Cardinal Victor Fernández and the Dictatorship of Relativism

Father Dominic Mary, MFVA, in the first of three homilies which draws from the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the role of truth in the vocation of the Christian, explains that:

"In today’s Gospel Jesus says, “I am the way and the truth and the life.”

I. To Live the Truth

CCC, 2466 In Jesus Christ, the whole of God's truth has been made manifest. "Full of grace and truth," he came as the "light of the world," he is the Truth. "Whoever believes in me may not remain in darkness." The disciple of Jesus continues in his word so as to know "the truth [that] will make you free" and that sanctifies. To follow Jesus is to live in "the Spirit of truth," whom the Father sends in his name and who leads "into all the truth."

CCC, 2464 [To represent the truth correctly …] flows from [our] vocation [as Christians] to bear witness to God who is the truth and wills the truth. Offenses against the truth express by word or deed a refusal to commit oneself to moral uprightness: they are fundamental infidelities to God and, in this sense, they undermine the foundations of [our] covenan[tal relationship].

CCC, 2467 Man tends by nature toward the truth. He is obliged to honor and bear witness to it. [As the Second Vatican Council said]: "It is in accordance with their dignity that all men, because they are persons . . . are both impelled by their nature and bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth. They are also bound to adhere to the truth once they come to know it and direct their whole lives in accordance with the demands of truth..."

Indeed, it is imperative that before someone can become a Catholic,  he must satisfy himself that all questions pertaining to faith and morals have been answered and are contained in a Deposit of Faith (Depositum Fidei) revealed by Almighty God as infallibly true.

But for porno "theologian" Cardinal Victor Fernández, this is not so. He asserts that bloggers who accept the infallibly revealed Deposit of Faith are intellectually arrogant since, "We cannot have a complete understanding" of any truth.

The dictatorship of relativism, of which Cardinal Fernández is a false prophet, seeks to impose its immoral agenda on Christians in the name of "tolerance." But this "tolerance" is a sham. It is simply an attempt to make an idol out of a false conception of freedom. Pope Benedict XVI explains that, "..what clearly stands behind the modern era's radical demand for freedom is the promise: You will be like God...The implicit goal of all modern freedom movements is, in the end, to be like a god, dependent on nothing and nobody, with one's own freedom not restricted by anyone else's...The primeval error of such a radically developed desire for freedom lies in the idea of a divinity that is conceived as being purely egotistical. The god thus conceived of is, not God, but an idol, indeed, the image of what the Christian tradition would call the devil, the anti-god, because therein lies the radical opposite of the true God: the true God is, of his own nature, being-for (Father), being-from (Son), and being-with (Holy Spirit). Yet man is in the image of God precisely because the being-for , from, and with constitute the basic anthropological shape. Whenever people try to free themselves from this, they are moving, not toward divinity, but toward dehumanizing, toward the destruction of being itself through the destruction of truth. The Jacobin variant of the idea of liberation...is a rebellion against being human in itself, rebellion against truth, and that is why it leads people - as Sartre percipiently observed - into a self-contradictory existence that we call hell. It has thus become fairly clear that freedom is linked to a yardstick, the yardstick of reality - to truth. Freedom to destroy oneself or to destroy others is not freedom but a diabolical parody. The freedom of man is a shared freedom, freedom in a coexistence of other freedoms, which are mutually limiting and thus mutually supportive: freedom must be measured according to what I am, what we are - otherwise it abolishes itself."

Rome is losing the Faith as prophesied by Our Lady of La Salette. 

Related reading here.

Francis once again denies Our Lady is Co-Redemptrix

 

Once again, Francis the Modernist has denied that Our Lady is Co-Redemptrix.  See here.

With attacks against the Catholic Church increasing from both within and without, now more than ever the remnant faithful need to pray and work for the Church to solemnly declare that our Blessed Mother is Coredemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocate.

It's not surprising that Francis, presiding over a sodomite cabal within the Vatican, would oppose the title of Mary Co-Redemptrix.  For an infallible definition of these three roles of Mary will unleash graces on the world such as one cannot imagine.

It was Saint Maximilian Kolbe, priest and martyr, prophet pointing the way to a new civilization of love, who said (in the early 1940s, before the Nazis put him to death):

"In the Catholic Church they have not yet officially declared in public as certain belief that the Immaculata is the Mediatrix of all Graces. But it is a certain truth. It has been well known from the time of the advent of Christians....But when the faithful voice a desire requesting to admit it as a public belief, the Church must verify this truth and declare it....The source of all graces is God. Everything begins in God. But the graces given to human beings are not given directly from God but through Mary. If you have time to discuss or debate the issue, you should rather pray more. Holy Mary will be pleased if we pray for the early announcement that she is the Mediatrix of all Graces."

There are graces which Our Lady wants to give us but will not be able to until the Church infallibly defines her as Coredemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocate. What better time to do so than the present hour when the Church finds herself under vicious attack and the demonic tyranny of a sodomites cabal?

Perhaps we should all listen to Saint Kolbe and "pray more" for such an announcement?

What the modernistic Francis views as "foolishness" - the worldly always view Holy things as "foolish" - the Saints have not.

In an article entitled, "Mary Co-redemptrix: A Dogmatic Crowning for the Queen?" Dr. Mark Miravalle made this point writing:

"What do St. Padre Pio, St. Francis Xavier Cabrini, St. Gemma Galgani, St. Maximilian Kolbe, St. Leopold Mandic, St. Teresa Benedicta of the Cross, St. Jose Maria Escrivà, Blessed Teresa of Calcutta, Servant of God, John Paul II, and Sr. Lucia of Fatima all have in common (beyond their eminent sanctity as witnessed by the twentieth century)? They all repeatedly invoked Our Lady as the “Co-redemptrix” and taught the doctrine of Marian coredemption concerning Mary’s unparalleled role with and under Jesus Christ in the Redemption of the human family.

One of the greatest examples of Catholic development of doctrine is visible with the historical unfolding of Marian dogma. Like a small acorn which grows over years into a towering oak tree, the divinely planted seeds of Scripture regarding Mary have grown under the nurturing of the Holy Spirit into solemnly declared dogmas of faith, which constitute the highest form of recognized Catholic truth.

In 431, the Council of Ephesus solemnly declares Mary the Mother of God, or literally the “God-bearer” (Theotokos) in the midst of the Nestorian controversy over the nature and person of Christ.[1] Two centuries later (649), Pope Martin I declares the “Perpetual Virginity” of Our Lady, that she was virginal before, during, and after the birth of Jesus Christ.[2]

A span of over a thousand years passes before the next Marian dogma is proclaimed with the solemn papal definition of the Immaculate Conception (1854) by Bl. Pope Pius IX, whereby the Holy Father exercises the charism of papal infallibility to pronounce that from the moment of Mary’s conception, she is free from original sin and full of grace.[3] A century later, Venerable Pope Pius XII again exercises papal infallibility by solemnly defining the Assumption of Mary (1950), that at the end of earthly life, the Mother of Jesus was taken body and soul into heavenly glory.[4]

The present four Marian dogmas identify the principal prerogatives of the Blessed Virgin Mary during her earthly life and in relation to her Divine Son. But the sublime tasks assigned by the Holy Trinity to the Virgin Mother do not cease there. Mary received a fifth role with specific relation to the human race, which was declared first by her Crucified Son as his final gift to humanity before his redemptive death: “Woman, behold your Son!…Behold, your Mother!” (Jn. 19:25-27).

Not only is Mary Mother of God made man, the Perpetual Virgin of Virgins, the Immaculate Conception, and the Assumed One, she is also the Spiritual Mother of all peoples and all nations. As the Second Vatican Council teaches: “Taken up into heaven, she did not lay aside this saving office, but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation… Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix” (Lumen Gentium, 62).

As Spiritual Mother of all humanity, Our Lady exercises three maternal functions on behalf of her earthly children. She is a “Mother suffering” or “Co-redemptrix.” The prefix “co” does not mean equal but “with,” as exemplified in St. Paul’s call for all Christians to be “co-workers with God” (1 Cor. 3:9). Mary cooperated “with Jesus” in ways unlike any other human or angelic creature, by her shared suffering with Him in the work of redemption. Vatican II again reminds us that the Blessed Virgin “faithfully persevered in union with her Son unto the cross, where she stood, in keeping with the divine plan, enduring with her only begotten Son the intensity of his suffering, associated herself with his sacrifice in her mother’s heart, and lovingly consented to the immolation of this victim which was born of her” (LG 58). John Paul II of happy memory called Mary the “Co-redemptrix” on six occasions.[5]

Her second motherly function for humanity is as a “Mother nourishing” or “Mediatrix of all graces.” As the fathers, doctors, saints, and popes teach us, every grace that we receive from the redemption of Jesus Christ comes to us through the intercession of Mary. Cana makes clear the Mother’s ability to release the graces and miracles of her Son for the needs of humanity (Jn. 2:1-10). The late great John Paul called Mary the “Mediatrix of all graces” on seven occasions.[6]

Her third maternal function is as a “Mother pleading” or “Advocate.” There is no greater intercessor to the throne of her Kingly Son than that of the Queen Mother. As King Solomon could deny his mother the Queen nothing, (cf. 1 Kings 2:19) so too, Christ the King denies his Queen Mother nothing.

Since Our Lady’s Spiritual Motherhood under its three aspects of Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix of all graces, and Advocate is already part of the authoritative doctrinal teachings of the Papal Magisterium, why the need for a papal definition of these three titles? From where did the movement for a papal definition of Our Lady’s universal mediation derive?

Apart from certain misunderstandings that the movement for a fifth Marian dogma has its origins in private revelation, the actual historical beginnings of this international Church drive date back to the first two decades of the twentieth century with the efforts of the renowned Belgian cardinal, Cardinal Mercier and the enthusiastic support of St. Maximilian Kolbe.

By the end of 1915, Pope Benedict had received numerous petitions for the dogmatic definition of Our Lady’s universal mediation from Cardinal Mercier, fellow bishops, religious superiors, and clergy.[7] Cardinal Mercier issued a pastoral letter calling for the dogma of Our Lady’s mediation, which specifically included the concept of Coredemption as an integral part of her mediation, in 1918.[8] With the papal approval by Pope Benedict XV for the mass and office of “Mary, Mediatrix of all graces” at the request of Mercier and others in 1921, the worldwide movement for the solemn papal definition of Mary’s universal mediation of grace was launched in a letter from Cardinal Mercier to all the bishops of the world (April, 1921), wherein he expressed his deepest hope for this dogmatic crowning of Our Lady’s mediation.[9]

The illustrious Belgian cardinal continued his advocacy for the dogma with Pius XI on the very day of his papal election (Feb. 6, 1922).[10] The newly elected pontiff responded immediately to the petition for the dogma by ordering the establishment of three theological commissions to study the question in 1922. The Belgian and Spanish commissions concluded strongly in favor of the papal definition, while the conclusion of the Roman commission was never released.[11]

From that time to the present, great numbers of petitions have continued to flood the Holy See for the papal definition of Our Lady’s universal mediation. Petitions for a new Marian dogma from only the last ten years (approx. 1994-2004) number over six million from over 165 countries, and include over 550 bishops and 45 cardinals.[12] Although these numbers do not include the hundreds of bishop petitions, along with the multitudinous number of clergy and lay petitions submitted to the Holy See by Cardinals Mercier,[13] Gagnon, and others prelates from 1930 to 1994, the recent petition campaign of the last decade for this fifth Marian dogma represents the largest per annum petition drive in the history of the Church.

But the question of “why” must again be addressed. If the Magisterium already teaches the truth of Marian mediation in its three components of Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix, and Advocate, then where is the need for a solemn papal definition of the same truth in the form of a dogma?

Historic graces and world peace. With every new Marian dogma proclaimed by the successor of Peter, bearer of the keys of the kingdom, a new ocean of graces descends upon the Church and the world. For Our Lady to exercise fully the motherly roles granted her by God, humanity must exercise its free will in accepting her roles that they may be activated on our behalf. God never forces his sanctifying grace upon us, but awaits our free “yes” before bestowing them.

Humanity’s “yes” as spoken by the Holy Father in a papal proclamation of our full acceptance of Our Lady’s Spiritual Motherhood would release extraordinary graces of peace and redemption to a world where internal wars of abortion, child abuse, pornography, divorce, drugs, depression, loneliness, and external conflicts of terrorism, poverty, famine, pestilence and natural disasters are threatening most every family, country, and society throughout the world.

The proclamation of the dogma would allow the Mother to have her chance to intercede for a new peace and grace for our world. The Holy Father would be declaring our acknowledgement, on the highest level of Catholic truth, that She truly is our universal Spiritual Mother, our Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix of all graces and Advocate, and that we humbly and trustingly beseech our Heavenly Queen and Mother for the interior peace of Christ in the hearts of humanity that is necessary for any authentic and perduring global peace.

The succinct but profound words of Blessed Teresa of Calcutta most eloquently summarize the heart and the imperative of the contemporary call for the fifth Marian Dogma:

Mary is our Coredemptrix with Jesus. She gave Jesus his body and suffered with him at the foot of the cross.

Mary is the Mediatrix of all grace. She gave Jesus to us, and as our Mother she obtains for us all his graces.

Mary is our Advocate who prays to Jesus for us. It is only through the Heart of Mary that we come to the Eucharistic Heart of Jesus.

The papal definition of Mary as Coredemptrix, Mediatrix, and Advocate will bring great graces to the Church.

All for Jesus through Mary.

God bless you"

Francis and contraception...

Voice of the Family reports:

"The circumstances surrounding the resignation of the Grand Master of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, and the appointment of a “papal delegate” to assist in the “renewal” of the order, raises further questions about the extent to which Pope Francis assents to the teaching of the Catholic Church on questions of sexual ethics. In this article we will revisit previous concerns regarding Pope Francis’s position on contraception, in the light of recent events.

At the heart of the crisis in the Order of Malta is the distribution of contraceptives and abortifacient drugs, over a number of years, by Malteser International (MI), the humanitarian arm of the order. Edward Pentin has provided details of MI’s programmes in his comprehensive article on the subject. An investigation by the Lepanto Institute provides further information about MI’s work promoting  condoms and abortifacient drugs worldwide. Amongst their findings the following facts stand out:

MI distributed 52, 190 condoms in Burma (Myanmar) in 2005 and 59,675 in 2006.
A World Health Organisation report from 2006, entitled Reproductive Health Stakeholder Analysis in Myanmar 2006 includes “family planning” among MI’s “areas of expertise”, “contraception” amongst its “activities” and “birth spacing” amongst its “future plans”. The report also reveals that MI provided oral contraceptives to 2,500 women in one Burmese township.
In 2007 MI received a four year grant of $1.7 million from the Three Disease Fund, for whom they distributed over 300,000 condoms in Burma.
In 2012 MI entered a partnership with Save the Children to carry out a joint project, for which they received $2.1 million from the Global Fund, to distribute yet more condoms in Burma during the period from 2013-2016.
Malteser International was headed throughout this period by Albrecht Freiherr von Boeselager. An internal investigation by the Order of Malta found that von Boeselager was ultimately responsible for the programmes that involved the distribution of condoms and abortifacient drugs.  His role at MI was one of the major factors that resulted in his dismissal from the role of Grand Chancellor by the Grand Master, Fra Matthew Festing, on 6 December 2016, after he twice refused to resign. Von Boeselager appealed to the Vatican. A commission was appointed to investigate his dismissal. Edward Pentin has provided extensive, and disturbing information, about the make-up of this commission, which seems to have consisted largely of von Boeselager’s friends and associates. The Sovereign Military Order of Malta, which is a sovereign entity, refused to accept the legitimacy of this interference into their internal affairs.

On 24 January 2017 Fra Matthew Festing was asked to resign by Pope Francis and acceded to this request. The following day Pietro Cardinal Parolin, Vatican Secretary of State, stated that Pope Francis was declaring null and void all Fra Festing’s acts since 6 December, thus nullifying the dismissal of von Boeselager. Fra Festing’s resignation was accepted by the Sovereign Council of the Order of Malta on 28 January and it was announced that von Boeselager was restored to his position as Grand Chancellor of the order.

In short, Pope Francis has restored to office a man ultimately responsible for the distribution of condoms and abortifacient drugs, while removing from the office the man who tried to ensure that Malteser International remained faithful to Catholic teaching."

Readers of this Blog know that The Guardian reported last year that, "In a departure from...Catholic teaching, Pope Francis suggests women exposed to the Zika virus could use artificial contraception.."

The article continued:

"Speaking to reporters on the papal plane as he returned to Rome after a visit to Mexico, Francis obliquely suggested that artificial contraception could be used in extreme situations to avoid pregnancy.

Unlike abortion, 'avoiding pregnancy is not an absolute evil' and in certain circumstances it maybe 'the lesser evil.'"

In the words of Fr. Hardon, "The grave sinfulness of contraception is taught infallibly by the Church's ordinary universal teaching authority [Magisterium]."

It is important for Catholics to understand [and to acknowledge] that the Magisterium can and does teach infallibly on matters of faith and morals in the ordinary day-to-day execution of its pastoral mission provided that some very specific conditions are fulfilled. The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church [Lumen Gentium] of the Second Vatican Council clearly described these conditions:

"Although the Bishops, taken individually, do not enjoy the privilege of infallibility, they do, however, proclaim the doctrine of Christ infallibly on the following conditions: namely, when, even though dispersed throughout the entire world but preserving for all that amongst themselves and with Peter's successor the bond of communion, in their authoritative teaching concerning matters of faith or morals, they are in agreement that a particular teaching is to be held definitively and absolutely." (LG, No. 25).

And what the Fathers of Vatican II add to this passage is also of critical importance:

"This is still more clearly the case when, assembled in an ecumenical council, they are, for the universal Church, teachers of and judges in matters of faith and morals, whose judgments must be adhered to with the loyal and obedient assent of faith."

And what do the Vatican II Fathers have to say about artificial contraception? In Gaudium et Spes, No. 51, we read:

"...when there is question of harmonizing conjugal love with the responsible transmission of life, the moral aspects of any procedure does not depend solely on sincere intentions or on an evaluation of motives, but must be determined by objective standards. These, based on the nature of the human person and his acts, preserve the full sense of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love. Such a goal cannot be achieved unless the virtue of conjugal chastity is sincerely practiced. Relying on these principles, sons of the Church may not undertake methods of birth control which are found blameworthy by the teaching authority of the Church in its unfolding of the divine law. "

Pope Francis has directly contradicted the infallible teaching of Pope Paul VI in his Encyclical Letter Humanae Vitae, No. 14:

"Similarly excluded is every action which, either 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.

To justify conjugal acts made intentionally infecund, one cannot invoke as valid reasons the lesser evil, or the fact that such acts would constitute a whole together with the fecund acts already performed or to follow later, and hence would share in one and the same moral goodness. In truth, if it is sometimes licit to tolerate a lesser evil in order to avoid a greater evil or to promote a greater good, it is not licit, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil so that good may follow therefrom; that is, to make into the object of a positive act of the will something which is intrinsically disorder, and hence unworthy of the human person, even when the intention is to safeguard or promote individual, family or social well-being. Consequently it is an error to think that a conjugal act which is deliberately made infecund and so is intrinsically dishonest could be made honest and right by the ensemble of a fecund conjugal life."

The Vatican has become infested with the demonic.  Don Bosco's prophecy is being fulfilled before our very eyes.

More on the North Quabbin Catholic Community and its discrimination against Catholics faithful to the Magisterium

In my last post, I noted how the North Quabbin Catholic Community has responded to my fraternal correction with Facebook posts which reveal a level of hatred and animosity which cannot be reconciled with Catholic Christian faith.


From the North Quabbin Catholic Community Facebook page:

Kathleen M. Progen

May 12 at 2:05am

Well how disheartening, I just found this real ........ Anthony... Paul Melanson who has a blog and has nothing better to do than to slam Fr. Kris Korcz every chance he gets. The horrid , hateful things he said were disgusting. Well I stuck up for our Pastor and let this........ have it. I wonder why he thinks he is so perfect??? I want to go punch him, but I won't , I will try to be the better person. What is the matter with people???? Claiming to be so Christian and say horrible things about people. Praying for him to see the error of his ways. See More

• North Quabbin Catholic Community I have blocked him from this page.

  May 12 at 8:37am
•  

  
  
• 

  Kathleen M. Progen Thank you. who ever blocked him . I wonder if he will have the guts to answer my chastising note to him. He so teed me off.

Several years before his death, Pope John Paul II made a point out of reminding Catholics that there is room for constructive criticism in the Church. His words were lost on some however. Among those who reject this idea are those who seek to ingratiate themselves with their pastor. For such people, their pastor can do no wrong. Even if he's molesting innocent children or promoting dissent from Church teaching. In their zeal to defend and shield their pastor from any criticism (no matter how constructive or charitably put), these Catholics succumb to a prejudice which obscures objective judgment and which greatly reduces their intellectual horizon. To put it simply, such people become narrow-minded in an eminent sense.

Very often haughtiness is a factor in the rejection of constructive criticism. The haughty person (or the group which believes itself to be "above any criticism") will, in the words of Dr. Dietrich von Hildebrand, "find it intolerable to feel dependent on other persons, to serve others, to subordinate himself to an alien will, and above all, to suffer ever so slight a humiliation. He is unable to admit before others of having been in the wrong, even if he knows it in his heart; much less could he prevail on himself to ask anybody's forgiveness. He is stricken with a crabbed anxiousness about preserving his dignity..."

In his Encyclical Letter Christifidelis laici, No. 37, Pope John Paul II wrote, "The dignity of the person constitutes the foundation of the equality of all people among themselves. As a result, all forms of discrimination are totally unacceptable."
Authentic Christian love (which is often very difficult to find in some parishes) rejects the discrimination which faith finds unacceptable. Vatican II teaches us that:

"The disposition of a human person toward God the Father and his or her disposition toward fellow human beings are so connected that Scripture says: 'Whoever does not love does not know God' (1 Jn 4:8). The foundation therefore is taken away from any theory or practice which leads to discrimination, between one person and another or between one nation and another, with respect to human dignity and the rights flowing from it" (Nostra Aetate, No. 5).

Therefore, as Gaudium et Spes of Vatican II says, love requires avoiding "every form - whether social or cultural - of discrimination with respect to the fundamental rights of persons, whether on the basis of sex, race, color, social condition, language, or religion" (No. 29). Of course, this is not an exhaustive list. There are many other factors which are often used to rationalize discrimination or injustices: such as nationality, wealth, health, physical or mental capacity, age, and even one's personal appearance.

The Church has a responsibility, a moral duty, to reach out to everyone. And any unjust discrimination must be avoided since such is incompatible with an authentic Catholic faith.

Many Catholics are treated with scorn at their parish - or simply ignored - because they accept, promote and defend the Church's Magisterial teaching. Often those at the parish level forget that loving everyone in Jesus with the same Christian love means acknowledging the same human dignity shared by all who are called to be God's children and avoiding all discrimination with respect to every basic human right.

This same love must extend to each individual person's entire being, including all his or her diverse gifts and particular potentialities. St. Paul addresses this point in 1 Corinthians 13. And, in Chapter 12, he explains how communion should exist in Jesus' one body, which is the Church, among members who possess diverse and complementary gifts which pertain to their personal vocations:

"Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are varieties of services, but the same Lord; and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who activates all of them in everyone. To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good...

For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. For in the one Spirit we were all baptized into one body - Jews or Greeks, slaves or free - and we were all made to drink of one Spirit." (1 Cor. 12:4-7; 12-13).

This point has been lost on the North Quabbin Catholic Community. They have adopted an attitude which Jesus explicitly rejects in the Gospels:

"John said to him, "Teacher, we saw someone driving out demons in your name, and we tried to prevent him because he does not follow us." Jesus replied, "Do not prevent him. There is no one who performs a mighty deed in my name who can at the same time speak ill of me. For whoever is not against us is for us." (Mk. 9: 38-40).

Rather than viewing those of us who fully adhere to the Church's Magisterial teaching with respect and treating us with dignity, the North Quabbin Catholic Community has succumbed to a progressive "Catholicism" (which is counterfeit in nature) which is imbued with hatred and violence and which seeks to exclude rather than to unite.

Charlotte Catholic High School: Advancing a false freedom which is a diabolical parody

There can be little doubt how far the Church in the United States has fallen.  As this article explains, "A North Carolina Roman Catholic school is holding a meeting today to address the concerns of parents and students who say they are outraged about remarks a visiting nun made criticizing homosexuality, divorce, and sex outside of marriage during a recent speech.

Dominican Sister Jane Dominic Laurel, who often speaks to high school and college-age students on matters of sexuality, gave an hour-long presentation to students at Charlotte Catholic High School on March 21 called “Masculinity and Femininity: Difference and Gift.”  School officials told the Catholic News Herald she spent about half her allotted time discussing homosexuality, blaming its rising influence in part on fatherless homes created by divorce and extramarital sex.

Sister Laurel is a member of the Dominican Sisters of St. Cecilia, often called the Nashville Dominicans, which is an order known for its fidelity to the Magisterium.
Although the Catholic Church has always held both homosexual behavior and sex outside of marriage to be gravely sinful, students and parents at the Catholic school reacted to her remarks with shock and anger, launching both an online petition and a letter-writing campaign calling the sister’s words “offensive and unnecessarily derogatory.”

“We the students of Charlotte Catholic High School would like to issue a formal complaint regarding Sr. Jane Dominic’s speech given on on [sic] Friday, March 21^st,” the petition begins. “We found some of ideas [sic] expressed to be both offensive and unnecessarily derogatory. We are incensed that you knew the content of this speech and allowed these ideas to be expressed in a school that should be preaching a message of love and acceptance.”

“As rational people, we know that most homosexual people lead healthy, normal and productive lives like their heterosexual counterparts,” the students wrote.  “We resent the fact that a school wide assembly became a stage to blast the issue of homosexuality after Pope Francis said in an interview this past fall that ‘we can not [sic] insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptives [sic] methods.  We are angry that someone decided they knew better than our Holy Father and invited a speaker who addressed the issue of homosexuality to our school to speak twice in the course of one school year.”

Students weren’t the only ones outraged by the sister’s remarks.  Parents have supplemented the students’ petition with an e-mail campaign targeting the Diocese of Charlotte, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, and the Vatican with complaints about Sr. Jane’s speech.

“In my home, there was outrage, embarrassment, sadness, disbelief, and further reason for my 16-year-old to move as far away from her religion as possible and as soon as she can,” wrote divorcee Shelley Earnhardt, according to the Charlotte Observer.

These students and parents are merely displaying their ignorance.  As Cardinal George Pell of Australia correctly noted,  "Some secularists seem to like one way streets..Their intolerance of Christianity seeks to drive it out not only from the public square, but even from the provision of education, health care and welfare services to the wider community. Tolerance has come to mean different things for different groups." His Eminence has also said that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights correctly articulates the proper relationship between the individual, the family and the association and the state.

This was precisely the point I was making in my response to the persecution of Father Alphonse de Valk at the hands of the Canadian Human Rights Commission which may be found here.

This dictatorship of relativism seeks to impose its immoral agenda on Christians in the name of "tolerance." But this "tolerance" is a sham. It is simply an attempt to make an idol out of a false conception of freedom. Our Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI  explained that, "..what clearly stands behind the modern era's radical demand for freedom is the promise: You will be like God...The implicit goal of all modern freedom movements is, in the end, to be like a god, dependent on nothing and nobody, with one's own freedom not restricted by anyone else's...The primeval error of such a radically developed desire for freedom lies in the idea of a divinity that is conceived as being purely egotistical. The god thus conceived of is, not God, but an idol, indeed, the image of what the Christian tradition would call the devil, the anti-god, because therein lies the radical opposite of the true God: the true God is, of his own nature, being-for (Father), being-from (Son), and being-with (Holy Spirit). Yet man is in the image of God precisely because the being-for , from, and with constitute the basic anthropological shape. Whenever people try to free themselves from this, they are moving, not toward divinity, but toward dehumanizing, toward the destruction of being itself through the destruction of truth. The Jacobin variant of the idea of liberation...is a rebellion against being human in itself, rebellion against truth, and that is why it leads people - as Sartre percipiently observed - into a self-contradictory existence that we call hell. It has thus become fairly clear that freedom is linked to a yardstick, the yardstick of reality - to truth. Freedom to destroy oneself or to destroy others is not freedom but a diabolical parody. The freedom of man is a shared freedom, freedom in a coexistence of other freedoms, which are mutually limiting and thus mutually supportive: freedom must be measured according to what I am, what we are - otherwise it abolishes itself."

In the name of "tolerance," the New World Order seeks to impose its rebellion from truth on all. It will not tolerate any dissent, any disagreement. Coercion is an acceptable tool in a dictatorship. Soon, the New Order will use violence to achieve its goals and not just coercion and propaganda. In the end, every dictatorship must rely on violence in its vain attempt to hold onto power.

The students and parents at Charlotte Catholic High School reacting violently against Sister Jane Dominic Laurel have succumbed to moral relativism and radical homosexual agitprop.  One has to wonder how they can honestly consider themselves to be Catholic.


Related reading:  The media ignore the homosexual dimension of the problem of child sexual abuse

The Worcester Diocese welcomes Cathleen Kaveny

Tom, a faithful Catholic of the Worcester Diocese and a contributor to this Blog, writes: "The February 10, 2014, Diocesan Dispatch publicizes the following upcoming pro-abortion speaker at Holy Cross College:

'TALK ABOUT PROPHETIC SPEECH AT HOLY CROSS
Legal scholar and moral theologian M. Cathleen Kaveny, the newly named Darald and Juliet Libby Professor at Boston College, will give a lecture titled “Prophetic Rhetoric in the Public Square” at the College of the Holy Cross on Thursday, Feb. 13 ...'

The Irish Rover, an alternate student newspaper at the University of Notre Dame (where she formerly taught) and the Sycamore Trust, a group of faithfully Catholic Notre Dame alumni have written of her pro-abortion views and of how Notre Dame has lionized its former professor:
Cathleen Kaveny, a Catholic professor of law and of theology, is listed on the Notre Dame News website as an expert in the ethical aspects of assisted suicide, bioethics, biomedical ethics, cloning, death and dying, the pope, and the papacy.

Kaveny expressed pro-choice beliefs during a Princeton University conference on abortion in the fall of 2010: 'I do not believe [the mother] has an obligation to provide life support to the unborn if pregnancy imposes a significant burden on her health or if she was raped,' said Kaveny.  'Under those circumstances I think those actions are describable as intentionally ending the burden of the pregnancy and can be described differently than intentional killing.'

Kaveny also said the unborn have no moral rights until 14 days after conception, a stance that could permit embryonic stem cell research."

This is a clear rejection of Catholic moral teaching. In his Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, No. 57, Pope John Paul II writes, "..by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, and in communion with the Bishops of the Catholic Church, I confirm that the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral. This doctrine, based upon that unwritten law which man, in the light of reason, finds in his own heart (cf. Rom 2:14-15), is reaffirmed by Sacred Scripture, transmitted by the Tradition of the Church and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.

The deliberate decision to deprive an innocent human being of his life is always morally evil and can never be licit either as an end in itself or as a means to a good end. It is in fact a grave act of disobedience to the moral law, and indeed to God himself, the author and guarantor of that law; it contradicts the fundamental virtues of justice and charity. 'Nothing and no one can in any way permit the killing of an innocent human being, whether a fetus or an embryo, an infant or an adult, an old person, or one suffering from an incurable disease, or a person who is dying. Furthermore, no one is permitted to ask for this act of killing, either for himself or herself or for another person entrusted to his or her care, nor can he or she consent to it, either explicitly or implicitly. Nor can any authority legitimately recommend or permit such an action'"

It was Father Thomas Euteneuer who correctly observed that, "Abortion is blood sacrifice of innocent blood to the devil. The clinics are like temples, the doctors are like priests, the medical table is like their altar. It’s a ritualized sacrifice. They have a dogma called choice, a hierarchy called Planned Parenthood, and guardian angels in the form of police guards that will arrest you if you try to stop them."

In the New Order, man has no special value. Human beings will be subject to the tyranny of technological impersonalism in the service of devils. Many have grown weary because they have lost their faith. And barbarism will follow. As men move away from the Church and her sacraments, the world continues to degenerate into madness, or as Fr. Miceli put it: "..a weird brew of sex, flowers, drugs, incense, tear gas, acid rock, rhetoric, bombs and blood. Enter the Antichrist, ruler of the Moloch World?"

The question has to be asked: Why does Bishop McManus tolerate (and at times even approve of) speakers who dissent from revealed Catholic teaching - even on the subject of abortion?

Bishop Robert McManus, the Diocese of Worcester, and vocations

As I noted in a previous post (see here), the Diocese of Worcester has some sort of animus against men who feel called to the priesthood but who accept, promote and defend the Church's Magisterial teaching.  There really is no denying this.  Candidates such as Jonathan Joseph Slavinskas are entirely welcome within the diocese (see here), but I am not permitted to even apply as part of a discernment process.

This is most unfortunate.  Dr. Germain Grisez explains that, "Since the ordained priesthood and diaconate provide the necessary ministries of the word and sacraments to the whole Church, every member shares a common duty to foster vocations to this service."

This duty, which pertains to all Christians, is codified in Canon Law:

"A duty rests upon the entire Christian community to foster vocations so that sufficient provision is made for the needs of the sacred ministry throughout the entire Church; Christian families, educators and in a special way priests, especially pastors, are particularly bound by this duty.  Since it is principally the concern of diocesan bishops to promote vocations, they should instruct the people entrusted to them concerning the importance of the sacred ministry and the necessity of ministers in the Church; therefore they are to encourage and support endeavors to foster vocations by means of projects especially established for that purpose." (Canon 233).

Paragraph 2 of the same Canon also states, "Moreover priests, and especially diocesan bishops, are also to be solicitous that men of a more mature age who consider themselves called to the sacred ministries are prudently assisted IN WORD AND DEED and duly prepared."

When I contacted the Worcester Diocese to express my interest in DISCERNING a priestly vocation, I received no response whatsoever.  When I wrote Bishop Robert McManus expressing my interest, again, no response.  This is promoting vocations?  This is being "solicitous" for mature vocations while assisting such in "word and deed"?

Of course not.

Every so often local parishes will offer a prayer intention for vocations.  But without any real effort to promote and foster vocations to the priesthood and religious life, such prayer intentions amount to little more than a dog and pony show.  Bishop McManus apparently has such disdain for me (pesky magisterial Catholic that I am) that when I phoned him to inform him that my "pastor" at the time (Fr. Joseph Jurgelonis) and his "pastoral staff" wouldn't schedule a Mass for my departed father, he actually laughed.

Feel the love of Christ Jesus.

Folks, if we really want to turn the tide within and outside of the Church, we will need to be more accepting of men who are orthodox in their faith and who feel called to the priesthood.  The laborers are few.  Can we afford to prohibit men faithful to the Magisterium from having a place at the table?


Related reading here.

 

 

 

Susan Bailey, The Catholic Free Press and historical revisionism

The Catholic Free Press is published by the Roman Catholic Bishop of Worcester, the Most Rev. Robert J. McManus.  Unfortunately, Bishop McManus doesn't seem to spend enough time (if any at all) overseeing what goes into the publication.  It is a Bishop's vocation to watch over his diocese as a spiritual father (the word Bishop comes from the Greek word episcopos meaning overseer), ensuring that anything which is opposed to faith and morals is dealt with quickly and appropriately.

Once again, because of the Bishop's failure to oversee The Catholic Free Press and its content, the publication has engaged in historical revisionism as it attempts to re-write the legacy of the Commission for Women and one of its more prominent members - Mary T. Donovan.

Writing for The Catholic Free Press, Susan Bailey attempts to sell the idea that Mary Donovan, a member and former chairperson of the "Commission for Women" of the diocese whp passed away last month, was "a wise woman born of a deep faith," a woman whose wisdom was "devoid of arrogance." (In remembrance of a pioneer, February 8, 2013 edition of The Catholic Free Press).

In reality, Mary Donovan was an angry and self-important radical feminist who believed that it was her role to "correct" the living teaching office of the Catholic Church, the Magisterium.  But then, the commission she was associated with was little more itself than an instrument of dissent and radical feminist agitprop.  And nothing has changed.  Read my previous posts on the Commission for Women and its "Gather us In Conference" which features dissident speakers who agitate for women's ordination and New Age spirituality.

Writing for The Catholic Free Press back in 1992, Ms. Donovan freely acknowledged this herself.  In an article entitled "Save the women for the Church," she wrote: "Most of us on the Commission are diehards, women who decided long ago that women should have a place in the Church and that the Church needed women...What we want is simple.  We want to be considered active participants in the worship of God.  We want to move from the passive role where men study the Word of God, interpret it and relay the message to us.  We want to share the study, to discuss, refine, enlarge, enhance, dispute interpretation if necessary, and deliver the good news with equal stature and credibility.  We know that structure that exists today has no stairway for women that go to the top floor.  We know what problems exist in renovating..." (May 22, 1992 edition of The Catholic Free Press).

In another article published in the diocesan newspaper, Ms. Donovan insisted that there are, "..women who sense the same gifts within themselves as men who feel called to the service of God." (Women walk a Tightrope, January 29, 1992 edition of The Catholic Free Press).

While Mary Donovan and her cohorts were demanding women's ordination and the right to "dispute interpretation" of the Church's teaching, the Second Vatican Council had already taught authoritatively that, "...the task of authentically interpreting the Word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ." (Dei Verbum, No. 10).

Yes indeed, Mary Donovan was so wise and devoid of arrogance that she openly rejected the teaching of Vatican II and the perennial teaching of the Catholic Church, as exemplified in the post conciliar document entitled "The Ministerial Priesthood in the Light of the Mystery of Christ" that, "..we can never ignore the fact that Christ is a man.  Therefore, unless one is to disregard the importance of this symbolism for the economy of Revelation, it must be admitted that, in actions which demand the character of ordination and in which Christ Himself, the Author of the Covenant, the Bridegroom and Head of the Church, is represented, exercising His ministry of salvation - which is in the highest degree the case of the Eucharist - His role must be taken by a man."

Susan Bailey would have us believe that Mary Donovan was a "role model" and a "woman of strong faith."  But these lies do not square with the facts.  Mary Donovan was more of a petulant child who, along with her associates in dissent at the "Commission for Women," was more concerned with pursuing her own wants and desires ("we want, we want, we want") than on fulfilling the duties of her vocation while remaining obedient to Christ Jesus Who guides us through the living teaching office of His Church.

I too pray that Mary Donovan will "rest in peace."  For she lacked peace in her lifetime here on earth.

Signs.....

Pope Benedict XVI has decided to resign.  See here.  On September 18, 1988, Our Lady revealed to Fr. Stefano Gobbi that, "there will come to completion that fullness of time beginning with La Salette all the way to my most recent and present apparitions; the purification will come to its culmination; there will come to completion the time of the great tribulation, foretold in Holy Scripture, before the Second Coming of Christ; the mystery of iniquity, prepared for by the ever-increasing spread of apostasy, will become manifest; all the secrets which I have revealed to some of my children will come to pass and all the events which have been foretold will take place."


The Papal Preacher has already noted that Antichrist may already be among us:

http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=103757

And there are growing signs of open confrontation between the forces of Antichrist both outside and within the Church (ecclesiastical masonry) and the Catholic Church united with Rome - with the Holy Father and the Magisterium:

http://dtf-jayg.blogspot.com/2007/02/friend-of-court.html.

Sean Cardinal O'Malley has expressed his concerns over the increasing persecution of Christians in Canada:


http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/mar/07030606.html.

And yet, many Catholics (and other Christians) are either blind as to what is occurring or refuse to see. On December 31, 1983, Our Lady told Fr. Gobbi that: "The signs the Lord sends are neither understood nor accepted; the dangers pointed out by 'my Pope' who courageously and anxiously is predicting the storm awaiting you, are not believed. The messages which I give, through simple and little souls chosen by me in every part of the world, are not taken into consideration. The appearances which I am still making, often in faraway and dangerous places, are ignored. And yet you are only inches from your ruin. When all will be shouting for peace, a new World War could suddenly fall upon you, spreading death and destruction everywhere."

Many reject the messages of Our Lady because they consider themselves "too sophisticated." Such souls have succumbed to the myth of "modern man," of "scientific man." For these individuals, Antichrist is a myth, a fairy-tale. They purposely ignore the fact that the rise of Antichrist is foretold in Sacred Scripture and was believed by all the Fathers of the Church.

It was Saint Augustine who said, "Daniel prophesies of the Last Judgment in such a way as to indicate that Antichrist shall first come, and to carry on his description to the eternal reign of the saints....But he who reads this passage, even half asleep, cannot fail to see that the kingdom of Antichrist shall fiercely, though for a short time, assail the Church before the last judgment of God shall introduce the eternal reign of saints. For it is patent from the context that the time, times, and half a time, means a year, and two years, and half a year, that is to say, three years and a half."

As the persecution intensifies, it is important to remember that while Satan is the Prince of this world and hates and seeks to destroy all that is of God, and will unleash a persecution through Antichrist which will be total, his time is short. Even now he awaits the heel which will crush his head. Even now he trembles in fear as the triumph of the Immaculata draws near. For Our Lady of Fatima has said it: "In the end, my Immaculate Heart will triumph."

Related reading here.

The Diocese of Worcester promotes angry dissident Joyce Rupp

In a previous post, I noted how The Catholic Free Press is once again promoting Sister Joyce Rupp, a dissident religious who rails against the hierarchical Church while promoting New Age spirituality.  Many parishes throughout the Worcester Diocese are also promoting the upcoming day-long retreat with this angry, dissenting religious.  The retreat, which is to be held on September 29th at St. Anne's Parish hall in Shrewsbury, is being sponsored by the "Commission for Women," and has as its theme: "The Gift of Self - Compassion."

Sister Rupp, the self proclaimed spiritual midwife, claims to have learnt a lot from Eagle Crux a native American spiritualist and feels that she resonates with mystical islamic sufism. She tells us that everything is made of stardust including ourselves and that stones have as much right to be here as we have, in fact more so because they have been here longer. Her books include how to draw sacred mandela dancing circles and even have the rites for the blessing of the sexual organs! On Ireland she says that the Irish love of learning was first fostered by the wise druids and in the same article goes on to extoll New-Ageism as valuable and that some in the church are envious of it because it draws people toward spiritual growth.

In her book entitled "Cosmic Dance," this lost soul gleefully described a gathering of lesbians which she attended: "Different from me , thousands of them. Holding hands, kissing, arms around each other, stretching me beyond the safe world of heterosexuality. A gathering of lesbians challenging me to enter a world I never visit."

Is this why she is so welcome in the Worcester Diocese?  Because she advocates New Age occultism and stretching "beyond the safe world of heterosexuality"?

Back in 2004, while accepting the "U.S. Catholic Award," the angry feminist lapsed into a hate-filled rant against the Church and her hierarchy while promoting the concept of Yin and Yang and complaining that women are abused wihtin the Catholic Church. Rupp asserted that, "Many women in the Roman Catholic Church are in immense pain because of how women are treated by this church, particularly by the hierarchy and other ordained clergy. I once told the late Bishop Kenneth Untener that I felt like I had 'just one little toe in the church.' He responded with a twinkle in his eye: 'Keep it there.' I have, but I also understand the throng of women who have left the church because of such things as the continued arrogant use of exclusive language and the constant refusal to recognize the fullness of their gifts in church ministry."

Rupp may have kept her little toe in the Church.  But in her heart and mind, she has left the Church.  She speaks often about "compassion," but her words and actions have betrayed the fact that she has not persevered in charity.  And as Lumen Gentium of the Second Vatican Council reminded us, "He is not saved..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 of 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." (Lumen Gentium, No. 14).

Can a person honestly be said to be "persevering in charity" within the Church if they attack the Lord Jesus by attacking His Pastors?  Of course not.  And we shouldn't lie by suggesting otherwise.

During her hate speech against the Church founded by Christ, Rupp insisted that, "Women suffer a lot because of the church" and asserted that, "..it's not just the ordination issue that drives women away...Women are not cows to be herded back into pens; they are not hens to be shooed away from the altar. It's this attitude of sneering domination and the obvious lack of respect for their individual worth that causes such immense angst in Catholic women today. I am very disappointed with the recent church document on women. I am saddened because it blames feminists for 'the lethal effects in the structure of the family.' Once again women are being blamed for society's failures. I am offended by the way this document pushes the power issue off onto women when the official church has, time and again, used power abusively to silence those longing for dialogue and has threatened into conformity those who dare to question doctrinal ultimatums.

Obviously someone forgot to inform Rupp that, "..the task of authentically interpreting the Word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church." (Dei Verbum, No. 10 of the Second Vatican Council). 

Rupp, flying into an uncontrolled temper tantrum because women cannot be ordained to the priesthood, complained that, "Power rightly exercised can be healthy and helpful. Rome agrees, but only so long as this power is in the hands of men. When women begin to assert their rights* and seek to have their God-given potential and gifts fully acknowledged and accepted for service in the church, they are not only denied this right but are written off as adversaries, reactionaries, and power-seekers."

So much for persevering in charity.  By venting such hatred against the Church, Rupp has shown her contempt for Christ.  For the Pastors of the Church rule in His name and by His authority.  If you want to read more of Rupp's hate speech against the Mystical Body of Christ, it may be found here.

Bishop Robert McManus asked Anna Maria College - and rightfully so - to disinvite Victoria Kennedy, an atheistic humanist, from speaking at its Commencement this year.  One has to wonder why one dissident isn't welcome while another is.  Is it simply because one is a Catholic religious?  Dissent is dissent Your Excellency, whether one wears a religious habit (or in Rupp's case, I'm sure, a small pin to denote that she's a "Catholic" religious) or a business suit.

Bishop McManus, do you really think Joyce Rupp is the best person to be giving a presentation on compassion to the faithful of this diocese?  Does her dissent trouble you at all?  Her New Age spirituality?

* Ordination to the priesthood is not a "right," even for men.  No one can take by force what God is not calling him to.  Hence the need for a discernment period for men considering the priesthood and the Church's ratification of the vocation.

A response to Fernando Cavada-Guzman regarding vocations...

When God calls someone to follow Him more closely in the priesthood or religious life, that call comes softly and quietly though insistently..  This call is made known in a sincere desire to live a life dedicated to the service of God.  Pope Benedict XVI is once again asking us to pray that young people may hear the call of Christ and follow him as priests or consecrated persons.  We are reminded here that our prayers are needed because the world makes it difficult for young people to hear that call.

The same website quotes Fernando Cavada-Guzman, a layman, father, grandfather, and the vice president of communications for Serra International, as having said that, "Certainly the Lord calls, certainly he is calling now and will never cease to call, but this call needs a response from the man or woman who is called. This response is blocked today by the secularism and materialism that consume our societies - and that is where the Holy Father asks us to intervene."

Vatican II's Decree on Priestly Training (Optatam Totius) says that, "The duty of fostering vocations pertains to the whole Christian community, which should exercise it above all by a fully Christian life...All priests especially are to manifest an apostolic zeal in fostering vocations and are to attract the interest of youths to the priesthood by their own life lived in a humble and industrious manner and in a happy spirit as well as by mutual priestly charity and fraternal sharing of labor. Bishops...are to encourage their flock to promote vocations and should be concerned with coordinating all forces in a united effort to this end. As fathers, moreover, they must assist without stint those whom they have judged to be called to the Lord's work." (No. 2).


Unfortunately, this duty is not taken seriously by many within the Church. In fact, many vocations have been sabotaged by dissident priests and religious anxious to exclude those who are deemed "too rigid" or too "pre-Vatican II." Recall Michael S. Rose's book "Goodbye, Good Men." What Fernando Cavada-Guzman does not mention is that the response to the Lord’s call isn’t just blocked by “the secularism and materialism that consume our societies” but also by people who want to change the Church’s agenda and who, as a result, block or discourage candidates loyal to the magisterial teaching of the Church
Because I accept everything which is taught in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and because I defend the teaching authority of the Church's Magisterium, I am treated with nothing but contempt in my own diocese. I am not permitted to test my vocation to the priesthood.  In fact, when I contacted my diocese to express my interest in discerning a priestly vocation, twice I received no response.

As Archbishop Elden Curtiss explained: "There is much media hype these days about the present and projected shortage of priests and its effect on the sacramental life of the Church. It is time to pay close attention to the dioceses and religious communities reporting increasing numbers of candidates. There have to be reasons for these increases that bear objective analysis from which some conclusions can be drawn.

I personally think the vocation 'crisis' in this country is more artificial and contrived than many people realize. When dioceses and religious communities are unambiguous about ordained priesthood and vowed religious life as the Church defines these calls; when there is strong support for vocations, and a minimum of dissent about the male celibate priesthood and religious life loyal to the magisterium; when bishop, priests, Religious and lay people are united in vocation ministry—then there are documented increases in the numbers of candidates who respond to the call.

It seems to me that the vocation 'crisis' is precipitated and continued by people who want to change the Church's agenda, by people who do not support orthodox candidates loyal to the magisterial teaching of the Pope and bishops, and by people who actually discourage viable candidates from seeking priesthood and vowed religious life as the Church defines the ministries.

I am personally aware of certain vocation directors, vocation teams and evaluation boards who turn away candidates who do not support the possibility of ordaining women or who defend the Church's teaching about artificial birth control, or who exhibit a strong piety toward certain devotions, such as the Rosary.

When there is a determined effort to discourage orthodox candidates from priesthood and religious life, then the vocation shortage which results is caused not by a lack of vocations but by deliberate attitudes and policies that deter certain viable candidates.

And the same people who precipitate a decline in vocations by their negative actions call for the ordination of married men and women to replace the vocations they have discouraged. They have a death wish for ordained priesthood and vowed religious life as the Church defines them. They undermine the vocation ministry they are supposed to champion."

The late Senator Edward Kennedy received a Catholic funeral even though he dissented from the Church’s teaching.  In fact, he was eulogized by the clergy present as “our brother and friend.”  I am a cradle Catholic who has publically defended the Church’s teaching my entire life.  And I am a pariah within my own diocese.  Maybe if I supported same-sex "marriage" or abortion or contraception I too would be welcome as "brother and friend." 

No thanks.  I'll stay with the Lord Jesus and His Vicar. 

Catholic Free Press columnist Stacy Trasancos: Faithful to the Magisterium?

In a previous post, I noted how Catholic Free Press columnist Stacy Trasancos implied in a Blog post that the faithful can challenge the Church's Magisterial teaching.  Mrs. Trasancos became very angry and left a comment here in which she said, "My attitude toward the Magisterial teaching of the Church is one of complete assent."  I was prepared to take her at her word even though her post seemed to imply that the faithful can indeed challenge the Magisterium.

Now I really have my doubts about Stacy Trasancos' fidelity to the Church's teaching.  In a Blog post on the subject of women's ordination, Mrs. Trasancos writes, "We know that by the end of the first century the Roman Catholic Church was established and there can be little doubt that the cultural influences of that time and place affected the doctrine [that only men are called to the ministerial priesthood].  We do also know that the Church has evolved over time and that part of theology's goal is to communicate faith to changing cultures.  For these reasons, maybe the question of women in the priesthood will remain unsettled.  There isn't any hard logic to support the idea that the concrete forms of the ecclesiastical offices cannot be changed....Whether women should or will someday be priests, isn't for this single writer to say." (See here).

The Church's doctrine was affected by cultural influences?  Really?  The Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in its Declaration on the Question of the Admission of Women to the Ministerial Priesthood (Inter Insigniores), which was approved for publication by Pope Paul VI on October 15, 1976, refutes this asinine thesis: "Jesus Christ did not call any woman to become part of the Twelve. If he acted in this way, it was not in order to conform to the customs of his time, for his attitude towards women was quite different from that of his milieu, and he deliberately and courageously broke with it.


For example, to the great astonishment of his own disciples, Jesus converses publicly with the Samaritan woman (cf. Jn 4:27); he takes no notice of the state of legal impurity of the woman who had suffered from hemorrhages (cf. Mt 9:20-22), he allows a sinful woman to approach him in the house of Simon the Pharisee (cf. Lk 7:37 ff); and by pardoning the woman taken in adultery, he means to show that one must not be more severe towards the fault of a woman than that of a man (cf. Jn 8:11). He does not hesitate to depart from the Mosaic Law in order to affirm the equality of the rights and duties of men and women with regard to the marriage bond (cf. Mk 10:2-11; Mt 19:3-9).

In his itinerant ministry Jesus was accompanied not only by the Twelve but also by a group of women: "Mary, surnamed the Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out, Joanna the wife of Herod's steward Chuza, Susanna and several others who provided for them out of their own resources" (Lk 8:2-3). Contrary to the Jewish mentality, which did not accord great value to the testimony of women, as Jewish law attests, it was nevertheless women who were the first to have the privilege of seeing the Risen Lord and it was they who were charged by Jesus to take the first paschal message to the Apostles themselves (cf. Mt 28:7-10; Lk 24:9-10; Jn 20:11-18), in order to prepare the latter to become the official witnesses to the Resurrection.

It is true that these facts do not make the matter immediately obvious. This is no surprise, for the questions that the Word of God brings before us go beyond the obvious. In order to reach the ultimate meaning of the mission of Jesus and the ultimate meaning of Scripture, a purely historical exegesis of the texts cannot suffice. But it must be recognized that we have here a number or convergent indications that make all the more remarkable the fact that Jesus did not entrust the apostolic charge to women. Even his Mother, who was so closely associated with the mystery of her Son, and whose incomparable role is emphasized by the Gospels of Luke and John, was not invested with the apostolic ministry. This fact was to lead the Fathers to present her as the example or Christ's will in this domain; as Pope Innocent III repeated later, at the beginning of the 13th century, "Although the Blessed Virgin Mary surpassed in dignity and in excellence all the Apostles, nevertheless it was not to her but to them that the Lord entrusted the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven."

III - THE PRACTICE OF THE APOSTLES

The apostolic community remained faithful to the attitude of Jesus towards women. Although Mary occupied a privileged place in the little circle of those gathered in the Upper Room after the Lord's Ascension (cf. Acts 1:14), it was not she who was called to enter the College of the Twelve at the time of the election that resulted in the choice of Matthias: those who were put forward were two disciples whom the Gospels do not even mention.

On the day of Pentecost, the Holy Spirit filled them all, men and women (cf. Acts 2:1; 1-14), yet the proclamation of the fulfillment of the prophecies in Jesus was made only by "Peter and the Eleven" (Acts 2:14).

When they and Paul went beyond the confines of the Jewish world, the preaching of the Gospel and the Christian life in the Greco-Roman civilization impelled them to break with Mosaic practices, sometimes regretfully. They could therefore have envisaged conferring ordination on women, if they had not been convinced that their duty of fidelity to the Lord on this point. In the Hellenistic world, the cult of a number of pagan divinities was entrusted to priestesses. In fact, the Greeks did not share the ideas of the Jews: although their philosophers taught the inferiority of women, historians nevertheless emphasize the existence of a certain movement for the advancement of women during the Imperial period. In fact, we know from the book of the Acts and from the Letters of Saint Paul that certain women worked with the Apostles for the Gospel (cf. Rom 16:3-12; Phil 4:3). Saint Paul lists their names with gratitude in the final salutations of the Letters. Some of them often exercised an important influence on conversions: Priscilla, Lydia and others; especially Priscilla, who took it on herself to complete the instruction of Apollos (cf. Acts 18:26); Phoebe, in the service of the Church of Cenchreae (cf. Rom 16:1). All these facts manifest within the apostolic Church a considerable evolution vis-a-vis the customs of Judaism. Nevertheless, at no time was there a question of conferring ordination on these women.

In the Pauline Letters, exegetes of authority have noted a difference between two formulas used by the Apostle: he writes indiscriminately "my fellow workers" (Rom 16:3; Phil 4:2-3) when referring to men and women helping him in his apostolate in one way or another; but he reserves the title "God's fellow workers" (1 Cor 3:9; cf. 1 Thes 3:1) to Apollos, Timothy and himself, thus designated because they are directly set apart for the apostolic ministry and the preaching of the Word of God. In spite of the so important role played by women on the day of the Resurrection, their collaboration was not extended by Saint Paul to the official and public proclamation of the message, since this proclamation belongs exclusively to the apostolic mission."

The Church is viewed by the egalitarians as archaic because it will not go against the Lord Jesus and ordain women to the ministerial priesthood. Nothing could be further from the truth. It was Pope Pius XII who recalled that, "The Church has no power over the substance of the sacraments, that is to say, over what Christ the Lord, as the sources of Revelation bear witness, determined should be maintained in the sacramental sign." (Apostolic Constitution Sacramentum Ordinis).


This is the teaching of the Council of Trent: "In the Church there has always existed this power, that in the administration of the sacraments, provided that their substance remains unaltered, she can lay down or modify what she considers more fitting either for the benefit of those who receive them or for respect towards those same sacraments, according to varying circumstances, times or places." (Council of Trent, Session 21, chap. 2: Denziger-Schonmetzer, Enchiridion Symbolorum 1728).

The practice of not ordaining women to the ministerial priesthood has a normative character. This norm is based upon the example of the Lord Jesus and has an unbroken tradition throughout the history of the Church. Which is why Pope John Paul II, in his Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, nos. 2-4, wrote: "In the Apostolic Letter Mulieris Dignitatem, I myself wrote in this regard: 'In calling only men as his Apostles, Christ acted in a completely free and sovereign manner. In doing so, he exercised the same freedom with which, in all his behavior, he emphasized the dignity and the vocation of women, without conforming to the prevailing customs and to the traditions sanctioned by the legislation of the time.'


In fact the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles attest that this call was made in accordance with God's eternal plan; Christ chose those whom he willed (cf. Mk 3:13-14; Jn 6:70), and he did so in union with the Father, "through the Holy Spirit" (Acts 1:2), after having spent the night in prayer (cf. Lk 6:12). Therefore, in granting admission to the ministerial priesthood, the Church has always acknowledged as a perennial norm her Lord's way of acting in choosing the twelve men whom he made the foundation of his Church (cf. Rv 21:14). These men did not in fact receive only a function which could thereafter be exercised by any member of the Church; rather they were specifically and intimately associated in the mission of the Incarnate Word himself (cf. Mt 10:1, 7-8; 28:16-20; Mk 3:13-16; 16:14-15). The Apostles did the same when they chose fellow workers who would succeed them in their ministry. Also included in this choice were those who, throughout the time of the Church, would carry on the Apostles' mission of representing Christ the Lord and Redeemer.

Furthermore, the fact that the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God and Mother of the Church, received neither the mission proper to the Apostles nor the ministerial priesthood clearly shows that the non-admission of women to priestly ordination cannot mean that women are of lesser dignity, nor can it be construed as discrimination against them. Rather, it is to be seen as the faithful observance of a plan to be ascribed to the wisdom of the Lord of the universe.

The presence and the role of women in the life and mission of the Church, although not linked to the ministerial priesthood, remain absolutely necessary and irreplaceable. As the Declaration Inter Insigniores points out, 'the Church desires that Christian women should become fully aware of the greatness of their mission: today their role is of capital importance both for the renewal and humanization of society and for the rediscovery by believers of the true face of the Church.'

The New Testament and the whole history of the Church give ample evidence of the presence in the Church of women, true disciples, witnesses to Christ in the family and in society, as well as in total consecration to the service of God and of the Gospel. 'By defending the dignity of women and their vocation, the Church has shown honor and gratitude for those women who-faithful to the Gospel-have shared in every age in the apostolic mission of the whole People of God. They are the holy martyrs, virgins and mothers of families, who bravely bore witness to their faith and passed on the Church's faith and tradition by bringing up their children in the spirit of the Gospel.'

Moreover, it is to the holiness of the faithful that the hierarchical structure of the Church is totally ordered. For this reason, the Declaration Inter Insigniores recalls: 'the only better gift, which can and must be desired, is love (cf. 1 Cor 12 and 13). The greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven are not the ministers but the saints.'

Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church's judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force.

Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare 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."

Got that?  The Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and this judgment is to be definitively held by all of the Church's faithful.  But Stacy Trasancos believes otherwise.  She insists that "maybe the question of women in the ministerial priesthood will remain unsettled."  Mrs. Trasancos believes she knows better than Christ's Vicar and treats women's ordination as something which might still be possible.  For her, there is no "hard logic" to support the idea that women cannot be ordained.

Not even the Holy Father's definitive judgment, made in virtue of his supreme teaching ministry is enough for her.

This is fidelity to the Magisterium?  God preserve us from such nonsense.  Small wonder the Catholic Free Press gave her a weekly column.  Small wonder my views are censored.  I fully adhere to, defend and propagate the teaching of the Magisterium.