Spirit Digest stands with U.S. District Judge David Bunning

The doctrine on the necessary conformity of civil law with the moral law is in continuity with the whole tradition of the Church. This is clear from John XXIII's Encyclical: "Authority is a postulate of the moral order and derives from God. Consequently, laws and decrees enacted in contravention of the moral order, and hence of the divine will, can have no binding force in conscience...; indeed, the passing of such laws undermines the very nature of authority and results in shameful abuse". This is the clear teaching of Saint Thomas Aquinas, who writes that "human law is law inasmuch as it is in conformity with right reason and thus derives from the eternal law. But when a law is contrary to reason, it is called an unjust law; but in this case it ceases to be a law and becomes instead an act of violence". And again: "Every law made by man can be called a law insofar as it derives from the natural law. But if it is somehow opposed to the natural law, then it is not really a law but rather a corruption of the law".

This is not understood by many today.  Including many Catholics.  See here.

The owner of Spirit Digest asserts that the Judge is correct in this situation. 

Francis, your legalism is showing...

My last Facebook post:

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

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


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

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

It's time to get rid of effeminacy in the Church...

I am viewed as "strange" or as somehow "fringe" by liberal counterfeit Catholic wreckovators within my local Church

because I promote and defend the perennial teaching of the Church regarding the "Last Things," or what theologians refer to as "eschatology."

Our "modern world" hates to be reminded of death, judgement, heaven, hell, purgatory and the end of the world.  And anyone today who speaks or writes about these things must be demonized and cast as a freak because the "New Church" Catholics are uncomfortable with these realities.

Pope John XXIII would not have understood this spiritual sickness.  He used as a motto for his whole life the following, entitled "Four Future Things":

Death, than which nothing is more certain;

Judgement, than which nothing is more strict;

Hell, than which nothing is more dreadfull ;

Paradise, than which nothing is more delightful.

(Journal of a Soul, Appendix 6).


Because I preach the hard truths men need to hear, I am sometimes accused of having "little mercy."  And I am not entirely surprised.  So many Catholics have been fed on chaff rather than wheat for so long that authentic Catholic teaching seems to them as something evil or hard-hearted.  Years of consuming a diet of false compassion has wrought much havoc in the souls of certain people who are content with remaining mental and moral midgets.

Father Albert, a Dominican priest, writes, "If Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical on the Holy Rosary could speak (over a century ago) of the forgetfulness of man concerning future goods, what would he say today!  The future goods and the future evils that await all of us after death are buried in total oblivion!  The present life seems to be the BE-ALL and END-ALL of all things.  Even in the Church, since Vatican II, all one hears about from the pulpit is social justice. To speak of Heaven, Hell, Purgatory, Death and Judgement is considered strangely bizarre.  Meditation on the Glorious mysteries of the Holy Rosary brings us back to reality!" (Dedicated Decades, Winter 2013, pp. 32, 33).

But then, most clerics (be they priest or deacon) no longer pray the Holy Rosary. They prefer worldly things to the Holy Rosary.  Once prayer is abandoned, doctrine follows.

Today the Catholic Church is infested with many effeminate priests and deacons who are spiritually unable to offer the faithful the sound doctrine, the hard truths which they need to hear. And parishes are emptying.

The priest who not only does not encourage the involvement of masculine men but actively discourages the same is contributing to the demise of his parish.  Strong masculine men set an example for the entire parish.  When masculine men are encouraged and not relegated to the fringe, whole families will return to Church.

The Cult of Softness must go. Effeminate clerics who discourage masculine men must go.

Some years ago, I informed my parish priest that he shouldn't be promoting CCHD.  See here.  And although the priest in question thanked me in an email for informing him that CCHD was giving monies to groups which promote sodomy, abortion and contraception, I became persona non grata.  Even though I volunteered to serve the parish in some capacity, I never heard from the parish.  After all, we can't have a masculine male involved in the parish who might actually provide others with a good example of fidelity and courage.

Where is the effeminacy coming from?  From the vice of luxuria.  See here.

It's time to fashion a whip and drive the disease of effeminacy from the Church. One priest, in a comment left at this Blog, wrote:

I was the pastor of a large suburban parish of 2100 families for almost a decade. The effeminization of the parish was disastrous.

I immediately ended the feel-good, feminine expressions in the liturgy, ended the awful practices in the school masses which neutered boys and drove them away from the Church.

I preached constantly about the need to accept Jesus as Lord and Savior, to serve him in battle, and invited men back to Church. The results were amazing. Men came back and stayed. Boys in 7th and 8th grades were invited to become Masters of Ceremony at mass, and were given cassocks and surplices to wear at mass. They loved it! They rose to the occasion. A visiting priest told me that he had never seen so many "normal men" at mass.

We junked liturgical dance, wispy, wimpy hymns, and hand-holding and all the rest of the emasculating practices. We promoted Confession endlessly, and saw a gradual return to the sacrament by many young men seeking to live a life of purity - and these are mostly men in their 20s.

We promoted Marian devotion by men and women, and saw a huge response.

I was asked to take on another assignment and had to leave the parish, but I left a solid young priest who will continue the good work The parish has grown in numbers and participation and collections.

The Lord has given us all the spiritual tools we need to draw people into the life of Christ: the sacraments, the Word of God, preaching and teaching the Truth, and the good work and example of good holy priests who are healthy and real men, as well as deacons who believe the Word and preach it and live it. The results are fantastic!

God is good.

Amen....let's get to work!

Ignore Cardinal Donald Wuerl

As noted here:

WASHINGTON — The District’s top Catholic leader has weighed in on the Supreme Court’s decision to legalize same-sex marriage.

“The law of the land is the law of the land,” says Archbishop of Washington Cardinal Donald Wuerl. “We certainly follow what the law says. That doesn’t mean we change the word of God. That doesn’t mean we change the scriptures, or the church’s millennia-long tradition of what marriage is.”

Sodomy is the law of the land?  Sure it is, and I play spin the bottle with Carmen Electra every Friday evening.

And now....sanity.

The doctrine on the necessary conformity of civil law with the moral law is in continuity with the whole tradition of the Church. This is clear from the teaching of Pope John XXIII, "Authority is a postulate of the moral order and derives from God. Consequently, laws and decrees enacted in contravention of the moral order, and hence of the divine will, can have no binding force in conscience...; indeed, the passing of such laws undermines the very nature of authority and results in shameful abuse".

This is the clear teaching of Saint Thomas Aquinas, who writes that "human law is law inasmuch as it is in conformity with right reason and thus derives from the eternal law. But when a law is contrary to reason, it is called an unjust law; but in this case it ceases to be a law and becomes instead an act of violence". And again: "Every law made by man can be called a law insofar as it derives from the natural law. But if it is somehow opposed to the natural law, then it is not really a law but rather a corruption of the law".

Cardinal Wuerl has obviously succumbed to the diabolical disorientation of our time.

Ignore him.

Making a mess and medicinal rebuke

"We invite you to criticize our institutions without reserve. One is not insulted by being informed of something amiss, but rather gets an opportunity for amendment, if the information is taken in good part, without resentment.” – Plato, Laws, Bk. 1, 635a

In a post which may be found here, Terry McDermott writes, "We live in a litigious society. People sue for every and any reason: finding something gross in their fast food, slipping on an ice-covered driveway, getting one’s feelings  hurt.

In media, lawsuits abound: copyright infringement and stealing someone else’s work is illegal. When we post an image on this website we have to be 100% certain that it is copyright-free and we have permission to use it.

Sometimes, readers take offense at what we write. My article on NFP resulted in a strongly worded letter to my editor. Someone else called me a member of the 'communion police' when I wrote an article that was critical of a supposedly Catholic funeral that really wasn’t. An atheist website threatened to 'expose' me (whatever that means).  As Catholic bloggers and writers who strive to be true to Holy Mother Church and uphold the teachings of the Magisterium, at times what we write doesn’t sit well with other people. As long as there is a mutual respect for differences of opinion, we can live with criticism and opposing views.

Now it seems that Catholic bloggers can be sued simply for questioning, calling out, and exposing erroneous statements and actions of priests in high places who really should know better. The style in which a few of us write may be somewhat abrasive (therefore feelings may get hurt) or too traditional or orthodox for others; but as long as we stick to the facts, especially publicly acknowledged facts, we have the freedom to publish our work: freedom of the press, freedom of the law, freedom of our conscience.

On that beach in Rio, Pope Francis exhorted the Catholic world to 'make a mess!'  As someone who has spent years cleaning up after my eight kids and my husband, I know that often in the process of cleaning my home, things get worse before they get better. Making a mess in order to clean my house includes shaking out the rugs and uncovering what is hidden underneath, piling mounds of dust and dirt while sweeping out what is lurking in the corners, overturning stones and rocks to expose new growth.

Making a mess with our blogging and writing is much the same. Sometimes, you have to shake things up to expose the facts. Sometimes you have to make some noise and rattle people out of their complacency. Sometimes you have to expose that pile of garbage.

And sometimes making a mess with our words means shining a light on the cracks and crevices that threaten the foundation so that it can be fixed and the cracks eliminated.

So go ahead, faithful Catholic bloggers. Make a mess! Keep it factual. Keep it real. Do it out of love for Holy Mother Church and in defense of authentic Catholic teaching."

In our saccharin society, too few have any tolerance for medicinal rebuke or fraternal correction. Such people view fraternal correction or constructive criticism as being opposed to an abstract idol of peace.  But Pope John XXIII, who was an extremely good-natured Pontiff and lover of peace, explained that authentic peace, "is not completely untroubled and serene; it is active, not calm and motionless. In short, this is a peace that is ever at war. It wars with every sort of error, including that which falsely wears the face of truth; it struggles against the enticements of vice, against those enemies of the soul, of whatever description, who can weaken, blemish, or destroy our innocence or Catholic faith." (Ad Petri cathedram, AAS, 51 (1959) 517, PE, 263.93).

In her own day, St. Catherine of Sienna found much corruption within the Holy Church. Homosexuality and many other deeply rooted problems were found among the clergy and Our Lord spoke to this Doctor of the Church about these problems (pride, loss of sacred identity, loss of faith, worldliness, and sensuality). These conversations were laid out in St. Catherine's book entitled "Dialogue," and most especially in that portion of the book labelled "The Mystical Body of Holy Church."

While St. Catherine cautions her readers not to engage in blanket condemnations aimed at the clergy in general (using scandals as an excuse to denigrate priests in general), and refers to such people as "irreverent persecutors" of the clergy, still, she was told by Our Lord that those who will not receive correction and those who will not give it are like the limbs of a body beginning to rot.

Medicinal rebuke is often mistaken for a "lack of charity" when in actuality such constructive criticism aids in healing. In his excellent work entitled "Liberalism is a sin," Fr. Felix Sarda Y Salvany writes:

"If the propagation of good and the necessity of combating evil require the employment of terms somewhat harsh against error and its supporters, this usage is certainly not against charity. This is a corollary or consequence of the principle we have just demonstrated. We must render evil odious and detestable. We cannot attain this result without pointing out the dangers of evil, without showing how and why it is odious, detestable and contemptible. Christian oratory of all ages has ever employed the most vigorous and emphatic rhetoric in the arsenal of human speech against impiety. In the writings of the great athletes of Christianity the usage of irony, imprecation, execration and of the most crushing epithets is continual. Hence the only law is the opportunity and the truth.

But there is another justification for such an usage. Popular propagation and apologetics cannot preserve elegant and constrained academic forms. In order to convince the people we must speak to their heart and their imagination which can only be touched by ardent, brilliant, and impassioned language. To be impassioned is not to be reprehensible----when our heat is the holy ardor of truth.

The supposed violence of modern Ultramontane journalism not only falls short of Liberal journalism, but is amply justified by every page of the works of our great Catholic polemicists of other epochs. This is easily verified. St. John the Baptist calls the Pharisees "race of vipers," Jesus Christ, our Divine Savior, hurls at them the epithets "hypocrites, whitened sepulchers, a perverse and adulterous generation" without thinking for this reason that He sullies the sanctity of His benevolent speech. St. Paul criticizes the schismatic Cretins as "always liars, evil beasts, slothful bellies." The same apostle calls Elymas the magician a "seducer, full of guile and deceit, child of the Devil, enemy of all justice."

If we open the Fathers we find the same vigorous castigation of heresy and heretics. St. Jerome arguing against Vigilantius casts in his face his former occupation of saloonkeeper: "From your infancy," he says to him, "you have learned other things than theology and betaken yourself to other pursuits. To verify at the same time the value of your money accounts and the value of Scriptural texts, to sample wines and grasp the meaning of the prophets and apostles are certainly not occupations which the same man can accomplish with credit." On another occasion attacking the same Vigilantius, who denied the excellence of virginity and of fasting, St. Jerome, with his usual sprightliness, asks him if he spoke thus "in order not to diminish the receipts of his saloon?" Heavens! What an outcry would be raised if one of our Ultramontane controversialists were to write against a Liberal critic or heretic of our own day in this fashion!

What shall we say of St. John Chrysostom? His famous invective against Eutropius is not comparable, in its personal and aggressive character, to the cruel invectives of Cicero against Catiline and against Verres! The gentle St. Bernard did not honey his words when he attacked the enemies of the faith. Addressing Arnold of Brescia, the great Liberal agitator of his times, he calls him in all his letters "seducer, vase of injuries, scorpion, cruel wolf."

The pacific St. Thomas of Acquinas forgets the calm of his cold syllogisms when he hurls his violent apostrophe against William of St. Amour and his disciples: "Enemies of God," he cries out, "ministers of the Devil, members of antiChrist, ignorami, perverts, reprobates!" Never did the illustrious Louis Veuillot speak so boldly. The seraphic St. Bonaventure, so full of sweetness, overwhelms his adversary Gerard with such epithets as "impudent, calumniator, spirit of malice, impious, shameless, ignorant, impostor, malefactor, perfidious, ingrate!" Did St. Francis de Sales, so delicately exquisite and tender, ever purr softly over the heretics of his age and country? He pardoned their injuries, heaped benefits on them even to the point of saving the lives of those who sought to take his, but with the enemies of the faith he preserved neither moderation nor consideration. Asked by a Catholic, who desired to know if it were permissible to speak evil of a heretic who propagated false doctrines, he replied: "Yes, you can, on the condition that you adhere to the exact truth, to what you know of his bad conduct, presenting that which is doubtful as doubtful according to the degree of doubt which you may have in this regard." In his Introduction to a Devout Life, that precious and popular work, he expresses himself again: "If the declared enemies of God and of the Church ought to be blamed and censured with all possible vigor, charity obliges us to cry 'wolf' when the wolf slips into the midst of the flock, and in every way and place we may meet him."

This is real meat for real Catholics. It was Sir Edmund Burke who said that, "The only thing necessary for evil to triumph in the world is for good people to do nothing." When we witness another Catholic (and yes, even a priest) promoting homosexuality, abortion, contraception, New Age, witchcraft, or dissent in general, we have an obligation (in charity) to speak the truth and to show others how that individual's words, ideas or actions fail to hold up when placed in the Lumen Christi - when held up to the Magisterial teaching of the Church.

If someone wants to accuse us of "having an axe to grind," simply because we speak the truth, that's their affair. But such people should recall what St. Catherine had to say about medicinal rebuke and should meditate upon these passages from Sacred Scripture:


"Do not be deceived; God is not mocked, for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap. For he who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption; but he who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life." (Galatians 6:7-8).

"Nothing is covered up that will not be revealed, or hidden that will not be known. Whatever you have said in the dark SHALL BE HEARD IN THE LIGHT, and what you have whispered in private rooms SHALL BE PROCLAIMED FROM THE HOUSETOPS." (Luke 12:2-3).

The Diocese of Baton Rouge and the attack on the priest-penitent privilege

Washington D.C., Jan 21, 2015 / 05:03 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear a petition from a Louisiana Catholic diocese that fears a civil lawsuit could force a priest to violate the seal of confession or go to jail.

The Diocese of Baton Rouge and diocesan priest Father Jeff Bayhi were disappointed by the decision, which the diocese said has “significant ramifications for religious freedom in Louisiana and beyond.”

“The diocese and Fr. Bayhi will continue their efforts to protect the guarantees of religious freedom set forth in our state and federal constitutions, and are confident that those efforts will, in due course, be successful,” the diocese said in a Jan. 20 statement.

The diocese and the priest are considering “a number of options” for other constitutional challenges in the case.

The U.S. Supreme Court has let stand the Louisiana Supreme Court’s May 2014 ruling that a court hearing is necessary to determine whether state law protects a priest’s conversation during confession with a minor about an alleged sexual abuser in the parish.

Catholic priests are bound to observe the seal of confession and cannot not reveal to anyone the contents of a confession or whether a confession took place. Priests who violate the seal are automatically excommunicated.

At issue is a civil lawsuit involving a woman who said that in 2008, when she was a minor, she told Fr. Bayhi that she was being abused by a parishioner. The alleged conversation with the priest took place during the Sacrament of Confession. The woman is now in her early 20s.

The young woman's family is now suing the priest and the diocese for damages, saying they were negligent in allowing the abuse to continue, The Times-Picayune newspaper reports. The estate of the man who allegedly molested the woman is also named in the suit. The accused man died in 2009.

A trial court had denied the diocese's motion to prevent any plaintiffs from testifying about any confessions that may have taken place between the then-minor and the priest. However, a state appeals court had ruled that the alleged confession was legally confidential and that the priest was not a mandatory reporter.

Later, the Louisiana Supreme Court overturned the appeals court. It said that a fact finding hearing should determine whether the priest had the duty to report alleged abuse under the state's mandatory reporting law. It noted that Louisiana law requires any mandatory reporter to report suspected abuse “notwithstanding any claim of privileged communication.”

The Louisiana Supreme Court also ruled that under state law the priest-penitent privilege belongs to the penitent, not to the priest, and if the penitent waives the privilege then the priest “cannot raise it to protect himself.”

In September 2014, the diocese characterized the legal issue as something that “attacks the seal of confession” and an “attempt by the plaintiffs to have the court compel testimony from the priest.”
Thomas McKenna, the president of the San Diego-based group Catholic Action for Faith and Family, also expressed disappointment that the U.S. Supreme Court declined to give a hearing to the question.

“We had hoped that the Supreme Court would clarify the issue once and for all,” said McKenna, whose organization joined several other groups in filing legal briefs in support of the Baton Rouge diocese and the priest.

He suggested that the plaintiff attorneys modified their position in response to the briefs and began to voice uncertainty about whether they would call the priest to testify about anything he allegedly heard in confession.

“That’s a success,” McKenna said. “Because all these briefs were filed, they changed their tone, and that’s probably why the Supreme Court didn’t accept hearing the case right now.”

If the plaintiff attorneys do call the priest to testify, he said, “we would revisit the case again.”

However, McKenna warned that the case threatens to advance a significant change in American culture when respect for religious freedom is already on the wane.

“This is unprecedented in the history of our country,” he said, saying that a state supreme court has never before ruled that a priest would have to violate the seal of confession.

“We have a civil court calling a priest and disregarding his religious perspective, saying that this is a civil matter and we don’t care what your religion says. You have to tell us.”

“The state has no right to demand from him that he break his vow. That’s what’s very concerning and scary,” McKenna continued. “What you have is the state telling the religion that they have to re-structure and re-order its religion.”

McKenna encouraged Catholics to pray for Fr. Bayhi.

__________________

This is extremely disturbing and has implications across the country.  The priest-penitent privilege has a long history in American jurisprudence, stretching back more than 200 years.

The earliest and most influential case acknowledging the priest-penitent privilege was People v. Phillips, where the Court of General Sessions of the City of New York refused to compel a priest to testify or face criminal punishment.

The Court rightfully asserted that, "It is essential to the free exercise of a religion, that its ordinances should be administered - that its ceremonies as well as its essentials should be protected. Secrecy is of the essence of penance. The sinner will not confess, nor will the priest receive his confession, if the veil of secrecy is removed: To decide that the minister shall promulgate what he receives in confession, is to declare that there shall be no penance..."

Attacks against the priest-penitent privilege have multiplied in recent years as the State seeks to encroach on religious freedom.  The Termite Nations seek to punish clerics who refuse to commit the crime of violating the seal of the confessional.

Canon 983: "The sacramental seal is inviolable; therefore, it is a crime for a confessor in any way to betray a penitent by word or in any other manner or for any reason."

Any law which seeks to violate the seal of confession is no law at all.  The doctrine on the necessary conformity of civil law with the moral law is in continuity with the whole tradition of the Church. This is clear for example from the teaching of Pope John XXIII who said that,  "Authority is a postulate of the moral order and derives from God. Consequently, laws and decrees enacted in contravention of the moral order, and hence of the divine will, can have no binding force in conscience...; indeed, the passing of such laws undermines the very nature of authority and results in shameful abuse".

This is the clear teaching of Saint Thomas Aquinas, who writes that "human law is law inasmuch as it is in conformity with right reason and thus derives from the eternal law. But when a law is contrary to reason, it is called an unjust law; but in this case it ceases to be a law and becomes instead an act of violence". And again: "Every law made by man can be called a law insofar as it derives from the natural law. But if it is somehow opposed to the natural law, then it is not really a law but rather a corruption of the law".

The National "Catholic" Reporter proves itself to be a menace to individuals and society: Will Pope Francis respond as a true Shepherd?

The National "Catholic" Reporter assures us that, "The priesthood of the future will include married and celibate, male and female, gay and straight." See here.

In his book "Called to Communion: Understanding the Church Today," then Cardinal Ratzinger and now Pope Benedict XVI, writing about futile reform and the "naive arrogance of the self-appointed enlightener who is convinced that previous generations did not get it right, or else were too fearful and unilluminated," explains the thinking of such deluded souls: "It thus appears [for these adolescent Catholics] as the most normal thing in the world to make up for lost time, which means first establishing once and for all this basic patrimony of structures of freedom [elaborated by the Enlightenment].

We must move - it is maintained - from the paternalistic Church to the community Church; no one must any longer remain a passive receiver of the gift of Christian existence.  Rather, all should be active agents of it.  The Church must no longer be fitted over us from above like a ready-made garment; no, we 'make' the Church ourselves, and do so in constantly new ways.  It thus finally becomes 'our' Church, for which we are actively responsible.  The Church arises out of discussion, compromise and resolution.  Debate brings out what can still be asked of people today, what can still be considered by common consent as faith or as ethical norms.  New short formulas of faith are composed...

But questions immediately arise concerning this work of reform, which in place of all hierarchical tutelage will at long last introduce democratic self-determination into the Church.  Who actually has the right to make decisions?  What is the basis of the decision-making process?  In a political democracy the answer to this question is the system of representation: individuals elect their representative, who makes decisions on their behalf.  This commission has a time limit, its mainlines of policy are clearly defined by the party system, and it embraces only those spheres of political action that are assigned to representative bodies by the constitution.

Questions remain even in regard to representation: the minority must submit to the majority, and this minority can be quite large.  Furthermore, there is no infallible guarantee that my elected representative actually does act and speak as I wish.  Once again, the victorious majority, seen from close up, can in no case consider itself entirely as the active subject of political events but must accept the decisions of others, at least in order not to jeopardize the system as a whole.

But there is a general question that is more relevant to our problem.  Everything that men can make can also be undone again by others.  Everything that has its origin in human likes can be disliked by others.  Everything that one majority decides upon can can be revoked by another majority.  A church based on human resolutions becomes a merely human church.  It is reduced to the level of the makeable, of the obvious, of opinion.  Opinion replaces faith.  And in fact, in the self-made formulas of faith with which I am acquainted, the meaning of the words 'I believe' never signifies anything beyond 'we opine.'  Ultimately, the self-made church savors of the 'self,' which always has a bitter taste to the other self and just as soon reveals its petty insignificance.  A self-made church is reduced to the empirical domain and thus, precisely as a dream, comes to nothing." (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Called to Communion: Understanding the Church Today, pp. 136, 138-140).

Pope Francis would have us believe that charity is at the heart of his papal mission.  If this be true, then he must publically deal with the National "Catholic" Reporter in clear and unambiguous terms.

Pope John XXIII, in Ad Petri Cathedram-  On Truth, Unity and Peace - had this to say:


"All the evils which poison men and nations and trouble so many hearts have a single cause and a single source: ignorance of the truth--and at times even more than ignorance, a contempt for truth and a reckless rejection of it. Thus arise all manner of errors, which enter the recesses of men's hearts and the bloodstream of human society as would a plague. These errors turn everything upside down: they menace individuals and society itself.

And yet, God gave each of us an intellect capable of attaining natural truth. If we adhere to this truth, we adhere to God Himself, the author of truth, the lawgiver and ruler of our lives. But if we reject this truth, whether out of foolishness, neglect, or malice, we turn our backs on the highest good itself and on the very norm for right living." (Nos. 6, 7).

North Quabbin Catholic Community and satanic pride...

In a post which may be found here, Gregory Dipippo notes how, "The fourth Sunday of Lent, John XXIII was once again among the crowd, at Ostia. (about 15 miles to the south-west of Rome.) Thousands of people were waiting for him along the street, in the piazza, in the church. They wanted to see him, to applaud him. They did not know that afterwards, he would rebuke them, in a good-natured way, in his simple , spontaneous, familiar way of speaking.

“I am very glad to have come here. But if I must express a wish, it is that in church you not shout out, that you not clap your hands, and that you not greet even the Pope, because ‘templum Dei, templum Dei.’ (‘The temple of God is the temple of God.’)

Now, if you are pleased to be in this beautiful church, you must know that the Pope is also pleased to see his children. But as soon as he sees his good children, he certainly does not clap his hands in their faces. And the one who stands before you is the Successor of St. Peter.”

Readers of this Blog know that when I advised the North Quabbin Catholic Community that applause during the Liturgy is not appropriate, I was banned from the Church's Facebook page and ostracized.  See here.  To this day, the North Quabbin Catholic Community cannot admit that applause doesn't belong in the temple of God and I remain banned for defending sound liturgical rubrics and authentic Catholic teaching.

Our Lady has spoken to Father Gobbi many times about the satanic pride which is crippling humanity and so dangerously threatmening it. On December 8, 1993, she told Father Gobbi, "Satan has deceived this entire poor humanity, bringing it so far away from God and building for it idols of his own perversion: money, pride, egoism, amusement and impurity. And so humanity is today greatly threatened by violence, hatred, rebellion and war. During these years, you will see the great chastisement, with which the justice of God will purify this world, which has become a thousand times worse than at the time of the flood and so very possessed by evil spirits.....Satan has also entered into the interior of the Church and has succeeded in darkening her splendor. With the darkness of sin, he has obscured the splendor of her holiness; with the wound of division, he has made an attack upon the strength of her unity; with the spread of errors, he has stricken her in her proclamation of the truth.."

On May 13, 1993, Our Lady told Father Gobbi, "The powers which are directing and arranging human events, according to their perverse plans, are the dark and diabolic powers of evil. They have succeeded in in bringing all humanity to live without God. They have spread everywhere the error of theoretical and practical atheism. They have built the new idols before which humanity is bowing down in adoration: pleasure, money, pride, impurity, mastery over others, and impiety. Thus, in these years of yours, violence is spreading more and more. Egoism has made the hearts of men hard and insensitive. Hatred has blazed up like a scorching fire. Wars have multiplied in every part of the world, and you are now living in the danger of a terrible world war which will bring destruction to peoples and nations, a war from which no one will emerge victorious. Satan has succeeded in entering into the Church, the new Israel of God. He has entered there with the smoke of error and sin, the loss of faith and apostasy, of compromise with the world and the search for pleasure. During these years, he has succeeded in leading astray bishops, priests, religious and faithful.."

Today we are living in the most decadent, violent and faithless period in the history of mankind. But many cannot see this because they have succumbed to satanic pride. Satan fell in love with his own beauty and wound up rebelling against God and leading other angels to do the same, drawing them to Hell. Today, bishops, priests, religious and laity, puffed up with satanic pride, have become enamored with themselves and their "intellectual prowess." And like their master, the father of all lies (John 8: 44), these too are now rebelling against God and His Holy Church. These sons of Hell spend much of their waking hours contradicting Sacred Scripture, denying dogma and popularizing immorality. These pseudo-intellectuals arrogantly divinize man's intellect while ridiculing the Word of God. Saint Paul spoke of these disciples of Lucifer in 2 Timothy 4: 1-4: "I charge you to preach the word, to stay with this task whether convenient or inconvenient - correcting, reproving, appealing - constantly teaching and never losing patience. For the time will come when people will not tolerate sound doctrine, but, following their own desires, will surround themselves with teachers who tickle their ears. They will stop listening to the truth and will wander off to fables."

In Romans 1, Saint Paul emphasizes the fact that there is a connection between a refusal to acknowledge and obey God and a subsequent degeneration of morality. And yet, with all the sex abuse scandals within the Church and all the sexual immorality and dissent, there has been very little discussion about this truth. False worship and pride in one's own intellect cause spiritual blindness and subject men to the destructive and degrading drives of fallen nature - most especially in the area of sex. Saint Paul tells us that people who fall into such spiritual blindness begin to encourage others to do so. And so infidelity spreads like a cancer.

If we are to remain steadfast in the faith, we must continue to rely only on the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of His Mother. As Father Lorenzo Scupoli reminds us, "Distrust of yourself is so necessary in the spiritual combat that, without it, you may be assured that you will neither gain the desired victory, nor be able to overcome even the weakest of your passions. You must be firmly convinced in your mind that this is the case, for, through our natural conception, we are too prone to make a false estimate of ourselves. Although we are absolutely nothing, we persuade ourselves that we are something and presume without the slightest foundation on our own strength." (Spiritual Combat, p. 11, Sophia Institute Press).

Jesus has said it: "Without Me, you can do nothing." Do we really believe this? Do we remind ourselves every day that without Him we can do nothing, that we are nothing? We are like a puff of smoke, a blade of grass - here today and gone tomorrow. Do we, insignificant creatures that we are, dare to question or challenge Almighty God? Do we dare to contradict the Son of Man and His Church? If so, then we are either unbelievers or demoniacs.

And His Word is not in us.

Sentinel & Enterprise: Will Pope Francis be another John Paul XXIII?

You have to hand it to Charles St. Amand, the editor of the Sentinel & Enterprise, a local newspaper serving the Leominster-Fitchburg area as well as seven other cities and towns.  The man is most consistent.  When it comes to articles and editorials which touch upon the Catholic Church in particular and Catholicism in general,  Mr. St. Amand never troubles himself with getting the facts straight.  See here for example.

Take yesterday's editorial entitled, "Francis: Whose shoes will he fill?"  We read: "With the election of a new pope, Catholics around the world must be wondering what the latest successor to St. Peter has in mind for the Mother Church...He has shown himself to be socially conservative in Argentina by his stance against gay marriage and his backing of the traditional role of women in the Church, but he has also scolded some of his priests there for their refusal to baptize children born out of wedlock."

Actually, the terms "liberal" and "conservative" should never be applied to the Church.  As Dr. Dietrich von Hildebrand explains, "These terms, facilely applied to many natural realms, can be extremely misleading when applied to the Church.  It is of the very nature of Catholic Christian faith to adhere to an unchanging divine revelation, to acknowledge that there is something in the Church that is above the ups and downs of cultures and the rhythm of history.  Divine revelation and the Mystical Body of Christ differ completely from all natural entities.  To be conservative, to be a traditionalist, is in this case an essential element of the response due to the unique phenomenon of the Church.  Even a man in no way conservative in temperament and in many other respects progressive must be conservative in his relation to the infallible magisterium of the Church, if he is to remain an orthodox Catholic.  One can be progressive and simultaneously a Catholic, but one cannot be a progressive in one's Catholic faith.  The idea of a 'progressive Catholic' in this sense is an oxymoron, a contradictio in adjecto...With the labels conservative and progressive they [the intellectually dishonest with an anti-Catholic agenda] are in fact requiring the faithful to choose between opposition to any renewal, opposition even to the elimination of things that have crept into the Church because of human frailty (e.g., legalism, abstractionism, external pressure in questions of conscience, grave abuses of authority in monasteries) and a change, a 'progress' in the Catholic faith which can only mean its abandonment.  These are false alternatives.  For there is a third choice, which welcomes the official decisions of the Vatican Council (Vatican II) but at the same time emphatically rejects the secularizing interpretations given them by many so-called progressive theologians and laymen.  This thirs choice is based on unshakable faith in Christ and in the infallible magisterium of His Holy Church.  It takes it for granted that there is no room for change in the divinely revealed doctrine of the Church." (Trojan Horse in the City of God, pp. 10-11).

So it's not a question of Pope Francis being "conservative" or "progressive."  The Holy Father opposes so-called same-sex "marriage" and the ordination of women to the priesthood because divinely revealed doctrine cannot change. 

The Sentinel & Enterprise editorial refers to Pope Francis' predecessor on the Chair of Peter, the same Pontiff who called for Vatican II, as "Pope John Paul XXIII": "Will he [Pope Francis] maintain his life of simplicity and pursuit of social justice, or will he be the next John Paul XXIII?"  Obviously, the writer of this confused editorial was thinking of Pope John XXIII who was elected Pontiff on October 28, 1958 and installed on November 4th of that same year.  Pope John reigned as Vicar of Christ until June 3, 1963.

This is the sort of coverage of Catholicism that Catholics have come to expect from the Sentinel & Enterprise.  But they deserve better.

Related reading here.