Nativity School of Worcester needs to abide by the prescripts of Bishop Robert McManus

 Can. 806 §1. The diocesan bishop has the right to watch over and visit the Catholic schools in his territory, even those which members of religious institutes have founded or direct. He also issues prescripts which pertain to the general regulation of Catholic schools; these prescripts are valid also for schools which these religious direct, without prejudice, however, to their autonomy regarding the internal direction of their schools.

Apparently this truth has been forgotten by some.  As noted here, "A Worcester Jesuit middle school and the Diocese of Worcester are at odds over Black Lives Matter and gay pride flags flying on the school’s campus.

Diocese Bishop Robert J. McManus said the flags symbolize messages that conflict with Catholic teaching, and suggested the Nativity School of Worcester could risk losing its Catholic identity if administrators don’t take the flags down.

In response, the Nativity School said the flags are meant to show that all students 'do matter and deserve to be respected as Christian values teach us.' Although the school said it operates within the diocese, officials made the distinction that it’s not a diocesan school. The Nativity School is an accredited tuition-free, all-boys school mainly serving students of color from low-income communities.

School administrators said they’ve been flying the Black Lives Matter and gay pride flags since January 2021. School President Thomas McKenney declined to elaborate what the bishop's threat could mean for the school.

'The Black Lives Matter and Pride flags fly below the American flag at our school to remind our young men, their families and Nativity Worcester staff that all are welcome here and that they are valued and safe in this place,' the school said in a statement."

In Ontario, a group calling itself "Parents as First Educators" (a name which reflects solid Catholic teaching), circulated a petition titled “Lift high the Cross and not the Pride flag.”

In this petition. The group said that: "Parents exercise their choice when they send their children to Catholic schools, and they expect them to receive an education with Catholic moral teaching. Catholic schools need to be clear about the messages they give to children, and consistently teach students the truth about the faith,” the group said...Raising the Pride flag suggests approval of sexual activity of which the Catholic Church disapproves and violates Catholic teaching on chastity for all young people. Activists are using the Pride Flag motion to enforce their ideological agenda."

That's the problem in a nutshell. The Nativity School in Worcester doesn't have a leg to stand on.  Legally or morally.

Faithful Catholics should resist Bishop Mitchell Rozanski, a modernist thug who wants to use Covid-19 as an excuse for prohibiting Communion on the tongue

As noted here:

"Tension is brewing between the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) and the bishop of Springfield, Massachusetts, who is forbidding Holy Communion on the tongue in spite of the USCCB's recent decision to the contrary.

In anticipation of Massachusetts' planned multiphase reopening, Springfield bishop Mitchell T. Rozanski sent his clergy a document titled 'Re-Opening Considerations' to give guidelines and suggestions for conducting public Masses as they resume.

Maintaining previous diocesan restrictions and state guidelines, Rozanski is requiring that at public Masses, Holy Communion is offered in the hand only, Holy Water fonts remain empty and covered, social distancing is enforced at a minimum of six feet between individuals and masks be worn at all times. 

Rozanski's prohibition of Holy Communion on the tongue contradicts the USCCB's "Guidelines for Sacraments and Pastoral Care" published in late April, which states:

We have carefully considered the question of Communion on the tongue vs. Communion in the hand. Given the Church's existing guidance on this point (see Redemptionis Sacramentum, no. 92), and recognizing the differing judgments and sensibilities that are involved, we believe that, with the precautions listed here, it is possible to distribute on the tongue without unreasonable risk.

Bishop Rozanski has no right to prohibit Holy Communion on the tongue and faithful Catholics should resist this ecclesial modernist thug to his face.  A Canon Law expert here.

More on Rozanski here, here and here

Update on Bishop Rozanski: Complaint filed against him.  See here.

Cardinal Raymond Burke: A pope's authority is not magical..

The National Catholic Register reports:

"Cardinal Raymond Burke has stressed that popes must safeguard and promote Church unity, and that if a Roman Pontiff fails to act in conformity with Divine Revelation, Sacred Scripture and Tradition, he 'must be rejected by the faithful.'

In a talk given today in Rome on the current state of doctrinal confusion in the Church, the patron of the Order of Malta warned that any expression of doctrine or practice by a Roman Pontiff must be an 'authentic exercise' of the Petrine ministry.

He explained in a speech on The limits of papal authority in the doctrine of the Church that plenitudo potestatis — the fullness of power given to a pope — does not mean that a pope’s authority is 'magical, but derives from his obedience to the Lord.'"

Related reading here.

Francis: An authority on spiritual schizophrenia

Francis on hypocrisy:

 “Beware of bad leaven, that of the Pharisees.’ And what is that? It’s hypocrisy. Be on your guard against the Pharisees’ leaven which is hypocrisy.”

Hypocrisy, the Holy Father pointed out, is when we invoke God with our lips, but our hearts are distant from Him.

Spiritual Schizophrenia

“Hypocrisy is an internal division. We say one thing and we do another. It’s a kind of spiritual schizophrenia.."

Spiritual schizophrenia?  Such as exhorting other Bishops to be patient while failing to practice patience yourself Francis?

Saying one thing and doing another: The way of Francis.

Who's "non-Christiano"?

Related reading here

President Barack Obama fails to understand that he doesn't have the authority to sanction anything not contained in the eternal law

From Barack Obama, and a White House which has become a haunt of demons:


LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL, AND TRANSGENDER PRIDE MONTH, 2016
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

A PROCLAMATION

Since our founding, America has advanced on an unending path toward becoming a more perfect Union. This journey, led by forward-thinking individuals who have set their sights on reaching for a brighter tomorrow, has never been easy or smooth. The fight for dignity and equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people is reflected in the tireless dedication of advocates and allies who strive to forge a more inclusive society. They have spurred sweeping progress by changing hearts and minds and by demanding equal treatment — under our laws, from our courts, and in our politics. This month, we recognize all they have done to bring us to this point, and we recommit to bending the arc of our Nation toward justice.

Last year’s landmark Supreme Court decision guaranteeing marriage equality in all 50 States was a historic victory for LGBT Americans, ensuring dignity for same-sex couples and greater equality across State lines. For every partnership that was not previously recognized under the law and for every American who was denied their basic civil rights, this monumental ruling instilled newfound hope, affirming the belief that we are all more free when we are treated as equals. […]

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim June 2016 as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month. I call upon the people of the United States to eliminate prejudice everywhere it exists, and to celebrate the great diversity of the American people.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this thirty-first day of May, in the year of our Lord two thousand sixteen, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and fortieth."

See here.


The wrath of God is indeed being revealed from heaven against every impiety and wickedness of those who suppress the truth by their wickedness.  For what can be known about God is evident to them.  Ever since the creation of the world, His invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what He has made.  As a result, they have no excuse; for although they knew God they did not accord Him glory as God or give Him thanks." (Romans 1: 18-21).

The Holy Spirit tells us through the Apostle that the failure to recognize God leads to corruption of the will and a blinded intellect which, ultimately, leads to idolatry.  And God's punishment for this vanity is to abandon such people to the vice against nature:

"Instead, they became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened.  While claiming to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for the likeness of an image of mortal man or of birds or of four-legged animals or of snakes.  Therefore, God handed them over to impurity through the lusts of their hearts for the mutual degradation of their bodies." (Romans 1: 21-24).

The Apostle, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, is most clear and unambiguous.  He describes this mutual degradation while stressing its unnatural character:

"Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another.  Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity." (Romans 1: 26-27).

As a result of these unnatural relations, such people face horible consequences:

"They are filled with every form of wickedness, evil, greed, and malice; full of envy, murder, rivalry, treachery, and spite.  They are gossips and scandal-mongers and they hate God.  They are insolent, haughty, boastful, ingenious in their wickedness, and rebellious toward their parents.  They are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless." (Romans 1: 25; 28-31).

Finally, those who succumb to this unnatural vice not only become attached to it but attempt to justify it while applauding others who have fallen into the vice: "they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them." (Romans 1: 32).

In his Encyclical Letter Annum Sacrum, No. 10, Pope Leo XIII warned that, "In these latter times especially, a policy has been followed which has resulted in a sort of wall being raised between the Church and civil society. In the constitution and administration of States the authority of sacred and divine law is utterly disregarded, with a view to the exclusion of religion from having any constant part in public life. This policy almost tends to the removal of the Christian faith from our midst, and, if that were possible, of the banishment of God Himself from the earth. When men's minds are raised to such a height of insolent pride, what wonder is it that the greater part of the human race should have fallen into such disquiet of mind and be buffeted by waves so rough that no one is suffered to be free from anxiety and peril? When religion is once discarded it follows of necessity that the surest foundations of the public welfare must give way, whilst God, to inflict on His enemies the punishment they so richly deserve, has left them the prey of their own evil desires, so that they give themselves up to their passions and finally wear themselves out by excess of liberty."

This punishment, this chastisement, is in evidence everywhere in the latter times. The promotion of perversion is called, even by the President of the United States, whose mind is darkened, "a victory for civil rights." This is, of course, complete nonsense. As human beings, we possess only contingent rights. Those which have been given to us by God. There can never be a "right" to choose that which is evil. And homosexual acts are evil.

When moral liberty is detached from Natural and Divine Law, it degenerates into license. Pope Leo XIII reminds us in his Encyclical Letter Libertas Humana 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 semblance 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."

Although a great physical chastisement is coming because of man's rebellion and his rejection of God's Law of Love (John 14: 15), we are already experiencing a moral chastisement. Witness how quickly sodomy, which was a crime in many states, has been legitimized by judicial fabrication into a constitutionally protected form of "liberty."

Such moral blindness is a punishment from God as Saint Paul explains, "The wrath of God is indeed being revealed from heaven against every impiety and wickedness of those who suppress the truth by their wickedness...they became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened. While proclaiming to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for the likeness of an image of mortal man...Therefore, God handed them over to impurity through the lusts of their hearts for the mutual degradation of their bodies. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and revered and worshiped the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen." (Romans 1: 18, 21-25).

Human laws are incapable of sanctioning anything which is not contained in the eternal law. This is crystal clear Catholic teaching. There is no room for doubt. All other "laws" are unjust and are, therefore, not laws at all. And Catholics are not bound to obey them. In fact, Catholics have a duty to resist them. As I mentioned in a previous post, "Any law supportive of same-sex 'marriage' is no law at all. This because any law which is promulgated must correspond to the divine law. No human authority can declare what is morally evil to be morally good. Laws permitting slavery, abortion, euthanasia, divorce and "marriages" between persons of the same gender are immoral, and therefore unjust (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I-II, q. 96, a.5)."
The homosexual movement is not about civil rights or equal rights under the law. As I explained in a previous post, it is an attempt to impose a moral revolution. Writing in the Chicago Free Press, even homosexual activist Paul Varnell admitted this. He wrote, "The fundamental controverted issue about homosexuality is not discrimination, hate crimes or domestic partnerships, but the morality of homosexuality. Even if gays obtain non-discrimination laws, hate crimes law and domestic partnership benefits, those can do little to counter the underlying moral condemnation which will continue to fester beneath the law and generate hostility, fuel hate crimes, support conversion therapies, encourage gay youth suicide and inhibit the full social acceptance that is our goal. On the other hand, if we convince people that homosexuality is fully moral, then all their inclination to discriminate, engage in gay-bashing or oppose gay marriage disappears. Gay youths and adults could readily accept themselves. So the gay movement, whether we acknowledge it or not, is not a civil rights movement, not even a sexual liberation movement, but a moral revolution aimed at changing people's view of homosexuality." (Paul Varnell, "Defending Our Morality," Chicago Free Press, Aug 16, 2000

This is a call to resistance.  A call to holy action.  All Christians and people of good will must oppose a White House and a federal government which has given itself over to doctrines of demons.  Stand up against this satanic tyranny while you still can.  In the end, what Obama refers to as "progress" will result in death camps and re-education centers for orthodox Christians, Jews and others of good will who accept the Natural Law and who refuse to accept what God has condemned.

Resisting the current of harsh commentary....

Michael Brown writes:


The quickening descent of American politics into ribald, mean-spirited, and generally coarse discourse should be no surprise: it has been on this trajectory for several decades now, propelled not just by movies and music — which no longer require commentary — but the psittacism, the constant, numbing negative drumbeat, of harsh (not to mention un-Christian) verbiage on the internet and talk-radio and cable TV. 
The result, the fruit, is now constantly before us, as politics sinks into what can most charitably be called a quagmire, and entertainment into a “cesspool of impurity” (to borrow a phrase from the Blessed Mother at La Salette).

Gutter language is the norm of modern America.

The other day a liberal woman in Gainesville, Florida, verbally assaulted Governor Rick Scott, calling him — shouting at him — a word we don’t even want to abbreviate. You used to be arrested for such things. There are no more profanity laws, not really. Is there no such thing as decency? We are now, indeed, a “Savage Nation” (the name of one caustic talk show).

Unfettered anger and uncharitable approaches have been drilled into us (listening to radio, as so many do, while working or driving or sleeping, thus often only partly aware of what’s being said and how it is being stated, although it washes to the subconscious). There is seething anger: some justified, some inspired or magnified by the Prince of Division (reigning behind the scenes, in the dark, in the radio waves; divide and conquer).

And so now we are at the point of tremendous factionalism; it’s why we often carry articles under the category of “upheaval watch.” Minorities are mad. Majorities are mad. Immigrants are mad. Natives are furious. Liberals detest each other as much as they detest conservatives, and vice versa. Atheists are furious. So are evangelicals. 

Are we really still the “United” States when the governor of New York bans official travel to the state of Mississippi because Mississippi has passed a religious-rights law. This same governor previously banned non-essential travel to North Carolina when that state barred trans-sexuals from using restrooms opposite the gender they were given (by God) at birth.

It is not just a passing observation, because on many fronts, the seeds for civil uprising and/or even civil war have been cultivated. That leaders and major commentators and candidates could be tearing into each other the way they now do (“liar,” “sniveling,” “coward,” “stupid,” “crazy,” small of hands) is astonishing even if it shouldn’t be astonishing — upsetting even though one can see the frustration of the hitherto “silent majority.”

Punches are thrown at rallies. There is hatred. Insults about manhood fill the air. Height and weight and looks are fair targets. There are salacious reports. There are salacious photos (including of a potential First Lady).
On TV, formerly dignified and objective newsmen use language that only a short time ago was confined to bars, sports stadiums, and gyms. Once-staid magazines such as The Atlantic and The New Yorker allow a certain degree of scatological utterance; mainstream publications occasionally allow their writers to use the “f-word” (in their own prose).

Women who claim to be Christian — often Catholic — take to the microphone and use language once confined to men’s locker-rooms to besmirch the opposition (all in the name of righteousness).
A “born-again” candidate for vice president (2008) uses the term “punk a—” to describe protesters, while the sitting vice president is also known for a bit of saltiness.

When the head of the Democratic party cusses in front of nuns who are protesting the health mandate (the law that would force them to pay for contraception), it’s just another news item that passes quickly. How inured we have grown! (That’s a nice way of saying “hard.”)

We pay for such things in the afterlife.

“Shun the gossip of men as much as possible, for discussion of worldly affairs, even though sincere, is a great distraction inasmuch as we are quickly ensnared and captivated by vanity,” warned the classic Catholic writer, Thomas a Kempis. “Hence, we talk and think quite fondly of things we like very much or of things we dislike intensely. But, sad to say, we often talk vainly and to no purpose; for this external pleasure effectively bars inward and divine consolation. Therefore we must watch and pray lest time pass idly. When the right and opportune moment comes for speaking, say something that will edify.”

Indeed we only have a set number of hours on this earth; it is wise to use that time well.

The undercurrent of harsh commentary (See here, my note), of execration, of cussing, is now burbling — gushing — into the very fabric of American society. It is what our flag is now fashioned with. It goes for every walk of life, and every political party. It is what we wear. It is how we drive (now, too often, so rudely, and with profane hand signals).

Is it caused, in large part, with the suddenly-roused white middle-class, by what a magazine called Salon (itself known for caustic language) recently said, in discussing “Savage Nation”?

“Between American multinationals, who do everything and anything to avoid taxes, and American politicians, who so often trade on their office to amass vast fortunes, regular working class Americans feel abandoned,” it said. “For decades, as businesses have increasingly exploited undocumented immigrants for cheap labor or moved operations out of the country entirely, these voters have become resentful, watching their wages stagnate and full-time jobs with benefits become scarcer by the day. For many of them… ‘Savage Nation’ is a kind of sanctuary.”

While there is no question that a number of major issues have been neglected for far too long, and that the middle class has been all but forgotten — with Washington unable to accomplish just about anything, even when it has the notion to — good Christians are allowing themselves to be swept toward a vortex of rancor. It could end up being a truly epic divide (or series of them).

No one knows to what end result.

But one can guess it will not be a good one.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Indeed.  In his Encyclical Letter Ecclesiam Suam, Pope Paul VI told us that, "The Church must enter into dialogue with the world in which it lives. It has something to say, a message to give, a communication to make." (No. 65).

The Holy Father goes on to say that, "Dialogue, therefore, is a recognized method of the apostolate. It is a way of making spiritual contact. It should however have the following characteristics:

1) Clarity before all else; the dialogue demands that what is said should be intelligible. We can think of it as a kind of thought transfusion. It is an invitation to the exercise and development of the highest spiritual and mental powers a man possesses. This fact alone would suffice to make such dialogue rank among the greatest manifestations of human activity and culture. In order to satisfy this first requirement, all of us who feel the spur of the apostolate should examine closely the kind of speech we use. Is it easy to understand? Can it be grasped by ordinary people? Is it current idiom?

2) Our dialogue must be accompanied by that meekness which Christ bade us learn from Himself: "Learn of me, for I am meek and humble of heart." It would indeed be a disgrace if our dialogue were marked by arrogance, the use of bared words or offensive bitterness. What gives it its authority is the fact that it affirms the truth, shares with others the gifts of charity, is itself an example of virtue, avoids peremptory language, makes no demands. It is peaceful, has no use for extreme methods, is patient under contradiction and inclines towards generosity.
3) Confidence is also necessary; confidence not only in the power of one's own words, but also in the good will of both parties to the dialogue. Hence dialogue promotes intimacy and friendship on both sides. It unites them in a mutual adherence to the Good, and thus excludes all self-seeking.

4) Finally, the prudence of a teacher who is most careful to make allowances for the psychological and moral circumstances of his hearer, particularly if he is a child, unprepared, suspicious or hostile. The person who speaks is always at pains to learn the sensitivities of his audience, and if reason demands it, he adapts himself and the manner of his presentation to the susceptibilities and the degree of intelligence of his hearers....In a dialogue conducted with this kind of foresight, truth is wedded to charity and understanding to love." (Nos. 81, 82).

As faithful Catholics, we must recognize and embrace these characteristics of authentic dialogue, even when our partners in dialogue refuse to accept these principles. For we will often encounter those who have succumbed to relativism or who do not possess a love of objective truth. For such people, the purpose of dialogue is not to attain truth but rather to achieve personal victory and to triumph at any cost. As Dr. Montague Brown explains in his wonderful book "The One-Minute Philosopher" (Sophia Institute Books): "An argument (emotional, not rational) is a disorderly confrontation based on an unwillingness to learn from one another. Desire for victory takes precedence over love of truth, with the result that agreement becomes impossible....in an argument, I simply want my position to be the right one and you to agree with me. I am, indeed, looking for agreement, but on my terms, not in terms of objective truth." (p. 33). An authentic dialogue (which such people are not really interested in) is, "..an orderly confrontation based on a mutual willingness to learn from one another. It involves the presentation of evidence by each party and then a good-faith attempt of the participants in the discussion to come to agreement...In a discussion [or dialogue], I do not primarily want to disagree: I want to know the truth.." (The One-Minute Philosopher, p. 32).

It was Pope John Paul II, in his Encyclical Letter Ut Unum Sint, No. 36, who said, "There must be charity toward one's partner in dialogue, and humility with regard to the truth which comes to light and which might require a review of assertions and attitudes."

This requires maturity.

It is a grave error to imagine that the highest authority is the Pope

I thought I would publish this excellent article without comment.  I believe Mark Mallett could benefit from reading it prayerfully.  Then again, maybe not.


It Just Doesn't Matter Anymore
Written by  Megaera Erinyes



Dear Miss Erinyes

I'm just wondering what your opinion is. Do you think that Francis really is pope? I cannot imagine the real pope doing and saying the things that Francis is doing and saying.

Do you think that it is possible that the last conclave was rigged, making Francis' election illegitimate?

Fr. M
_

Dear Father,

The truth is that I have no idea. I am not a canonist; I have no training in theology or Church history and have no special ability to discern between the various arguments now being commonly bruited about the internet. I can see that we have a very large problem, one in the person of Francis that seems to equal the horrifying problems in the world. He seems to me to be, indeed, an intrinsic part of those external problems, a product of them, one might even say.
Unfortunately, I also have no special knowledge, other than what can be found out on the internet, about what happened in the Vatican in the last 2 years. I know what I have seen, and what I have heard, and it is obviously going to go down in Church history (if there is going to be anyone to write such things down in what is left of our future) as one of our most dangerous and inexplicable periods. Other than that, I know what anyone knows; rumours and counter rumours.

What I can see as a simple observer is that we are in a situation, with the Church and the world as a whole, that is apparently totally unprecedented in our long history. I hope you will forgive a long answer, since your question, as simple as it seems, encompasses quite a lot.

I suppose it is possible, and has probably happened in the past, that a pope has been brought out of illicit elections who really is pope, and has gone on to do his duty as perfectly as any pope. I don't think that the nature of the election process is so crucial, though given our situation I can see why it is an attractive answer. We have a serious problem with Bergoglio, and it is one that an irregular election would solve, if it could be proved. What a relief it would be to simply shrug off his strange speeches by saying, “Oh, just more anti-pope talk.”  Tempting indeed.

But I think there is a more generally useful answer that can be taken on board by any Catholic who still believes: If the pope is not a Catholic, and is pursuing goals contrary to those of Christ, does it matter if he is canonically an anti-pope? Does it matter if the election process was violated in this or that way?

Since the Ascension of Our Lord, we Christians have been charged with the conversion of the whole world. I do not find it surprising that it has taken us 2000 years to accomplish this, particularly since at the time the charge was given we still had much of the world left to discover and were dependent upon others to invent things like sailing ships and oceanic navigational tools. Given distractions like the human love of making war and the Black Death, I find a time frame of two millennia to be fairly reasonable. But in the end, by the end of the 19th century or thereabouts, I think we have done as well as we could be expected to do.

Christ is known throughout the world, even to people who, in the age of iPhones still live in round tents made of reindeer skins. There are Christians in every jungle, in every city, in every university, in every prison, every mine, every desert, and the blood of the martyrs has soaked with equal ubiquity into every soil and sand on earth. I think, though of course there are still millions unconverted, in general terms we have done what we were told to do. That He has also been rejected, again, by the majority of those who have heard Him, is not something we can control today any more than His friends could control it then.

My own ancestors were brought into the Faith a long time ago, while there was still an Emperor in Rome. But I have a good friend whose country did not see a Christian missionary until the 15th century. I met a bishop some time ago who said the first Catholic missionary didn't arrive in his country until the 1950s. But now, in the age of the internet, moreover, there can only be a handful of people left on earth (North Korea?) who have had no exposure at all to Christ and His truth.

So the Big Job we were given by the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, for Whom and through Whom all things were made, appears to be mainly done. Everyone has heard it, and those who are going to respond have done so. Which realisation came home to me shortly after that distressing night last March: the one communal task we have as human beings and as Catholics, is complete, so what comes next?

And now looking at the precedent, which is something quite natural to Catholics, I find that I cannot discover any precise parallel. We have a pope... a pope! who is capable of uttering complete nonsense, like "Corruption is a worse evil than sin," who not only appears to believe that it makes some kind of sense but who is instantly lauded and praised by millions of people, Catholics included, for having said it.




Have we ever in all our long history had the great mass of the Catholic faithful know so little of the doctrine of the Faith while at the same time positively believing so much that is directly opposed to it? We have converted the world to the Faith, indeed, but it seems that immediately after the completion of this great task, through a strange and inexplicable confluence of social and historical factors, the world has instantly lost it again.

Could we ever imagine another time in which millions of Catholics believe it is possible to be a "pro-choice Catholic"? Or who could possibly believe themselves to be good Catholics who accept concubinage as a moral good? Or even worse, unnatural perversions? And these, perhaps even more importantly, never definitively corrected by either bishop or pope?

But apparently we look to Rome in vain, for we have now seen, before all the eyes of the world in the first two weeks of this month, that these beliefs are not held only by the vast masses of Catholic laity, but are equally the belief of a plain majority of the men who attended the Synod as successors of the Apostles! What kind of precedent do we have for a Church, in the person of its most senior ministers, which has lost its own reason for existence, its own Faith? What does God say is to be done with salt that is no longer salty?

The approved prophets of the Catholic Church, all those visionaries who had visits in their little stone huts from the glorious Queen of Heaven, have all conveyed more or less the same message: that a time will come, soon, indeed is even upon us, of a "great apostasy," when there will be a vast loss of the hard-won Faith, and a terrible darkness will descend upon the world as a result. And the one historical reality that I cannot help but think of is the indiscriminate slaughter of, by now, perhaps billions of human beings before birth, with barely more than silence as a response from those consecrated to the service of God. All those holy prophets have said that this time of apostasy, that I cannot help but believe is upon us now, will be followed, and ended, by the most terrifying supernatural chastisement the world has ever seen. And looking at the abortion statistics it seems just, since evil on such a scale cannot go unanswered forever.

So, returning to your question, my answer is that I believe it to be moot. We are looking to the past for precedent in the answer to the conundrum of this strange and obviously intellectually corrupted man, Bergoglio. But if precedent is not helping us with any of the other strangenesses of the modern Church why do we look to it for the answer to this pope? Have we ever had a situation in which, after doctrine has been settled for two millennia, the pope opens it to questioning and "debate" at a Synod of bishops? And that Synod of bishops did not instantly shout him down and denounce him as a heretic? Could we possibly imagine that such a body would close its session leaving such issues to remain unanswered, and that swiftly, as to whether we should condone public concubinage or even the bizarre legal fiction of "homosexual unions"?!

I ask you, if the pope is not a Catholic, does it matter if he is an anti-pope? Do such canonically defined categories, dependent upon longstanding precedent, apply to this? How can they?

I do not know what Bergoglio is. But I know that nothing he says makes any sense. I know that he cannot be followed or obeyed, not because of his heresies, which are growing more manifest by the hour, but because of the incomprehensibility, the sheer nonsense of his utterances. There are two kinds of orders a soldier cannot obey: those that contradict the law and those that cannot be understood.

In such a situation, the lower ranks of an army must look to more obviously lawful and mentally competent leadership. And if that fails, which it does in many cases throughout the Catholic world, he is left to follow the law and his duty as best he can with the last intelligible, coherent and explicit orders has been given. He knows in general what the goals of the war are and he knows he has a duty to continue fighting that war until his last breath or until it is won.

If a pope is not a Catholic, does it really matter if he is an anti-pope? I don't pretend to know what really goes on inside the obviously confused and contradictory mind of Jorge Bergoglio, whether his oddness and confusion is a deliberate ruse or if it is simply a sign of dementia or if it is merely illustrative of what happens to a mind formed by Jesuits in the 1960s, but judging strictly from what he says and does, I know that he cannot be prosecuting the same goals in this war that we have been charged with. Two and two do not equal five, even if it is a pope who asserts it. And no solider is bound to follow orders that are contrary to the goals of the war he is in.

It is a grave error to imagine that the highest authority is the pope. He receives his authority from the Head of the Church, and if he begins to stray from his orders, he cannot be obeyed. I cannot determine what he believes, certainly not from what he says, but if he cannot be understood, believed or obeyed within the confines of the Faith we have received, I think I don't care very much whether Francis was elected illicitly or not.

______________________

Our Lady told Fr. Stefano Gobbi of the Marian Movement of Priests:

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

And again:

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

Charles Curran and the National Catholic Reporter: The Church should not be certain of her teaching

Upset that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has issued a notification criticizing Sister Margaret Farley's book on sexual ethics entitled "Just Love," Charles Curran, writing for the National Catholic Reporter online, complains, "There is a long list of Catholic moral theologians whose works on sexual ethics in a similar vein have been condemned or censured by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in the course of the last 40 years. Pope John Paul II wrote his 1993 encyclical, Vertiatis splendor, because of the discrepancy between the official teaching of the church on moral matters and the teaching of some moral theologians even in seminaries. According to the pope, the church is 'facing what is certainly a genuine crisis, which is no longer a matter of limited and occasional dissent, but of an overall and systematic calling into question of traditional moral doctrine.' All have to recognize there is such a real crisis in the church today. But the crisis is not just a crisis in moral theology; it involves a crisis in the church as a whole and in our very understanding of the Catholic church.."

Curran then argues that, "..the danger for authority in the Church is to claim too great a certitude for its teaching and proposals.."  See here.

It is most ironic that Curran chose to cite a passage from Pope John Paul II's Encyclical Letter Veritatis Splendor (The Splendor of Truth).  This because Pope John Paul II reminds his readers toward the conclusion of the first chapter of this Encyclical that the Church has been entrusted with a more-than-human authority.  John Paul says that this more-than-human authority "is apparent from the living tradition."  Then he confirms this by citing a key passage from Dei Verbum, the Second Vatican Council's Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, which says that, "...the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ.  This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit.." (No. 10).

The Church has a more-than-human authority.  She has a divine commission to teach and guard what has been handed on, what has been received through Revelation.  And she accomplishes this task with "the help of the Holy Spirit."  So when Curran objects that, "the primary authority in the Church is the Holy Spirit, who speaks in very diverse ways," he is not being honest.  Jesus has invested in the Magisterium of His Church, the Holy Father and the Bishops united with him, the more-than-human authority to speak in His name on everything which pertains to faith and morals (Matthew 16: 17-19).  And this task of interpreting the word of God is carried out with the assistance of the Holy Spirit.  Yes the Holy Spirit speaks in very diverse ways.  But the task of authentically interpreting the word of God is not carried out in diverse ways.  It is carried out exclusively by the Church's teaching office.

Curran has his own crisis to deal with.  Influenced by our secular culture and its rejection of anything which has the character of coming from above, he has succumbed to a skepticism of authority.  In a Keynote Address entitled Good Shepherd: Living Christ's Own Pastoral Authority, which was delivered at the 10th Annual Symposium on the Spirituality and Identity of the Diocesan Priest on March 18, 2011, Bishop Samuel J. Aquila had some important things to say about the role of Bishops. His Excellency noted that:



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Take note of Bishop Aquila's warning to his brothers in the Episcopate: "If we do not exercise that authority [which Jesus has entrusted to the Church's Pastors], are hesitant to exercise it, or doubt it, then it only leads to the father of lies* taking hold of the minds and hearts of the faithful and their continuing to act in the ways of man and not the ways of God."

This is precisely what Curran wants.  He wants the Church's Pastors to doubt the authority and the teaching entrusted to them..  This is why he insists that "the danger for authority in the Church is to claim too great a certitude for its teaching."

Is Charles Curran serving Christ or the father of lies?

* John 8: 44.

"..there is in preparation a true schism which could soon become open and proclaimed.."

Gary Gutting, who teaches philosophy at the University of Notre Dame, has declared in the New York Times that the faithful "decide the nature and extent of episcopal authority" and what is moral or immoral.  He writes, "...haven’t the members of the Catholic Church recognized their bishops as having full and sole authority to determine the teachings of the Church? By no means. There was, perhaps, a time when the vast majority of Catholics accepted the bishops as having an absolute right to define theological and ethical doctrines. Those days, if they ever existed, are long gone. Most Catholics — meaning, to be more precise, people who were raised Catholic or converted as adults and continue to take church teachings and practices seriously — now reserve the right to reject doctrines insisted on by their bishops and to interpret in their own way the doctrines that they do accept. This is above all true in matters of sexual morality, especially birth control, where the majority of Catholics have concluded that the teachings of the bishops do not apply to them. Such “reservations” are an essential constraint on the authority of the bishops.


The bishops and the minority of Catholics who support their full authority have tried to marginalize Catholics who do not accept the bishops as absolute arbiters of doctrine. They speak of 'cafeteria Catholics' or merely 'cultural Catholics,' and imply that the only 'real Catholics' are those who accept their teachings entirely. But this marginalization begs the question I’m raising about the proper source of the judgment that the bishops have divine authority. Since, as I’ve argued, members of the church are themselves this source, it is not for the bishops but for the faithful to decide the nature and extent of episcopal authority. The bishops truly are, as they so often say, 'servants of the servants of the Lord.'

It may be objected that, regardless of what individual Catholics think, the bishops in fact exercise effective control over the church. This is true in many respects, but only to the extent that members of the church accept their authority. Stalin’s alleged query about papal authority ('How many divisions does the Pope have?') expresses more than just cynical realpolitik. The authority of the Catholic bishops is enforceable morally but not militarily or politically. It resides entirely in the fact that people freely accept it." (See here).

In his Encyclical Letter Humanum Genus (on Freemasonry), Pope Leo XIII warned that: "Wickedly, also, but at the same time quite consistently, do those act who do away with the expectation of the joys of heaven, and bring down all happiness to the level of mortality, and, as it were, sink it in the earth. Of what We have said the following fact, astonishing not so much in itself as in its open expression, may serve as a confirmation. For, since generally no one is accustomed to obey crafty and clever men so submissively as those whose soul is weakened and broken down by the domination of the passions, there have been in the sect of the Freemasons some who have plainly determined and proposed that, artfully and of set purpose, the multitude should be satiated with a boundless license of vice, as, when this had been done, it would easily come under their power and authority for any acts of daring.


What refers to domestic life in the teaching of the naturalists is almost all contained in the following declarations: that marriage belongs to the genus of commercial contracts, which can rightly be revoked by the will of those who made them, and that the civil rulers of the State have power over the matrimonial bond; that in the education of youth nothing is to be taught in the matter of religion as of certain and fixed opinion; and each one must be left at liberty to follow, when he comes of age, whatever he may prefer. To these things the Freemasons fully assent; and not only assent, but have long endeavoured to make them into a law and institution. For in many countries, and those nominally Catholic, it is enacted that no marriages shall be considered lawful except those contracted by the civil rite; in other places the law permits divorce; and in others every effort is used to make it lawful as soon as may be. Thus, the time is quickly coming when marriages will be turned into another kind of contract-that is into changeable and uncertain unions which fancy may join together, and which the same when changed may disunite....With the greatest unanimity the sect of the Freemasons also endeavours to take to itself the education of youth. They think that they can easily mold to their opinions that soft and pliant age, and bend it whither they will; and that nothing can be more fitted than this to enable them to bring up the youth of the State after their own plan. Therefore, in the education and instruction of children they allow no share, either of teaching or of discipline, to the ministers of the Church; and in many places they have procured that the education of youth shall be exclusively in the hands of laymen, and that nothing which treats of the most important and most holy duties of men to God shall be introduced into the instructions on morals.

What, therefore, sect of the Freemasons is, and what course it pursues, appears sufficiently from the summary We have briefly given. Their chief dogmas are so greatly and manifestly at variance with reason that nothing can be more perverse. To wish to destroy the religion and the Church which God Himself has established, and whose perpetuity He insures by His protection, and to bring back after a lapse of eighteen centuries the manners and customs of the pagans, is signal folly and audacious impiety. Neither is it less horrible nor more tolerable that they should repudiate the benefits which Jesus Christ so mercifully obtained, not only for individuals, but also for the family and for civil society, benefits which, even according to the judgment and testimony of enemies of Christianity, are very great. In this insane and wicked endeavor we may almost see the implacable hatred and spirit of revenge with which Satan himself is inflamed against Jesus Christ.


So also the studious endeavour of the Freemasons to destroy the chief foundations of justice and honesty, and to co-operate with those who would wish, as if they were mere animals, to do what they please, tends only to the ignominious and disgraceful ruin of the human race. The evil, too, is increased by the dangers which threaten both domestic and civil society. As We have elsewhere shown, in marriage, according to the belief of almost every nation, there is something sacred and religious; and the law of God has determined that marriages shall not be dissolved. If they are deprived of their sacred character, and made dissoluble, trouble and confusion in the family will be the result, the wife being deprived of her dignity and the children left without protection as to their interests and well being.

To have in public matters no care for religion, and in the arrangement and administration of civil affairs to have no more regard for God than if He did not exist, is a rashness unknown to the very pagans; for in their heart and soul the notion of a divinity and the need of public religion were so firmly fixed that they would have thought it easier to have city without foundation than a city without God. Human society, indeed for which by nature we are formed, has been constituted by God the Author of nature; and from Him, as from their principle and source, flow in all their strength and permanence the countless benefits with which society abounds. As we are each of us admonished by the very voice of nature to worship God in piety and holiness, as the Giver unto us of life and of all that is good therein, so also and for the same reason, nations and States are bound to worship Him; and therefore it is clear that those who would absolve society from all religious duty act not only unjustly but also with ignorance and folly."

Most people today have become so desensitized that they are incapable of seeing just how far this masonic agenda has advanced. The movement to eradicate Christianity is accelerating. Masonry, if it is to prepare the way for the Man of Sin, must concentrate its attacks on the one institution which stands in its way: the Holy Roman Catholic Church. After more than two thousand years of Christian history, the charge levelled against Christians by the pagan historian Tacitus is being revived: The Christians are the enemies of the human race. (Annals, XV, 44).

The new humanitarian religion of Antichrist must institute its own cult, ministers and temples which will be filled with its own faithful who have replaced the hope for Heaven with the idols of humanity, fertility, maternity and virility as surely as the Greco-Romans worshiped the statues of Venus and Apollo. Already we are witnessing an increasing hatred for the Crucifix. As Romano Guardini warned so long ago: "One day the Antichrist will come: a human being who introduces an order of things in which rebellion against God will attain its ultimate power. He will be filled with enlightenment and strength. The ultimate aim of all aims will be to prove that existence witout Christ is possible - nay rather, that Christ is the enemy of existence, which can be fully realized only when all Christian values have been destroyed. His arguments will be so impressive, supported by means of such tremendous power - violent and diplomatic, material and intellectual - that to reject them will result in almost insurmountable scandal, and everyone whose eyes are not opened by grace will be lost. Then it will be clear what the Christian essence really is: that which stems not from the world, but from the heart of God; victory of grace over the world; redemption of the world, for her true essence is not to be found in herself, but in God, from whom she has received it. When God becomes all in all, the world will finally burst into flower."

Our Lady warned us on November 15, 1990 that, "The great trial has arrived for your Church.  Thse errors which have brought people to the loss of the true faith have continued to spread.  Many pastors have been neither attentive nor vigilant and have allowed many rapacious wolves, clothed as lambs, to insinuate themselves into the flock in order to bring disorder and destruction.  How great is your responsibility, O pastors of the holy Church of God!  You continue along the path of division from the Pope and of the rejection of his Magisterium; indeed, in a hidden way, there is in preparation a true schism which could soon become open and proclaimed.  And then, there will remain only a small faithful remnant, over which I will keep watch in the garden of my Immaculate Heart." (To Father Gobbi).

The schism Our Lady spoke of is indeed beginning to emerge.  A new humanitarian religion and a new Future Church are being constructed.  The new religion will be devoid of the supernatural.  It will be man-centered.  Men will decide for themselves what is moral and immoral.  They will build this new Church in their own image and likeness.  Those who still adhere to Christ and His teaching will be declared enemies of progress and the new Moloch State.

Paul Gomille: Champion for Modesty

Writing for the National Post, Matt Gurney tells us that, 'Last month, on Valentine’s Day, student Paul Gomille circulated 136 copies of a speech that he had written. He passed them out in the cafeteria of his Toronto-area Catholic high school. The speech was on the topic of a woman’s inner beauty — Mr. Gomille, 17, clearly believes that many of his female peers do not treat each other, or themselves, with due respect, and he wishes that everyone would focus more on how wonderful they are on the inside and not how attractive they can make themselves on the outside.


For circulating this speech...Mr. Gomille was suspended for two days. The reason for the suspension? 'Opposition to authority.' Apparently stating the obvious about teenagers now counts as an act of rebellion.

The decision to suspend Mr. Gomille goes back to his original hope to deliver his thoughts in a public address. Mr. Gomille reportedly approached the principal with his idea and asked for permission to address the school. This was initially met favourably, especially since the school received much public attention earlier this (academic) year when administrators noted that many of the female student body (no pun intended) were hiking their kilt skirts too high, yet another statement of the blindingly obvious. Principal Donna Modeste, according to Mr. Gomille, welcomed the positive nature of Mr. Gomille’s message.

But not all of it, in the end. Principal Modeste objected to a particular section of Mr. Gomillle’s letter, which she felt was 'judgmental':

The people this message concerns are the young women of this school, and of the world. In particular, it concerns the silent ones, the intelligent ones, the ones that don’t talk about people behind their backs, the ones that guys don’t flock to in droves, the ones that don’t dress in revealing clothing, the ones who would love to be in love, and the ones that are continually disappointed in their appearance because the only thing they have to compare themselves to are the women that have been put on pedestals by our society. This message also concerns those of you who may consider yourselves the so called 'opposite' to the demographic I just described. The ones who do dress in revealing clothing, and the ones who try to fit in with the crowd.

Principal Modeste requested changes to this section of the speech. Rather than comply, Mr. Gomille chose instead to distribute his speech, in its original form, by handing out copies of the text in the cafeteria. That’s when he was suspended for opposition to authority." (See full National Post article here).

In our modern, paganistic world, we are constantly bombarded with the promotion of immodesty and impurity and far too many "good" people remain apathetic to the problem.  And along comes Mr. Gomille, a courageous young man who is willing to take a stand for modesty and purity, and he is suspended for "opposition to authority."  But are we not told in Acts 5: 29 that when the authority of men comes into conflict with the authority of God, it is "better for us to obey God than men"?  Or does Principal Modeste believe that her authority trumps God's authority?  Are we not told in 1 Peter 2: 12 to, "Be careful to live properly among your unbelieving neighbors. Then even if they accuse you of doing wrong, they will see your honorable behavior, and they will give honor to God when he judges the world."  And in 1 Timothy 2:9, does not the Holy Spirit tell us through the Apostle that, - "..I want women to be modest in their appearance. They should wear decent and appropriate clothing and not draw attention to themselves by the way they fix their hair or by wearing gold or pearls or expensive clothes."  And are we not told in 1 Peter 3: 3-4 - that, "Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as braided hair and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes. Instead, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God's sight."

What of Principal Modeste's accusation that a passage from Paul's speech is judgmental?  What if it is?   As Dr. Germain Grisez explains, "It might seem to follow that love must accept everyone, even enemies, just as they are, and to affirm them even in the error or sin which is present in them. But the law of love does not require indiscriminate affirmation of everything about other persons (see Saint Thomas Aquinas, S.t., 2-2, q.34, a.3). One's love must be like Jesus'. He loves sinners and brings them into communion with himself in order to overcome their error and sin. When the scribes and pharisees bring a woman caught in adultery to Jesus, he not only saves her from being stoned to death but warns her not to sin again (see John 8:3-11). In a true sense, Jesus is not judgmental, he sets aside the legalistic mentality, readily forgives sinners, does not condemn the world, and points out that those who refuse to acknowledge their sinfulness are self-condemned by the truth they violate (see John 3:16-21). But he realistically recognizes sinners as sinners and never accepts error as truth...Similarly, if Christians' love of neighbor is genuine, it not only permits but requires them both to 'hold fast to what is good' and to 'hate what is evil' (Romans 12:9)."


And again, according to Dr. Grisez, "Vatican II neatly formulates the prohibition against judging others" 'God alone is the judge and searcher of hearts; for that reason, he forbids us to make judgments about the internal guilt of anyone' (Gaudium et Spes, No. 28). This norm, however, does not preclude judgments necessary for determining that one should try to dissuade others from committing sins or to encourage them to repent if they have sinned."

At Fatima (1917), Our Lady said that, "Certain fashions will be introduced that will offend Our Lord very much." Sadly, such fashions may be found even in Catholic parishes. This is the direct result of a lack of reverence before sacred mysteries. Dietrich von Hildebrand explains that, "..lack of reverence may have two roots...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....The world holds no mystery for him. He treats everything tactlessly, with easy familiarity...There is..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


The lack of reverence is a specific defect of our age. On the one hand, the feeling of reverence is undermined by the increasing technicalization and instrumentalization of the world wherein everything is considered only as a means for the attainment of practical aims, and being is not allowed to be taken seriously. On the other hand, the attitude of self-glorification is increased in man by progress in the knowledge of secondary causes and by the conquest of the physical world. This makes us forget that 'He has made us and we have not made ourselves.' It makes the shortsighted intoxicated with superficial knowledge so that they overlook the causa prima because of the causae secundae" (Liturgy and Personality, pp. 49, 51-52).

How important is modesty? Saint John Chrysostom warned the immodest that:

"You carry your snare everywhere and spread your nets in all places. You allege that you never invited others to sin. You did not, indeed, by your words, but you have done so by your dress and your deportment, and much more effectively than you could by your voice. When you have made another sin in his heart, how can you be innocent? Tell me, whom does this world condemn? Whom do judges in court punish? Those who drink poison or those who prepare it and administer the fatal potion? You have prepared the abominable cup, you have given the death-dealing drink, and you are more criminal than are those who poison the body; you murder not the body, but the soul. And it is not to enemies that you do this, nor are you urged on by any imaginary necessity, nor provoked by injury, but out of foolish vanity and pride."

Paul Gomille understands this.  And because he has sought to spread this truth, he finds himself suspended from his Catholic school.  In short, he finds himself being persecuted for the sake of truth.  But Our Lord has words of comfort for Mr. Gomille: "Be glad and rejoice, for your reward is great in heaven; they persecuted the prophets before you in the very same way." (Mt 5: 12).

By its own admission, the Worcester Commission for Women has a problem with the Church's teaching authority

At its website, the Worcester Commission for Women states that, "The Commission for Women shall serve as an advisory board to the resident bishop of Worcester in regard to women’s issues. It shall function as a liaison between women in the diocese and the resident bishop, raising and promoting awareness of the evolving role of women in the church and society. The commission shall strive to bond together the women of the diocese through spiritual, educational and social programs.


In its history, the commission has examined many issues affecting women and their relationship with their church. This has been accomplished through study, meetings and conferences and through its occasional column, “Concerning Women,” published in the Catholic Free Press.

Inclusive language, the problem of women and homelessness, the possibility of women’s ordination to the Permanent Diaconate, the history of women in the church and in the bible, and women’s spirituality have been the major issues..." (See here).

Now, Rome has already rejected most inclusive language.  As this article explains, "The Holy See...rejected most inclusive language, especially where the references had philosophical and theological significance. Examples of such texts are Psalm 1, where "happy the man who follows not the counsel of the wicked" was translated "happy the one," or Psalm 22, where "I am worm and no man" was rendered "I am a worm and no mortal." Such uses of man have deep anthropological significance with respect to Adam (man) and messianic significance referring prophetically to Christ (the New Adam and Son of Man).


What Rome has permitted is some mild inclusive language in cases where a mixed group of individuals (as opposed to an all male group like the apostles) is meant.."

By continuing to agitate for inclusive language, the Worcester Commission for Women is signaling its rejection of the Church's teaching authority.  When a matter is settled by Rome, faithful Catholics do not continue to act as if the matter were still open to debate.

And what of the ordination of women to the Permanent Diaconate?  Gerhard Ludwig Muller, Professor of Dogmatic Theology in Munich, explains in his scholarly work entitled "Priesthood and Diaconate" (Ignatius Press) that the consecration of deaconesses in the early Church was not an ordination of women to the diaconate.  He writes:


"The institutionalization of charitable services performed by widows in the Christian community, of the assistance rendered by women during baptismal ceremonies, and of liturgical functions in a convent of consecrated virgins is apparent from the beginning of the third century in the ecclesiastical  neologism: diaconissa/diacona.  For Koine Greek, unlike Latin, could not construct the female form of 'servant' by a change of ending, but could only indicate it with the feminine article (cf. Rom 16:1).  Aside from that, we also encounter the title diaconissa (and, similarly, presbyterissa and episcopissa) as a designation for the wives of deacons - for example, in papal instructions or conciliar canons that admonish higher clerics to practice celibacy, in the sense of continence. 

Although there are records of the liturgical installation of deaconesses dating back to the fourth century, one must not overlook the fact that the selfsame authors who testify to this practice also make clear that the consecration of deaconesses was not the ordination of women to the diaconal ministry; on the contrary, it was a question of a different ecclesiastical office.

To the early Church it was clear that, without prejudice to the various degrees of bishop, presbyter, and deacon, which assumed a definitive form in the transition to the postapostolic age, these ministries owe their existence to the historical initiative of the apostles and to the special presence of the Holy Spirit in the foundational phase of the Church; whereas the latter, so-called nonsacramental consecrations were introduced by ecclesiastical authorities and thus are not matters of divine law but only of Church law." (pp. 48-49).

The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches clearly that: "Deacons share in Christ's mission and grace in a special way. The sacrament of Holy Orders marks them with an imprint ('character') which cannot be removed and which configures them to Christ, who made himself the 'deacon' or servant of all. Among other tasks, it is the task of deacons to assist the bishop and priests in the celebration of the divine mysteries, above all the Eucharist, in the distribution of Holy Communion, in assisting at and blessing marriages, in the proclamation of the Gospel and preaching, in presiding over funerals, and in dedicating themselves to the various ministries of charity." (CCC, 1570).  And again: "Since the Second Vatican Council the Latin Church has restored the diaconate 'as a proper and permanent rank of the hierarchy,' while the Churches of the East had always maintained it. This permanent diaconate, which can be conferred on married men, constitutes an important enrichment for the Church's mission. Indeed it is appropriate and useful that men who carry out a truly diaconal ministry in the Church, whether in its liturgical and pastoral life or whether in its social and charitable works, should 'be strengthened by the imposition of hands which has come down from the apostles. They would be more closely bound to the altar and their ministry would be made more fruitful through the sacramental grace of the diaconate.'" (CCC, 1571).

Women cannot receive Holy Orders.  Period.  End of story.  The Sacrament of Holy Orders is conferred in the degrees of Bishop, Presbyter, and Deacon (See Lumen Gentium Nos. 18-29).  Tradition in its entirety has always firmly held that all degrees of ordination are essentially rooted in one sacrament, as being a repraesentatio Christi capitis [a representation of Christ the Head].  That the Worcester Commission for Women continues to agitate for women to be ordained to the Permanent Diaconate says it all.  This Commission is not committed to the Church's teaching or her teaching authority.

Dei Verbum of the Second Vatican Council teaches authoritatively that, "the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed.


It is clear, therefore, that sacred tradition, Sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God's most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls."

I guess members of the Commission for Women aren't familiar with this teaching of Vatican II.  Maybe they simply consider themselves to be some sort of ersatz Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith?

The denial of the Ascension is as grave a departure from Christian teaching as is denial of Christ's Resurrection....

An insert in the parish bulletin of Saint Patrick's Parish in Jaffrey explains nicely that, "The Ascension of Our Lord, which occurred 40 days after Jesus Christ rose from the dead on Easter Sunday, is the final act of our redemption that Christ began on Good Friday. On this day, the risen Christ, in the sight of His Apostles, ascended bodily into Heaven (Luke 24: 51; Mark 16: 19; Acts 1: 9-11).

The reality of the Ascension is so important that the creeds (the basic statements of belief) of Christianity all affirm, in the words of the Apostles' Creed, that "He ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of God the Father almighty; from thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead." The denial of the Ascension is as grave a departure from Christian teaching as is denial of Christ's Resurrection.

Christ's bodily Ascension foreshadows our own entrance into Heaven not simply as souls, after our death, but as glorified bodies, after the resurrection of the dead at the Final Judgment. In redeeming mankind, Christ not only offered salvation to our souls but began the restoration of the material world itself to the glory that God intended before Adam's fall."

And so, Christ's Ascension fills us with hope. Even in the midst of a fallen, broken world filled with errors, vice and scandals. We have hope because "'Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.' Christ's Ascension into heaven signifies his participation, in his humanity, in God's power and authority. Jesus Christ is Lord: he possesses all power in heaven and on earth. He is 'far above all rule and authority and power and dominion,' for the Father 'has put all things under his feet.' Christ is Lord of the cosmos and of history. In him human history and indeed all creation are 'set forth' and transcendently fulfilled." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 668, citing Romans 14:9; Ephesians 1: 20-22; Ephesians 1:10).

The Lord Jesus has Ascended into Heaven. He is Truth. And as Pope John Paul II reminded us, "The truth of Jesus is capable of reinforcing all your energies...You may still be vulnerable to attack from the pressures of the world, from the forces of evil, from the power of the devil. But you will be invincible in hope: 'in Christ Jesus our hope'(1 Timothy 1: 11)."

Many have lost hope because of the sex abuse scandals. Many have become fearful because so many have been anxious to rise up against the Church and to unjustly condemn the Mystical Body of Christ. But our hope is in the Risen Lord and in His power and authority. What shall we say to those who, like Father James Scahill, have lost this invincible hope in Jesus Christ and His Mystical Body the Church? We will reiterate the teaching of the Church as outlined in Vatican II's Gaudium et Spes: "Examining his heart, man finds that he has inclinations toward evil, too, and is engulfed by manifold ills which cannot come from his good Creator. Often refusing to acknowledge God as his beginning, man has disrupted also his proper relationship to his own ultimate goal as well as his whole relationship toward himself and others and all created things. Therefore, man is split within himself. As a result all of human life, whether individual or collective, shows itself to be a dramatic struggle between good and evil, between light and darkness. Indeed, man finds that by himself he is incapable of battling the assaults of evil successfully, so that everyone feels as though he is bound by chains. But the Lord himself came to free and strengthen man, renewing him inwardly and casting out that 'prince of this world' (Jn 12:31) who held him in the bondage of sin (cf. Jn 8:34)." (Gaudium et Spes, No. 13).

Jesus has assured us that the gates of Hell will never prevail against His Church. And God is truthful. It is by faith that we accept what God has told us as absolutely true. Jesus Himself tells us that, "The one who sent me is truthful, and what I have learnt from him I declare to the world." (John 8: 26). And St. Paul writes to Titus that God "does not lie" (Titus 1: 2) and that indeed "it is impossible for God to lie." (Hebrews 6: 18). Therefore, since God is absolute truth or Truth itself, He cannot lie or deceive.