Degrading women at Saint Michael's Parish in East Longmeadow, Massachusetts

"What St. Paul's profound insights teach us is that sex is not an accidental characteristic of man and woman. A human person without sex is a strange abstraction. Sex entails the very identity of each person; sex plunges to the deepest mystery of each human person. St. Paul indicates this reality when he affirms that sexual sins involve persons up to the depth of their beings. He makes a sharp distinction between sins committed outside the body, i.e., outside the depths of one's being, and those committed against one's body, i.e., against what is destined for union with God as his temple and for resurrection and glorification with Christ. Hence the sexes, and the vocations pertaining thereto, are not interchangeable. Each person is called to serve God and his fellowman, accepting gladly the sex with which one is endowed and the vocation attached to that sex.

The Dutch scholar Buijlendijk has expertly unmasked a modern error concerning the sexes. In his book Woman he says that it is only at an embryonic state of modern 'feminism' that it is naively supposed that equality of women to men means women must do all things men usually do. This error fails to honor women for it neglects their positive, unique contribution to human society. Indeed, under the guise of advancing women to equality with men, this false principle makes a final attempt to subject women completely to the tyranny of purely masculine criteria.

Women cannot be made 'copy-cat' men without degrading them by unnaturally robbing them of their femininity. A bogus masculinity does not honor or liberate women. Woman is honored and left free when she is genuinely accepted as an integral woman with all the characteristic charms of femininity. For woman contributes to human society what she alone can contribute with consummate excellence - the mothering, nurturing and training of the human family through tender love. It is the sin of sham modernity to subject women to the imperialism of the egalitarians. This would destroy the identity, the very humanity, of woman, both of which are linked mysteriously to her femininity." (Father Vincent P. Miceli, S.J., The Antichrist).

A bogus masculinity does not honor or liberate women. Bearing this in mind, examine the photos taken at Saint Michael's Parish in East Longmeadow, Massachusetts during the Easter Season. See here.

Does Father James Scahill accept the Church's teaching as expressed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and Pope John Paul II's Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, No. 4, that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful?

What do you think?


Related reading here.

Former Newsweek editor slams New York Times for creating its "own version of the scandal."

Kenneth Woodward, Newsweek's former religion editor, said that the New York Times has not been fair in its recent attempts to link the Pope with Church sex abuse cover up. See here. That's really putting it mildly. The New York Times is guilty of calumny. So too is Father James Scahill*. And it is time for Father Scahill to issue an apology to our Holy Father for this calumny and to the entire Church for his blasphemous assertion that the Catholic Church - the Mystical Body of Christ Jesus - is "insidiously evil."

Throughout all of this ugly hate campaign directed against Pope Benedict XVI, our Holy Father has been [ and this doesn't surprise me in the least] a shining example of humility and grace. It was the great Saint Francis de Sales who advised, "If you are falsely accused, excuse yourself meekly, denying your guilt, for so much you owe to truth and the edification of your neighbor. But if, after your true and honest excuse, your accusers persist, give yourself no further trouble, and do not persevere in your defense, for having paid tribute to truth, now pay tribute to humility."


* See here.

Related reading: Will VOTF, the anti-Catholic dissent group, apologize for its calumny?

Father James Scahill's Pastoral Associate belongs to a Religious Community which promotes the New Age Earth Charter

Sister Betty Broughan, SSJ, Father James Scahill's Pastoral Associate at Saint Michael's Parish in East Longmeadow, Massachusetts, is a member of the Sisters of St. Joseph of Springfield. This Religious Community promotes the dissent group Pax Christi,* the New Age Labyrinth and the New Age Earth Charter. The Earth Charter is listed at their website as one of their "ongoing social justice actions." See here.

The Earth Charter is steeped in the New Age. As I mentioned in a previous post, "Speaking about the Earth Charter and related globalism, Msgr. Michel Schooyans has said that, "In order to consolidate this holistic vision of globalism, certain obstacles have to be smoothed out and instruments put to work. Religions in general, and in the first place the Catholic religion, figure among the obstacles that have to be neutralized."

According to its founders, the Earth Charter is "a declaration of fundamental principles for building a just, sustainable, and peaceful global society in the 21st century." The Earth Charter Commission hopes that the Charter will become the common standard "by which the conduct of all individuals, organizations, businesses, governments, and transnational institutions [such as the Roman Catholic Church, my note] is to be guided and assessed."

The globalists who are behind the Earth Charter seek to promote a New Age religion which will neutralize the supernatural faith of Roman Catholicism. In the words of Archbishop Javier Lozano Barragan, "Clearly, we are faced with the total denial of Christianity." Proponents of the Earth Charter hold that the Ten Commandments are out of date and will be replaced by the fifteen principles of the Earth Charter. (See my previous post here).

Archbishop Barragan is right. The Earth Charter represents nothing less than the total denial of Christianity. It is apostasy. No wonder Sister Broughan stands with a priest who has referred to the Mystical Body of Christ - the Holy Roman Catholic Church - as "insidiously evil." Her own community is working toward the neutralization of the Catholic religion.

* See here. And here.

Sister Betty Broughan, SSJ has promoted Sister Theresa Kane, RSM

Remember Father James Scahill, the angry priest who calumniated Pope Benedict XVI and referred to the Mystical Body of Christ as "insidiously evil"? Fr. Scahill's Pastoral Associate, Sister Betty Broughan, SSJ has promoted Sister Theresa Kane, RSM, a well-known dissident religious who promotes women's ordination. When Sister Kane was scheduled to give a talk entitled "Towards the 21st Century: A New Vision for Women in Church and Society at the Mont Marie Gymnasium in the Springfield Diocese back in 2006, Sister Broughan coordinated the event. See here.

Naturally, Sister Kane's talk portrayed women as "oppressed" within the Church. We've all heard the tired mantra of angry feminist religious who have a desire to be copy-cat men. But Sister Kane offered the following gem to her audience: "In Church history Mary was pedestalized and Eve was demonized." See here.

St. Louis de Montfort explains that, "What Lucifer lost by pride Mary won by humility. What Eve ruined and lost by disobedience Mary saved by obedience. By obeying the serpent, Eve ruined her children as well as herself and delivered them up to him. Mary by her perfect fidelity to God saved her children with herself and consecrated them to his divine majesty." (True Devotion to Mary, 53).

As Fr. William Most makes clear, "The beginning of the concept that Mary is a Queen is found in the annunciation narrative. For the angel tells her that her Son will be King over the house of Jacob forever. So she, His Mother, would be a Queen.

The Fathers of the Church soon picked up these implications. A text probably coming from Origen (died c. 254: cf. Marian Studies 4, 1953, 87) gives her the title domina, the feminine form of Latin dominus, Lord. That same title also appears in many other early writers, e.g. , St. Ephrem, St. Jerome, St. Peter Chrysologus (cf. Marian Studies 4. 87-91). The word 'Queen' appears abut the sixth century, and is common thereafter (Marian Studies, 4, 91-94).

The titles 'king' and 'queen' are often used loosely, for those beings that excel in some way. Thus we call the lion the king of beasts, the rose the queen of flowers. Surely Our Lady deserves the title richly for such reasons. But there is much more.

Some inadequate reasons have been suggested: She is the daughter of David. But not every child of a king becomes a king or queen. Others have pointed out that she was free from original sin. Then, since Adam and Eve had a dominion over all things (Genesis 1. 26) she should have similar dominion. But the problem is that the royalty of Adam and Eve was largely metaphorical.

The solidly theological reasons for her title of Queen are expressed splendidly by Pius XII, in his Radiomessage to Fatima, Bendito seja (AAS 38. 266): 'He, the Son of God, reflects on His heavenly Mother the glory, the majesty and the dominion of His kingship, for, having been associated to the King of Martyrs in the unspeakable work of human Redemption as Mother and cooperator, she remains forever associated to Him, with a practically unlimited power, in the distribution of the graces which flow from the Redemption. Jesus is King throughout all eternity by nature and by right of conquest: through Him, with Him, and subordinate to Him, Mary is Queen by grace, by divine relationship, by right of conquest, and by singular choice [of the Father]. And her kingdom is as vast as that of her Son and God, since nothing is excluded from her dominion.'

We notice that there are two titles for the kingship of Christ: divine nature, and 'right of conquest', i.e., the Redemption. She is Queen 'through Him, with Him, and subordinate to Him.' The qualifications are obvious, and need no explanation. Her Queenship is basically a sharing in the royalty of her Son. We do not think of two powers, one infinite, the other finite. No, she and her Son are inseparable, and operate as a unit.

Of the four titles Pius XII gave for her Queenship, we notice that two are closely parallel to those of Jesus:

(1) He is king by nature, as God; she is Queen by 'divine relationship' that is, by being the Mother of God. In fact her relation to her Son is greater than that of ordinary Mothers of Kings. For she is the Mother of Him who is King by very nature, from all eternity, and the relationship is exclusive, for He had no human father. Still further, the ordinary queen-mother gives birth to a child who later will become king. The son of Mary is, as we said, eternally king, by His very nature. (2) He is king by right of conquest. She too is Queen by right of conquest. We already saw that this title for Him means that He redeemed us from the captivity of satan. She shared in the struggle and victory. Since the Pope expressed her dependence on Him in a threefold way--something we would have known anyway--then it is clear that he did not have in mind any other restriction which he did not express. So, maintaining this subordination, "by right of conquest" means the same for her as it does for Him.

The other two titles: (3) She is Queen by grace. She is full of grace, the highest in the category of grace besides her Son. (4) She is Queen by singular choice of the Father. A mere human can become King or Queen by choice of the people. How much greater a title is the choice of the Father Himself!

Pius XII added that 'nothing is excluded from her dominion.' As Mediatrix of all graces, who shared in earning all graces, she is, as Benedict XV said, 'Suppliant omnipotence': she, united with her Son, can obtain by her intercession anything that the all-powerful God can do by His own inherent power.

In the Old Testament, under some Davidic kings, the gebirah, the 'Great Lady', usually the Mother of the King, held great power as advocate with the king. Cf. 1 Kings 2:20, where Solomon said to his Mother Bathsheba, seated on a throne at his right: 'Make your request, Mother, for I will not refuse you.' Here is a sort of type of Our Lady. (See here).

It's no great surprise that Father Scahill has a cult-following. The culture of dissent at Saint Michael's Parish in East Longmeadow, Massachusetts has spread like a cancer. Which is why VOTF has found a home there.

Hans Kung and Father James Scahill: Prophets of a Humanitarian Religion and a Theology of Violence...

In recent weeks we've witnessed dissident theologian Hans Kung, who has called for a New World Order, urge Bishops to disobey the Pope. And we have witnessed Father James Scahill, who has referred to the Mystical Body of Christ as "insidiously evil," calumniate the Holy Father. Both of these confused men are modernists. And Modernism is a theology of violence. It is militant, socialistic and revolutionary. It is a theology from Hell and a morality of absolute sexual permissiveness. Which is why Father Scahill couldn't bring himself to distribute or collect petitions opposing same-sex "marriage." The modernist is a person who trusts only in himself. He has lost his faith in Jesus Christ, His Holy Church and her doctrines. But he cannot acknowledge this fact. And so, he continues to employ the same words faithful Catholics use within the Church but he empties them of Catholic meaning. The sure road to Modernism is pride. We have this from Pope St. Pius X: "Truly there is no road which leads so directly and so quickly to Modernism as pride. When a Catholic layman or priest forgets the precept of the Christian life which obliges us to renounce ourselves if we would follow Christ and neglects to tear pride from his heart, then it is he who most of all is fully ripe subject for the errors of Modernism..." (Pascendi Dominici Gregis).

It was the philosopher George Santayana who described Modernism thusly: "Modernism...is the love of all Christianity in those who perceive that it is all a fable. It is the historic attachment to his Church of a Catholic who has discovered that he is a pagan...The Modernists are men of the Renaissance, pagan, pantheistic in their profounder sentiment, to whom the hard and narrow realism of official Christianity is offensive just because it presupposes that Christianity is true...As for Modernism, it is suicide. It is the last of those concessions to the spirit of the world which half-believers and double-minded prophets have always been found making; but it is a mortal concession. It concedes everything; for it concedes that everything in Christianity, as Christians hold it, is an illusion." But because the Magisterium faithfully passes down the Tradition of Catholic Teaching received from the Apostles, Santayana, commenting on the modernists' opposition to Rome, notes, "The modernist feels himself full of love for everybody...except for the Pope."

Father Scahill and Hans Kung have succumbed to the disease of Modernism. They are false prophets who advance the notion that we can guide ourselves and that God's revealed Word is not our sovereign rule of conduct. But the words of St. Maximus continue to echo throughout the centuries: "He speaks in vain who tries to persuade me of the orthodoxy of those who refuse obedience to His Holiness the Pope of the most Holy Church of Rome.

The goal of these false prophets is to convert the Catholic Church, to remold it into a new Humanitarian Religion emptied of supernatural content. A false religion built in the image and likeness of man which will welcome the Man of Sin.

Put the blame where it really belongs - on the abuser

From The Catholic Register
By Dorothy Pilarski


I got a call one day from a good friend who was disturbed by how some of her family and friends might respond to a television program. I did not see the program, but it was about the sex scandal in the Catholic Church.

Here’s how I respond to well meaning friends, family and associates who try to enlighten me about the problems in the Church.

First, I always agree with my opponent. “Sexual abuse is terrible whether it is inside the Church or inside a family.”

Second, I like to state: “While the Church is supernatural (having existed for over 2,000) years, it is also made up of humans with a fallen nature (original sin). Each of the individuals involved in sex abuse or its cover up will be judged by God individually.”

Third, I have in the past apologized on the behalf of the Church. Once when a woman told me about some bad experience she had, I said: “I trust what you said is true, and on the behalf of the Catholic Church I apologize for that priest’s behaviour. Will you forgive us and come back?” (That only works in specific situations). Many Church leaders, including Pope Benedict XVI, have come out and formally apologized for these transgressions.

Fourth, my favourite, is the analogy of family. The Church is just like a family. There are things that happen within families that are embarrassing and painful. For example, say your Uncle Bill did something really terrible, do you judge the entire clan by his actions? Do you invite Uncle Bill to the wedding? Do you leave the family or divorce yourself from it because of Uncle Bill? Do you stop associating with Uncle Bill’s friends, professional colleagues or organization he may have worked for?

Sex abuse happens in schools. Do people take their children out of school because of it? Do they judge the educational system and the curriculum because of sex offenders?

Sex abuse happens in families. Do we reject the institution of family or marriage because a grave sin occurred in it? Sex abuse, I think between father and daughter is the gravest. Do we deem all fathers as being “bad”?

Of course not. That would be ridiculous.

Of course sex abuse is evil and hideous, but using it to attack the Church is, in my mind, a tactic of the devil. I suspect there are priests and bishops right now in hell or purgatory because of their lives on Earth. But I am sure that there are many, many, many holy priests who do not receive the love and respect they deserve because of the transgressions of their brothers in Christ.

I like to think of the analogy of a woman who used to have an abusive husband, hating all men and not being able to enter into a relationship with any man because of her emotional scars. Counselling her to love men would be difficult and would require healing.

Our job as Catholics is to defend the Church rationally and intelligently, not stand around with our tails between our legs, compliantly agreeing with whatever we see or hear on television.

Our most valuable treasures in the Church are the sacraments, particularly the Eucharist.

People should be reminded that if they focus on the sacraments, they will be given the grace to work through all their spiritual challenges. Whenever I am tempted or attacked, or whenever someone pushes my buttons, I know the first thing I have to do is run to the sacrament of Reconciliation. Our focus should be on Jesus and not on the transgressions of sinners!

Finally, I am reminded of the words of Henri J.M. Nouwen, who wrote:

“Over the centuries the Church has done enough to make any critical person want to leave it. Its history of violent crusades, pogroms, power struggles, oppression, excommunications, executions, manipulation of people and ideas, and constantly recurring divisions is there for everyone to see and be appalled by.*

“Can we believe that this is the same Church that carries in its centre the Word of God and the sacraments of God’s healing love? Can we trust that in the midst of all its human brokenness the Church presents the broken body of Christ to the world as food for eternal life? Can we acknowledge that where sin is abundant grace is superabundant, and that where promises are broken over and over again God’s promise stands unshaken? To believe is to answer yes to these questions.”

(Dorothy Pilarski, a professional speaker and consultant, can be reached at http://www.dorothypilarski.com/.)

Related reading here and here.


* Militant atheists are fond of reminding us that there have been people who committed acts of violence "in the name of religion." And of course this is true. But the Church always condemned such abuses in her teaching. But far more violence has been committed under the banner of atheism. As historian Paul Johnson put it, "Certainly, mankind without Christianity conjures up a dismal prospect. The record of mankind with Christianity is daunting enough....The dynamism it has unleashed has brought masacre and torture, intolerance and destructive pride on a huge scale, for there is a cruel and pitiless nature in man which is sometimes impervious to Christian restraints and encouragements. But without these restraints, bereft of these encouragements, how much more horrific the history of these last 2,000 years must have been!....In the last generation, with public Christianity in headlong retreat, we have caught our first, distant view of a de-Christianized world, and it is not encouraging." (A History of Christianity, p. 517).

Yes, there have been men who were "impervious to Christian restraints." But the Church may not be held responsible for this. Christianity is not the failure here. Rather those who failed to live up to the demands of the Gospel are to blame. But to the extent that such men committed acts of violence "in the name of religion," may we not justly conclude that such men were really atheists?

Atheism can be either speculative or practical. The practical atheist is one whose words and actions suggest that he does not really believe in God or following His holy will.

But nothing can match the barbaric record of violence under atheistic humanism. Which is what Mr. Johnson means when he writes, "In the last generation, with public Christianity in headlong retreat, we have caught our first, distant view of a de-Christianized world, and it is not encouraging.."

The Church is unfailingly holy even when her members sin.

How serious is the sin of scandal when committed by a priest?

In recent posts I have examined Father James Scahill's blasphemous assertion that the Holy Catholic Church is "insidiously evil." Just how serious is the sin of scandal when committed by a priest? St. Alphonsus De Liguori, a Doctor of the Church and a moral theologian, explains that, "The Lord ordained in Leviticus that for the sin of a single priest a calf should be offered, as well as for the sins of the entire people. From this Innocent III concludes that the sin of a priest is as grievous as the sins of the whole people. The reason is, says the Pontiff, that by his sin the priest leads the entire people into sin ('Unde conjicitur quod peccatum Sacerdotis totius multitudinis peccato coaequatur, quia Sacerdos in suo peccato totam fecit delinquere multitudinem' - In Consecr. Pont. s. I.) And, long before, the Lord himself said the same: 'If the priest that is anointed shall sin, he maketh the people to offend.' Hence, St. Augustine, addressing priests, says, 'Do not close heaven: but this you do if you give to others a bad example to lead a wicked life.' Our Lord said one day to St. Bridget, that when sinners see the bad example of the priest, they are encouraged to commit sin, and even begin to glory in the vices of which they were before ashamed. Hence our Lord added that worse maledictions shall fall on the priest than on others, because by his sinful life he brings himself and others to perdition.'...says St. John Chrysostom, the life of the priest is the root from which the people, who are the branches, receive nutriment. St. Ambrose also says that priests are the head from which virtue flows to the members, that is, to seculars. The whole head is sick, says the Prophet Isaias;...from the sole of the foot unto the top of the head there is no soundness therein. St. Isidore explains this passage in the following words: 'This languishing head is the priest that commits sin, and that communicates his sin to the whole body.' St. Leo weeps over this evil, saying, 'How can health be found in the body if the head be not sound?' Who, says St. Bernard, shall seek in a sink the limpid water of the spring? Shall I, adds the saint, seek counsel from the man that knows not how to give counsel to himself? Speaking of the bad example of princes, Plutarch says, that it poisons not a single cup, but the public fountain; and thus, because all draw from the fountain, all are poisoned. This may be said with greater truth of the bad example of priests; hence Eugene III has said that bad Superiors are the principal causes of the sins of inferiors...St. Bernardine of Sienna writes that many, seeing the bad example of the scandalous ecclesiastic, begin even to waver in faith, and thus abandon themselves to vice, despising the sacraments, hell, and heaven." (St. Alphonsus De Liguori, Dignity and Duties of the Priest, pp. 142-144, 149).

Canon 1364 of the Code of Canon Law: "...an apostate from the faith, a heretic or a schismatic incurs automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication and if a cleric, he can also be punished by the penalties mentioned in can. 1336.."

The Kasama Project praises Father James Scahill

In a Blog post which may be found here, the Kasama Project has high-praise for Father James Scahill. The Kasama Project, as explained here, is "..a United States-based network of people organized to support a Communist project for the forcible overthrow and transformation of all existing social conditions." The organization was founded by Mike Ely, an activist formerly with the Revolutionary Communist Party USA.

Indeed many individuals and groups with a revolutionary agenda are falling behind the heretical Roman Catholic priest including the Billerico Project, a radical homosexual activist group which includes Catholic priests as members. This is all the more disturbing since the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in its Letter to Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons," had this to say: "All support should be withdrawn from any organizations which seek to undermine the teaching of the Church, which are ambiguous about it, or which neglect it entirely. Such support, or even the semblance of such support, can be gravely misinterpreted."

Fr. Scahill and those who stand with him are not celebrating the teachings of Christ. They are revolutionaries seeking to dethrone God, the Church and the world of sacred values. They are deluded souls preparing the way for the Son of Perdition who will weave together his totalitarian rule of heresy, sedition, revolution, schism and every evil movement to employ these most effectively against the Church.

Message to Father James Scahill: a humble mea culpa and not an arrogant vestra culpa is necessary...

Father James Scahill of Saint Michael's Parish in East Longmeadow, Massachusetts has just said, "My life's purpose is to celebrate the teachings of Christ but in order to do that - in order to rebuild his Church - we must acknowledge and atone for our mistakes." See here:

http://stmichaelsel.org/PDFS/FrScahill%20OpeningStatement%204-18-10.pdf


It would appear, then, that Father Scahill has failed in his life's purpose. For he has referred to the Mystical Body of Christ as "insidiously evil." The Church which is the unblemished bride of the unblemished lamb.

Father Scahill says he wants to help "rebuild the Church." He can best accomplish this by rebuilding his own faith life. Rather than arrogantly issuing a vestra culpa (your fault), Father Scahill would do well to issue a humble mea culpa (my fault). His failure to notify the proper authorities with regard to Father Richard Lavigne's "bothering children" and having sleepovers at the rectory has been documented. His public calumny against Pope Benedict XVI constitutes [objectively speaking] a mortal sin. His reference to the unblemished Church as "insidiously evil" constitutes an act of blasphemy.

In Catholic moral theology,blasphemy, which can be either directly against God or indirectly against Him by blaspheming the Church or her saints, is a sin against the virtue of religion; Aquinas terms it a sin against faith. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (which Fr. Scahill should familiarize himself with) teaches us that: "Blasphemy is directly opposed to the second commandment. It consists in uttering against God - inwardly or outwardly - words of hatred, reproach, or defiance; in speaking ill of God; in failing in respect toward him in one's speech; in misusing God's name. St. James condemns those 'who blaspheme that honorable name [of Jesus] by which you are called.' The prohibition of blasphemy extends to language against Christ's Church, the saints, and sacred things..." (2148).

It is admirable to want to "rebuild the Church." But one must always begin an authentic reform by reforming one's own life. One cannot, after all, pass along to others faith, hope and charity when one does not possess these theological virtues himself.

The enemies of the Church want to destroy belief in the divinity of Christ...

John Henry Cardinal Newman, who was truly a prophet, warned more than a hundred years ago of the desolation which we are experiencing today: "Surely there is at this day a confederacy of evil, marshalling its hosts from all parts of the world, organizing itself, taking its measures, enclosing the Church of Christ in a net, and preparing the way for a general apostasy from it..."

It is no secret today that the enemies of the Church want to destroy belief in the divinity of Christ. For, as Fr. Vincent Miceli, S.J., explained, "Once the liturgy is humanized, Christ the Center and Object of it becomes the humanist par excellence, the liberator, the revolutionary, the Marxist ushering in the millenium; he ceases to be the Divine Redeemer. We must be alerted to those who plan, by convincing us to abandon our sacred forms, at length to seduce us into denying our Christian faith altogether. The Church is attacked by these Sons of Satan, in and outside her fold, because she is a living form, the sacrament - sign and instrument - of communion with God and of unity among all men; because she is the visible body of Religion. Hence these shrewd masters of sedition know that when her sacred forms go, religion will also go. Violate the lex orandi and you must inevitably destroy the lex credendi. That is why they rail against so many devotions as superstitions, why they propose so many alterations and changes, a tactic cleverly calculated to shake the foundations of faith...."

We are approaching the day prophesied by Romano Guardini in The Lord, "One day the Antichrist will come: a human being who introduces an order of things in which rebellion against God will attain its ultimate power. He will be filled with enlightenment and strength. The ultimate aim of all aims will be to prove that existence without Christ is possible - nay rather, that Christ is the enemy of existence, which can be fully realized only when all Christian values have been destroyed.." (p. 513).

Inflated in their rebellion against the God-Man, the Sons of Satan, those committed toward the atheistic program of attacking the Church from without and undermining it from within in preparation for the Man-God, will continue to intensify their persecution of craftiness and subversion until it reaches its culmination in an explosion of hate-filled rage which will bear much blood and death. Father Livio Fanzaga, writing about the Antichrist, says that, "Catholicism alone will resist him. How then do we destroy this superstition which alone obstructs the world's self-revelation? How do we destroy this superstition which divides mankind and which prevents man from being truly brotherly and free? The true Antichrist is revealed in the replies to these questions. Here is perceived his profound being as the man of iniquity. He will not tolerate the idea of men who adore any god other than himself. His intolerance obliges him to make an exception to his pacifism and his philosophy of non-violence. He is the greatest pacifist in the history of the human race, but because peace and justice really reign on earth he will make an exception to kill and destroy the great superstition of Catholicism, once and for all time..." (Wrath of God: The Days of the Antichrist, p. 124).

Already the signs of hatred and persecution are emerging. In East Longmeadow, Massachusetts, a Catholic priest who called the Mystical Body of Christ "insidiously evil" received a standing ovation. The cancer of infidelity has made such inroads even into the Church. These Sons of Satan will welcome the Man of Sin. They will celebrate him. They will adore him. And they will do so because they do not really belong to Christ.

Parishioners stand behind dissident priest Father James Scahill who calumniated Pope Benedict XVI

WWLP 22News is reporting that parishioners at Saint Michael's Parish in East Longmeadow, Massachusetts gave dissident priest Father James Scahill a standing ovation after he gave his homily yesterday, the first since he called upon Pope Benedict XVI to step down. Even though Fr. Scahill has calumniated the Holy Father, even though he has referred to the Mystical Body of Christ as "insidiously evil," even though he knew about Father Richard Lavigne molesting childen and didn't act on it, he has his supporters.

This should not come as a surprise. Even within the Catholic Church, charismatic individuals can inspire a cult-following. Religious communities (and a parish is a religious community) can fall victim to the cult phenomenon. In his book "Cults, Sects, and the New Age," Father James LeBar, who has served as a Consultant on Cults for the Archdiocese of New York, notes, "...to be sure,..cultic behavior is possible at any time in any place. It has also been demonstrated that some legitimate actions of Catholic Church groups can be carried to excess, so that the cult label is applied....Church leaders must be vigilant to make sure that cultic practices do not creep into otherwise legitimate groups." (p. 99).

As I noted in a previous post, the Catholic Church is the Mystical Body of Christ. This is the authentic and authoritative teaching of Vatican II: "The head of this body is Christ. He is the image of the invisible God and in him all things came into being. He is before all creatures and in him all things hold together. He is the head of the body which is the Church." (Lumen Gentium, No. 7). But Father Scahill has referred to Christ's Body as "insidiously evil." This statement constitutes heresy* as it is a clear statement accusing Christ Jesus Himself of being "evil." Heresy is the post-baptismal denial or doubt by a Catholic of any truth that must be believed as part of Divine Revelation (See Canon 751 of the Code of Canon Law). Heresy, if formal, is the deliberate resistance to God's authority, punishable by automatic excommunication (See Canon 1364).

Competent ecclesiastical authorities need to initiate an investigation into the ministry of Father James Scahill and the parish he serves. Let's all pray that this matter will be treated with the seriousness it deserves. It is not enough to call Father Scahill's remarks "unfortunate." They are more than that. They are heretical.


* "The Church...is held, as a matter of faith, to be unfailingly holy. This is because Christ, the Son of God, who with the Father and the Spirit is hailed as 'alone holy,' loved the Church as his Bride, giving himself up for her so as to sanctify her; he joined her to himself as his body and endowed her with the gift of the Holy Spirit for the glory of God. The Church, then, is 'the holy People of God,' and her members are called 'saints.'" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 823).

Father James Scahill, who has lost sight of the fullness of priesthood which Bishops enjoy, continues to be a source of division

Father James Scahill continues to be a source of division among Catholics in Hampshire County, Massachusetts. The dissident priest, who has engaged in calumny against Pope Benedict XVI while referring to the Mystical Body of Christ as "insidiously evil," has become a source of division because he has forgotten the teaching of Vatican II on the ministry and life of priests as outlined in Presbyterorum Ordinis, No. 7: "All priests, in union with bishops, so share in one and the same priesthood and ministry of Christ that the very unity of their consecration and mission requires their hierarchical communion with the order of bishops....Priests, never losing sight of the fullness of the priesthood which the bishops enjoy, must respect in them the authority of Christ, the supreme shepherd. They must therefore stand by their bishops in sincere charity and obedience.

The faithful expect their priests to be men of faith and prayer who provide an example of charity. They want to see Christ's love incarnate in the life of a priest. And Father Scahill has failed in this regard.

VOTF continues its calumny against Pope Benedict XVI...

VOTF, the anti-Catholic dissent group which imparted its "Priest of Integrity" award to Father James Scahill, the out-of-control cleric who referred to Jesus as "insidiously evil," and calumniated Pope Benedict XVI on Divine Mercy Sunday, continues to calumniate the Holy Father and the Church's hierarchy. See here.

The time has come for the U.S. Bishops to denounce this organization as a body. VOTF is not a Catholic organization and the group fails to live up to the demands of the Catholic apostolate which were laid out extensively at Vatican II. For example, in its Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity (Apostolicam Actuositatem), Vatican II had this to say:

"Whether the lay apostolate is exercised by the faithful as individuals or as members of organizations, it should be incorporated into the apostolate of the whole Church according to a right system of relationships. Indeed, union with those whom the Holy Spirit has assigned to rule His Church (cf. Acts 20:28) is an essential element of the Christian apostolate. No less necessary is cooperation among various projects of the apostolate which must be suitably directed by the hierarchy.

Indeed, the spirit of unity should be promoted in order that fraternal charity may be resplendent in the whole apostolate of the Church, common goals may be attained, and destructive rivalries avoided. For this there is need for mutual esteem among all the forms of the apostolate in the Church and, with due respect for the particular character of each organization, proper coordination. This is most fitting since a particular activity in the Church requires harmony and apostolic cooperation on the part of both branches of the clergy, the Religious, and the laity." (No. 23).

VOTF has violated these principles of the Catholic apostolate. The organization actively encourages opposition to Church teaching and is now engaged in a calumny which, objectively speaking, constitutes a mortal sin since it is calculated to to serious harm to the reputations of certain members of the Church's hierarchy and most especially the Holy Father.

Canon Law defines the obligations and rights of the Christian faithful. Canon 212 states clearly that, "In accord with the knowledge, competence and preeminence which they possess, they have the right and even at times a duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church, and they have a right to make their opinion known to the other Christian faithful, with due regard for the integrity of faith and morals and reverence toward their pastors, with consideration for the common good and the dignity of persons."

VOTF has failed to show "due regard for the integrity of faith and morals" and "reverence toward their pastors." Calumny directed against the Church's Pastors does not constitute reverence. Nor has VOTF shown anything but contempt for the common good. VOTF is not sreving the good of the Church. The organization has betrayed the Church and has shown itself willing to engage in hateful calumny as it sows destructive rivalries within the Mystical Body of Christ.

Let's hope the U.S. Bishops will take action and soon.


Related reading here and here.


What did Fr. Scahill know about abuse and when?

Father James Scahill and what is appropriate at Holy Mass...

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in its Instruction entitled "Considerations Regarding Proposals To Give Legal Recognition To Unions Between Homosexual Persons," has this to say in nos. 2-4:

"The Church's teaching on marriage and on the complementarity of the sexes reiterates a truth that is evident to right reason and recognized as such by all the major cultures of the world. Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It was established by the Creator with its own nature, essential properties and purpose. No ideology can erase from the human spirit the certainty that marriage exists solely between a man and a woman, who by mutual personal gift, proper and exclusive to themselves, tend toward the communion of their persons. In this way, they mutually perfect each other, in order to cooperate with God in the procreation and upbringing of new human lives.

The natural truth about marriage was confirmed by the Revelation contained in the biblical accounts of creation, an expression also of the original human wisdom, in which the voice of nature itself is heard. There are three fundamental elements of the Creator's plan for marriage, as narrated in the Book of Genesis.

In the first place, man, the image of God, was created "male and female" (Gen 1:27). Men and women are equal as persons and complementary as male and female. Sexuality is something that pertains to the physical-biological realm and has also been raised to a new level — the personal level — where nature and spirit are united.

Marriage is instituted by the Creator as a form of life in which a communion of persons is realized involving the use of the sexual faculty. "That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife and they become one flesh" (Gen 2:24).

Third, God has willed to give the union of man and woman a special participation in his work of creation. Thus, he blessed the man and the woman with the words "Be fruitful and multiply" (Gen 1:28). Therefore, in the Creator's plan, sexual complementarity and fruitfulness belong to the very nature of marriage.

Furthermore, the marital union of man and woman has been elevated by Christ to the dignity of a sacrament. The Church teaches that Christian marriage is an efficacious sign of the covenant between Christ and the Church (cf. Eph 5:32). This Christian meaning of marriage, far from diminishing the profoundly human value of the marital union between man and woman, confirms and strengthens it (cf. Mt 19:3-12; Mk 10:6-9).

There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God's plan for marriage and family. Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law. Homosexual acts "close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved."

And in an Instruction entitled "Some Considerations Concerning The Response To Legislative Proposals On The Non-Discrimination Of Homosexual Persons," issued on July 22, 1992, the CDF had this to say: "'Sexual orientation' does not constitute a quality comparable to race, ethnic background, etc. in respect to non-discrimination. Unlike these, homosexual orientation is an objective disorder and evokes moral concern." (No. 10). And again: "Including 'homosexual orientation' among the considerations on the basis of which it is illegal to discriminate can easily lead to regarding homosexuality as a positive source of human rights, for example, in respect to so-called affirmative action or preferential treatment in hiring practices. This is all the more deleterious since there is no right to homosexuality which therefore should not form the basis for judicial claims. The passage from the recognition of homosexuality as a factor on which basis it is illegal to discriminate can easily lead, if not automatically, to the legislative protection and promotion of homosexuality. A person's homosexuality would be invoked in opposition to alleged discrimination, and thus the exercise of rights would be defended precisely via the affirmation of the homosexual condition instead of in terms of a violation of basic human rights." (No. 13).

And yet, Father James Scahill, VOTF's "Priest of Integrity," the same confused dissident priest who thought it was appropriate to level false accusations against the Holy Father on Divine Mercy Sunday and to call for His Holiness to "step down," didn't feel it was appropriate to oppose same-sex "marriage" during Holy Mass. Back in 2004, WWLP-TV22 reported that Fr. Scahill had chosen not to distribute or even collect petitions in opposition to same-sex "marriage" as Catholic parishes across Massachusetts were doing.

When 22News asked Fr. Scahill why he had decided against distributing or collecting the petitions upholding the Church's authoritative teaching on same-sex unions, he responded, This is a parish that is all embracing and all welcoming...to do this on a weekend to me is not appropriate and I believe the majority of people at St. Michael's would agree with me..." Let's hope not. Apparently St. Michael's is not "all welcoming" when it comes to the Church's authentic teaching on marriage.

Why am I not surprised? Time for Father Scahill to go.

Father James Scahill, VOTF's "Priest of Integrity" knew about Father Lavigne and said nothing.

Update on Father James Scahill:

Voice of the Faithful (VOTF) awarded its "Priest of Integrity" award to Fr. James Scahill, who has used his pulpit to call upon Pope Benedict XVI to step down while denouncing various Church officials for the way they handled reports of abuse. Fr. Scahill knew that Father Richard Lavigne was bothering children and never said or did anything about it back in the early 1990s. See here. The question is: how much did Fr. Scahill know? Did he know children were being sexually abused? How were these children being "bothered"?

It looks like VOTF has its own definition of "integrity." More on Fr. Richard Lavigne here.

Related: What VOTF and other dissenting individuals and groups don't want you to know:
The link between homosexuality and sex abuse. Courtesy of the Catholic League.

Father James Scahill denies the Catholic Church is the Church of Christ...

For Father James Scahill, Jesus Christ is "insidiously evil."

Father James Scahill, the dissident priest who has received high praise from the anti-Catholic dissent group Voice of the Faithful (VOTF) and has used his pulpit to level false accusations against the Holy Father, has said that the Catholic Church is "not the church of Jesus Christ" and is "insidiously evil." One cannot help but wonder why he stays then. Of course, in saying that the Catholic Church is not the Church of Jesus Christ, Father Scahill is placing himself outside of the Church's communion.

In his Encyclical Letter Satis Cognitum, Pope Leo XIII explained that "...There is clear and abundant proof in Sacred Scripture that there is one genuine Church of Jesus Christ. All agree on this and no Christian would dare deny it." And Pope Pius XII, in Mystici Corporis, teaches us that: "Our divine Redeemer also governs his mystical body in a visible and ordinary way through his vicar on earth..after he himself had ruled the 'little flock' in a visible manner during his mortal pilgrimage, when about to leave this world and return to the Father, Christ our Lord entrusted to the Prince of the Apostles the visible government of the entire community He had founded. He was all wise; and it was absolutely necessary for him to provide with a visible head the body of the Church he had founded as a human society. Nor against this may one argue that the primacy of jurisdiction established in the Church gives such a mystical body two heads. For Peter in virtue of his primacy is only Christ's vicar; so that there is only one chief head of this body, namely Christ. He never ceases personally to guide the Church by an unseen hand, though at the same time he rules it externally, visibly through him who is his representative on earth. After his glorious Ascension into heaven, this Church rests not on him alone, but on Peter, too, its visible foundation stone. That Christ and his vicar constitute only one head is the solemn teaching of Our predecessor of immortal memory, Boniface VIII, in the Apostolic Letter Unam sanctam; and his successors have never ceased to repeat the same. Therefore, those who believe that they can accept Christ as the head of the Church, without giving loyal adherence to his vicar on earth, walk the path of dangerous error. They have taken away the visible head, broken the visible bonds of unity, and they so disfigure the true concept of the mystical body of the Redeemer that it cannot be recognized or found by those who are seeking the haven of eternal salvation.."

In the same Encyclical Letter, Pope Pius XII describes the Church as a "perfect society." He writes, "..the Church, which should be considered a perfect society in its own right, is not made up of merely moral and juridical elements and principles. It is far superior to all other human societies,; it surpasses them as grace surpasses nature, as things immortal are above all those that perish.."

But Father Scahill has referred to the Mystical Body of Christ, this "perfect society," as "insidiously evil." And so, Father Scahill has called Christ insidiously evil, for the Church is His Mystical Body. Recall that when Saul was persecuting the Church, Our Lord Jesus came to him and identified Himself as "Jesus whom you are persecuting." (Acts 9: 5). Every attack on the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, is an attack on Jesus Himself.

And He has promised to repay each according to his deeds.

Related reading:

The Church remains spotless when her members sin.

Fr. Fessio, S.J., Getting the story straight.

Father James Scahill accuses the Holy Father of being untruthful...

More hypocrisy from the liberal corner of the Catholic Church.




Fr. James Scahill, pastor of Saint Michael's Parish in East Longmeadow, Massachusetts, used his pulpit yesterday to call upon Pope Benedict XVI to step down. Father Scahill accused the Holy Father of not being truthful but failed to back up his wild accusations with anything of substance. In other words, Father Scahill is merely regurgitating what he's heard from the liberal media or other anti-Catholic sources.





Interestingly, Father Scahill has received the "priest of integrity" award from the radical dissent group "Voice of the Faithful" - VOTF, an organization which has been referred to by many Bishops as "anti-Catholic." See here. One is known by the company one keeps. But enough of Father Scahill's fantasy. His groundless accusations are a matter for the Catholic League to address.

But I am reminded of a pro-life prophet I defended some two years ago at this Blog. Remember Deacon Tom McDonnell from the Diocese of Buffalo, New York who was criticized by his own Bishop, Edward Kmiec, and many throughout the Catholic media (mostly those in liberal circles) - but sadly also Deal Hudson - for having the courage to correct the errors of U.S. Representative Brian Higgins (for his pro-abortion positions) from the pulpit? Bishop Kmiec issued a statement saying that, "The pulpit is not the appropriate place for confronting a member of the congregation..." I refuted this silly notion here.

Why are the Catholic media not saying the same thing now? If the pulpit is "not the appropriate place" for confronting a Culture of Death politician, should it be used to attack the Vicar of Christ with false accusations?

Anyone?

Related reading here.

Washington Post: Pope did not impede defrocking of priest.