Update on the Saint Benedict Center Cult

 

From The Union Leader:

The ultra-traditionalist Catholic organization located in Richmond, the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, had their appeal of Bishop Peter Libasci’s restrictions on them rejected by Vatican officials.

“Rome chose not to consider the appeal,” said Rev. Georges de Laire, the judicial vicar and vicar for canonical affairs for the Diocese of Manchester.

The Slaves, who operate the St. Benedict Center on Fay Martin Road, were ordered to stop calling themselves a Catholic organization in January 2019 under the terms of a letter sent to the group by the diocese. See here.

The group was given an extensive list of prohibitions in the precepts letter, including a restriction against raising money for any Catholic entity, and a restriction on having any priest celebrate Mass or any of the Catholic sacraments at its compound. New Hampshire Catholics are warned to stay away from the group.

The leader of the group, Louis Villarubia, who goes by Brother Andre Marie, did not respond to a request for comment.

The group appealed the orders to the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, or CDF, the Vatican governing body that defends Catholic teaching. However, they missed the deadline for that appeal, according to de Laire.

“The decision from CDF says that it was rejected because it fell outside the statute of limitations,” de Laire said. “The decision holds them to the observance of the decree.”

The ruling means that the Slaves must now follow the same rules as all other Catholics, de Laire said. The dispute between the diocese and the Slaves goes back to the Slaves' founding principles. The Slaves were started by the Rev. Leonard Feeney in the 1950s. Feeney held anti-Semitic beliefs and was for a time excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church.

Feeney also taught that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. While that is the official doctrine of the church, the way the Slaves interpret that teaching has put them on the wrong side of Rome, according to letters from the CDF to Villarubia.

The group’s strict adherence to the Catholic teaching of “no salvation outside the Church” is in conflict with the instructions it received years ago from the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith. The CDF’s undersecretary, Monsignor Giacomo Morandi, wrote in a 2016 letter that the group’s theological position was “unacceptable,” and not subject to further discussion.

The group does not allow for the possibility that non-Catholics can be saved through the grace of God, which goes against the full teaching of the church, according to Morandi’s letter.

Villarubia, like the Slaves’ original founder, Feeney, has a history of making anti-Semitic remarks, which has garnered notoriety for the Slaves. Villarubia has called Jewish people the “worst enemy of the Church.”

The Slaves in Richmond are a splinter group that left the Still River, Mass., Slaves organization after Feeney reconciled with Rome shortly before his death. The Slaves in Massachusetts are no longer connected to the Richmond group.

Talks are now underway between de Laire and the Slaves on how they can live in compliance with the bishop's demands.

“We are now engaged in an effort to dialogue, to encourage them to observe the (2019) document,” de Laire said. “It is a complicated relationship that the diocese has with the Slaves and vice-versa.”

Since Libasci's precepts were published and the Slaves lost the right to have a priest celebrate Mass at their compound, Libasci has arranged for a priest from Nashua travel every Sunday to St. Stanislaus Church in Winchester to celebrate a Mass in in Latin using the pre-Vatican II form of the liturgy. This is at the same time that Keene's Parish of the Holy Spirit, which oversees the Winchester church, has been forced to eliminate Mass in English in Winchester because of a lack of priests.

De Laire said there is hope that the rift between the Slaves and Manchester can be mended, and Libasci remains dedicated to serving them as bishop.

“The bishop remains hopeful that a solution can be identified,” de Laire said. “The bishop is committed to the Slaves and their supporters, as they are members of the church and he owes them ministry.”

In 2009, the group’s then-leader, Brother Francis Maluf, signed a letter of obedience to then Bishop John McCormack renouncing anti-Semitism, and several articles about Jewish people were removed from the group’s website. McCormack then allowed the group to bring in a priest of good standing to celebrate Mass for them in Richmond.

The Latin Mass in Fitchburg and the wisdom of Gamaliel

Those of you who are regular readers of this Blog know full well that I prefer the Latin Mass and have done much to make the case for it.  A few years ago, I wrote a couple of posts promoting what I thought would be an exciting development for Fitchburg, Massachusetts.  See here for example.  Now Todd Tabbaa, who writes for the Latin Mass Fitchburg Blog (as well as Ecce Agnus Dei), has announced that, "It is with sadness but not without hope for the future that it is announced that Mass in the Extraordinary Form at St. Joseph parish in Fitchburg will terminate on June 5th. The reasons are of simple practicality and a realistic evaluation of the fact that after almost one year of having the Traditional Latin Mass at this parish, the number of attendees has not increased and is not sufficient to maintain basic expenditures. The various considerations which affect growth, including Mass time, location, and proximity to other Traditional Latin Masses in the diocese may all be considered in our decisions for future directions. We will thus meet after our last Mass on June 5th downstairs in the parish hall (at our community potluck) for discussion and planning..."  (See here).

Now the Latin Mass continues to attract young people from every region.  I have said that the Latin Mass movement is largely a youth movement.  One has only to attend the traditional Mass to see this.  What is the problem then?  Why did the Latin Mass fail to take off at Immaculate Conception and later Saint Joseph's Parish in Fitchburg.

I believe there are probably several reasons for this.  But one reason which will probably not be acknowledged by those who were coordinating the effort in Fitchburg is that they had made the decision to associate themselves with the Saint Benedict Center in Richmond, New Hampshire, an organization which has engaged in anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial.  See here and here for example.

I attended the Latin Mass at Immaculate Conception until the subject of Father Leonard Feeney came up.  After explaining my position regarding Father Leonard Feeney and the Saint Benedict Center (again, the one located in Richmond, New Hampshire) to Mr.Todd Tabbaa and his wife, I was shunned from that point on. 

Two thousand years ago, Gamaliel, a Pharisee and celebrated doctor of the Law, exhorted his fellow Israelites to leave the Apostles alone (they were planning to scourge them).  In doing so (read Acts 5: 38, 39), he explained that if an endeavor or activity is of human origin, it will destroy itself.  Another way of saying that "unless the Lord build the house, they labor in vain who build it." (Proverbs 14: 34).

How sad that there are some who insist that the Latin Mass movement has to be associated with the name and ideology of Father Leonard Feeney.  See here.

Report: Miami Bishop's retirement due to a "culture of sodomy and theological heterodoxy"

The Church must face this grand taboo.

This culture of sodomy has made extensive inroads into the Church. When Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz proposed "Amendment 27" to his brothers in the Episcopate - stipulating that the "current homosexual culture" was the root cause of the sex abuse crisis - his proposal was rejected on a voice vote. See here. Father Charles Fiore, a Catholic priest who has fought the homosexual subculture in the Church for years, once said, "the grand taboo in U.S. culture is to focus on homosexuality." See here. I can testify personally to the truth of such an assertion. I was once threatened by a radical homosexual activist who promised to use his rifle to silence me. I have been swamped at times with hateful comments from angry homosexual activists. Some years ago I wrote a Letter to the Editor of The Keene Sentinel in which I said:


"In an article titled “Catholic downsize: West Swanzey’s St. Anthony’s set to close” (May 22), The Sentinel reported that the Diocese of Manchester has formed a task force to examine the reasons behind the priest shortage.

But a task force isn’t needed to uncover what almost every serious Catholic already knows. Namely, that most seminaries are empty because vice has penetrated them, and those seminarians who refuse to accept or condone vice are excluded. True vocations are persecuted and, in most cases, rooted out and disqualified.

Many of those who hold positions of authority in the church refuse to acknowledge this truth. For them, it is much more convenient to lay the blame elsewhere. This would appear to be the case with our local Bishop.." (June 6, 2004 edition of The Keene Sentinel).

This is precisely what Rev. Fiore has said. That the subject of homosexuality in U.S. culture [and this includes the Church] is the "grand taboo." But I was immediately criticized by the leader of a cult based out of Richmond, New Hampshire - the Saint Benedict Center - for suggesting that true vocations are often rooted out and disqualified and that there is indeed a homosexual subculture within the Church.


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

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

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

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

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

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

It is time for the Church to end the homosexual cover-up as the Catholic League has said. Those who refuse to acknowledge there is a problem are themselves part of the problem.

In the Spirit of Father Feeney?

"He who makes a distinction between Jews and other men is unfaithful to God and is in conflict with God's commands." - Pope Pius XII, Vatican Radio broadcast to the people of France, June 1943.

"Mark well, we call Abraham our Patriarch, our ancestor. Anti-Semitism is irreconcilable with this lofty thought...Anti-Semitism is inadmissible; spiritually we are all Semites." - Pope Pius XI to Belgian Pilgrims, September 6, 1938.


"As the sacred synod searches into the mystery of the Church, it remembers the bond that spiritually ties the people of the New Covenant to Abraham's stock.

Thus the Church of Christ acknowledges that, according to God's saving design, the beginnings of her faith and her election are found already among the Patriarchs, Moses and the prophets. She professes that all who believe in Christ-Abraham's sons according to faith -are included in the same Patriarch's call, and likewise that the salvation of the Church is mysteriously foreshadowed by the chosen people's exodus from the land of bondage. The Church, therefore, cannot forget that she received the revelation of the Old Testament through the people with whom God in His inexpressible mercy concluded the Ancient Covenant. Nor can she forget that she draws sustenance from the root of that well-cultivated olive tree onto which have been grafted the wild shoots, the Gentiles. Indeed, the Church believes that by His cross Christ, Our Peace, reconciled Jews and Gentiles. making both one in Himself.

The Church keeps ever in mind the words of the Apostle about his kinsmen: "theirs is the sonship and the glory and the covenants and the law and the worship and the promises; theirs are the fathers and from them is the Christ according to the flesh" (Rom. 9:4-5), the Son of the Virgin Mary. She also recalls that the Apostles, the Church's main-stay and pillars, as well as most of the early disciples who proclaimed Christ's Gospel to the world, sprang from the Jewish people.

As Holy Scripture testifies, Jerusalem did not recognize the time of her visitation, nor did the Jews in large number, accept the Gospel; indeed not a few opposed its spreading. Nevertheless, God holds the Jews most dear for the sake of their Fathers; He does not repent of the gifts He makes or of the calls He issues-such is the witness of the Apostle. In company with the Prophets and the same Apostle, the Church awaits that day, known to God alone, on which all peoples will address the Lord in a single voice and "serve him shoulder to shoulder" (Soph. 3:9).

Since the spiritual patrimony common to Christians and Jews is thus so great, this sacred synod wants to foster and recommend that mutual understanding and respect which is the fruit, above all, of biblical and theological studies as well as of fraternal dialogues.

True, the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ; still, what happened in His passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today. Although the Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God, as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures. All should see to it, then, that in catechetical work or in the preaching of the word of God they do not teach anything that does not conform to the truth of the Gospel and the spirit of Christ.

Furthermore, in her rejection of every persecution against any man, the Church, mindful of the patrimony she shares with the Jews and moved not by political reasons but by the Gospel's spiritual love, decries hatred, persecutions, displays of anti-Semitism, directed against Jews at any time and by anyone.

Besides, as the Church has always held and holds now, Christ underwent His passion and death freely, because of the sins of men and out of infinite love, in order that all may reach salvation. It is, therefore, the burden of the Church's preaching to proclaim the cross of Christ as the sign of God's all-embracing love and as the fountain from which every grace flows." - Nostra Aetate, No. 4 of the Second Vatican Council.


Related reading here.

Truculent and truncated...

The following statement was posted at the website of the Saint Benedict Center cult (Richmond, New Hampshire): "There are those who consider us at Catholicism.org truculent for wishing to convert our nation to the true faith. Such talk nowadays is not exactly au courant. Neither does it resonate sympathetic vibrations with the ascendancy of the liberal Comintern whose manual dictates public discourse. But we philosophers tend to transcend all that hokum. (Heck, we don’t even watch Oprah!) Hence, we occasionally have to drink the hemlock."

Nothing could be further from the truth. People do not view the SBC cult as truculent for wishing to convert this nation to Catholicism. Rather, it is the SBC's approach to evangelization which is both truculent and truncated. Pope John Paul II, in his Encyclical Letter Ut Unum Sint, reminds us that, "The capacity for 'dialogue' is rooted in the nature of the person and his dignity. As seen by philosophy, this approach is linked to the Christian truth concerning man as expressed by the Council: man is in fact 'the only creature on earth which God willed for itself'; thus he cannot 'fully find himself except through a sincere gift of himself.' Dialogue is an indispensable step along the path toward human self-realization, the self-realization both of each individual and of every human community...Dialogue is not simply an exchange of ideas. In some way it is always an 'exchange of gifts.' For this reason, the Council's Decree on Ecumenism also emphasizes the importance of 'every effort to eliminate words, judgments and actions which do not respond to the condition of separated brethren with truth and fairness and so make mutual relations between them more difficult."*

Authentic Catholics know what SBC cultists refuse to acknowledge: that true ecumenism is impossible without true conversion; a turning away from one's own selfish attitudes and sin toward the Lord Jesus and His holy will. Vatican II emphasizes that the first duty of Catholics is to renew the Catholic Church - beginning with themselves:

"Catholics, in their ecumenical work, must assuredly be concerned for their separated brethren, praying for them, keeping them informed about the Church, making the first approaches toward them. But their primary duty is to make a careful and honest appraisal of whatever needs to be done or renewed in the Catholic household itself, in order that its life may bear witness more clearly and faithfully to the teachings and institutions which have come to it from Christ through the apostles. For although the Catholic Church has been endowed with all divinely revealed truth and with all means of grace, yet its members fail to live by them with all the fervor they should, so that the radiance of the Church's image is less clear in the eyes of our separated brethren and of the world at large, and the growth of God's kingdom is delayed. All Catholics must therefore aim at Christian perfection (cf. Jas 1: 4; Rm 12: 1-2), and, each according to his station, play his part that the Church may daily be more purified and renewed. For the Church must bear in her own body the humility and dying of Jesus (cf. 2 Cor 4: 10; Phil 2: 5-8), against the day when Christ will present her to himself in all her glory without spot or wrinkle (cf. Eph 5: 27). (Unitatis Redintegratio, No. 4).





Put simply: If we want to convert others to the fullness of truth which is found in the Catholic Church, we must first see to our own conversion. If we are not living what we preach or at least making a sincere effort to do so, how can we expect others to be attracted to our message?

Meditation: Matthew 7: 3-5


* See here and visit Russell Provost's Blog SBC Watch to read what SBC cultists have had to say about other Christian communities.

Does C. Joseph Doyle accept the teaching of Vatican II regarding Judaism and the Jewish People?

As I mentioned in my previous post, C. Joseph Doyle, Executive Director of the Catholic Action League of Massachusetts, is scheduled to appear as a guest speaker at the 2009 Saint Benedict Center Conference to be held in Richmond, New Hampshire this October. This is disturbing because Mr. Doyle is such a prominent Catholic in the state of Massachusetts and the website of the Massachusetts Catholic Conference, the public-policy arm of the Massachusetts Bishops, links to Mr. Doyle's Catholic Action League.

The Saint Benedict Center based out of Richmond, New Hampshire is an anti-Semitic cult which has absolutely no relationship with the Roman Catholic Church. The cult has described the Jewish People as an "anti-Christ people whose damnable nationalism and anti-messianic naturalism oppose the supernatural supranational aims of Christ and His Church" and as a "Faith-less people." Louis Villarrubia, the cult's leader who is also known as "Brother" Andre Marie (remember "Father" Divine?), has asserted that the Jewish People "undermine public morality" and has minimized the Holocaust. Another cult member, Douglas Bersaw, has openly denied the Holocaust, referring to this horrible crime against humanity as "a fraud."

This is not, of course, what authentic Catholics believe. It was Pope John Paul II who, while visiting a Jewish community of Rome back in 1986, spoke of the special relationship that exists between the Church and Judaism:

"The Church of Christ discovers her 'bond' with Judaism by 'searching into her own mystery' (Nostra Aetate, No. 4). The Jewish religion is not 'extrinsic' to us, but in a certain way is 'intrinsic' to our own religion. With Judaism, therefore, we have a relationship which we do not have with any other religion."

The teaching of Nostra Aetate is crystal clear:

"What happened in his [Christ's] passion cannot be charged against all the Jews without distinction then alive, nor against the Jews of today. Although the Church is the new People of God, the Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God, as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures....Furthermore, in her rejection of every persecution against any man, the Church, mindful of the patrimony she shares with the Jews and moved not by political reasons but by the Gospel's spiritual love, decries hatred, persecutions, displays of anti-semitism, directed against Jews at any time and by anyone." (No. 4).

What does C. Joseph Doyle believe? Does he share the anti-Semitic views of the Saint Benedict Center cult? Does he deny the Holocaust? If not, shouldn't he withdraw from any involvement with the Center? Especially since the local Bishop, The Most Reverend. John B. McCormack, has asked the faithful to avoid participating in any of the Center's spiritual activities?

If Mr. Doyle insists on speaking at the 2009 Saint Benedict Center Conference, shouldn't the Bishops of Massachusetts remove the link to his website from that of the Massachusetts Catholic Conference website?


Father William Most on the tragic errors of Father Leonard Feeney.

Notes from yesterday...the apostasy spreads

Attended Holy Mass (Vigil Mass) at St. Cecilia's Parish in Leominster yesterday. Although it was the Feast of the Assumption, not one word was said about the Blessed Virgin. This is a tragedy. For the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary was defined as a doctrine of the faith on November 1, 1950 by Pope Pius XII. This feast has been celebrated by Christians since as early as the seventh century. Today it is celebrated as a holy day of obligation in the United States on August 15th. The Catechism has this to say about Our Lady's Assumption:


"Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, so that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and conqueror of sin and death." The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is a singular participation in her Son's Resurrection and an anticipation of the resurrection of other Christians:

In giving birth you kept your virginity; in your Dormition you did not leave the world, O Mother of God, but were joined to the source of Life. You conceived the living God and, by your prayers, will deliver our souls from death." (CCC, 966).

But we are in a time of apostasy. It was Our Lady who told Father Gobbi [back in 1988]: "The hour of the great apostasy has come. What has been foretold in Holy Scripture, in the Second Letter of Saint Paul to the Thessalonians, is now on the point of coming to pass. Satan, my Adversary, with snares and by means of his subtle seduction, has succeeded in spreading errors everywhere, under the form of new and more updated interpretations of the truth, and he has led many to choose with full knowledge - and to live in - sin, in the deceiving conviction that this is no longer an evil, and even that it is a value and a good. The times of the general confusion and of the greatest agitation of spirits has come. Confusion has entered into the souls and the lives of many of my children. This great apostasy is spreading more and more , even through the interior of the Catholic Church. Errors are being taught and spread about, while the fundamental truths of the faith, which the authentic Magisterium of the Church has always taught and energetically defended against any heretical deviation whatsoever, are being denied with impunity. The episcopates are maintaining a strange silence and are no longer reacting. When my Pope speaks with courage and reaffirms with force the truths of the Catholic faith, he is no longer listened to and is even publicly criticized and derided. There is a subtle and diabolical tactic, woven in secrecy by Masonry, which is used today against the Holy Father in order to bring ridicule upon his person and his work and to neutralize his Magisterium.....In these times, in the Catholic Church, there will remain a little remnant who will be faithful to Christ, to the Gospel, and to its entire truth. The little remnant will form a little flock, all guarded in the depths of my Immaculate Heart. This little flock will be made up of those bishops, priests, religious and faithful who will remain strongly united to the Pope, all gathered together in the cenacle of my Immaculate Heart, in an act of unceasing prayer, of continual immolation, of total offering to prepare the painful way for the second and glorious coming of my Son Jesus."

There is confusion even in the Church's interior. C. Joseph Doyle is Executive Director of the Catholic Action League of Massachusetts. He has agreed to appear as a guest speaker at the 2009 Saint Benedict Center Conference to be held this October in Richmond, New Hampshire. The Saint Benedict Center, which is not in communion with the Catholic Church and which has no permission from Bishop John McCormack to do any ministry within the Diocese of Manchester, describes Mr. Doyle as "..the media's go-to man whenever traditional Catholic values are threatened in the public arena, appearing for television and radio interviews approximately 150 times a year...C.J....worked in the Massachusetts House of Representatives for many years as an adviser and aide to the late Rep. James Craven...He also served as National Director for William Donohue's Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights before the Massachusetts CAL [Catholic Action League] was established.."

The Massachusetts Catholic Conference (website may be found here), is the public-policy arm of the Massachusetts Bishops. The Massachusetts Catholic Conference website has a link to Mr. Doyle's Catholic Action League website. I wrote an email to Sean Cardinal O' Malley yesterday and forwarded a copy to The Most Rev. Robert J. McManus, Bishop of Worcester. This is what I wrote:

Dear Cardinal O'Malley,


I am writing to you (and forwarding a copy of this email to my Bishop, The Most Rev. Robert McManus) because it has been brought to my attention that Mr. C. Joseph Doyle, Executive Director of the Catholic Action League of Massachusetts, has agreed to appear as a guest speaker at the 2009 Saint Benedict Center Conference to be held in Richmond, New Hampshire this October.

The Center is not in communion with the Catholic Church. In fact, in a letter written by Fr. Edward Arsenault, Moderator of the Curia for the Diocese of Manchester, New Hampshire, to a Mrs. Terri O'Rorke, Father Arsenault makes this clear:

"I write to you in reply to your letter dated May 24, 2007. I share your concern about the ongoing controversy and difficulties with the Saint Benedict Center. As you know, the Saint Benedict Center has no permission or authority to exercise any Ministry on behalf of the Roman Catholic Church in New Hampshire. Bishop McCormack has and will continue to do all that he can to encourage people to refrain from participating in any of the spiritual exercises at the Saint Benedict Center.

For my part, I will continue to make it clear that Saint Benedict Center has no affiliation with the Roman Catholic Church in any way. Please know that I will continue to pray for you and all those who are affected by difficulties that have been created by the Saint Benedict Center."


I have worked tirelessly to expose the anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial of the Saint Benedict Center in Richmond, New Hampshire. Some background may be found in this article: http://splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=782 I am well-aware that the Southern Poverty Law Center is not without its own problems. But in this matter (as the Diocese of Manchester will attest to), they got it right. The news-magazine Chronicle dedicated an episode back in 2007 to the whole controversy surrounding the Center.

Since this organization is not in communion with the Catholic Church, has absolutely no permission to do any ministry whatsoever and engages in anti-Semitism and Holocaust-denial, I think it inappropriate that someone of Mr. Doyle's stature should associate himself with this entity. It will only serve as a source of scandal to many of the faithful and reflect poorly on the Catholic Church in Massachusetts.

It is my hope that Your Eminence will agree.

Asking the Blessing of Your Eminence,

I am, Yours Respectfully,

Paul Anthony Melanson


Related reading here, here and here.

Vatican: Lefebvrites "do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church."

Neither does the "Saint Benedict Center" in Richmond, New Hampshire. In a letter written by Fr. Edward Arsenault, Moderator of the Curia for the Diocese of Manchester, New Hampshire, to Mrs. Terri O'Rorke, Father Arsenault makes this clear:

"I write to you in reply to your letter dated May 24, 2007. I share your concern about the ongoing controversy and difficulties with the Saint Benedict Center. As you know, the Saint Benedict Center has no permission or authority to exercise any Ministry on behalf of the Roman Catholic Church in New Hampshire. Bishop McCormack has and will continue to do all that he can to encourage people to refrain from participating in any of the spiritual exercises at the Saint Benedict Center.

For my part, I will continue to make it clear that Saint Benedict Center has no affiliation with the Roman Catholic Church in any way. Please know that I will continue to pray for you and all those who are affected by difficulties that have been created by the Saint Benedict Center."

Related reading here, here and here.

Saint Benedict Center New Hampshire: Engaging in deception?

"I am not and never have been involved with SBC's 'Catholic America Tour'. That website page is misleading." -Fr. Brian Harrison, O.S., in a comment left at this Blog pertaining to a website page of the SBC cult in Richmond, New Hampshire which listed him as part of its "Catholic" America Tour.

Why would the SBC cult list Fr. Harrison as a participant in its "Catholic" America Tour? According to Fr. Harrison, he is not and never has been involved with that project. And the website page has since been removed. Was this an attempt by SBC cultists to achieve some legitimacy?* Were they intentionally engaging in deception?


* The "Saint Benedict Center" is not a Catholic organization. The following letter written by Fr. Edward Arsenault, Moderator of the Curia for the Diocese of Manchester to Mrs. Terri O'Rorke, makes that fact abundantly clear:

"I write to you in reply to your letter dated May 24, 2007. I share your concern about the ongoing controversy and difficulties with the Saint Benedict Center. As you know, the Saint Benedict Center has no permission or authority to exercise any Ministry on behalf of the Roman Catholic Church in New Hampshire. Bishop McCormack has and will continue to do all that he can to encourage people to refrain from participating in any of the spiritual exercises at the Saint Benedict Center.

For my part, I will continue to make it clear that Saint Benedict Center has no affiliation with the Roman Catholic Church in any way. Please know that I will continue to pray for you and all those who are affected by difficulties that have been created by the Saint Benedict Center."

Related reading here and here.

Louis Villarrubia, known by his followers as "Brother" Andre Marie, was questioned about the Holocaust. That interview is recounted here.

Fr. Brian Harrison responds...

Father Brian Harrison left two comments at this Blog which I will address in this post. In his first comment, he writes, "Please allow me to respond to these attacks. I had never read till now the February 2004 article by E. Michael Jones that was quoted in 'Catalyst,' and it is certainly not true to say that I do not find his theological position, as quoted here, 'problematic.'"

Actually, my Blog post did not constitute an "attack" on Father Harrison. But since Father has portrayed himself as some sort of "authority" on E. Michael Jones and has defended him while asserting that, "Mike Jones principal 'crime' has been to publish extensive historical studies arguing that Jewish activists, intellectuals and financiers have again and again been major players in the various revolutionary movements of the last two millennia aimed at preventing, subverting and overthrowing the dominance in European civilization of Christian values and the Catholic and Orthodox Churches," it's fair to say that he apparently does not find E. Michael Jones' views to be problematic. This because Jones' views have been well-documented.

Father Harrison acknowledges this in his first comment writing, "...I have often expressed to Jones and Sungenis my concern and disapproval about certain things they have said about Jews, especially anything that tends to come across as a sweeping negative generalization about that people as a whole." And what of Jones' belief that "Jewish activists, intellectuals and financiers" have been "major players in the various revolutionary movements of the last two millennia aimed at preventing, subverting and overthrowing" Christian values and Catholic and Orthodox Churches? That sure comes across as "a sweeping negative generalization" about the Jewish people to me.

He then writes, "As regards the St. Benedict Center in New Hampshire, I had no knowledge of anything its spokespersons had ever said on Jewish issues when I spoke at their conference (on a quite different topic) back in August 2007. If indeed SBC representatives have made statements accusing 'the Jewish People' as such of 'corrupting' influences, conspiracies, or whatever, then I totally repudiate such views." But "Brother" Andre Marie of the SBC has said that the Jewish People undermine public morals and Douglas Bersaw has denied the Holocaust, referring to it as a "fraud" and the Jewish People as the "Synagogue of Satan." If Father Harrison is really opposed to such views, then why is he part of the SBC's 2009 "Catholic America Tour"? See here. And if Father is really opposed to such conspiracy theories, why has he defended the conspiracy theories of E. Michael Jones which portray "Jewish activists, intellectuals and financiers" as being behind 2,000 years of plots to overthrow the Catholic and Orthodox Churches and Christian values?

Father Harrison concludes his first comment writing, "...I accept fully the teachings of Vatican Council II about the Jewish people and, with the Church, I condemn and repudiate anti-Semitism. However, since the Council did not attempt [to] define what precise views, expressions and attitudes are to count as being 'anti-Semitic,' there is clearly a certain 'grey area' there. That should be a matter of calm and respectful debate among Catholics, not harsh mutual condemnations."

This is what Vatican II said, "...in her rejection of every persecution against any man, the Church, mindful of the patrimony she shares with the Jews and moved not by political reasons but by the Gospel's spiritual love, decries hatred, persecutions, displays of anti-Semitism, directed against Jews at any time and by anyone." (Nostra Aetate, No. 4). Anti-Semitism expresses itself in many and varied ways. For example, through denial of the Holocaust or "sweeping negative generalizations" such as those issued by SBC representatives or E. Michael Jones and Robert Sungenis.

In his second comment, Father Harrison writes, "Once again Mr. Melanson, I ask space to defend myself - this time from the grave charge of unorthodoxy that you level against me."

Apparently Father has difficulty being honest. Something he should work on this Lent. In the post he refers to, I wrote, "Followers of the late Fr. Leonard Feeney have initiated a discussion thread at the Holy Cross Cardinal Newman Society website with an article written by Fr. Brian W. Harrison, O.S., and entitled "Can an 'implicit faith' in Christ be sufficient for salvation?...The answer is: yes." I then proceeded to present the Magisterial teaching of the Church relative to the subject and added, "Theologians such as Fr. Brian Harrison are not 'pastors' within the Church. They have not been given the mission from the Lord Jesus to instruct the faithful in 'all that serves to make the People of God live their lives in holiness and increase their faith' (Dei Verbum, No. 8). This mission has been entrusted exclusively to the Magisterium of the Church.." (See here).

If Father Harrison has a problem with this statement, perhaps it is because he considers himself to be some sort of ersatz Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith? If this is the case, I submit that dishonesty isn't the only thing he should work on this Lent.

Related reading: Robert Sungenis vs. Bishop Kevin C. Rhoades: A Chronology

Additional reading: E. Michael Jones and the Jews

And speaking of Father Brian Harrison....

Fr. Brian Harrison, in a letter defending Robert Sungenis and E. Michael Jones from charges of anti-Semitism (the entire text may be found here), writes: "Now, Mike Jones' principal 'crime' has been to publish extensive historical studies arguing that Jewish activists, intellectuals and financiers have again and again been major players in the various revolutionary movements of the last two millennia aimed at preventing, subverting and overthrowing the dominance in European civilization of Christian values and the Catholic and Orthodox Churches."

But while Father Harrison doesn't view E. Michael Jones' views as problematic, others would disagree. For example, the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights had this to say in the July-August 2004 edition of The Catalyst:

PLAYING FAST AND LOOSE WITH THEOLOGY

Recently, an article by E. Michael Jones in the February 2004 edition of his magazine, Culture Wars, came to our attention. What begins as a review of Roy Schoeman's book, Salvation Is From the Jews, ends up as an anti-Semitic rant playing fast and loose with Catholic theology. It should be unequivocally condemned.

The first important point to note is that there is nothing in Roy Shoeman's book that would lead one to Jones's conclusions; Schoeman is a Jewish convert to Catholicism, and his book, published by the mainstream Ignatius Press, has won praise from reliably level-headed Catholics. The problem lies with Jones, who uses his review of the book to engage in a freewheeling polemic against Jews.

At the outset, Jones's history is skewed: "The overwhelming majority of Jews didn't just ignore Christ, they actively sought his death." While it is undeniable that some Jews did seek Christ's death, declaring that an "overwhelming majority" did is just unwarranted. This, however, is not the worst of what Jones has to say.

According to Revelation 3:9, Jones says, Jews who do not accept Christ are the "synagogue of Satan." "In other words, the group which was called by God to prepare the way for the Messiah, rejected the Messiah and in doing that, became over the course of the ensuing centuries, a group that defined itself as anti-Christian." Not believing Christ was the Messiah does not entail defining oneself as anti-Christian; that assumes that Jews see so little of value in their own religion that they must define themselves against Christians. Furthermore, it paints Jews with a broad brush, ignoring regional differences as well as individual traits. That is the very definition of prejudice.

Jones goes on: "The Jews who reject Christ now prepare the way for the coming of the anti-Christ every bit as much as the faithful Jews prepared the way for the coming of the real Christ. The Jews, because of their favored position and because of their rejection of Christ, now have a special role to play in the mystery of iniquity and its history on earth." This sounds like dispensationalist theology, an umbrella term for various Protestant systems of biblical interpretation that, among other things, severely separates God's plan for the Jews from His plan for the community of believers. It posits that Jesus failed in His mission to the Jews, and the Church was formed more or less as a "Plan B." It is the basis for the Left Behind series of novels, and is anything but Catholic. Unaccountably, Jones faults the Catholic Schoeman for not mentioning any of this.

See Jones's next statement: "If salvation comes from the Jews who prepared the way for Christ and accepted him when he came, what comes from the Jews who rejected Christ? The answer is clear: what comes from this group is the opposite of salvation, namely, the work of Satan culminating in the arrival of the Antichrist." Jones's conclusion just does not follow from his premises. Again, Jones is attempting to pass off dispensationalism as Catholic doctrine. Jones has the gall to add, "The answer is not only clear; there is no other possible answer to this question."

Jones claims that through much of Christian history, "What happened was precisely the Jewish participation in iniquity which their pertinacious and ongoing rejection of Christ made a necessity." He adds that "the logic is inescapable." Clearly, logic is not Jones's strong suit. Is Jones asserting that there can be no righteous non-Christians? No, he is saying something even more ridiculous: that there is something inherent in the Jewish people that makes them unique instruments of evil. If that is not anti-Semitism, then nothing is. He even outrageously blames the Jews themselves for the Holocaust and pogroms: "Messianic politics has been a recipe for disaster… and the Nazi attempt to exterminate the Jews was a reaction to Jewish Messianism (in the form of Bolshevism) every bit as much as the Chmielnicki pogroms flowed from the excesses of the Jewish tax farmers in the Ukraine."

Jones takes on the tone of a conspiracy theorist, noting "the Jewish/Bolshevist takeover of Russia and large segments of Eastern Europe, which in turn set up the mechanism of reaction against that reign of terror, namely, National Socialism under Hitler. That in turn led to the creation of the state of Israel, and the rise to power of the Jewish media elites in the United States, which in turn led, after over 50 years of antagonizing Islam to 9/11 and the current spate of never-ending wars in the Middle East." In keeping with the dispensationalist tendency to interpret prophecy in terms of current events, Jones comments, "So it looks more and more like Armageddon every day now. The outline of human history seems to be taking on a more and more biblical configuration with each passing day…." In the context of "Paul Wolfowitz's plan to march through the middle east; George Bush's recent over the top messianic speeches in England, or Ariel Sharon showing up at the Temple Mount and inaugurating the intifada," Jones concludes, "The contemporary Synagogue of Satan, whether in America or Israel, now poses the greatest threat to world peace."

The Catholic League condemns Jones's anti-Semitism and repudiates his efforts to justify it in the name of Catholic theology. One thing is clear: there are many choice terms one can use to describe Jones's view of salvation history; "Catholic" is not one of them.

Apparently Father Harrison doesn't see it that way. For him, there is absolutely nothing problematic about arguing that "Jewish activists, intellectuals and financiers" have been plotting for 2,000 years to prevent, subvert and overthrow Christian values and the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. Small wonder he appeared recently at the Saint Benedict Center in Richmond, New Hampshire. I'm sure he found a hearty welcome there. After all, it was Louis Villarrubia ("Brother" Andre Marie) who suggested that the Jewish People undermine public morality. And it was Douglas Bersaw ("Brother" Anthony Mary) who referred to the Holocaust as a "fraud" and the Jewish People as the "Synagogue of Satan."

For more on E. Michael Jones go here. And for background on the anti-Semitism of Robert Sungenis go here.

Implicitum votum

"Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel. She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life." (Lumen Gentium, No. 16).

Followers of the late Fr. Leonard Feeney have initiated a discussion thread at the Holy Cross Cardinal Newman Society website with an article written by Fr. Brian W. Harrison, O.S., and entitled "Can an 'implicit faith' in Christ be sufficient for salvation?"*

The answer is: yes. Let's hear from Avery Cardinal Dulles on the subject: "The Magisterium of the Church has gradually clarified its position regarding the possibilities of salvific faith for the unevangelized. From patristic times until our own century the axiom 'Outside the Church no salvation' was often stated in terms that seemed to make explicitly Christian and Catholic faith an absolute condition for salvation. For example, the Council of Florence in its Decree for the Jacobites (1442) asserted: '[The Holy Roman Church] firmly believes, professes, and preaches that none of those who exist outside of the Catholic Church - not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics - can become sharers of eternal life; rather, they will go into the eternal fire 'that was prepared for the devil and his angels' [Mt 25: 41] unless, before the end of their lives, they are joined to that same Church.' (DS 1351).

This position was nuanced in the mid-nineteenth century. In an allocution given on the occasion of the definition of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin in 1854, Pope Pius IX reminded the assembled bishops of the error of thinking that Catholics 'can well hope for the eternal salvation of all those who have in no way lived in the true Church of Christ.' But then he added that God in his justice and mercy will never impute guilt to those who innocently err. We must not presume to judge the limits of invincible ignorance, 'taking into account the great variety of peoples, lands, native talents, and so many other factors.'

In an encyclical of 1863 the same pope again repudiated the extremes of rigorism and latitudinarianism. He wrote:

'It is once again necessary to recall and censure the very serious error in which some Catholics are unfortunately involved, that of believing that it is possible to attain eternal life although living in error and in a state of alienation from the true faith and from Catholic unity. This view is utterly contrary to Catholic teaching. You know also that people who are invincibly ignorant of our holy religion, provided that they sincerely keep the precepts of the natural law, who are prepared to obey God, and who live honorable and upright lives, can, by the efficacious power of the light and grace of God, attain eternal life; for God, who fully beholds, scrutinizes, and knows the minds, hearts, thoughts, and dispositions of all, in his supreme mercy will by no means permit anyone who is not guilty of voluntary fault to suffer eternal punishments.'

Under Pius XII the salvation of 'nonbelievers' was discussed in connection with the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to be saved. The encyclical Mystici corporis (1943), after declaring that the Catholic Church alone is the Mystical Body of Christ, spoke of the possibility of belonging to it not by formal membership but 'by a kind of unconscious desire and intent' (inscio quodam desiderio ac voto, DS 3821). The pope seemed to imply that this latter type of belonging, even though it did not give the full benefits of incorporation in the visible organization of the Good Shepherd, might suffice for salvation in the case of persons inculpably ignorant of the true faith.

In 1949 the Holy Office, in a letter to the Archbishop of Boston, declared that an 'implicit intent' (implicitum votum) could suffice, provided that it was accompanied by supernatural faith and perfect charity (DS 3870-72). These texts, while not dealing directly with the kind of faith required for salvation, implied that explicit faith in Christ and the Church would not be necessary in the case of the unevangelized....

As late as the mid-twentieth century Leonard Feeney , S.J., and his followers at St. Benedict Center in Cambridge, Massachusetts, proclaimed that no one could be saved without joining, or explicitly intending to join, the Roman Catholic Church. Feeney's pessimistic position was, however, rejected by the Roman Congregation of the Holy Office, which asserted, as already mentioned, that a merely implicit desire to join the Catholic Church, if accompanied by faith and informed by perfect charity, could suffice." (The Assurance of Things Hoped For: A Theology of Christian Faith, pp. 259-260, 262).

Fr. Brian W. Harrison has no authority to contradict the Teaching Magisterium of the Church. Neither do the followers of the late Fr. Leonard Feeney. As Richard B [a Catholic apologist from the Worcester Diocese] explained at the Holy Cross Cardinal Newman Society website:

"Theologians are not in any way the Teaching Magisterium. Fr. Feeney or any of his followers are in error to think that they can, in any measure, take on the charism of the Teaching Magisterium and thereby proclaim what the dogma [Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus] is all about...Only Peter, by himself alone, or with the Bishops, who are one with Peter, have the charism to proclaim the content of this dogma."

Well said Richard. This situation is very serious. Followers of the late Fr. Leonard Feeney who are defending his rejected interpretation of the dogma are continuing to sow the seeds of dissent from the Church's authentic teaching on the subject. This situation needs to be addressed in a meaningful way by Church authorities.


Related reading here and here.


* The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in its 1990 Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian, distinguishes clearly between questions which theologians may raise about authoritative but noninfallible teachings (nos. 24-31) and dissent from such teachings (nos. 32-41). The document judges that questioning can be compatible with the "religious submission" required (see Lumen Gentium, No. 25), but it firmly and unequivocally rejects dissent from such teachings as incompatible with this "religious submission" and irreconcilable with the theologian's vocation. Dissent from infallibly proposed teachings (such as the Church's understanding of the dogma "Outside the Church no salvation") is a fortiori excluded. This teaching is outlined quite clearly in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which Pope John Paul II says, "..is a statement of the Church's faith and of Catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition, and the Church's Magisterium." (Apostolic Constitution Fidei Depositum, No. 3). In this same Apostolic Constitution, Pope John Paul II states that the Catechism "..is the result of the collaboration of the whole Episcopate of the Catholic Church." (No. 2).

Theologians such as Fr. Brian Harrison are not "pastors" within the Church. They have not been given the mission from the Lord Jesus to instruct the faithful in "all that serves to make the People of God live their lives in holiness and increase their faith" (Dei Verbum, No. 8). This mission has been entrusted exclusively to the Magisterium of the Church, i.e., the Pope and those Bishops who remain united with him.

Dei Verbum of the Second Vatican Council teaches that, "the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed." (No. 10).

The Holocaust denial of the Saint Benedict Center - Richmond, New Hampshire

The Church takes Holocaust denial very seriously. Read here for example. And yet, Douglas Bersaw of the Saint Benedict Center cult [Richmond, New Hampshire] has said that, "There's a lot of controversy among people who study the so-called Holocaust..There's a misperception that Hitler had a position to kill all the Jews. It's all a fraud. Six million people..it didn't occur." (Cherishing an Older Catholicism, The Boston Globe). And what does Louis Villarrubia ("Brother" Andre Marie, the "Prior" of the Saint Benedict Center) believe about the Holocaust? Read here.

One has to wonder why Catholic author Philip Lawler would attend the Saint Benedict Center Conference as a guest speaker. Two relevant posts here and here. Pope Benedict XVI has said that any minimization of the Holocaust is "unacceptable" (see here). This is one reason why the Saint Benedict Center cult is "unacceptable." Does Mr. Lawler believe differently?

Since any minimization of the Holocaust is "unacceptable" according to Our Holy Father, what course of action should be taken against Louis Villarrubia ("Brother" Andre Marie)? Readers of this Blog (and Russell Provosts Blog SBC Watch) will recall that when "Brother" Andre Marie was asked by Mary Richardson of the television program Chronicle whether or not 6 million Jews died during the Holocaust, he replied "I don't know, I'm not a historian." What is this but an attitude of "minimization" regarding the Holocaust? While he acknowledged that some Jews died "during the Second World War," his attitude was absolutely chilling as he spoke of the "subtleties of the Holocaust."

This just in: Holy Office says Feeneyites "not ok"

The Feeneyite Saint Benedict Center cult in Richmond, New Hampshire has posted the following at its website with the heading, "This just in: Pope Says 'Feeneyites' ok":

"With regards to those who hold strictly the absolute necessity of water baptism, it would be quite wrong to charge them with heretical constructs. As they merely assert that which was the near-universal consensus of the Patristic era, such a charge would be proximate to condemning all but a few of the Fathers as heterodox." (Der Glaube das Pimmelkopfgelauben, Communio April 1997 p 13. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.)

Now our Holy Father, then Cardinal Ratzinger, was not suggesting that Feeneyites are correct or that Feeneyism is "ok." He was merely indicating that it would be wrong to charge them "with heretical constructs." Not all willful rejection of a truth proposed by the Church constitutes heresy. The Feeneyites rejection of the Church's understanding of the dogma "Outside the Church there is no salvation" is not strictly speaking heresy. However, it is a serious sin against Catholic faith.

On August 8, 1949, the Holy Office sent a letter to Archbishop Richard James Cushing of Boston condemning Father Feeney’s error. In this letter, the Holy Office explained that, "...among those things which the Church has always preached and will never cease to preach is contained also that infallible statement by which we are taught that there is no salvation outside the Church. However, this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it. For, it was not to private judgments that Our Savior gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church."

This teaching is reaffirmed in the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation (Dei Verbum) of the Second Vatican Council, No. 10: "..the task of authentically interpreting the Word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ." See also: Pius XII, Encyclical Letter Humani Generis (Aug 12, 1950): AAS 42 (1950), 568-69; Denz. 2314 (3886).

The Holy Office concluded its letter to Archbishop Cushing with these words: "..let them who in grave peril are ranged against the Church seriously bear in mind that after ‘Rome has spoken’ they cannot be excused even by reasons of good faith. Certainly, their bond and duty of obedience toward the Church is much graver than that of those who as yet are related to the Church ‘only by an unconscious desire.’ Let them realize that they are children of the Church, lovingly nourished by her with the milk of doctrine and the sacraments, and hence, having heard the clear voice of their Mother, they cannot be excused from culpable ignorance, and therefore to them apply without any restriction that principle: submission to the Catholic Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff is required as necessary for salvation."

What does this mean for the Feeneyites? It means that the Lord Jesus will require more from them (children of the Church who have been "lovingly nourished by her with the milk of doctrine and the sacraments," See also Luke 12:48) and that, having heard "the clear voice of their Mother" (the living teaching office of the Church), they have no excuse in rejecting the Church’s understanding of extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. In fact, since "to them[as children of the Church] apply without any restriction" the principle that "submission to the Catholic Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff is required as necessary for salvation," the Feeneyites place their salvation in jeopardy by ranging themselves against the Church.

Feeneyites who want to rationalize their pick and choose "cafeteria Catholicism" will no doubt continue to ignore Church documents which do not suit their agenda while plucking out selective quotes as deftly as a fundamentalist would in a vain attempt to justify their particular view. But the Church has spoken:

"Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking." (Lumen Gentium, No. 25).

These same Bishops, gathered at the Second Vatican Council, taught that:

"..those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God. In the first place we must recall the people to whom the testament and the promises were given and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh. On account of their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues. But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohamedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things, and as Saviour wills that all men be saved. Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience. Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel. She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life.." (Lumen Gentium, No. 16).

Can one reject this teaching and still call himself a Catholic? As Ralph McInerny [professor at the University of Notre Dame] explains in his book "What went wrong with Vatican II: The Catholic crisis explained":

"Contemporary accounts of Vatican II portrayed it as a battle between two forces, conservative and liberal, the hidebound and progressive. As a result, the documents of the council came to to be looked upon as the triumph of one side over the other. The good guys who had won were the progressives. That such a political division existed among members of the press who covered the council is undeniable. That a similar division could be found among the theological experts [periti] who advised individual bishops or national conferences of bishops is also true. And there doubtless were prelates who regarded the members of the Vatican Curia as obstacles to the renewal that John XXIII had called for. Does this mean that the council was a victory for one side and a defeat for the other? This question indicates the limitations of such a factional interpretation. The Church is not merely a human organization. She is a divinely instituted mystery whose life is guided by the Holy Spirit. Whatever wrangling went on outside St. Peter's, however much a partisan spirit might have been carried within, when the various schemata were argued over and revised, once they received a majority of the votes of the Fathers of the council and were promulgated by Paul VI, they could no longer be looked upon as the product or property of some party within the Church. Now they were regulative of the faith of all Catholics. No Catholic could presume to reject the council and think that he remained a loyal member of the Church." (pp. 150-151).


Related reading: Did Father Feeney really reconcile with the Church? See here.

The works of the flesh...

Click on the title of this Blog post to visit Russell Provost's Blog SBC Watch and to learn more about the history of the Saint Benedict Center cult which is based out of Richmond, New Hampshire.

Meditation: Galatians 5: 19-23.

Pope Benedict XVI to address the dangers of Holocaust denial...

"There's a lot of controversy among people who study the so-called Holocaust..There's a misperception that Hitler had a position to kill all the Jews. It's all a fraud. Six million people..it didn't occur." - Douglas Bersaw of the Saint Benedict Center in Richmond, New Hampshire, quoted in The Boston Globe article "Cherishing an Older Catholicism."


The Holy Father is to hold a meeting with the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish organizations and will give an address on the Holocaust (the Shoah) and the dangers of Holocaust denial.


What does Louis Villarrubia ("Brother" Andre Marie of the Saint Benedict Center cult in Richmond, New Hampshire) believe about the Holocaust? Read here. And why would Catholic author Philip Lawler attend the Saint Benedict Center Conference as a guest speaker? Two relevant posts here and here.

I've made a few enemies over the past five years for exposing anti-Semitism in the Granite State. Stormfront has called me "the village communist." I have received death threats.

Hatred of the Jewish People is anything but Catholic. The Church condemns anti-Semitism as incompatible with the Gospel. The Jewish People are our elder brothers in the faith. In fact, Catholicism is the fullness of Judaism.


Related reading: Italian priest removed for Holocaust denial. And more here.

Why Mr. Peter Vere, J.C.L. is wrong

It has often been asserted by followers of the late Father Leonard Feeney that they possess a "right" to defend his erroneous interpretation of Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus and that this "right" has been affirmed by Church authorities. In fact, at the website of the Saint Benedict Center in Richmond, New Hampshire, a letter from Mr. Peter Vere, a canon lawyer and Catholic journalist, has been posted to convince others of this claim.

In this letter, which was written to "Brother" Andre Marie (the "Prior" of this community which has absolutely no canonical status in the Catholic Church), Mr. Vere writes:

"Dear Brother Andre Marie, I hope this letter finds you and the other brothers well. Allow me to apologize for taking my time in responding to your last letter. I wanted to be thorough in my response - especially since you have asked if my response might be made public, of which I have no objection. Please note that while I do not speak on behalf of the Church in an official capacity - given that I do not hold office with a tribunal or ecclesiastical entity that has been asked to investigate this question - what follows is my professional opinion as a canon lawyer.

To recap our last exchange, you wrote: “I'm wondering if you are able to put in writing something testifying to the lawfulness of holding Father Feeney's position as a Catholic in good standing with the Church. Back in January, you agreed to do this. Again, I'm not asking you to vouch for our canonical situation here in the Manchester Diocese; I'm simply asking for the expert opinion of a canon lawyer on the larger question.”

To begin, as you point out, the question concerning your canonical status with the Diocese of Manchester is separate from the question concerning Fr. Feeney’s status as one who died in full communion with Rome, as well as the status of his spiritual descendants who hold to his same position. Before we proceed to the larger question, I would just like to assure you of our family prayers that in God’s time the question of your canonical status resolve itself favourably. Should you require my assistance at that time, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Having said that, let us move to the larger question. It is clear from the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) promulgated by Pope John Paul II that the Church currently promotes a less exclusive understanding of the dogma “Outside the Church no salvation” (EENS) as well as the effects of desire for baptism (BOD) and pre-baptismal martyrdom for the faith (BOB). Lest I be accused of bias in my canonical opinion, I want to note up-front that I personally accept the teaching on these issues outlined in the CCC.

However, that is a debate for another time. The question currently before us is the following: What of those, like the spiritual descendants of Fr. Feeney, who hold to a more restrictive understanding on these issues? Are they Catholics in good standing with the Church? The answer is yes for a number of reasons:

1) There is no question Fr. Feeney died in full communion with the Catholic Church. Pope Paul VI lifted Father’s excommunication while Father was still alive, and there is no evidence that Father recanted his understanding of EENS, BOB, or BOD. The actual lifting of Father’s excommunication was executed by Fr. Richard Shmaruk, a priest of the Boston Archdiocese, on behalf of Bishop Bernard Flanagan of Worcester. While visiting Boston about ten years ago, I spoke with Fr. Shmaruk and he personally corroborated the events that led to him reconciling Fr. Feeney with the Church. On pages 259 to 262 of his book They Fought the Good Fight, Brother Thomas Mary Sennott diligently chronicles the reconciliation of Fr. Feeney, as well as the subsequent reconciliation of several of Father’s spiritual descendants. Brother Sennott quotes from two respectable Catholic news sources (The Advocate and the Catholic Free Press). I have independently confirmed the quotations and context of the primary sources. Brother Sennottt also notes that Father’s memorial mass was celebrated by Bishop Bernard Flanagan in the Cathedral of St. Paul, Worcester. This would have given rise to scandal had Father not been fully reconciled with the Church. Br. Sennott’s book received an imprimi potest from Bishop Timothy Harrington of the Diocese of Worcester, meaning the book is free from doctrinal or moral error. Thus unless one is willing to declare oneself BLEEP! or sedeprivationist, the evidence is overwhelming that Fr. Feeney died in full communion with the Church without recanting his position.

2) Most of Fr. Feeney’s spiritual descendants have been reconciled with the Church without having to renounce or recant their interpretation of BOB, BOD, or EENS. This was the case with those who reconciled in 1974 and would go on to found St. Benedict Abbey in Still River, as well as the sisters of St. Anne’s House in Still River who reconciled in 1988, and most recently with St. Benedict Centre in Still River who reconciled under Br. Thomas Augustine, MICM. Regarding the last group, I should note they had achieved a sacramental reconciliation long before their juridical reconciliation. This was the subject of the first paper I ever wrote as a young licentiate student in canon law. While researching this paper in 1997, I visited the various communities descended from Fr. Feeney and the Harvard student movement, noting with interest how despite no formal reconciliation at the time, Br. Thomas’s community had an in-residence chaplain appointed by the Bishop of Worcester. I also noted with interest that the Bishop visited the community regularly, and that he also confirmed the community’s children. In reading canon 844, sacraments should only be shared with non-Catholics under the most strict and extenuating of circumstances. It is clear, that in keeping with canon 213, the Diocese of Worcester was ensuring for the pastoral and sacramental care of Brother Thomas’s community as if they were Catholics. It was similarly clear from talking to Br. Thomas Augustine, as it was from talking to Mother Theresa next door at St. Anne’s House, that each of these communities still held the same interpretation of BOB, BOD and EENS as Fr. Feeney. With regards to the 1988 reconciliation of Mother Theresa, MICM and the sisters of St. Anne’s House in Still River, Fr. Lawrence A. Deery, JCL, at the time the Diocese of Worcester’s Judicial Vicar and Vicar for Canonical Affairs and acting in his official capacity, wrote the following: “1) The Sisters were asked to ‘understand’ the letter of the then Holy Office dated 8 August 1949. They were not asked to ‘accept’ its contents. 2) The Sisters were asked to make to make a Profession of Faith. Nothing else was required [...] In our discussions with the Congregation [for the Doctrine of the Faith] it seemed rather clear that proponents of a strict interpretation of the doctrine should be given the same latitude for teaching and discussion as those who would hold more liberal views. Summarily, Mother Theresa and her community in no manner abandoned Father Feeney’s teachings.” Need I remind you that the man who was Prefect for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith at the time of this consultation is now Pope Benedict XVI, the Church’s Supreme Pontiff? 3) In 1988, Mr. John Loughnan, a layman from Australia who happens to be a friend of mine, wrote the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei (PCED) requesting clarification on several controversies surrounding the SSPX. Mr. Loughnan also inquired as to the status within the Church of Fr. Feeney’s followers. Concerning this last question, Msgr. Camille Perl, secretary of the PCED, replied to Mr. Loughnan as follows in N. 343/98 dated 27 October 1998: “The question of the doctrine held by the late Father Leonard Feeney is a complex one. He died in full communion with the Church and many of his former disciples are also now in full communion while some are not. We do not judge it opportune to enter into this question.” While not wishing to engage in this controversy, Msgr. Perl clearly confirms that Fr. Feeney died in full communion with the Church, and that several of his spiritual descendants who hold his same doctrinal interpretations are in full communion with the Church. Such a statement is clearly within the mission of the PCED as this commission was established by Pope John Paul II to oversee the reconciliation and well-being of traditionalists within the Church.

On that note, the evidence is clear: while the position held by Fr. Feeney and his spiritual descendants may be controversial, holding these positions does not, in itself, place one outside of the Catholic Church. In short, it is clear from the Church’s current pastoral and canonical practice that the Church considers this an internal controversy, and that she acknowledges the good standing of most of those who uphold a restrictive interpretation of EENS, BOB and BOD."

Pax Christi,
Pete Vere, JCL

While it is good that Mr. Vere acknowledges (and accepts) the Church's authentic teaching regarding the dogma Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus, a teaching which he admits is "clear from the Catechism of the Catholic Church," he is simply wrong in his assertion that one may reject the Church's interpretation of the dogma in favor of Father Feeney's rigid [and rejected] interpretation and that "proponents of a strict interpretation of the doctrine should be given the same latitude for teaching and discussion as those who would hold more liberal views."

First of all, what are we to make of his argument that Father Feeney (and some of his followers) "reconciled" with the Church? In his excellent refutation of Fr. Feeney's rigid interpretation of Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus, Fr. William Most, an internationally acclaimed Scripture scholar and theologian writes: "In the late 1940s Leonard Feeney, S. J. began to teach that there is no salvation outside the Church. He was correct in saying that there were official teachings, even definitions, on that score. But his tragic error came when he adopted Protestant method, thinking that in that way he would be one of the only true Catholics! We spoke of his protestant method with good reason. First, he was excommunicated for disobedience, refusing to go to Rome to explain his position. Then the Holy Office, under Pius XII, sent a letter to the Archbishop of Boston, condemning Feeney's error. (It is known that Pius XII personally checked the English text of that letter). In the very first paragraph pointed out what is obvious: we must avoid private interpretation of Scripture -- for that is strictly Protestant. But then the letter said we must also avoid private interpretation of the official texts of the Church. To insist on our own private interpretation, especially when the Church contradicts that, is pure Protestant attitude...

What the disobedient Feeney said amounted to this: he insisted that all who did not formally enter the Church would go to hell. Hence he had to say, and he did say, that unbaptized babies go to hell. Further, all adults who did not formally enter the Church - get their names on a parish register - would also go to hell, even if they never had a chance to hear there was a Church, e.g., those in the western hemisphere during the long centuries before Columbus. Therefore Feeney consigned literally millions upon millions to hell, even though He gave them no chance. Not just the documents of the Church as interpreted by the Church should have kept him from this: merely common sense, and the realization that God is not only not a monster, but is infinitely good - that alone should have stopped him. We have, then, most ample reason for calling his error tragic. Even the sexually immoral do not deny that God is good. Feeney does worse than they."

Why then was Fr. Feeney not required to recant his erroneous interpretation of Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus? Fr. Most explains:"When Feeney was old, some church authorities out of sorrow for him, let him be reconciled to the Church. As part of the unfortunate looseness we see so often today, they did not demand that he recant. So he did not. As a result, some former followers of his came back to the Church. Others even today insist that the lack of demanding a recantation meant Feeney had been right all along. Of course not. We have proved that abundantly with official texts above and the texts of the Fathers of the Church." (http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/FEENEY.txt).

And what do we make of Mr. Vere's claim that "proponents of a strict interpretation of the doctrine should be given the same latitude for teaching and discussion as those who would hold more liberal views"? First of all, those who hold to the Church's understanding of the dogma are not holding to a "liberal" view. They are holding to Christ's view as made known through the Magisterium of the Church. Therefore, we should immediately dispense with any childish attempt to portray this as some sort of battle between "conservatives" and "liberals." Rather, it is a question of whether we hold to the Church's teaching or choose instead to adopt that protestant attitude which Fr. Most referred to.

In his Encyclical Letter Veritatis Splendor, No. 113, Pope John Paul II teaches us that, "Opposition to the teaching of the Church's Pastors cannot be seen as a legitimate expression either of Christian freedom or of the diversity of the Spirit's gifts. When this happens, the Church's Pastors have the duty to act in conformity with their apostolic mission, insisting that the right of the faithful to receive Catholic doctrine in its purity and integrity must always be respected."

By arguing that Catholics who hold to Father Feeney's erroneous interpretation of EENS "should be given the same latitude for teaching and discussion as those who accept the Church's authentic interpretation," Mr. Vere is in effect suggesting the very opposite of what Pope John Paul II taught. He is saying that opposition to the teaching of the Church's Pastors can be seen as a legitimate expression of Christian freedom and the diversity of the Spirit's gifts.

Should Catholics be free to choose which interpretation of EENS to hold? Not according to the Church herself. In a Letter of the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office to Archbishop Cushing given on August 8, 1949 we read: "Your Excellency: This Supreme Sacred Congregation has followed very attentively the rise and the course of the grave controversy stirred up by certain associates of 'St. Benedict Center' and 'Boston College' in regard to the interpretation of that axiom: 'Outside the Church there is no salvation.' After having examined all the documents that are necessary or useful in this matter, among them information from your Chancery, as well as appeals and reports in which the associates of 'St. Benedict Center' explain their opinions and complaints, and also many other documents pertinent to the controversy, officially collected, the same Sacred Congregation is convinced that the unfortunate controversy arose from the fact that the axiom, 'outside the Church there is no salvation,' was not correctly understood and weighed, and that the same controversy was rendered more bitter by serious disturbance of discipline arising from the fact that some of the associates of the institutions mentioned above refused reverence and obedience to legitimate authorities.

Accordingly, the Most Eminent and Most Reverend Cardinals of this Supreme Congregation, in a plenary session held on Wednesday, July 27, 1949, decreed, and the august Pontiff in an audience on the following Thursday, July 28, 1949, deigned to give his approval, that the following explanations pertinent to the doctrine, and also that invitations and exhortations relevant to discipline be given: We are bound by divine and Catholic faith to believe all those things which are contained in the word of God, whether it be Scripture or Tradition, and are proposed by the Church to be believed as divinely revealed, not only through solemn judgment but also through the ordinary and universal teaching office (Denzinger, n. 1792).

Now, among those things which the Church has always preached and will never cease to preach is contained also that infallible statement by which we are taught that there is no salvation outside the Church. However, this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it. For, it was not to private judgments that Our Savior gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church..."

Notice the wording here? The Church was being crystal clear, "..this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it." But, unable to accept this judgment of the Holy Office, followers of the late Father Leonard Feeney will go to great lengths to convince themselves that opposition to the teaching of the Church's Pastors is somehow "legitimate." This even though the Holy Office stated clearly that "it was not to private judgments that Our Savior gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church."

When one wants to justify one's own dissent from Church teaching, the Church's voice grows more and more faint. Dissent has a way of clogging the ears. The wording of the Holy Office in the above-quoted letter leaves absolutely no "wiggle room" whatsoever. Catholics are not free to understand the dogma in another sense but must understand it in "that sense in which the Church herself understands it."

No one, not even a "canon lawyer and Catholic journalist," may argue otherwise.

Related reading: http://lasalettejourney.blogspot.com/2008/07/does-philip-lawler-accept-churchs.html

John Sharpe, who appeared at the 2008 Saint Benedict Center Conference, "explains" 911

In an article entitled "Islam vs. the West: Is This Another Crusade," John Sharpe (who appeared as a guest speaker at the 2008 Saint Benedict Center Conference in Nashua, New Hampshire), has this to say:

"The current and historical mortal enemy of Christian civilization is Judeo-Masonry. There can be no doubt about this fact from an analysis [of] history, both recent, and that which dates from the time of Our Lord. Islam is a sideshow, albeit a powerful and vigorous one, to the main drama. It has been a tool of Jewry and may in fact be so in this case."

Islam is a tool of "Jewry"? Sharpe goes on to suggest that:

"There is nothing to suggest that bin Laden, assuming he is the guilty party – or whoever is responsible for the attacks of 9-11 – considered the attacks to be an assault on the West, insofar as it is the uniquely Christian West...

As we’ve said here before, even the most superficial analysis of the targets of the attacks would suggest that the U.S.-dominated world political and financial order was the object of attack. Hardly strongholds of Christianity...

In truth, there is no longer a Christian West to attack. To suggest that the US of A is the last bastion of Christian civilization is a sad mockery of the truth. It has been a greater Israel for many years; the rise of Hollywood, Wall Street, the Fed, and Roosevelt’s State and Treasury departments assured that."

Source: http://www.mediamonitors.net/johnsharp3.html

In other words, for John Sharpe, the United States was attacked by Islamic terrorists because it is simply "a greater Israel," an extension of the State of Israel.

Mr. Philip Lawler, author of The Faithful Departed, also attended the Saint Benedict Center Conference as a guest speaker. Where does he stand on the 911 attacks? Does he agree with Mr. Sharpe that Islam is a "tool of Jewry"? Why has he not publically distanced himself from the Saint Benedict Center? Does Mr. Lawler believe, as "Brother" Andre Marie has asserted, that the Jewish People "undermine public morality"?

Why the silence?

Related reading: http://lasalettejourney.blogspot.com/2006/01/brother-andre-marie-micm-and-anti.html

Spreading the Gospel of Hate at HCCNS

Note: It would appear that an individual or individuals have been posting attacks against my person at the Holy Cross Cardinal Newman Society website [operated by Mr. Vic Melfa, Diocese of Worcester, Massachusetts] because I have questioned Mr. Philip Lawler [author of The Faithful Departed] as to why he attended the 2008 Saint Benedict Center Conference in Nashua, New Hampshire as a guest speaker - the Saint Benedict Center, which is based out of Richmond, New Hampshire, has been listed as an anti-Semitic hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center and has been featured on the television program Chronicle.

Comments have also been left at the HCCNS website promoting the work of E. Michael Jones and the publication Culture Wars.

For this reason, I would encourage readers of this Blog to visit an excellent Blog authored by Mr. Matthew Anger, a freelance Catholic journalist who has contributed to the Latin Mass Magazine:

http://fringewatcher.blogspot.com/2006/07/culture-wars-troubling-praise-of-israel.html

http://fringewatcher.blogspot.com/2006/01/e-michael-jones-and-jews.html

Mr. Anger explains:

"Jones may differ superficially from the hard-core racialist anti-Semites in that his Jewish fixation is "religious." But all this really does is to make hatred palatable to people who might have some remaining Christian scruples. It is hardly surprising that Jones' message is admired by virulent racists like the Vanguard News Network (see the post of "Shamir on the Jewish Question," reprinted from Jones' Culture Wars, September 2005). In 2004, the Catholic League issued a forthright expose of E. Michael Jones' soft-sell anti-Semitism in The Catalyst ("Playing Fast and Loose With Theology," July-August 2004)."

Was Mr. Lawler aware?

When Mr. Philip Lawler agreed to speak at the 2008 Saint Benedict Center Conference, was he aware that another guest speaker, Lt. Cmdr John Sharpe, founded IHS Press in September of 2001 with an individual named Derek Holland? Was he aware, as Mr. Matthew Anger has documented at his Blog Fringe Watch, that "Derek Holland, through the ITP [International Third Position], is associated with the Neo-Nazi Geman NPD (Nationaldemokratische Partei Deutschlands)" and that "Holland spoke at their events in 1999 and 2000"?

Was Mr. Lawler aware that "..the NPD is also linked to al-Qaeda via Ahmed Huber, a Swiss extremist who converted to Islam in the 1960s"?*

Let's hope not.


* Source: http://fringewatcher.blogspot.com/2006/01/more-on-derek-holland-and-ihs-press.html