or an evil spirit for a good one, but he will be less likely to do this than others.  Sooner or later he will discover his error and will not go on stubbornly believing and maintaining what he mistakenly thought was the truth." (True Devotion, No. 167),

In other words, those who practice true devotion to Mary will be better disposed toward the truth and will receive special graces against error.

The Devil knows this.  So he tries desperately to undermine such true devotion: "It's harmful to ecumenism," "It is excessive," "It is too pre-Vatican II," "It is Medeival."

Don't you believe the lies.  Consecrate yourself daily to the Immaculata.  Pope John Paul II, in a General Audience of November 15, 1995, said that to honor Mary is to go to Jesus.  How then can our devotion to Mary be said to be "excessive"?  During the same General Audience, the Holy Father places "such as Lourdes, Fatima, Loreto, Pompei, Guadalupe and Czestochowa" [this list is not exhaustive]...are "a wonderful testimony to God's mercy, which reaches man through Mary's intercession.."

And Archbishop Capovilla has "reservations" about Fatima and Marian devotion?  Now I have reservations about him.

Clark University's need to demonize any and all opposition to its ideology...

The Scarlet, a Clark University publication, wants its readers to believe that I am "angry." You see, it is much easier to dismiss honest criticism that way. But I'm not the one attacking the Natural Law and Catholic moral teaching while slandering the memory of a great Pontiff. It would seem that it is Clark University which has succumbed to anger and ideology.

As readers of this Blog know, I have documented Clark University's attempt to demonize moral opposition toward homosexuality and same-sex "marriage."  For Clark University, moral opposition to the radical homosexual agenda is equivalent to being "anti-gay." It is termed "heterosexism" and is put in the same category as rape and sexual assault. This is tantamount to saying that the Natural Law is "anti-gay," a position which is so absurd that it could only originate from a place like Clark University.

 Deborah Dwork, Director of Clark University's Strassler Center for Holocaust & Genocide Studies, has slandered the memory of Pope Pius XII, suggesting that he "failed Europe's Jews miserably, unconscionably," a position which I have totally refuted.  See here.

Clark University's "Freethought Society" posted a message on Facebook saying that it is "okay" to mock Christianity.  See here. Before that, simply because I do not agree with the radical homosexual agitprop and Christianophobic ideology coming out of Clark University, members of the Clark University "Freethought Society" asserted [again on Facebook] that I am "a delusional nutter" who "appears to have some major persecution fantasies."  I was called an "ass...." who is simply "crazy."  See here.

And I am the angry one?

But even if I were "angry," such anger would be justified.  This point is not understood by many at Clark University who have replaced thought with slogans and knee-jerk responses.  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."


Because our age has succumbed to a cult of softness, it is fashionable to believe that any display of anger is due to a lack of charity or to some psychological problem. This cult of softness has, in turn, contributed much to an effeminate Christianity which is incapable of opposing the evils of our present epoch.

It is forgotten that sometimes anger is the proper response to value. In the words of Fr. Bede Jarrett, O.P., "Not only may I sin by being angry when I should not, but I may sin by not being angry when I should be. If my reason tells me that it is right to be angry, then I disobey God when I refuse to give place to wrath; for, as the New Testament teaches, it is possible to "be angry and sin not" (Ephesians 4:26). Our Lord Himself, when need arose, roped together a bundle of cords and drove from the Temple those who trafficked in the House of Prayer, and down the front steps He flung the tables of the money-changers. Perhaps for most of us, the fault is not that we are too angry, but that we are not angry enough. Think of the evils that are in the world, that are known to all, admitted to exist by public press and on public platform. Would they have survived thus far, had folk all shown the indignant anger of Christ? Hypocrisy, cant, and the whole blatant injustice that stalks naked and unashamed in national life - may not our own weakness and silence have helped to render impotent all efforts to reduce these terrible things?....I have got to make myself realize that anger is itself neither evil nor good, and that it can be either. Hence I must pledge myself to see how far I allow anger to rule me when it should not, and how far I overrule it when I should give it a free hand." (Classic Catholic Meditations, p. 168, Sophia Institute Press).

There is then just and unjust anger.  Is it an expression of just anger to slander a great Pontiff?  To mock Christian beliefs simply because you do not share them?  To label another an "ass...." and a "delusional nutter" because he is personally opposed to the radical homosexual agenda?

Here again we see that Clark University is not interested in authentic dialogue and free thought.  It is more concerned with placing opposing views in an intellectual ghetto and in demonizing those who refuse to embrace its secular humanist ideology as "crazy" and "hateful."

What a shame.

Father John Unni has the full confidence and support of Cardinal O'Malley and the Archdiocese of Boston

The Boston Globe reported yesterday that, "Opposition to the Mass [the so-called "Gay Pride Mass" which had been planned for St. Cecilia's Parish in Boston's South End] grew out of a post by a local blogger who writes under the pseudonym Joe Sacerdo and who has criticized the Archdiocese of Boston for what he describes as 'relativism’' and deviation from doctrine.

Sacerdo also criticized the parish for sponsoring an upcoming trip to the Boston Gay Men’s Chorus, which it also advertised in its most recent bulletin.

'I think it’s the right thing to do,’' he said yesterday of the archdiocese’s decision. 'There’s not a place for a Mass like that in the Catholic Church.’'

In his blog post Wednesday, he questioned Cardinal Sean P. O’Malley’s commitment to church doctrine: 'What’s next, NY Rep. Anthony Weiner and Tiger Woods giving a talk at the church on the topic of marital fidelity?’'

'Celebrating a ‘Gay Pride’ Mass isn’t expressing the moral teachings of the church with clarity and fidelity or telling people their behavior is unacceptable — it’s telling them their behavior is just fine,’' Sacerdo said.

He called on O’Malley to put the pastor on leave.

Donilon said that would not happen. “Father Unni has the full confidence and support of the Cardinal and the archdiocese,’’ Donilon wrote in an e-mail. “He is a great pastor."

Apparently the Archdiocese of Boston has some rather unique ideas as to what constitutes "a great pastor."  Vatican II teaches us authoritatively that, "Among the virtues that priests must possess for their sacred ministry, none is so important as a frame of mind and soul whereby they are always ready to know and do the will of him who sent them and not their own will (cf. Jn 4:34; 5:30; 6:38)...Aware of his own weakness, the true minister of Christ works in humility tring to do what is pleasing to God (cf. Eph 5:10)...the priestly ministry, since it is the ministry of the Church itself, can only function in the hierarchical union of the whole body.  Pastoral charity, therefore, urges priests, as they operate in the framework of this union, to dedicate their own will by obedience to the service of God and their fellow men.  In a great spirit of faith, let them receive and execute whatever orders the Holy Father, their own bishop or other superiors give or recommend." (Presbyterorum Ordinis, No. 15).

And in No. 4 of the same Vatican II document, we are told that: "The People of God are joined together primarily by the word of the living God. And rightfully they expect this from their priests. Since no one can be saved who does not first believe, priests, as co-workers with their bishops, have the primary duty of proclaiming the Gospel of God to all. In this way they fulfill the command of the Lord: 'Going therefore into the whole world preach the Gospel to every creature' (Mk 16:15), and they establish and build up the People of God. Through the saving word the spark of faith is lit in the hearts of unbelievers, and fed in the hearts of the faithful. This is the way that the congregation of faithful is started and grows, just as the Apostle describes: 'Faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ' (Rom 10:17).


To all men, therefore, priests are debtors that the truth of the Gospel which they have may be given to others. And so, whether by entering into profitable dialogue they bring people to the worship of God, whether by openly preaching they proclaim the mystery of Christ, or whether in the light of Christ they treat contemporary problems, they are relying not on their own wisdom for it is the word of Christ they teach, and it is to conversion and holiness that they exhort all men."

According to the Council, the task of priests is "not to teach their own wisdom but God's Word." And this task is of no less importance for the priest than his offering of the Eucharistic Sacrifice. Both of these are inseperably linked to each other: "The ministerial priesthood has the task not only of representing Christ - Head of the Church - before the assembly of the faithful, but also of acting in the name of the whole Church when presenting to God the prayer of the Church, and above all when offering the Eucharistic sacrifice." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 1552).

For this reason, priests have the very serious obligation to teach the faithful under their care that it is never licit to have sexual relations outside of marriage; that a Catholic cannot (having been validly married in the Church) after divorce, marry another or otherwise pretend that sexual relations with another individual are somehow "marital"; that "formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense" and that '"the Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life" (CCC, 2272); and that "every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible, is intrinsically evil.." (CCC, No. 2370, citing Humanae Vitae, No. 14).

The Church proposes these (and other teachings) as true and it does so in the name of Christ. The priest is not to question them. He is not to ignore them or neglect them out of a false sense of "compassion" or "charity." It was Pope Paul VI who said that, "To diminish in no way the saving teaching of Christ constitutes an eminent form of charity for souls." (Humanae Vitae, No. 29). Pope John Paul II reiterated these words in Familiaris Consortio, No. 33."

During a meeting with priests and religious from the Diocese of Rome on March 10, Pope Benedict XVI called upon priests to exhibit "full-time" fidelity to their vocation as priests, "being with Christ and being ambassadors of Christ." The Holy Father also called upon priests to proclaim "the entire plan of God," stressing that, "The Apostle does not preach Christianity 'a la carte,' according to his own tastes, he does not preach a Gospel according to his own preferred theological ideas; he does not take away from the commitment to announce the entire will of God, even when uncomfortable, nor the themes he may least like personally.." (See here).

Father John Unni may have the full confidence and support of the Cardinal and the Archdiocese, but there are serious questions about his fidelity to the teaching of the Magisterium and his vocation which is to "announce the entire will of God, even when uncomfortable" and not his own "preferred theological ideas."  In one of his parish bulletins, for example, Father Unni advertised a presentation entitled "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," which was given by Chuck Colbert, who has served on the board of the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association and has written for various "gay" and lesbian publications such as Boston Spirit Magazine.

Mr. Colbert is a propagandist for the homosexual lifestyle.  His association with the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association is most significant.  As Bernard Goldberg wrote in his book entitled Arrogance: Rescuing America from the Media Elite, "...like other newsroom lobbies, by definition the NLGJA represents a constituency - and that constituency is not the public at large.  The National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association has an agenda, which is to make sure that gay-related stories are reported with what it regards as the appropriate slant and the necessary sensitivity...Can anyone imagine the howl if the NLGJA stood instead for the National Law-Abiding Gun-Loving Journalists Association, whose goal was to ensure that gun owners' perspectives were prominently featured in every story about firearms?" (pp. 172-173).

The Archdiocese of Boston may insist that Father John Unni is "a great pastor."  But, like Joe Sacerdo, I dispute this.  A great pastor is always first and foremost a lover of souls who fully embraces and preaches the entire plan of God as interpreted by the Magisterium of the Church.

Father Unni's promotion of a homosexual propagandist and his desire to have a "Gay Pride Mass" at his parish are not the hallmarks of "a great pastor."  We should ask ourselves what Saint Jean Vianney would have done.  Would the Patron Saint of Parish priests have promoted homosexual agitprop and homosexual liturgies?

You know the answer.  And for that reason, it is not only Father John Unni who is suspect but a Cardinal and his Archdiocese which gives him its "full confidence and support."