Francis: Priests like Blessed Miguel Pro, S.J., Martyr for the Faith, have moral problems

Blessed Miguel Pro, S.J., martyred for celebrating Holy Mass, wore a cassock.  See here.

Francis assures us that priests who wear cassocks have moral problems.  See here.

To learn more about Blessed Miguel Pro, whom Francis would dismiss as a rigid cleric with moral problems, see here.

And while you're reading about this heroic Saint of God, pray for the mental health of Francis.  For many of the Church's Saints wore cassocks.  And Francis cannot hold a candle to any of them.

My good friend Ann Ball wrote what I believe is the best account of Blessed Miguel Pro's life.  See here.

Before she died, she sent me a sliver of Pro's coffin.  This is something I cherish.

Pray the Rosary every day to fortify yourself against the diabolical disorientation

Even the National Catholic Register now admits that many within the Church's hierarchy have lost their moral compass.  See here.

It was Sister Lucia of Fatima who said: "Let people say the Rosary every day, Our Lady has repeated that in all of Her apparitions, as if to fortify us in these times of diabolical disorientation, in order that we not let ourselves be deceived by false doctrines...Unfortunately, in religious matters, the people for the most part are ignorant and allow themselves to be led wherever they are taken. Hence, the great responsibility of the one who has the duty of leading them...It is a diabolical disorientation that is invading the world, deceiving souls! It is necessary to stand up to the devil."

Pray your Rosary every day.  Things are going to get much worse.

Sorry Francis, moral goodness reflects and glorifies God more than any achievement whatsoever...

Once again Francis is taking a swipe at Faithful Catholics who adhere to sound doctrine and who understand that the teaching of the Living God is immutable.

Religion News Service reports:

"Pope Francis is calling for ordinary Catholics to live holy lives in whatever they do, stressing that the 'saints next door' are more pleasing to God than religious elites who insist on perfect adherence to rules and doctrine."

Really?

As Dr. Dietrich von Hildebrand has reminded us:


"The attempt to make man the absolute center of the universe has in reality led to a progressive blindness toward the true nature of his dignity. The attempt to make a god out of man ended in making of him a more highly developed ape. The idolatry of great achievements shares the same fate...

When confronting the worship of great achievements, it is imperative to recall man's primary vocation. Great as is the range of values which man is capable of realizing, moral values hold a unique position in man's life. They alone are indispensable for every human being, whatever his special gifts and talents may be. They alone belong to the unum necessarium. Man is called above all to glorify God by his justice, his purity, his veracity, his goodness. 'Be you perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect.' (Mt. 5:48). Moral disvalues are an incomparable evil; they alone offend God; moral goodness reflects and glorifies God more than any achievement whatsoever....Compared with this vocation, the noblest talents and the creation of the greatest impersonal goods are secondary. Progress in the domination of nature, inventions, great achievements in science, cultural activities, and even the creation of masterpieces in art - great as they are in themselves, much as they manifest man's greatness - do not constitute man's primary vocation. No excellence in these fields can be compared at all with the value embodied in a saint." (Dr. Dietrich von Hildebrand, The New Tower of Babel, pp. 181-182, Sophia Institute Press).


Archbishop Sheen once noted that, "Christian love bears evil, but it does not tolerate it. It is not broad-minded about sin."

The great Archbishop also made an important distinction: "Tolerance applies to the erring, intolerance to the error."  And again: "Tolerance does not apply to truth or principles. About these things we must be intolerant."

What Francis rails against, referring to as "rigidity" as "sickness," is authentic Christian love, as defined by 1822 of the Catechism.

Before labeling others as sick, Francis should reflect prayerfully on the fact that his one-time Superior General in the Jesuits referred to him as a "sociopath."  See here.

The National Coalition of Concerned Mental Health Experts: Blinded by partisan politics and moral schizophrenia

Dr. Bandy Lee*, the Quack-Physician who violated medical ethics in an asinine attempt to diagnose President Donald Trump without an examination, is a member of the "National Coalition of Concerned Mental Health Experts." The organization's website may be found here.

Not surprisingly, this organization, which claims to be concerned about violence across our culture, links to numerous Democratic organizations and individuals and extremist leftist publications.

In other words, their recent letter to Congress (see here) is partisan and politically motivated.

While these mental-health "experts" have engaged in partisan rhetoric to question the mental stability of President Trump (after Hillary Clinton lost the election - apparently these "experts" couldn't locate any signs of mental instability in Donald Trump prior to the election, read into that what you will, they have nothing to say about about the Democratic Party and it's promotion of violence against children in the womb.  See here for photographs of murdered children.

These "concerned experts" assert that, "As mental health professionals, some of us with an expertise on violence, we deal with the risk of harm as a routine part of our practice.  When someone exhibits signs of danger to oneself, others, or the general public, it is considered an emergency."

By that very definition, abortionists who rip apart babies with surgical instruments and the politicians who make this possible through their policies are a danger and the situation may be described as "an emergency."

But don't expect the "experts" at the "National Coalition of Concerned Mental Health Experts" to acknowledge this truth.  Their partisan ideology has blinded them to their own moral schizophrenia.

*  Update: Bandy Lee's license to practice has lapsed.  See here.

Archbishop Fulton John Sheen and the Double Cross...

On April 6, 1941, Bishop Fulton John Sheen gave a sermon on his radio show "The Catholic Hour" in which he reminded listeners that, "The basic spirit of the modern world for the last century has been a determination to escape the Cross." He told his audience as well that, "There is no such thing as living without a cross. We are free only to choose between crosses." And then he asked them: "Will it be the Cross of Christ which redeems us from our sins, or will it be the double cross, the swastika, the hammer and sickle, the fasces"?Bishop Sheen believed, as I do, that America is at a crossroads. In his own words, "We in America are now faced with the threat of that double cross...Our choice is not: Will we or will we not have more discipline, more respect for law, more order, more sacrifice; but, where will we get it? Will we get it from without, or from within, Will it be inspired by Sparta or Calvary? By Valhalla or Gethsemane? By militarism or religion? By the double cross or the Cross? By Caesar or by God? That is the choice facing America today.

The hour of false freedom is past. No longer can we have education without discipline, family life without sacrifice, individual existence without moral responsibility, economics and politics without subservience to the common good. We are now only free to say whence it shall come. We will have a sword. Shall it be only the sword that thrusts outward to cut off the ears of our enemies, or the sword that pierces inward to cut out our own selfish pride"?Thus far, America has chosen the double cross. Fleeing from the Cross of Christ and the supernatural kingdom established by the Son of God; one of sacrifice and sanctity, America has chosen to pursue a terrestrial kingdom of pleasure and power founded upon a distorted idea of what constitutes liberty or freedom. But this city of man, which has certainly achieved astounding advancements in various spheres while increasing the affluence of some, has also contributed to a climate where men are regarded as mere machines whose only value is to be found in what they produce or consume. This in turn destroys the individual’s sense of personal dignity and responsibility.Americans, in their tragic desire to flee from the Cross of Christ, have rushed to embrace this distorted notion of "freedom" and have forgotten that, as created beings, they only possess contingent rights. That is to say, rights which are accorded by Almighty God. Consequently, in their zeal to promote the fallacious idea that the basis of public morality should be whatever the majority of citizens are prepared to accept, they have also forgotten that man does not possess, and never will possess, the right to perform or engage in any act which is displeasing to God.

And where has this flight from the Cross of Christ led us up to this point? Was Bishop Sheen being an alarmist? In the words of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, taken from his Commencement Address at Harvard University entitled "A World Split Apart": "Destructive and irresponsible freedom has been granted boundless space. Society appears to have little defense against the abyss of human decadence, such as, for example, the misuse of liberty for moral violence against young people, motion pictures full of pornography, crime and horror. This is considered to be part of freedom, and theoretically counterbalanced by the young peoples’ right not to look or not to accept. Life organized legalistically has thus shown its inability to defend itself against the corrosion of evil."

Getting back to Bishop Sheen. What did he mean when he said that, "Our choice is not: Will we or will we not have more discipline, more respect for law, more order, more sacrifice; but, where will we get it"? I believe Pope Benedict XVI was providing us with a hint toward an answer when he spoke of the "dictatorship of relativism." Americans who have gleefully embraced the tenets of liberalism have not learned the lesson the concentration camp and the gulag. These unfortunate souls refuse to acknowledge that atheistic ideology (and make no mistake, the current idea of "freedom" which has taken root in America is itself rooted in atheistic ideology) always, and without exception, gives birth to sheer violence. This is the lesson of atheistic humanism. A lesson which the majority of Americans would rather not think about.

Who would deny that Bishop Sheen’s warning, issued some 76 years ago, was highly prophetic? America, and the West in general, is at a crossroads. We have before us two crosses: The Cross of Christ and the double cross (which may also be referred to today as the "dictatorship of relativism"). Which will we choose in the end? Will we continue on our present course or change direction and finally come to embrace the Cross of Christ? Will we embrace Christ and His kingdom of sacrifice and sanctity or continue to rush headlong into the idolatry of unbridled hedonism while declaring ourselves, albeit tacitly, to be God?

If we continue to choose the latter, then we should remember the words of Fr. Vincent Miceli, S.J., "When man becomes God, history testifies that then millions of men become imprisoned slaves, terrified automatons and murdered corpses. Society, in the words of Gabriel Marcel, becomes a ‘termite colony.’" (The Gods of Atheism, p. 463).

Message for World Youth Day: Violence is never the answer, we can do nothing else but love, love, love...

As noted here, "Msgr. Olivier Ribadeau Dumas, secretary general of the French Bishops Conference, told reporters in Krakow..that the atrocity (a priest having been martyred by having his head cut off) was 'an unbelievable, unspeakable and heinous act.'


But he added that it means World Youth Day 'needs to proceed with even greater intensity and power so young people who are the present and the future can show a path for the Church, and for being within the Church.'

'We need to see a horizon of peace, joy, brotherhood and prayer,' he continued. 'We are rooted in Christ and, I repeat, we believe evil and violence will not have the upper hand.'

Noting that many young people from Rouen are in Krakow for WYD, he said they have come 'to build a new civilization of love that Pope St. John Paul II had called for — we want to build it and that’s why we’re gathered here in such big numbers.'

He stressed that 'anger and revenge would be the easiest ways out but all of this can crush us' and called for mercy on the perpetrators, saying that we all 'live thanks to Jesus and we’re all gathered here because of the mercy he has lavished on us all.' Neither violence nor hate 'are a way out', he said, and one 'cannot surrender to these sentiments,' nor to 'suspicion of neighbors.'

He also recalled that in every part of the world today people are 'killed because they’re Christians or Muslims, more Muslims than Christians.' Asked by the Register if what is really needed is for Muslims to hear the Gospel and convert, he said 'sure', but added that what is important now is dialogue, collaboration and fraternity.

'The answer is only love,' he said. 'We cannot do anything else: love, love, love, dialogue, dialogue and also mercy for all those who are totally destroyed by the violence.'"

Msgr. Ribadeau has forgotten that it is possible to "be angry and sin not" (Ephesians 4: 26), and he is not alone.

Writing for Touchstone Magazine, Dr. Leon J. Podles explains that, "..many Christians have a false understanding of the nature and role of anger. It is seen as something negative, something that a Christian should not feel.

In the sexual abuse cases in the Catholic Church, those who dealt with the bishops have consistently remarked that the bishops never expressed outrage or righteous anger, even at the most horrendous cases of abuse and sacrilege. Bishops seem to think that anger at sin is un-Christian. Gilbert Kilman, a child psychiatrist, commented, 'What amazes me is the lack of outrage the church feels when its good work is being harmed. So, if there is anything the church needs to know, it needs to know how to be outraged.'

Mark Serrano confronted Bishop Frank Rodimer, asking why he had let his priest-friend Peter Osinski sleep with boys at Rodimer’s beach house while Rodimer was in the next bedroom: 'Where is your moral indignation?' Rodimer’s answer was, 'Then I don’t get it. What do you want?' What Serrano wanted Rodimer to do was to behave like a man with a heart, a heart that is outraged by evil. But Rodimer couldn’t; his inability to feel outrage was a quality that had helped make him a bishop. He would never get into fights, never rock the boat, never 'divide' but only 'unify.' Rodimer could not understand why he should feel deep anger at evil, at the violation of the innocent, at the oppression of the weak.

Emotional Deformation

The emotions that are now suppressed are hatred and anger. Christians think that they ought not to feel these emotions, that it is un-Christian to feel them. They secretly suspect that Jesus was being un-Christian in his attitude to the scribes and Pharisees when he was angry at them, that he was un-Christian when he drove the moneychangers out of the temple or declared that millstones (not vacations in treatment centers) were the way to treat child abusers.

Conrad Baars noticed this emotional deformation in the clergy in the mid-twentieth century. He recognized that there had been distortions in 'traditional' Catholic spirituality. It had become too focused upon individual acts rather than on growth in virtue; it had emphasized sheer naked strength of will. In forgetting that growth in virtue was the goal of the Christian’s moral life, it forgot that the emotions, all emotions, including anger and hate, are part of human nature and must be integrated into a virtuous life.

Baars had been imprisoned by the Nazis. He knew iniquity firsthand and that there was something wrong with those who did not hate it:

A little reflection will make it clear that there is a big difference between the person who knows solely that something is evil and ought to be opposed, and the one who in addition also feels hate for that evil, is angry that it is corrupting or harming his fellow-men, and feels aroused to combat it courageously and vigorously.

Just Wrath

Wrath is a necessary and positive part of human nature: 'Wrath is the strength to attack the repugnant; the power of anger is actually the power of resistance in the soul,' wrote Josef Pieper. The lack of wrath against injustice, he continued, is a deficiency: 'One who does good with passion is more praiseworthy than one who is ‘not entirely’ afire for the good, even to the forces of the sensual realm.'

Aquinas, too, says that 'lack of the passion of anger is also a vice' because a man who truly and forcefully rejects evil will be angry at it. The lack of anger makes the movement of the will against evil 'lacking or weak.' He quotes John Chrysostom: 'He who is not angry, whereas he has cause to be, sins. For unreasonable patience is the hotbed of many vices, it fosters negligence, and incites not only the wicked but the good to do wrong'..." 

The spiritually mature Christian understands that not all anger is unjust. That there is such a thing as just or righteous anger. Such a Christian strives to control anger through prayer and by considering the example of Christ. Let's all pray for those in leadership positions in the Church. That they may come to a mature faith which is able to discern between just and unjust anger.

The time has come for a Crusade against the satanic forces of radical Islam.  Now is not the time for cowardice or a deformed spirituality. Now is the time for real men to stand up and fight for Christian civilization (what's left of it).

We don't need the "moral" advice of sissy clerics who lack testosterone.  We need to listen to authentic men who understand that there is a time for peace and a time for war and that war has been declared on us by the antiChrist forces of militant Islam.

In the words of Cicero: "Cry havoc, and let slip the dogs of war."

• 

Michael Brown: Those who insist on moral norms are pharisaical, judgmental, and lacking in love

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

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


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

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

But in FrancisChurch, anyone who understands this, who accepts that moral norms are something more than "mere rules," is a "judgmental Pharisee."  It would appear that Michael Brown over at Spirit Daily is promoting this idea.  In an article which may be found here, Mr. Brown suggests that, "In religion, there can be a disconnection. When there is, it doesn't prepare us like it could for eternity. We go with less than we can.

We see this with those who suffer from a "spirit of religiosity," folks who are legalistic and follow the rules -- on the surface, a holy life -- but too often have been harsh on others, fixated on the parts, the mechanics, the codicil, the footnotes, instead of the spirit; not using the gifts of the Church to full effect and perhaps not at all. They genuflect correctly but have exhibited a wrong heart.

They can tell you the difference between blessed and chrism oils. They have the holy days memorized: all good things.

But if it doesn't lead to love (only to self-righteousness, even spiritual arrogance, which becomes judgmentalism), such people, in their zeal, and scrupulosity, are fooling themselves."

Actually it's Michael Brown who is fooling himself.  Archbishop Fulton John Sheen, in an Essay which may be found in his book The Electronic Christian, tells us:


"The modern man must decide for himself whether he is going to have a religion with thought or a religion without it. He already knows that thoughtless policies lead to the ruin of society, and he may begin to suspect that thoughtless religion ends in confusion worse confounded.

The problem is simple. The modern man has two maps before him: one the map of sentimental religion, the other the map of dogmatic religion. The first is very simple. It has been constructed only in the last few years by a topographer who has just gone into the business of map making and is extremely adverse to explicit directions. He believes that each man should find his own way and not have his liberty taken away by dogmatic directions. The other map is much more complicated and full of dogmatic detail. It has been made by topographers who have been over every inch of the road for centuries and know each detour and each pitfall. It has explicit directions and dogmas such as, 'Do not take this road - it is swampy,' or 'Follow this road; although rough and rocky at first, it leads to a smooth road on a mountaintop.'

The simple map is very easy to read, but those who are guided by it are generally lost in a swamp of mushy sentimentalism. The other map takes a little more scrutiny, but it is simpler in the end, for it takes you up through the rocky road of the world's scorn to the everlasting hills where is seated the original Map Maker, the only One who ever has associated rest with learning: 'Learn of Me...and you shall find rest for your souls.'

Every new coherent doctrine and dogma add to the pabulum for thought; it is an extra bit of garden upon which we can intellectually browse; it is new food into which we can put our teeth and thence absorb nourishment; it is the discovery of a new intellectual planet that adds fullness and spaciousness to our mental world. And simply because it is solid and weighty, because it is dogmatic and not gaseous and foggy like a sentiment, it is intellectually invigorating, for it is with weights that the best drill is done, and not with feathers.

It is the very nature of a man to generate children of his brain in the shape of thoughts, and as he piles up thought on thought, truth on truth, doctrine on doctrine, conviction on conviction, and dogma on dogma, a very coherent and orderly fashion, so as to produce a system complex as a body and yet one and harmonious, the more and more human he becomes. When, however, in response to false cries for progress, he lops off dogmas, breaks with the memory of his forefathers, denies intellectual parentage, pleads for a religion without dogmas, substitutes mistiness for mystery, mistakes sentiment for sediment, he is sinking back slowly, surely, and inevitably into the senselessness of stones and into the irresponsible unconsciousness of weeds. Grass is broad-minded. Cabbages have heads - but no dogmas. (pp. 74-74).

The Catechism of the Catholic Church tells us that, "The Church's Magisterium exercises the authority it holds from Christ to the fullest extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes, in a form obliging the Christian people to an irrevocable adherence of faith, truths contained in divine Revelation or also when it proposes, in a definitive way, truths having a necessary connection with these." (CCC, 88).

How critical is dogma to one's faith life?  Again the Catechism explains, "There is an organic connection between our spiritual life and the dogmas.  Dogmas are lights along the path of faith; they illuminate it and make it secure.  Conversely, if our life is upright, our intellect and heart will be open to welcome the light shed by the dogmas of faith." (CCC, 89).

Michael Brown would have us believe that dogma leads us away from compassion and to a cold Pharisaism and that insisting on moral norms leads to coldness and a lack of compassion. But as far as compassion is concerned, we must define our terms.

Because of human frailty, every sinner deserves both pity and compassion. However, vice and sin must be excluded from this compassion. This because sin can never be the proper object of compassion. (Summa Theologica, II-II, q. 30, a.1, ad 1).

It is a false compassion which supplies the sinner with the means to remain attached to sin. Such "compassion" provides an assistance (whether material or moral) which actually enables the sinner to remain firmly attached to his evil ways. By contrast, true compassion leads the sinner away from vice and back to virtue. As Thomas Aquinas explains:

"We love sinners out of charity, not so as to will what they will, or to rejoice in what gives them joy, but so as to make them will what we will, and rejoice in what rejoices us. Hence it is written: 'They shall be turned to thee, and thou shalt not be turned to them.'" (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, II-II, q. 25, a.6, ad 4, citing Jeremiah 15:19).

St. Thomas Aquinas teaches us that the sentiment of compassion only becomes a virtue when it is guided by reason, since "it is essential to human virtue that the movements of the soul should be regulated by reason." (Summa Theologica, II-II, q. 30, c.3). Without such regulation, compassion is merely a passion. A false compassion is a compassion not regulated and tempered by reason and is, therefore, a potentially dangerous inclination. This because it is subject to favoring not only that which is good but also that which is evil (Summa Theologica, II-II, q. 30, a.1, ad 3).

An authentic compassion always stems from charity. True compassion is an effect of charity (Summa Theologica, II-II, q. 30, a.3, ad 3). But it must be remembered that the object of this virtue is God, whose love extends to His creatures. (Summa Theologica, II-II, q. 25, a.3). Therefore, the virtue of compassion seeks to bring God to the one who suffers so that he may thereby participate in the infinite love of God. As St. Augustine explains:

"'Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.' Now, you love yourself suitably when you love God better than yourself. What, then, you aim at in yourself you must aim at in your neighbor, namely, that he may love God with a perfect affection." (St. Augustine, Of the Morals of the Catholic Church, No. 49).

I an concerned for Michael Brown and the direction he has been taking recently.   With every bizarre statement issued by Francis, inevitably he issues a knee-jerk apologia.   Where others, including Raymond Arroyo over at EWTN, have expressed concern, Mr, Brown is seemingly in a state of denial.

From the Synod: Accept and value a tendency toward moral evil?

 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).

From the Synod:

“Relatio post disceptationem” of the General Rapporteur, Card. Péter Erdő, 13.10.2014

No. 50:

"Homosexuals have gifts and qualities to offer to the Christian community: are we capable of welcoming these people, guaranteeing to them a fraternal space in our communities? Often they wish to encounter a Church that offers them a welcoming home. Are our communities capable of providing that, accepting and valuing their sexual orientation, without compromising Catholic doctrine on the family and matrimony?"

The Synod is calling on Catholics to "accept and value" an orientation which is, according to Magisterial teaching based on Divine Revelation, "intrinsically disordered."

It is one thing to ask Catholics to accept and value the homosexual person.  It is quite another thing to ask that we accept and value that which is a tendency toward moral evil.

Pray for Rome.  Pray for the entire Church.  The Diabolical Disorientation spreads.

England's new Cyber Security Strategy: Will it treat Christians who oppose homosexuality as "cyber bullies"?

England's intelligence agency GCHQ will play a key role in the new UK Cyber Security Strategy.  This new strategy was crafted, we are told, to protect against "criminals, hackers, foreign intelligence services..who want to harm us by compromising or damaging our critical data and systems."  See here.  Sounds like good news right?

But if one reads this document very carefully, a few red flags begin to emerge.  It's not only criminals, hackers and foreign intelligence services which the new Cyber Security Strategy will target by banning them from the internet, but "cyber-bullies" as well.  Here we enter a very subjective area.  What exactly is it that constitutes a "cyber-bully"?   The Human Rights Campaign [pro-homosexual] says that, "Perpetrators of cyber bullying may use personal computers or cellular phones to harass victimes through email, instant messages, online bulletin boards, websites or text messages." See here.  In other words, an individual who opposes the homosexual agenda on moral grounds at his or her website or Blog, or who argues against another individual's "gay lifestyle" at an online "bulletin board" could also be considered to be a "cyber-bully."

There is real reason for concern here.  The new UK Cyber Security Strategy, on page 39, states that it will, "Continue the process started by the London Conference on Cyberspace to establish international norms of acceptable behaviour in cyberspace."

And who or what exactly was behind the London Conference on Cyberspace?  And what does this reveal, if anything, about the approach which the UK Cyber Security Strategy will take as it works to "establish international norms of acceptable behaviour in cyberspace"?  The Conference was sponsored by the Foreign & Commonwealth Office, the same entity which provides travel advice for LGBT travellers.  This office tells such people:

"If you intend to frequent cruising areas or internet chat rooms find out about the local situation - police in some countries have been known to carry out entrapment campaigns."  Translation: Before you cruise for gay or lesbian sex on the internet in chat rooms, make sure you're not chatting with a police officer who is there to protect minors from being sexually assaulted by adult perverts.

Then there is this gem from the Foreign & Commonwealth Office:

"You're more likely to experience difficulties in rural areas so its best to exercise discretion."  Translation: When travelling in countries such as the United States, watch your conduct particularly in rural areas where the people are ignorant and backward because they live in the Bible Belt or because they still maintain their religious heritage and beliefs.


I don't know about you.  But I have a strong feeling that the new UK Cyber Security Strategy will find any excuse to ban internet content which is faith-based and which opposes the LGBT agenda.  What do you think?  Will cyber security soon become cyber censorship?

Read all of the Foreign & Commonwealth Office advice for LGBT travellers here.

Has Barn2066 (AKA BAM) finally revealed his identity?

For several years now, an anonymous individual referring to himself as "Barn2066" and also as "BAM" has left comments - or has attempted to do so - at this Blog and other Catholic Blogs covering the moral and intellectual meltdown in the Boston Archdiocese.  This disturbed individual has accused me repeatedly of being a "self-loathing homosexual" because I both promote and defend the Church's authentic teaching (as expressed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and Vatican documents) regarding the sinfulness of homosexual acts as well as the intrinsically disordered nature of the homosexual orientation.  He has also defended the Boston Archdiocese's decision to allow students whose parents are homosexual into Catholic schools.  Many of his comments have been graphic in nature, some of them referring to his semen as "love cream."  Another made specific reference to my Facebook profile.

This angry and potentially violent individual (in my opinion, based upon some of the bizarre comments which have been left here) may have finally revealed his true identity.  One which has had Catholic bloggers curious for some time.  Last August, Catholic blogger Carol McKinley left the following comment at this Blog:

"Hi Paul,


Remember the commenter BAM or something like that who was posting from Rhode Island and one other place up here in Massachusetts?

I remember once posting the IP addresses and need to hunt those down.

By any chance, if you have those IP addresses, would you please contact me?

Thanks.

Nice work covering the Boston situation."

And I replied:


"I'll check Carol. The commenter harassing me has largely gone by the name Barn2066. I know I wrote the IP Address down in a notebook. I will look for it and get back to you via your Blog.

Keep up the great work at TTBO in 2010.

Peace of Christ!"

See this post for Carol's comment and my response.


Now an individual whose name is Bernie McMahon has sent me a brief message on Facebook.  This message reads, "You are one hot stud."  I have not, of course, responded to this bizarre message and will not be doing so.  But I did check this person's profile.  It turns out Mr. McMahon works for the Rinet Company, LLC in Boston.  His profile also mentions an address in Rhode Island and says that he was educated at Lasalle Academy and the University of Notre Dame (class of 1965; Accountancy).

Bernard McMahon.  It will not be lost on astute readers of this Blog that "Barn" is an abbreviated form of Barney or Bernard.  Remember Don Knotts as the character Barney Fife on The Andy Griffith Show referring to himself as "Barn"?  And BAM - Bernard McMahon? 

There are angry souls out there who take exception to Catholic bloggers exposing the dissent, the immorality and the spiritual meltdown which has infected the Boston Archdiocese as a plague.  But angry and anonymous comments will not deter us.  We will not be intimidated by such cheap tactics.

Related reading: Opposing The Grand Taboo.

Lt. Gen. Thomas P. Bostick calls Christian soldiers "bigots."

The Washington Times is reporting that Lt. Gen. Thomas P. Bostick, the Army's deputy chief of staff in charge of personnel matters who spoke about "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" before several hundred troops at the European Command headquarters in Stuttgart, Germany, said: "Unfortunately, we have a minority of service members who are still racists and bigoted and you will never be able to get rid of all of them...But these people opposing this new policy will need to get with the program, and if they can't, they need to get out. No matter how much training and education of those in opposition, you're always going to have those that oppose this on moral and religious grounds just like you still have racists today." Full article here.

Ironically, General Bostick's commentary reveals that he is guilty of the very charge which he levels against Christians who oppose homosexuality. In Slouching Towards Gomorrah, Robert H. Bork writes, "Moral objection to homosexual practices is not the same thing as animus, unless all disapprovals based on morality are to be disallowed as mere animus. Modern liberalism tends to classify all moral distinctions it does not accept as hateful and invalid. Moral views about sexual practices are particularly suspect.." (p. 113).

As I said in a previous post: "..the same radical homosexual activists who continually cry for more "tolerance" are anything but tolerant. This is a spiritual war. The homosexual movement is not a civil rights movement. It is an attempt at moral revolution. An attempt to change people's view of homosexuality.

Writing in the Chicago Free Press, even homosexual activist Paul Varnell admitted this. He wrote, "The fundamental controverted issue about homosexuality is not discrimination, hate crimes or domestic partnerships, but the morality of homosexuality. Even if gays obtain non-discrimination laws, hate crimes law and domestic partnership benefits, those can do little to counter the underlying moral condemnation which will continue to fester beneath the law and generate hostility, fuel hate crimes, support conversion therapies, encourage gay youth suicide and inhibit the full social acceptance that is our goal. On the other hand, if we convince people that homosexuality is fully moral, then all their inclination to discriminate, engage in gay-bashing or oppose gay marriage disappears. Gay youths and adults could readily accept themselves. So the gay movement, whether we acknowledge it or not, is not a civil rights movement, not even a sexual liberation movement, but a moral revolution aimed at changing people's view of homosexuality." (Paul Varnell, "Defending Our Morality," Chicago Free Press, Aug 16, 2000, See here).

Related reading here.