Father John Catoir and those who produce The Catholic Free Press: the Church's teaching regarding artificial contraception is "beyond the strength" of many Catholics...

In a previous post, I noted how The Catholic Free Press [official newspaper of the Diocese of Worcester, Massachusetts], is now surprised that the government is mandating contraception and I wrote, "Once a people appeal to conscience in order to condone sin, it is only a matter of time before such sin is openly mandated. Long before contraception was being mandated by the government, there were those in the Church - including throughout the Diocese of Worcester - who were unleashing the leaven of infidelity by neglecting to preach against sin or by appealing to a dissenting notion of the primacy of conscience.


Richard Blanchard was documenting this infidelity (within the Worcester Diocese) at the same time I was writing against it in the pages of The Catholic Free Press more than twenty years ago. For example, in his newsletter 'Just The Facts,' No. 6, (1993), Richard noted how a Couple-to-Couple team was teaching CCD students preparing for Confirmation in Leominster, Massachusetts (St. Leo's Parish) that, 'If your conscience convinces you that birth control is right, even if the Church says its wrong, you can practice birth control and not be sinning.' And then Richard explains: 'This has been taught for over 20 years and still is being taught in this diocese [Worcester]. The basis for this teaching is dissent and a dissenting concept of the primacy of conscience which is nothing less than situation ethics.'

In the same newsletter, Richard Blanchard noted that, 'During the episcopate of Timothy J. Harrington...dissent and disobedience has flourished and taken deep roots....in September of 1984 Sister Anna Kane was appointed Vicar of Religious and Director of the then Office of Women, at the same time she became a member of Bishop Harrington's administrative cabinet. She became very militant against Humanae Vitae. Under the administration of Fr. Piermarini, (now Msgr), the religious education department employed Dr. Vincent Forde, Bernard Cooke and Alice Laffey as instructors of the Education in Ministry Program, also known as the Master Catechist Program which has for its goal, master certification for CCD teaching. All [of these instructors] openly strong advocates against the teaching on birth control in Humanae Vitae.'

Within the pages of The Catholic Free Press, Humanae Vitae was openly mocked. For example, in his "Essay in Theology" column entitled "Humanae Vitae; a troubling silence (CFP, August 13, 1993), dissident priest Father Richard P. McBrien referred to the Church as "a dysfunctional family" because it will not change its teaching on the sinfullness of artificial contraception to appease those who just cannot or will not accept it.

As a result of 40 years of poor catechesis - or none at all - and outright complacency throughout the Catholic Church in America, too many people today (including sadly, many Catholics) have come to view conscience as a sort of fortress built so as to shelter them 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."

If anyone is naive enough to think that this mindset isn't to be found within the Worcester Diocese any longer, they deceive themselves.  This week's Catholic Free Press features an article written by Father John Catoir.  In his article entitled "Birth-Control Revisited," the confused priest does his best to deify the subjective conscience writing, "The condemnation of contraceptives by the Church has led to great turmoil in the past.."  Of course, Fr. Catoir neglects to mention why: the fact that Charles Curran and a host of other dissidents led a campaign against Pope Paul VI's Encyclical Letter Humanae Vitae.  Fr. Catoir continues: "..but no one in authority condemns any individual who is not able to comply with the letter of the law."  That is certainly true.  The Church doesn't condemn the sinner.  The sinner condemns himself or herself in this case by rejecting God's plan for marriage and family.

Fr. Catoir: "The grave responsibilities of raising a large family are daunting, nevertheless the grace of God abounds.  Most married couples are generous in doing what they can, even if it is less than the ideal.  Our culture makes raising a large family extremely difficult for most couples, consequently, the U.S. bishops issued a pastoral letter, 'On Human Life,' back in 1968 to help them form their conscience.  Here is an excerpt from that document: 'In the final analysis, conscience is inviolable, and no person is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his/her conscience, as the moral tradition of the Church attests...'

Of course, Fr. Catoir - being the intellectually dishonest cleric that he is - conveniently omits the Church's teaching, as reflected in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, regarding the formation of conscience which Pope Benedict XVI addressed above:


"Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings." (CCC, 1783)

And again:

"The education of the conscience is a lifelong task. From the earliest years, it awakens the child to the knowledge and practice of the interior law recognized by conscience. Prudent education teaches virtue; it prevents or cures fear, selfishness and pride, resentment arising from guilt, and feelings of complacency, born of human weakness and faults. The education of the conscience guarantees freedom and engenders peace of heart." (CCC, 1784).

And again:

"In the formation of conscience the Word of God is the light for our path, we must assimilate it in faith and prayer and put it into practice. We must also examine our conscience before the Lord's Cross. We are assisted by the gifts of the Holy Spirit, aided by the witness or advice of others and guided by the authoritative teaching of the Church." (CCC, 1785).

So Fr. Catoir is simply regurgitating that devilish and (in the words of Richard Blanchard) that "dissenting concept of the primacy of conscience which is nothing less than situation ethics."

Back to Fr. Catoir, the charitable Catholic priest who would allow married couples to remain in grave sin and so be eternally lost: "The fact that a very high percentage of Catholics have found it necessary to use contraceptives in order to limit the number of their children, is not the issue behind the bishop's reaction to Obama-care.  The bishops are not trying to force anyone to do what they deem to be beyond their strength..."

Do you see what Fr. Catoir is saying here?   That a "very high percentage of Catholics" has decided to contracept because they deem the Church's teaching [which is Christ's teaching] to be too difficult and that this is "okay" because such people are merely following the dictates of their own conscience, a conscience which is inviolable.

Fr. Catoir is really doing the devil's work here.  And so is The Catholic Free Press by publishing his garbage.  But then, those who produce the CFP obviously share his defeatist view.  This represents a real tragedy.  The first Bishop of Worcester, John J. Wright - later made a Cardinal - writing about Pope Paul VI's Encyclical Letter Humanae Vitae, stated that, "The pressures on Pope Paul VI to speak on contraception other than he did have been massive.  They have been pressures of human respect, politics, prestigious opinion, emotional torment, threats that Church unity might be destroyed or ecumenical hopes dimmed....What Pope Paul has done, what he had to do, is recall to a generation that does not like the word, the fact that sin exists; that artificial contraception is objectively sinful; that those who impose it, foster it, counsel it, whether they be governments, experts, or - God forgive them! - spiritual directors, impose, foster and counsel objective sin."

Isn't this exactly what Fr. Catoir - and those who produce The Catholic Free Press by extension since they published his views - are doing?  Fostering objective sin?

What of Fr. Catoir's implication that the Church's teaching regarding artificial contraception is "beyond the strength" of many Catholics?  Hard yes. But beyond the strength of these Catholics?  God always provides His grace, His special help, to those who seek (honestly) to fulfill this law as well as all His commands.  The Lord Jesus did not promise anyone an easy, carefree life in this world.  In fact, He warned us all - religious, married or single - that there is a price which must be paid to enter the Kingdom of Heaven: "If any man will come after Me, let him deny himself, take up his cross and follow Me." (Matthew 16: 24).

Father Catoir, and those who produce The Catholic Free Press, apparently do not accept this teaching of the Master.  For them, it is "beyond the strength" of ordinary Catholics.  And when the Lord says [to us all] "My grace is sufficient for thee," He is obviously mistaken.

Pray for them.

Related reading: Catholic Free Press columnist Stacy Trasancos.

Pope Benedict XVI urges the people of the United States to remain sane...

On Friday, Pope Benedict XVI insisted that, "Sexual differences cannot be dismissed as irrelevant to the definition of marriage."  See here.  The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in its document entitled "Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons," had this to say: "The inevitable consequence of legal recognition of homosexual unions would be the redefinition of marriage, which would become, in its legal status, an institution devoid of essential reference to factors linked to heterosexuality; for example, procreation and raising children. If, from the legal standpoint, marriage between a man and a woman were to be considered just one possible form of marriage, the concept of marriage would undergo a radical transformation, with grave detriment to the common good. By putting homosexual unions on a legal plane analogous to to that of marriage and the family, the State acts arbitrarily and in contradiction with its duties." (No. 8).

In No. 8 of Considerations, the CDF explains that, "Differentiating between persons or refusing social recognition or benefits is unacceptable only when it is contrary to justice. The denial of the social and legal status of marriage to forms of cohabitation that are not and cannot be marital is not opposed to justice; on the contrary, justice requires it."

I have said this many times before: the retreat from truth is necessary before the reign of Antichrist. There is a preparation. Many are "intellectualizing" themselves into dissent and apostasy from the true Faith. The battlefield is in the mind. The attack is intellectual and psychological. Sin must be justified so that a new religion can turn vices into gods.

What is this but a form of insanity? In the words of the late (great) F.J. Sheed: "..if we see anything - ourself or some other man, or the Universe as a whole or any part of it - without at the same time seeing God holding it there, then we are seeing it all wrong. If we saw a coat hanging on a wall and did not realize that it was held there by a hook, we should not be living in the real world at all, but in some fantastic world of our own in which coats defied the law of gravity and hung on walls by their own power. Similarly if we see things in existence and do not in the same act see that they are held in existence by God, then equally we are living in a fantastic world, not the real world. Seeing God everywhere and all things upheld by Him is not a matter of sanctity; but of plain sanity, because God is everywhere and all things are upheld by Him...To overlook God's presence is not simply to be irreligious; it is a kind of insanity, like overlooking anything else that is actually there." (Theology and Sanity, p.6).

But this is precisely what those who promote same-sex "marriage" are doing.  They are overlooking God's presence and His Commandments.

Why is the UN censoring pro-life speech?

“They promise..freedom, but they themselves are slaves of corruption…” (2 Peter 2:19).




Wendy Wright, reporting for C-FAM, notes how, "Youth attending a UN conference on women’s issues this week say UN security officers confiscated their backpacks after discovering pro-life literature.

The confiscated materials were petitions to 'Stop Sexualizing Children,' and were connected to a UN approved workshop led this week by Dr. Miriam Grossman, a child psychiatrist and author of 'You're Teaching My Child What? A Physician Exposes the Lies of Sex Education and How They Harm Your Child.'

The offending flyer announced a project called the 'Girls Coalition to Protect the Health and Innocence of Children,' which is an ad hoc group that sponsored the Grossman event. At the panel, girls from China, Spain and Mexico launched a petition calling on UN agencies to 'Stop Sexualizing Children.' They charge the UN’s promotion of 'comprehensive sexuality education' is harmful to children.

The young people insist they were not leafleting, which is forbidden on UN property, though it is routinely ignored. The young students left UN grounds to make more copies. Upon their return they were stopped by UN security.

One of the students, Kalli Lawrence, said that the guards noticed the group’s distinctive green backpacks and then ordered the students to hand them over. 'The guards had this confused, angry look on their faces,' she reported, 'and they started telling all the security guards, "don’t let any of these yellow papers go through, just take them all and keep them."'

The green backpacks and literature were stored in lockers at a security checkpoint. Students and their teachers were allowed to retrieve some of the backpacks as they left UN property. According to teacher Jody Dunn, some of the backpacks were not returned, those that contained a pro-life documentary called '180'. Dunn then insisted and those backpacks were returned also.

Pro-lifers have long felt the sting of selective enforcement of UN rules. Kali Lawrence said, 'They didn’t stop anyone else that we could see passing out flyers.'

Upon questioning by the Friday Fax, the security officer in charge at the time said guards don’t 'target' items. He went on to say they were not allowed to discuss policies or procedures.

Observers speculate that someone connected to Commission organizers complained to UN security. At the Cairo conference on Population and Development in 1994, without any evidence, former US Senator Timothy Wirth told UN security that a certain pro-lifer was a violent threat. The person was detained and deported.

Alliance Defense Fund attorney Piero Tozzi told the Friday Fax, 'The UN cannot censor speech it does not agree with. Both the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression and the Human Rights Committee have recently emphasized the need to protect this fundamental freedom. Why then is speech by respectful, clean cut kids on a topic vital to keeping young people healthy being censored at the UN?'

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states, “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom . . . to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." (See article here).

Why is speech by respectful, clean cut kids being censored at the UN?  Because, the United Nations has succumbed to demonic ideology.  If you doubt this for even one moment, consider that the same UN permits professor (and Catholic priest) Michael O'Flaherty, a radical homosexual activist, to promote the Yogyakarta Principles, a blueprint for usurping parental rights while indoctrinating children in gender-bending ideology.  See my past post here.

Satan does not want us to live in peace and harmony. His intention is to make a physical and spiritual wreckage of all God’s creation. To this end he enlists men in that attempt by their lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes and pride of life. He is especially anxious to seduce the young and to corrupt them so thoroughly that they come to resemble more and more the devils they then follow.

The Catholic Church teaches that, “Educating children for chastity strives to achieve three objectives: (a) to maintain in the family a positive atmosphere of love, virtue, and respect for the gifts of God, in particular the gift of life; (b) to help children to understand the value of sexuality and chastity in stages, sustaining their growth through enlightening word, example, and prayer; (c) to help them understand and discover their own vocation to marriage or to consecrated virginity for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven in harmony with and respecting their attitudes and inclinations and the gifts of the Spirit.” (The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality (Guidelines for Education Within the Family), issued by the Pontifical Council for the Family, No. 3).

This requires self-control, which is why chastity is so important: “One cannot give what one does not possess. If the person is not master of self – through the virtues and, in a concrete way, through chastity – he or she lacks that self-possession which makes self-giving possible. Chastity is the spiritual power which frees love from selfishness and aggression.” (The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality, No. 16).

Satan knows this. And so he wages a battle against chastity through sex-education which radically separates sex from the very idea of the covenanted love of man and woman, a sex education and propaganda which the group POPE (Parents for Orthodoxy in Parochial Education) referred to as, “the spiritual, emotional rape of our children through various and devious methods of mind manipulation” (“Do Sex-Education Programs Corrupt Youth? The Wanderer, April 17, 1969).

Just as Pope John Paul II created a World Youth Day to instill Gospel values in our young people, the Evil One has enlisted men to create a World Youth Conference in which Gospel values are subverted. As Terrence McKeegan, J.D., reported for C-FAM back in 2010, "...at the World Youth Conference, organized primarily by the Mexican government and the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), the main event for most of [the] estimated 5,000 ‘participants’ was the Interactive Global Forum, a massive expo with hundreds of booths and exhibits. A tour of the booths revealed what passes for ‘age-appropriate’ sexual education in some UN circles. Because the venue for the World Youth Conference had considerably more exhibit space than most UN conferences, it was a unique opportunity for organizations focusing on youth to put their best face forward. In the expo hall, there were dozens of booths with pornographic or sexually explicit materials or presentations.

At the International Planned Parenthood Federation (the largest provider of abortion services in the world) booth, their table featured the sexually explicit brochure: 'Healthy, Happy, and Hot', which garnered headlines last March due to its distribution at a Girl Scouts side event at the UN Commission on the Status of Women.
At a booth by an organization named 'RECREA,' there was a table with a bowl of condoms and a wooden phallus. The walls of the exhibit booth were covered with pornographic and sexually suggestive photos. Nearby there were two glass cases featuring rubber models of male and female genitalia, as well as a bright assortment of condoms.



At the Fundacion Collectivo de Mujeres Jovenes booth,which was staffed by two middle-aged men, the presentation largely consisted of a collection of thong underwear hung up around the booth, as well as a 'snakes and ladders' floor game with puffy dice." 

Did you catch the name of that "game"?  Snakes and ladders.  Who is the serpent?

To sum up: Pro-Life literature is taboo at the UN.  But not wooden phalluses, condoms, pornographic and sexually suggestive photos.

This is the essence of the new anti-Christian sex education in preparation for the Moloch State. As George Kendall explains in Witness for the Truth, this sex education "radically separates sex from the very idea of the covenanted love of man and woman. Sex becomes merely a self-centered appetite to be satisfied and not a gift of self to another. As a result, what this kind of education produces is the lonely, autonomous individual. This is the ultimate in alienation. The autonomous individual is alienated even from his own body, which becomes to him only a thing, too - a thing to be used as a means to his autonomous pleasure. The end result is depersonalization which, if it lasts into eternity without being healed, means eternal loss.

Few have put it as eloquently as Randy Engel did: 'Is it any wonder that the state must wage war against the family? For the state requires not individuals who dream, and think, and pray, but rather what has come to be called 'the mass man' - rootless, unaffirmed, a reactor - a mere reed blowing in the wind - a thing to be manipulated, to be used, to be disposed of, but never, never, to be loved, for the giant has no heart. And since the modern state has no heart, that which men previously have done out of love, must now be done out of fear, and hatred, and brute force.' So clearly, centemporary sex education, 'Catholic' or otherwise, is a profound attack on human dignity and on the human person.." (Witness for the Truth, pp. 399-400. citing Randy Engel "The Family Under Siege," Wanderer, March 6, 1980).


And now I would add, satanic. The United Nations, spiritual headquarters for the Termite Nations of the West, is advancing the concept of the Moloch State which claims total jurisdiction over man. The Moloch State will serve as a demon-state which rejects God's Commandments and His plan for the human family. This demon-state (and make no mistake about it, our leaders increasingly have recourse to demons) denies that there is any transcendent, higher-than-human voice or authority that cares for man. R.J. Rushdoony explains that:

"The Moloch State simply represents the supreme effort of man to command the future, to predestine the world, and to be as God. Lesser efforts, divination, spirit-questing, magic and witchcraft are equally anathema to God. All represent efforts to have the future on other than God's terms, to have a future apart from and in defiance of God. They are assertions that the world is not of God but of brute factuality, and that man can somehow master the world and the future by going directly to the raw materials thereof."

Enter the Man of Sin.

John 5: 43.

For Heather Mallick, columnist for The Star, Catholic teaching is irrelevant and the role of men today is to keep their views to themselves

Heather Mallick, columnist for The Star, is angry.  What has her so upset?  The fact that a young man who attends a Catholic school should have the audacity to exhort young women to be modest in their attire.

Matt Gurney, writing for the National Post, said that the 17 year old Catholic student, "clearly believes that many of his female peers do not treat each other, or themselves, with due respect, and he wishes that everyone would focus more on how wonderful they are on the inside and not how attractive they can make themselves on the outside."  This is a message any sane person would stand behind.  And it is, in fact, a message which Sister Mary of the Immaculate Heart (Lucia dos Santos of the Fatima apparition), had for the young women of today: "When I think of the United States I think about this: one of the things which Our Lady especially asked for was modesty in dress.  There does not seem to be much modesty in the life of the women of your country.  But modesty would be a good sacrifice to offer Our Lady, and it would please her if the Catholics in your country would make a league for modesty in dress."

But Mallick believes she knows better.  So enraged is she that a young man should embrace Catholic teaching on modesty and the dignity of women that she lashes out with that vitriolic rage which is so characteristic of today's intellectually impoverished radical feminist.  She writes, "There’s a kind of man universally unpopular with women. He is Controlling Man. Just say 'he’s kind of controlling' to your women friends and they hiss and draw back as if they’d been sprayed with lemon juice. From whence do controlling men come? I always wondered and now I know. Paul Gomille, a 17-year-old student at Archbishop Denis O’Connor Catholic High School in Ajax, wrote a message to the girls and women at his school, a declaration that he claimed 'strikes at the very core of humanity itself, in an attempt to make a revelation of truth apparent to all of you, with awe inspiring certainty.' Really, Martin Luther could take lessons from this guy. Who taught him this nonsense?...Females from age 2 to 92 speak as one: We do not care to hear male opinions on our clothes unless it’s 'You look fabulous in that. Radiant. Wow.' When we ask you if the sweater works with the scarf, the word we want to hear is 'yes.' And then, frankly, we’ll change the sweater. If he’s a Controlling Man who says it’s too tight or uses the phrases 'no wife of mine will . . . ' we detach...Gomille may be 17 but he sounds 102 and we hear from males like him all our lives. They’re correctors, judges, buzzkills...There’s a worrying prescriptiveness in Gomille’s unasked-for definition of how his fellow students should dress. We women are half the world. In the workplace men and women stand side-by-side and are gradually learning how to accommodate each other’s differences. Keep your advice to yourself, preacher. Trust me, girls like that in a boy." (See article here).

For radical feminists like Mallick, Catholic teaching has no place in society and the only legitimate function of men today is to keep their mouths shut unless they are willing to totally agree with the women who surround them.  This is a necessary corrective since all of the world's evils originate in "male supremacy" and a "patriarchal culture."

The reality is, of course, something far different  In the words of Robert Bork, "..feminism is by far the strongest and most imperialistic [on today's college campuses], its influence suffusing the most traditional academic departments and university administrations. Feminists are revising and radicalizing textbooks and curricula in the humanities and the social sciences. They have a major say in faculty recruitment. Feminists increasingly control what is taught in high schools and elementary schools as well. Speech codes and 'sensitivity' training severely limit what can be said on campus. The feminists have not only done harm to the intellectual function of universities and schools, they have made campuses extremely unpleasant, especially for white males, who are subject to harassment and demands that they toe the feminist cultural and political line." (Slouching Toward Gomorrah).

For Mallick, Paul Gomille is attempting to be a "controlling man" because he had the sheer unmitigated gall to....offer his opinion.  And for that, this young man deserves to be silenced.  And suspended from his school.  For the role of men today is one of subservience - one of complete subjugation to women.  This is what women like, this is what they demand, from men today according to the radical feminist creed. Which is why she writes, "Keep your advice to yourself, preacher. Trust me, girls like that in a boy."

Not all girls Heather.  Only angry and bitter feminists like you who are frozen in 1960s nostalgia.  We've all heard your act.  And it didn't play well.  It's time for you to move on. 

In any case, we've heard enough from the Controlling Woman - the radical feminist.

Liberal hypocrisy and the incivility of the left...

We've all witnessed the liberal establishment pouncing on Rush Limbaugh this past week because of comments which he directed at Sandra Fluke, a long time liberal activist.

Brian Maloney, writing at his Blog Radio Equalizer, notes how, "When looking for fresh examples of 'progressive' hate talk, it really doesn't take much digging. From any day's libtalk lineup, pick an hour at random and one or more will usually slither its way to the surface quickly enough. But why go to the trouble? We've already done the work for you, tracking lefty smears by the hundreds (thousands?) here at this site for years. It's all right here.

Despite their horrible nature, it's quite rare to see these instances picked up by the establishment media. Conservatives apparently deserve to be slandered. That's why the latest manufactured OUTRAGE (!!!!!!!!!!!!!) from our 'progressive' friends rings hollow. If subjected to the same standard applied to Rush Limbaugh this week, not one libtalker would still be on their air. Instead, two of the most hateful spent today celebrating a new cable talk deal." (See his full post here).

Remember when Alec Baldwin made an appearance on Late Night with Conan O’Brien on December 12, 1998, eight days before President Bill Clinton was to be impeached, and said, "..if we were in another country...we would stone Henry Hyde to death and we would go to their homes and kill their wives and their children. We would kill their families, for what they’re doing to this country."

Where was the liberal outrage?  If Rush Limbaugh crossed a line, isn't it fair to say that Alec Baldwin not only crossed the line but obliterated it?  How about the thousands of other examples of liberal hate speech provided at Brian Maloney's Blog? 

Hypocrisy is the pretension to qualities which one does not possess. Capuchin Father Raniero Cantalamessa, in a sermon delivered in the presence of Pope Benedict XVI on March 11, 2007, explained the gravity of hypocrisy: "Hypocrisy is the sin that is most powerfully denounced by God in the Bible and the reason for this is clear. With his hypocrisy, man demotes God, he puts him in second place, putting the creature, the public, in first place. "Man sees the appearance, the Lord sees the heart" (1 Samuel 16:7): Cultivating our appearance more than our heart means giving greater importance to man than to God.


Hypocrisy is thus essentially a lack of faith; but it is also a lack of charity for our neighbor in the sense that it tends to reduce persons to admirers. It does not recognize their proper dignity, but sees them only in function of one's own image.

Christ's judgment on hypocrisy is without appeal: "Receperunt mercedem suam" (They have already received their reward)! A reward that is, above all, illusory, even on a human level because we know that glory flees from those that seek it, and seeks those who flee from it.

Jesus' invectives against the scribes and the Pharisees also help us understand the meaning of purity of heart. Jesus' criticisms focus on the opposition between the "inside" and the "outside," the interior and the exterior of man. 'Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead men's bones and filth. So you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but within you are full of hypocrisy and iniquity' (Matthew 23:27-28).

The revolution which Jesus brings about here is of incalculable significance. Before him, except for some rare hint in the prophets and the Psalms — 'Who will ascend the mountain of the Lord? Those whose hands are innocent and whose hearts are pure' (Psalm 24:3) — purity was understood in a ritual and cultural way; it consisted in keeping one's distance from things, animals, persons or places that were understood to contaminate one and separate one from God's holiness. Above all, these were things associated with birth, death, food and sexuality. In different forms and with different presuppositions, other religions outside the Bible shared these ideas.

Jesus makes a clean sweep of all these taboos and does so first of all by certain gestures: He eats with sinners, touches lepers, mixes with pagans. All of these were taken to be highly unsanitary things. He also sweeps away these taboos with his teachings. The solemnity with which he introduces his discourse on the pure and the impure makes apparent how conscious he was of the novelty of his doctrine. "And he called the people to him again and said to them: 'Hear me all of you and understand; there is nothing outside a man that by going into him can defile him. It is the things that come out of a man that can defile him.... For from within, out of the heart of a man, come evil thoughts, fornication, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a man'" (Mark 7:14-17,21-23)."

Jesus knew that the pharisees often preached a good game but that they failed to live up to what they preached. Which is why He told His listeners, "Do as they say, not as they do." Might not the same be said of the liberal mainstream media with its selective outrage?

Why should those who produce The Catholic Free Press be surprised that government is now mandating contraception?

In an editorial entitled, "Stop the erosion of religious liberty," The Catholic Free Press, official newspaper of the Diocese of Worcester, Massachusetts, laments that, "The Obama administration has embarked on a systematic effort to erode religious liberty to the point of non-existence by attempting to restrict it solely to freedom of worship.  Through administrative policies and mandates, religious liberty and freedom of conscience in the United States is under attack, as witnessed by the most recent 'accommodation.'..The Obama administration has been chipping away at the right of religious institutions to abide by their beliefs when those beliefs oppose the secularist agenda, particularly in the arena of morality.  This was clearly evident in the decision not to renew a federal grant by the Department of Health and Human Services to the bishops'  Migration and Refugee Services for its human trafficking program because it would not provide the full range of reproductive services, including abortion and contraception, to human trafficking victims and unaccompanied refugee minors...President Obama made the decision to impose the Department of Health and Human Services' Interim Final Rules on Preventive Services, requiring all private health plans, including those of Catholic hospitals, charities and schools, to provide coverage of prescription contraceptives, including abortion-inducing drugs, and sterilization for women.  The so-called "religious employer" exemption that was put forth with these rules is so narrowly defined that it is meaningless.  Unless a religious institution employs and serves only individuals of the same religious tradition, it does not qualify for the exemption.  Therefore, Catholic hospitals and schools who serve people of all faiths, precisely because of their Catholic mission, do not qualify for the exemption.  The recent 'accommodation' offered in response to the outcry that resulted from this mandate, which was unquestionably a direct assault on the Roman Catholic Church's religious liberty, does not lessen the concerns initially raised...We cannot lose sight of the fact that the 'accommodation' does not alter the Obama administration's mandate promoting contraception, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs as a matter of government policy.  It is particularly troubling that the attitude toward human life identifies pregnancy as a disease, posing a threat to one's health.."

How did we get to where we are in the United States?  In the words of Archbishop Charles Chaput, spoken in 2009, "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..."


Once a people appeal to conscience in order to condone sin, it is only a matter of time before such sin is openly mandated.  Long before contraception was being mandated by the government, there were those in the Church - including throughout the Diocese of Worcester - who were unleashing the leaven of infidelity by neglecting to preach against sin or by appealing to a dissenting notion of the primacy of conscience.

Richard Blanchard was documenting this infidelity (within the Worcester Diocese) at the same time I was writing against it in the pages of The Catholic Free Press more than twenty years ago.  For example, in his newsletter "Just The Facts," No. 6, (1993), Richard noted how a Couple-to-Couple team was teaching CCD students preparing for Confirmation in Leominster, Massachusetts (St. Leo's Parish) that, "If your conscience convinces you that birth control is right, even if the Church says its wrong, you can practice birth control and not be sinning."  And then Richard explains: "This has been taught for over 20 years and still is being taught in this diocese [Worcester].  The basis for this teaching is dissent and a dissenting concept of the primacy of conscience which is nothing less than situation ethics."

In the same newsletter, Richard Blanchard noted that, "During the episcopate of Timothy J. Harrington...dissent and disobedience has flourished and taken deep roots....in September of 1984 Sister Anna Kane was appointed Vicar of Religious and Director of the then Office of Women, at the same time she became a member of Bishop Harrington's administrative cabinet.  She became very militant against Humanae Vitae.  Under the administration of Fr. Piermarini, (now Msgr), the religious education department employed Dr. Vincent Forde, Bernard Cooke and Alice Laffey as instructors of the Education in Ministry Program, also known as the Master Catechist Program which has for its goal, master certification for CCD teaching.  All [of these instructors] openly strong advocates against the teaching on birth control in Humanae Vitae."

Within the pages of The Catholic Free Press, Humanae Vitae was openly mocked.  For example, in his "Essay in Theology" column entitled "Humanae Vitae; a troubling silence (CFP, August 13, 1993), dissident priest Father Richard P. McBrien referred to the Church as "a dysfunctional family" because it will not change its teaching on the sinfullness of artificial contraception to appease those who just cannot or will not accept it.


As a result of 40 years of poor catechesis - or none at all - and outright complacency throughout the Catholic Church in America,  too many people today (including sadly, many Catholics) have come to view conscience as a sort of fortress built so as to shelter them 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."

And subjectivity raised to the ultimate standard gives rise to dictatorship. For, as Pope John Paul II reminded us in Centesimus Annus, "Authentic democracy is possible only in a State ruled by law, and on the basis of a correct conception of the human person. It requires that the necessary conditions be present for the advancement both of the individual through education and formation in true ideals, and of the 'subjectivity' of society through the creation of structures of participation and shared responsibility. Nowadays there is a tendency to claim that agnosticism and sceptical relativism are the philosophy and the basic attitude which correspond to democratic forms of political life. Those who are convinced that they know the truth and firmly adhere to it are considered unreliable from a democratic point of view, since they do not accept that truth is determined by the majority, or that it is subject to variation according to different political trends. It must be observed in this regard that if there is no ultimate truth to guide and direct political activity, then ideas and convictions can easily be manipulated for reasons of power. As history demonstrates, a democracy without values easily turns into open or thinly disguised totalitarianism."

Why should those who produce The Catholic Free Press be surprised that government is now mandating contraception?  The Church in the United States is only reaping what it has sown.

Archbishop Diarmuid Martin: Catholicism in Ireland at "breaking point."

The Most Rev. Diarmuid Martin, Archbishop of Dublin, is saying that Catholicism is at the "breaking point" in Ireland.  See here.

An obscure book entitled, "The Most Ancient Lives of Saint Patrick Including the Life by Jocelin, Hitherto Unpublished in America, and His Extant Writings," recounts a remarkable prophecy which was given to Saint Patrick in a vision.


Chapter CLXXV of this work explains that, "The different States of Hibernia* are in a Heavenly Vision shown unto the Saint. And the man of God anxiously desired and earnestly prayed that he might be certified of the present and the future state of Hibernia, to the end that he might be assured of the faith, or of the value that his labors bore in the sight of God. Then the Lord heard the desire of his heart, and manifested the same unto him by an evident revelation; for while he was engaged in prayer, and the heart of his mind was opened, he beheld the whole island as it were a flaming fire ascending unto heaven; and he heard the angel of God saying unto him: 'Such at this time is Hibernia in the sight of the Lord.' And after a little space he beheld in all parts of the island even as mountains of fire stretching unto the skies. And again after a little space he beheld as it were candles burning, and after a while darkness intervened; and then he beheld fainter lights, and at length he beheld coals lying hidden here and there, as reduced unto ashes, yet still burning. And the angel added: 'What thou seest here shown, such shall be the people of Hibernia.' Then the saint, exceedingly weeping, often repeated the words of the Psalmist, saying: 'Whether will God turn himself away for ever, and will he be no more entreated? Shall his mercy come to an end from generation to generation? Shall God forget to be merciful, and shut up his mercy in his displeasure?'

And the angel said, 'Look toward the northern side, and on the right hand of a height shalt thou behold the darkness dispersed from the face of the light which thenceforth will arise.' Then the saint raised his eyes, and behold, he at first saw a small light arising in Ulydia, the which a long time contended with the darkness, and at length dispersed it, and illumined with its rays the whole island. Nor ceased the light to increase and to prevail, even until it had restored to its former fiery state all Hibernia. Then was the heart of the saint filled with joy, and his heart with exultation, giving thanks for all these things which had been shown unto him: and he understood in the greatness of this fiery ardor of the Christian faith the devotion and the zeal of religion, wherewith those islanders burned. By the fiery mountains he understood the men who would be holy in their miracles and their virtues, eminent in their preachings and their examples; by the lessening of the light, the decrease of holiness; by the darkness that covered the land, the infidelity which would prevail therein; by the intervals of delay, the distances of the succeeding times."

Let us remember the needs of the Church in Ireland, as well as our own spiritual and physical needs, as we pray the prayer of Saint Patrick:

May the Strength of God pilot us.

May the Power of God preserve us.
May the Wisdom of God instruct us.
May the Hand of God protect us.
May the Way of God direct us.
May the Shield of God defend us.
May the Host of God guard us.
Against the snares of the evil ones.
Against temptations of the world


May Christ be with us!
May Christ be before us!
May Christ be in us,
Christ be over all!

May Thy Salvation, Lord,
Always be ours,
Amen.

* Ireland.

Paul Gomille: Champion for Modesty

Writing for the National Post, Matt Gurney tells us that, 'Last month, on Valentine’s Day, student Paul Gomille circulated 136 copies of a speech that he had written. He passed them out in the cafeteria of his Toronto-area Catholic high school. The speech was on the topic of a woman’s inner beauty — Mr. Gomille, 17, clearly believes that many of his female peers do not treat each other, or themselves, with due respect, and he wishes that everyone would focus more on how wonderful they are on the inside and not how attractive they can make themselves on the outside.


For circulating this speech...Mr. Gomille was suspended for two days. The reason for the suspension? 'Opposition to authority.' Apparently stating the obvious about teenagers now counts as an act of rebellion.

The decision to suspend Mr. Gomille goes back to his original hope to deliver his thoughts in a public address. Mr. Gomille reportedly approached the principal with his idea and asked for permission to address the school. This was initially met favourably, especially since the school received much public attention earlier this (academic) year when administrators noted that many of the female student body (no pun intended) were hiking their kilt skirts too high, yet another statement of the blindingly obvious. Principal Donna Modeste, according to Mr. Gomille, welcomed the positive nature of Mr. Gomille’s message.

But not all of it, in the end. Principal Modeste objected to a particular section of Mr. Gomillle’s letter, which she felt was 'judgmental':

The people this message concerns are the young women of this school, and of the world. In particular, it concerns the silent ones, the intelligent ones, the ones that don’t talk about people behind their backs, the ones that guys don’t flock to in droves, the ones that don’t dress in revealing clothing, the ones who would love to be in love, and the ones that are continually disappointed in their appearance because the only thing they have to compare themselves to are the women that have been put on pedestals by our society. This message also concerns those of you who may consider yourselves the so called 'opposite' to the demographic I just described. The ones who do dress in revealing clothing, and the ones who try to fit in with the crowd.

Principal Modeste requested changes to this section of the speech. Rather than comply, Mr. Gomille chose instead to distribute his speech, in its original form, by handing out copies of the text in the cafeteria. That’s when he was suspended for opposition to authority." (See full National Post article here).

In our modern, paganistic world, we are constantly bombarded with the promotion of immodesty and impurity and far too many "good" people remain apathetic to the problem.  And along comes Mr. Gomille, a courageous young man who is willing to take a stand for modesty and purity, and he is suspended for "opposition to authority."  But are we not told in Acts 5: 29 that when the authority of men comes into conflict with the authority of God, it is "better for us to obey God than men"?  Or does Principal Modeste believe that her authority trumps God's authority?  Are we not told in 1 Peter 2: 12 to, "Be careful to live properly among your unbelieving neighbors. Then even if they accuse you of doing wrong, they will see your honorable behavior, and they will give honor to God when he judges the world."  And in 1 Timothy 2:9, does not the Holy Spirit tell us through the Apostle that, - "..I want women to be modest in their appearance. They should wear decent and appropriate clothing and not draw attention to themselves by the way they fix their hair or by wearing gold or pearls or expensive clothes."  And are we not told in 1 Peter 3: 3-4 - that, "Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as braided hair and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes. Instead, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God's sight."

What of Principal Modeste's accusation that a passage from Paul's speech is judgmental?  What if it is?   As Dr. Germain Grisez explains, "It might seem to follow that love must accept everyone, even enemies, just as they are, and to affirm them even in the error or sin which is present in them. But the law of love does not require indiscriminate affirmation of everything about other persons (see Saint Thomas Aquinas, S.t., 2-2, q.34, a.3). One's love must be like Jesus'. He loves sinners and brings them into communion with himself in order to overcome their error and sin. When the scribes and pharisees bring a woman caught in adultery to Jesus, he not only saves her from being stoned to death but warns her not to sin again (see John 8:3-11). In a true sense, Jesus is not judgmental, he sets aside the legalistic mentality, readily forgives sinners, does not condemn the world, and points out that those who refuse to acknowledge their sinfulness are self-condemned by the truth they violate (see John 3:16-21). But he realistically recognizes sinners as sinners and never accepts error as truth...Similarly, if Christians' love of neighbor is genuine, it not only permits but requires them both to 'hold fast to what is good' and to 'hate what is evil' (Romans 12:9)."


And again, according to Dr. Grisez, "Vatican II neatly formulates the prohibition against judging others" 'God alone is the judge and searcher of hearts; for that reason, he forbids us to make judgments about the internal guilt of anyone' (Gaudium et Spes, No. 28). This norm, however, does not preclude judgments necessary for determining that one should try to dissuade others from committing sins or to encourage them to repent if they have sinned."

At Fatima (1917), Our Lady said that, "Certain fashions will be introduced that will offend Our Lord very much." Sadly, such fashions may be found even in Catholic parishes. This is the direct result of a lack of reverence before sacred mysteries. Dietrich von Hildebrand explains that, "..lack of reverence may have two roots...the first is to be found in pride. The man who lacks reverence because of pride and arrogance approaches everything with conceit and presumption, imagines that he knows everything, that he sees through everything....The world holds no mystery for him. He treats everything tactlessly, with easy familiarity...There is..another form of irreverence, one which is born of concupiscence. The concupiscent man is interested in the world only as a means of procuring pleasure for himself


The lack of reverence is a specific defect of our age. On the one hand, the feeling of reverence is undermined by the increasing technicalization and instrumentalization of the world wherein everything is considered only as a means for the attainment of practical aims, and being is not allowed to be taken seriously. On the other hand, the attitude of self-glorification is increased in man by progress in the knowledge of secondary causes and by the conquest of the physical world. This makes us forget that 'He has made us and we have not made ourselves.' It makes the shortsighted intoxicated with superficial knowledge so that they overlook the causa prima because of the causae secundae" (Liturgy and Personality, pp. 49, 51-52).

How important is modesty? Saint John Chrysostom warned the immodest that:

"You carry your snare everywhere and spread your nets in all places. You allege that you never invited others to sin. You did not, indeed, by your words, but you have done so by your dress and your deportment, and much more effectively than you could by your voice. When you have made another sin in his heart, how can you be innocent? Tell me, whom does this world condemn? Whom do judges in court punish? Those who drink poison or those who prepare it and administer the fatal potion? You have prepared the abominable cup, you have given the death-dealing drink, and you are more criminal than are those who poison the body; you murder not the body, but the soul. And it is not to enemies that you do this, nor are you urged on by any imaginary necessity, nor provoked by injury, but out of foolish vanity and pride."

Paul Gomille understands this.  And because he has sought to spread this truth, he finds himself suspended from his Catholic school.  In short, he finds himself being persecuted for the sake of truth.  But Our Lord has words of comfort for Mr. Gomille: "Be glad and rejoice, for your reward is great in heaven; they persecuted the prophets before you in the very same way." (Mt 5: 12).

More bad news for Clark University's historical revisionist Deborah Dwork (and others like her)

Recently released documents from the so-called "closed period" of the Vatican Archives are once again revealing the heroism of Pope Pius XII and his care for Jewish people who were persecuted during the Second World War.  The Telegraph's Nick Squires writes, "The document to cast Pius in the most flattering light is a letter from October 1944, after Italy signed an armistice with the Allies and switched sides, in which former inmates expressed their gratitude for his support during their imprisonment. 'While in nearly all the countries of Europe we were persecuted, imprisoned and threatened with death because we belong to the Jewish people and profess the Jewish faith, Your Holiness not only sent notable and generous gifts to our camp through the apostolic nuncio...but also showed your fatherly interest in our physical and spiritual well-being,' they wrote in German.

'(You) intrepidly raised your universally venerated voice against our enemies – still so powerful at that time – to openly support our rights to human dignity. When in 1942 we were under the threat of deportation to Poland, Your Holiness extended your fatherly hand to protect us and prevented the deportation of the Jews imprisoned in Italy, thereby saving us from almost certain death.'

This is more bad news for historical revisionists such as Deborah Dwork, Director of Clark University's Strassler Center for Holocaust & Genocide Studies.  In a previous post I refuted her asinine assertion that that Pope Pius XII "failed Europe's Jews miserably, unconscionably."  And I explained here why her accusation is so damnable.

I would ask Ms. Dwork to apologize for her slander of Pius XII.  But what would be the point?  Some people are prisoners of their own deeply-held bias.  And no amount of historical proof will ever penetrate her wall of conviction.  But honest people will be moved at Pius XII's efforts on behalf of the Jewish People.

Soho Masses: Clarity of Catholic Doctrine or Diabolical Disorientation?

Archbishop Vincent Nichols has assured us that he is going to conduct a "review" to ensure that the pro-homosexual Soho Masses "are not occasions for confusion or opposition" relative to the Church's teaching on homosexuality. 

His Excellency should ask Father Timothy Radcliffe, OP what he meant exactly when he said (in a homily on February 6, 2011):

"Gay people are often not seen in Christ's light!  Gay people may be seen as threats, as predators, as temptations, or whatever.  You have to shed Christ's life so that people see that gay people love, have friendships, have gifts such like everyone else.  Cardinal Basil Hume, clarifying Catholic teaching on homosexuality, wrote, 'Love between two persons, whether of the same sex or of a different sex, is to be treasured and respected...When two persons love they experience in a limited manner in this world what will be their unending delight when one with God in the next.  To love another is in fact to reach out to God who shares his lovableness with the one we love.'...(Find Fr. Radcliffe's homily here).

It was Sister Lucia (of the Fatima apparitions) who said, "the Virgin knew that these times of diabolical disorientation were to come" and who wrote, "Let people say the Rosary every day. Our Lady stated that repeatedly in all her apparitions, as if to fortify us against these times of diabolical disorientation, so that we would not allow ourselves to be deceived by false doctrines...Unfortunately, the great majority of people are ignorant in religious matters and allow themselves to be led in any direction. Hence, the great responsibility of one who has the task of leading them....A diabolical disorientation is invading the world, deceiving souls! It must be resisted." When questioned on the content of the Third Secret of Fatima, Sister Lucia replied, "It's in the Gospel and in the Apocalypse, read them." She also confided to Father Fuentes that the Mother of God made her understand that "we are in the last times of the world."

Some, like Father Robert Bruso of Saint Anthony's Parish in Fitchburg, Massachusetts, scoff at the notion that we are living in apocalyptic times.  But Fr. Radcliffe's homily is an example of the very diabolical disorientation Sister Lucia spoke of.

Dutch psychologist Gerard J.M. van den Aardweg, Ph.D., a specialist on homosexuality, says that the claim that homosexuality is normal is one of those statements that are "so foolish that only intellectuals could believe them." It is like saying that anorexia nervosa is healthy. Dr. Aardweg notes that, "The term neurotic describes such relationships well. It suggests the ego-centeredness of the relationship; the attention-seeking instead of loving...Neurotic, in short, suggests all kinds of dramas and childish conflicts as well as the basic disinterestedness in the partner, notwithstanding the shallow pretensions of 'love.' Nowhere is there more self-deception in the homosexual than in his representation of himself as a lover. One partner is important to the other only insofar as he satisfies that other's needs. Real, unselfish love for a desired partner would, in fact, end up destroying homosexual 'love'!" (Dr. Gerard J.M. van den Aardweg, The Battle for Normality, Ignatius Press, 1997, pp. 62-63).

If Fr. Radcliffe wasn't using his homily to condone homosexual relationships which are sexual, as opposed to promoting simple friendship, why did he not mention that Cardinal Basil Hume, "While condemning homosexual acts..accepted the validity of love between gay people." (Wikipedia, see here).  Why did he not mention that the Cardinal condemned homosexual acts as does the Catechism of the Catholic Church: "Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved."


Is Fr. Radcliffe suggesting that homosexual acts fall into the category of "love between two persons, whether of the same sex or of a different sex, is to be treasured and respected" when he cites Cardinal Hume without mentioning the Cardinal's opposition toward homosexual acts?

What do you think Your Excellency?  Is Fr. Radcliffe's homily an example of clarity or of confusion - of diabolical disorientation?

Archbishop Vincent Nichols, we need Shepherds not Keystone Cops who fall asleep while on duty

Writing from the UK, my good friend Deacon Nick Donnelly of Protect the Pope reports that:

Archbishop Nichols has re-affirmed the Archdiocese of Westminster’s provision of pastoral care to homosexuals through the so called Soho Masses, while at the same time announcing that he is undertaking a review of the current provision to ensure these Masses are not occasions for opposition to the Church’s teaching on sexuality: ‘At the present time consideration is being given to the circumstances in which these Masses are celebrated to ensure that their purpose is respected and that they are not occasions for confusion or opposition concerning the positive teaching of the Church on the meaning of human sexuality or the moral imperatives that flow from that teaching, which we uphold and towards which we all strive.' (See full article here).

Deacon Nick comments: "This is good news from Archbishop Nichols,and signifies an important shift in his position on the Soho Masses. Before the Holy Father’s visit the archbishop expressed, in intemperate language, that those Catholics concerned about public dissent at the Soho Masses should ‘hold their tongues.’ Now 18 months later Archbishop Nichols has admitted the concern that the Soho Masses could be occasions for confusion and opposition to the Church’s teaching, and needs investigating. This is exactly the claim made by Daphne McLeod and Pro Ecclesia et Pontifice....Protect the Pope recommends that the archbishop includes in his review an examination of the website Queering the Church, run by a member of the organising council Terence Weldon."

So Archbishop Nichols is going to conduct a "review" to ensure that the infamous Soho Masses "are not occasions for confusion or opposition" to the Church's moral teaching regarding homosexuality?  Why is it that I have an image of The Keystone Cops playing in my head?  Your Excellency, Terence Weldon, who serves as an Extraordinary Minister of the Eucharist at these Masses, has been engaging in public dissent from the Church's teaching in this area for years.

In his latest post at "Queering the Church," Mr. Weldon writes that, "One part of conventional Catholic teaching on homosexual persons, is that our orientation is the cross that we must take up, and deal with. I disagree – orientation in itself is a gift from God, not an ordeal to survive. The cross that we carry, as I wrote in a Lenten post last year, is the disordered teaching of the Church, the persecution that it brings in discrimination bullying, gay -bashing and hate-crime murders – and the internalized homophobia that drives a disproportionate number of us to suicide, or to less extreme pathological behaviour, in addictions or in the closet....CDF documents claim, with no evidence whatsoever, that homosexuality/homosexual acts lead us away from God. That is certainly not my experience, which shows the exact reverse." (See here).

What do you think Your Excellency?  Does this passage indicate that Terence Weldon is striving to conform to Church teaching or that he is openly dissenting from the same?

Clark University: An ideology inspired by the Devil

In her article entitled, "The Degradation of Women by Feminist Extremists," Bridget Geegan Blanton writes, "...from the repressive identity that reduced a woman’s worth to her body parts. Those tough-minded Suffragettes, pioneers of the women’s movement, risked everything in the fight for rights and equal treatment under the law for American women. Feminist Extremists have squandered that legacy with an assault on the dignity of women and a dark retreat to the repressive past by claiming that a woman’s worth is defined by and limited to her body as propagandized in the demeaning production known as ‘The Vagina Monologues’.

The annual goose step onto college campuses of this exercise in female degradation is announced every Valentine’s day with shock value PR tactics such as 40-foot inflatable vaginas. This offensive strike against traditional values is actually an overt attempt to hijack the romance associated with this day and replace it with a message of male-bashing and sexual deviance. In textbook leftist style, supporters of the play cloak their attack on values and morality under the guise of promoting awareness about violence against women. In reality, the play is a non-stop obsession with a body part and imparts zero information regarding the defense against or recovery from a violent attack...Promoters of the play peddle their pornographic, anti-male propaganda behind a smokescreen of feel-good phrases like ‘empowerment’, ‘breaking the silence’, ‘liberating women’ and ‘provocative’. The term ‘provocative’ is a rather benign description of vignettes that feature pedophilia and sexual perversion..."

But The Vagina Monologues is more than pornographic agitprop which degrades women.  This satanic play also represents an attack on the Virgin Mary, Mother of God.  Which explains why Clark University, which has a history of Catholic-bashing, is so in love with the production.  Bridget Blanton explains, "No devoted, rank and file leftist is worth their tainted salt if they fail to take a swipe at the Catholic Church. You’re not considered part of the club if this rite of passage is left undone. In ‘The Vagina Monologues’ actresses describe 'Vagina Sightings and Miracles', an ugly, rapacious smear against sightings of the Blessed Mother that have been attested to, by the faithful in locations such as Lourdes, France. Ensler scored high with secular progressives by employing this standard bashing method against the Catholic veneration of the Virgin Mary."

This is most significant because the enemies of Mary are the enemies of Christ.  And the enemies of Christ are the enemies of God.  When people engage in hatred against Mary, the Most Holy Mother of God, this is strong evidence that they are inspired by the devil and, in certain cases, it is evidence of demonic possession.  It was St. Louis de Montfort, in his classic work on the Holy Rosary entitled "The Secret of the Rosary" (Ninth Rose), who said that: "It is very wicked indeed and unfair to other souls to hinder the progress of the Confraternity of the Holy Rosary. Almighty God has severely punished many of those who have been so benighted as to scorn the Confraternity and who have sought to destroy it.


Even though God has set His seal of approval on the Holy Rosary by many miracles, and in spite of the Papal Bulls that have been written approving it, there are only too many people who are against the Holy Rosary today. These freethinkers and those who scorn religion either condemn the Rosary or try to turn others away from it.

It is easy to see that they have absorbed the poison of hell and that they are inspired by the devil - for nobody can condemn devotion to the Holy Rosary without condemning all that is most holy in the Catholic Faith, such as the Lord's Prayer, the Angelic Salutation and the mysteries of the life, death, and glory of Jesus Christ and of His Holy Mother.

These freethinkers who cannot bear others to say the Rosary often fall into a really heretical state of mind without even realizing it and some to hate the Rosary and its holy mysteries.

To have a loathing for confraternities is to fall away from God and true piety, for Our Lord Himself has told us that He is always in the midst of those who are gathered together in His name. No good Catholic should forget the many great indulgences which Holy Mother Church has granted to Confraternities. Finally, to dissuade others from joining the Rosary Confraternity is to be an enemy of souls because the Rosary is a sure means of curing oneself of sin and of embracing a Christian Life.

Saint Bonaventure said (in his Psalter) that whoever neglected Our Lady would perish in his sins and would be damned: 'He who neglects her will die in his sins.' If such is the penalty for neglecting her, what must be the punishment in store for those who actually turn others away from their devotions!"

But isn't that precisely what those who promote The Vagina Monologues are doing?  They mock devotion to and veneration of Our Lady because they have absorbed the poison of Hell.  The importance of devotion to Our Lady, and more specifically devotion to the Holy Rosary, is often downplayed by those who, either consciously or unconsciously, have become instruments of the Evil One. The Devil knows full well that what St. Louis de Montfort says about the Holy Rosary is true: "I beg of you to beware of thinking of the Rosary as something of little importance - as do ignorant people, and even several great but proud scholars. Far from being insignificant, the Rosary is a priceless treasure which is inspired by God. Almighty God has given it to you because he wants you to use it as a means to convert the most hardened sinners and the most obstinate heretics. He has attached to it grace in this life and glory in the next. The saints have said it faithfully and the Popes have endorsed it." (Secret of the Rosary, White Rose).


The Devil frequently uses people (and this includes misguided Catholics) to frustrate or hinder the Confraternity of the Rosary. Why is this? Because, as St. Louis De Montfort explains: "Blessed Alan de la Roche, Fr. Jean Dumont, Fr. Thomas, the chronicles of St. Dominic and other writers who have seen these things with their own eyes [miracles of the Rosary] speak of the marvelous conversions that are brought about by this wonderful devotion. Great sinners, both men and women, have been converted after twenty, thirty or forty years of sin and unspeakable vice...I shall content myself with saying, in company with Blessed Alan de la Roche, that the Rosary is a source and a storehouse of countless blessings. 1. Sinners obtain pardon; 2. Those who thirst are refreshed; 3. Those who are fettered are set free; 4. Those who weep find joy; 5. Those who are tempted find peace; 6. Those in need find help; 7. Religious are reformed; 8. The ignorant are instructed; 9. The living learn to resist spiritual decline; 10. The dead have their pains eased by suffrages." (Secret of the Rosary, Fortieth Rose).

Clark University has clearly chosen sides in the Culture Wars.  And in the spiritual battle in which we find ourselves, Clark has sided with the evil spirits who both hate and fear Our Lady, the Immaculata.  Hence the attacks against her.  Again, St. Montfort: "God has established only one enmity - but it is an irreconcilable one - which will last and even go on increasing to the end of time. That enmity is between Mary, his worthy Mother, and the devil, between the children and the servants of the Blessed Virgin and the children and followers of Lucifer.


Thus the most fearful enemy that God has set up against the devil is Mary, his holy Mother. From the time of the earthly paradise, although she existed then only in his mind, he gave her such a hatred for his accursed enemy, such ingenuity in exposing the wickedness of the ancient serpent and such power to defeat, overthrow and crush this proud rebel, that Satan fears her not only more than angels and men but in a certain sense more than God himself. This does not mean that the anger, hatred and power of God are not infinitely greater than the Blessed Virgin's, since her attributes are limited. It simply means that Satan, being so proud, suffers infinitely more in being vanquished and punished by a lowly and humble servant of God, for her humility humiliates him more than the power of God. Moreover, God has given Mary such great power over the evil spirits that, as they have often been forced unwillingly to admit through the lips of possessed persons, they fear one of her pleadings for a soul more than the prayers of all the saints, and one of her threats more than all their other torments." (True Devotion to Mary).

The enemies of Mary, the enemies of Christ, know this full well.  Which explains their hatred and their rage directed against the Immaculata.

Related reading: At Clark University it's "okay" to mock Christianity.

Clark University: Promoting a Theology of Violence

At their website, the Clare Booth Luce Policy Institute has an excellent article refuting the lies of those who promote the anti-Catholic production The Vagina Monologues, a pornographic play which encourages violence against women.  Entitled, "The Vagina Monologues Facts vs. Fallacies," the article refutes the top ten common claims made by V-Day organizers and supporters:

1) Claim: "The play empowers/liberates women."

False: The Vagina Monologues is a lie. It does not empower women with its message that: women's identity and image are wrapped up in their sexual organs. True empowerment lies in the heart and the mind. Consider these images from the play:

•"The Woman Who Loved To Make Vaginas Happy" is a monologue about a successful tax attorney who leaves her career to become a lesbian dominatrix prostitute, specializing in the use of sexual "props," i.e. whips, handcuffs and ropes. Liberating or ironically violent?

•"The Vagina Workshop" describes a woman who attends an orgasm workshop and participates in a group masturbation session. The workshop leader tells the woman her sexual organs are "the essence of me, both the doorbell to my house and the house itself." This mindset is exactly what the early suffragettes were fighting against.

•Reclaiming C**t” invites the audience to participate in cult-like chanting of an explicit word to describe a woman's private parts. And this exercise empowers women because?


2) Claim: "The play raises awareness about violence against women."

False: The play offers women little more than encouragement to view themselves as a single body part and become obsessed with their sexuality and sexual behavior. It does not provide healthy or practical information about how to protect themselves against violence and/or recover from a violent experience.

•The opening monologue states that playwright Eve Ensler's biggest anxiety was not about adequately and responsibly addressing violence against women. She wrote this play because she “was worried about [her] own vagina” as far as “what we think about vaginas and even more worried that we don't think about them.” How about worrying that laws setting punishments for sexual offenders are not strong enough? Or that most women are unfamiliar with basic self-defense techniques?

•Questions raised throughout the play make a mockery of meaningful ways to address and learn about violence against women. They include, “If your vagina got dressed, what would it wear?,” “If your vagina could talk, what would it say?,” and “What does a vagina smell like?"

3) Claim: "The play is not anti-male."

False: Men are only mentioned in a negative way throughout the play as adulterers, abusers, weirdos, and rapists. Consider the following examples:

•The cheating husband who “forced” his wife to shave her vagina in the monologue “Hair.”

•Andy Leftkov, who in “The Flood,” calls his date “a stinky weird girl.”

•Supporters of the play will often ask, “What about Bob?” Bob is featured in “Because He Like To Look At It.” “It” meaning a woman's vagina. What we learn is that Bob is ordinary, boring, and unappealing, that is, until the woman character discovers his one redeeming quality: a perverted obsession with women's private parts.

4) Claim: "If you don't want to see the play, you don't have to."

False: Advertisements, promotional materials, and other events surrounding the play around campus are equally offensive and degrading.

•Roger Williams University was flooded with signs that read, "My Vagina is Huggable," "My Vagina is Flirty," and "My Vagina is Regal."

•University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill allowed tee shirts that read "I Heart My Vagina."

•Boise State University distributed vagina lollipops.

•Florida State University had an orgasm workshop.

•Arizona State University constructed a 40-foot inflatable vagina on campus.

5) Claim: "The play is not pornographic"

False: It includes extremely graphic descriptions of women's sexual experiences.

•One monologue has an explicit depiction of two lesbians having sex. “She's inside me. I'm inside me.” And it gets much, much worse.

•“The Vagina Workshop” describes one woman's experience with masturbation. “I bounced and landed, landed and bounced. I came into my own muscles and blood cells and then I just slid into my vagina.”

6) Claim: "Opponents of the play are anti-feminist."

False: Those who oppose the play are pro-woman. We reject the effort to convince women to think of themselves as sexual objects. And we object to this play as a way to bring meaningful attention to the serious issue of violence against women. In addition, the early suffragettes—the original feminists—fought hard for equal rights and treatment under the law for women. They fought against the very notion that a woman is reducible to a single body part. By opposing this play, we honor their efforts.

7) Claim: "The play does not venerate child rape."

False: The child rape that occurs in “The Little Coochie Snorcher That Could” is presented as a sympathetic and spiritually redeeming experience for the young girl who is violated. She describes the rape as “surprising, unexpected, politically incorrect salvation” that “transformed my sorry-ass coochi snorcher and raised it up into a kind of heaven.” The monologue describes how a 24-year-old woman plies a 16-year-old girl (she is 13 in the original version) with vodka and then sexually violates her. And in the original version, this monologue ended with the line: “If it was rape, it was a good rape.”

8) Claim: "Funds raised by the play are ending violence against women."

While some of the funds are being sent to community programs and organizations that help victims of violence, the play itself does not effectively address this issue, its cause or any meaningful solutions. Rather, it encourages the very attitude that often leads to sexual violence: treating women as objects. According to V-Day organizers, groups who have also received proceeds from the play include Equality Now, Feminist.com, gay and lesbian centers, Planned Parenthood, and Girls, Inc.—groups with specific political agendas that reach way beyond violence against women.

We hope the V-Day marketing ploy and the lunacy of the play will be exposed. We also hope women, men, professors, and administrators will reject this demeaning portrayal of women. Until then, our approach is to inform, equip, and support reasonable students who are offended.

9) Claim: "The play is based on real women's stories."

False: In her book, Eve Ensler states, “Some of the monologues are close to verbatim interviews, some are composite interviews, and with some I just began with the seed of an interview and had a good time.” The "V-Day" website provides no evidence these interviews actually occurred or that any of the women mentioned exist.

10) Claim: "Opponents of the play are against free speech."

False: Opposing the play and advocating censorship are two very different things. We do not propose violating the First Amendment. In the free marketplace of ideas, the best idea will win out.

V-Day Unveiled was created to offer positive approaches that students can use to offer alternatives and/or express their disapproval of the play being performed on campus and with school funds. (See here).

But Jeremy Levine, a student who writes for Clark University's student newspaper The Scarlet, is quite content with the pornographic agitprop which encourages violence against women.  For Jeremy, true empowerment does not lie in the heart and mind.  For Jeremy, a woman's identity is wrapped up in her sexual organs.  He writes, "The vagina is much more than a body part, its the essence of what it is to be female, the epitome of feminine empowerment, and every single one is unique, not just on a biological level."

And this at a time when a student was sexually assaulted on Clark's campus.


Jeremy's review of The Vagina Monologues is so disturbing that it reads like the transcript of a serial rapist who is fixated on women's vaginas: "The performances themselves were fabulous. Stage productions often rely on acting, but not this one. Sure, the lines were memorized, and agonizing hours went into rehearsal, but the feeling was sincere. The people on stage really cared about vaginas, and really understood how the women they were portraying felt. This made [it] much easier to connect to the message....I learned about angry vaginas, young vaginas, old vaginas, neglected vaginas, adored vaginas, mysterious vaginas, overeager vaginas, and shy vaginas. One woman described her vagina as being “better than the grand canyon,” while another stated that hers “stays closed, and [she] doesn’t go down there.”..I always knew that sexuality was complicated, but this brought it to a whole new level... Every person on stage had a completely different take on her vagina and her interactions involving it...Vaginas are complicated, but their complications go beyond the physical. Each individual woman (and each individual man) has his or her own relationship with particular vaginas, and vaginas in general. These are not relationships to oversimplify, neglect, or generalize. They are the epitome of understanding one’s sexuality, and the beginning of trying to understand that of other people." (See here).

What Jeremy (and Clark University) is advancing is a theology from Hell. It is most ironic that his article is entitled "Peace, love and Vagina Monologues," for this pornographic play has nothing to do with love.  It is, rather, representative of today's cruel demand for sex without love, for a licentiousness in sex which has wrought a heartless society in which individuals do not care for anyone but themselves. The fruit of this demonic theology is the slaughter through abortion and euthanasia of human beings created in the Imago Dei. It is a theology of violence which is rooted in hatred of truth. For at the heart of immorality is falsity, the hatred of truth. Fr. Vincent Miceli explains: "...violence entered creation from the rebellion of Lucifer. This rebellion arose from the heart of pride. But the sin of pride is the offspring of the vice known as hatred of truth. Hatred of truth is the result of the creature's attempt to rearrange God's hierarchy of beings and values into an order which the creature prefers to the plan of God. This attempt immediately produces the violence of disorder, the chaos of falsity and immorality. For hatred of truth is really hatred of God who creates all things wisely and governs them lovingly. Lucifer, the Morning Star, was instantly deformed into the Prince of Darkness because he attempted to live a lie. He wanted to dethrone God and become God himself..." ( Essay entitled The Taproot of Violence).

At one university, the student Knights of Columbus group issued an open letter deploring the, "..performance of trash that demeans women and only serves to degrade the dignity of the human person...The Monologues will not further the mission of our University. A woman is a person, not an object. God blessed humanity with the gift of sex as a way of celebrating the love between spouses and of bringing new life into His world...."

This is the essence of the new anti-Christian sex education in preparation for the Moloch State. As George Kendall explains in Witness for the Truth, this sex education "radically separates sex from the very idea of the covenanted love of man and woman. Sex becomes merely a self-centered appetite to be satisfied and not a gift of self to another. As a result, what this kind of education produces is the lonely, autonomous individual. This is the ultimate in alienation. The autonomous individual is alienated even from his own body, which becomes to him only a thing, too - a thing to be used as a means to his autonomous pleasure. The end result is depersonalization which, if it lasts into eternity without being healed, means eternal loss.

Few have put it as eloquently as Randy Engel did: 'Is it any wonder that the state must wage war against the family? For the state requires not individuals who dream, and think, and pray, but rather what has come to be called 'the mass man' - rootless, unaffirmed, a reactor - a mere reed blowing in the wind - a thing to be manipulated, to be used, to be disposed of, but never, never, to be loved, for the giant has no heart. And since the modern state has no heart, that which men previously have done out of love, must now be done out of fear, and hatred, and brute force.' So clearly, contemporary sex education, 'Catholic' or otherwise, is a profound attack on human dignity and on the human person.." (Witness for the Truth, pp. 399-400. citing Randy Engel "The Family Under Siege," Wanderer, March 6, 1980).

And now I would add, satanic. The United States, like the other Termite Nations of the West, is fast-becoming a Moloch State which claims total jurisdiction over man. It is becoming a demon-state which rejects God's Commandments and His plan for the human family. This demon-state (and make no mistake about it, our leaders increasingly have recourse to demons) denies that there is any transcendent, higher-than-human voice or authority that cares for man. R.J. Rushdoony explains that:

"The Moloch State simply represents the supreme effort of man to command the future, to predestine the world, and to be as God. Lesser efforts, divination, spirit-questing, magic and witchcraft are equally anathema to God. All represent efforts to have the future on other than God's terms, to have a future apart from and in defiance of God. They are assertions that the world is not of God but of brute factuality, and that man can somehow master the world and the future by going directly to the raw materials thereof."

Clark University has succumbed to hatred of truth.  For this reason, the institution is now succumbing to a lust for violence.  Our Lord warned the Pharisees that men who reject God's plan for their salvation will imitate Satan's deeds.  Enter the Moloch State and he who will rule it with hatred and violence in his own name. (John 5: 43).