Who is really weaponizing the Eucharist?

 

From Bishop Samuel Aquila:

"Jesus counseled the disciples to enter 'through the narrow gate,' since the road that leads to destruction is broad and 'those who enter through it are many,' but the road that leads to life is narrow and 'those who find it are few' (Mt. 7:13-14).

Those of us who have followed the news in the last week or so know that the press has declared that the U.S. Bishops are planning to ban President Biden from Communion, allegedly ignoring the Vatican’s guidance. Of course, that is not true when one looks at the details of what we discussed at our June meeting and what Cardinal Ladaria said in his letter to the bishops.

The bishops were asked by Cardinal Ladaria, who heads the Vatican’s doctrine office, to build consensus about how to respond to Catholics who hold public positions and who insist on receiving Holy Communion after publicly committing grave sins. After hours of discussion, the bishops voted 168 to 55 to draft a document that addresses both this issue and the broader question of what places any person in a state of not being able to receive Communion. The document, which will be drafted and then discussed regionally in the coming months, will strive to make the Church’s teachings on the Eucharist and worthily receiving the Lord more widely known.

Despite the efforts made to clearly communicate that the document is 'not meant to be disciplinary in nature, nor is it targeted at any one individual or class of persons,' 60 Catholic lawmakers released a letter one hour after our vote justifying their support for legalized abortion and arguing that the bishops have 'weaponized the Eucharist.'

This is deflecting the blame for the situation. Instead of accepting their own responsibility to understand and follow Church teaching, these politicians are the ones who are 'weaponizing the Eucharist' by insisting that they remain in good standing despite publicly committing grave sins and continuing to receive Communion. Everyone with common sense understands that their claim of being in communion with the Church is false. One cannot say one believes something, do the complete opposite and then credibly say that they are in communion with a Church that believes what they did is evil.

To add another layer to this, many bishops – including myself – have been privately dialoguing with Catholic politicians on abortion and other issues for years, urging them to refrain from Communion if they won’t change their immoral political positions. Unfortunately, many – but not all – of these public figures have chosen political expediency over the Gospel. They value their political party and their power more than the Gospel of Jesus Christ. They do not serve as a leaven of the Gospel in society, but rather build a culture of death. They cite the importance of following their consciences but fail to explain how their conscience is a properly formed conscience. Instead, they adopt a form of relativism that says, 'truth is different for every person.'

As Jesus said to the disciples, the road that leads to eternal life is narrow and those who attempt to take the wide road are headed for destruction. We see this in St. Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians, where he warns that some people had received the Eucharist in a state of grave sin and became sick or died. “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died” (1 Cor. 11:27-30).

Drawing on St. Paul, the Church’s teaching for every Catholic about worthily receiving the Body and Blood of Jesus is that one “must be in the state of grace. Anyone aware of having sinned mortally must not receive communion without having received absolution in the sacrament of penance” (Catechism 1415)..."

In the words of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger:

"Presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion should be a conscious decision, based on a reasoned judgment regarding one’s worthiness to do so, according to the Church’s objective criteria, asking such questions as: 'Am I in full communion with the Catholic Church? Am I guilty of grave sin? Have I incurred a penalty (e.g. excommunication, interdict) that forbids me to receive Holy Communion? Have I prepared myself by fasting for at least an hour?' The practice of indiscriminately presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion, merely as a consequence of being present at Mass, is an abuse that must be corrected." 

See Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1395

Related reading here

Francis: Christianity isn't about "rules."

Francis has said, yet again, that Christianity isn't about following "rules."  See here.

Rules?  Really?

In a talk entitled "Legalism, Moral Truth and Pastoral Practice" given at a 1990 symposium in Philadelphia, Dr. Germain Grisez explained to those present that, "Theologians and pastors who dissent from received Catholic teaching think they are rejecting legalism because they set aside what they think are mere rules in favor of what they feel are more reasonable standards. Their views are thoroughly imbued with legalism, however. For dissenters think of valid moral norms as rules formulated to protect relevant values. Some even make their legalism explicit by denying that there is any necessary connection between moral goodness (which they restrict to the transcendental level of a love with no specific content) and right action (which they isolate at the categorical level of inner-worldly behavior). But whether their legalism is explicit or not, all the dissenters hold that specific moral norms admit exceptions whenever, all things considered, making an exception seems the best - or least bad - thing to do. Most dissenters also think that specific moral norms that were valid in times past can be inappropriate today, and so they regard the Church’s contested moral teachings as outdated rules that the Church should change."

It would seem that Francis has succumbed to such a legalism, for he has once again implied that the Church's moral norms are merely "a set of rules and regulations." 


Dr. Grisez reminded his listeners at the Philadelphia symposium, "During the twentieth century, pastoral treatment of repetitious sins through weakness - especially masturbation, homosexual behavior, premarital sex play and contraception within marriage - grew increasingly mild. Pastors correctly recognized that weakness and immaturity can lessen such sins’ malice. Thinking legalistically, they did not pay enough attention to the sins’ inherent badness and harmfulness, and they developed the idea that people can freely choose to do something that they regard as a grave matter without committing a mortal sin. This idea presupposes that in making choices people are not responsible precisely for choosing what they choose. That presupposition makes sense within a legalistic framework, because lawgivers can take into account mitigating factors and limit legal culpability. But it makes no sense for morality correctly understood, because moral responsibility in itself is not something attached to moral acts but simply is moral agents’ self-determination in making free choices. Repetitious sinners through weakness also were handicapped by their own legalism. Not seeing the inherent badness of their sins, they felt that they were only violating inscrutable rules. When temptation grew strong, they had little motive to resist, especially because they could easily go to confession and have the violation fixed. Beginning on Saturday they were holy; by Friday they were again sinners. This cyclic sanctity robbed many people’s lives of Christian dynamism and contributed to the dry rot in the Church that became manifest in the 1960s, when the waves of sexual permissiveness battered her."

Dr. Grisez goes on to explain that, "Pastors free of legalism will teach the faithful how sin makes moral requirements seem to be alien impositions, help them see through this illusion, and encourage them to look forward to and experience the freedom of God’s children, who rejoice in the fruit of the Spirit and no longer experience the constraint of law..They will explain that while one sometimes must choose contrary to positive laws and cannot always meet their requirements, one always can choose in truth and abide in love. They will acknowledge the paradox of freedom - that we seem unable to resist freely choosing to sin - the paradox that Saint Paul neatly formulates: ‘I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate’ (Romans 7:15). But they also will proclaim the liberating power of grace, and help the faithful learn by experience that when one comes to understand the inherent evil of sin and intrinsic beauty of goodness, enjoys the support of a community of faith whose members bear one another’s burdens, begs God for His help, and confidently expects it, then the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead raises him from his sins, and he discovers that with the Spirit’s grace one can consistently resist sin and choose life."

The faithful deserve an authentic Shepherd who helps them live Jesus' Law of Love - If you love Me, keep My Commandments (John 14:15), not a legalist who views unchangeable moral norms as "mere rules."

Why Saint Mary's Church in Orange, Massachusetts is not attracting young people

Bishop Joseph F. Maguire, former Bishop of the Springfield Massachusetts Diocese, was known to be part of the cover-up of sexual abuse within the Diocese.  See here.

Saint Mary's Church in Orange, Massachusetts, the same Church that welcomed prayers for Keith Sullivan, a Youth Minister accused of sexual abuse - see here - (while offering no such prayers for the alleged victim) is now advertising a Memorial Mass for the now deceased Bishop Maguire.

This comes as no surprise as the Church, under Father Shaun O'Connor, has promoted the views of Father Jonathan Morris, a priest who distorted the Church's teaching regarding homosexuality, while banning me from its Facebook page for defending the Magisterial teaching of the Church.

And while Keith Sullivan, arrested by the Nashua Police Department for sexual abuse and kidnapping was welcome at Saint Mary's, apparently Catholics faithful to orthodoxy are not.  This explains why the Church is disintegrating.  One lay person, involved in parish ministry, was overheard saying (to a friend just prior to Mass), that there aren't many kids at CCD and that "young people aren't going to Mass."

Should this really come as a surprise?

Father Gabriel of St. Mary Magdalen, O.C.D., in his classic work devoted to the interior life entitled Divine Intimacy, explains that, "Devotion to Our Lady of Mount Carmel indicates a strong call to the interior life, which, in a very special way, is Mary's life.  The Blessed Virgin wants us to resemble her in heart and mind much more than in externals.  If we penetrate into Mary's soul, we see that grace produced in her a very rich interior life: a life of recollection, prayer, uninterrupted giving of herself to God, and of constant contact and intimate union with Him.  Mary's soul is a sanctuary reserved for God alone where no creature has ever left an imprint; here reign love and zeal for the glory of God and the salvation of men.  Those who wish to live truly devoted to Our Lady of Mount Carmel, must follow Mary into the depths of the interior life...Every interior soul, even if living amid the tumult of the world, must strive to reach this peace, this interior silence, which alone makes continual contact with God possible.  It is our passions and attachments that make noise within us, that disturb our peace of mind and interrupt our intimate converse with God.  Only the soul that is wholly detached and in complete control of its passions can, like Mary, be a solitary, silent 'garden' where God will find His delights.  This is the grace we ask of Our Lady today when we choose her to be the Queen and mistress of our interior life." (Divine Intimacy, pp. 1147-1148).

When a soul is occupied with inordinate attachments to self or creatures or the vain and passing things of this world, it is unable to love God with all its strength and finds itself divided between God and self, between God and creatures, between God and the transitory things of this dying world.  But we are commanded, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with all thy strength and with all thy mind." (Luke 10: 27).

It is these inordinate attachments to self or creatures which lead to dissent and ultimately polarization within the Church.  The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in its Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian, tells us that, "The Church 'is like a sacrament, a sign and instrument, that is, of communion with God and of unity among all men' (Lumen Gentium, 1).  Consequently, to pursue concord and communion is to enhance the force of her witness and credibility.  To succumb to the temptation of dissent, on the other hand, is to allow the 'leaven of infidelity to the Holy Spirit' to start to work." (No. 40).

This leaven of infidelity has, for many years now, crippled many within the Church.  The dissent which has been embraced within the Church has led to polarization.  Why?  Because faithful Catholics who do not [and indeed cannot] accept the dissenting view are duty bound to resist it for the sake of the Church's authentic peace, a peace which Pope John XXIII said, "is not completely untroubled and serene; it is active, not calm and motionless.  In short, this is a peace that is ever at war.  It wars with every sort of error, including that which falsely wears the face of truth; it struggles against the enticements of vice, against those enemies of the soul, of whatever description, who can weaken, blemish, or destroy our innocence or Catholic faith." (Ad Petri cathedram).

There has been much dissent and subsequent polarization within the Diocese of Springfield (as in others) because the leadership (and here we are being most generous in our terms) of the local Church has failed to inspire the faithful (and its own priests first and foremost) to strip themselves of all that is not of God.  While St. John of the Cross assures us that, "The soul has only one will, and if it occupies itself or encumbers itself with anything, it will not remain free, solitary, and pure, as is required for divine transformation," the Springfield Diocese has encouraged an atmosphere of self-will, self-assertion, self-affirmation and self-promotion.  Forgotten is the warning of the Holy Spirit that "God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble." (James 4: 6).

We (all of us) must become more Mary-like in heart and mind and not just in externals.  "In every deliberate sin," as Dr. Germain Grisez reminds us, such as dissent from Church teaching or deliberate non-assent, "freedom of self-determination is exercised contrary to what is known to be truly right and good.  In sinning, sinners tend to regard moral truths legalistically, as if they were mere rules blocking them from doing as they please.  Thus, deliberate sin seems to be self-affirming.  Affirming the self and rejecting the limits which deny some forbidden fruit, sinners try to be autonomous, as only God really can be."

Faith demands the renunciation of the sinful self which authentic devotion to Mary necessarily involves.  Pride must give way to humility.  Only then can one find the truth which sets one free (John 8: 32). 

The Sons of Belial have their own priorities: Ignore the Culture of Sodomy and Dissent while condemning devout Catholics

The culture of lies, deceit and corruption throughout the Church continues to anger authentic Catholics. Christopher Mannion notes that, "In recent days, as California was rocked by a magnitude 7 earthquake, the Vatican and America’s Catholic hierarchy were inundated by an avalanche of their own.

For a year after the McCarrick scandal broke, prelates here and in Rome had managed to preserve a semblance of credibility, adorned with trappings of a synod and new laws and earnest promises. But within the past fortnight, the rickety stonewall of coverup and omertà crumbled with increasing speed.

On July 3, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, former papal nuncio to the United States, shared new charges with LifeSiteNews. They are troubling indeed.

'Not only is Pope Francis doing close to nothing to punish those who have committed abuse,' Viganò writes, 'he is doing absolutely nothing to expose and bring to justice those who have, for decades, facilitated and covered up the abusers.'"

No, Francis has his own priorities which include condemning materialism while overlooking filth, perversion and sexual abuse, see here or condemning devout Catholics who want doctrinal clarity (see here) while looking the other way when it comes to the Cult of Softness (see here) and Sodomy within the Church.

That's the thing with Modernist counterfeit Catholics; they have all the love in the world for those who engage in sodomy or who misrepresent the teaching of the Church, but have nothing but contempt for those of us who actually adhere to Catholic moral teaching while maintaining a devotion to the Immaculata.

For example, I was banned from the Facebook Page of Saint Mary's Church in Orange, Massachusetts (where I attend Mass) because of my commitment to the Church's perennial teaching as expressed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.  But the same Facebook Page promoted Father Jonathan Morris, who has misrepresented Catholic teaching and who has since left the priesthood.

Now I could care less about the Facebook Page of Saint Mary's.  Nobody reads the thing anyway.  I get more visitors in five minutes than that page does in an entire month.

But it shows the enmity (see here) these sons of Belial have for authentic Catholics. Make no mistake about it.  This enmity will continue to grow until Christ returns as Saint Louis de Montfort has warned.

Arm yourself with your Rosary and continue to stand against those modern-day Judases within.

Francis, your legalism is showing...

My last Facebook post:

Dr. Germain Grisez, in a talk entitled "Legalism, Moral Truth and Pastoral Practice" given at a 1990 symposium held in Philadelphia, had this to say:

"Theologians and pastors [pay attention here Francis] who dissent from received Catholic teaching think they are rejecting legalism because they set aside what they think are mere rules in favor of what they feel are more reasonable standards. Their views are thoroughly imbued with legalism, however. For dissenters think of valid moral norms as rules formulated to protect relevant values. Some even make their legalism explicit by denying that there is any necessary connection between moral goodness (which they restrict to the transcendental level of a love with no specific content) and right action (which they isolate at the categorical level of inner-worldly behavior). But whether their legalism is explicit or not, all the dissenters hold that specific moral norms admit exceptions whenever, all things considered, making an exception seems the best - or least bad - thing to do. Most dissenters also think that specific moral norms that were valid in times past can be inappropriate today, and so they regard the Church's contested moral teachings as outdated rules that the Church should change."


Dr. Grisez reminded his listeners at the Philadelphia symposium that, "During the twentieth century, pastoral treatment of repetitious sins through weakness - especially masturbation, homosexual behavior, premarital sex play and contraception within marriage - grew increasingly mild. Pastors correctly recognized that weakness and immaturity can lessen such sins’ malice. Thinking legalistically, they did not pay enough attention to the sins’ inherent badness and harmfulness, and they developed the idea that people can freely choose to do something that they regard as a grave matter without committing a mortal sin. This idea presupposes that in making choices people are not responsible precisely for choosing what they choose. That presupposition makes sense within a legalistic framework, because lawgivers can take into account mitigating factors and limit legal culpability. But it makes no sense for morality correctly understood, because moral responsibility in itself is not something attached to moral acts but simply is moral agents’ self-determination in making free choices. Repetitious sinners through weakness also were handicapped by their own legalism. Not seeing the inherent badness of their sins, they felt that they were only violating inscrutable rules. When temptation grew strong, they had little motive to resist, especially because they could easily go to confession and have the violation fixed. Beginning on Saturday they were holy; by Friday they were again sinners. This cyclic sanctity robbed many people’s lives of Christian dynamism and contributed to the dry rot in the Church that became manifest in the 1960s, when the waves of sexual permissiveness battered her."

Dr. Grisez then went on to explain that, "Pastors free of legalism will teach the faithful how sin makes moral requirements seem to be alien impositions, help them see through this illusion, and encourage them to look forward to and experience the freedom of God’s children, who rejoice in the fruit of the Spirit and no longer experience the constraint of law.."

The Church remains spotless even when Her members sin...

In these times of scandal it is critical to remember that the Church remains spotless even when Her members sin. There is absolutely no doubt that the human history of the Church, like all of human history, has its dark pages. But if anyone cares to take an objective look at this history, one must quickly acknowledge that the doctrine of the Church has always implicitly condemned abuses introduced by Her members.

In the words of Dr. Dietrich Von Hildebrand, "There were sinners in the Church yesterday and there are sinners in the Church today. But the Church Herself, in her divine teaching, emerges gloriously unspotted in a history stained by human weaknesses, errors, imperfections, and sins." In the words of the great Cardinal Journet:

"All contradictions are eliminated as soon as we understand that the members of the Church do indeed sin, but they do so by their betraying the Church. The Church is thus not without sinners, but She is without sin. The Church as person is responsible for penance. She is not responsible for sins....The members of the Church themselves - laity, clerics, priests, Bishops, and Popes - who disobey the Church are responsible for their sins, but the Church as person is not responsible...It is forgotten that the Church as person is the Bride of Christ, 'Whom He has purchased with His own blood.'" (Acts 20:28).

Do not use scandals as an excuse to leave the Church.  Faithful Catholics need to stay and pray, to fight against the forces of dissent and perversion.

Our Lady has assured us that, in the end, her Immaculate Heart Will triumph.  In the end, Our Lady's heel* will crush the Devil's head.

*  See here

Documentary: Francis covered up sex abuse in Argentina

Lifesite News reports:

"German national TV channel ZDF is rerunning a documentary produced last year that claims that Pope Francis, as Archbishop Bergoglio of Buenos Aires, ignored cries for justice from abuse victims in his diocese. The documentary is now gaining traction in the fallout of Archbishop Viganò’s testimony that the Pope covered-up the abuse of now ex-Cardinal Theodore McCarrick.

The documentary also claims that then-Archbishop Bergoglio, prior to becoming the pope, participated in the unsuccessful defense of a priest accused of abuse. That priest has now been imprisoned for 15 years after he was found guilty of sexually abusing children.

Now, in light of the Viganò report, the documentary by Martin Boudot has been aired again and is now making the rounds in the German-speaking world. The documentary, titled 'The Silence of the Shepherds,' won the 2017 Prix Europa for best European documentaries. It is available in the U.S. under the title 'Sex Abuse in the Church: the Code of Silence.'

The documentary makes the case that many priests accused of sexual abuse were merely transferred by their bishops to other countries so as to avoid prosecution. The second half of the documentary highlights Archbishop Jorge Bergoglio's own conduct in Buenos Aires."

___________________________________

The sexual abuse crisis which exploded throughout the Catholic Church has its origin in a Culture of Dissent. For, as Father Vincent Miceli has reminded us, "falsity is the heart of immorality." Betrayal arises in man's heart and is soon manifested in his actions which often culminate in criminal violence. But, as Fr. Miceli lamented, "while we are all aware of the tremendous role of violence in the unfolding history of human events...what is not realized is that the apparent arbitrariness of and haphazardness of violence can be and ought to be seriously and precisely analyzed from the philosophical and theological point of view." (Essay entitled "The Taproot of Violence").

For far too long, many priests have been offering not the fine wheat of sound doctrine but the chaff of theological dissent from the teaching of the Church's Magisterium. As a result, we have experienced not renewal but a spiritual dry rot. Vatican II, in its' Decree on the Ministry and Life of Priests (Presbyterorum Ordinis) No. 4, had this to say: "The People of God are joined together primarily by the word of the living God. And rightfully they expect this from their priests. Since no one can be saved who does not first believe, priests, as co-workers with their bishops, have the primary duty of proclaiming the Gospel of God to all. In this way they fulfill the command of the Lord: 'Going therefore into the whole world preach the Gospel to every creature' (Mk 16:15), and they establish and build up the People of God. Through the saving word the spark of faith is lit in the hearts of unbelievers, and fed in the hearts of the faithful. This is the way that the congregation of faithful is started and grows, just as the Apostle describes: 'Faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ' (Rom 10:17).

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

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

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

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

We are reminded in Lumen Gentium 14 of the Second Vatican Council that: "He is not saved, however, who, though part of the body of the Church, does not persevere in charity. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but, as it were, only in a "bodily" manner and not "in his heart." All the Church's children should remember that their exalted status is to be attributed not to their own merits but to the special grace of Christ. If they fail moreover to respond to that grace in thought, word and deed, not only shall they not be saved but they will be the more severely judged."

When a priest ignores or neglects his duty, his task, of serving the Word of God with fidelity, he fails to persevere in that charity described by Popes Paul VI and John Paul II as a charity which diminishes in no way the saving teaching of Christ. And he will be the more severely judged (see Luke 12:48).

Pope Benedict XVI understood this. In fact, the Visitation Report into the Church in Ireland, which he ordered, stated clearly that, "It must be stressed that dissent from the fundamental teachings of the Church is not the authentic path towards renewal."

Pope Benedict XVI was, of course, absolutely correct in saying that such evil is still a mystery, what St. Paul referred to as the "mystery of iniquity."  But at the same time it may be said with absolute certainty that falsity is the heart of immorality.  That a culture of dissent - betrayal in man's heart - soon found its culmination in criminal violence.

Francis and the taproot of sexual abuse and violence...

Father Ray Blake asks:

DARE WE JOIN THE DOTS?

"Pope calls Chilean abuse victims spreaders of calumny and says no evidence/proof has been given him.
Despite Cardinal O'Malley personally giving the Pope a letter offering evidence.

Now it seems the CDF made a recommendation that Bishop Barros should be removed.

The Pope personally removed from the CDF 3 priests concerned with investigating child abuse.

When Cdl Mueller asks the Pope for an explanation, he is told 'I am the Pope' and the audience ends.

Scicluna, the CDF abuse prosecutor, had already been 'promoted' to be Archbishop of Malta

Since the end of last year the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors has been allowed to fall into abeyance.

He has surrounded himself in the Council of 9 with those who have denied abuse like Cdl Maradiaga who described the abuse crisis as a 'Jewish media conspiracy' or more to the point Barros' defender and the Chilean Archbishop Emeritus of Santiago Francisco Javier Errázuriz Ossa, known locally as "the Sandbag" because of his failure to act on abuse.

He has also honoured notorious coverers up of  abuse like Cardinals Daneels and Mahoney, who seem to have been prominent in his election.

During this Pontificate aberrant sexuality seems to be promoted.

The report produced on the 'Gay Mafia' seems to be ignored.

Accounts of his own handling of abuse in Buenos Aires seem [to] be mixed."

________________________

The sexual abuse crisis which exploded throughout the Catholic Church has its origin in a Culture of Dissent. For, as Father Vincent Miceli has reminded us, "falsity is the heart of immorality." Betrayal arises in man's heart and is soon manifested in his actions which often culminate in criminal violence. But, as Fr. Miceli lamented, "while we are all aware of the tremendous role of violence in the unfolding history of human events...what is not realized is that the apparent arbitrariness of and haphazardness of violence can be and ought to be seriously and precisely analyzed from the philosophical and theological point of view." (Essay entitled "The Taproot of Violence").

For far too long, many priests have been offering not the fine wheat of sound doctrine but the chaff of theological dissent from the teaching of the Church's Magisterium. As a result, we have experienced not renewal but a spiritual dry rot. Vatican II, in its' Decree on the Ministry and Life of Priests (Presbyterorum Ordinis) No. 4, had this to say: "The People of God are joined together primarily by the word of the living God. And rightfully they expect this from their priests. Since no one can be saved who does not first believe, priests, as co-workers with their bishops, have the primary duty of proclaiming the Gospel of God to all. In this way they fulfill the command of the Lord: 'Going therefore into the whole world preach the Gospel to every creature' (Mk 16:15), and they establish and build up the People of God. Through the saving word the spark of faith is lit in the hearts of unbelievers, and fed in the hearts of the faithful. This is the way that the congregation of faithful is started and grows, just as the Apostle describes: 'Faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ' (Rom 10:17).

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

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

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

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

We are reminded in Lumen Gentium 14 of the Second Vatican Council that: "He is not saved, however, who, though part of the body of the Church, does not persevere in charity. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but, as it were, only in a "bodily" manner and not "in his heart." All the Church's children should remember that their exalted status is to be attributed not to their own merits but to the special grace of Christ. If they fail moreover to respond to that grace in thought, word and deed, not only shall they not be saved but they will be the more severely judged."

When a priest ignores or neglects his duty, his task, of serving the Word of God with fidelity, he fails to persevere in that charity described by Popes Paul VI and John Paul II as a charity which diminishes in no way the saving teaching of Christ. And he will be the more severely judged (see Luke 12:48).

Pope Benedict XVI understood this. In fact, the Visitation Report into the Church in Ireland, which he ordered, stated clearly that, "It must be stressed that dissent from the fundamental teachings of the Church is not the authentic path towards renewal."

Pope Benedict XVI was, of course, absolutely correct in saying that such evil is still a mystery, what St. Paul referred to as the "mystery of iniquity."  But at the same time it may be said with absolute certainty that falsity is the heart of immorality.  That a culture of dissent - betrayal in man's heart - soon found its culmination in criminal violence.

Chaput goes kaput...

Every now and again, I receive criticism from another Catholic who accuses me of "lacking peace" simply because I defend the Church's authentic teaching on a variety of issues and because I oppose dissent from the same. These confused Catholics have a distorted notion of what constitutes "peace" and are often motivated by guilt which stems from their own refusal to live up to their duty, their responsibility, to both defend and promote the Magisterial teaching of the Church.

Such is the case, sadly, with Archbishop Charles Chaput.  In an article published in First Things, the Archbishop, who is fast becoming a modern-day Judas, says:


"Fr. Martin* is a man of intellect and skill whose work I often admire. Like all of us as fellow Christians, he deserves to be treated with fraternal good will. It’s one thing to criticize respectfully an author’s ideas and their implications. It’s quite another to engage in ad hominem trashing. In Dr. Faggioli’s view, Fr. Martin is yet another victim brought low by a mob of conservative cyber-militias. And these militias have allegedly been fostered by a generation of John Paul II and Benedict XVI bishops, who reshaped “the U.S. episcopate in the image of the ‘culture warrior.’”

As I mentioned in a previous post, Christopher Ferrara explains that the homosexual activist dissident Father Martin continues, "preaching the lie that homosexual acts are not only not depraved, but on the contrary are genuine expressions of what he calls 'love.'  Martin even dared to proclaim openly during a conference at Fordham University (my alma mater) that there is nothing wrong with the depraved acts performed by his homosexual friend 'Mark' and that he professes not to understand how 'even the most traditionalist, homophobic, closed-minded Catholic cannot look at my friend and say: that is a loving act...'"

I never lose any sleep over asinine criticisms such as those from Archbishop Chaput. However, for the sake of those faithful Catholics who take their responsibility to defend and promote the Church's authentic teaching seriously, I submit the following. While it can be constructive (and even necessary) for people to dissent from the official policies of a democratic society and even to resist such policies, because these policies are only grounded in a human consensus, within the Church it's a different story.

How so? The policies of the Church are not merely grounded in a human consensus. They are grounded on faith and directed toward salvation. Therefore, dissent is a tactic which is not appropriate within the Church. In fact, dissent within the Church is only divisive. Dissent from the constant and most firm of Church teaching is an attack on truth. In its Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith had this to say: "The Church 'is like a sacrament, a sign and instrument, that is, of communion with God and of unity among all men' (LG, 1). Consequently, to pursue concord and communion is to enhance the force of her witness and credibility. To succumb to the temptation of dissent, on the other hand, is to allow the 'leaven of infidelity to the Holy Spirit' to start to work." (No. 40, AAS, 82 (1990) 1568, OR, 2 July 1990, 4.).

Some will still object: "But even if people dissent from Church teaching, that's not our concern. Leave them to God. We shouldn't say anything for the sake of peace. They will come to the truth in God's time." What of this? Is this an authentic peace?

Well, no. In the words of Pope John XXIII, who was an extremely good-natured and peacable Pontiff, a lover of peace, an authentic peace, "is not completely untroubled and serene; it is active, not calm and motionless. In short, this is a peace that is ever at war. It wars with every sort of error, including that which falsely wears the face of truth; it struggles against the enticements of vice, against those enemies of the soul, of whatever description, who can weaken, blemish, or destroy our innocence or Catholic faith." (Ad Petri cathedram, AAS, 51 (1959) 517, PE, 263.93).

And in so doing, one may justly employ strong language.  See here.

There you have it. The Church's understanding of peace. The next time a chicken Catholic like Charles Chaput levels an accusation against you of betraying peace simply because you defend and promote the Church's Magisterial teaching, remind them that they are in reality judging your interior dispositions. Remind them as well that perfect love casts out all fear and that the Holy Spirit gives His gift of Fortitude to those who ask for it. If this doesn't work, pray for them while letting their childish criticism roll off your back.

Mother Teresa used to say that people will always be around who will question your motives and, with an air of "superiority," castigate you for the good you do. Do good anyway. And on the Day of Judgment, these people can explain to Jesus not only why they refused to promote and defend Catholic teaching (which is their responsibility as a baptized Catholic), but why they even attempted to discourage faithful Catholics from their mission.

It is interesting that Archbishop Chaput has nothing to say about Father Martin's and other's  unjust criticism of faithful Catholics who defend the immutable teaching of Christ's Church.
But then, evil attracts evil.

*  See here

Archbishop Diarmuid Martin: Demon possessed?

Church Militant reports:

In his Holy Week and Easter Sunday homilies, Ireland's head archbishop, Diarmuid Martin, called Catholicism a "religion of fear" and a "faith of prohibitions," denouncing the Church for its historic "harshness" towards the LGBT community.

In his speech at the Good Friday Way of the Cross in Dublin, he remarked, "How is it that the Church and its institutions could at various times in history, and not only in a distant past , have been so judgmental and treated broken people who were entrusted to its care with such harshness?"

"How could we have tried to use the teaching and the merciful way of dealing with sinners to justify or accept harsh exclusion?"

He went on, "We can be so judgmental and hurtful towards those whom we decide have failed and those who drift outside our self-made ideas of respectability."

And in his Easter Sunday homily, Martin criticized the Catholic Church: "We had created a religion of fear, so much that even when we tried to live the good life, we were never left with a sensation of being free."

"For many, Christianity had been turned into a faith of prohibitions," he continued. "Certain theologies spoke about freeing people from sin but had developed a concept of sin and sinner which made it almost impossible for a sinner ever to feel himself or herself truly liberated."

The archbishop added, "There were so many rules that many were left with a sense of scrupulosity, which left them trapped and oppressed by guilt and doubts."

Martin has spoken out in the past in support of legally protecting gay civil unions and has commented that the Catholic Church must change with the times."

Of course it's not the Church which must change, but rather the Archbishop.  I am inclined to believe he is demon infested or possessed and in need of spiritual deliverance or outright exorcism.

Father Gabriel of St. Mary Magdalen, O.C.D., in his classic work devoted to the interior life entitled Divine Intimacy, explains that, "Devotion to Our Lady of Mount Carmel indicates a strong call to the interior life, which, in a very special way, is Mary's life.  The Blessed Virgin wants us to resemble her in heart and mind much more than in externals.  If we penetrate into Mary's soul, we see that grace produced in her a very rich interior life: a life of recollection, prayer, uninterrupted giving of herself to God, and of constant contact and intimate union with Him.  Mary's soul is a sanctuary reserved for God alone where no creature has ever left an imprint; here reign love and zeal for the glory of God and the salvation of men.  Those who wish to live truly devoted to Our Lady of Mount Carmel, must follow Mary into the depths of the interior life...Every interior soul, even if living amid the tumult of the world, must strive to reach this peace, this interior silence, which alone makes continual contact with God possible.  It is our passions and attachments that make noise within us, that disturb our peace of mind and interrupt our intimate converse with God.  Only the soul that is wholly detached and in complete control of its passions can, like Mary, be a solitary, silent 'garden' where God will find His delights.  This is the grace we ask of Our Lady today when we choose her to be the Queen and mistress of our interior life." (Divine Intimacy, pp. 1147-1148).

When a soul is occupied with inordinate attachments to self or creatures or the vain and passing things of this world, it is unable to love God with all its strength and finds itself divided between God and self, between God and creatures, between God and the transitory things of this dying world.  But we are commanded, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with all thy strength and with all thy mind." (Luke 10: 27).

It is these inordinate attachments to self or creatures which lead to dissent and ultimately polarization within the Church.  The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in its Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian, tells us that, "The Church 'is like a sacrament, a sign and instrument, that is, of communion with God and of unity among all men' (Lumen Gentium, 1).  Consequently, to pursue concord and communion is to enhance the force of her witness and credibility.  To succumb to the temptation of dissent, on the other hand, is to allow the 'leaven of infidelity to the Holy Spirit' to start to work." (No. 40).

This leaven of infidelity has, for many years now, crippled the Church in various region's. And this dissent, which has been embraced by so many like the diabolically disoriented Archbishop from Ireland, has led to polarization.

Why?  Because faithful Catholics who do not [and indeed cannot] accept the dissenting view are duty bound to resist it for the sake of the Church's authentic peace, a peace which Pope John XXIII said, "is not completely untroubled and serene; it is active, not calm and motionless.  In short, this is a peace that is ever at war.  It wars with every sort of error, including that which falsely wears the face of truth; it struggles against the enticements of vice, against those enemies of the soul, of whatever description, who can weaken, blemish, or destroy our innocence or Catholic faith." (Ad Petri cathedram).

There has been so much dissent and subsequent polarization within the Church because the leadership (and here we are being most generous in our terms) of the Church has failed to inspire the faithful (and its own priests first and foremost) to strip themselves of all that is not of God.  While St. John of the Cross assures us that, "The soul has only one will, and if it occupies itself or encumbers itself with anything, it will not remain free, solitary, and pure, as is required for divine transformation," many of our "leaders" have encouraged an atmosphere of self-will, self-assertion, self-affirmation and self-promotion.  Forgotten is the warning of the Holy Spirit that "God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble." (James 4: 6).

We (all of us) must become more Mary-like in heart and mind and not just in externals.  "In every deliberate sin," as Dr. Germain Grisez reminds us, such as dissent from Church teaching or deliberate non-assent, "freedom of self-determination is exercised contrary to what is known to be truly right and good.  In sinning, sinners tend to regard moral truths legalistically, as if they were mere rules blocking them from doing as they please.  Thus, deliberate sin seems to be self-affirming.  Affirming the self and rejecting the limits which deny some forbidden fruit, sinners try to be autonomous, as only God really can be."

Faith demands the renunciation of the sinful self which authentic devotion to Mary necessarily involves.  Pride must give way to humility.  Only then can one find the truth which sets one free (John 8: 32).

In the case of Archbishop Diarmuid Martin, I would suggest that he present himself to the Church for deliverance prayer or exorcism.  A cleric who hates the Church is evidencing the demonic in his life.

Father Jose Antonio Bermudez, Saint Mary's Parish in Orange and CCHD

In a parish bulletin from Saint Mary's Parish in Orange, Massachusetts back in November of 2013, which may be found here, we read:

"Collection for the Catholic Campaign for Human

Development (CCHD) needs your help. CCHD was founded to end the cycle of poverty throughout America by funding organizations that help individuals help themselves. With a tradition of improving education, housing, and community economic development,
CCHD continues to make a positive impact in communities nationwide."

The fact that this promotion of CCHD appeared in the Saint Mary's Parish bulletin with the blessing of the former "pastor," Father Jose Antonio Bermudez, only serves to highlight the fact that the priest is duplicitous and given over to the demonic.

We read here (from Reform CCHD Now):

"Since 2009, we have been working to shine the light on the problem of Catholic funds going to organizations that promote abortion, birth control, homosexuality and even Marxism."

Wikipedia notes:

"CCHD has at times been subject at times to criticism, with allegations that some CCHD-funded organizations were promoting abortion, contraception and radical politics, and that the CCHD was a force of internal corruption within the USCCB.."

When I informed Father Jose Antonio Bermudez about its promotion of dissenting groups and Marxism, he responded (in November of 2011):

I still have the email correspondence from this priest-liar, who maintained a facade of holiness while promoting CCHD.  Even after admitting there was reason for concern and promising that "the material has been removed from the Church building," he continued to promote CCHD after I left the parish in 2011.

Not long ago, I returned to the parish and was ostracized by Father Bermudez and his inner circle.  Now I can better understand why.

The Catechism, speaking of lying, has this to say:

2482 "A lie consists in speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving." The Lord denounces lying as the work of the devil: "You are of your father the devil, . . . there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies."

2483 Lying is the most direct offense against the truth. To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead someone into error. By injuring man's relation to truth and to his neighbor, a lie offends against the fundamental relation of man and of his word to the Lord.

2484 The gravity of a lie is measured against the nature of the truth it deforms, the circumstances, the intentions of the one who lies, and the harm suffered by its victims. If a lie in itself only constitutes a venial sin, it becomes mortal when it does grave injury to the virtues of justice and charity.

2485 By its very nature, lying is to be condemned. It is a profanation of speech, whereas the purpose of speech is to communicate known truth to others. The deliberate intention of leading a neighbor into error by saying things contrary to the truth constitutes a failure in justice and charity. The culpability is greater when the intention of deceiving entails the risk of deadly consequences for those who are led astray.

2486 Since it violates the virtue of truthfulness, a lie does real violence to another. It affects his ability to know, which is a condition of every judgment and decision. It contains the seed of discord and all consequent evils. Lying is destructive of society; it undermines trust among men and tears apart the fabric of social relationships

I'm not surprised that Father Bermudez, who has given himself over to lying while promoting the CCHD, would treat me with contempt.  Every liar hates to be exposed.

Pray for this deeply troubled priest and a parish which has been, under his failed leadership, failing miserably.

Related reading: Obama thanked CCHD for helping him become president.  See here.

Mark Shea: Our Founding Fathers Franklin and Jefferson were treasonous knuckledraggers

Over at Patheos (read pathological), Mark Shea, who has a tendency to regale us with his paucity of intellect from time to time (see here) is mocking supporters of Donald Trump while accusing Patrick Buchanan of "treason."

The mental and moral midget writes:

"When a Muslim urges the violent overthrow of the United States we call that 'terrorism'. When an American Muslim does it, we call that 'treason'.
When a grumpy old white male Trump supporter does it, Trumpkins call it 'patriotism', but in fact it is still treason. And if it finds violent expression, it is still terrorism.

News flash to Trumpkins: Your Dear Leader is trailing in the polls fair and square and he will lose fair and square. He already knows it, which is why he is telling his mob of knuckledragging mouthbreathers the election is 'rigged' so they will reject the results of the election as a 'conspiracy' when they lose. This is toxic to our Constitutional order. You will lose. Too bad. Grow up. And if you take up arms against your country in a fit of adolescent pique you will be rightly and properly crushed for your treason."

Let's set aside Mr. Shea's fit of partisan politics and look at this calmly and objectively.

If Mr. Buchanan and others are guilty of "treason" for desiring an overthrow of a government which most Americans would agree has become thoroughly corrupt, then our Founding Fathers were guilty of agitating treason.

Ben Franklin, whom Shea obviously hasn't read, said clearly that:

"We need a revolution every 200 years, because all governments become stale and corrupt after 200 years."

And how old is America now Mr. Shea?

Thomas Jefferson, that treasonous and "grumpy old white male," said that:


"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established,
should not be changed for light and transient causes... But, when 
a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the 
same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute 
despotism, it is [the people's] right, it is their duty, to throw 
off such government, and to provide new guards for their future
security." --Thomas Jefferson: Declaration of Independence, 1776.

Clearly Mr. Shea has no sense of American history.  But then, Mr. Shea has evidenced very little sense whatsoever.

Collette Power: Can't we all just get along?

Collette Power, in an article which may be found here, and which is obviously aimed at Catholic bloggers who expose the corruption within the Church, writes: "Over recent years, I have grown more and more discontented with the way the Catholic social media scene has developed in the UK, and I wonder just how detrimental this development is to unity within the Church and to our engagement with society.

My discontent echoes something Fr. Thomas Rosica* of Canada’s Salt + Light TV said in a recent address: “We Catholics have turned the internet into a cesspool of hatred, venom and vitriol, all in the name of defending the faith.” A senior Church official spoke to me last year about the nature of the blogosphere, commenting on the spirit driving various media platforms. He made this point: If something divides the Church, tearing people down in the process, then how can you claim it is from the Holy Spirit? It is not.

I struggle to grapple with this culture that has somehow seeped into Catholic communications. After a particularly nasty incident involving a young priest who took an internet beating last year, two young bloggers contacted me independently, asking what we can do to end this divisiveness in our Church, for relentless negativity is counterproductive to our mission in an already hostile environment, and it doesn’t exactly model community or communion.

Is social media the best place to thrash out our issues and concerns?

It is when the hierarchy refuse to listen to the concerns of the People of God.  As one who spent years writing charitably worded letters of concern to various priests and Bishops, only to be ignored, I can testify to the indifference or outright hostility of certain clerics who refused constructive criticism.

In her own day, St. Catherine of Sienna found much corruption within the Holy Church. Homosexuality and many other deeply rooted problems were found among the clergy and Our Lord spoke to this Doctor of the Church about these problems (pride, loss of sacred identity, loss of faith, worldliness, and sensuality). These conversations were laid out in St. Catherine's book entitled "Dialogue," and most especially in that portion of the book labelled "The Mystical Body of Holy Church."
While St. Catherine cautions her readers not to engage in blanket condemnations aimed at the clergy in general (using scandals as an excuse to denigrate priests in general), and refers to such people as "irreverent persecutors" of the clergy, still, she was told by Our Lord that those who will not receive correction and those who will not give it are like the limbs of a body beginning to rot.
Throughout the Church's long history, God has used the laity - the People of God - to keep clerics on the straight and narrow path through constructive criticism. During his long and important pontificate, Pope John Paul II of happy memory regularly reminded the Church of this fact and often spoke of the right of the laity to engage in such constructive criticism.

The fact that the Church allows (and even encourages) constructive criticism is easily proven. The Code of Canon Law (specifically Canon 212) states that:

"The Christian faithful are free to make known to the pastors of the Church their needs, especially spiritual ones, and their desires. According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they have the right and even at time the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons."
Very often, disobedient clerics and the lay people who support them, will accuse Catholics faithful to the Magisterium of engaging in harsh rhetoric or hateful polemic or "negativity."  And this in a cheap attempt to shut down the conversation and efforts to offer sound correction.  A classic example of this dishonest tactic may be found here.

Our Lord wept over Jerusalem and said, "If only you knew what makes for peace" (Lk 19:42). And now we do know (those of us who are Christian in more than name). Only a life lived in conformity with the mind of Christ as shown to us by His Catholic Church can bring true peace. By contrast, "Pride inflates man; envy consumes him; avarice makes him restless; anger rekindles his passions; gluttony makes him ill; comfort destroys him; lies imprison him; murder defiles him...the very pleasures of sin become the instruments of punishment in the hands of God." (Pope Innocent III, On the Misery of the Human Condition).

It is our duty as Catholics to remind others of these truths and to expose those who are promoting sin or error. But often we will find ourselves being criticized (even by other Catholics, whose commitment toward Catholic teaching is, at best, questionable) for doing so. This should never deter us. When such people accuse us of "negativity," [or even as "threatening peace and order"], we should recall the words of Dr. Dietrich von Hildebrand: "..the rejection of evil and of sin is a response which is purely positive and morally called for, and it possesses a high moral value. One cannot truly love God, without hating the devil. One cannot really love the truth, without hating error. One cannot find the truth and grasp it clearly as such, without seeing through errors. Knowledge of truth is inseparably linked with knowledge of error, with the unmasking of error.* All talk about the superiority of 'yes' over 'no,' about the 'negativity' of rejecting that which should be rejected, is so much idle chatter." (The Cult of the 'Positive').
Indeed, as John Cardinal Newman said in his Grammar of Assent, "I would maintain that fear of error is simply necessary to the genuine love of truth." In his Introduction to the Devout Life, that precious and popular work, St. Francis de Sales, a Doctor of the Church, says that, "If the declared enemies of God and of the Church ought to be blamed and censured with all possible vigor, charity obliges us to cry wolf when the wolf slips into the midst of the flock and in every way and place we may meet him."
Pope John XXIII said essentially the same thing: "...as long as we are journeying in exile over this earth, our peace and happiness will be imperfect. For such peace is not completely untroubled and serene; it is active, not calm and motionless. In short, this is a peace that is ever at war. It wars with every sort of error, including that which falsely wears the face of truth; it struggles against the enticements of vice, against those enemies of the soul, of whatever description, who can weaken, blemish, or destroy our innocence or Catholic faith." (Ad Petri Cathedram No. 93).

Pope Paul VI, in his Apostolic Exhortation Recurrens Mensis October (The recurrence of the month of October), 1969, said that, "Undoubtedly, peace is the concern of men and a good common to all.  As such, it must be the constant care of everyone...Despite much good will, there are many interests in opposition; much selfishness is shown; many antagonisms increase; many rivalries conflict with one another.  Who does not see, then, the unflagging action demanded from each and all in order that love may triumph over discord and that peace may be restored to the city of men?"

There is no peace without God.  And no peace without prayer.  Which is why there is no peace among men.  Most men do not pray - even many of those who give lip service to prayer.  Pope Paul VI continues, "..peace is also the concern of God.  He has placed in our hearts the ardent desire for peace.  He urges us to work toward it, each doing his share, and for that purpose He sustains our feeble energies and our vacillating wills.  He alone can give us a peaceful soul, and confirm in depth and solidity our efforts for peace.  Prayer, by which we ask for the gift of peace, is therefore an irreplaceable contribution to the establishment of peace.  It is through Christ, in whom all grace is given us, that we dispose ourselves to welcome the gift of peace.  And in that undertaking, how can we do otherwise than to depend lovingly upon the incomparable intercession of Mary, His Mother, of whom the Gospel tells us that she 'found favor with God'?"

Our Lady is Mother of the Prince of Peace.  And the Prince of Peace has assured us that we can do nothing without Him.  Do we believe this?  If so, we will dispose ourselves to welcome the gift of peace by devoting ourselves to prayer - especially the Holy Rosary.

A call to false irenicism is not the answer.  Sticking our heads in the sand of denial and pretending "all is well" is not the answer.  Selfishness and self-will, obstacles to authentic peace, are overcome only through constant prayer.  As Pope Benedict XVI explained back in 2009: "Conflict and lack of reconciliation in the world stem from the fact that we are locked into our own interests and opinions, into our own little private world. Selfishness, both individual and collective, makes us prisoners of our interests and our desires that stand against the truth and separate us from one another. Awake, the Gospel tells us. Step outside, so as to enter the great communal truth, the communion of the one God. To awake, then, means to develop a receptivity for God: for the silent promptings with which he chooses to guide us; for the many indications of his presence..." (Christmas homily 2009).

Collette Power would do well to remember this.

*  Father Rosica as an example of polemical charity?  See here.

Pope Francis to meet with active sodomite and radical homosexual activist Simon Cazal

MSNBC reports:

"Pope Francis will meet with a gay rights activist in Paraguay in July, in what will be the first time the leader of the Catholic Church has publicly engaged with LGBT activists.

Recognizing the 'large impact of your organization on Paraguayan society,' Simón Cazal, executive director of SOMOSGAY, was invited to send a representative to meet with the pope at a group gathering on July 11, according to a letter obtained and posted by Buzzfeed.

SOMOSGAY lobbies for better protections and legal rights for those in the LGBT community in Paraguay — where there are no legal protections at all for gay people. Ahead of the pope’s expected visit and this invitation, SOMOSGAY launched a campaign pressing the Catholic Church to accept gay people.

'One can be lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender AND a Catholic at the same time; there is no contradiction between being an LGBT person and being a religious person. Respect for personal beliefs is inherent in democracy,' Sergio López, a SOMOSGAY activist and Cazal’s husband, said in a press release.

The invitation is the latest effort by the pope to soften the church’s approach and reach out to communities normally shunned by the Catholic Church, like divorced Catholics and gay people.

Francis famously said 'who am I to judge?' about a celibate gay priest. Earlier this year, he lunched with gay and transgender inmates in a prison."

And now, back to reality.  The Church already accepts people with a homosexual inclination.  The Catechism of the Catholic Church:

"The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition." CCC, 2358.

But homosexual activists aren't content with this.  They want the Church to affirm them in their sin. This she cannot do.

Dr. Germain Grisez, one of the finest moral theologians of our time, explains that, "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)."

Let's hope Pope Francis can remember this as he dialogues with an individual committed toward living a sinful lifestyle while encouraging others to do the same.

Below are photos of Simon Cazal and the man he claims to be married to.

Will Pope Francis tell Simon to, "Go and sin no more" or will he say, "Who am I to judge?"

Does someone at Our Lady Immaculate Parish in Athol want to harm me?

Today there is a demand for sex without love, for a licentiousness in sex which has wrought a heartless society in which individuals do not care for anyone but themselves. The fruit of this demonic theology is the slaughter through abortion and euthanasia of human beings created in the Imago Dei. It is a theology of violence which is rooted in hatred of truth. For at the heart of immorality is falsity, the hatred of truth. Fr. Vincent P. Miceli, in an essay entitled "The Taproot of Violence," explains: "...violence entered creation from the rebellion of Lucifer. This rebellion arose from the heart of pride. But the sin of pride is the offspring of the vice known as hatred of truth. Hatred of truth is the result of the creature's attempt to rearrange God's hierarchy of beings and values into an order which the creature prefers to the plan of God. This attempt immediately produces the violence of disorder, the chaos of falsity and immorality. For hatred of truth is really hatred of God who creates all things wisely and governs them lovingly. Lucifer, the Morning Star, was instantly deformed into the Prince of Darkness because he attempted to live a lie. He wanted to dethrone God and become God himself..."

We live in an environment where there is a "violence of disorder" because we have abandoned truth. And hatred of truth leads to violence. It is the very root of violence. Jesus said to the Pharisees, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I proceeded and came forth from God; I came not of my own account, but he sent me. Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies. But, because I tell the truth, you do not believe me." (John 8: 42-45).

It is rejection of truth which leads to violence. And so we read in verse 59 of the same Chapter, "So they took up stones to throw at him; but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple." If there is exaggerated rhetoric and violence across our society, it is because many have rejected God's created order. But there is a consequence to this rejection of truth.

As Dorothy Sayers reminded us, if we will not have Christ, we will have chaos.   And chaos has arrived across our culture hasn't it?

And so has violence. Readers of this Blog know that when I stood up against liturgical abuse at Our Lady Immaculate Parish in Athol, as well as an attempt to pattern the parish after the radical Paulist Center in Boston with its homosexual agitprop, not to mention the promotion of a false irenicism, I was banned from the parish Facebook page and ostracized.  One woman indicated that she would like to physically assault me. See here.

Because of my orthodoxy, I have been greeted with only hostility whenever I have attended Mass at the parish.  On the last two occasions, I returned to my vehicle only to find that someone had tampered with my tires, deflating them.  This never occurs at any other time during the week or when I attend Mass elsewhere.  I drive a newer model car with Firestone tires less than two years old.  The tires only lose pressure when I attend Mass at Our Lady Immaculate.

Driving at highway speeds with seriously underinflated tires not only compromises your handling, but increases the chances of an accident or rollover, because underinflated tires tend to overheat, and overheated tires explode.

Does someone at Our Lady Immaculate Parish in Athol have such a hatred toward me that they would like to cause me grave bodily harm? Or kill me?

Some thoughts as the Devil infiltrates the Church through intellectual pride

Every man is become foolish by his knowledge...

"Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seem to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written: I shall catch the wise in their own craftiness. And again: The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain." (1 Cor. 3, 18-20)

The Lord God spoke through the prophet Jeremiah saying, "Every man is become foolish by his knowledge: every founder is confounded by his idol, for what he hath cast is a lie, and there is no breath in them. They are vain works, and worthy to be laughed at, in the time of their visitation they shall perish" (Jer. 51: 17-18).

We have before us two kinds of wisdom, the "wisdom" of the world (which is devilish) and false and the true wisdom from above:

"Who is wise and understanding among you? By his good life let him show his works in the meekness of wisdom. But if you have bitter jealousy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast and be false to the truth. This wisdom is not such as comes down from above, but is earthly, unspiritual, devilish. For where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there will be disorder and every vile practise. But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, without uncertainty or insincerity. And the harvest of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace" (James 3: 13-18).

We've seen enough of devilish "wisdom." The "wisdom" of homosexual priests who abuse children while feigning virtue; the devilish "wisdom" of "intellectuals" who speak and write increasingly asinine things, engaging in dissent from the Magisterial teaching of Christ's Church while proclaiming themselves to be "wise"; Catholics with a string of letters after their names but who resemble Jannes and Jambres*, always learning but never coming to a knowledge of the truth.

Interestingly, a Catholic mother from Phoenix, Arizona, was allegedly given this prophecy a number of years ago:

"When intellectual Christianity will have suffered long enough it will find its heart, and the whole world will see it: then will come the peace of Christ. This peace will come first to the United States."

In his classic work entitled the "Love of Eternal Wisdom," St. Louis Marie de Montfort proposes a definition of wisdom based on etymology. In Chapter 1 Montfort says that, "In the general sense of the term wisdom means a delectable knowledge [sapida sapientia] - a taste for God and His truth" (LEW 13). For Montfort, wisdom is directly related to knowledge. However, the wisdom spoken of by this great marian saint is defined very clearly by his use of the adjective "delectable." For Montfort, such knowledge is not the theoretical or abstract knowledge of the mathematician or the moral theologian who approaches moral questions with a cold legalism akin to that of the Pharisees.

Rather, for Montfort true wisdom is a knowledge that one can taste ("savoreuse"); a knowledge which stirs the soul and which awakens one, a knowledge which shuns falsehood and deception:

"True wisdom is a taste for truth without falsehood or deception. False wisdom is a taste for falsehood disguised as truth. This false wisdom is the wisdom or the prudence of the world, which the Holy Spirit divides into three classes: earthly, sensual, and diabolical [Jas. 3:15). True wisdom may be divided into natural and supernatural wisdom. Natural wisdom is the knowledge, in an outstanding degree, of natural things in their principles. Supernatural wisdom is knowledge of supernatural and divine things in their origin. This supernatural wisdom is divided into substantial or uncreated Wisdom and accidental or created wisdom. Accidental or created wisdom is the communication that uncreated Wisdom makes of himself to mankind. In other words, it is the gift of wisdom. Substantial or uncreated Wisdom is the Son of God, the second person of the most Blessed Trinity. In other words, it is Eternal Wisdom in eternity or Jesus Christ in time" (LEW 13).

Substantial or uncreated Wisdom is Eternal Wisdom in eternity or Jesus Christ in time. And the Catholic Church is Christ's Mystical Body in the world or "in time." Why then are there so many who reject the teaching of Wisdom (Jesus) in time? The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches us that, "In order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the apostles, Christ who is the Truth willed to confer on her a share in his own infallibility. By a 'supernatural sense of faith' the People of God, under the guidance of the Church's living Magisterium, 'unfailingly adheres to this faith.'" (CCC, 889). And again:

"The mission of the Magisterium is linked to the definitive nature of the covenant established by God with his people in Christ. It is this Magisterium's task to preserve God's people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error.." (890).

Why then do so many "learned" and "intellectual" Catholics reject [dissent from] the teaching authority of the Magisterium established by Jesus Himself (Who is Eternal Wisdom in time) and choose instead to embrace contrary teachings? Because, they have preferred a false "wisdom," a devilish "wisdom" which produces a harvest not of righteousness but of "disorder and every vile practise."

In other words, such people have chosen to follow another father. The father Jesus spoke of in John 8:44.

* 2 Timothy 3:8-9.

A Church which is being increasingly effeminized...

 

Watering down the Word of God to please appease the Cult of Softness.

 

The Latin Vulgate (see the Douay-Rheims Bible) indicates that the effeminate will not inherit the Kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:10). But the New American Bible, which is used by the USCCB, omits the word effeminate:


1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (Latin Vulgate):

Verse 9: "Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: Neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers:

an nescitis quia iniqui regnum Dei non possidebunt nolite errare neque fornicarii neque idolis servientes neque adulteri

Verse 10: Nor the effeminate nor liers with mankind nor thieves nor covetous nor drunkards nor railers nor extortioners shall possess the kingdom of God.

neque molles neque masculorum concubitores neque fures neque avari neque ebriosi neque maledici neque rapaces regnum Dei possidebunt."


1Corinthians 6: 9-10 (New American Bible) posted online by the USCCB:

Verse 9: "Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor sodomites

Verse 10: nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God."

Why do you think this is so?  The Latin Vulgate, which we have obtained from the great St. Jerome, is the most precise translation of the Sacred Scriptures available.  There are many other problems with recent translations of the Scriptures.  But my focus here is on this passage.  Why has the word "effeminate" been dropped from 1 Corinthians 6?

Dr. Leon Podles writes, "Walter Ong, having been formed in a masculine, Jesuit, clerical milieu does not seem to be aware of how feminized Christianity had become even before the 1960s, but he saw a rapid shift in the Catholic Church in the 1960s toward even greater feminization...The contrasts of Christianity, grace and sin, life and death, have been toned down with a considerable loss of emotional power.  Without this power, the popular appeal of the liturgy has declined (even with a more accessible language) and church attendance has plummeted...Even the change from Latin to the vernacular was also a symptom of feminization, according to Ong.  Latin had been a means of maintaining a Latin culture in the Roman Catholic clergy.  A language restricted to men is common; it is a sign of masculine separation from the feminine world.  After it became a learned language, Latin was learned almost exclusively by men.  The system of education that used Latin and centered around Latin literature was centered around contest and disputation and was confined almost entirely to men.  The disappearance of Latin was part of the demasculinization of the clergy.." (The Church Impotent: The Feminization of Christianity, pp. 133-135).

The Cult of Softness has made such inroads that it has crippled the inner life of the Church.  Liturgy has been feminized  And now, the Sacred Scriptures (the very Word of God) must be rewritten so as not to offend more "civilized" and "refined" tastes; so as not to offend "modern man."  The Christian faith must be replaced by a self-worship which cloaks itself in language which purports to be Christian but which nevertheless remains a language which has been watered down to make it more acceptable to modernity.

Dr. Podles cites a study by Lewis M. Terman and Catherine Cox Miles, which included a Masculinity-Femininity test, writing, "Terman and Miles gathered data from three groups: Catholic seminarians, Protestant seminarians, and Protestant ministers.  As one might expect, men attracted to the religious life differed strikingly in their masculinity from the general male population: 'The Catholic student priests score at a point far less masculine than any other male group of their age; in their early twenties they are more feminine than the general male population at middle life.  The Protestant theological students in their middle twenties are, however, more feminine than they and exceed in femininity the sixty-year-old man of equal education.  The adult ministerial group is barely more masculine than the Protestant theological students and less so than the student priests.  They exceed in femininity the college men of the seventh decade.'  Terman and Miles concluded that 'some dominant factors must be present in all three groups to make them, without regard to age, conspicuously and almost equally lacking in mental masculinity.'  Interestingly enough, the similarities between the Protestant and Catholic groups and the Catholic group's slightly higher scores ruled out celibacy as a major factor in a lack of masculinity..." (P. 9).

Effeminacy (and here we are not necessarily speaking of homosexuality), has become the forgotten vice in seminary formation.  This as many masculine men continue to be excluded from pursuing priestly vocations and masculinity itself is banished to the margins of the Church.

In my own Diocese (Worcester, Mass), I have encountered a positive hostility toward masculinity on many occasions.  Just recently, the "pastor" of Saint Vincent de Paul Parish took exception to my calmly and politely requesting that a group of women refrain from engaging in loud and disruptive conversation before the tabernacle just prior to Holy Mass.  This priest left a comment at this Blog (see here) suggesting that I am somehow "frightening" because I am "a large man."

How many of you have seen the Gregory Peck/Richard Basehart film adaptation of Herman Melville's classic novel Moby Dick?  Remember the fiery sermon delivered by the minister who was portrayed powerfully by Orson Welles?  The priests I grew up with (I was a military "Brat"), were of the same sort.  They were men who knew the Sacred Scriptures.  Men who inspired a sort of military-like zeal with regard to evangelization and the spiritual life.

In a previous post, I wrote that, "A testosterone-free Church is not appealing to men.  Effeminate priests and ministers do not inspire healthy young men to consider a vocation within the Church.."  An article which may be found here, is saying essentially the same thing.  The writer asserts (and I couldn't agree more) that, "All of the outward facing disciplines within Christianity, such as apologetics, theology, ethics, etc. are de-emphasized, censored or resisted in feminized churches. There is no place for rationality, moral judgments and boundaries, debates and disagreement, confrontations and persuasion, or other manly Christian practices."

Small wonder that the Worcester Diocese has been plagued by homosexual and effeminate priests and a culture of softness and theological dissent!

Because I am a veteran and refuse to buy into the Cult of Softness and the homosexual agenda, I am unwelcome in my Diocese.  Anyone who speaks the hard truths (like Robert Spencer) is unwelcome here.  In our effeminized diocese, there is no room for manly Christian practices!

Related reading here.