Facebook blocks me for 24 hours over their Covid Propaganda

 

For simply posting this article, Facebook has blocked me for 24 hours. Facebook, like Google, doesn't want people to know that the "vaccine" killed more people than Covid.

But the truth is getting out. And people are waking up. See here. 

Americans are also waking up to the propaganda of the State-run media and its brainwashing. Not to mention its censorship. Total control of the means of communication is necessary for a dictatorship, or emerging dictatorship, so that through mass communication the individual may be propagandized and molded into conditioned responses.  It is necessary to destroy the individual's ability to figure things out for himself.  And as this ability atrophies, the individual is inundated with entertainments [think of Juvenal and his comment about bread and circuses] which prevent him from reflecting on the fact that his authorities are deceitful and manipulative. The dictatorship wants, the dictatorship needs, to reduce the individual to being an apathetic machine devoid of independent, critical thought.  The individual is subjected to a process of "massification" until he or she is completely dependent upon the State.  It was Hitler's boast that: "..sixty thousand men have outwardly become almost a unit, that actually these men are uniform not only in ideas, but that even the facial expression is almost the same.  Look at these laughing eyes, this fanatical enthusiasm, and you will discover how a hundred thousand men in a movement become a single type." 

Look around you.  Listen.  And you will hear the conditioned responses of non-thinking automatons, brainwashed by the State-run media.  Such people use the same catch phrases  and merely regurgitate the same useless bile fed to them by the Moloch State. 

Join those of us who are saying "enough"!  

And ask yourself, "If the government and big tech companies are telling the truth, why do they have to censor the citizenry?

Authentic science doesn't mind being challenged.   So why the fear of opposing thoughts?

By their fruits you will know them..

From Gloria TV:


"The Vatican publishes in December the visitor numbers at Papal public encounters (liturgies, audiences, Angelus) of the current year. But in December 2017 this did not happen. In the last years, the numbers have been shrinking dramatically:

2014: 5.92 million visitors
2015: 3.21 million visitors
2016: 3.95 million visitors
2017: ???

The numbers of the pilgrims who care to see Pope Francis during the Wednesday General Audiences are even more disappointing:

2014: 1.2 million
2015: 0.7 million
2016: 0.8 million
2017: ???

The same was true for Francis' Chile visit. According to usnews.com the crowds were 'very thin, in many areas a single line of people.'"

“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but underneath are ravenous wolves. By their fruits you will know them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?
Just so, every good tree bears good fruit, and a rotten tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a rotten tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire. So by their fruits you will know them." (Matthew 7: 15-20).

Atheists should follow their conscience Holy Father?....Not so fast!

Back in 2011, before giving the traditional Christmas blessing to the City of Rome and the world ("urbi et orbi"), Pope Benedict XVI reflected on the Child of Bethlehem as Savior.  His Holiness said (in part): "He was sent by God the Father to save us above all from the evil deeply rooted in man and in history: the evil of separation from God, the prideful presumption of being self-sufficient, of trying to compete with God and to take his place, to decide what is good and evil, to be the master of life and death.."

The Holy Father said that human beings cannot save themselves from this sin, "unless we rely on God's help, unless we cry out to him: 'Veni ad salvandum nos! -- Come to save us!'"

He affirmed, though, that "the very fact that we cry to heaven in this way already sets us aright; it makes us true to ourselves: We are in fact those who cried out to God and were saved."

The Bishop of Rome spoke of God as the physician, while we are the infirm. And to realize this, he said, "is the first step towards salvation, towards emerging from the maze in which we have been locked by our pride. To lift our eyes to heaven, to stretch out our hands and call for help is our means of escape, provided that there is Someone who hears us and can come to our assistance."

"Jesus Christ is the proof that God has heard our cry," the Pope declared. "And not only this! God's love for us is so strong that he cannot remain aloof; he comes out of himself to enter into our midst and to share fully in our human condition. The answer to our cry which God gave in Jesus infinitely transcends our expectations, achieving a solidarity which cannot be human alone, but divine. Only the God who is love, and the love which is God, could choose to save us in this way, which is certainly the lengthiest way, yet the way which respects the truth about him and about us: the way of reconciliation, dialogue and cooperation." (See here).

There is a famous hymn written by Martin Luther which begins, "A mighty fortress is our God, a bulwark never failing.." For all too many people today (including sadly, many Catholics) the conscience has become a "mighty fortress" built so as to shelter one from the exacting demands of truth. In the words of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, "In the Psalms we meet from time to time the prayer that God should free man from his hidden sins. The Psalmist sees as his greatest danger the fact that he no longer recognizes them as sins and thus falls into them in apparently good conscience. Not being able to have a guilty conscience is a sickness...And thus one cannot aprove the maxim that everyone may always do what his conscience allows him to do: In that case the person without a conscience would be permitted to do anything. In truth it is his fault that his conscience is so broken that he no longer sees what he as a man should see. In other words, included in the concept of conscience is an obligation, namely, the obligation to care for it, to form it and educate it. Conscience has a right to respect and obedience in the measure in which the person himself respects it and gives it the care which its dignity deserves. The right of conscience is the obligation of the formation of conscience. Just as we try to develop our use of language and we try to rule our use of rules, so must we also seek the true measure of conscience so that finally the inner word of conscience can arrive at its validity.


For us this means that the Church's magisterium bears the responsibility for correct formation. It makes an appeal, one can say, to the inner vibrations its word causes in the process of the maturing of conscience. It is thus an oversimplification to put a statement of the magisterium in opposition to conscience. In such a case I must ask myself much more. What is it in me that contradicts this word of the magisterium? Is it perhaps only my comfort? My obstinacy? Or is it an estrangement through some way of life that allows me something which the magisterium forbids and that appears to me to be better motivated or more suitable simply because society considers it reasonable? It is only in the context of this kind of struggle that the conscience can be trained, and the magisterium has the right to expect that the conscience will be open to it in a manner befitting the seriousness of the matter. If I believe that the Church has its origins in the Lord, then the teaching office in the Church has a right to expect that it, as it authentically develops, will be accepted as a priority factor in the formation of conscience." (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Keynote Address of the Fourth Bishops' Workshop of the National Catholic Bioethics Center, on "Moral Theology Today: Certitudes and Doubts," February 1984).

In the same address, Cardinal Ratzinger explains that, "Conscience is understood by many as a sort of deification of subjectivity, a rock of bronze on which even the magisterium is shattered....Conscience appears finally as subjectivity raised to the ultimate standard."

This deification of subjectivity is something Pope Francis appears to have advanced.  He has said that, "Sin, even for those who have no faith, is when one goes against their conscience,” he added. “To listen and to obey to (one’s conscience) means to decide oneself in relation to what’s perceived as good and evil. And this decision is fundamental to determining the good or evil of our actions."  See here.

It's not that simple Holy Father.


There is a difference in meaning between a certain and a correct conscience. The term "correct" describes the objective truth of the person's judgment, that in fact his conscience represents the real state of things. The term "certain" describes the subjective state of the person judging, how firmly he holds to his assent and how thoroughly he has excluded fear of the opposite. The kind of certitude which is meant here is a subjective certitude, which may easily exist along with objective error. It follows then that we have two possibilities here:

1. A certain and correct conscience.

2. A certain but erroneous conscience.


Now, a certain and correct conscience offers no difficulty and our obligation is therefore clear. A certain and correct conscience is merely the moral law promulgated to the individual and applied to to his own individual act. But the moral law must always be obeyed. Consequently, a certain and correct conscience must be obeyed. And what degree of certitude is required? It is sufficient that the individual's conscience be prudentially certain. Prudential certitude is not absolute but relative. As such, it excludes all prudent fear that the opposite may be true, but does not rule out imprudent fears which are based upon bare possibilities. The reasons are convincing enough to satisfy a normally prudent man in an important matter and this results in that individual feeling safe in practice while there is a theoretical chance of his being incorrect. In such a case, the individual has taken every reasonable precaution but he cannot guarantee against rare contingencies and "freaks of nature."

In moral matters, a complete mathematical certitude is not to be expected. This because when there is question of action, of something to be done in the here and now, but which also involves future consequences (some of which are dependent upon the wills of other individuals), the absolute possibility of error cannot be entirely excluded. However, it can be so reduced that no prudent man, one who is free of neurotic whimsies, would be deterred from acting through fear of it. Therefore, prudential certitude, since it excludes all reasonable fear of error, is much more than high probability, which fails to exclude such reasonable fear.

What happens when an individual is in possession of an erroneous conscience? That depends. If the error is vincible, it must be corrected. In such a case, the person knows that he may be wrong, is able to correct the possible error, and is obliged to do so before acting. A vincibly erroneous conscience cannot be a certain conscience. This is easily demonstrated. For example, an individual may have a merely probable opinion which he neglects to verify, (through laziness or fear of discovering that he is in fact in error), although he is able to do so. Or perhaps he may have judged certainly and yet erroneously at one point, but now begins to doubt whether or not his judgment was in fact correct. For as long as this individual did not realize his error, his conscience was invincibly erroneous; the error becomes vincible at the precise moment that the individual is no longer subjectively certain and has begun to doubt. Anyone who has read Dr. Scott Hahn's personal conversion story will recall that, when he realized the truth of Catholic teaching and that the Catholic Church was in fact the Church founded by Christ, he knew he had a responsibility to enter that Church. I would also refer readers to Lumen Gentium, No. 14 which deals with this subject.

If an error is invincible, there appears to be a dilemma. On the one hand, it doesn't seem right that a person should be obliged to follow an erroneous judgment; on the other, the individual is not aware of being in error and has no means of correcting it. But this dilemma is solved by recalling that conscience is a subjective guide to conduct, that invincible error and ignorance are unavoidable, that any wrong which occurs is not done voluntarily and therefore may not be charged to the agent. An individual acting with an invincibly erroneous conscience may in fact do something that is objectively wrong. However, since he does not recognize it as such it is not subjectively wrong. Such a person is thereby free of guilt by the invincible ignorance which is bound up in his error.

Conclusion: The will depends on the intellect to present the good to it. The will-act is good so long as it tends to the good presented by the intellect. It is bad or deficient if it tends to what the intellect judges evil. Invincible error in the intellect does not change the goodness or badness of the will-act, in which morality essentially consists. If an individual is firmly convinced that his or her action is right, that person is obeying the moral law to the degree that he or she can. If that same individual is firmly convinced that his or her action is wrong, that person is disobeying the moral law in intention, even though the act may not be objectively wrong.

I would recommend a thorough read of what the Catechism of the Catholic Church has to say with regard to forming a correct conscience.

A broken conscience, an ill-formed conscience, can become a mighty fortress which shuts the truth out. Have we built an interior castle, as did St. Teresa of Avila, which remains open to the demands of truth and the promptings of the Holy Spirit? Or has our conscience become a mighty fortress built to prevent our encounter with truth?

 

Related reading: Catechism of the Catholic Church, Nos. 1783-1785.

Priests today (like the rest of us) need to sincerely examine their own spiritual poverty...

Father Stephen Gemme, the Pastor of Saint Bernadette Parish in Northborough, Massachusetts [Diocese of Worcester], has resigned after being accused of stealing some $230,000 to maintain his gambling addiction.  Father Gemme resigned last Thursday and the matter has been referred to the District Attorney's Office.  See here: http://www.opposingviews.com/i/religion/northboro-pastor-stephen-gemme-accussed-embezzling-230k-gambling-addiction

As Father Roger Landry noted in The National Catholic Register, "Diocesan priests do not take a vow of poverty, but commit themselves to a simple lifestyle. In many places, this principle is given lip service, as members of the clergy drive fancy cars, frequent the finest restaurants and live in exquisite digs. Cardinal Bergoglio’s example of living in a small apartment rather than an episcopal palace, taking public transportation rather than a car with a driver and cooking for himself cannot help but lead priests to a sincere examination about the sincerity of their own spiritual poverty." See here: http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/pope-francis-and-the-reform-of-the-priesthood

Jesus disciples are called to carry their cross and follow Him (Mt 16:24; Mk 8:34; Lk 9:23). Above all, Christians are called to love as Jesus does (Jn 13: 34-35). But the cross is not popular with those who are advancing the "new religion" which will serve the New Order. The cross has never been popular with those who belong to the company of the world or the Devil. Today, countless young people (and old) have given themselves over to promiscuous sexual unions. In the mad pursuit of wealth, power, fame, and various hedonistic pleasures (euphemistically referred to as "choice" or "alternative lifestyles"), many poor souls have given themselves over to the Devil. Many who call themselves "Christian" are really living pagan lives. And their "pastors," often living disordered lives themselves, say nothing. Many of these have succumbed to materialism and hedonism. and find themselves unable to condemn sins which they have embraced.


This is, of course, nothing new. But the sexual degeneration in so-called Christian nations today is the most abominable in history. So much so that a young girl in the Ukraine is reported to have been told by Our Lady that: "The present times are worse than at the time of Noah. Then the world was scourged by a deluge of water: now the world is going to be scourge by a deluge of fire." (First apparition to Anna at Seredne, December 20, 1954). St. Louis de Montfort explains that:

"'My dear brothers and sisters, there are two companies that appear before you each day: the followers of Christ and the followers of the world.

Our dear Saviour's company is on the right, climbing up a narrow road, made all the narrower by the world's immorality. Our Master leads the way, barefooted, crowned with thorns, covered with blood, and laden with a heavy cross. Those who follow him, though most valiant, are only a handful, either because his quiet voice is not heard amid the tumult of the world, or because people lack the courage to follow him in his poverty, sufferings, humiliations and other crosses which his servants must carry all the days of their life.

On the left hand is the company of the world or of the devil. This is far more numerous, more imposing and more illustrious, at least in appearance. Most of the fashionable people run to join it, all crowded together, although the road is wide and is continually being made wider than ever by the crowds that pour along it like a torrent. It is strewn with flowers, bordered with all kinds of amusements and attractions, and paved with gold and silver.

On the right, the little groups which follow Jesus speak about sorrow and penance, prayer and indifference to worldly things. They continually encourage one another saying, "Now is the time to suffer and to mourn, to pray and do penance, to live in retirement and poverty, to humble and mortify ourselves; for those who do not possess the spirit of Christ, which is the spirit of the cross, do not belong to him. Those who belong to Christ have crucified all self-indulgent passions and desires. We must be true images of Christ or be eternally lost."

"Have confidence," they say to each other. If God is on our side, within us and before us, who can be against us? He who is within us is stronger than the one who is in the world. The servant is not greater than his master. This slight and temporary distress we suffer will bring us a tremendous and everlasting glory. The number of those who will be saved is not as great as some people imagine. It is only the brave and the daring who take heaven by storm, where only those are crowned who strive to live according to the law of the Gospel and not according to the maxims of the world. Let us fight with all our strength, let us run with all speed, that we may attain our goal and win the crown.

Such are some of the heavenly counsels with which the Friends of the Cross inspire each other.

Those who follow the world, on the contrary, urge each other to continue in their evil ways without scruple, calling to one another day after day, "Let us eat and drink, sing and dance, and enjoy ourselves. God is good; he has not made us to damn us. He does not forbid us to amuse ourselves. We shall not be damned for so little. We are not to be scrupulous. 'No, you will not die'."

Dear brothers and sisters, remember that our loving Saviour has his eyes on you at this moment, and he says to each one of you individually, "See how almost everyone deserts me on the royal road of the Cross. Pagans in their blindness ridicule my Cross as foolishness; obstinate Jews are repelled by it as by an object of horror; heretics pull it down and break it to pieces as something contemptible.

"Even my own people - and I say this with tears in my eyes and grief in my heart - my own children whom I have brought up and instructed in my ways, my members whom I have quickened with my own Spirit, have turned their backs on me and forsaken me by becoming enemies of my Cross. 'Will you also go away?' Will you also desert me by running away from my Cross like the worldlings, who thus become so many antichrists? Will you also follow the world; despise the poverty of my Cross in order to seek after wealth; shun the sufferings of my Cross to look for enjoyment; avoid the humiliations of my Cross in order to chase after the honours of the world? 'There are many who pretend they are friends of mine and protest that they love me, but in their hearts they hate me. I have many friends of my table, but very few of my Cross.' (Imit. II, 11, 1)."

At this loving appeal of Jesus, let us rise above our human nature; let us not be seduced by our senses, as Eve was; but keep our eyes fixed on Jesus crucified, who leads us in our faith and brings it to perfection (Heb 12.2). Let us keep ourselves apart from the evil practices of the world; let us show our love for Jesus in the best way, that is, through all kinds of crosses. Reflect well on these remarkable words of our Saviour, "If anyone wants to be a follower of mine, let him renounce himself, and take up his cross and follow me" (Mt 16.24; Lk 9.23)." (St. Louis de Montfort, Letter to the Friends of the Cross, 7-12).

Are we truly friends of the Cross and therefore friends of Christ? Or is ours a counterfeit love?

Tricia Wittmann-Todd would deny youth who are questioning their sexual identity an authentic understanding of joy

In Galatians 5: 22-23, the Holy Spirit tells us through Saint Paul that, "the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control."  Tricia Wittmann-Todd, Pastoral Life Coordinator at Saint Mary's Parish in the Central Area of Seattle, Washington, would deny the youth of her parish an authentic understanding of joy.

Ms. Wittmann-Todd, having succumbed to the erroneous idea that Catholic moral teaching would in some way harm the youth of her parish, has refused to circulate petitions in support of Referendum 74, the ballot measure to roll back Washington's recently passed same-sex "marriage" law.  Her reasoning?  Wittmann-Todd asserts that she is, "particularly concerned about our youth who may be questioning their own sexual identity and need our support at this time in their lives."  See here.

Ms. Wittmann-Todd is so concerned about the youth of Saint Mary's Parish that she has decided to set an example for them on how to be disobedient to the Church's Pastors.  She has also decided to deny these youth an authentic understanding as to what constitutes joy. The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches us that, "By the power of the Spirit, God's children can bear much fruit.  He who has grafted us onto the true vine will make us bear 'the fruit of the Spirit:...love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control.'  'We live by the Spirit'; the more we renounce ourselves, the more we 'walk by the Spirit.'.." (CCC, 736).  And again: "The fruits of the Spirit are perfections that the Holy Spirit forms in us as the first fruits of eternal glory.  The tradition of the Church lists twelve of them: 'Charity, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, generosity, gentleness, faithfulness, modesty, self-control, chastity.'" (CCC, 1832).

You see, we live in the Spirit when we renounce ourselves.  We are not living in the spirit if we engage in sinful behaviors such as homosexual acts.  Those who do live such a lifestyle will not have joy.  The Lord Jesus promises heavenly joy to those who suffer the consequences of following Him [and this demands picking up our cross and following Him daily] and calls for its anticipation saying, "Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven" (Matthew 5: 12).  Dr. Germain Grisez explains that, "St. Paul teaches that Christians always should call on God's help by constant prayer, rejoice in hope, be patient, and not be anxious (see Rom 12: 12; Phil 4: 4-6).  Since Christian joy presupposes hope, Jesus' and Paul's injunctions to rejoice can be fulfilled only by nurturing hope.  But hope grows in a kind of virtuous circle: joy amid suffering helps faithful Christians endure what they must, this endurance conforms their character to that of Jesus, and likeness to Jesus increases their confidence and further intensifies their hope (see Rom 5: 3-4; cf. Phil 3: 8-21)."

Dr. Grisez goes on to explain that the fear of Hell is essential for Christian hope (and remember, Christian joy presupposes hope).  He reminds us that, "..if one becomes forgetful of the possibility of hell and loses all fear of it, heaven seems a sure thing, with the bad result that it no longer is possible to have Christian hope for it or live a life shaped by that hope.  Christian hope is the intention of the kingdom as one's end, and some good can be intended as an end only if one's action is expected to help bring about that good.  Thus, someone confident of sharing in the kingdom no matter what, simply cannot intend it as an end and live for it, although such a person still may think about heaven for solace when loved ones die and during other times of suffering.  In consequence, someone who forgets the possibility of hell ignores the kingdom when deliberating and making choices.  Unable any longer to order his or her life to the kingdom, that person becomes motivated by other interests and desires, and these alien ends, pursued independently of faith and hope, make their own incompatible demands.  Thus, the life of a Christian forgetful of hell becomes indistinguishable from the life of a nonbeliever.  Consequently, while properly Christian fear depends on hope, hope also depends on fear.  And while hope for the kingdom always should dominate, fear of hell never should be entirely excluded.  Thus, meditation on the last things, which appropriately begins from Sacred Scripture, should reflect the balanced approach of the New Testament, which focuses on heaven but never entirely loses sight of hell."

Christian joy presupposes hope.  And the fear of Hell is essential for Christian hope.  How quickly some forget this.  We hear much nonsense today from those within the "homosexual community" about "the joys of gay sex."  But there is no authentic joy apart from living in obedience to God's Commandments.  Joy is a fruit of living in the Spirit, not of living in the flesh.

One would think Ms. Wittmann-Todd would want to impart this truth to the youth of St. Mary's Parish.  But apparently she would rather sow confusion in this area.  And we wonder why Our Lady weeps?

Our Lady Immaculate Parish in Athol: Losing Their Religion?

As I said in a previous post, "While the Church respects freedom of conscience and shuns any form of coercion, our Holy Father reminds us that, "We are building a dictatorship of relativism that does not recognize anything as definitive and whose ultimate goal consists solely of one's own ego and desires. We, however, have a different goal: the Son of God, the true man. He is the measure of true humanism. An "adult" faith is not a faith that follows the trends of fashion and the latest novelty; a mature adult faith is deeply rooted in friendship with Christ. It is this friendship that opens us up to all that is good and gives us a criterion by which to distinguish the true from the false, and deceit from truth."


This dictatorship of relativism seeks to impose its immoral agenda on Christians in the name of "tolerance." But this "tolerance" is a sham. It is simply an attempt to make an idol out of a false conception of freedom. Again, our Holy Father explains that, "..what clearly stands behind the modern era's radical demand for freedom is the promise: You will be like God...The implicit goal of all modern freedom movements is, in the end, to be like a god, dependent on nothing and nobody, with one's own freedom not restricted by anyone else's...The primeval error of such a radically developed desire for freedom lies in the idea of a divinity that is conceived as being purely egotistical. The god thus conceived of is, not God, but an idol, indeed, the image of what the Christian tradition would call the devil, the anti-god, because therein lies the radical opposite of the true God: the true God is, of his own nature, being-for (Father), being-from (Son), and being-with (Holy Spirit). Yet man is in the image of God precisely because the being-for , from, and with constitute the basic anthropological shape. Whenever people try to free themselves from this, they are moving, not toward divinity, but toward dehumanizing, toward the destruction of being itself through the destruction of truth. The Jacobin variant of the idea of liberation...is a rebellion against being human in itself, rebellion against truth, and that is why it leads people - as Sartre percipiently observed - into a self-contradictory existence that we call hell. It has thus become fairly clear that freedom is linked to a yardstick, the yardstick of reality - to truth*. Freedom to destroy oneself or to destroy others is not freedom but a diabolical parody. The freedom of man is a shared freedom, freedom in a coexistence of other freedoms, which are mutually limiting and thus mutually supportive: freedom must be measured according to what I am, what we are - otherwise it abolishes itself."

This truth seems to have been forgotten by parishioners at Our Lady Immaculate Parish in Athol, Massachusetts.  Among the responses to a "Cluster Survey" (Clint Eastwood's character in Heartbreak Ridge would have called it something else), are the following suggestions: The Church needs to address facts that this age group [20-40] is practicing birth control and divorce, More tolerance (especially in preaching) - this one is particularly disturbing since there are never homilies addressing the sinfulness of abortion, contraception, fornication, homosexuality etc, Teach less theology, Model after Paulist Center in Boston and be "more open and loving" as opposed to "old-time/rigid/closed-minded."

The parish bulletin insert which lists these responses goes on to say that volunteers are requested to evaluate and implement the suggestions.

One can just imagine how that's going to proceed.

Model the parish after the Paulist Center in Boston?  Never mind that the Paulist Center is a hotbed of dissent from Church teaching and a center for homosexual agitprop.  See here.  More tolerance in preaching?  Again, the priests at Our Lady Immaculate have not been preaching against sin as it is.  But tolerance is for external conduct, it is not for the mind.  The mind cannot tolerate error for an instant.  Error and truth are not equally good.  And Catholics are supposed to be on the side of truth. 

If Our Lady Immaculate Parish in Athol is losing the 20-40 age group (and it is), it's not because the Gospel has been preached there.  It's because it hasn't been.  Young people are naturally idealistic.  They are hungry for truth - even, and especially, the hard truths.  But Our Lady Immaculate Parish - as with many other parishes which have embraced a liberal "gospel" - has only offered spiritual pablum.  The youth need wheat not chaff.

And the parish "leadership" has failed to produce.



Related reading here.