Did Francis remove Father Frank Pavone from the priesthood for blasphemy or because he took a firm stand against the Culture of Death?

The story is told of an atheist who came to the monastery where Father Solanus Casey served as the holy porter. Father Casey looked him in the eye and told him, "You are a damned fool."

The definition of "goddamned" from Merriam Webster here.

So what to make of Father Frank Pavone's usage of "goddamned" when referring to those who promote the murder of innocent children in the womb?  Does it merit his removal from the priesthood?  See here.

In his work Liberalism is a Sin, Father Felix Sarda y Salvany explains that:

"Liberalism never gives battle on solid ground; it knows too well that in a discussion of principles it must meet with irretrievable defeat. It prefers tactics of recrimination, and under the sting of a just flagellation whiningly accuses Catholics of  lack of charity in their polemics. This is also the ground which certain Catholics, tainted with Liberalism, are in the habit of taking.

Let us see what is to be said on this score. We Catholics, on this point as on all others, have reason on our side, whilst Liberals have only its shadow. In the first place a Catholic can handle his Liberal adversary openly, if such he be in truth; no one can doubt this. If an author or a journalist makes open profession of Liberalism and does not conceal his Liberal predilections what injury can be done him in calling him a Liberal? Si palman res est, repetitio injuria non est: "to say what everybody knows is no injury." With much stronger reason to say of our neighbor what he every instant says of himself cannot justly offend. And yet how many Liberals, especially those of the easygoing and moderate type, regard the expressions "Liberal" and "friend of Liberals," which Catholic adversaries apply to them as offensive and uncharitable!

Granting that Liberalism is a bad thing, to call the public defenders and professors of Liberalism bad is no want of charity.

The law of justice, potent in all ages, can be applied in this case. The Catholics of today are no innovators in this respect.  We are simply holding to the constant practice of antiquity. The propagators and abettors of heresy have at all times been called heretics as well as its authors. As the Church has always considered heresy a very grave evil, so has she always called its adherents bad and pervert..."

See here.

Professor Tat-siong Benny Liew: Holy Cross College's resident clown

Crux Now is reporting that:

"A Massachusetts bishop has called the notions of a New Testament scholar in his diocese “highly offensive and blasphemous,” and has called on his Jesuit college to ask him to publicly disavow his writings on the sexuality of Jesus.

Professor Tat-siong Benny Liew, the chair of New Testament Studies at the College of the Holy Cross, has published articles claiming Jesus was a 'drag king' and said the relationship between the Father and Son was homosexual and masochistic in nature.

In one article, Liew said the centurion who approaches Jesus to heal his servant was actually speaking about his lover and described the relationship as 'pederastic.' Liew said the biblical author affirmed the relationship, adding this 'may also be consistent with Matthew’s affirmation of many sexual dissidents in her Gospel.'

Bishop Robert J. McManus of Worchester said he was 'deeply troubled and concerned' that someone who authored such things holds an endowed chair at the Catholic institution.

After the professor’s controversial writings - published a decade ago - were highlighted in a March 26 article in The Fenwick Review, an independent opinion journal based at the College of the Holy Cross, an online petition calling for Liew’s ouster gained over 10,000 signatures."

Sign this petition here.

Pope Saint John Paul II, in his Apostolic Constitution Ex Corde Ecclesiae, had this to say:

§ 3. "In ways appropriate to the different academic disciplines, all Catholic teachers are to be faithful to, and all other teachers are to respect, Catholic doctrine and morals in their research and teaching. In particular, Catholic theologians, aware that they fulfil a mandate received from the Church, are to be faithful to the Magisterium of the Church as the authentic interpreter of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition."

If one is to be faithful to Christ and His Church, one cannot assert that what the Magisterium teaches is false and that the faithful may reject Magisterial teaching and replace it with their own opinions or those of theologians. In his encyclical letter Veritatis Splendor, Pope John Paul II explains that, "Dissent, in the form of carefully orchestrated protests and polemics carried on in the media, is opposed to ecclesial communion and to a correct understanding of the hierarchical constitution of the People of God." (No. 113).

When a Catholic dissents from Church teaching, he is not in living communion with the mind of Christ, which is made known to us through His Church's Magisterium. Such a person is not, therefore, in a proper condition to receive the sacraments. Pope John Paul II has stated this clearly: "It is sometimes claimed that dissent from the Magisterium is compatible with being a 'good Catholic' and poses no obstacle to the reception of the sacraments. This is a grave error." (Address to the U.S. Bishops, Los Angeles, September 16, 1987). See also Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1395).

Some erroneously hold that, "No school that regulates ideas can justly call itself a university."


The late Fr. Vincent P. Miceli, who was a classically-educated Jesuit scholar and a brilliant philosopher, would have disagreed. For he explained that, "The trouble with this understanding of academic freedom is that it takes for granted as a truth what is a falsity, indeed a complete illusion, namely, that academic freedom is absolutely immune from any reasonable bounds, limitations or restrictions. No human freedom is absolutely immune to restriction. Freedom is no longer freedom when it is reduced to being the unhindered pursuit of one’s whims and desires. This is especially true of freedom exercised in the field of philosophy where conflict with the authentic and infallible teachings of the Church is foreseeable. A true understanding of academic freedom, therefore, is in order so as to distinguish it clearly from academic license.

Academic freedom derives from the rational nature of man. It is rooted in the intellectual activity of man whereby he is called to a dominion and stewardship of the universe through a conquest of truth. Positively, then, academic freedom is a generous guarantee to the unimpeded access to the evidence of truth in any given science. Thus, academic freedom is always bounded by the canons and axiomatic truths of each discipline of learning. Thus, again positively, academic freedom is both purposive and responsible. It has its own built-in rules; its requirements are conditioned by pre-defined directions towards the truth of its particular science. The moral right to academic freedom arises from the inviolability of the proper action necessary to its scientific achievements of truth, founded on man’s connatural inner dynamism of the human intelligence’s hunger for truth. Negatively, academic freedom means at the very least the immunity from unreasonable restrictions, both from within and from outside the academic community, of the right to communicate the results of one’s researches through lectures and publications, and the right to be immune from unreasonable restriction in the pursuit of the teaching profession.

We are now in the position to ask, ‘How is academic freedom violated?’ Scholars, scientists and philosophers hold that whenever one of their members ventures consciously and freely to teach as truths doctrines that contradict the clearly established dogmas or unconditional truths of their disciplines, then such a member of the university is abusing his academic freedom, putting it at the service of stupidities or known falsehoods instead of using it to advance the horizons of truth. Now every science has its dogmas, theology, philosophy and all the natural sciences. Dogmas are not only the ultimate answers to some fundamental questions; they also prompt further questioning and research, leading thus to enlarged, more profound truth....a Catholic university that allows professors and lecturers to attack the authentic teachings of the Church, whether they are infallibly defined or not, is not faithful to the best canons of scholarship, nor to the Church or its own students who have a right in justice to receive the divinely revealed truths in their pristine purity." (The Antichrist, pp. 166-167).

Many Catholic institutions have devaluated the faith and have become enslaved to a narrow (and conceptually flawed) notion of academic freedom. And why have these institutions sold out to secularism? Again, Fr. Miceli, S.J., explains: "Gradually, over the years the essential purpose of the Catholic university has been radically changed. Lusting after secular academic excellence, huge student bodies, expensive science complexes, notoriety, publicity, political clout and financial power, the leaders of Catholic universities somehow lost sight of the unearthly purpose and spirit of the Catholic university. Thus, in today’s Catholic university, intellectualism is preferred to Catholicism; scientism to faith, relativism to truth, immanentism to transcendence, subjectivism to reality, situationism to moral integrity and anarchism to authority. The essential purpose of the Catholic university has de facto been changed, despite the lip service that is still paid to the original Catholic ideal. Conduct flows from convictions and when the conduct is consistently depraved [Such as allowing controversial plays like the Vagina Monologues, my note] it is because the convictions have been corrupted. For example, Judas, forerunner of the Antichrist, had radically changed his deepest convictions about the person and mission of Christ before he sold his Lord for thirty pieces of silver. No virtuosity at contorted rationalization can mask the massive turning away from the Catholic ideal that has taken place in the Catholic universities of the United States. The light and love of the world have made tragic advances against the light and love of Christ." (The Antichrist, p. 161).

Professor Tat-siong Benny Liew is a clown offering not the fine wheat of Catholic truth but rather asinine opinions which were hatched in a warped mind.

Sign the petition to have this fool removed from his teaching position at Holy Cross.

Lesbian demands that her children's Catholic school remove Catechism quote on homosexuality

Ann Michelle Tesluk, a lesbian whose children attend a Catholic school, is demanding that the school, which is located in Peterborough, Ontario, remove a Catechism quote from a pamphlet because it refers to the homosexual inclination as "objectively disordered."  See here.

I wrote a series of posts after the Archdiocese of Boston announced a new policy which says that Catholic schools can partner with homosexual parents.  I reminded His Eminence Sean Cardinal O'Malley that, in its Declaration on Christian Education (Gravissimum Educationis), No. 3, the Vatican II Fathers explained that parents "must be recognized as the primary and principal educators" of their children and that, "This role in education is so important that only with difficulty can it be supplied where it is lacking. Parents are the ones who must create a family atmosphere animated by love and respect for God and man, in which the well-rounded personal and social education of children is fostered."

And I added, "But parents who are living in a same-sex relationship cannot create that 'family atmosphere animated by love and respect for God and man' in which 'the well-rounded personal and social education of children is fostered.' The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in its document entitled Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons, has said that adoption of children by homosexuals 'would actually mean doing violence to these children,' and that their situation of dependence would place them 'in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development.' (No. 7).

And then I wrote:  "Can Catholic schools partner with homosexual or lesbian parents? In a word, no. Archbishop Charles Chaput has already addressed this fact in a statement issued earlier this year. The Catholic school must strive to ensure that the environment in which a child lives as he or she is being formed as a human being corresponds to the end of Catholic education. And what is that end? Vatican II teaches clearly that, "A Christian education...has as its principal purpose this goal: that the baptized, while they are gradually introduced to the knowledge of the mystery of salvation, become ever more aware of the gift of faith they have received, and that they learn in addition how to worship God the Father in spirit and truth (cf. Jn 4:23) especially in liturgical action, and be conformed in their personal lives according to the new man created in justice and holiness of truth (Eph 4:22-24); also that they develop into perfect manhood, to the mature measure of the fullness of Christ (cf. Eph 4:13).."

How important is it that a Catholic school strive to ensure that a child's environment corresponds to the end of a Catholic education? Pope Pius XI provides us with an answer, "In order to obtain perfect education, it is of the utmost importance to see that all those conditions which surround the child during the period of his formation, in other words that the combination of circumstances which we call environment, correspond exactly to the end proposed." (Encyclical Letter Divini Illius Magistri, No. 70).

Pope Pius XI continues, "The first natural and necessary element in this environment, as regards education, is the family, and this precisely because so ordained by the Creator Himself. Accordingly that education, as a rule, will be more effective and lasting which is received in a well-ordered and well-disciplined Christian family; and more efficacious in proportion to the clear and constant good example set, first by parents, and then by other members of the household." (No. 71). The full Encyclical may be found here.

Same-sex parents are not equipped to provide that "well-ordered and well-disciplined Christian family" necessary for the effective reception of Christian education. Not to mention the conditions required for the normal development of the child. See here for example.

In one post from January of 2011, I addressed Cardinal O'Malley writing, "Our Lord Jesus spoke in the sixth chapter of Matthew, verse 24: 'No one can serve two masters; for he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.' Now, mammon can represent either money or any other created thing which stands in the way of a total commitment to the Lord Jesus....My question: By allowing children of homosexual households into Catholic schools, are you not thereby inviting violence and disorder? After all, how can these children be expected to serve two masters? Will they not come to hate the one and love the other? Will they not be devoted to one while despising the other? Either these children will come to fully embrace Catholic teaching and thereby be set in opposition to their parents illicit sexual behavior, or [and this is the far more likely scenario given that children tend to love their parents or guardians], they will come to despise the Church while condoning intrinsically disordered behavior which have they grown accustom to being exposed to."

No man can serve two masters.  He will hate the one and love the other.  He will be devoted to the one and despise the other.  Violence and disorder have been introduced into those Catholic schools and school districts which believe they can partner with homosexual parents.  Just as I warned.

But then, my patron Saint - for whom I was named - said it best under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit some 2,000 years ago: "Do not be yoked with those who are different, with unbelievers.  For what partnership do rightousness and lawlessness have? Or what fellowship does light have with darkness.  What accord has Christ with Belial?  Or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever?" (2 Corinthians 6: 14, 15).

God's Holy Word assures us that rightousness cannot partner with lawlessness.  And homosexual parents who are not committed toward living chaste lives or who reject the teaching of the Lord Jesus through His Church are not committed to righteousness but rather lawlessness.

Janusz Palikot: "We want to remove religion from the public spaces."

Janusz Palikot, the 46 year old leader of the extremist Modern Poland movement, says that if his movement wins a good showing in Parliament, his first order of business will be to push for the removal of a Christian cross that hangs in the assembly hall of the Sejm, Poland's lower house.  Palikot believes the Church is "absolutely too powerful" and  his Modern Poland movement would legalize aborton on demand, provide free condoms and seek to crush the Catholic Church. (See here).

Speaking to a crowd of 4,000 cheering supporters, Palikot was heard saying that, "The Modern Poland movement demands the removal of religious instruction from schools, liquidation of the clergy (pension fund) and state ceremonies at which we do not have to view the fat bellies of bishops."

As the Apostasy continues to spread through all corners of the globe, I am reminded of what Our Lady had to say about Poland as she spoke to Fr. Gobbi on the Feast of Our Lady of Czestochowa on August 26, 1983: "In your lives you carry the sufferings of the peoples reduced to slavery by those who reject God and use every means to spread atheism.  Poland, of whom I have been officially proclaimed Queen, is a symbol of this unending and bloody persecution...For so many years the Red Dragon has extended his dominion over these peoples and persecuted my children by the most subtle and refined means..The apostasy has now been spread into every part of a Church betrayed even by some of her bishops, abandoned by many of her priests, deserted by so very many of her children, and violated by my Adversary."

Satan is intensifying his efforts in Poland precisely because she officially proclaimed Our Lady as Queen.  We are locked in a spiritual war. It was St. Louis Marie de Montfort who explained in his classic work True Devotion to Mary that: "..Mary's power over the evil spirits will especially shine forth in the latter times, when Satan will lie in wait for her heel, that is, for her humble servants and her poor children whom she will rouse to fight against him...They will be great and exalted before God in holiness. They will be superior to all creatures by their great zeal and so strongly will they be supported by divine assistance that, in union with Mary, they will crush the head of Satan with their heel, that is, their humility, and bring victory to Jesus Christ." (TD, No. 54).

According to Montfort, the greatest of the Marian Saints, it is the faithful remnant, consecrated to the Virgin, who will crush the Devil's head (the head representing the intellect and therefore Satan's pride). The heel by contrast represents the lowest part of the body. In other words, those of us who are consecrated to the Immaculata and who are despised by the world because of our lack of wordly "sophistication" and "intelligence." But the wisdom of this world is foolishness (1 Corinthians 1: 18-25). In time, Satan's cohort will come to understand this.

Those who serve the world are enamored with themselves.  But the world, and everything in it, is destined for fire (2 Peter 3: 7-10).  And those who hate God love death.