Liberally biased Facebook sends me a notification with a "fact-checking" website which is itself liberally biased...

We all know that Facebook has a liberal, anti-conservative bias.  See here.
Yesterday I received a notification from Facebook regarding an article I shared on Francis.  The notification read:

I responded on Facebook:

Within an hour or two, I couldn't post on Facebook.  Not a word.  Retaliation?  It wouldn't surprise me.  See here.

Facebook: The Father Hunwicke article you attempted to share contains abusive content

Just this morning, I attempted to post an article written by Father John Hunwicke on Facebook.  Twice I was prevented from doing so and received this message:

Then, a friend tried and received this message:

So, Facebook is once again banning content which pro-Francis folks deem "objectionable."  This isn't the first time Facebook has blocked me for posting material which they object to because it is deemed "too Catholic." See here for example.

The social media network, Which permits all manner of filth and violence, including jihadist videos which depict graphic violence, has a problem with moral objections to Amoris laetitia.

The New World Order, with its humanitarian religion, will not tolerate any dissent.  The supernatural faith of Roman Catholicism must be stamped out.

This video found its way onto my Facebook Page after this episode.  I deleted it.

Worcester Diocese carries article in its official newspaper accusing U.S. Soldiers who kill in combat of "evil"

The "Catholic" Free Press, official newspaper of the troubled Worcester Diocese, is carrying a CNS article written by Chaz Muth which highlights the thinking of Melkite Father Emmanuel Charles McCarthy of Brockton, a co-founder of the dissident organization Pax Christi.

Father McCarthy believes that no priest should serve in the armed forces to provide religious care to military men and women because, "Being a commissioned officer in the military makes it impossible for that priest to maintain his objectivity when preaching the Gospel, which should include the message that killing any human is an act of evil..." (Catholic peace activists see conflict in priests serving in military, July 15 edition of the CFP).

The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains that, "Those who are sworn to serve their country in the armed forces are servants of the security and freedom of nations. If they carry out their duty honorably, they truly contribute to the common good of the nation and the maintenance of peace." 2310.

The Lord God has commanded us, "You shall not kill." There are nine words in Hebrew for taking a life. The word used in Exodus 20: 13 for "Thou shalt not kill" is ratsach, a strong verb used to indicate an intentional and unjustified act of murder, such as the murder of innocent unborn. It does not refer to killing in war ( unless such killing is directed against civilian non-combatants or prisoners of war).  But it is disgusting for a Catholic priest to suggest that all soldiers who kill in combat are engaged in "evil."

I'm not surprised that such hateful nonsense would be published in the "Catholic" Free Press, a publication with a long history of dissent from Church teaching owned and operated by a broken diocese which ordains homosexual men while excluding masculine men from ministry.

The French preacher Lacordaire once said that the vocation of a soldier is next in dignity to the priesthood, not only because it commissioned him to defend justice on the field of battle and order on the field of peace, but also because it called him to the spirit and intention of sacrifice.

It is the soldier's high calling to the defense of justice and freedom which makes him (or should) so loved.  It was a soldier who first spoke the words recalled by the Church during every Mass at Holy Communion: "Lord, I am not worthy to have Thee come under my roof; but only say the word, and my servant will be healed." (Mt 8:8).

The Breviary, which priests pray daily, praises Judas Machabeus, who refused to surrender to superior enemy forces and died saying: "Far be it from us to do such a thing as to flee from them.  If our time has come, let us die bravely for our brethren, and leave no cause to question our honor." (1 Macc 9: 10).

A soldier who does his or her duty honorably contributes to the common good and to authentic peace.

Leave it to the Worcester Diocese to publish the views of a bigoted priest who sees combat soldiers as engaging in evil.

Pathetic.

Father John Dietzen gets it wrong, Part II: Intellectual dishonesty

In his article entitled "Can Jews, Muslims be saved," Fr. John Dietzen writes, "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 already quoted [in part I 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 call upon Fr. Dietzen to issue an apology to his readers for his misleading article. The faithful have a right to Catholic teaching in its purity and integrity (Veritatis Splendor, No. 113). And Fr. Dietzen has not delivered.