Priest shortage: An engineered crisis

Father John Zuhlsdorf writes:




I’ve written many times about the situation of vocations to the priesthood. We all know that there are certain parishes in dioceses which produce more priests. We all know that there are certain dioceses which produce more priests. We all know that there are certain religious groups which produce more priests. They have factors in common.

And yet, do other parishes and dioceses and religious groups change what they are doing?
Not much.  It is [as] if they really aren’t committed.

In life I have found that when I am going in the wrong direction, I have to, first, stop going in the wrong direction, turn around, go back, and then go in the right direction.
Right? Does that make sense?  Is that your experience too?  It’s not hard, right?

At California Catholic I read…

Why aren’t other dioceses looking to Lincoln?
[…]
According to the Official Catholic Directory and the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate, Lincoln, NE is the only diocese in the United States to place in the Top 20 for the ratio of ordinands to population in every survey conducted from 1993-2012.
Despite having a Catholic population of only 97,000, the Lincoln diocese ordained 22 men from 2010-2012. Only seven dioceses in the entire country ordained more. One of those, the Archdiocese of Los Angeles (with a Catholic population over 4.2 million) ordained 34 men during those same three years. In other words, L.A. only ordained four more men per year on average despite having a population 44X greater than Lincoln.

The Lincoln blueprint can be narrowed down to a few foundational elements:
Orthodox Bishops[Yep.  This is a big one.]

Against all odds and the prevailing winds of the post-conciliar Church, Lincoln has avoided the craziness and irreverence that has afflicted so many other dioceses. This has largely been achieved through the stability and orthodoxy provided over the last fifty years by three men: Bishop Glennon Flavin (1967-1992), Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz (1992-2012), and Bishop James Conley (2012-present). They succeeded despite the occasional scorn of their brother bishops, and by making the Church’s perennial priorities their own.
The National Catholic Reporter (known as the Fish wrap to Fr. Z readers) [And not only to Fr Z readers…. pretty much everyone now calls it that.] once bemoaned that it was as if the “reforms” so prevalent in the aftermath of Vatican II had missed Lincoln altogether. Exactly.

The Male Only Sanctuary

To a large extent, Lincoln has preserved a male only sanctuary. In this area the diocese has simply given more weight to tradition and common sense instead of “modern sensibilities” that are more secular minded.
 

The diocese remains the only one in the country to maintain an altar serving policy of boys only.
 

Lincoln also utilizes installed acolytes and lectors for the Holy Mass. Since it is an instituted ministry, the role of an acolyte is only open to men. Both of these instituted ministries commenced during Bishop Flavin’s time during the 1970’s.

Tradition Friendly

Those in Lincoln will speak of the lack of Catholic tribalism and the absence of the liturgical wars so prevalent in other dioceses. In large part this is due to the environment established by Lincoln’s bishops. Reverent Novus Ordo liturgies have served the faithful well, preventing the frustration that so many encounter in other dioceses.
[… good stuff… but I want to keep this short… Suffice to say that during my last visit to NYC, I had a church full of young people from a High School in Lincoln.  They were reverent, received Communion on the tongue, kneeling, without batting an eye… impressive…]

Liturgical Continuity

As stated previously, the Lincoln diocese has intentionally avoided the modern tendency to clericalize the laity by delegating liturgical roles to the faithful. Thanks to its use of acolytes and lectors, instead of the more common excessive use of readers and extraordinary ministers, the diocese has not blurred the lines between ministers and laity, or between sanctuary and nave. It’s obvious to see how this would reinforce the ministerial priesthood in Lincoln, as well as the continuity between both forms of the Roman Rite.
Proper liturgical orientation has been further reinforced through the manner in which many masses are offered in Lincoln: with the priest facing toward the liturgical east, or Ad Orientem.
A Catholic Education
While I have saved this for last, in many ways education is the primary ingredient to Lincoln’s recipe for success. Bishop Glennon Flavin’s vision for a diocese that allowed its children to go to Catholic school at an affordable cost and to be taught authentic Catholicism by religious sisters and priests is integral to the diocesan mission.  [One of the parent/chaperons of the aforementioned group from Lincoln told me that tuition was in the neighborhood of $1200 per year. ]
[…]

Read the whole thing there.  It’s pretty interesting.
Here is the bottom line.
The percentages of men to be ordained, and who are now active, against those who are retiring or dying are getting grim.  I was recently in a diocese in Louisiana where some half of the priests are set to retire in the next five years.  Disaster, right?
Well, friends….

That percentage didn’t just happen.
It was engineered.

And the numbers in Lincoln, and in certain parishes, dioceses and religious groups known for good numbers of vocations didn’t just happen either!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It has been entirely engineered.  The Diocese of Worcester has some sort of animus against men who feel called to the priesthood but who accept, promote and defend the Church's Magisterial teaching.  There really is no denying this.  As a cradle Catholic who lives a sacramental life, and who promotes and defends the Church's authentic teaching, especially in the area of sexual morality,  I am not permitted to even apply for the priesthood and begin a discernment process.

This is most unfortunate.  Dr. Germain Grisez explains that, "Since the ordained priesthood and diaconate provide the necessary ministries of the word and sacraments to the whole Church, every member shares a common duty to foster vocations to this service."

This duty, which pertains to all Christians, is codified in Canon Law:

"A duty rests upon the entire Christian community to foster vocations so that sufficient provision is made for the needs of the sacred ministry throughout the entire Church; Christian families, educators and in a special way priests, especially pastors, are particularly bound by this duty.  Since it is principally the concern of diocesan bishops to promote vocations, they should instruct the people entrusted to them concerning the importance of the sacred ministry and the necessity of ministers in the Church; therefore they are to encourage and support endeavors to foster vocations by means of projects especially established for that purpose." (Canon 233).

Paragraph 2 of the same Canon also states, "Moreover priests, and especially diocesan bishops, are also to be solicitous that men of a more mature age who consider themselves called to the sacred ministries are prudently assisted IN WORD AND DEED and duly prepared."

When I contacted the Worcester Diocese to express my interest in DISCERNING a priestly vocation, I received no response whatsoever.  When I wrote Bishop Robert McManus expressing my interest, again, no response.  This is promoting vocations?  This is being "solicitous" for mature vocations while assisting such in "word and deed"?

Of course not.

Every so often local parishes will offer a prayer intention for vocations.  But without any real effort to promote and foster vocations to the priesthood and religious life, such prayer intentions amount to little more than a dog and pony show.  Bishop McManus apparently has such disdain for me (pesky magisterial Catholic that I am) that when I phoned him to inform him that my "pastor" at the time (Fr. Joseph Jurgelonis) and his "pastoral staff" wouldn't schedule a Mass for my departed father, he actually laughed.

Feel the love of Christ Jesus.

Folks, if we really want to turn the tide within and outside of the Church, we will need to be more accepting of men who are orthodox in their faith and who feel called to the priesthood.  The laborers are few.  Can we afford to prohibit men faithful to the Magisterium from having a place at the table?

Diocese of Worcester: Healthy men need not apply?  See here.

"..girls can be married at age nine...it's Sharia law..."

Writing for The Daily Caller, Jonah Bennett notes that, "A bid to ban child marriage in Pakistan utterly failed, after the Council of Islamic Ideology declared the legislation 'anti-Islamic' and 'blasphemous.'

The bill didn’t even move past the first stage in the legislative process, The Express Tribune reports. It was almost immediately pulled Thursday by Pakistan Muslim League party’s Marvi Menon following condemnation from CII, whose job it is to advise the legislature on whether bills are compliant with Sharia law. In this case, the bill clearly violated Islamic law as tradition holds marriage as acceptable when a girl hits puberty...

CII Chairman Mohammad Khan Sheerani reiterated in 2014 that girls can be married at age nine, so long as puberty is apparent, adding that attempts to revisit the issue are pointless and unnecessary."

But hey, all his well folks.  After deciding to rescind Robert Spencer's invitation to speak at the "Catholic" Men's Conference here in the Diocese of Worcester a couple of years ago, Bishop Robert McManus said that, "...the Catholic Church has engaged herself in inter-religious dialogue with Muslims. This dialogue has produced a harvest of mutual respect, understanding and cooperation throughout the world and here in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.  My decision to ask Mr. Spencer not to speak at the Men's Conference resulted from a concern voiced by members of the Islamic community in Massachusetts, a concern I came to share.  That concern was that Mr. Spencer's talk about extreme, militant Islamists and the atrocities that they have perpetrated globally might undercut the positive achievements that we Catholics have attained in our inner-religious dialogue with devout Muslims and possibly generate suspicion and even fear of people who practice piously the religion of Islam...I based my decision solely on the concern that Mr. Spencer's talk would impact negatively on the Church's increasingly constructive dialogue with Muslims." (Bishop shares concerns about conference speaker, Catholic Free Press, February 8, 2013 edition).

Yes Bishop McManus, Islam makes provision for child marriage.  And the Qu'ran for killing "infidels" - non-believers.

Worcester Diocese under attack from militant sodomites and Attorney General Martha Coakley

Writing for the Christian Post Reporter, Michael Gryboski notes that, "A Roman Catholic diocese in Massachusetts that refused to sell a historic mansion to a gay couple is facing mounting legal pressure. Massachusetts' Attorney General Martha Coakley recently filed a brief in support of the gay couple who are suing the Diocese of Worcester alleging discrimination. Filed before superior court earlier this month on behalf of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Coakley argued that the diocese's actions constituted 'sexual orientation discrimination.' 'The commonwealth's compelling interest in protecting gays and lesbians from discrimination derives from their status as a politically vulnerable minority that has suffered a history of discrimination, which continues to this day,' reads the brief in part. '… though the diocesan defendants assert a sincerely held religious belief, their free exercise claim fails the rest of the compelling interest test, and they are not entitled to an exemption.' The Massachusetts Office of the Attorney General provided The Christian Post with a press release sent out last Thursday, wherein Coakley stated that her office respects the freedom of religion."  See here.

But what is tolerance? How do we define it? Dr. Montague Brown, a professor of philosophy at St. Anselm College in Manchester, New Hampshire, provides us with an excellent definition of tolerance. He writes, "Tolerance is the willingness to accept actions we believe to be inappropriate or even wrong because it would be worse to take action against them. Tolerance is community-oriented. Ideally, all bad behavior should cease, but it is unrealistic to think that society could succeed in enforcing this ideal. Tolerance understands this." (The One-Minute Philosopher, p. 166).

And how would we define relativism? Again, Dr. Montague: "Relativism is the assumption that there is no right or wrong. No action is considered better or worse than any other. If this is so, all actions are equally acceptable. Relativism is profoundly anti-community. If there are no standards of morality to which we should adhere, tolerance is no better than intolerance." (The One-Minute Philosopher, p. 167).

Does the Martha Coakley possess an adequate understanding of what constitutes tolerance?  Freedom of religion? Such would not appear to be the case.

As I've warned so many times before at this Blog, the same radical homosexual activists who continually cry for more "tolerance" are anything but tolerant. This is a spiritual war. The homosexual movement is not a civil rights movement. It is an attempt at moral revolution. An attempt to change people's view of homosexuality. Writing in the Chicago Free Press, even homosexual activist Paul Varnell admitted this. He wrote, "The fundamental controverted issue about homosexuality is not discrimination, hate crimes or domestic partnerships, but the morality of homosexuality. Even if gays obtain non-discrimination laws, hate crimes law and domestic partnership benefits, those can do little to counter the underlying moral condemnation which will continue to fester beneath the law and generate hostility, fuel hate crimes, support conversion therapies, encourage gay youth suicide and inhibit the full social acceptance that is our goal. On the other hand, if we convince people that homosexuality is fully moral, then all their inclination to discriminate, engage in gay-bashing or oppose gay marriage disappears. Gay youths and adults could readily accept themselves. So the gay movement, whether we acknowledge it or not, is not a civil rights movement, not even a sexual liberation movement, but a moral revolution aimed at changing people's view of homosexuality." (Paul Varnell, "Defending Our Morality," Chicago Free Press, Aug 16, 2000).

We are involved in a spiritual war.  Martha Coakley's legal brief - see here - really represents a thinly disguised totalitarianism.  The twilight has become darkness.

 

The Worcester Diocese welcomes Cathleen Kaveny

Tom, a faithful Catholic of the Worcester Diocese and a contributor to this Blog, writes: "The February 10, 2014, Diocesan Dispatch publicizes the following upcoming pro-abortion speaker at Holy Cross College:

'TALK ABOUT PROPHETIC SPEECH AT HOLY CROSS
Legal scholar and moral theologian M. Cathleen Kaveny, the newly named Darald and Juliet Libby Professor at Boston College, will give a lecture titled “Prophetic Rhetoric in the Public Square” at the College of the Holy Cross on Thursday, Feb. 13 ...'

The Irish Rover, an alternate student newspaper at the University of Notre Dame (where she formerly taught) and the Sycamore Trust, a group of faithfully Catholic Notre Dame alumni have written of her pro-abortion views and of how Notre Dame has lionized its former professor:
Cathleen Kaveny, a Catholic professor of law and of theology, is listed on the Notre Dame News website as an expert in the ethical aspects of assisted suicide, bioethics, biomedical ethics, cloning, death and dying, the pope, and the papacy.

Kaveny expressed pro-choice beliefs during a Princeton University conference on abortion in the fall of 2010: 'I do not believe [the mother] has an obligation to provide life support to the unborn if pregnancy imposes a significant burden on her health or if she was raped,' said Kaveny.  'Under those circumstances I think those actions are describable as intentionally ending the burden of the pregnancy and can be described differently than intentional killing.'

Kaveny also said the unborn have no moral rights until 14 days after conception, a stance that could permit embryonic stem cell research."

This is a clear rejection of Catholic moral teaching. In his Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, No. 57, Pope John Paul II writes, "..by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, and in communion with the Bishops of the Catholic Church, I confirm that the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral. This doctrine, based upon that unwritten law which man, in the light of reason, finds in his own heart (cf. Rom 2:14-15), is reaffirmed by Sacred Scripture, transmitted by the Tradition of the Church and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.

The deliberate decision to deprive an innocent human being of his life is always morally evil and can never be licit either as an end in itself or as a means to a good end. It is in fact a grave act of disobedience to the moral law, and indeed to God himself, the author and guarantor of that law; it contradicts the fundamental virtues of justice and charity. 'Nothing and no one can in any way permit the killing of an innocent human being, whether a fetus or an embryo, an infant or an adult, an old person, or one suffering from an incurable disease, or a person who is dying. Furthermore, no one is permitted to ask for this act of killing, either for himself or herself or for another person entrusted to his or her care, nor can he or she consent to it, either explicitly or implicitly. Nor can any authority legitimately recommend or permit such an action'"

It was Father Thomas Euteneuer who correctly observed that, "Abortion is blood sacrifice of innocent blood to the devil. The clinics are like temples, the doctors are like priests, the medical table is like their altar. It’s a ritualized sacrifice. They have a dogma called choice, a hierarchy called Planned Parenthood, and guardian angels in the form of police guards that will arrest you if you try to stop them."

In the New Order, man has no special value. Human beings will be subject to the tyranny of technological impersonalism in the service of devils. Many have grown weary because they have lost their faith. And barbarism will follow. As men move away from the Church and her sacraments, the world continues to degenerate into madness, or as Fr. Miceli put it: "..a weird brew of sex, flowers, drugs, incense, tear gas, acid rock, rhetoric, bombs and blood. Enter the Antichrist, ruler of the Moloch World?"

The question has to be asked: Why does Bishop McManus tolerate (and at times even approve of) speakers who dissent from revealed Catholic teaching - even on the subject of abortion?

The Worcester Diocese and its fruits....

As Protect the Pope has noted, "In 2005 Fr John Dear wrote an article that promoted dissent on the ordination of women, and the authority of the hierarchical Church."

Small surprise then that the Worcester Diocese, which has become a moral sewer, would publish an article written by Tony Magliano (in this week's "Catholic" Free Press) which complains that Fr. Dear has not received "the full support from his superiors for his prophetic ministry."

Magliano quotes Fr. Dear as saying that Archbishop Michael Sheehan of Santa Fe, New Mexico removed his priestly faculties simply because of his prayer vigils for peace at Los Alamos National Laboratory.

Lying is a sin Father.

The "Catholic" Free Press, on its masthead, cites John 8:32 to the effect that the truth shall set us free.  One has to marvel at the newspaper's refusal to offer its readers the fullness of Catholic truth or even basic honesty.  Margaret Russell and her crew should read Inter Mirifica (especially Nos. 14, 15).

Meanwhile the Associated Press is reporting that:

"The longtime pastor of a Lancaster Roman Catholic church has been placed on leave while an investigation into a 40-year-old allegation of sexual misconduct involving a child is conducted.

Worcester Bishop Robert McManus announced to parishioners at Immaculate Conception on Sunday that the Rev. Edward Lettic had been placed on leave because ‘‘a credible allegation of misconduct.’’

Lettic has been pastor of Immaculate Conception since 1993 and has served as a priest in the diocese since he was ordained in 1973. McManus says it is the first allegation of misconduct against Lettic.

Lettic has also worked at churches in Worcester, Douglas and Auburn.

The Worcester district attorney’s office is reviewing the allegation.

No one answered the phone at the church and Lettic could not be reached."

Folks, in one of his last homilies, Archbishop Oscar Romero, the martyred Archbishop of San Salvador, said: "A preaching that does not point out sin is not the preaching of the gospel. A preaching that makes sinners feel good so that they become entrenched in their sinful state, betrays the gospel's call. A preaching that does not discomfit sinners but lulls them in their sin leaves Zebulun and Naphtali in the shadow of death. A preaching that awakens, a preaching that enlightens -- as when a light turned on awakens and of course annoys a sleeper -- that is the preaching of Christ, calling, "wake up! Be converted!" this is the church's authentic preaching. Naturally, such preaching must meet conflict, must spoil what is miscalled prestige, must disturb, must be persecuted. It cannot get along with the powers of darkness and sin."


We've had enough of a preaching which leaves Zebulun and Naphtali in the shadow of death.  We've had enough of a Cotton-Candy Catholicism which offers Chicken-Soup Homilies and asinine theatrics rather than the solid meat of sound preaching and liturgical reverence.  Sadly, so many of our priests haven't caught on to this.  And so they continue to spoon-feed us the unsatisfying pablum.

The time for lying is over.  I have been saying this for years.  Back in 2009, Archbishop Charles Chaput noted that, "40 years of American Catholic complacency and poor formation are bearing exactly the fruit we should have expected...We can't talk about following St. Paul and converting our culture until we sober up and get honest about what we've allowed ourselves to become.  We need to stop lying to each other..." (See here).

The lying must stop.  For this to happen, we need priests and Bishops who fear God more than they do men.  Cowards will not lead us out of the valley of death.  Only shepherds who have the spiritual strength, the Cardinal Gift of Fortitude, to brave the risk of worldly criticism, will be able to lead the American Catholic Church out of the valley of the Culture of Death and back on the road to the Civilization of Love which Pope John Paul II spoke of so often.

Why have so many priests succumbed to fear?  Why is it that their preaching no longer points out sin?  Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange provides us with an answer:


"The reason for this is not difficult to find.  A sermon is the result of the combined effort of all the priest's powers; it reveals his entire person; it is his struggle against the vices of the surrounding world."  In other words, if the preaching is unsound, it is because the priest's spiritual life is unsound.  Fr. Lagrange continues, "Everything in the priest cooperates in his preaching - study, reflection, his powers to compose and revise, the activity of his intellect, his imagination, his memory, his feelings, his voice.  Therefore, when he preaches, the priest stands exposed for all to study; some will be attracted, others will not.  Some will accept what he says, others will simply criticize.  So if the priest approaches his task from the human angle, he will say to himself: 'I cannot afford to lose my reputation; people of weight in the parish who take offense easily must be spared their feelings and not provoked; I must proceed warily so as not to incur criticism.'  In that way Christian eloquence is invaded by a profane eloquence in which the preacher looks after his own interests, not the glory of God or the saving of souls." (The Priest In Union With Christ, p. 156).

I've never been a fan of lying.  And this because Our Lord tells us that the Devil is the Father of all lies (John 8:44),  If it's lying you want, this Blog is not for you.  Forty years of lying has wrought so much damage to the American Catholic Church.  Archbishop Chaput is right, we are merely reaping the fruit of what we've planted.  St. Paul tells us that, "...the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control.." (Galatians 5: 22).  But what fruit have we witnessed in the American Catholic Church?  The Church has been infected with dry-rot as so many Catholics have succumbed to the works of the flesh.

We need heroic shepherds.  Men who, like Blessed Miguel Pro, S.J., are willing to give their very lives for the Catholic Church and her teaching.

Bishop McManus needs to man up.

Beware of the Worcester Diocese.....really

In a recent post, I noted how the Worcester Diocese, through its official newspaper The "Catholic" Free Press, has long promoted dissent from Church teaching and just recently published an editorial challenging the Church's teaching, which is expressed so powerfully in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, that Christ instituted a hierarchical Church.  It should come as no surprise, then, that Bishop Robert McManus, who is the Publisher of this dissenting newspaper, should have permitted Dr. Thomas Groome to appear as a speaker within his diocese.  I have already detailed in previous posts why this is so disturbing.  And I have shown how the Worcester Diocese, through the "Commission for Women," agitates for women's ordination and radical feminist theology as well as New Age spirituality, which is occultic.  See here and here.

In an  article entitled "Beware of Thomas Groome or Anything Associated with Him, Stacey Johnson, a homeschooling mother of four, writing for New Oxford Review, explains: "In these decades of crisis in the Catholic Church in America, we must be on guard to threats to our children's faith. However, those threats are not always easily recognized, and the average Catholic frequently overlooks what is possibly the most dangerous one: your parish CCD program.

Many recognize that there has been a crisis of catechesis for the past thirty years or so. According to the oft-cited Gallup Poll, the majority of American Catholics either cannot identify Catholic teaching on the Eucharist or do not believe it. Catholics cohabit, contracept, sterilize, abort, divorce, and support same-sex "marriages" at about the same rate as the population at large, indicating a large-scale rejection or ignorance of the Church's moral teachings. And as many commentators have aptly pointed out, the Catechism of the Catholic Church received a cool reception among the catechetical elite of the U.S.

Numerous publishers of Catholic religious education materials, however, now claim to be developing programs in response to the Catechism. These materials usually have a statement in the front indicating that the program has been found by a committee of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) to be in conformity with the Catechism. Concerned parents looking over the programs will often be hard-pressed to find blatant doctrinal errors, though there is often a lopsided emphasis on social justice and environmental concerns, and the truths of the Faith aren't always presented in the most convincing fashion.

So far, this doesn't sound so bad. Not the strongest presentation of the Faith perhaps, but nothing to get excited about, right? Wrong. One of the most significant problems with many of the CCD programs is the way in which the teachings are presented. They actually appear to be designed to reduce the chances that our children will accept the teachings of the Church.

Arguably the single most influential person in Catholic religious education circles in the U.S. today is Thomas H. Groome. He is a laicized priest and professor of theology and religious education at Boston College, and a prominent theorist and writer in the field of religious education. His writings have appeared in the USCCB's catechetical journal, The Living Light, and he is a frequent speaker and honoree at religious education conferences. The National Catholic Educational Association offers workshops for catechetical leaders developed from a text of which Groome is one of two editors. Groome is a consultant for William H. Sadlier Inc., a major publisher of catechetical materials used in every diocese in the U.S. He is the primary author of two of Sadlier's K-8 programs for Catholic children: Coming to Faith and God With Us. His books include Educating for Life: A Spiritual Vision for Every Teacher and Parent, and Sharing Faith: A Comprehensive Approach to Religious Education and Pastoral Ministry. The latter provides a detailed explanation of his methodology for religious education, which he calls "shared Christian praxis."
According to Groome, shared Christian praxis has five steps, called movements, which comprise the method. None of the movements can be eliminated; each is considered essential to the educational approach. The movements are as follows: (1) Naming / Expressing "Present Praxis": Participants communicate either their own or society's current behavior or beliefs. (2) Critical Reflection on Present Action: Participants are called to look critically at what motivates their present behaviors and beliefs, including any prejudices or societal influences. (3) Making Accessible Christian Story / Vision. (4) Dialectical Hermeneutic to Appropriate Christian Story / Vision to Participants' Stories and Visions: Participants compare their critically understood present praxis from Movement Two with the "Christian Story" that was presented in Movement Three, and develop a new understanding of "their truth." (5) Decision / Response for Lived Christian Faith: Participants have an opportunity to decide how they intend to live their faith as a result of the decisions that they made about it in Movement Four. Each of these movements requires a fuller explanation in order for us to see their true import.

Movement One is the simplest of the five. It requires only that the participants in the session have an opportunity to communicate (or at least reflect upon) their own or a larger society's (for example, the Church's) current practice of belief as it relates to the topic at hand. The main issue would be that it is their own expression of it, rather than someone else's, that they communicate.

Movement Two then has the participants critically reflect upon why they act or think as they do. The students are to examine anything that might affect their current practice or belief, whether it is prejudices, ideologies, societal influences, consequences, or past experiences. As Groome writes in Sharing Faith, "As a constitutive activity of shared Christian praxis, critical reflection encourages 'disbelief' as well as belief, 'disbelief' especially toward the controlling myths . . . that maintain structures of domination — sexism, racism . . . and so on." Participants are encouraged to see how their history affects their current behavior and beliefs as well as their interpretation of them and to see how they should change. One example Groome gives of how to apply Movement Two is the assignment of a paper to male undergraduate students who are resistant to "feminist consciousness."

In Movement Three, things really get interesting. Here is where the "Christian Story" is presented. According to Groome, the "Christian Story" is "the whole faith life and practical wisdom of the Christian community." It is important to note, however, that according to shared Christian praxis, the "Christian Story" must be "made accessible" in a particular way. The educator is responsible for discerning both what part of the "Christian Story" to make accessible and how to do it. The "Story" is to be adapted and interpreted to the participants, using hermeneutics (methods of interpretation) or retrieval, suspicion, and creative commitment. Groome explains that religious educators should have a "healthy suspicion" of their faith tradition and that it is the educator's responsibility to uncover the true meaning of the original texts, a meaning that probably has been lost due to "distortions" in the "accepted interpretations" of Christian tradition. Movement Three is totally incompatible with an understanding of any sort of traditional moral or theological absolutes. And Groome himself agrees. To provide any sort of absolute truth is the furthest thing from his mind. From Groome's perspective, to absolutize either an expression or interpretation of a faith tradition is to deaden it. Rather, as he makes clear in Educating for Life, it is necessary to constantly reinterpret both Scripture and Tradition "in light of what we bring to it from the present."

For Groome, one of the building blocks for wisdom is feminist theology, so when the educator is determining how to present the "Christian Story," he would do well to consider such things as the insights of "the great Scripture scholar, Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza," who is a radical feminist theologian who believes that Jesus (whom she refers to as "the woman-identified man" in her book In Memory of Her) intended to liberate women from "patriarchal structures" but, as Groome summarizes for us in Sharing Faith, this "central characteristic of the Jesus movement was 'written out' of the New Testament and must now be reconstructed."

One way this translates into religious education is that the emphasis is always on the "equality and mutuality" of men and women, rather than their complementarity. Add to this the repeated assertion that discrimination in all its forms must be fought against wherever it is found. Consequently, when the Sacrament of Holy Orders is presented without any explanation as to why only men may be ordained, it is practically a given that most students will dissent. In fact, it would be surprising if any did not.

Movement Four is even worse. Its purpose is to have the participants place their own "stories" in dialectic with the "Christian Story" presented in Movement Three. This means that besides examining their current beliefs and practices in light of the "Christian Story," the students are to

bring present praxis to interpret Christian Story / Vision . . . there are aspects of it they affirm and cherish and aspects of present understanding and living of Christian faith that are called into question and refused if necessary (the Story has had distortions), and . . . participants can construct a more appropriate understanding of the Story. (Ibid.)

Groome says that some people prefer to accept that something is true based upon the authority of the Church, but they are "arrested" at a lower stage in their faith journey. The point is that if children are exposed to shared Christian praxis long enough, they will believe that any aspect of the Faith is up for grabs.
The only thing apparently absolutely necessary for salvation is a commitment to modern social-justice issues, though that does not seem to include opposition to abortion. In fact, although both the books mentioned in this article have lengthy sections devoted to social-justice issues, abortion is rarely mentioned. What Groome sees as important is a commitment to "The Reign of God," which, although he occasionally acknowledges as having an eschatological component, is largely to be realized in time by making everyone feel accepted and by making sure that every aspect of everyone's lives is valued (unless, of course, one of those aspects is one of the "deadly social sins" of absolutism, sexism, specieism, etc.).

Not surprisingly, Groome himself does not believe in a hierarchical Church or an ordained priesthood, and dissents from Church teaching on issues related to human sexuality, the papacy, and biblical inerrancy. He demands "inclusive" language and believes that all language we have regarding God is a human construct, rather than being divinely revealed. Groome draws heavily from the "scholarship" of numerous feminist theologians, as well as well-known dissenter Richard McBrien, and neo-Modernist Scripture scholar Raymond Brown. Quoting Kenan Osborne in a footnote to a discussion of the priesthood in Sharing Faith, Groome notes, "In spite of the long tradition of this view [that the Apostles were commissioned at the Last Supper to preside at the Eucharist], contemporary scholars find no basis for this interpretation. In other words, Jesus did not ordain the apostles (disciples) at this final supper to be 'priests.'" Rather, Groome believes that the ability to celebrate the Eucharist comes from the power of the Holy Spirit working through the assembly. He also has, understandably, a rather faulty understanding of the Mass and the Eucharist.

Finally, in Movement Five, the students make some commitment to action based upon the determinations made in the previous movements. An example that Groome gives from personal experience is informative. He was asked to speak with a group of women on "Women in the Church." When he began the session it was apparent that the women accepted the Church's teaching on male-only ordination, something that Groome believes is an injustice against women. As he puts it, "It seems that the exclusion of women from ordained ministry is the result of a patriarchal mind-set and culture and is not of Christian faith. The injustice of excluding women from the priesthood debilitates the church's sacramentality in the world; it is a countersign to God's reign" (Sharing Faith). By the end of their time together, the women had all "come to see" that the Church was a patriarchal, oppressive social structure. As part of their Movement Five activity, the women resolved to each write to a young woman in order to encourage her to fight for "full inclusion" in the Church.
This is the methodology that also underpins the Coming to Faith series from William H. Sadlier Inc. As a methodology for religious instruction, however, it clearly undermines the Faith. In this series, shared Christian praxis is used not only to "educate" the children, but to "educate" the catechists as well. For example, catechists are asked to come up with their own definition of conscience, to develop and work to implement their personal vision of a "hospitable Church," to determine what they think helps their parish to grow (choices including "spirited" liturgies, an attractive building, involvement in peace and justice issues, and a congenial pastor, but not including a commitment to orthodoxy or devotion to the Eucharist), to assess the "kind of relationship" they have with the sun, moon, wind, and rain, or their "relationship" with grass, trees, house plants, and soil. Additionally, the uniqueness of Christ's Presence in the Eucharist is downplayed. For example, the second-grade teacher's manual, Coming to Jesus, says, "Jesus, already present in the community and in the word of God, now becomes present in another dimension." God is not referred to as "Father" unless absolutely necessary. In fact, one of the objectives of the lesson on the "Our Father" for first-graders is "to help the children believe that God cares for us as a loving parent" (italics added).
There is a trend in the Coming to Faith series toward syncretism with Native American spirituality, including the use of non-Christian Native American prayers. In one instance in the sixth-grade teacher's manual, the catechist is instructed to have the children form a circle around a globe with each child saying a line of the prayer, the teacher having pointed out that "through the Eucharist, we are one with all the people in this earth." The prayer goes like this:

Every part of this earth is sacred . . .
Every clearing and humming insect is holy . . .
All belong to the same family.
Teach your children that the earth is our mother . . .
The wind gave our children the spirit of life.
This we know, the earth does not belong to us; we belong to the earth . . .
(Coming to God's Word, William H. Sadlier Inc.)

Actually, our Catholic Faith teaches that the Church and Mary are to be regarded as our Mother, not the earth; that God gave us the "spirit of life," not the wind; and that people and insects do not belong to the same family!
The kindergarten teacher's manual, Coming to God's World, informs the catechist that, "By its emphasis on kinship with the elements and the environment, Native-American spirituality can complement our own faith tradition." Consequently, one of the "Justice and Peace" resources that follow every lesson encourages the catechist to suggest that the children "[pamper] or cater to Mother Earth." Perhaps this also explains why sixth-graders are instructed in their activity book to center their prayer on a rock.
The catechists and children are also exposed to the teachings of some whose works have been condemned by the Church, including Teilhard de Chardin and Anthony de Mello. Moreover, liturgical abuses are canonized in a number of ways. One example: In the first-grade teacher's manual, a litany for use in class is proposed that invokes the intercession of non-canonized and even non-Catholic personages, including Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King Jr., and Cesar Chavez.
Groome's approach to Scripture is clearly seen in the sixth-grade book of Sadlier's Coming to Faith series, Coming to God's Word. This grade level focuses on Scripture and presents it in such a fashion that the average child would have no understanding of what the Church actually teaches about the Bible upon completion of the course. Not even the Gospels are given as examples of history, so the student is likely to be left with the impression that perhaps nothing in the Bible actually happened.
Groome proposes that his methodology allows people to come to their own decisions about "their truth." He believes that it is important to just make the "Story" accessible, but that defending it or asserting its truth is to deny the work of the Holy Spirit in the person to whom it is presented. Ironically, the way in which the "Story" is presented, as well as the entire methodology of shared Christian praxis, is designed to manipulate a person into seeing it in a particular way. Rather than being presented as Truth, Christianity is presented as one frequently distorted option among many roads leading to God. The only absolutes are that orthodoxy is wrong (due to being sexist, absolutist, patriarchal, etc.) and that social justice, in the style of liberation and feminist theology and "creation spirituality," is what saves you.
So, what's a person to do upon finding this methodology present in his parish CCD program? Obviously, it's important to do what you can to have it replaced by a solid, faithful program such as the Faith and Life or Image of God series from Ignatius Press. But that's easier said than done. In order to present an effective case, you'll need to do a little homework and a lot of praying. I would highly recommend reading Eamonn Keane's A Generation Betrayed from Hatherleigh Press for a more thorough presentation of this topic than possible in a magazine article. You might also want to read Donna Steichen's Ungodly Rage, available from Ignatius Press, for an orthodox presentation of feminist theology, since it is one of the underpinnings of Groome's theology. Share what you have learned with other concerned parents in your parish. Then talk to your priest. He may not be aware of the problems with the program, since they are often very subtle. You might even convince him to read Keane's book. If that doesn't work, you can appeal to your bishop. Unfortunately, Groome seems to be well-respected in catechetical and episcopal circles, and these books have been rubberstamped by a committee at the USCCB. It may come down to withdrawing your children from the parish program and teaching them yourself, using one of the above-mentioned resources, while you continue to fight for the rights of the rest of the children to receive a truly Catholic education. It is also important to remember that parents have the primary right and responsibility to educate their children (Catechism, #1653, 2221-2225). It is time for us to insist that our rights in these matters be respected and that our children be educated in the Truths of the faith."


Stacey Johnson is correct in suggesting that faithful Catholics should "Beware of Thomas Groome and anything associated with him."  And this would certainly include the Worcester Diocese.

You're too rigid for this Diocese

Because I do preach the hard truths of Roman Catholicism, there are some who are most anxious to label me as "rigid."  But adherence to the Magisterial teaching of the Church does not constitute rigidity.  It demonstrates fidelity.  It is intrinsic to the Catholic religion, that before one can become a member, he must satisfy himself that the answers to all questions of faith or morals are contained in a Deposit of Faith which has been revealed by God and entrusted to a Custodian established by God Himself and endowed with infallible protection against any change or error.

Since the only reason for believing any of it is God's promise that it is all infallibly true, it is all or none.

Oscar Romero, the martyred Archbishop of San Salvador, once said: "A preaching that does not point out sin is not the preaching of the gospel. A preaching that makes sinners feel good, so that they are secured in their sinful state, betrays the gospels call...A preaching that awakens, a preaching that enlightens - as when a light turned on awakens and of course annoys a sleeper - that is the preaching of Christ, calling: Wake up! Be converted! That is the Church's authentic preaching."

While there are so many good and faithful priests who do preach on the reality of sin and the need for reconciliation, there are those who have no love for the souls under their care. As a consequence, these priests neglect the souls entrusted to them and make no attempt to stress the reality of sin and the need for ongoing conversion.

When Jesus began His public ministry, He did so with the word "repent" (Matthew 4:17). And He advised the woman caught in adultery to "sin no more" (John 8:11). Likewise, in the case of the man cured at the Pool of Bethesda, Jesus advised him to "sin no more lest something worse befall thee" (John 5:14).When queried on the subject of how many would be saved, Jesus replied "few" because the "gate" to Heaven is "narrow" (Matthew 7:13-14). And while no one can pinpoint the precise meaning of the word "few," still, it is sobering that Jesus chose the image of a narrow gate.

Jesus is likened in the gospel to a stern master who has lazy servants flogged and murderous ones put to death (Matthew 21:41; Luke 12:47). And while it is true that Jesus is Mercy, He is also Justice. And for every parable illustrative of His mercy, there are three or four threatening divine retribution.

The Judgment Day is always described as a day of wrath and never as a day of rejoicing (Proverbs 11:4; Zephaniah 1:15; Sirach 5:10; Romans 2:5; Revelation 6:17). Why is this? If everyone (or even a large segment of mankind) is headed for Heaven, why does Sacred Scripture refer to the Judgment Day as a day of wrath?

The smug, self-satisfied "we-are-all-saved-already" attitude found in so many Catholic parishes is the result of the sin of presumption. Because there are priests who are betraying Jesus by refusing to preach on the reality of sin and the reality of Hell, a spiritual dry-rot has infected much of the Church. This is why nearly everyone receives Holy Communion at Mass but nearly no one goes to Confession.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church has this to say about presumption: "There are two kinds of presumption. Either man presumes upon his own capacities, (hoping to be able to save himself without help from on high), or he presumes upon God's almighty power or his mercy (hoping to obtain his forgiveness without conversion and glory without merit)." (CCC, 2092).

The words of Sacred Scripture remind us that such an attitude is very, very wrong: "Of forgiveness be not overconfident, adding sin upon sin. Say not:' Great is his mercy; my many sins he will forgive.' For mercy and anger alike are with him; upon the wicked alights his wrath." (Sirach 5:5-7).

If we are living a sacramental life, confessing our sins and receiving Jesus in the Eucharist as often as possible (at the very least on Sundays and Holy Days, which is our obligation) while praying each day for His grace and mercy, we have nothing to worry about. This isn't presumption. This is confidence in God's mercy as we strive every day to conform our will to His divine will. But God will not be mocked. He can neither deceive nor be deceived.

I will continue to preach the hard truths which today's counterfeit Catholic refuses to embrace.  I will continue to warn those who are accepting of "gay marriage," contraception, abortion, and the like "You're going the wrong way"  even though it means I am excluded from the life of my diocese and prohibited from discerning a vocation to the ministerial priesthood.....After all, what doth it profit a man.....you know the rest!

Does Father Krzysztof Korcz really believe in the Fatima message or is he all show?

In a previous post, I Noted how Peggy Patenaude, a radical feminist who often conducts retreats at the La Salette Shrine in Attleboro, Massachusetts, will be a guest speaker at this year's "Gather Us In" Conference sponsored by the Diocese of Worcester's "Commission for Women," itself a dissenting organization.

In her newsletter, Ms. Patenaude said that: "In January, I had the privilege of facilitating my first retreat for five gay couples. It turned out to be an affirming experience for all. I was very moved by the warmth, goodness, depth and genuineness of these ten women. The fact that they were so receptive and appreciative confirmed for me the need for such programs in a world that is not always kind to minorities....

It was gratifying to see how much the participants enjoyed and benefited from the weekend. The retreat exceeded my expectations. 'It gave us the opportunity to take time out to focus on us and our relationship which means so much to us,' commented one woman. Another added, 'The retreat was very helpful. It helped my partner and me to communicate better.' The gratitude of all ten women for the supportive and respectful atmosphere was obvious. As one retreatant said, 'We are just people in love…like any other couple.' I am humbled and grateful for the opportunity to have assisted them in keeping their love alive. See here.

So I was not entirely surprised to learn that Father Krzysztof Korcz, "pastor" of Our Lady Immaculate parish in Athol, had decided to promote the "Gather Us In" conference in his parish bulletin.  I am not surprised because Fr. Korcz is anything but a child of Mary, even if he goes through the motions of promoting the Fatima message for appearances sake.   

St. Louis Marie Grignon de Montfort, in his classic work True Devotion to Mary, advises us that, the person who wishes to be led by this spirit of Mary:

p. 259 1) Should renounce his own spirit, his own views and his own will before doing anything, for example, before making meditation, celebrating or attending Mass, before Communion. For the darkness of our own spirit and the evil tendencies of our own will and actions, good as they may seem to us, would hinder the holy spirit of Mary were we to follow them.

2) We should give ourselves up to the spirit of Mary to be moved and directed as she wishes. We should place and leave ourselves in her virginal hands, like a tool in the hands of a craftsman or a lute in the hands of a good musician. We should cast ourselves into her like a stone thrown into the sea. This is done easily and quickly by a mere thought, a slight movement of the will or just a few words as, "I renounce myself and give myself to you, my dear Mother." And even if we do not experience any emotional fervour in this spiritual encounter it is none the less real. It is just as if a person with equal sincerity were to say - which God forbid! - "I give myself to the devil." Even though this were said without feeling any emotion, he would no less really belong to the devil.

3) From time to time during an action and after it, we should renew this same act of offering and of union. The more we do so, the quicker we shall grow in holiness and the sooner we shall reach union with Christ, which necessarily follows upon union with Mary, since the spirit of Mary is the spirit of Jesus.

With Mary

p. 260. We must do everything with Mary, that is to say, in all our actions we must look upon Mary, although a simple human being, as the perfect model of every virtue and perfection, fashioned by the Holy Spirit for us to imitate, as far as our limited capacity allows. In every action then we should consider how Mary performed it or how she would perform it if she were in our place. For this reason, we must examine and meditate on the great virtues she practised during her life, especially:

1) Her lively faith, by which she believed the angel's word without the least hesitation, and believed faithfully and constantly even to the foot of the Cross on Calvary.

2) Her deep humility, which made her prefer seclusion, maintain silence, submit to every eventuality and put herself in the last place.

3) Her truly divine purity, which never had and never will have its equal on this side of heaven.

And so on for her other virtues.

Remember what I told you before, that Mary is the great, unique mould of God, designed to make living images of God at little expense and in a short time. Anyone who finds this mould and casts himself into it, is soon transformed into our Lord because it is the true likeness of him.

In Mary

p. 261. We must do everything in Mary. To understand this we must realise that the Blessed Virgin is the true earthly paradise of the new Adam and that the ancient paradise was only a symbol of her. There are in this earthly paradise untold riches, beauties, rarities and delights, which the new Adam, Jesus Christ, has left there. It is in this paradise that he "took his delights" for nine months, worked his wonders and displayed his riches with the magnificence of God himself. This most holy place consists of only virgin and immaculate soil from which the new Adam was formed with neither spot nor stain by the operation of the Holy Spirit who dwells there. In this earthly paradise grows the real Tree of Life which bore our Lord, the fruit of Life, the tree of knowledge of good and evil, which bore the Light of the world.

In this divine place there are trees planted by the hand of God and watered by his divine unction which have borne and continue to bear fruit that is pleasing to him. There are flower-beds studded with a variety of beautiful flowers of virtue, diffusing a fragrance which delights even the angels. Here there are meadows verdant with hope, impregnable towers of fortitude, enchanting mansions of confidence and many other delights.

Only the Holy Spirit can teach us the truths that these material objects symbolise. In this place the air is perfectly pure. There is no night but only the brilliant day of the sacred humanity, the resplendent, spotless sun of the Divinity, the blazing furnace of love, melting all the base metal thrown into it and changing it into gold. There the river of humility gushes forth from the soil, divides into four branches and irrigates the whole of this enchanted place. These branches are the four cardinal virtues.

262. The Holy Spirit speaking through the Fathers of the Church, also calls our Lady the Eastern Gate, through which the High Priest, Jesus Christ, enters and goes out into the world. Through this gate he entered the world the first time and through this same gate he will come the second time.

The Holy Spirit also calls her the Sanctuary of the Divinity, the Resting-Place of the Holy Spirit, the Throne of God, the City of God, the Altar of God, the Temple of God, the World of God. All these titles and expressions of praise are very real when related to the different wonders the Almighty worked in her and the graces which he bestowed on her. What wealth and what glory! What a joy and a privilege for us to enter and dwell in Mary, in whom almighty God has set up the throne of his supreme glory!

p. 263. But how difficult it is for us to have the freedom, the ability and the light to enter such an exalted and holy place. This place is guarded not by a cherub, like the first earthly paradise, but by the Holy Spirit himself who has become its absolute Master. Referring to her, he says: "You are an enclosed garden, my sister, my bride, an enclosed garden and a sealed fountain." Mary is enclosed. Mary is sealed. The unfortunate children of Adam and Eve driven from the earthly paradise, can enter this new paradise only by a special grace of the Holy Spirit which they have to merit.

264. When we have obtained this remarkable grace by our fidelity, we should be delighted to remain in Mary. We should rest there peacefully, rely on her confidently, hide ourselves there with safety, and abandon ourselves unconditionally to her, so that within her virginal bosom:

1) We may be nourished with the milk of her grace and her motherly compassion.
2) We may be delivered from all anxiety, fear and scruples.
3) We may be safeguarded from all our enemies, the devil, the world and sin which have never gained admittance there. That is why our Lady says that those who work in her will not sin, that is, those who dwell spiritually in our Lady will never commit serious sin.

4) We may be formed in our Lord and our Lord formed in us, because her womb is, as the early Fathers call it, the house of the divine secrets where Jesus and all the elect have been conceived. "This one and that one were born in her."

For Mary

265. Finally, we must do everything for Mary. Since we have given ourselves completely to her service, it is only right that we should do everything for her as if we were her personal servant and slave. This does not mean that we take her for the ultimate end of our service for Jesus alone is our ultimate end. But we take Mary for our proximate end, our mysterious intermediary and the easiest way of reaching him.

Like every good servant and slave we must not remain idle, but, relying on her protection, we should undertake and carry out great things for our noble Queen. We must defend her privileges when they are questioned and uphold her good name when it is under attack. We must attract everyone, if possible, to her service and to this true and sound devotion. We must speak up and denounce those who distort devotion to her by outraging her Son, and at the same time we must apply ourselves to spreading this true devotion. As a reward for these little services, we should expect nothing in return save the honour of belonging to such a lovable Queen and the joy of being united through her to Jesus, her Son, by a bond that is indissoluble in time and in eternity. Glory to Jesus in Mary! Glory to Mary in Jesus! Glory to God alone!"


A true child of Mary does not engage in dissent from Church teaching or in the promotion of dissenting individuals and organizations.  The Commission for Women is a vehicle for such dissent.  See here, here and here for example.  And also here.

If Father Korcz wants to encourage true devotion to Mary and an authentic marian spirit of prayer and obedience at Our Lady Immaculate parish, he will first have to set the example by actually living such

an authentic devotion.

Stephen Kent, in an essay entitled “A need for pro-active ethics,” writes, “Ethics are based on values. Values arise from foundational beliefs, the primary ones being the dignity of the human person and the sanctity of life as God’s creation. What advances this ideal is good, what hinders it is wrong.”


Which is why it is most unfortunate that the Worcester Diocese [Massachusetts] continues to raise monies for the Catholic Campaign for Human Development, an umbrella organization which funnels monies to various groups promoting abortion, contraception and even sodomy and same-sex “marriage.” Any diocese which claims to be committed toward defending the sanctity of human life while raising monies for CCHD is not being honest.

Writing for The Recorder, Father Robert Markovitch of the Ukrainian Catholic Church of the Holy Spirit in South Deerfield, Massachusetts notes that liberalism is a religion with two sacraments: sex and death. And the over-arching belief system of this religion is evolution. Fr. Writes, “This belief system has consequences. They are: that the most intimate moment of a man and a woman becomes, as a norm, a place for two people to use each other as things; that deep in a woman is a womb, a chamber where death may be dealt; that the best sport for most is sex; that the heart is wasted sentiment worthy of no attention; where the full openness to the sex act closes off human friendships; that all pain can be avoided by substances and higher volume stimulation; and last, but not least, when the existence sport sacrament is exhausted, the answer is gift of a hundred pills from a government-imposed affordable ‘health care’ plan - the final sacrament and solution.”

And there are many within the Church who secretly yearn for such a religion. This should not really surprise us. One of the most important signs of the latter days is the great number of Catholics who will abandon the true faith. Numerous seers have indicated that along with the general indifference toward religion which will prevail just prior to the arrival of Antichrist, there will be a complete degeneration of morals, a degeneration which will resemble that of the pagans before the dawn of Christianity. Reverend Gerald Culleton explains that, “After the birth of Antichrist...the false doctrines were to multiply and spread to such an extent that even Catholics would doubt many of the articles of faith, resulting in their perversion, this to apply not only to the laity but even to many priests and some of the hierarchy. The zeal of these latter will be greatly affected by this lack of faith. There will be dissentions among the clergy. Many will be proud, selfish, unjust, covetous, and even forgetful of vows made at ordination regarding chastity. Many will even offer Mass and confer the sacraments sacrilegiously. When the zeal of the clergy fails they will see the faithful leaving the churches and turning to the world....Because of these defections Catholics will be severely punished, for only by chastisements can God bring back to the minds of His people a realization of their dependence upon Him. As a consequence, widespread persecution of priests and people will come upon the Church in order that faith and love of God may be revived, for as surely as night follows day, so will civilization crumble and the world become steeped in the darkness of ignorance, hatred, misery and vice when God, who is the Light of the World, will no longer rule in the hearts of His people.”

Fr. Culleton notes that, “..many people will seem to honor God but this will be chiefly lip service and not based on real faith and love.” Such people will be unwilling to recognize evil because they will have succumbed to the love of pleasure. Truth will be deserted and replaced with false doctrines (what Saint Paul refers to as “Doctrines of Demons”) which the multitudes will fully embrace.

And that time is now. Today, more than in any other period of human history, people actually want to be deluded. And this satanic delusion is leading us toward open - and very soon even physically violent - persecution. Which is why Fr. Markovitch asserts, in the essay referred to above, that: “We have a changing situation in America, where people who once had freedom of religion and association must now pay for contraception for everyone as if it were a right, even when consciences are violated. Priests and Religious Brothers and Sisters must now use their financial means to fund something condemned by the 2,000-year-old Catholic faith. This is a state of oppression worthy of a socialist dictator.”

And I might add: a Universal Dictator. One the Sacred Scriptures refer to as the Man of Sin. He who is about to reveal himself to the world.

The Worcester Diocese should have held onto this faithful priest

Some years ago, a faithful and dedicated priest decided to leave the Diocese of Worcester and become a Chaplain for the United States Army.  During a conversation back in 2000, this priest-friend told me that he had had enough of the nonsense within the diocese.  This was after he presided over a graveside service for my father.

This same faithful priest has a letter in this week's "Catholic" [when they feel like it] Free Press.  As usual, it is an excellent letter.  But then, this priest reads the life of Jesus Christ.  The letter is entitled  "Choose life and love, not moral decay."  Fr. Anthony Kazarnowicz writes:


"According to a survey (CFP, June 1), 83% of Catholics consider it 'morally acceptable' to use contraceptives to prevent pregnancy, 'despite church teachings to the contrary.'  The Church teaches that God designed sex for bonding between a husband and wife and for procreation.  In deciding for ourselves that it is 'morally acceptable' to unnaturally close sex to life, we have made ourselves (not God, or those whom Jesus placed in authority over us) the final arbiters of what is good and evil.  It's Satan's temptation to Adam and Eve all over again.

Next, we judged it 'morally acceptable' to separate sex from marriage.  So now, we have rampant sexual promiscuity, cohabitation before marriage and women treated as sex objects.  A pleasure-seeking 'Me Generation' was born.  Dads had live-in girlfriends; moms, live-in boyfriends.

With this denial of moral wrongdoing came the corresponding denial of sin and even a loss of a sense of sin.  Sacramental confessions dwindled.  However, divorces rose to 50% for first marriages, 65% for second marriages and higher for third marriages.

According to the survey, 53% of Catholics favor same-sex 'marriage.'  Heterosexuals who have lifeless sex are not likely to condemn lifeless homosexual sex.  Though homosexual sex is indeed unnatural, there is something even more unnatural - mothers killing their own babies by abortion - 'morally acceptable' to 35% of Catholics.

Before contraception, families were large.  But, children knew right from wrong, were disciplined, respected authority and learned sacrifice.  Families prayed together.  Confessions thrived; divorces were rare.  Most couples waited until marriage before having sex.  Parents accepted children as God's gift. Womanhood and motherhood were cherished.  Vocations to the priesthood and religious life flourished.

Contrasted are a culture of moral decay after contraception and a culture of life and love before contraception.  I pray all Catholics choose life and love."

Sadly, the Worcester Diocese has not always opted for a culture of life and love.  Back in March, I examined an article published in the dissent-friendly diocesan newspaper and written by Father John Catoir, a cleric who also has difficulty telling the truth.  This article was entitled "Birth Control Revisited."  And it was Father Catoir's assertion, while promoting a subjectivist conscience, that the Church's teaching regarding artificial contraception is "beyond the strength" of many Catholics. 

So much for the Worcester Diocese choosing a culture of life and love.

In a talk entitled "Legalism, Moral Truth and Pastoral Practice" given at a 1990 symposium in Philadelphia, Dr. Germain Grisez explained to those present that, "Theologians and pastors who dissent from received Catholic teaching think they are rejecting legalism because they set aside what they think are mere rules in favor of what they feel are more reasonable standards. Their views are thoroughly imbued with legalism, however. For dissenters think of valid moral norms as rules formulated to protect relevant values. Some even make their legalism explicit by denying that there is any necessary connection between moral goodness (which they restrict to the transcendental level of a love with no specific content) and right action (which they isolate at the categorical level of inner-worldly behavior). But whether their legalism is explicit or not, all the dissenters hold that specific moral norms admit exceptions whenever, all things considered, making an exception seems the best - or least bad - thing to do. Most dissenters also think that specific moral norms that were valid in times past can be inappropriate today, and so they regard the Church’s contested moral teachings as outdated rules that the Church should change."


Dr. Grisez reminded his listeners at the Philadelphia symposium, "During the twentieth century, pastoral treatment of repetitious sins through weakness - especially masturbation, homosexual behavior, premarital sex play and contraception within marriage - grew increasingly mild. Pastors correctly recognized that weakness and immaturity can lessen such sins’ malice. Thinking legalistically, they did not pay enough attention to the sins’ inherent badness and harmfulness, and they developed the idea that people can freely choose to do something that they regard as a grave matter without committing a mortal sin. This idea presupposes that in making choices people are not responsible precisely for choosing what they choose. That presupposition makes sense within a legalistic framework, because lawgivers can take into account mitigating factors and limit legal culpability. But it makes no sense for morality correctly understood, because moral responsibility in itself is not something attached to moral acts but simply is moral agents’ self-determination in making free choices.

Repetitious sinners through weakness also were handicapped by their own legalism. Not seeing the inherent badness of their sins, they felt that they were only violating inscrutable rules. When temptation grew strong, they had little motive to resist, especially because they could easily go to confession and have the violation fixed. Beginning on Saturday they were holy; by Friday they were again sinners. This cyclic sanctity robbed many people’s lives of Christian dynamism and contributed to the dry rot in the Church that became manifest in the 1960s, when the waves of sexual permissiveness battered her."


Dr. Grisez went on to explain that, "Pastors free of legalism will teach the faithful how sin makes moral requirements seem to be alien impositions, help them see through this illusion, and encourage them to look forward to and experience the freedom of God’s children, who rejoice in the fruit of the Spirit and no longer experience the constraint of law..They will explain that while one sometimes must choose contrary to positive laws and cannot always meet their requirements, one always can choose in truth and abide in love. They will acknowledge the paradox of freedom - that we seem unable to resist freely choosing to sin - the paradox that Saint Paul neatly formulates: ‘I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate’ (Romans 7:15). But they also will proclaim the liberating power of grace, and help the faithful learn by experience that when one comes to understand the inherent evil of sin and intrinsic beauty of goodness, enjoys the support of a community of faith whose members bear one another’s burdens, begs God for His help, and confidently expects it, then the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead raises him from his sins, and he discovers that with the Spirit’s grace one can consistently resist sin and choose life."

We would have more vocations to the priesthood in the Worcester Diocese if young men witnessed fidelity to the magisterial teaching of the Church from pastors [not to mention the diocesan newspaper] and if orthodox candidates were not excluded because of their commitment to the Church's authentic teaching, especially in the area of sexual morality.

I should know.  I'm one of the excluded.

You don't have a vocation in the Worcester Diocese unless you place community above truth?

Dr. Dietrich von Hildebrand reminds us, in his essay entitled "Is Unity among the Faithful the Highest Value?," that, "There is another great danger which goes together with the distortion of love of neighbor: the danger of putting community above truth, and of implicitly making peace the highest value.  Unfortunately this tendency to regard community as more important than truth is very widespread in the holy Church today.

The first great error which we find here is the separation of community from truth.  All genuine community among men presupposes that they encounter one another in a certain realm of goods.  The solidarity which comes from worshipping the same idol and working for it, or from working together for something false or evil, does not deserve the name of community.  Such a pseudo-community is a definite evil, and possesses a disvalue.  The value which community possesses as such is here poisoned by the disvalue of that which brings people together, of that in whose name they are united.  Surely unity, community has a value of its own.  The unity of man is something of value not only because it the opposite of strife and struggle; it also has a value which is absent as long as individual men are indeed at peace, but not united in community...Community based upon error or something evil not only has no value, it has a definite disvalue.  A pseudo-community built on some evil idol is something much worse than many individual, unrelated men who are in error or do evil.  It is not only that it is worse for many to fall into error or heresy than for one to do so; it is not a question merely of a quantitative increase.  No, it is the very unity of those who encounter one another in untruth and evil which gives birth to a pure disvalue and heightens the evil.

The value of true community, the concordia,  becomes in a pseudo-community a definite disvalue.  Thus it is utterly impossible to separate community from truth, and to make community the most important thing.  Community is dependent in both its nature and value on the truth on which it is built....The value of the truth and of the true Faith is thus undeniably greater than that of community...Indeed, the value of standing in the truth, and confessing the true God, is even greater than that of the marvelous community of the mystical body of Christ.  For it is in the true Faith and in real love of God that community with Him is constituted, and this is clearly the most important thing, and that from which all other community is dependent in its nature and value...overemphasis on community, on unity among men, this tendency to put unity above the truth and orthodoxy, is a consequence of the disastrous this-worldliness which is analogous to emphasizing love of neighbor at the expense of love of God.."

It would certainly appear that the Worcester Diocese has succumbed over the years to this tragic tendency to place unity above the truth.  The company man who is willing to "go along" with sin and error "for the sake of friendship" is most welcome in this distorted notion of "community."  But the man who puts the truth first is pushed to the margins and ostracized.  For example, I stand fully with the Church's magisterial teaching.  I defend the same.  On numerous occasions I have expressed my desire to pursue a vocation to the priesthood.  But my queries have been ignored.  But Mr. Jonathan Joseph Slavinskas has been welcomed with open arms.  The difference?  Deacon Slavinskas has had praise for the late Bishop Timothy J. Harrington (who was dissent-friendly) and for Fr. Joseph Coonan, a priest who was mired in scandal and who was placed on leave in 2002 when accusations were made against him.  Specifically, Fr. Coonan was accused of physically abusing as many as fifteen men as well as his own mother and sister.

Regarding Bishop Timothy J. Harrington, Catholic apologist Richard Blanchard wrote him an open letter in his "Just the Facts" newsletter some years ago.  In this open letter, Richard Blanchard wrote (in part):

"When the Holy Father's legate, Archbishop Pio Laghi, handed you the crosier he confirmed your three-fold ministry as head shepherd of the Worcester diocese.  You became the officially authorized Prophet, Priest, and King to the people of God....These are powers of God's making that you freely accepted to serve the people of God.  To exercise these duties in all their integrity you must be one with the Chief Shepherd, the Holy Father.  You have sworn allegiance to the Holy Father in a formal way before Bishop Flanagan and the appropriate documents were sent to Rome...

We are now in the seventh year of shepherding.  How does your sworn oath of allegiance stand?  Over the years dissenters have been allowed access to the diocesan newspaper of which you are the publisher.  Dissenters have free play in the Office of Vicar of Religious, the Diocesan Commission for Women, and the Department of Religious Education.  Dissenters have spread their lies about abortion, contraception, women priests, and the legitimacy to dissent against the Supreme Authority in the Church, the Holy Father....The Holy Father has asked that all bishops give proof of their pastoral ability and leadership by withholding all support from individuals or groups who, in the name of progress, justice, or compassion, or for any other reason, promote the ordination of women to the priesthood.  Yet you fully support your own Diocesan Commission for Women that has constantly promoted the cause for women's ordination.....You were given the names of arch-dissidents who freely go about their work of undermining the Faith in your diocese.  The list included Sister Anna Marie Kane, S.S.J., who is pro-choice and pro-women's ordination, Dr. Vincent Ford, Dr. Alice affey, Dr. Bernard Cooke, Dr. David O'Brien, all professors at Holy Cross, who dissent against Church teaching.  How does your sworn allegiance stand up to this?"

Because I have been asking the same questions since the early 1990s, because I too oppose such dissent, I am not welcome.  You see, I refuse to place community above truth.  I refuse to march in lockstep with those who oppose the mind of Christ.  I refuse to condone the sexual abuse of children or homosexual behavior or to portray such evils as "harmless fun and sex games."

The Third Reich placed unity over truth.  The Communists did the same.  So too did Jim Jones' "People's Temple" which soon enough became the People's Tomb.

Related reading here.

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?