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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related reading here.

Liberal columnist Bonnie Erbe: the Christian era is crumbling and this will be liberating

In their Pastoral Letter on Freedom of Conscience and Religion, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, citing Blessed John XXIII's Encyclical Letter Pacem in Terris, No. 14, remind us that, "Every individual has the 'right to be able to worship God in accordance with the right dictates of conscience....Besides being free from external coercion, everyone must be able freely to exercise the right to choose, profess, disseminate, and practice his or her own religion in private and in public.  This includes the freedom for parents to educate their children in their religious convictions and to choose the schools which provide that formation.  Moreover, the State has the obligation to protect this right by means of a legal and administrative framework and to create a suitable environment where it can be enjoyed...Unfortunately, religious freedom is far from being effectively guaranteed everywhere.  Sometimes it is denied for religious or ideological reasons.  At other times, although it may be recognized in law, it is hindered in practice by a legal system or social order which enforces strict control, if not a monopoly, over society....

More subtle threats to religious freedom arise from the cultural predominance of radical secularism and 'a subliminal relativism that penetrates every area of life.  Sometimes this relativism becomes aggressive when it opposes those who say they know where the truth or meaning of life is to be found.' (Pope Benedict XVI, Address to Central Committee for German Catholics, Freiburg in Breisgau, September 24, 2011).

This aggressive and hate-filled secularism which Pope Benedict XVI refers to aims at forcing religious believers - and especially Catholic Christians - to keep their religious convictions to themselves while insisting that atheists, agnostics and the "non-affiliated" should not be held to the same restriction.  The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops rightly declare that such an aim amounts to nothing less than "an expression of religious intolerance."

This intolerance is embraced by liberal columnist Bonnie Erbe.  In a column entitled "Christian leaders losing power, and I'm fine with that," which was carried by the Fitchburg Sentinel & Enterprise, Ms. Erbe argues that America is morphing "from one nation under one Christian god to an amalgam nation under many gods" and that it is "liberating" to know that the non-Christian population is increasing even as the ranks of Church-going Christians decreases.

Ms. Erbe rails against the Catholic Church in particular because the U.S. Bishops have had the audacity to stand up for religious freedom against the Obama administration's contraception mandate which would violate the First Amendment guarantee of religious liberty.  She writes, "Clearly, they and other Christian church leaders still see us as one nation under one god.  But...this is changing.  Another Pew poll released two years ago on the 'millennial' generation and its relationship with faith should be even more troubling to Christian leaders.  It showed the following, quoting from the Pew website: 'Americans ages 18 to 29 are considerably less religious than older Americans.  Fewer young adults belong to any particular faith than older people do today.  They also are less likely to be affiliated than their parents' and grandparents' generations were when they were young.'

For Ms. Erbe, this is all just great news.  She writes joyfully, "One day, Christian leaders will wake up and recognize that their era is crumbling.  If that means they will have decreasing power in the political realm, it will be a blessing for all of us..."

In other words, if the rights and freedoms of Christians are to diminish as their ranks grow smaller, such will represent a blessing to those who oppose the Christian Church.  Having succumbed to the Father of Lies (John 8: 44), Ms. Erbe could not possibly understand that the growing apostasy will not represent a "blessing" for pagans, atheists, agnostics and the "non-affiliated."  On the contrary, the Holy Spirit assures us through Saint Paul that the day of the Lord will not come "unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of perdition" (2 Thessalonians 2: 3) and that, "The coming of the lawless one by the activity of Satan will be with all power and with pretended signs and wonders, and with all wicked deception for those who are to perish, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved." (2 Thessalonians 2: 9-10).

The coming of the lawless one (the Antichrist for the scripturally illiterate) will set off a sequence of events culminating in the complete destruction of those who have "refused to love the truth and so be saved."  Jesus refers to this mystery in John 5: 43.  After this destruction comes, we will have a new heavens and a new earth where nothing unclean shall enter (Revelation 21: 27).

Now that will be a blessing!

Bonnie Toomey and the Sentinel & Enterprise: Promoting satanic gender confusion

Harry Hay, the founder of the homosexual movement, began his manifesto for the Mattachine Society with these words: "We, the androgynes of the world.." Homosexual writer and activist Paul Varnell explains how Hay gave androgyny vital importance in the homosexual movement: "Hay's 'idealism' had three components: a) gays are qualitatively different from heterosexuals, mentally, psychologically, spiritually, not just in 'what they do in bed;' b) the core difference lies in the natural androgyny of homosexuals, that they embody both male and female elements; and c) in order to help promote their acceptance gays need to explain the contribution this difference makes to society." (Paul Varnell, "Harry Hay: One Big Idea).

Pope Benedict XVI, in a Christmas Address given in 2008, denounced the contemporary notion that gender is a malleable definition and said, "The Church speaks of the human being as man and woman, and asks that this order is respected." But our sin-sick culture, in its hatred for God and His Commandments, has another agenda. God's order is rejected. And this is most significant because, as Father Vincent Miceli, S.J., has noted, "It has been a special scar on the worst pagan cultures and the worst idolatrous religions that they openly attacked the gender identities of the sexes. They celebrated sexual indulgence, sexual experimentation, sexual symbols, fertility rites, temple prostitution, seasonal sex orgies, sexual abuse and enslavement of young women, girls and boys....But sex is not an accidental characteristic of man and woman. A human person without sex is a monstrous abstraction. Sex entails the very identity of each person; sex plunges to the deepest mystery of each person. Hence the sexes and the vocations pertaining thereto are not interchangeable. Each person is called to serve God and his fellowman, accepting gladly the sex with which one is endowed and the vocation attached to that sex." (The Antichrist, P. 231).

The forces of darkness continue to assault God's order by promoting gender confusion.  Exactly one year ago today, on Easter Sunday 2011 - which is, in itself, a sign of the spiritual battle we find ourselves in - the Fitchburg Sentinel & Enterprise published an article from Bonnie J. Toomey, a homosexual propagandist who writes a regular column for that newspaper, entitled "Why should pink have us seeing red?"  This article was a response to the controversy which erupted when the president of Abercrombie & Fitch, Jenna Lyons, painted her five year old son's toenails pink.

Ms. Toomey wrote, "...pink is a beautiful color, and I think it looks great on a guy.  It doesn't mean anything.  But why do we get so uncomfortable when it comes to boys and pink?  Traditions, religions and a patriarchal society have put pink where they want it, not necessarily where it rightfully belongs.  My sons wore their sister's costumes and dresses many times..."  Ms. Toomey, ardent propagandist for satanic gender confusion that she is, goes on to insist that homosexuality is innate and natural.  I refuted her nonsense here.

Here we are on Easter Sunday, precisely one year to the day after this assault on God's order and His plan for the sexes, and the Sentinel & Enterprise is at it again.  This time, in a piece entitled "Give your daughter girl power," Bonnie Toomey insists that "Being wrapped in a pink and protected world did not appear to pave the road to success" for her daughter.  While Toomey believes that pink "looks great on a guy," and that "religions and a patriarchal society" have made us uncomfortable with boys wearing pink, a concern she finds unjustifiable, she nevertheless has a problem with toy stores which "push parents of girls into a plastic pink aisle bursting with Barbies, baby dolls, and princesses."

Toomey is a propagandist for demonic gender confusion.  Which is why she wants boys to wear pink but insists that parents who shop the "plastic pink aisle" with their daughters have joined the "indoctrinated ranks of bamboozled parents" who have allowed themselves to be "beaten into stereotyping submission."  Pink dresses and toenails are fine for boys but "a set of Legos or helping Daddy will help our daughters to shine more than any set of glittery Princess Press-on Nails Disney tries to peddle as art."

Toomey wants little boys to glitter like little girls and girls to play with Legos and [presumably] G.I. Joe - with the Kung-Fu Grip.  Although she heartily endorses pink for boys,  she sees pink as dangerous for little girls - something which will hold them back by instilling in them (gasp) femininity.  She writes, "I shared my girl power message with a young parent of a little girl.  I warned her of the pitfalls of pink.." (See here for full article).

Father Miceli warns that, "Women, in ever growing numbers, are despising and abandoning their femaleness.  They thus cripple themselves for the fulfillment of their sublime vocation of mothering children to maturity.  Men, frightened by the blazing fury of the women's liberation movement, are surrendering male roles and positions to psychologically desexualized women.."

St. Nilus prophesied that the day would come when gender confusion would be rampant.  And he warned that this would be one of the signs of the proximity of Antichrist.

Can we trust the Sentinel & Enterprise to cover the Catholic Church or issues which concern Catholics?

Professor James Hitchcock has said that many in the media belong to a "self-defined 'enlightened' class who claim the right to judge other people's beliefs, even when they do not understand those beliefs, a claim which clearly contradicts the same enlightened class's constant sermons about 'respect' and 'understanding.' Their favorite cause is 'sexual freedom' and nothing sets off their alarm bells faster than the suggestion that chastity may have some value...Religious believers are continually accused of trying to impose their beliefs on others, which in reality means resisting having secular beliefs imposed on them...The enlightened class obviously does not understand Catholic teachings about many things, nor does it wish to, and it gives itself license to trash those teachings..." (See here).

Just last month the "enlightened class" over at the Fitchburg Sentinel & Enterprise provided anti-Catholic bigot Bill Press the opportunity to trash the Catholic Bishops, accusing them of being deceitful with regard to the Obama administration's contraception mandate and of advancing a teaching which is appallingly "medieval."  Mr. Press wrote, "I love protests, and have taken part in many. But there are real protests and there are phony protests. And one of the phoniest we've ever seen is today's protest by Catholic bishops against the Obama administration's new rules on insurance coverage of contraception.


Here's the truth. On Jan. 20, the Health and Human Services Agency, under Secretary Kathleen Sibelius, issued a new rule that insurance policies, as part of their basic package, must offer contraceptive services with no deductible or co-pay. An exception was made for 335,000 churches, missions, or other places of worship where all employees were Catholic or members of any religion which opposed contraception as a matter of faith.

The new ruling does not require Catholic hospitals or clinics to provide birth control pills or devices. It does not force Catholics to practice contraception. It does not interfere with anyone's religion. It does not prevent priests and bishops from continuing their appalling medieval and widely ignored attempts to convince Catholics that contraception is sinful. It simply says that there can no longer be two kinds of health insurance policies: those that cover contraception and those that don't.

Catholic bishops are being dishonest. They accuse the president of infringing on religious liberty. Yet they fail to acknowledge, for example, that not everybody who works in a Catholic hospital or university is a Catholic."  (February 13, 2012 edition of the Sentinel & Enterprise).

Even non-Catholics of good will can see through Mr. Press' nonsense.  But to label the Church's teaching on artificial contraception "medieval" is just hateful and proves Archbishop Fulton Sheen was correct when he said that, "There are not a hundred people in America who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions of people who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church — which is, of course, quite a different thing."

This ignorance as to what the Church is and what she teaches pervades most of our secular media.  The Sentinel & Enterprise routinely publishes opinion pieces which are just wrong on the facts.  Not only is Catholic teaching often misrepresented but the newspaper fails to get even basic facts correct.  For example, in an article which may be found here, the newspaper reports on more than 25 protesters and their children who stood outside St. Anna's Parish on Lancaster Street in Leominster to show their opposition to the Obama adminstration's contraception mandate.  The article says that one protester is from St. Camilla's Church in Fitchburg.  The problem?  The parish referred to is dedicated not to St. Camilla but rather to St. Camillus de Lellis, who was actually my father's patron saint.*

Now before you say, "Well that's an honest mistake," consider that this Catholic parish is in the Sentinel & Enterprises' very own city!  And they still managed to get it wrong!  But hey, why should the "enlightened class" worry about such matters?  After all, the Church and her teaching are merely "medieval throwbacks" to a "superstitious time" right?

I wrote the editor of the newspaper a while back offering to cover the Church and Church-related issues.  I didn't get a response.  But the newspaper did publish this gem on Easter Sunday.

Can we trust the Sentinel & Enterprise to cover the Catholic Church and issues which concern Catholics with fairness, accuracy and objectivity?  What do you think?

*  More accurately, the parish is now St. Bernard's at St. Camillus.

Fitchburg's Mayor Lisa Wong Only Sees What She Wants To See

Fitchburg's Mayor Lisa Wong, who was so instrumental in bringing Planned Parenthood to Fitchburg, has gone on record in the past as saying that she would like to see more interaction between Planned Parenthood and the public.  Ms. Wong's support for Planned Parenthood is, of course, gravely disturbing.  For, as Bishop Charles V. Grahmann, DD has said, "Anyone who supports, belongs to, or sits on Boards of Directors of Planned Parenthood are promoting the legacy of Margaret Sanger which is the outline for Nazi Germany's 'human weeds and genetically inferior races.'"

As I noted in a previous post, "Planned Parenthood is virulently anti-life and anti-Christian. In one pamphlet, Planned Parenthood says: "In every generation there exists a group of people so filled with bigotry and self-righteousness that they will resort to any means - even violence - to impose their views on society. Today, such fanatics dominate a movement ironically called 'the Right-to-Life,' a movement which threatens the most basic of all human rights."


And, as Dr & Mrs. Willke explain, "Planned Parenthood has promoted a pro-abortion 'comic book,' geared for teenagers, entitled Abortion Eve. On the back cover is a caricature of the 'Assumption of the Blessed Virgin' depicting a pregnant Mary with the idiot face of Mad Magazine's Alfred E. Neumann. The caption says, 'What, me worry?'" (p. 343).

Don Weintraub, Vice President for International Affairs of PPFA, has admitted that, "Planned Parenthood is not just a social or medical service agency. It is part of a cause, a movement.." (March 12, 1985). And what is the driving force behind this movement? Racism, eugenics and the destruction of Christian morality. See here.

Margaret Sanger, the Founder of Planned Parenthood, was a prominent proponent of eugenics and forced sterilization. See here. She approved of Hitler's forced sterilization program. (See "Into the Darkness, Nazi Germany Today," by L. Stoddard, p. 196). Go here to learn more about Margaret Sanger by reading her own words."

Any decent person would therefore view Mayor Wong's promotion of and support for Planned Parenthood as both a disappointment and a failure [to uphold the common good].  And yet, Fitchburg's Mayor is proud of her record [in a city which the television program Chronicle compared to Appalachia because of its serious economic problems].  In an article entitled "Fitchburg mayoral candidates face off in forum," (August 30, 2011 edition of the Sentinel & Enterprise), Mayor Wong, responding to a rumor that she does not live in Fitchburg [she actually does], asserted that this rumor "comes from people who want to criticize her, but can't find anything of substance." (p. 2).

Apparently Mayor Wong only sees what she wants to see.  Presiding over a city in economic turmoil, she has given her endorsement to an organization which is Christianophobic and which dedicates itself to killing the unborn for profit.   It was Pope John Paul II, in a homily given at the Capitol Mall in Washington, D.C., on November 5, 1979, who said that, "All human life - from the moment of conception and through all subsequent stages - is sacred, because human life is created in the image and likeness of God.  Nothing surpasses the greatness or dignity of a human person.  Human life is not just an idea or an abstraction; human life is the concrete reality of a being that lives, that acts, that grows and develops; human life is the concrete reality of a being that is capable of love, and of service to humanity."

Unfortunately Mayor Wong cannot see this concrete reality.  She only sees what she wants to see. 

A word of advice to parents from Saint Alphonsus de Liguori, Doctor of the Church

Saint Alphonsus de Liguori, a moral theologian and Doctor of the Church who founded the Redemptorists, lived from 1696 to 1787.  This holy and learned Saint has some profound advice for parents.  He says:
"The gospel tells us, that a good plant cannot produce bad fruit, and that a bad one cannot produce good fruit. We learn from this, that a good father brings up good children. But, if the parents are wicked, how can the children be virtuous? Our Lord says, in the same gospel, Do men gather grapes from thorns, or figs from thistles? (Matt. 7:16). So, it is impossible, or rather very difficult, to find children virtuous, who are brought up by immoral parents. Fathers and mothers, be attentive to this sermon, which is of great importance to the eternal salvation of yourselves and of your children. Be attentive, young men and young women, who have not as yet chosen a state in life. If you wish to marry, learn the obligations which you contract with regard to the education of your children, and learn also, that if you do not fulfill them, you shall bring yourselves and all your children to damnation. I shall divide this into two points. In the first, I shall show how important it is to bring up children in habits of virtue; and, in the second, I shall show with what care and diligence a parent ought to labor to bring them up well.

A father owes two obligations to his children; he is bound to provide for their corporal wants, and to educate them in the habits of virtue. It is not necessary to say anything else about the first obligation, than, there are some fathers more cruel than the most ferocious of wild beasts, for these squander away in eating, drinking, and pleasure, all their property, or all the fruits of their industry, and allow their children to die of hunger. Let us discuss education, which is the subject of this article.

It is certain that a child's future good or bad conduct depends on his being brought up well or poorly. Nature itself teaches every parent to attend to the education of his offspring. God gives children to parents, not that they may assist the family, but that they may be brought up in the fear of God, and be directed in the way of eternal salvation. "We have," says Saint John Chrysostom, "a great deposit in children, let us attend to them with great care." Children have not been given to parents as a present, which they may dispose of as they please, but as a trust, for which, if lost through their negligence; they must render an account to God.

One of the great Fathers says that on the day of judgment, parents will have to render an account for all the sins of their children. So, he who teaches his son to live well, shall die a happy and tranquil death. He that teaches his son...when he died, he was not sorrowful, neither was he confounded before his enemies (Eccl. 30: 3,5). And he will save his soul by means of his children, that is, by the virtuous education which he has given them. She shall be saved through childbearing (I Tim. 2:15).

But, on the other hand, a very uneasy and unhappy death will be the lot of those who have labored only to increase the possessions, or to multiply the honors of their family, or who have sought only to lead a life of ease and pleasure, but have not watched over the morals of their children. Saint Paul says that such parents are worse than infidels. But if any man have not care of his own, and especially of those of his house, he has denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel (I Tim. 5:8).

Were fathers or mothers to lead a life of piety and continual prayer, and to communicate every day, they should be damned if they neglected the care of their children.

If all fathers fulfilled their duty of watching over the education of their children, we should have but few crimes. By the bad education which parents give to their offspring, they cause their children, says Saint John Chrysostom, to rush into many grievous vices; and thus they deliver them up to the hands of the executioner. So it was, in one town, a parent, who was the cause of all the irregularities of his children, was justly punished for his crimes with greater severity than the children themselves. Great indeed is the misfortune of the child that has vicious parents, who are incapable of bringing up their children in the fear of God, and who, when they see their children engage in dangerous friendships and in quarrels, instead of correcting and chastising them, they take compassion on them, and say, "What can I do? They are young; hopefully they will grow out of it." What wicked words, what a cruel education! Do you hope that when your children grow up, they will become saints? Listen to what Solomon says, "A young man, according to his way, even when he is old, he will not depart from it" (Proverbs 22:6). A young man who has contracted a habit of sin, will not abandon it even in his old age. His bones, says holy Job, will be filled with the vices of his youth, and they will sleep with him in the dust (Job 20:11). When a young person has lived in evil habits, his bones will be filled with the vices of his youth, so that he will carry them to the grave, and the impurities, blasphemies, and hatred to which he was accustomed in his youth, will accompany him to the grave, and will sleep with him after his bones are reduced to dust and ashes. It is very easy, when they are small, to train children to habits of virtue, but, when they have come to manhood, it is equally difficult to correct them, if they have learned habits of vice.

Let us come to the second point, that is, to the means of bringing up children in the practice of virtue. I beg you, fathers and mothers, to remember what I now say to you, from on it depends the eternal salvation of your own souls, and of the souls of your children.

Saint Paul teaches sufficiently, in a few words, in what the proper education of children consists. He says that it consists in discipline and correction. And you, fathers, provoke not your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and correction of the Lord (Ephes. 5:4). Discipline, which is the same as the religious regulation of the morals of children, implies an obligation of educating them in habits of virtue by word and example. First, by words: a good father should often assemble his children, and instill into them the holy fear of God. It was in this manner that Tobias brought up his little son. The father taught him from his childhood to fear the Lord and to fly from sin. And from infancy he taught him to fear God and abstain from sin (Tobias 1:10). The wise man says, that a well educated son is the support and consolation of his father. Instruct your son, and he will refresh you, and will give delight to your soul (Prov. 29:17). But, as a well instructed son is the delight of his father's soul, so an ignorant child is a source of sorrow to a father's heart, for the ignorance of his obligations as a Christian is always accompanied with a bad life.

It was related that, in the year 1248, an ignorant priest was commanded, in a certain synod, to make a discourse. He was greatly agitated by the command and the Devil appearing to him, instructed him to say, "The rectors of infernal darkness salute the rectors of parishes, and thank them for their negligence in instructing the people; because from ignorance proceeds the misconduct and the damnation of many."

The same is true of negligent parents. In the first place, a parent ought to instruct his children in the truths of the Faith, and particularly in the four principle mysteries. First, that there is but One God, the Creator and Lord of all things; secondly, that this God is a remunerator, Who, in the next life, will reward the good with the eternal glory of Paradise, and will punish the wicked with the everlasting torments of Hell; thirdly, the mystery of the Most Holy Trinity, that is, that in God there are Three Persons, Who are only One God, because They have but One Essence; fourthly, the mystery of the Incarnation of the Divine Word, the Son of God, and True God, Who became man in the womb of Mary, and suffered and died for our salvation.

Should a father or mother say, "I myself do not know these mysteries," can such an excuse be admitted? Can one sin excuse another? If you are ignorant of these mysteries, you are obliged to learn them, and afterwards to teach them to your children. At least, send your children to a worthy catechist. What a miserable thing to see so many fathers and mothers, who are unable to instruct their children in the most necessary truths of the Faith, and who, instead of sending their sons and daughters to Christian doctrine, employ them in occupations of little account, and when they are grown up, they do not know what is meant by mortal sin, by Hell, or eternity. They do not even know the Creed, the Our Father, or the Hail Mary, which every Christian is bound to learn under pain of mortal sin.

Religious parents not only instruct their children in these things, which are the most important, but they also teach them the acts which ought to be made every morning after rising. They teach them first, to thank God for having preserved their life during the night, secondly to offer to God all their good actions which they will perform, and all the pains which they will suffer during the day, thirdly, to implore of Jesus Christ and Our Most Holy Mother Mary to preserve them from all sin during the day. They teach them to make, every evening, an examination of conscience and an act of contrition. They also teach them to make every day, the acts of Faith, Hope and Charity, to recite the Rosary, and to visit the Blessed Sacrament. Some good fathers of families are careful to get a book of meditations to read, and to have mental prayer in common for half an hour every day. This is what the Holy Ghost exhorts you to practice. Do you have children? Instruct them and bow down their neck from their childhood (Eccl. 7:25). Endeavor to train them from their infancy to these religious habits, and when they grow up, they will persevere in them. Accustom them also to go to confession and communion every week.

It is also very useful to infuse good maxims into the infant minds of children. What ruin is brought upon children by their father who teaches them worldly maxims! "You must," some parents say to their children, "seek the esteem and applause of the world. God is merciful; He takes compassion on certain sins." How miserable the young man is who sins in obedience to such maxims. Good parents teach very different maxims to their children. Queen Blanche, the mother of Saint Louis, King of France, used to say to him, "My son, I would rather see you dead in my arms, than in the state of sin." So then, let it be your practice also to infuse into your children certain maxims of salvation, such as, What will it profit us to gain the whole world, if we lose our own souls? Everything on this earth has an end, but eternity never ends. Let all be lost, provided God is not lost. One of these maxims well impressed on the mind of a young person, will preserve him always in the grace of God.

But parents are obliged to instruct their children in the practice of virtue, not only by words, but still more by example. If you give your children bad example, how can you expect that they will lead good lives? When a dissolute young man is corrected for a fault, he answers, "Why do you censure me, when my father does worse?" The children will complain of an ungodly father, because for his sake they are in reproach (Eccl. 41:10). How is it possible for a son to be moral and religious, when he has had the example of a father who uttered blasphemies and obscenities, who spent the entire day in the tavern, in games and drunkenness, who was in the habit of frequenting houses of bad fame, and of defrauding his neighbor? Do you expect your son to go frequently to confession, when you yourself approach the confessional scarcely once a year?

It is related in a fable, that a crab one day rebuked its young for walking crookedly. They replied, "Father, let us see you walk." The father walked before them more crookedly than they did. This is what happens to the parent who gives bad example. Hence, he has not even courage to correct his children for the sins which he himself commits.

According to Saint Thomas, scandalous parents compel, in a certain manner, their children to lead a bad life. "They are not," says Saint Bernard, "fathers, but murderers, they kill, not the bodies, but the souls of their children." It is useless for parents to say: "My children have been born with bad dispositions." This is not true, for, Seneca says, "You err, if you think that vices are born with us; they have been engrafted." Vices are not born with your children, but have been communicated to them by the bad example of the parents. If you had given good example to your sons, they would not be so vicious as they are. So parents, frequent the Sacraments, learn from the sermons, recite the Rosary every day, abstain from all obscene language, from detraction, and from quarrels, and you will see that your children follow your example. It is particularly necessary to train children to virtue in their infancy, Bow down their neck from their childhood, for when they have grown up, and contracted bad habits, it will be very difficult for you to produce, by words, any amendment in their lives.

To bring up children in the discipline of the Lord, it is also necessary to take away from them the occasion of doing evil. A father must forbid his children to go out at night, or to go to a house in which their virtue might be exposed to danger, or to keep bad company. Cast out, said Sarah to Abraham, this bondswoman and her son (Gen. 21:10). She wished to have Ismael, the son of Agar the bondswoman, banished from her house, that her son Isaac might not learn his vicious habits. Bad companions are the ruin of young persons. A father should not only remove the evil which he witnesses, but he is also bound to inquire after the conduct of his children, and to seek information from family and from outsiders regarding the places which his children frequent when they leave home, regarding their occupations and companions. A father ought to forbid his children ever to bring into his house stolen goods. When Tobias heard the bleating of a goat in his house, he said, Take care, perhaps it is stolen, go, restore it to its owners (Tobias 2:21).

Parents should prohibit their children from all games, which bring destruction on their families and on their own souls, and also dances, suggestive entertainment, and certain dangerous conversations and parties of pleasures. A father should remove from his house books of romances, which pervert young persons, and all bad books which contain pernicious maxims, tales of obscenity, or of profane love. He should not permit his daughters to be alone with men, whether young or old. But some will say, "But this man tutors my daughter; he is a saint." The saints are in Heaven, but the saints that are on earth are flesh, and by proximate occasions, they may become devils.

Another obligation of parents is to correct the faults of the family. "Bring them up in the discipline and correction of the Lord." There are fathers and mothers who witness faults in the family and remain silent. Through fear of displeasing their children, some fathers neglect to correct them, but if you saw your child falling into a pool of water, and in danger of being drowned, would it not be savage cruelty not to catch him by the hair, and save his life? He that spares the rod hates his son (Prov. 13:24). If you love your children, correct them, and while they are growing up, chastise them, even with the rod, as often as it may be necessary.

I say, with the rod, but not with a stick; for you must correct them like a father, and not like a prison guard. You must be careful not to beat them when you are in a passion, for you will then be in danger of beating them with too much severity, and the correction will be without fruit, for then they believe that the chastisement is the effect of anger, and not of a desire on your part to see them amend their lives. I have also said, that you should correct them while they are growing up , for when they arrive at manhood, your correction will be of little use. You must then abstain from correcting them with the hand; otherwise, they will become more perverse, and will lose their respect for you. What use is it to correct children with injurious words and with imprecations? Deprive them of some part of their meals, of certain articles of dress, or shut them up in their room. I have said enough. Draw from this discourse the conclusion, that he who has brought up his children badly, will be severely punished, and that he who has trained them in the habits of virtue, will receive a great reward."

He who has brought up his children badly will be severely punished.  Reflect very carefully on those words.  Today many parents are following the doctrines of devils as they train their children in the ways of perversity.  Just recently, Bonnie J. Toomey, a columnist for the Sentinel & Enterprise, provided us all with her demonic ideas regarding the training of children.  Those responsible for publishing her devilish ideas will also have to render an account for this travesty.

Elsewhere, a mother is encouraging her little boy to dress in pink, sparkly dresses and to be a "princess boy."  In fact, the mainstream media have really played this up.  And this comes as no surprise.  For the mainstream media is fully supportive of educating children for Hell.  We have a sobering reminder from Saint Faustina of the Divine Mercy messages as to the reality of Hell.

Parents, do not wait for your parish priest to impart Gospel values to your children.  Many of our priests have become, in the Words of Our Lady, "mute dogs" who will abandon your children - as they have abandoned you - to the wolves.

Find yourself a good and faithful priest.  Educate your children using the Holy Scriptures, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and the papal encyclicals.  Rely on the Church Fathers and Doctors.  Make your home an ark.  For the smoke of Satan has entered even into the Church.  There are devils both within and without the Church who are determined to drag as many souls as possible to Hell with them.

Sentinel & Enterprise Editor: "We run a wide variety of columnists who are all over the political spectrum.."

Bernard Goldberg, in his book "Arrogance: Rescuing America from the Media Elite," notes how, "Quite simply, when it comes to gay issues, once again ideological journalism routinely fails the public - tilting the news of highly complex issues mainly to one side almost as a matter of course.  Once again, as with stories involving race or gender, narrow-interest pressure groups both inside and outside the newsroom are accorded special deference and respect.  And yes, once again it is liberal sympathizers, in this case straight ones, who help enforce the code, branding those who dissent from the approved liberal position as morally flawed..."  And, referring to those who oppose homosexuality because of their religious convictions, Goldberg writes, "I don't think someone is a homophobe just because he or she thinks that way - or, for that matter, honestly disagrees with some of the other items on the gay agenda.  More to the point, as it pertains to journalism, I think those people deserve a full, fair, and equal hearing.  The fact is, the gay agenda demands a fundamental shift in the way we've thought about sex and morals for a very, very long time.  It literally seeks to wipe away several thousand years of social and religious tradition.  So it would be crazy for us not to have a free and open debate about its consequences.  Yet what we most often see instead in the media is the sort of name-calling that wouldn't be tolerated on a playground.  Even traditionalist religious leaders and respected conservative social commentators regularly get called bigots for doing nothing more than upholding the tenets of their faith." (Arrogance, pp. 167, 168-169).

In this past Sunday's Sentinel & Enterprise, Bonnie Toomey categorized religious believers as being "stuck in the 20th century."  The implication being that those who adhere to the tenets of their faith tradition are somehow backward and "behind the times."  In addition, Ms. Toomey implied that it is this "backward thinking" which is responsible for "the many ugly stories involving harassment, mistreatment and even homicide."

I answered Ms. Toomey's asinine article in my last post.  What is most interesting is that a reader of this Blog contacted the editor of the Sentinel & Enterprise - Mr. Charles St. Amand -  to address her concerns regarding Ms. Toomey's article and he responded by asserting that the newspaper runs "a wide variety of columnists who are all over the political spectrum - left, right and center" and that he welcomes "letters and guest columns from..readers and community leaders on all topics."  This comes as a complete surprise to me.  For I have submitted guest columns and op-ed pieces in the past dealing with the issue of homosexuality and same-sex "marriage" and these have never seen the light of day.  Years ago, another Sentinel editor - Ann Connery Frantz - would routinely mock my views as she informed me that the paper would not be publishing them.

Does such an attitude represent a "full, fair and equal hearing"?  A fellow Catholic Blogger has written about the Worcester Telegram & Gazette's bias with regard to the issue of homosexuality.  See here.

Journalistic integrity or radical homosexual agenda?  You decide.

Related reading here

The Sentinel & Enterprise publishes homosexual agitprop from Bonnie J. Toomey

It's Easter Sunday.  Catholics and other Christians are celebrating the Resurrection of their Savior.  And on this sacred day, when Christ's disciples remember the historic event of His reuniting His human body and soul which had been separated by His death on the Cross, the Fitchburg Sentinel & Enterprise has decided to publish homosexual agitprop in the form of an article written by Bonnie J. Toomey and entitled "Why should pink have us seeing red?"

Responding to the controversy which erupted when the president of Abercrombie & Fitch, Jenna Lyons, painted her five year old son's toenails pink, Ms. Toomey writes, "...pink is a beautiful color, and I think it looks great on a guy.  It doesn't mean anything.  But why do we get so uncomfortable when it comes to boys and pink?  Traditions, religions and a patriarchal society have put pink where they want it, not necessarily where it rightfully belongs.  My sons wore their sister's costumes and dresses many times..But did it change their gender?...And what if it did?  Nature is not nurture, and no matter how hard you try, you can't hold back nature..."

But this is to suggest that homosexuality is genetic, dominant and irreversible.  If this were true, then no one would be responsible for deviant sexual acts.  The fact remains, however, that psychological therapy has proven to be very successful in diminishing, and in many cases even eliminating, same-sex attraction.  Personal testimonies from former homosexuals who were healed from the psychopathology may be found here and here.

Ms. Toomey insists though that, "homosexuality is determined by innate characteristics that contribute to sexual orientation and that cannot be changed through medical or psychiatric treatment."  That would indeed come as news to those who have recovered from the psychopathology.  But Ms. Toomey wouldn't be interested in their testimonies.  For these would produce a crack in her wall of conviction.  And Ms. Toomey is not interested in truth.  The fact remains, homosexuality is not innate. In fact, Dr. Francis S. Collins, one of the world's leading scientists who works on the cutting edge of DNA, has said that, "Homosexuality is not hardwired..." and "..there is an inescapable component of heritability to many human behavioral traits.  For virtually none of them is heredity ever close to predictive."  See here. 

It is unfortunate that homosexual propagandists like Bonnie Toomey continue to ignore the hard science about homosexuality.  Dutch psychologist Gerard J.M. van den Aardweg, Ph.D., a specialist on homosexuality (unlike Ms. Toomey who has no expertise in this area), says that the claim that homosexuality is normal is one of those statements that are "so foolish that only intellectuals could believe them." It is like saying that anorexia nervosa is healthy. See here. Dr. Aardweg notes that, "The term neurotic describes such relationships well. It suggests the ego-centeredness of the relationship; the attention-seeking instead of loving...Neurotic, in short, suggests all kinds of dramas and childish conflicts as well as the basic disinterestedness in the partner, notwithstanding the shallow pretensions of 'love.' Nowhere is there more self-deception in the homosexual than in his representation of himself as a lover. One partner is important to the other only insofar as he satisfies that other's needs. Real, unselfish love for a desired partner would, in fact, end up destroying homosexual 'love'!" (Dr. Gerard J.M. van den Aardweg, The Battle for Normality, Ignatius Press, 1997, pp. 62-63).

Recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) show that 1 in 5 sexually active homosexual and bisexual men in America are HIV-positive but that 44% of them don't know it.  See here.  The health risks associated with the homosexual lifestyle are well documented (see here), but propagandists for the lifestyle - like Ms. Toomey - do not seem to be very concerned about these health risks.  For their goal is to convert others to the homosexal ideology through a planned psychological attack in the form of homosexual propaganda.

In her zeal to promote the sodomite cause, Ms. Toomey engages in one falsehood after another.  She writes, "It's time we accept the fact that as much as 10 percent of the population..is homosexual." But the ten percent myth, which has been based upon research done by the now totally discredited Alfred Kinsey, has been refuted time and again.

For Ms. Toomey, propagandist for the sodomite culture, "Homosexuality..is not wrong."  And she is entitled to her beliefs.  As idiotic as they are.  I'm sure she actually believes the lifestyle is healthy as well.  But those of us who are Christian, Jew and Muslim are entitled to our beliefs as well.  Those of us who are authentically Catholic, as opposed to being Catholic in name only, accept the teaching of the Church's Magisterium, as expressed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

"Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that 'homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.'  They are contrary to the natural law.  They close the sexual act to the gift of life.  They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity.  Under no circumstances can they be approved." (2357).

And we do not appreciate a second-rate columnist with absolutely no background in theology or the science of DNA telling us that we are backward simply because we do not buy into her radical homosexual agitprop which insists that homosexuality is innate or hardwired.

That the Sentinel & Enterprise would publish such nonsense on Easter Sunday is shameful.  The publication has embarassed itself once again. 

Good Stewardship? How about priests setting an example?

Several years ago this article by Matt O'Brien appeared in the Fitchburg Sentinel & Enterprise:

BRIDGEWATER -- Convicted sex offender William Lamontagne says he had a romantic relationship with a Fitchburg priest who allegedly funneled stolen money to him.

"He came before everybody in my life," Lamontagne told the Sentinel & Enterprise during an interview inside the Massachusetts Treatment Center for the Sexually Dangerous. "I told my family if they were going to accept me, they'd have to accept him, too. And then he did this."

Investigators have charged the Rev. Donald Ouellette, pastor of the Immaculate Conception Parish in Fitchburg, with stealing more than $250,000 from the church.

He faces 18 counts of larceny over $250 and is free on bail while awaiting trial.

Ouellette, 49, grew up in Leominster and has served in the Worcester Diocese since his 1990 ordination.

"I just hope that people in the Immaculate Conception parish know I know that they're hurting," Lamontagne said. "I really feel sorry for those people. I felt in some way that I was sharing their pain. But on the other side, I was sharing what he did to them."


After years of hearing about sexual abuse scandals and crimes of larceny by Catholic priests such as Fr. Donald Ouellette or this Connecticut priest, many lay people remain concerned about where their money is really going.  Can one blame them? 

Now the Catholic Free Press, a publication which has often strayed from Catholic truth while publishing dissent from Catholic teaching in its pages, is reporting that 230 area Catholics attended a stewardship conference at Our Lady of Mount Carmel-St. Ann Parish Center.  Those in attendance heard a priest ask, "What percent of their income should people give to God?"  To which the speaker replied, "Traditionally it's been 10 percent..but some should give 20 percent, some 50 percent...The Old Testament spoke of 10 percent.  But Jesus said, 'Give it all.'" (Giving it all to God means...", Catholic Free Press, October 22, 2010).

Actually, Jesus never told everyone to "give it all."  In the 19th chapter of Matthew, we are told that when a rich young man who had kept the commandments approached our Lord to ask Him what he must do to be perfect, "Jesus said to him, 'If you wish to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven.  Then come, follow me.'" (Mt. 19: 21). 

The laity who live and work in the real world cannot give all of their monies away and still support themselves and their families.  And the Lord Jesus does not expect this from them.  His words are addressed to those who "wish to be perfect," who after giving all away will follow Jesus more closely in the priesthood or religious life.

So the real question is: Will our priests provide us with such an example of good stewardship?  Will those who have responded to the call of Christ to follow Him more perfectly now renounce all of their possessions and lead by example?  Most priests are paid a stipend of more than $1,500 a month.  What an opportunity for our priests to actually walk the walk and not just talk the talk. 

Or is good stewardship only for the laity?

Christianophobia in Fitchburg (and beyond)...

Recently, the Sentinel & Enterprise published a letter to the editor which I wrote in response to comments made by Fitchburg City Councilor Kevin Starr to the effect that pro-life views have "no place" at City Council meetings. Several hateful comments have been left in response to my letter to the editor. One individual wrote:

"You Jesus freaks are outright stupid. This debate has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with whether or not an organization (with state funding) should be allowed to operate in our city. An organization mind you, that will provide free birth control and contraceptives to your $LUT daughters and your horny sons, and keep kids still in high school from having kids that the taxpayers have to pay to support. Planned Parenthood is a great organization who has positively served thousands of cities in the country for years. Go hide behind your crucifix just don't complain when your 14 year old daughter gets knocked up by some PR kid behind Market Basket and expects a handout from uncle sam. Begone hypocrites.

Kevin Starr is right. His comments ensure that both he and the city council stay on issue and dont get swayed by talks of the second coming of jesus and how god wouldn't want the state handing out condoms to kids who are just gonna **** with or without them. That's the truth, deal with it." (See here).

This debate has nothing to do with religion asserts this unhappy individual as he labels opponents of Planned Parenthood "Jesus freaks" while exhorting them to "go hide behind your crucifix."

Hatred for the crucifix is growing as intolerance and discrimination against Christians continues to widen. In Bad Soden, Germany, crosses were removed from hospital walls and thrown into trash bags [much as aborted babies are thrown into trash bags] as patients watched.

Fanaticism, as proven by the items listed above, stems from the will to power and not religion.
The French philosopher Jacques Maritain addresses this fact in his work entitled "On the Use of Philosophy," which is actually a compilation of three essays.

His second essay is entitled "truth and human fellowship." He writes:


"'O liberty, how many crimes are committed in thy name!' Madame Roland said, mounting the scaffold. O Truth, it may be said, how often blind violence and oppression have been let loose in thy name in history! 'Zeal for truth,' as Father Victor White puts it, 'has too often been a cloak for the most evil and revolting of human passions.' As a result, some people think that in order to set human existence free from these evil passions, and make men live in peace and pleasant quiet, the best way is to get rid of any zeal for truth or attachment to truth. Thus it is that after the violence and cruelty of wars of religion, a period of skepticism usually occurs, as at the time of Montaigne and Charron. Here we have only the swing of the pendulum moving from one extreme to the other. Skepticism, moreover, may happen to hold those who are not skeptical to be barbarous, childish, or subhuman, and it may happen to treat them as badly as the zealot treats the unbeliever. Then skepticism proves to be as intolerant as fanaticism - it becomes the fanaticism of doubt. This is a sign that skepticism is not the answer. The answer is humility, together with faith in truth...

The problem of truth and human fellowship is important for democratic societies; it seems to me to be particularly important for this country [United States], where men and women coming from a great diversity of national stocks and religious or philosophical creeds have to live together. If each one of them endeavored to impose his own convictions and the truth in which he believes on all his co-citizens, would not living together become impossible? That is obviously right. Well, it is easy, too easy, to go a step further, and to ask: if each one sticks to his own convictions, will not each one endeavor to impose his own convictions on all others? So that, as a result, living together will become impossible if any citizen whatever sticks to his own convictions and believes in a given truth? Thus it is not unusual to meet people who think that not to believe in any truth, or not to adhere firmly to any assertion as unshakeably true in itself, is a primary condition required of democratic citizens in order to be tolerant of one another. May I say that these people are in fact the most intolerant people, for if perchance they were to believe in something as unshakeably true, they would feel compelled, by the same stroke, to impose by force and coercion their own belief on their co-citizens...

The only remedy they have found to get rid of their abiding tendency to fanaticism is to cut themselves off from truth. That is a suicidal method. It is a suicidal conception of democracy: not only would a democratic society which lived on universal skepticism condemn itself to death by starvation; but it would also enter a process of self-annihilation, from the very fact that no democratic society can live without a common practical belief in those truths which are freedom, justice, law, and the other tenets of democracy; and that any belief in these things as objectively and unshakeably true, as well as in any other kind of truth, would be brought to naught by the preassumed law of universal skepticism....

It is, no doubt, easy to observe that in the history of mankind nothing goes to show that, from primitive times on, religious feeling or religious ideas have been particularly successful in pacifying men; religious differences seem rather to have fed and sharpened their conflicts. On the one hand truth always makes trouble, and those who bear witness to it are always persecuted: 'Do not think that I came to send peace upon earth; I came not to send peace, but the sword.' (Matthew 10:34). On the other hand - and this is the point we must face - those who know or claim to know truth happen sometimes to persecute others. I do not deny the fact; I say that this fact, like all other facts, needs to be understood. It only means that, given the weakness of our nature, the impact of of the highest and most sacred things upon the coarseness of the human heart is liable to make these things, by accident, a prey to its passions, as long as it has not been purified by genuine love. It is nonsense to regard fanaticism as a fruit of religion. Fanaticism is a natural tendency rooted in our basic egotism and will to power. It seizes upon any noble feeling to live on it. The only remedy for religious fanaticism is the Gospel light and the progress of religious consciousness in faith itself and in that fraternal love which is the fruit of the human soul's union with God. For then man realizes the sacred transcendence of truth and of God. The more he grasps truth, through science, philosophy, or faith, the more he feels what immensity remains to be grasped within this very truth. The more he knows God, either by reason or by faith, the more he understands that our concepts attain (through analogy) but do not circumscribe Him, and that His thoughts are not like our thoughts: for 'who hath known the mind of the Lord, or who hath become His counselor.' (Isaias 40:13). The more strong and deep faith becomes, the more man kneels down, not before his own alleged ignorance of truth, but before the inscrutable mystery of divine truth, and before the hidden ways in which God goes to meet those who search Him....

To sum up, the real problem has to do with the human subject, endowed as he is with his rights in relation to his fellow men, and afflicted as he is by the vicious inclinations which derive from his will to power. On the one hand, the error of the absolutists who would like to impose truth by coercion comes from the fact that they shift their right feelings about the object from the object to the subject; and they think that just as error has no rights of its own and should be banished from the mind (through the means of the mind), so man when he is in error has no rights of his own and should be banished from human fellowship (through the means of human power).

On the other hand, the error of the theorists who make relativism, ignorance, and doubt a necessary condition for mutual tolerance comes from the fact that they shift their right feelings about the human subject - who must be respected even if he is in error - from the subject to the object; and thus they deprive man and the human intellect of the very act - adherence to the truth - in which consists man's dignity and reason for living." (Jacques Maritain, On the Use of Philosophy: Three Essays, pp. 16, 17, 21-23).

The Sentinel & Enterprise is to be commended....to a point.

"The partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions." - Socrates, Phaedo 85.


In an editorial entitled "Councilor Starr, Old Glory's a symbol of freedom of speech," (Friday, March 12th edition of the newspaper, the Sentinel & Enterprise rightly chides Fitchburg City Councilor Kevin Starr for inappropriately lashing out at pro-life advocates saying, "We couldn't disagree more with Starr's comments. First of all, one of the most important things the American flag stands for is freedom of speech. That means when people, including his constituents, take the time to show up at City Hall to speak out about an issue, they have the absolute right, and we believe responsibility, to tell city councilors how they feel. We think it's exactly the kind of discussion that should be taking place at City Hall and frankly are puzzled with Starr's comments about the issue...as a city councilor, we believe Starr has a responsibility to listen to his constituents' concerns, as long as they are presented in a civil way, even when he disagrees with them."

But then the newspaper drops the ball toward the end of this editorial when it says, "We don't believe that Starr owes anyone an apology, because we believe firmly that Starr, like the pro-life advocates he criticized and like Hughes [Rev. Thomas Hughes, Pastor of New Creation Community Church in Fitchburg], has the solemn right to say what's on his mind."

This misses the point entirely. Mr. Starr doesn't owe anyone an apology for exercising his free speech rights. He owes an apology to the community because, as an elected governmental official, he expressed a desire to restrict expression because of its message or content.

There is a paramount principle in American jurisprudence that "above all else, the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content." Police Dep't of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92,95, 33 L. Ed. 2d 212, 92 S. Ct. 2286 (1972); see also Consolidated Edison Co. v.Public Serv. Comm'n, 447 U.S. 530, 537, 65 L. Ed. 2d 319, 100 S. Ct. 2326(1980). And that: "For the State to enforce a content-based exclusion it must show that its regulation is necessary to serve a compelling state interest and that it is narrowly drawn to achieve that end." Perry Educational Ass'n v. Perry Local Educators'Ass'n, 460 U.S. 37, 45, 74 L. Ed. 2d 794, 103 S. Ct. 948 (1983). Cannon v. Cityand County of Denver, 998 F.2d at 871-72

Just as Mr. Starr's constituents have a responsibility to present their views to him [and other government officials] "in a civil way," so too Mr. Starr owes his constituents the courtesy of remaining civil while not attempting to restrict expression because he doesn't happen to like the message.

Letter to the Editor: Sentinel & Enterprise

To the Editor:

Ward 4 Councilor Kevin Starr, speaking at a recent City Council meeting about pro-lifers who oppose a Planned Parenthood proposal to open an office in the city, said that he “will not tolerate those morals being pushed on me and these members of the Council” and added that people should “keep their personal beliefs to themselves.” Apparently Mr. Starr doesn’t believe that he should keep his personal beliefs to himself.

Mr. Starr has a distorted notion of tolerance. Tolerance is the willingness to accept actions which we believe are inappropriate or even wrong because it would be worse to take action against them. In other words, tolerance is community oriented. But to tolerate crimes such as rape and murder (and abortion is murder) would be wrong since tolerating them would do greater harm to the community, to the common good, than correcting them would.

I submit that Mr. Starr is not really advocating “tolerance” but relativism, which is profoundly anti-community. Why is relativism anti-community? Because if there are no standards of morality to which we should adhere, tolerance is no better than intolerance. It was C.S. Lewis who reminded us that, “…if truth is objective, if we live in a world we did not create and cannot change merely by thinking, if the world is not really a dream of our own, then the most destructive belief we could possibly believe would be the denial of this primary fact. It would be like closing your eyes while driving, or blissfully ignoring the doctor’s warnings.” (“The Poison of Subjectivism,” in Christian Reflections).

Not long after the City Council meeting, Mr. Starr maintained that some of the pro-life advocates are “narrow-minded.” This was obviously intended as an insult. But Mr. Starr may have inadvertently paid the highest tribute to these pro-lifers. After all, reality is terribly narrow. It was the Christ who warned us to, “Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the road broad that leads to destruction, and those who enter through it are many. How narrow the gate and constricted the road that leads to life. And those who find it are few.” (Matthew 7: 13, 14).

Perhaps Mr. Starr is too “broad-minded”?

Related reading here.