Francis denigrates soldiers, referring to us as "warmongers."

Francis is now denigrating soldiers as "warmongers."  See here.

(Vatican Radio) Pope Francis celebrated the Feast of All Souls Day on Thursday commemorating all those who have died in war, reminding humanity not to forget past lessons and warning that the only fruit yielded by conflict is death.

His words of warning and his powerful condemnation of warmongers came during his homily at the Sicily-Rome American War Cemetery some 50 kilometers south of Rome.

_____________________________________


The Catechism of the Catholic Church (2310), explains that, "Those who are sworn to serve their country in the armed forces (the people Francis refers to as "warmongers") 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." 

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).  It is therefore disgusting for Francis to suggest that all soldiers who kill in combat are engaged in "evil," and are "warmongers."

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).

One soldier who served his country selflessly for twenty years was Camille "Joe" Melanson, my father, a non-commissioned officer who served in two wars - the Korean and Vietnam conflicts.  See here: http://www.leominsterhigh.com/lhs-military00.htm

Our family has a long tradition of military service.  I served with military intelligence and was marked for death by the NPA in the Philippines.  My uncle Arthur was lost over the Pacific during World War II.  His body was never recovered.

Warmongers?  Those who have served this country (and other countries) in the defense of freedom deserve better than to be denigrated in such a fashion.

Francis owes us an apology.  He has benefited from our sacrifices.  And this is what he thinks of us?

Brian Williams and Hillary Clinton have demonstrated their contempt for the American people

The New Orleans Advocate reports:

"NBC News anchor Brian Williams, who apologized on the air Wednesday night for lying about an experience covering the Iraq War, is now facing scrutiny over his gripping accounts of Hurricane Katrina, the disaster that burnished his nightly news bona fides almost a decade ago.

Williams’ account of seeing a body float by in the French Quarter — which remained largely dry — and even a claim of catching dysentery from drinking Katrina floodwaters have raised eyebrows among bloggers and elsewhere since he took it on the chin this week over a claim that he rode in a helicopter that was downed by a rocket-propelled grenade in Iraq."

Jesse Walker, at his Hit and Run Blog, recalls a story which some of us conservatives remember all too well. He notes that, "Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said on [March 25, 2008, that] she made a mistake when she claimed she had come under sniper fire during a trip to Bosnia in 1996 while she was first lady.

In a speech in Washington and in several interviews last week Clinton described how she and her daughter, Chelsea, ran for cover under hostile fire shortly after her plane landed in Tuzla, Bosnia.

Several news outlets disputed the claim, and a video of the trip showed Clinton walking from the plane, accompanied by her daughter. They were greeted by a young girl in a small ceremony on the tarmac and there was no sign of tension or any danger.

"I did make a mistake in talking about it, you know, the last time and recently," Clinton told reporters in Pennsylvania where she was campaigning before the state's April 22 primary. She said she had a "different memory" about the landing.

In her speech, Clinton had claimed: "I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base."

Lying to promote one's own image and to manipulate others.  And this from two individuals who spend their lives in the pursuit of influencing public opinion.

In Man Against Mass Society, Gabriel Marcel writes, "In spite of everything that can be said to the contrary, is not the real and deep purpose of propaganda after all that of reducing men to a condition in which they lose all capacity for individual reaction? In other words, whether the men in control of propaganda intend this or not, is it not of the very nature of propaganda to degrade those whose attitudes it seeks to shape? And is it possible to be unaware of the fact that propaganda presupposes, in these men in control, a fundamental contempt for the rest of the human race? If we really attach any value at all to what a man is in himself, to his authentic nature, how can we assume the responsibility of passing him through the flattening-out machinery of propaganda?

What we ought to enquire into, however, is the nature of this contempt. There are, of course, fine shades of distinction that analysis ought to bring out: but is there any essential difference between the attitude of someone like Goebbels, for instance, and that of a chief of Communist propaganda? In both cases we are faced with a radical and cynical refusal to recognize the competence of individual judgment, an impatience with what appears, from this point of view, the intolerable presumptuousness of the individual. It is also broadly noteworthy that even the sense of truth cannot fail gradually and unconsciously to be destroyed in those who assume the task of manipulating opinion. It would require a very uncommon degree of simple-mindedness in a professional propagandist for him to remain very long convinced that his truth was the whole truth. Such simple-mindedness is only conceivable in a fanatic." (pp. 50-51).

But fanaticism is precisely what we find in the Democratic Party and those liberals who pretty much dominate every corner of the mainstream media which long ago buried any remains of journalistic integrity and objectivity.

This is nothing less than a moral tragedy. When communicating with others, we all have certain responsibilities.  For example, we all have a responsibility to submit ourselves to truth when communicating.  Dr. Germain Grisez explains that, “As creatures, human persons are utterly dependent on God.  Their freedom and action presuppose realities whose meaning and value cannot be changed.  Therefore, human fulfillment requires knowing and conforming to the truth, and especially to the truth about what is good.  But since genuine community is cooperation in seeking common fulfillment, it depends on submission to truth. Consequently, since all parties to communication should be open to genuine community, they should submit themselves to truth.  The alternative is pursuing what they want regardless of truth, caring about no common good beyond themselves, and so, while using means of communication, failing to promote genuine community.”

This is exactly what Brian Williams and Hillary Clinton have shown.  They care not so much for the common good as they do for their own good and their desire to control and manipulate others.

"..true patriotism rejects all forms of immorality, for it is sin and escalating crime that render a nation miserable."

Father Vincent P. Miceli, in his essay entitled "The Virtue of Patriotism," explains that, "..the virtue which renders citizens loyal to the God-given institution of the state and courageous in working for its goal of the common good is the virtue of patriotism.  This special virtue arises from the virtue known as pietas or piety.  Piety pays homage and duty to God as the supreme source and sustainer of one's being; it pays homage and duty to one's parents as the source of one's individual being and nourishment; it also pays loving homage to a person's fatherland with all his fellow citizens as the source and sustainer of man's civic and social perfection.  In public, political life, the virtue of piety becomes the virtue of patriotism.  For patriotism is the love and devotion to one's country, to one's countrymen as members of the same social and political family.  Patriotism, in the sense of man's love for his civic community, is also a duty flowing from an intelligent recognition and moral acceptance of the very form of man's creation.  Having created Adam as a solitary individual, God immediately announced the fact of man's incompleteness in himself: 'It is not good for man to be alone.'  Then in creating Eve, God confirmed the truth that the human family, the civic family must become the social source and necessary community milieu from which each person may attain both individual and social maturity...

Thus patriotism is a special form of love of one's fatherland, a preferential love arising from man's first supreme love for God the omnipotent author and finisher of his being and personhood.  Patriotism, therefore, can be defined descriptively as the reverent, grateful acknowledgement of one's fatherland as it is expressed in history; it is a response of loyal love to one's fellow citizens and the land in which one's countrymen live and work together for a common good founded on justice and fraternal brotherhood.  It is a special form of piety binding citizens to their historical and cultural sources.  But patriotism must arise from and function on a profoundly moral basis.  'It is never lawful, or even wise, to disassociate morality from the affairs of practical life.'  In the last analysis, then, patriotism, which is founded on zealous, reverential love of God and countrymen, functions on justice, a justice inflamed with a love that exalts a nation.  Consequently, true patriotism rejects all forms of immorality, for it is sin and escalating crime that render a nation miserable."

This truth is ratified in Proverbs 14:34: "Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people."

Samuel Johnson called patriotism the last refuge of a scoundrel.  Pat Buchanan has said that "It is also the first refuge of many without faith."  But authentic patriotism, which is the proper response to value, is a response of loyal love to one's countrymen which is expressed in the desire to work together for the common good.

In an address given to the Catholic Conference on Industrial Relations in Portland, Oregon on October 5, 1954, the first Bishop of the Worcester Diocese, John J. Wright, explained to those present that, "..the common good is all the heritage from the past and all the hope for the future which good men share under God. Common to many, it is therefore public; perfective of the individual, it remains somehow personal. It calls the individual out of himself to share things with the general community, but it puts the resources of the general community at the service of the things closest to the personality of the individual. That is what Cicero meant when he defined the common good, the res publica, in terms of a nation's altars and hearths, of the spiritual and domestic values which center about these and which serve personality: 'in aris et focis est res publica.' It was out of this concept of the common good that our forefathers derived their notion of the great object of the State's existence.

Hence their fine phrase the common weal, a phrase perpetuated in the name by which they designated this civil community, not by the cold collective name so dear to the totalitarian, The State, nor with any name of special interest or partisan emphasis as The Duchy or The Realm, but The Commonwealth, The Commonwealth of Massachusetts. It is the concept behind warm words like mutual in the preambles of our national and state Constitutions, as that of my own state which provides 'that all shall be governed by certain laws for the common good.'...

The common good: it is the mutual bond of all who love the good, the true, and the beautiful; who seek good things, not evil; who seek the private good of persons and the collective good of the State, but the good of both in and under and through the Supreme Good, which is God. It is the good which God gives us all in order to keep us together, as opposed to the good that He gives us each to keep to ourselves. It is the good before which, on due occasion, both individual and State are obliged to bow: the common good...


Such an appreciation of the common good which unites, as against - or, rather, as above all particular or factional or partisan goods which divide - would make possible the Vital Center for which certain political philosophers are pleading; a Vital Center which can exist only when honorable moderates of Right and Left prefer working with each other in behalf of the common good to working with extremists of their own respective camps, extremists who seek only the particular good after which their side aspires..."

Our nation is so divided and fragmenting more and more with each passing day because it has opted for sin.  We have forgotten that the Common Good, the good which God gives us all in order to keep us together, is, as defined by the Catechism of the Catholic Church,  "the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfillment more fully and more easily."  And we can only find this fulfillment in and under God.

Because so many have now opted for sin and have a special and unnatural hatred of God as the Author of their being, our nation's fabric is coming apart.  As Fr. Miceli explains, "All apostates, all heretics betray their religious families.  They introduce disunity, disorder, disaster among the brethren.  They create divided communities, houses that cannot stand, that hasten towards a fall and utter collapse."  The same is true of social and political communities, where political rogues run towards wicked deeds and are intent only on pursuing their own selfish interests as opposed to working for the common good.

If America is to be great again, it must return to God.  It must renounce sin.  At the moment, there is much hostility in this country towards faith.  Pope Benedict XVI, on Good Friday 2009, deplored the secularization of the West, saying that, "Everything in public life risks being desacralized: persons, places, pledges, prayers, practices, words, sacred writings, religious formulae, symbols, ceremonies.."

The glue which held our nation together, faith in God, is being eroded.  At the beginning of my Senior year in High School, the decision was made to drop the Pledge of Allegiance.  But seven students out of a student body of 2,000 (and I was one of them) would still stand up every morning, place our hands over our hearts, and recite the Pledge:

 I pledge allegiance to the Flag
 of the United States of America,
 and to the Republic for which it stands:
 one Nation under God, indivisible,
 With Liberty and Justice for all.

I still recite the Pledge daily.  Some will accuse me of being "corny."  Of engaging in mere sentimentality.  But I will continue to defend faith and morality and an authentic patriotism which is rooted in love of God and one's fatherland and which expresses itself in zeal for the common good.

Related posts: Respect for the flag and military families as second-class citizens.

Clark University is, in effect, attempting to criminalize reason

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Fitchburg's Mayor Lisa Wong Only Sees What She Wants To See

Fitchburg's Mayor Lisa Wong, who was so instrumental in bringing Planned Parenthood to Fitchburg, has gone on record in the past as saying that she would like to see more interaction between Planned Parenthood and the public.  Ms. Wong's support for Planned Parenthood is, of course, gravely disturbing.  For, as Bishop Charles V. Grahmann, DD has said, "Anyone who supports, belongs to, or sits on Boards of Directors of Planned Parenthood are promoting the legacy of Margaret Sanger which is the outline for Nazi Germany's 'human weeds and genetically inferior races.'"

As I noted in a previous post, "Planned Parenthood is virulently anti-life and anti-Christian. In one pamphlet, Planned Parenthood says: "In every generation there exists a group of people so filled with bigotry and self-righteousness that they will resort to any means - even violence - to impose their views on society. Today, such fanatics dominate a movement ironically called 'the Right-to-Life,' a movement which threatens the most basic of all human rights."


And, as Dr & Mrs. Willke explain, "Planned Parenthood has promoted a pro-abortion 'comic book,' geared for teenagers, entitled Abortion Eve. On the back cover is a caricature of the 'Assumption of the Blessed Virgin' depicting a pregnant Mary with the idiot face of Mad Magazine's Alfred E. Neumann. The caption says, 'What, me worry?'" (p. 343).

Don Weintraub, Vice President for International Affairs of PPFA, has admitted that, "Planned Parenthood is not just a social or medical service agency. It is part of a cause, a movement.." (March 12, 1985). And what is the driving force behind this movement? Racism, eugenics and the destruction of Christian morality. See here.

Margaret Sanger, the Founder of Planned Parenthood, was a prominent proponent of eugenics and forced sterilization. See here. She approved of Hitler's forced sterilization program. (See "Into the Darkness, Nazi Germany Today," by L. Stoddard, p. 196). Go here to learn more about Margaret Sanger by reading her own words."

Any decent person would therefore view Mayor Wong's promotion of and support for Planned Parenthood as both a disappointment and a failure [to uphold the common good].  And yet, Fitchburg's Mayor is proud of her record [in a city which the television program Chronicle compared to Appalachia because of its serious economic problems].  In an article entitled "Fitchburg mayoral candidates face off in forum," (August 30, 2011 edition of the Sentinel & Enterprise), Mayor Wong, responding to a rumor that she does not live in Fitchburg [she actually does], asserted that this rumor "comes from people who want to criticize her, but can't find anything of substance." (p. 2).

Apparently Mayor Wong only sees what she wants to see.  Presiding over a city in economic turmoil, she has given her endorsement to an organization which is Christianophobic and which dedicates itself to killing the unborn for profit.   It was Pope John Paul II, in a homily given at the Capitol Mall in Washington, D.C., on November 5, 1979, who said that, "All human life - from the moment of conception and through all subsequent stages - is sacred, because human life is created in the image and likeness of God.  Nothing surpasses the greatness or dignity of a human person.  Human life is not just an idea or an abstraction; human life is the concrete reality of a being that lives, that acts, that grows and develops; human life is the concrete reality of a being that is capable of love, and of service to humanity."

Unfortunately Mayor Wong cannot see this concrete reality.  She only sees what she wants to see. 

Governor Deval Patrick's hatred for the common good in Massachusetts

In an address given to the Catholic Conference on Industrial Relations in Portland, Oregon on October 5, 1954, the first Bishop of the Worcester Diocese, John J. Wright, explained to those present that, "..the common good is all the heritage from the past and all the hope for the future which good men share under God. Common to many, it is therefore public; perfective of the individual, it remains somehow personal. It calls the individual out of himself to share things with the general community, but it puts the resources of the general community at the service of the things closest to the personality of the individual. That is what Cicero meant when he defined the common good, the res publica, in terms of a nation's altars and hearths, of the spiritual and domestic values which center about these and which serve personality: 'in aris et focis est res publica.' It was out of this concept of the common good that our forefathers derived their notion of the great object of the State's existence. Hence their fine phrase the common weal, a phrase perpetuated in the name by which they designated this civil community, not by the cold collective name so dear to the totalitarian, The State, nor with any name of special interest or partisan emphasis as The Duchy or The Realm, but The Commonwealth, The Commonwealth of Massachusetts. It is the concept behind warm words like mutual in the preambles of our national and state Constitutions, as that of my own state which provides 'that all shall be governed by certain laws for the common good.'...The common good: it is the mutual bond of all who love the good, the true, and the beautiful; who seek good things, not evil; who seek the private good of persons and the collective good of the State, but the good of both in and under and through the Supreme Good, which is God. It is the good which God gives us all in order to keep us together, as opposed to the good that He gives us each to keep to ourselves. It is the good before which, on due occasion, both individual and State are obliged to bow: the common good...


Such an appreciation of the common good which unites, as against - or, rather, as above all particular or factional or partisan goods which divide - would make possible the Vital Center for which certain political philosophers are pleading; a Vital Center which can exist only when honorable moderates of Right and Left prefer working with each other in behalf of the common good to working with extremists of their own respective camps, extremists who seek only the particular good after which their side aspires..."

Governor Deval Patrick, an extremist who is fully supportive of the radical homosexual agenda, has forgotten this truth.  He has set himself once again against the common good.  Mass Resistance is reporting that, "Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick has nominated a well-known lesbian judge, Barbara Lenk, to the Supreme Judicial Court. Lenk is currently an appellate court judge. She was appointed to the Superior Court by Bill Weld in 1993 and elevated to the appellate court by Weld in 1995. This also appears to be part of a recent national push to appoint openly homosexual judges. Lenk's confirmation hearing before the Governor's Council will be next Wednesday, April 27 at the State House...The nomination has been celebrated by the liberal establishment as well as the homosexual movement in Massachusetts. But Lenk's activities - as a self-identified lesbian, 'married' to another woman, with two children, who clearly supports the homosexual movement (as well as other baggage) - have frightened and outraged conservatives...Lenk's apparent support for a disgusting homosexual-themed anti-Semitic play presented in Concord has caused big concern. The play, "Falsettos," is a truly sickening piece of work. It is a homosexual love story and obscenely mocks Jewish ethnicity and denigrates traditional Judaism, presented in a crude and vulgar manner. The play also encourages promiscuous homosexual sex." Full article here.

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



And this is precisely what is occurring in Massachusetts.  Transcendent truth has been relegated to the dustbin and the force of power is taking over.  The Dictatorship of Relativism is metastasizing as a spiritual cancer.  The Culture of Death will stop at nothing in its demonic agenda to redefine marriage and family life while casting aside God and His Commandments as well as the tenets of Natural Law.  And this moral revolution to impose the radical homosexual agenda is being supported by many in the media.  See here for example.

The New Hampshire and House Majority Leader D.J. Bettencourt get it wrong

The editorial staff of The New Hampshire, an independent student newspaper at the University of New Hampshire, are upset over two bills currently before the New Hampshire House: HB 437 and HB 443.  Both would ban same-sex "marriage" in the Granite State.

In an editorial which may be found here, the bright lights of The New Hampshire, suddenly concerned with the economy (a concern which was noticeably absent when legislators were pusing for same-sex "marriage" in a floundering economy), assert that, "...the larger issue behind this debate is that the House's insistence to focus on social issues is doing little to benefit the state at this time."  They go on to quote from House Majority Leader D.J. Bettencourt, who told the Nashua Telegraph that it is his belief that "the same sex marriage repeal must be retained in the Judiciary Committee this year so that our full and undivided attention is focused on New Hampshire's outstanding financial issues."

Issues of morality are merely a distraction from financial issues?  Our nation's first president would have disagreed.  In his Farewell Address given on September 19, 1796, George Washington specifically warned that, "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labour to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that National morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."

Any attack on the Common Good will have ramifications across the political and economic spectrum.  There is a direct connection between a nation's moral health and its economic health.  Which is why the United States is now in crisis.  Unless the Lord build the house, they labor in vain who build it.

Now where did I read that?

Related reading: The rot in values that is causing America's decline.

Archdiocese of Boston: Will the new policy be in accordance with Canon Law?

While announcing the new policy of the Boston Archdiocese which prohibits "discrimination" against students who come from a homosexual household, Cardinal Sean O'Malley said that, "Catholic schools exist for the good of the children and our admission standards must reflect that...I believe all would agree that the good of the child must always be our primary concern."  See here.

But what exactly does Cardinal O'Malley mean when he refers to "the good of the child"?  Is his idea of "the good" in accordance with Church teaching and Canon Law?  Canon 795 of the Code of Canon Law states quite clearly that, "Since a true education must strive for the integral formation of the human person, a formation which looks toward the person's final end, and at the same time toward the common good of societies, children and young people are to be so reared that they can develop harmoniously their physical, moral and intellectual talents, that they acquire a more perfect sense of responsibility and a correct use of freedom, and that they be educated for active participation in social life."

So "the good of the child," according to Holy Mother Church, must consist of a formation which looks toward a child's final end.  And that education is only true which strives for a child's integral formation and which contributes to the common good.  How then can the Church partner with homosexual parents?  As Father Vincent Miceli once noted, "It is said that 'the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world.'  But if the person who rocks the cradle is warped and crippled in personality then the world will not be ruled but ruined." 

And speaking of Catholic schools partnering with parents, Canon 796 says that, "It is incumbent upon parents to cooperate closely with the school teachers to whom they entrust their children to be educated."  But how can such "cooperation" be said to exist if parents are engaging in homosexual relations while their children are being taught by their school teachers that homosexual activity is gravely sinful?

Or will the Archdiocese of Boston simply relegate Church teaching and Canon Law to the trash bin as happened here.

The good of the child Your Eminence?  Please do us a favor and stop insulting our intelligence.  Your new policy has nothing to do with "the good of the child."  It is simply capitulation to the Culture of Death.

I am praying for you Cardinal O'Malley.

"...democracies...which seem at times to have lost the ability to make decisions aimed at the common good."

In his Encyclical Letter Centesimus annus, No. 47, Pope John Paul II reminded us that: "Following the collapse of Communist totalitarianism and of many other totalitarian and 'national security' regimes, today we are witnessing a predominance, not without signs of opposition, of the democratic ideal, together with lively attention to and concern for human rights. But for this very reason it is necessary for peoples in the process of reforming their systems to give democracy an authentic and solid foundation through the explicit recognition of those rights. Among the most important of these rights, mention must be made of the right to life, an integral part of which is the right of the child to develop in the mother's womb from the moment of conception; the right to live in a united family and in a moral environment conducive to the growth of the child's personality; the right to develop one's intelligence and freedom in seeking and knowing the truth; the right to share in the work which makes wise use of the earth's material resources, and to derive from that work the means to support oneself and one's dependents; and the right freely to establish a family, to have and to rear children through the responsible exercise of one's sexuality. In a certain sense, the source and synthesis of these rights is religious freedom, understood as the right to live in the truth of one's faith and in conformity with one's transcendent dignity as a person.

Even in countries with democratic forms of government, these rights are not always fully respected. Here we are referring not only to the scandal of abortion, but also to different aspects of a crisis within democracies themselves, which seem at times to have lost the ability to make decisions aimed at the common good. Certain demands which arise within society are sometimes not examined in accordance with criteria of justice and morality, but rather on the basis of the electoral or financial power of the groups promoting them. With time, such distortions of political conduct create distrust and apathy, with a subsequent decline in the political participation and civic spirit of the general population, which feels abused and disillusioned. As a result, there is a growing inability to situate particular interests within the framework of a coherent vision of the common good. The latter is not simply the sum total of particular interests; rather it involves an assessment and integration of those interests on the basis of a balanced hierarchy of values; ultimately, it demands a correct understanding of the dignity and the rights of the person."

Men have succeeded in using the courts to attain legal approval for many types of immoral conduct, including abortion and homosexuality, without any consideration for the common good. And this is precisely why America is deteriorating, it has succumbed to a moral cancer which will ruin it from within. In the words of English correspondent Ian Brodie: "The keys to this personality change [from God-fearing nation to pagan society] are a number of Supreme Court decisions which virtually outlaw censorship and decree that obscenity is not illegal...It is a curious irony that the Supreme Court, dedicated to preserving the freedom which is the foundation of American life, has confused it with license. In doing so it has given its seal of approval to the sick society which will undermine the United States from within." (Sir Arnold Lunn and Garth Lean, Christian Counter-Attack, London: Blandford Press, 1969, pp. 50-51).

Or as Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn so eloquently warned: "Destructive and irresponsible freedom has been granted boundless space. Society appears to have little defense against the abyss of human decadence, such as, for example, the misuse of liberty for moral violence against young people, motion pictures full of pornography, crime and horror. This is considered to be part of freedom, and theoretically counterbalanced by the young peoples' right not to look or not to accept. Life organized legalistically has thus shown its inability to defend itself against the corrosion of evil." ("A World Split Apart," Commencement Address at Harvard University, June 8, 1978, reprinted in National Review, July 7, 1978).

Where is all of this leading? Initially to a thinly disguised and then an eventually open totalitarianism. When man becomes God, as Gabriel Marcel noted, society becomes a termite colony and collapses from within. Enter the Man of Sin and the concentration camp. - for this is where atheistic humanism will lead us. To absolute despotism.

Related reading: The first Bishop of Worcester and the common good.

Fitchburg betrays the common good

In his Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus, Pope John Paul II reminded us that:

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

JayG is reporting that "The City Solicitor and majority of the City Council were very hostile towards pro-lifers." Is this a matter for the Alliance Defense Fund? or Jay Sekulow and The American Center for Law and Justice?

On the spiritual plane, I wrote the following letter to Father Thien Nguyen and received absolutely no response whatsoever:


February 6, 2010


Rev. Thien X. Nguyen
Immaculate Conception
59 Walnut Street
Fitchburg, Ma 01420


Re: Proposed Planned Parenthood Office In Fitchburg


Dear Fr. Thien,


The purpose of this letter is to inquire as to whether or not you would be interested in leading a prayer-procession across Fitchburg to both the proposed site for a Planned Parenthood Office as well as City Hall. It is my idea that all three mysteries of the Holy Rosary could be prayed and holy water and blessed salt could be used to cast away this evil which threatens the fair city of Fitchburg.

I believe now is the time for robust spiritual action. We Christians need to pray and fast as never before since some demons are cast out only by this means (Mark 9:29). The Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, No. 2, states that the Vatican Council “…gazes upon that world which is the theater of man’s history, and carries the marks of his energies, his tragedies, and his triumphs; that world which the Christian sees as created and sustained by its Maker’s love, fallen indeed into the bondage of sin, yet emancipated now by Christ. He was crucified and rose again to break the stranglehold of personified Evil, so that this world might be fashioned anew according to God’s design and reach its fulfillment.”

Planned Parenthood’s arrival in Fitchburg would constitute yet another stranglehold of evil. But our hope is in the Crucified One who shatters such strongholds and liberates us. Now is the time for us to invoke His Holy Name and to pray for deliverance. Sacred Scripture (e.g., Daniel 10) testifies to the truth that evil can infect not only people but cities, countries and entire regions. Fitchburg has been infected by evil. And while pro-life demonstrations and letters to the editor of the local newspaper can be very useful, still, as Jesus taught so clearly, some demons are only driven out through prayer and fasting.

I believe our Catholic community can, and will, triumph over this evil through such means. Fr. Thien, will you lead such a procession and deliverance prayer? Perhaps other area Churches could participate? Please let me know if you are willing and I will do everything I can to coordinate such an endeavor.

I am, Yours in Christ,


Paul Anthony Melanson

And so, the spiritual battle continues.

Related reading here, here and here. Also here and here.

A question arises in my mind: The federal government plans to spend 55.5 million to extend the Fitchburg commuter rail line and build a new station. See here. Is it possible that the Obama administration has used these stimulus monies to influence the City Council in its decision regarding the proposed Planned Parenthood office? Lifenews has reported that Obama has given the Planned Parenthood abortion business unfettered access to the White House. See here. This would certainly explain (if it were true) the City Council's perceived hostility toward pro-lifers. It might also explain other inconsistencies in this whole sordid affair.

Opponents of same-sex "marriage" in New Hampshire seek to amend constitution

The Founding Fathers and homosexuality here. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith document "Considerations Regarding Proposals To Give Legal Recognition To Unions Between Homosexual Persons" here.


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

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


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


Related reading: What same-sex "marriage" has done to Massachusetts; article from Mass Resistance here.

More on the Homosexual Hate Movement here.

The first Bishop of Worcester and the Common Good here.

The darkness spreads...

Mr. John Ansley, in the comments section of my previous post, has responded to a Catholic Blogger (and attorney) who wrote the following: "We need differing sets of laws that recognize the different dynamics of differing types of relationships." (See the comments section of this Blog post).

Mr. Ansley correctly noted that, "This sounds like nothing more than an attempt to justify same-sex 'marriage,' whether under this name or the euphemistically labelled 'civil unions' or 'domestic partnerships.' But the acceptance of any of these contentions will redefine the concept of marriage in total disregard for its true nature. If this happens, law loses its foundation in the natural order and right reason and thus its legitimacy. As St. Augustine says: 'that which is not just seems to be no law at all' (De Lib. Arb. i,5).

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

It would appear that Renee is dissenting from this authoritative teaching when she asserts, 'We need differing sets of laws that recognize the different dynamics of differing types of relationships.' How unfortunate."

Indeed. In No. 8 of Considerations, the CDF explains that, "Differentiating between persons or refusing social recognition or benefits is unacceptable only when it is contrary to justice. The denial of the social and legal status of marriage to forms of cohabitation that are not and cannot be marital is not opposed to justice; on the contrary, justice requires it."

As I explained here, the retreat from truth is necessary before the reign of Antichrist. There is a preparation. Many are "intellectualizing" themselves into dissent and apostasy from the true Faith. The battlefield is in the mind. The attack is intellectual and psychological: "Especially important is to avoid conversations with the demon... The demon is a liar. He will lie to confuse us. But will also mix lies with the truth to attack us. The attack is psychological, Damien, and powerful. So don't listen..." - Father Merrin - The Exorcist.

Related reading: Perfect possession.

Cardinal Oscar Maradiaga: "We no longer know where the line is between good and evil."

His Eminence noted that, "Our world finds itself immersed in deep crises of faith, ethics and humanity, and it seems to have lost its moral orientation."

Indeed. Our Lady has warned repeatedly that we are on the wrong course. And she has not been listened to. As a result, we have prepared a chastisement with our own hands.

Friendship with the world...

Newsweek, in an article which may be found here, is actually trying to make a religious case for same-sex "marriage." Meanwhile, the article I submitted to the Worcester Telegram & Gazette on the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts and how it did violence to the common good, which may be found here, will never see the light of day. Mr. George French, the Editor of the Editorial section of the T & G, hasn't even responded to my queries. I'll live with it. I'm not wrapped up in myself. I'm just not that important in the grand scheme of things. And I never will be (even though I am important to Jesus).

It only serves to highlight the fact that newspapers such as the Telegram & Gazette are not really interested in a free and open exchange of ideas. Indeed, orthodox Christians are not welcome in the marketplace of ideas throughout much of our secularized society. Expect this trend to continue. Christians will be marginalized to the same extent our Jewish brothers and sisters were marginalized by the Third Reich. In the New Order, Christians (at least the orthodox ones who actually accept Divine Revelation and especially the authority of the Magisterium) will be barred from the public forum and contained within a ghetto courtesy of the dictatorship of relativism. Absolute truth will have to be expunged. As well as those who adhere to it.

In the Gospel of John, chapter fifteen verses 18-27, Jesus explains to us: "If the world hates you, realize that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, the world would love its own; but because you do not belong to the world, and I have chosen you out of the world, the world hates you. Remember the word I spoke to you, 'No slave is greater than his master.' If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they kept my word, they will also keep yours. And they will do all these things to you on account of my name, because they do not know the one who sent me. If I had not come and spoken to them, they would have no sin; but as it is they have no excuse for their sin. Whoever hates me also hates my Father. If I had not done works among them that no one else ever did, they would not have sin; but as it is, they have seen and hated both me and my Father. But in order that the word written in their law might be fulfilled, 'They hated me without cause.' "When the Advocate comes whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth that proceeds from the Father, he will testify to me. And you also testify, because you have been with me from the beginning."

Related: When Mr. Vic Melfa, an alumnus of Holy Cross College in Worcester, wrote a letter to alumni of Holy Cross criticizing the Holy Cross newspaper and a student group which promotes homosexuality (see here), it elicited a strong front-page reaction from the Telegram & Gazette (see here).

More evidence of the pro-homosexual bias at the Telegram & Gazette here.

A special and personal vocation...

Gaudium et Spes of the Second Vatican Council teaches: "May all Christians be aware of their special and personal vocation in the political community. This vocation requires that they offer a shining example of devotion to duty and of service in promoting the common good, so that they also show by their deeds how authority can be harmonized with freedom , personal initiative with the interrelationships and bonds of the whole social body, and appropriate unity with beneficial diversity." (No. 75).

At the same time, Christians must not treat citizenship as inherently more important than other elements of their vocation which are more central (such as work and family) and should refrain from deferring unduly to the government's authority. It goes without saying that the State should not be regarded as the first principle of morality and that when the State demands that which conflicts with moral truth (such as same-sex "marriage" or abortion) the Christian should affirm that, "We must obey God rather than any human authority" (Acts 5:29). Dignitatis Humanae, No. 11, reminds us that: "He [Jesus Our Lord] acknowledged the power of government and its rights, when He commanded that tribute be given to Caesar: but He gave clear warning that the higher rights of God are to be kept inviolate: "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's" (Matt. 22:21). See also Thomas Aquinas, S.t., 2-2, q.104, a.5.

The purpose of the State is to promote the common good. This is what gives the State its fundamental right to rule. Where the State no longer promotes the common good, it forfeits its right to rule: "The Church has always taught the duty to act for the common good and, in so doing, has likewise educated good citizens for each State. Furthermore, she has always taught that the fundamental duty of power is solicitude for the common good of society; this is what gives power its fundamental rights. Precisely in the name of these premises of the objective ethical order, the rights of power can only be understood on the basis of respect for the objective and inviolable rights of man." (Redemptor Hominis, No. 17).

Pope John Paul II defines the common good as, "..the good of all and of each individual, because we are all really responsible for all" (Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, No. 38). John Paul also explains in this Encyclical Letter that, "It is important to note...that a world which is divided into blocs, sustained by rigid ideologies, and in which instead of interdependence and solidarity different forms of imperialism hold sway, can only be a world subject to the structures of sin. The sum total of the negative factors working against a true awareness of the universal common good and the need to further it, gives the impression of creating, in persons and institutions, an obstacle which is difficult to overcome." (No. 36).

At a time when Christians are increasingly being marginalized, both here and abroad, the Christian has a duty more than ever to fulfill the responsibilities of his or her vocation and to say - when the State demands that which conflicts with moral truth - "We must obey God rather than men."

Will we have the courage, as Christians, to stand with Jesus? Will we risk being marginalized, persecuted and even put to death? Which is more important to us: friendship with the world or friendship with Christ? Many have already abandoned Our Lord and His Church. Some of these still warm a pew every Sunday. They remain "in the bosom of the Church, but, as it were, only in a 'bodily' manner" and not in their heart (See Lumen Gentium, No. 14).

The first Bishop of Worcester on the common good...

In an address given to the Catholic Conference on Industrial Relations in Portland, Oregon on October 5, 1954, the first Bishop of the Worcester Diocese, John J. Wright, explained to those present that, "..the common good is all the heritage from the past and all the hope for the future which good men share under God. Common to many, it is therefore public; perfective of the individual, it remains somehow personal. It calls the individual out of himself to share things with the general community, but it puts the resources of the general community at the service of the things closest to the personality of the individual. That is what Cicero meant when he defined the common good, the res publica, in terms of a nation's altars and hearths, of the spiritual and domestic values which center about these and which serve personality: 'in aris et focis est res publica.' It was out of this concept of the common good that our forefathers derived their notion of the great object of the State's existence. Hence their fine phrase the common weal, a phrase perpetuated in the name by which they designated this civil community, not by the cold collective name so dear to the totalitarian, The State, nor with any name of special interest or partisan emphasis as The Duchy or The Realm, but The Commonwealth, The Commonwealth of Massachusetts. It is the concept behind warm words like mutual in the preambles of our national and state Constitutions, as that of my own state which provides 'that all shall be governed by certain laws for the common good.'...The common good: it is the mutual bond of all who love the good, the true, and the beautiful; who seek good things, not evil; who seek the private good of persons and the collective good of the State, but the good of both in and under and through the Supreme Good, which is God. It is the good which God gives us all in order to keep us together, as opposed to the good that He gives us each to keep to ourselves. It is the good before which, on due occasion, both individual and State are obliged to bow: the common good...

Such an appreciation of the common good which unites, as against - or, rather, as above all particular or factional or partisan goods which divide - would make possible the Vital Center for which certain political philosophers are pleading; a Vital Center which can exist only when honorable moderates of Right and Left prefer working with each other in behalf of the common good to working with extremists of their own respective camps, extremists who seek only the particular good after which their side aspires..."

In Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court did violence to this idea of the common good. The Court forgot that the common good is the good of both the individual and the State "in and under and through the Supreme Good which is God." The Court opted to side with extremists who "seek only the particular good after which their side aspires."

And the people of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts are the ones who will pay the price for this judicial arrogance.

Calling all Catholics of the Worcester Diocese....let's rally behind Bishop McManus

I have just submitted the following piece to the Worcester Telegram & Gazette. I'm hoping that it sees the light of day there:


At the 51st annual Red Mass held recently at St. Paul Cathedral, His Excellency The Most Reverend Robert J. McManus reminded those present that the greatest act of compassion which those in the legal and judicial fields can show is trying to ensure that the laws and statutes of the United States always protect the dignity of the human person. Sadly, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) has not shown such compassion in recent years.

On November 18, 2003, the SJC ruled, in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, that two members of the same sex have a right to marriage under the constitution of the Bay State. Chief Justice Margaret Marshall, writing for the majority, wrote that the state’s constitution "affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals" and "forbids the creation of second-class citizens" and that the state had no constitutionally adequate reason for denying marriage to same-sex couples.

While this decision of the SJC is long on emotional appeal, it is short on substance. Article VII of the Constitution of the State of Massachusetts (1780) states clearly that, "Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity and happiness of the people.." According to this same article, government is not instituted for the "private interest" of individuals and certain classes of men. And what do we mean by the "common good"? The Catechism of the Catholic Church, citing the Letter of Barnabas, a Christian document which dates to the first or early second century, provides an answer: "In keeping with the social nature of man, the good of each individual is necessarily related to the common good, which in turn can be defined only in reference to the human person: ‘Do not live entirely isolated, having retreated into yourselves, as if you were already justified, but gather instead to seek the common good together’ CCC, 1905). The Catechism then provides us with a precise definition in paragraphs 1906 to 1909: "By common good is to be understood ‘the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfillment more fully and more easily.’ The common good concerns the life of all. It calls for prudence from each, and even more from those who exercise the office of authority. It consists of three essential elements: First, the common good presupposes respect for the person as such...Second, the common good requires the social well-being and development of the group itself...Finally, the common good requires peace, that is, the stability and security of a just order."

In Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, the SJC failed to uphold the common good and to acknowledge that government is instituted for the very purpose of promoting and defending the common good. With all due respect to Chief Justice Marshall, there is "constitutionally adequate reason" for denying marriage to same-sex couples. Same-sex "marriage" violates the common good. It does this on both the individual and social plane. On the individual plane, as Dr. Germain Grisez explains, "...although it is true that partners in sodomy also could conceivably share in a committed relationship with sincere mutual affection and express their feelings in ways that would be appropriate in any friendship, the coupling of two bodies of the same sex cannot form one complete organism and so cannot contribute to a bodily communion of persons. Hence, the experience of intimacy of the partners in sodomy cannot be the experience of any real unity between them. Rather, each one’s experience of intimacy is private and incommunicable, and is no more a common good than is the mere experience of sexual arousal and orgasm. Therefore, the choice to engage in sodomy for the sake of that experience of intimacy in no way contributes to the partners’ real common good as committed friends."

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

Our forefathers, the very men who made this Commonwealth and who crafted its Constitution, understood that government exists to serve the common good and that all society, both religious and civil, and every legal tradition of both authority and liberty, exist for the protection and perfection of the human person. Moreover, our forefathers (and this includes former Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court) recognized the ends and the purposes of marriage. They understood that matrimony is the creative cause of the social unit, the family.

For example, Justice Charles Ambrose DeCourcy (1857-1924) interpreted the special dignity of marriage with these rational words, "By the law of the Commonwealth marriage is regarded as more than a civil contract. After cohabitation, at least, it ripens into a status which affects the parties thereto, their posterity and the whole community...it is a change which, for important reasons, the law recognizes, and it inaugurates conditions and relations which the law takes under its protection." (Richardson v. Richardson, 246 Mass. 353, 354, 104. N.E. 73 (1923), quoting from Smith v. Smith, 171 Mass. 404, 407, 50 N.E. 933, 934 (1898).

Justice George Tyler Bigelow (1810-1878) said that, "The great object of marriage in a civilized and Christian community, is to secure the existence and permanence of the family relation, and to ensure the legitimacy of offspring..." (Reynolds v. Reynolds, 85 Mass.(3 Allen) 605-607 (1862).

For these Justices, marriage was something "more than a civil contract." They would have understood the teaching of Pope Pius XI in his Encyclical On Christian Marriage that, "Matrimony was neither established nor restored by man but by God. It has been protected, strengthened, and elevated not by the laws of men, but by those of God, the Author of human nature, and of Christ who restored that same nature. Consequently, these laws cannot be changed according to men’s pleasure." They would have understood this great Pontiff’s teaching that marriage has its origin "in God." They would have respected the Author of marriage, the common good and the dignity of the human person.

What a shame that we cannot say the same about the Justices who decided it was their prerogative to redefine marriage.

Vatican II and our vocation within the political community

Gaudium et Spes of the Second Vatican Council reminds us that, "All Christians must be aware of their own specific vocation within the political community. It is for them to give an example by their sense of responsibility and their service of the common good. In this way they are to demonstrate concretely how authority can be compatible with freedom, personal initiative with the solidarity of the whole social organism, and the advantages of unity with fruitful diversity." (No. 75).

In an interview with The National Catholic Register back in 2004, I defended Bishop John B. McCormack who came under attack from a Manchester, New Hampshire newspaper (The Hippo) for circulating some 40,000 voter guides based upon a document entitled "Faithful Citizenship: A Catholic Call to Political Responsibility" provided by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. I said that "The Gospel has political implications for those who follow Christ and who have a role to play in the political process...Bishop McCormack's voting resource represents an attempt by him to to care for the spiritual needs of his community."

The Hippo (and this a favorite tactic of the mainstream media), was attempting to intimidate faithful Catholics in an effort to silence opposition to a liberal, pro-abortion agenda. But Catholics (and other Christians) who are called upon by the Council Fathers to be aware of "their own specific vocation within the political community," cannot in good conscience ignore that vocation or betray it by supporting candidates or political agendas which are not consistent with Catholic moral teaching and principles.

There are even those within the local Church who would like to silence faithful Catholics who are committed to their vocation within the political community. For example, I can remember leaving a voter's guide on a bulletin board at St. Joseph's Parish in Gardner. The purpose of this guide was not to endorse a particular political party or candidate but merely to show how the various candidates (both Democratic and Republican) had voted with respect to the issue of abortion.

This voter's guide was torn down and I was instructed by the pastor not to leave anything else in the parish as he didn't want it to become "a literature factory." While this pastor had a problem with my voter's guide, he apparently had absolutely no problem with one of his Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist being an ardent supporter of abortion-on-demand. This woman was very public in her support of Congressman John Olver and flat out told me (in a letter) that my opposition to abortion was "wrong, wrong, wrong."

If you're a Catholic (or Christian of any denomination) and you are reading this, do not be intimidated into silence. When you cast your vote in the coming elections, remember your vocation as a Christian. And remember that we will all have to give answer to Christ for what we stood for.