A call for an apology...

The Church remains spotless even when Her members sin

There is absolutely no doubt that the human history of the Church, like all of human history, has its dark pages. But if anyone cares to take an objective look at this history, one must quickly acknowledge that the doctrine of the Church has always implicitly condemned abuses introduced by Her members.

In the words of Dr. Dietrich Von Hildebrand, "There were sinners in the Church yesterday and there are sinners in the Church today. But the Church Herself, in her divine teaching, emerges gloriously unspotted in a history stained by human weaknesses, errors, imperfections, and sins." In the words of the great Cardinal Journet:

"All contradictions are eliminated as soon as we understand that the members of the Church do indeed sin, but they do so by their betraying the Church. The Church is thus not without sinners, but She is without sin. The Church as person is responsible for penance. She is not responsible for sins....The members of the Church themselves - laity, clerics, priests, Bishops, and Popes - who disobey the Church are responsible for their sins, but the Church as person is not responsible...It is forgotten that the Church as person is the Bride of Christ, 'Whom He has purchased with His own blood.'" (Acts 20:28).

This point is not understood by Mr. Tom White of the Cohen Center for Holocaust Studies at Keene State College. In the comments section of the previous post at this Blog, he wrote (in part):

No one at the Cohen Center has maligned anyone or anything. A reading of Hank Knight's letter will show that it is simply an invitation to discussion and hospitality. There are no statements about Pope Pius XII - any interpretation of his Papacy are at best, ongoing, as the Vatican has only recently totally opened their archives on this subject.

In addition, I, nor anyone that I know of, have ever supported Daniel Goldhagen's "eliminationist antisemitism" theory. I hope this pulls us back to the discussion at hand. I appreciate the genuine and heartfelt passion for Holocaust studies that this blog has brought forward. Of course, self-examination of the history of Jewish-Christian relations must be at the center of this reflection. Jews and Christians, both rooted in the Tanakh, have a special relation to one another, though a difficult history.

To deny anti-Judaism within the history and tradition of the Church is to be painfully ignorant. As a Catholic myself, I have been enriched by my Church's honest confrontation with and ongoing reflection about this difficult past. This is evidenced, for example in "God's Mercy Endures Forever: Guidelines on the Presentation of Jews and Judaism in Catholic Preaching Bishop's Committee on the Liturgy, National Conference of Catholic Bishops, September, 1988" where false teachings have been identified.

For instance, the following statement from the Guidelines is a good example: "Another misunderstanding rejected by the Second Vatican Council was the notion of collective guilt, which charged the Jewish people as a whole with responsibility for Jesus' death (cf. nos. 21-25 below, on Holy Week)." I live by the caution of Nostra Aetate that "all must take care, lest…they teach anything which is not in accord with the truth...”

Additionally, it may be helpful to reference the Church's "Notes on the Correct Way to Present the Jews and Judaism in Preaching and Catechesis in the Roman Catholic Church, Vatican Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews, June 24, 1985." In it, the Church emphasizes that the Church and the Jewish people are "linked together at the very level of their identity," an accurate, sensitive, and positive appreciation of Jews and Judaism "should not occupy an occasional or marginal place in Christian teaching," but be considered "essential" to Christian proclamation.

I hope this clarifies my position. It does not require me to assure you that anti-Catholicism is not at the heart of Holocaust studies. Rather, studying the Holocaust gives us great humility. In wrestling with the Holocaust I, like Jacob at the Jabbok, come away limping, yet more whole.
10:24 AM

To which I responded:


"Mr. White, I want to thank you for your comments. But I must disagree with you [even while respecting the courteous tone of your comment]. You wrote, "No one at the Cohen Center has maligned anyone or anything. A reading of Hank Knight's letter will show that it is simply an invitation to discussion and hospitality." Actually it is something more. The reference to "traditional forms of anti-Semitism in Church teachings or its liturgies" is most unfortunate. As for Papal apologies, these must be understood properly.

In an article written for the Catholic League*, Mr. Robert P. Lockwood, the League's Director of Research, writes:

"On Sunday, March 12, 2000 Pope John Paul II made a unique and historic "request for pardon" for the sins and errors of Christians both throughout the centuries and in the present. The Holy Father saw this as the culmination of the Church’s "examination of conscience" for the Jubilee Year. The goal of such a public act of repentance is a "purification of memory."

As the Holy Father explained in his Apostolic Letter Tertio millennio adveniente the Jubilee Year should be the occasion for a purification of the memory of the Church from all forms of "errors and instances of infidelity, inconsistency and slowness to act" in the past millenium. At the same time, the responsibility of Christians for the evils that exist within our own time must be acknowledged as well. The "request for pardon" is made in the understanding that "all of us, though not personally responsible and without encroaching on the judgement of God, who alone knows every heart, bear the burden of the errors and faults of those who have gone before us."

This papal act of atonement for past sin is an intensely spiritual act, meant to seek forgiveness from God and allow Christians to enter the new millennium better prepared to evangelize the Truth of faith. Unfortunately, we live at a time where Truth is rarely recognized, and where the spiritual nature of this public confession made by the pope for the entire Church was misconstrued, misunderstood AND TWISTED TO MEET POLITICAL OR IDEOLOGICAL AGENDAS. Particularly when events in history are raised, "the simple admission of faults committed by the sons and daughters of the Church may look like acquiescence in the face of accusations made by those who are prejudicially hostile to the Church." There have been public responses to the papal apology THAT CONFUSE REPENTANCE FOR WRONG ACTIONS WITH ACCUSATIONS OF DOCTRINAL ERROR, or make demands for apologies not required in the historical or cultural context of the events of the past.

The Papal Atonement

At the special Jubilee Mass for the first Sunday of Lent, Pope John Paul II, gave his expression of regret for the entire Church for the following:1. "Even men of the church, in the name of faith and morals, have sometimes used methods not in keeping with the Gospel in the solemn duty of defending the truth."The pope explained that "in certain periods of history Christians have at times given in to intolerance." He asked that we "seek and promote truth in the gentleness of charity, in the firm knowledge that truth can prevail only in virtue of truth itself."

"Recognition of the sins which have rent the unity of the Body of Christ and wounded fraternal charity." The pope asked forgiveness for the breakdown in Christian unity and that "believers have opposed one another, becoming divided, and have mutually condemned one another and fought against one another."3. "In recalling the sufferings endured by the people of Israel throughout history, Christians will acknowledge the sins committed by not a few of their number against the people of the covenant." The pope acknowledged that we are "deeply saddened by the behavior of those who in the course of history have caused these children of yours to suffer."4. "Repent of the words and attitudes caused by pride, by hatred, by the desire to dominate others, by enmity toward members of other religions and toward the weakest groups in society." Pope John Paul II asked forgiveness because "Christians have often denied the Gospel; yielding to a mentality of power, they have violated the rights of ethnic groups and peoples, and shown contempt for their cultures and religious traditions."5. "Offenses against...human dignity and…rights (that) have been trampled; let us pray for women, who are all too often humiliated and emarginated."

At times, the pope explained, "the equality of your sons and daughters has not been acknowledged, and Christians have been guilty of rejection and exclusion, consenting to acts of discrimination on the basis of racial and ethnic differences."6. "Especially for minors who are victims of abuse, for the poor, the alienated, the disadvantaged; let us pray for those most defenseless, the unborn killed in their mother’s womb or even exploited for experimental purposes by those who abuse the promise of biotechnology and distort the aims of science." How many times, the pope asked, "have Christians not recognized (Christ) in the hungry, the thirsty and the naked, in the persecuted, the imprisoned and in those incapable of defending themselves, particularly in the first stages of life." He asked forgiveness for "all those who have committed acts of injustice by trusting in wealth and power and showing contempt for the ‘little ones.’"

Reaction and response

For the most part, reaction to the papal request for pardon was positive, if one-sided. Most secular editorials – and commentators from various faiths and denominations – commended the Pope for acknowledging the "errors of the Roman Catholic Church over the last 2000 years." Yet, they failed to see that at the heart of these errors is the fact that Catholics have faltered when they have become caught up in the culture of their day. Failing to see the world through the eyes of faith, they were caught up in the spirit of their times. The errors that the pope acknowledges are sins that come from the culture, not from a faith lived in unity with the Gospels. Too many commentators seek to imply that the derivation of these errors is the faith itself, rather than a failure of living up to the demands of faith. These sins are the errors Christians share with all mankind that find their roots in society, history and the culture, not in the Gospels: violence in defense of belief, corrosive divisiveness, anti-Semitism, intolerance, racial, gender and ethnic discrimination, and oppression of the poor and defenseless.

The negative secular response to the papal apology can be summed up from an editorial in the March 14, 2000 New York Times. "As long as (the Church) was burdened by its failure to reckon with passed misdeeds committed in the name of Catholicism, the Church could not fully heal its relations with other faiths. John Paul has now made it easier to do that. Some of the things (the pope) did not say bear note. The apology was expressed in broad terms. It was offered on behalf of the church’s ‘sons and daughters’ but not the church itself, which is considered holy.

Nor did John Paul directly address the sensitive issue of whether past popes, cardinals and clergy – not just parishioners – also erred. The pope’s apology for discrimination against women is welcome but difficult to square with his continued opposition to abortion and birth control, and to women in the priesthood. Regrettably, he made no mention of discrimination against homosexuals.

Another noted omission was the lack of a specific reference to the Holocaust…(and) the failure of Pope Pius XII to speak out against the Nazi genocide."These charges should be reviewed individually: *As long as it was burdened by its failure to reckon with past misdeeds committed in the name of Catholicism, the Church could not fully heal its relations with other faiths. This is a misunderstanding of the purpose of the papal apology. It is also a failure to see the wider benefits to all faiths, and non-faiths. The purpose of the papal atonement for past sin is to allow Christians to enter the new millennium better prepared to evangelize the Truth of faith.

In the Times statement there is a direct implication of a one-sided nature to the wrongs of the past, an acceptance of an anti-Catholic interpretation of history rooted in post-Reformation and Enlightenment propaganda rather than an accurate and objective understanding of the past. Additionally, while the papal apology is certainly given without equivocation, "it is hoped that they will be carried out reciprocally, though at times prophetic gestures may call for a unilateral…initiative."5 In regard to other religions, "it would also be desirable if these acts of repentance would stimulate the members of other religions to acknowledge the faults of their own past."6

*The apology was expressed in broad terms.The Times and other commentators failed to note that the pope has specifically addressed many of the issues to which the apology referred in general. In 1982, the pope referred to the "errors of excess" in the Inquisition; the 1998 Vatican document on the Shoah made clear the moral shortcomings within Christians that contributed to the Holocaust; in 1995, the pope, in discussing the Crusades, outlined errors and expressed thanks that dialogue has replaced violence; in 1987 the pope acknowledged that Christian missionaries too often helped carry out the cultural oppression of native peoples; the pope decried in a 1995 letter the historical discrimination against women and expressed regret that "not a few" members of the Church shared in the blame.7

The Times and other commentators demanded a laundry list of apologies based on prejudicial interpretations of history. While the pope "forgives and asks forgiveness," there is no acknowledgment on the part of these commentators of the biases, conceits and hatreds that have often driven their commentaries on the Church. While the pope’s apology asks for no reciprocity, it would do well for institutions such as the Times to examine objectively their own motivations in their attacks on the Church and the historical prejudices in which they are rooted.

*(The apology) was offered on behalf of the church’s ‘sons and daughters’ but not the church itself, which is considered holy. Nor did John Paul directly address the sensitive issue of whether past popes, cardinals and clergy – not just parishioners – also erred.This is a two-fold misunderstanding. First, there is a real distinction between a theological understanding of the Church as the Body of Christ, which is holy, and its members that are sinners.

Second, the Times and other critics are making the common mistake of identifying "the Church" with the hierarchy. "Sons and daughters" of the Church refers to all baptized members of the Church, not "just parishioners." *The pope’s apology for discrimination against women is welcome but difficult to square with his continued opposition to abortion and birth control, and to women in the priesthood.The papal apology dealt with errors and faults of Christians in their actions in the past and present. These errors were most often rooted in failure to live out the demands of the Gospels in particular historical circumstances. The Times and other critics are confusing repentance for certain wrong actions in history with admissions of doctrinal error. The Times uses the papal apology as an opportunity to demand that the Church change doctrinal truths for a secular agenda. What the apology could not be, and was not intended to be, was an apology for Church doctrine. The apology that the pope did issue, however, was for any inadvertent cooperation Christians may have given that contributed to the persistence in our own time of a culture of death that allows the weak and defenseless, particularly the unborn, to be abused at the hands of the powerful. *Regrettably, he made no mention of discrimination against homosexuals.The papal apology was not meant as an endorsement of a contemporary ideological agenda. The apology makes clear that "Christians have been guilty of rejection and exclusion, consenting to acts of discrimination on the basis of racial and ethnic differences." No person should be subject to discrimination and if any in the Christian community cooperate in discrimination, they are in error. However, the Church has always taught that homosexual acts – not homosexuals – are inherently sinful. The Times implied that such teaching involves "discrimination against homosexuals." It does not.

Again, the Times demanded admission of doctrinal error and that Church teaching succumb to an ideological agenda. Such is neither the sum nor substance of the papal apology. *Another noted omission was the lack of a specific reference to the Holocaust…As the recent document on the Shoah made clear, the Holocaust was "the result of the pagan ideology of Nazism, animated by a merciless anti-Semitism that not only despised the faith of the Jewish people, but also denied their very human dignity. Nevertheless, it may be asked whether the Nazi persecution of the Jews was not made easier by the anti-Jewish prejudices imbedded in some Christian minds and hearts."8 That document made clear the need for repentance among Christians for anti-Semitic attitudes that contributed in any way to the Holocaust. The papal apology strongly asserts that "Christians will acknowledge the sins committed by not a few of their number against the people of the covenant." However, it would be an unhistorical leap for the pope to assent to contemporary anti-Catholic propaganda that attempts to identify the Church with the Holocaust. It is a historical fallacy – an insult to the memory of the Holocaust – to utilize this ultimate 20th century evil as a tool against the Church and to thereby mitigate the evil that was pagan Nazism. *…(and) the failure of Pope Pius XII to speak out against the Nazi genocide.The alleged "failure" of Pope Pius XII "to speak out on Nazi genocide" is a faulty interpretation of both the historical reality and a papacy that saved hundreds of thousands of Jewish lives. The actions and tactics of Pope Pius XII and the Church saved far more Jewish lives than the Allied armies, Allied governments, the Resistance, the Red Cross, other churches and other religions, or any other then-existing agency of any kind worldwide combined during the war.

The actions of Pius XII hardly need an apology.

Conclusion

The difficulty in such an unprecedented event by Pope John Paul II is that too often history is clouded with the prejudices and presumptions of those commenting and reporting on it. As evidenced in the Times editorial on the papal apology, history has often been twisted and reinterpreted for ideological purposes. What is assumed to be objective historical understanding of events is often 19th century – and 20th century – anti-Catholic propaganda that has been sanctioned over time as objectively correct. It is conventional wisdom, not historical fact. Careful and objective historical analysis – free from the prejudices of the past and present – needs to guide our understanding of the past. The Church is "not afraid of the truth that emerges from history and is ready to acknowledge mistakes whenever they have been identified, especially when they involve the respect that is owed to individuals and communities. She is inclined to mistrust generalizations that excuse or condemn various historical periods. She entrusts the investigation of the past to patient, honest, scholarly reconstruction, free from confessional or ideological prejudices, regarding both the accusations brought against her and the wrongs she has suffered."9

Pope John Paul II’s historic act of atonement is a witness to guide Catholics into the third millennium. Bigoted commentary, historical distortion, demands for doctrinal abandonment, and anti-Catholic prejudice will not detract from this unprecedented jubilee "request for pardon."

SUMMARY POINTS*

The Holy Father saw this "request for pardon" as the culmination of the Church’s "examination of conscience" for the Jubilee Year. The goal of such a public act of repentance is a "purification of memory."

*This papal act of atonement for past sin is an intensely spiritual act. It is meant to seek forgiveness from God and allow Christians to enter the new millennium better prepared to evangelize the Truth of faith.

*Particularly when events in history are raised the admission of faults committed by the sons and daughters of the Church may look like acquiescence in the face of accusations made by those who are prejudicially hostile to the Church.*There have been responses to the papal apology that make demands for apologies not required in the historical or cultural context of the events of the past.

*Many secular commentators have failed to see that at the heart of many of these errors is the fact that Christians have faltered when they have become caught up in the culture of their day.

*These sins are the errors Christians share with all mankind and find their roots in society, history and the culture, not in the Gospels.

*There is a direct implication in some commentary on the papal apology of a one-sided nature to the wrongs of the past, an acceptance of an anti-Catholic interpretation of history rooted in post-Reformation and Enlightenment propaganda rather than an accurate and objective understanding of the past.

*While the pope "forgives and asks forgiveness," there is no acknowledgment on the part of secular commentators on the biases, conceits and hatreds that have often driven their comments on the Church.

*Critics are confusing repentance for certain wrong actions with admissions of doctrinal error. What the apology could not be, and was not intended to be, was an apology for Church doctrine.

*The papal apology was not meant as an endorsement of a contemporary ideological agenda.

*It would be an unhistorical leap for the pope to assent to contemporary anti-Catholic propaganda that attempts to identify the Church with the Holocaust. It is a historical fallacy – an insult to the memory of the Holocaust – to utilize this ultimate 20th century evil as a tool against the Church and to thereby mitigate the evil that was pagan Nazism.

*The alleged "failure" of Pope Pius XII "to speak out on Nazi genocide" is a faulty interpretation of both the historical reality and a papacy that saved hundreds of thousands of Jewish lives. The actions and tactics of Pope Pius XII and the Church saved far more Jewish lives than the Allied armies, Allied governments, the Resistance, the Red Cross, other churches and other religions, or any other existing agency of any kind worldwide combined during the war. The actions of Pius XII hardly need an apology.

*What is assumed to be objective historical understanding of events is often 19th and 20th century anti-Catholic propaganda that has been sanctioned over time as objectively correct. It is conventional wisdom, not historical fact. Careful and objective historical analysis – free from the prejudices of the past and present – needs to guide our understanding of the past.

FOOTNOTES

1Memory and Reconciliation: The Church and the Faults of the Past (December, 1999) International Theological Commission.

2Incarnationis mysterium (November, 1998) Bull of Indiction of the Great Jubilee of the Year 2000

3Memory and Reconciliation (Introduction)

4Summarized and excerpted from Catholic News Service, Text Forgiveness (March 13, 2000)

5Memory and Reconciliation (6.3)

6Ibid.

7Summarized from Catholic News Service, "Mea culpa, tua culpa: Vatican hopes others inspired by apologies," John Thavis (March 10, 2000).

8Memory and Reconciliation (5.4)

9Ibid. (4.2)

As you can see, the Pope never apologized for doctrinal errors. Only for Catholics who failed to live up to Gospel demands. You wrote, "To deny anti-Judaism within the history and tradition of the Church is to be painfully ignorant." That depends upon what you mean by tradition. If by tradition you are referring to the Church's doctrinal teachings, you are mistaken. Mr. Knight's reference to "traditional forms of anti-Semitism in Church teachings or its liturgies" is gravely offensive. Such a remark DOES in fact malign the Church. Perhaps you would care to address my concerns (and others) regarding Keene State College's use of the semantic weapon- word "homophobic" to describe moral opposition to homosexuality as well as the course HOLO 254?

Thanks again Mr. White."

I would like to call upon the Cohen Center for Holocaust Studies to issue an apology for Mr. Knight's offensive comments.

* http://www.catholicleague.org/rer.php?topic=Miscellaneous&id=126

And what of Mr. White's assertion that, "any interpretation of his [Pope Pius XII's] Papacy are at best, ongoing, as the Vatican has only recently totally opened their archives on this subject"

This is also spurious. Vatican Archival evidence has already vindicated the record of Pope Pius XII: http://www.catholicleague.org/pius.php?id=6

Comment left by Mr. John Ansley at the Blog forum created by The Keene Sentinel:

As I mentioned in a previous post, "I would challenge the Cohen Center of Keene State College to use a little more discretion in the future and to practice, and not just preach, genuine hospitality. In educating others about the horrors of the Shoah, it really isn't necessary to malign the history and reputation of the Church. Let's avoid politicizing the Holocaust for any reason and adhere to the facts rather than engaging in historical revisionism."

I also referred to an anonymous commenter who has now come out into the open, "Richmond Rising." This was the individual who left the inappropriate comment at La Salette Journey accusing Catholics of being "overly sensitive" because they object to their Church being smeared by the Cohen Center for Holocaust Studies at Keene State College.

It is most significant that this individual fails to use his/her real name and also fails in any way to address the serious and legitimate concerns which Paul addressed at his Blog. If there is a "credibility" problem, it lies with those who would slander the Catholic Church and engage in historical revisionism. Also noteworthy is the fact that SBC Watch, a Blog hosted by a Mr. Russell Provost has published an article entitled "What would it look like if we had a Catholic America" found here: http://sbcwatch.blogspot.com/2007/11/what-would-it-look-like-if-we-had.html Blake is right. This post is morally offensive as it constitutes an indictment of all Catholics, painting them with the same brush used to describe SBC types.

Also offensive is the use of the word "homophobic," used by both the Cohen Center as well as certain people who have posted at SBC Watch. Paul has explained why Catholics find this word to be both offensive and a device to silence opposition to the homosexual agenda by Catholics faithful to the Magisterium of the Church and her teaching on the subject of homosexuality.

SBC Watch is not a credible Blog. It has effectively destroyed its own credibility by engaging in anti-Catholicism. I would urge all people of good will to avoid this Blog. I would also urge the Cohen Center to address in a meaningful way the inappropriate comments posted at its own Blog.

Sign the petition: http://www.catholicleague.org/petition.php

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

History as bigotry: Courtesy of the Catholic League

History as bigotry: http://www.catholicleague.org/pius.php?id=8

Also, read how The New York Times called Pope Pius XII "a lone voice" opposing Hitlerism. Hardly the stuff of anti-Semitism: http://www.catholicleague.org/pius.php?id=21

Hate crimes against Catholics show 33% increase in 2006

http://www.catholicleague.org/chatterbox.php?#104

Spe Salvi

Pope Benedict XVI's second Encyclical "Spe Salvi." Full text may be found here:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20071130_spe-salvi_en.html


"As far as the two great themes of “reason” and “freedom” are concerned, here we can only touch upon the issues connected with them. Yes indeed, reason is God's great gift to man, and the victory of reason over unreason is also a goal of the Christian life. But when does reason truly triumph? When it is detached from God? When it has become blind to God? Is the reason behind action and capacity for action the whole of reason? If progress, in order to be progress, needs moral growth on the part of humanity, then the reason behind action and capacity for action is likewise urgently in need of integration through reason's openness to the saving forces of faith, to the differentiation between good and evil. Only thus does reason become truly human. It becomes human only if it is capable of directing the will along the right path, and it is capable of this only if it looks beyond itself. Otherwise, man's situation, in view of the imbalance between his material capacity and the lack of judgement in his heart, becomes a threat for him and for creation. Thus where freedom is concerned, we must remember that human freedom always requires a convergence of various freedoms. Yet this convergence cannot succeed unless it is determined by a common intrinsic criterion of measurement, which is the foundation and goal of our freedom. Let us put it very simply: man needs God, otherwise he remains without hope." (Spe Salvi, No. 23).

Breaking news on the Holocaust

Read here: http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/11/17/news/germany.php

But don't expect Louis Villarrubia of the Saint Benedict Center cult to acknowledge these facts. After all, he's not an historian.

A Holocaust survivor writes from Jerusalem, Israel

Ester Golan's Blog: http://golanes.blogspot.com/

Anti-Semitism to top talks at 2008
Roman Catholic Bishops' summit


For years I have been warning about the rising tide of global anti-Semitism and in particular the rise of anti-Semitism amongst so-called "Traditional Catholic groups." While most have welcomed my efforts, others (those who define themselves as "traditional Catholics" and who have embraced the ideology of the late Father Leonard Feeney - popularly known by many as "The Hate Priest") have referred to me as a "turncoat," and a "traitor" toward the Church and have chided me for having friends at the ADL. The Associated Press is now reporting that "The need to step up the fight against anti-Semitism will be a key issue for the world's Roman Catholic Bishops at a meeting at the Vatican next year." Source:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/853159.html

I won't say I told you so. Oh what the heck: I told you so.

Let us all give thanks to the Lord Jesus for this happy development and for His wonderful gift to the Church: Pope Benedict XVI!

Paul.

God's Omnipotent Love

God's Omnipotent Love

"What is love? Love is the power to grant freedom without desiring to limit or inhibit its exercise. It is the power to give freedom without any will to take it back. And it is only Omnipotence that can refrain absolutely from trespassing upon freedom. Only God can give and not take back...He suffers within Himself the entire consequence of allowing man absolute freedom. That is His love....

Thus the existence of evil and suffering in the world is a proof, not that God is either Good but powerless, or All Powerful but not good. On the contrary, it is a proof that God is both loving and omnipotent. Only absolute love could grant unhindered freedom, and only omnipotence can endure the operation of that freedom."

- D.R. Davies

John 3:16

A challenge not accepted...

Several days ago I left a comment at Russell Provost's important Blog SBC Watch: http://sbcwatch.blogspot.com/

I said (in part):


We live in an age of information. Unfortunately, not all the information out there is sound. As we all know, people often have a tendency to distort facts in an attempt to advance their own personal agenda. For example, there has been an unfortunate trend in the Mainstream media to smear the reputation of Pope Pius XII by implying - or stating in a direct fashion - that this heroic Pontiff remained "silent" during the Nazi atrocities or that he was "Hitler's Pope." This is most unfortunate and constitutes slander as it is not consistent with the facts of history: http://lasalettejourney.blogspot.com/2007/11/from-la-salette-journey-archives.html

In the same fashion, Louis Villarrubia's Saint Benedict Center has published an article by Gary Potter at its website which refers to the Shoah as the "so-called Holocaust" and which states that our understanding of wartime Germany today is largely the result of "Zionist enterprise."

Louis Villarrubia was being truthful when he admitted to Mary Richardson [on the ABC television program Chronicle] that he is not an historian. All the more reason then that he should defer to reputable historians and their consensus as to the reality of the Holocaust. But if Louis Villarrubia is in fact not an historian (as he has freely admitted) why then has he stated that the Jewish People "undermine public morality"? Perhaps we should invite Mr. Villarrubia to cite reputable historians who share this view? The key word here being "reputable." Not anti-Semitic individuals like Fr. Denis Fahey.

Let's challenge Mr. Villarrubia, but let's do so with charity. If Mr. Villarrubia fails to rise to the challenge, then we can say with honest conviction and certainty that he is not being honest.

When challenged to provide others with the dimissorial letters granting him canonical permission to be ordained to the diaconate, Mr. Villarrubia fell strangely silent. When asked how his community may be considered to be in communion with the Catholic Church when the Diocese of Manchester has stated explicitly that his organization has "no affiliation" with the Roman Catholic Church, again he fell strangely silent.

What is needed here is open and honest dialogue. To date, I have not witnessed any real interest from Mr. Villarrubia or his followers to engage in such authentic dialogue.Let's pray that this situation will change."

To date, I have received absolutely no response. And not one SBC member has addressed these rather substantial concerns. This speaks volumes. And so, once again I issue the challenge. And in so doing, I will quote from Pope John Paul II:

"Considering history in the light of the principles of faith in God, we must also reflect on the catastrophic event of the Shoah, that ruthless and inhuman attempt to exterminate the Jewish people in Europe, an attempt that resulted in millions of victims - including women and children, the elderly and the sick - exterminated only because they were Jews." (Meeting with Jewish Leadership, United States, September 11, 1987).

The time has come for Mr. Villarrubia (known to his followers as "Brother" Andre Marie) to explain why he refused to acknowledge the reality of the Holocaust on the television program Chronicle. The time has come for Mr. Villarrubia to explain just how his organization is not anti-Semitic when one SBC leader has referred to the Jewish People as the "Synagogue of Satan" and he has referred to them as a people who "undermine public morality." The time has come for Mr. Villarrubia to explain why he has passed himself off as a Deacon in the Catholic Church and to produce the dimissorial letters from Bishop John B. McCormack granting him canonical permission to be ordained to the diaconate. The time has come for Mr. Villarrubia to explain why his organization has passed itself off as Roman Catholic when the Diocese of Manchester has stated that it has "no affiliation" with the Roman Catholic Church and that the Bishop has not given the organization any permission to do ministry in the State of New Hampshire.

Will Mr. Villarrubia rise to the challenge? Or will he simply remain silent in the face of so many difficult questions?

Are you concerned about the SBC in Richmond, New Hampshire?

Kelly A. Ayotte
Attorney General
33 Capitol Street
Concord, NH 03301
Phone: (603) 271-3658
Fax: (603) 271-2110
Website: http://doj.nh.gov/

A timely reminder from a popular Catholic author

Michael Brown has a beautiful article which is a must read: http://www.spiritdaily.com/certainty.htm


"We have the truth -- we have wisdom -- only by following the way of Jesus.

This means extending our "circle of love."

Too often, we reject others on the basis of first impressions. We reject them because they aren't like us, because they are not Catholic, or not the right kind of Catholic, or Christian, or because they look differently -- style their hair in a certain way, or wear a different style of shirt or dress.

It becomes "us against them." We form a cult. We become isolated -- instead of reaching out." - Michael H. Brown.

Paul.

Maximilian: Saint of Auschwitz:

http://catholicinsight.com/online/saints/article_274.shtml

HOMILY AT THE CANONIZATION OF ST. MAXIMILIAN MARY KOLBE

By His Holiness Pope John Paul II on October 10, 1982

"Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends" (John 15:13).

From today on, the Church desires to address as "Saint" a man who was granted the grace of carrying out these words of the Redeemer in an absolutely literal manner.

For towards the end of July, 1941, when the camp commander ordered the prisoners destined to die of starvation to fall in line, this man-Maximilian Maria Kolbe-spontaneously came forward and declared himself ready to go to death in the place of one of them. This readiness was accepted and, after more than two weeks of torment caused by starvation, Father Maximilian's life was ended with a lethal injection on August 14, 1941.

All this happened in the concentration camp at Auschwitz where during the last war some four million people were put to death, including the Servant of God, Edith Stein (the Carmelite Sister Teresa Benedicta of the Cross), whose cause for beatification is in progress at the competent Congregation. Disobedience to God-the Creator of life who said, "Thou shalt not kill"-caused in that place the immense holocaust of so many innocent persons. And so at the same time, our age has thus been horribly stigmatized by the slaughter of the innocent.

Father Maximilian Kolbe, himself a prisoner of the concentration camp, defended in that place of death an innocent man's right to life. Father Kolbe defended his right to life, declaring that he was ready to go to death in the man's place, because he was the father of a family and his life was necessary for his dear ones. Father Maximilian Maria Kolbe thus reaffirmed the Creator's exclusive right over innocent human life. He bore witness to Christ and to love. For the Apostle John writes: "By this we know love, that he laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren" (1 John 3:16).

The Church has venerated Father Maximilian as "Blessed" since 1971. By laying down his life for a brother, he made himself like Christ.
Gathered today before the Basilica of St. Peter in Rome, we wish to express the special value which Father Maximilian Kolbe's death by martyrdom has in the eyes of God.

"Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his saints." These are the words we have repeated in today's responsorial psalm. It is truly precious and inestimable! Through the death which Christ underwent on the Cross, the redemption of the world was achieved, for this death has the value of supreme love. Through the death of Father Maximilian Kolbe, a shining sign of this love was renewed in our century which is do seriously and in so many ways threatened by sin and death.

In this canonization liturgy there seems to appear before us that "martyr of love" of Oswiecim (as Paul VI called him), saying: "O Lord, I am thy servant. I am thy servant, the son of thy handmaid. Thou has loosed my bonds" (Psalm 115 (116):16).

And as though gathering together in one sacrifice the whole of his life, he-a priest and a spiritual son of saint Francis-seems to say: "What shall I render to the Lord for his bounty to me? I will lift up the cup of salvation and call on the name of the Lord" (Psalms 115 (116):12).
These are words of gratitude. Death undergone out of love-in the place of one's brother-is an heroic act of man. It is an act through which, together with the one already beatified, we glorify God. For from God comes the grace of such heroism, of this martyrdom.

Therefore let us today glorify God's great work in man. Before all of us gathered here, Father Maximilian Kolbe lifts up his "cup of salvation." In it is contained the sacrifice of his whole life, sealed with the martyr's death "for a brother."

Maximilian prepared for this definitive sacrifice by following Christ from the first years of his life in Poland. From these years comes the mysterious vision of two crowns-one white and one red. From these our saint does not choose. He accepts them both. From the years of his youth, in fact, Maximilian was filled with the great love of Christ and the desire for martyrdom.

This love and this desire accompanied him along the path of his Franciscan and priestly vocation, for which he prepared himself both in Poland and in Rome. This love and this desire followed him through all the places of his priestly and Franciscan service in Poland and in his missionary service in Japan.

Immaculate Virgin Inspired His Life

The inspiration of his whole life was the Immaculata. To her he entrusted his love for Christ and his desire for martyrdom. In the mystery of the Immaculate Conception there revealed itself before the eyes of his soul that marvelous and supernatural world of God's grace offered to man.

The faith and works of the whole life of Father Maximilian show that he thought of his cooperation with divine grace as a warfare under the banner of the Immaculate Conception. This Marian characteristic is particularly expressive in the life and holiness of Father Kolbe. His whole apostolate, both in his homeland and on the missions, was similarly marked with this sign. In Poland and in Japan the centers of this apostolate were the special cities of the Immaculata-Niepokalanow in Poland and Mugenzai no Sono in Japan.

God Found Him Worthy of Himself

What happened in the starvation bunker in the concentration camp at Oswiecim (Auschwitz) on August 14, 1941?

The reply is given in today's liturgy. "God tested" Maximilian Maria "and found him worthy of himself" (Wisdom 3:5). God tested him "like gold in the furnace and like a sacrificial burnt offering he accepted him" (Wisdom 3:6). Even if "in the sight of men he was punished," yet "his hope is full of immortality." For "the souls of the righteous are in the hands of God and no torment will ever touch them." And when-humanly speaking-torment and death came to them, when "in the eyes of men they seemed to have died...", when "their departure from us was thought to be an affliction...", "they are in peace." They experience life and glory "in the hands of God" (Wisdom 3:1-4).

This life is the fruit of death like Christ's death. Glory is the sharing of his resurrection. So what happened in the starvation bunker, on August 14, 1941?

There were fulfilled the words spoken by Christ to the Apostles that they "should go and bear fruit and that their fruit should abide" (John 15:16).

In a marvelous way the fruit of the tragic death of Maximilian Kolbe endures in the Church and the world!

In Their Minds It Was Not "Death"

Men saw what happened in the camp at Auschwitz. And even if to their eyes it must have seemed that a companion of their torment "dies," even if humanly speaking they could consider "his departure" as "a disaster," nevertheless in their minds this was not simply "death." Maximilian did not die but "gave his life...for his brother." In that death, terrible from the human point of view, there was the whole definitive greatness of the human act and of the human choice. He spontaneously offered himself up to death out of love.

And in this human death of his there was the clear witness borne to Christ: the witness borne in Christ to the dignity of man, to the sanctity of his life, and to the saving power of death in which the power of love is made manifest.

Maximilian's Death a Sign of Victory

Precisely for this reason the death of Maximilian Kolbe became a sign of victory. This was victory won over all systematic contempt and hate for man and for what is divine in man-a victory like that won by our Lord Jesus Christ on Calvary.
"You are my friends if you do what I command you" (John 15:14). The Church accepts this sign of victory-won through the power of Christ's redemption-with reverence and gratitude. She seeks to discern its eloquence with all humility and love.

As ever when the Church proclaims the holiness of her sons and daughters, as also in the present case, she seeks to act with all due exactness and responsibility, searching into all the aspects of the life and death of the Servant of God.
Yet at the same time the Church must be careful, as she reads the sign of holiness given by God in his earthly Servant, not to allow its full eloquence and definitive meaning to go unnoticed. And so, in judging the cause of Blessed Maximilian Kolbe even after his Beatification, it was necessary to take into consideration many voices of the People of God-especially of our Brothers in the episcopate of both Poland and Germany-who asked that Maximilian Kolbe be proclaimed as a martyr saint.

Before the eloquence of the life and death of blessed Maximilian, it is impossible no to recognize what seems to constitute the main and essential element of the sign given by God to the Church and the world in his death.

Does not this death-faced spontaneously, for love of man-constitute a particular fulfillment of the words of Christ? Does not this death make Maximilian particularly like unto Christ-the Model of all Martyrs-who gives his own life on the Cross for his brethren? Does not this death possess a particular and penetrating eloquence for our age? Does not this death constitute a particularly authentic witness of the Church in the modern world?

And so, in virtue of my apostolic authority, I have decreed that Maximilian Maria Kolbe-who after his Beatification was venerated as a Confessor-shall henceforeward be venerated also as a Martyr!

"Precious in the eyes of the Lord is the death of his faithful ones!"

Amen

Wanted: A Few Good Men

I've said it time and again: many parishes seem to be allergic to testosterone. Masculinity is not a disease. Why treat it as such?

"Jesus is the greatest thing that ever happened to me" - Joe Klecko, four-time pro-bowl defensive star for the New York Jets.

And you thought Lance Armstrong was a hero...

A Man For All Seasons




Read about cyclist Gino Bartali, an Italian athlete who risked his own life to save Jewish people from a certain death. Because of his efforts, the Assisi Underground was a tremendous success: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gino_Bartali

So-called Holocaust?

In an article which may be found at the website of the anti-Semitic Saint Benedict Center cult (Richmond, New Hampshire), author Gary Potter writes:

"There are Traditional Catholics who rightly understand that much that commonly is said of Germany in the years 1933-45 has the Zionist enterprise behind the saying, but they have let their understanding obscure the reality of the Nazi regime's evil. Some wind up denying it; they become "revisionists." Revisionism is far from wrong in some of its particulars, but the regime was evil, and on many scores. One that is completely irrelevant to this article is the whole question of the so-called Holocaust. We are not going to get into it." (Source: http://www.catholicism.org/july-twentieth-1944.html).

The so-called Holocaust? Much of our understanding of Germany in the years 1933-1945 is the result of "Zionist enterprise"? Really? Once again I invite my readers to visit the website of The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum: http://www.ushmm.org/

Louis Villarrubia refused to answer Mary Richardson on Chronicle when she asked him if he believed in the reality of the Holocaust. Instead he responded that he was not a historian and couldn't remark on the "subtleties" of the Shoah. But if he does not in fact deny the Holocaust, why would he - as "Prior" of the Saint Benedict Center - allow the organization's website to carry an article which refers to the slaughter of six-million Jewish people as the "so-called Holocaust" and which attributes our understanding of this horror as being the result of "Zionist enterprise"?

The photo above is taken from: http://www.shamash.org and is a scene of horror at the extermination camp of Maidanek: possibly in a desperate attempt to cover their tracks, the SS burned corpses of victims.

A chain of anti-Semitism

Louis Villarrubia, known to members of the Saint Benedict Center cult as "Brother" Andre Marie, has openly promoted the writings of Fr. Denis Fahey, a Redemptorist priest who was known for his anti-Semitism. Fr. Feeney was clearly influenced by Fr. Fahey as was another hate priest: Fr. Charles Edward Coughlin.

Fr. Coughlin, a Canadian born Roman Catholic priest, is popularly known as "The Father of Hate Radio." His radio program, which included praises of Hitler and Mussolini, had an audience of more than forty million during the 1930's.

Read about Fr. Coughlin here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father_Coughlin

http://coat.ncf.ca/our_magazine/links/53/coughlin.html


Three individuals influenced by the writings of the anti-Semitic Fr. Fahey. Each with his own legacy of hate: Fr. Coughlin in the 1930's, Fr. Feeney in the 1940's and 1950's and Louis Villarrubia from the 1990's to the present.

A chain of anti-Semitism. By the grace of God, this chain will be broken. It has already enslaved too many people.

From the La Salette Journey Archives...

Friday, April 27, 2007

Long before the Second Vatican Council, when Nazism reared its ugly head and the Jewish People were dehumanized and sent to death camps as part of Hitler's "Final Solution," Pope Pius XI raised his voice:

"Pius XI responded by issuing in 1937 the encyclical Mit Brennender Sorge condemning the Nazi ideology of racism and totalitarianism and Nazi violations of the concordat. Copies had to be smuggled into Germany so they could be read from the pulpit. As the extreme nature of Nazi racial anti-Semitism became obvious, and as Mussolini in the late 1930s began imitating Hitler's anti-Jewish race laws in Italy, Pius XI made his position clear, both in Mit Brennender Sorge and in a public address in the Vatican to Belgian pilgrims in 1938: "Mark well that in the Catholic Mass, Abraham is our Patriarch and forefather. Anti-Semitism is incompatible with the lofty thought which that fact expresses. It is a movement with which we Christians can have nothing to do. No, no, I say to you it is impossible for a Christian to take part in anti-Semitism. It is inadmissible. Through Christ and in Christ we are the spiritual progeny of Abraham. Spiritually, we [Christians] are all Semites."(Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Pius_XI).

His successor to the Chair of Peter, Pope Pius XII of happy memory, stood with the Jewish People during their painful trial, and rescued anywhere between 800,000 and 1.5 million of the Jewish People. The Historical Record: What Pius XII Did for the Jews: http://www.catholicleague.org/pius/dalinframe.htm

The anti-Semitism of the Saint Benedict Center and other "traditional Catholic" groups in no way represents the mind of the Church.


"Being a lover of freedom, when the Nazi revolution came in Germany, I looked to the universities to defend it, knowing that they had always boasted of their devotion to the cause of truth; but, no, the universities immediately were silenced. Then I looked to the great editors of the newspapers, whose flaming editorials in days gone by had proclaimed their love of freedom: but they, like the universities, were silenced in a few short weeks. Only the Catholic Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler's campaign for suppressing the truth. I never had any special interest in the Church before, but now I feel a great affection and admiration because the Church alone has had the courage and persistence to stand for intellectual truth and moral freedom. I am forced thus to confess that what I once despised, I now praise unreservedly."

- Nobel Prize winning Physicist Albert Einstein, a refugee from Nazi Germany.

Is a hacker attempting to find out where I live?

I am not a paranoid person. In fact, I try to look for the good in everyone. However, something strange recently happened. A comment was left at this Blog - under the "Continued dishonesty at the SBC Richmond" post - purporting to have been written by Mr. Russell Provost and including his email address. The writer of this comment said (in part): "Big issue coming up is the benefit concert for the SBC being held at Keene State College on December 6th. There will be a big protest.I think it is time we meet in person. I am usually off Thursday and Friday."

I responded to this post by writing an email to Russell Provost at the email address provided. I received no response and found this to be very peculiar. Then I noticed something even more strange: the comment had been deleted by the author. Was this an individual attempting to procure my home address? All the more disturbing since I have received threats at this Blog. One suggested that I should have an "accident" while another said that I should be "silenced forever."

Happily, I did not include my address when I responded to the email address provided with this comment. I did tell the author of the comment (who I had assumed was in fact Russell Provost) that I would meet him in Rindge, New Hampshire since I had errands to accomplish in that area anyway.

As I mentioned above, this comment was deleted by the author. Is someone hijacking Russell Provost's email address in an attempt to find out where I live? If there is anyone with advanced computer knowledge on this subject, I would appreciate any assistance you might be able to offer. I still have the email notification that someone purporting to be Russell Provost left a comment at this Blog as well as my email response to this individual.

Meanwhile, at the SBC Watch Blog, someone left a comment referring to myself and Russell Provost (and others opposing the SBC cult) as the Devil's "minions." This is particularly troubling since those who are planning violence against a person or persons will often attempt to demonize the person or persons in an effort to rationalize any intended violence.

Thank you.
Paul.

Lest we forget

Tomorrow is Veterans Day. Could you spend just a fraction of the day remembering the sacrifices of those who gave so much - even their lives - for our freedom?

http://www.folder01.info/LeominsterHigh.com/lhs-military00.htm

We Shall Keep the Faith

by Moina Michael,

November 1918

Oh! you who sleep in Flanders Fields,
Sleep sweet - to rise anew!
We caught the torch you threw
And holding high, we keep the Faith With All who died.
We cherish, too, the poppy red
That grows on fields where valor led;
It seems to signal to the skies
That blood of heroes never dies,
But lends a lustre to the red
Of the flower that blooms above the dead
In Flanders Fields.
And now the Torch and Poppy Red
We wear in honor of our dead.
Fear not that ye have died for naught;
We'll teach the lesson that ye wrought
In Flanders Fields.

I love you dad and I miss you.

Paul.

New addition to La Salette Journey

Readers of this Blog will notice that the Amber Alert ticker has been added to the Blog's footer. By clicking on the ticker, you can access more information on a child who has been abducted or who has been reported missing.

Paul.

A Peace that is ever at war...

Back in the mid 1990's I was living in Gardner, Massachusetts. At that time, a priest from the Diocese of Worcester was credibly accused of abusing a young girl from that town. Almost immediately, more than 100 priests from the Diocese signed a letter of support for the accused priest which was published in the Worcester Telegram & Gazette. I wrote a letter to the Editor of The Gardner News in support of the victim and her family. I was denounced at my parish. I was called "sick." One fellow parishioner even asked me why I was getting involved and if I knew the victim. I couldn't help but think of the reply which Cain gave to God when asked about the whereabouts of his brother Abel whom he had murdered: "I know not: am I my brother's keeper?" (Genesis 4:9).

The answer to that question, of course, is yes.

The accused priest in question was sentenced to some 10 years in prison for the physical and emotional abuse which he had inflicted on his innocent victim, a small helpless child. And why do I relate this? Because, as Pope John XXIII taught us in his Encyclical Letter Ad Petri Cathedram: On Truth, Unity and Peace: "Anyone who consciously and wantonly attacks known truth, who arms himself with falsehood in his speech, his writings, or his conduct in order to attract and win over less learned men and to shape the inexperienced and impressionable minds of the young to his own way of thinking, takes advantage of the inexperience and innocence of others and engages in an altogether despicable business." (No. 11).

And what should our response to such a "despicable business" be? Our Beloved Holy Father Pope John XXIII again provides an answer:

"...as long as we are journeying in exile over this earth, our peace and happiness will be imperfect. For such peace is not completely untroubled and serene; it is active, not calm and motionless. In short, this is a peace that is ever at war. It wars with every sort of error, including that which falsely wears the face of truth; it struggles against the enticements of vice, against those enemies of the soul, of whatever description, who can weaken, blemish, or destroy our innocence or Catholic faith." (No. 93).

Last Sunday, the pastor of my parish gave a homily which I found to be very troubling. He spoke of the charges of abuse which have been levelled against certain priests within the Worcester Diocese and of the seriousness of making false accusations. He cited the Commandment: "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor" (Exodus 20:16). And I couldn't agree more. However, this priest seemed to imply in his homily that the majority of accusations made against priests have been false and at one point asserted that he and his brother priests live in constant fear of getting a call from the Bishop and of being told to hire an attorney to defend themselves.

Granted, there have been false accusations against priests in the past. And these should be roundly condemned. But to suggest that the majority of accusations made by victims have been false ones is simply not honest. It is not the Catholic attitude and it only serves to victimize honest victims all over again.

The proper response is to pray for the truth to be revealed in each and every case and to allow law enforcement officials and the courts to do their job. Every person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Every person has the right to due process. But to assume that an accusation is false without giving it a fair hearing is to deny the rights of the victim.

In all things, truth should be our primary goal. The more than 100 priests who signed a letter of support for the accused priest mentioned above were simply wrong. They made a judgment in favor of the accused and against the victim without sufficient facts to make such a judgment. And they were wrong. Sentence was imposed.

I love the Church. More than anything else in this life. Even my own life. For this reason, I simply refuse to dishonor the Mystical Body of Christ which is the Church by putting personal agendas before truth.

Relevant reading: http://religionandpluralism.org/GranteeArticles/Brooten_VictimAdvocatesCritical_TelegramAndGazette_MA_113005.pdf

This article notes how the priest in question, Fr. Robert Kelley, admits to having abused more than 50 young girls in the past.

From Mass Resistance

Jury acquits Larry Cirignano!

Catholic activist innocent of all charges. Jury rejects bogus "assault and battery" accusations. Huge defeat for ACLU and homosexual activists!

Read here: http://www.massresistance.org/docs/issues/cirignano/victory.html

View actual videos of the event: http://www.massresistance.org/docs/events06/worcester_1216/index.html


Other relevant reading from my good friend Jay G at Defend the Faith:

http://dtf-jayg.blogspot.com/2007/03/sin-of-sodom.html

http://dtf-jayg.blogspot.com/2007/02/friend-of-court.html

Please take note of how homosexual activists who posted comments at the above-cited articles lost the intellectual debate and resorted to hateful ad hominem attacks. Such attacks are the last resort of those who perceive the weakness of their own arguments.

The problem of truth and human fellowship

Readers of this Blog will no doubt see similarities between the liberal dissent group which calls itself "Voice of the Faithful" and the anti-Semitic Saint Benedict Center which calls itself "traditional" ( or conservative). Both these groups have relied on slogans as a substitute for thought. One seeks a more "democratic" Church in its own image and likeness and quotes selectively from Vatican II documents to further its agenda which is summed up in its mantra: "Keep the Faith, change the Church." The other seeks to interpret Catholic dogma according to its own likes and to advance its own conception of Church, one which is rooted in anti-Semitism and a very narrow interpretation of just who is "outside the Church." The agenda of both these groups serves to highlight an ongoing problem which is of great concern for our society. A problem which the French philosopher Jacques Maritain addressed in his work entitled "On the Use of Philosophy," which is actually a compilation of three essays.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Prayer Request

Please pray for the repose of the soul of Leo F. Moisan, Sr. and for the family he left behind. Our hearts are restless O Lord, until they rest in Thee.

What must change: the structure of the Church or that of the human heart?

In its document on change entitled "Discerning the Spirit: A Guide for Renewing and Restructuring the Church," Voice of the Faithful (VOTF), an organization established in the wake of the clerical abuse scandal, provides us with a glimpse of its loss of the sense of truth and of the sense of the Church.

In a desperate attempt to convince the faithful that the structure of the Church must change and become more democratic, this VOTF guide quotes the following passage from the Vatican II document Lumen Gentium: "Thus every layman, by virtue of the very gifts bestowed on him, is at the same time a witness and a living instrument of the mission of the Church herself." (LG, No. 33).

But the lay involvement referred to in this passage is a far different thing from the "democratic" Church envisaged by members of the flagging dissent group. If we read just a little further into the same Vatican II document, we are told that: "The laity should promptly accept in Christian obedience what is decided by the pastors who, as teachers and rulers of the Church, represent Christ." (LG, No. 37). Why doesn't the VOTF "guide" quote from that passage?

While it is true that some practices in the Church are similar to those of a representative democracy, for example, Bishops who are united with the Pope share authority with him, and their leadership is collegial (LG, No. 22), and the lay faithful have a right to make their needs and desires known while appropriately expressing their opinions (LG, No. 37), still, authority in the Church has a different foundation from authority in a representative democracy. Not to mention a different function. Leaders in a representative democracy govern in the name of the people. But within the Church, pastors govern in the name of the Lord Jesus. By appointment, mission and commission, Jesus has provided for the continuation of His royal office. The hierarchy of jurisdiction, therefore, is a divine institution (LG, No. 18). This hierarchy constitutes the external framework of that organism in which Jesus Himself lives and of which He is both the juridic and mystic Head, namely, His Mystical Body the Church.

Members of the primitive Church understood this as do faithful Catholics today. They knew that the Apostles had received from Jesus their power to teach, rule and sanctify. They understood that even Jesus’ teaching is not His own and that the Spirit does not speak on his own (Jn 7:16; 16:13). In short, they understood that everything comes from the Father (Jas 1:17-18).

Sadly, there are those who still insist that the structure of the Church must change. Father William J. Byron, SJ is one such individual. In an column written for the Catholic News Service and published in the October 26th edition of The Catholic Free Press, Fr. Byron refers to VOTF as "a reform movement." And speaking of the "structural change" which this dissent group calls for, he writes, "...faithful Catholic people want to have a voice in the selection of their parish priests and local bishops...It is worth noting that structural change never happens suddenly, but structural adjustments are happening all the time. Enlightened criticism from Voice of the Faithful will bring about structural adjustments, which eventually will lead to noticeable change. For this to happen, however, the movement needs staying power..."

VOTF is a reform movement which offers enlightened criticism? Far from it. Any authentic reform movement in the Church has its foundation in Magisterial truth and understands that it is not the Church which must change but the human heart. Writing to the Ephesians, St. Paul said, "Put off the old man who is corrupted according to the desire of error, and be renewed in the spirit of your mind: and put on the new man, who according to God is created in justice and holiness of truth" (Eph. 4:22-24).

And as Dr. Von Hildebrand explains, "These words of St. Paul are inscribed above the gate through which all must pass who want to reach the goal set us by God. They implicitly contain the quintessence of the process which baptized man must undergo before he attains the unfolding of the new supernatural life received in Baptism." (Transformation in Christ, p.3). Dr. Von Hildebrand goes on to explain in this work of critical importance that there is a certain type of man, "who, while not lacking a certain elan, refuses to take account of his limitations and is thus driven to magnify his stature artificially." He continues: "Suppose he is present at some discussion of spiritually relevant topics: he will take part in the debate as though he were fully equipped to do so; he will claim impressions as deep as the others; he will not yield to any other man as regards intellectual proficiency or even religious stature. Thus he works himself up, as it were, to a level which he has not reached in reality - and which he may not even be able to reach, so far as it is a matter of natural capacities. He is not without zeal; but that zeal is nourished at heart by pride. He misjudges the limitations of the natural talents which God has lent him, and consequently lapses into pretense. He is fond of speaking of things which far transcend the limits of his understanding; he behaves as though a mere mental or verbal reference to such subjects (however poorly implemented with actual knowledge and penetration) would by itself amount to their intellectual possession. This cramped attitude of sham spirituality is mostly underlain by an inferiority complex, or by a kind of infantile unconsciousness. Stupidity in its really oppressive form is traceable to this pretension to appear something different from what one is in fact, and by no means to a mere deficiency of intellectual gifts." (Transformation in Christ, pp.23-24).

Why am I relating all of this? Because, Dr. Von Hildebrand teaches us that such false self-appraisals actually hinder our readiness to change or to "put on the new man" as St. Paul instructs us to do. And what Dr. Von Hildebrand refers to as a "cramped attitude of sham spirituality" is part and parcel of the VOTF movement. Members of VOTF have their own thoughts as to what must change. But this is because they fail to listen to the Word of God as given to us by the Apostle to the Gentiles. Insisting that it is not they who must "put on the new man" in Christ Jesus but that it is the Church which must change, these intellectually and spiritually cramped characters evaluate the abuse crisis within the Church and issue an arrogant vestra culpa (your fault) while refusing to issue a humble mea culpa (my fault). These sophomoric souls, anxious to assign blame to the Church for the sins of some of Her members, forget the words of the great Cardinal Journet: "All contradictions are eliminated as soon as we understand that the members of the Church do indeed sin, but they do so by their betraying the Church. The Church is thus not without sinners, but She is without sin. The Church as person is responsible for penance. She is not responsible for sins...The members of the Church themselves - laity, clerics, priests, bishops, and Popes - who disobey the Church are responsible for their sins, but the Church as person is not responsible...It is forgotten that the Church as person is the Bride of Christ, 'Whom He has purchased with His own Blood' (Acts 20:28)."

VOTF members will no doubt continue to live in denial while loudly proclaiming the need for "structural change" within the Church even while remaining unsure as to what this actually means. This is why their movement is destined to fail. But there is another and no less important reason for their movement's decay. And it is this: most Catholics in this country understand what they themselves do not: namely, that the Church founded by Jesus Christ the Incarnate Word is a perfect society which is immutable. They know and understand this because such is the teaching of the Church. It was Pope Pius XII, in his encyclical letter Mystici Corporis, who taught that:"..The Church, which should be considered a perfect society in its own right, is not made up of merely moral and juridical elements and principles. It is far superior to all other human societies; it surpasses them as grace surpasses nature, as things immortal are above all those that perish...The juridical principles, on which also the Church rests and is established, derive from the divine constitution given it by Christ.."

Such authentic Catholics accept the teaching of Vatican I that, "...the pastors and the faithful of whatever rite and dignity, both as separate individuals and all together, are bound by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, not only in things which pertain to faith and morals, but also in those which pertain to the discipline and government of the Church which is spread over the whole world, so that the Church of Christ, protected not only by the Roman Pontiff, but by the unity of communion as well as of the profession of the same faith is one flock under the one highest shepherd. This is the doctrine of Catholic truth from which no one can deviate and keep his faith and salvation." (Dogmatic Constitution I on the Church of Christ, Session IV).

VOTF rejects this clear and unambiguous teaching of Holy Mother Church. This is why the movement is held in "low esteem" by most Catholics in this country and beyond. With all due respect for Fr. Byron, it is not the structure of the Church which must change. It is the structure of the human heart which must change. Until our hearts are conformed to that of the Sacred Heart of our Lord Jesus Christ, our criticism will never be constructive or enlightened. It will only be bitter.

Let us all pray: Sacred Heart of Jesus, make my heart like unto Thine. Amen.

Continued dishonesty at the SBC Richmond

At the website of the Saint Benedict Center (Richmond, New Hampshire), there is a response to the Chronicle episode which aired last Thursday. According to the SBC, "A fraudulent claim that the followers of Father Feeney are 'not Catholic' went uncorrected."

This is false on two levels. First of all, I never made the claim that all of those who have a love for Fr. Feeney are "not Catholic." There are communities in Still River, Massachusetts which have been regularized and which are in communion with the Church. These communities have not embraced - and propagated - a rabid anti-Semitism.

However, I was referring to the Saint Benedict Center in Richmond, New Hampshire. In a letter to Mrs. Terri O'Rorke (which was referenced in the Chronicle piece) we read:

"I write to you in reply to your letter dated May 24, 2007. I share your concern about the ongoing controversy and difficulties with the Saint Benedict Center. As you know, the Saint Benedict Center has no permission or authority to exercise any Ministry on behalf of the Roman Catholic Church in New Hampshire.

Bishop McCormack has and will continue to do all that he can to encourage people to refrain from participating in any of the spiritual exercises at the Saint Benedict Center. For my part, I will continue to make it clear that Saint Benedict Center has no affiliation with the Roman Catholic Church in any way.

Please know that I will continue to pray for you and all those who are affected by difficulties that have been created by the Saint Benedict Center.

With every good wish, I remain
sincerely yours in Christ
Edward J Arsenault
Moderator of the Curia
Manchester NH

No affiliation. This could not be more clear.


The SBC also posted the following statement: "The vicious portrayal of our founder did not present a true picture of the zealous priest whose love for God and man led him to great lengths in his defense of Catholic doctrine and his work for the salvation of souls."

As with most statements issued by the SBC in Richmond, this one is long on emotion and short on substance. I have already documented Fr. Feeney's viciousness and sheer hatred for those he deemed unworthy of eternal salvation here: http://lasalettejourney.blogspot.com/2005/12/saint-benedict-center-in-richmond-nh.html

And Fr. William Most, an internationally-acclaimed theologian and Scripture scholar has responded to what he so aptly describes as the "tragic errors of Leonard Feeney" here: http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/FEENEY.TXT

Fr. Most writes:


"In the late 1940s Leonard Feeney, S. J. began to teach that there is no salvation outside the Church. He was correct in saying that there were official teachings, even definitions, on that score. But his tragic error came when he adopted Protestant method*, thinking that in that way he would be one of the only true Catholics! We spoke of his protestant method with good reason. First, he was excommunicated for disobedience, refusing to go to Rome to explain his position. Then the Holy Office, under Pius XII, sent a letter to the Archbishop of Boston, condemning Feeney's error. (It is known that Pius XII personally checked the English text of that letter).

...the very first paragraph pointed out what is obvious: we must avoid private interpretation of Scripture -- for that is strictly Protestant. But then the letter said we must also avoid private interpretation of the official texts of the Church. To insist on our own private interpretation, especially when the Church contradicts that, is pure Protestant attitude. What the disobedient Feeney said amounted to this: he insisted that all who did not formally enter the Church would go to hell. Hence he had to say, and he did say, that unbaptized babies go to hell. Further, all adults who did not formally enter the Church - get their names on a parish register - would also go to hell, even if they never had a chance to hear there was a Church, e.g., those in the western hemisphere during the long centuries before Columbus. Therefore Feeney consigned literally millions upon millions to hell, even though He gave them no chance. Not just the documents of the Church as interpreted by the Church should have kept him from this: merely common sense, and the realization that God is not only not a monster, but is infinitely good - that alone should have stopped him.

We have, then, most ample reason for calling his error tragic. Even the sexually immoral do not deny that God is good. Feeney does worse than they."

Amen Father Most. Amen.


* Please note: Fr. Most's reference to the "Protestant method" of interpreting Sacred Scripture is not intended in any way as an insult to those who belong to any of the Protestant churches. However, as Catholics, we believe - as Vatican II re-emphasized in its document Dei Verbum - that the task of authentically interpreting the Word of God belongs to the Magisterium and not private individuals.

More thoughts on Chronicle's story "A Town Divided."

During her interview with Louis Villarrubia, Mary Richardson quoted from Fr. Feeney's publication The Point:

Mary Richardson: "'Jews, as an organized force, are the implacable declared enemies of Christianity: Its tenets, its traditions, its moral code, its very culture.' Do you believe that?"

To which Louis Villarrubia responded, "As I said, our interest in the Jews is the same as our interest in Methodists, Presbyterians, um Hindus, Muslims...to bring them to the true faith. That is our interest."

Mary Richardson pressed on: "But if Fr. Feeney is your hero, do you repudiate what he said here? Did he say this at a different time? Was this wrong?

And Mr. Villarrubia replied, "I think you're getting the idea that what we really hold is that somehow.. um.. Jews as Jews are bad people."

Notice how Mr. Villarrubia evades answering Mary Richardson's rather specific question? Instead of providing her with an honest response as to whether or not he repudiates Fr. Feeney's anti-Semitic article quoted from above, he attempts to convince Mary (and her many viewers) that she is somehow misunderstanding his - and his followers - stance with regard to the Jewish People.

Gee, where would Mary Richardson get the idea that Louis Villarrubia and SBC members hold that Jews as Jews are bad people? Could it be because Douglas Bersaw (also known as "Brother" Anthony Mary) has referred to the Jewish People as the "Synagogue of Satan"? Maybe it's because Louis himself has described the Jewish People as a people who "undermine public morality"?

And what exactly does Mr. Villarrubia mean by such a statement? I guess we'll never know. I (and many others) have consistently challenged him to provide us with an answer to that question. Mary Richardson asked it during her interview. But just as Mr. Villarrubia has failed to provide us with an answer, so he refused to answer the question when Mary asked it.

If anyone ever doubted that Mr. Villarrubia and his SBC cult are not acting in good faith, now they're not.

"I'm no historian"

During the Chronicle episode entitled "A Town Divided," there was the following exchange between Mary Richardson and SBC leader Louis Villarrubia (known to his followers as "Brother" Andre Marie):


Mary Richardson: "Do you believe in the Holocaust. That the Holocaust actually exists?"

Louis Villarrubia: "That's not our issue....I'm no historian...I'm not... I'm not capable of speaking to the, to the, to the issue of the Holocaust....uh, all the different subtleties there."

Mary Richardson: "So you don't know whether it happened?"

Louis Villarrubia: "Did Jewish people die during World War II? Absolutely."

Mary Richardson: "Did six-million people die?"

Louis Villarrubia: "I don't know, I'm not a historian."


I should say not. Thankfully, the Holocaust or Shoah is well-documented and acknowledged by any reputable historian. At the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum's website: http://www.ushmm.org/, one may read articles on the Holocaust, view actual photographs of the genocide and learn more about the horrible atrocities carried out against the Jewish People by the Third Reich.

No, Louis Villarrubia is no historian. If he were, he would have had no difficulty answering Mary Richardson's very simple question. But does one have to be an historian to answer a question which any grade-school student could answer by the fifth or sixth grade?

The photo above is taken from the website of the US Holocaust Memorial Museum and shows piles of corpses after the liberation of the Mauthausen camp in Austria after May 5, 1945.

And what do we make of Mr. Villarrubia's use of the word "subtleties" to describe the events of the Holocaust? The word "subtle" is defined by the American Heritage Dictionary as follows: "So slight as to be difficult to detect or analyze...not immediately obvious." What exactly is it about the Holocaust that Mr. Villarrubia finds so subtle? The millions of murdered corpses, many of which were thrown into mass graves? The human skin which the Nazis would use for lamp shades? Or perhaps the gold teeth which were cut out of the mouths of murdered victims?

Subtleties Mr. Villarrubia? You're right. You are no historian. And you're attitude toward the Holocaust is just plain chilling.

Tonight on Chronicle: A Town Divided

Tonight the popular television news-magazine Chronicle will be examining the controversial Saint Benedict Center in Richmond, New Hampshire, recently listed as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. For more information visit: http://www.thebostonchannel.com/ scroll down and click on Chronicle HD.

Any questions regarding this Blog may be addressed to myself at: cleghornboy@juno.com

Paul.

On consistency

People don't really need a reason to leave the Church. But very often they will manufacture one. One recent excuse for deserting the Mystical Body of Christ has been the clergy abuse scandals. For more than ten years now I have been telling anyone who will listen that sexual abuse of children (both adolescents and pre-adolescents) has been far more widespread in the public schools and throughout society in general. Read here: http://www.dailynews.com/ci_7231716

Presumably the same people who abandoned Holy Mother Church because of the actions of a comparatively smaller number of errant priests will now remove their children from the public school system.

Or will they?

As documented here: http://dtf-jayg.blogspot.com/2007/10/worldly-logic-from-st-james-hill.html, Fr. Michael McFarland attempts to justify the presence of Planned Parenthood and NARAL at a conference at the College of the Holy Cross by insisting that, "It is not and has never been the mainstream Catholic position, and certainly is not the Jesuit position, that we should run away from public discussions of issues that are important to us just because of the presence of those whose positions or activities we find to be wrong."

Really? Then why did the College of the Holy Cross ban the Boston Church of Christ from its campus? Read the following statement issued by Holy Cross: http://www.holycross.edu/publicaffairs/features/2000-2001/nf010223M

Granted, this statement says that, "Generally, the ban is a result of the group's tactics rather than its theology." But what about the well-documented tactics of Planned Parenthood and NARAL? Holy Cross had absolutely no problem banning the Boston Church of Christ because it is a deceptive cult - the activities of which Holy Cross found to be wrong.

And is there anyone who can honestly assert that Fr. McFarland would tolerate the presence of Stormfront, Aryan Nation or the Ku Klux Klan at a Holy Cross Conference under the pretense that the institution should not "run away" from public issues that are important to us "just because of the presence of those whose positions or activities we find to be wrong"?

That argument didn't work for Columbia University. And it doesn't work for Holy Cross.

Open and respectful dialogue?

In his Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life), Pope John Paul II wrote that, "In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is..never licit to obey it, or to 'take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law, or vote for it." (EV, No. 73).

And in No. 74, His Holiness reminded us that: "Christians, like all people of good will, are called upon under grave obligation of conscience not to cooperate formally in practices which, even if permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to God's law. Indeed, from the moral standpoint, it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil. Such cooperation occurs when an action, either by its very nature or by the form it takes in a concrete situation, can be defined as a direct participation in an act against innocent human life or a sharing in the immoral intention of the person committing it. This cooperation can never be justified either by invoking respect for the freedom of others or by appealing to the fact that civil law permits it or requires it. Each individual in fact has moral responsibility for the acts which he personally performs; no one can be exempted from this responsibility, and on the basis of it everyone will be judged by God himself (cf. Rom 2:6; 14:12).

To refuse to take part in committing an injustice is not only a moral duty; it is also a basic human right. Were this not so, the human person would be forced to perform an action intrinsically incompatible with human dignity, and in this way human freedom itself, the authentic meaning and purpose of which are found in its orientation to the true and the good, would be radically compromised. What is at stake therefore is an essential right which, precisely as such, should be acknowledged and protected by civil law. In this sense, the opportunity to refuse to take part in the phases of consultation, preparation and execution of these acts against life should be guaranteed to physicians, health-care personnel, and directors of hospitals, clinics and convalescent facilities. Those who have recourse to conscientious objection must be protected not only from legal penalties but also from any negative effects on the legal, disciplinary, financial and professional plane."

This point is not understood by columnist Dianne Williamson. In an article entitled "High-profile defiance applauded," (Worcester Telegram & Gazette, October 14 edition), Ms. Williamson castigates The Most Rev. Robert J. McManus, Bishop of Worcester, for basically saying the same thing. Ms. Williamson writes, "..Bishop Robert J. McManus conveyed the shock, positive shock, of his flock that the president of the College of the Holy Cross has allowed the school to rent space for a conference sponsored by a group that aims to reduce teen pregnancies and serve at-risk teens. While such efforts should be applauded - even from a Catholic perspective - the conference will include workshops by Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice, which 'are notorious for their policies and practices that directly reject the Church's teaching on artificial contraception and abortion,' according to a stern statement from the Bishop." But is the Bishop's statement really "stern"? How so? Because it enforces a Magisterial teaching which Ms. Williamson considers unpleasant? Perhaps a more suitable adjective to describe His Excellency's statement would be "accurate."

In her article, Ms. Williamson quotes from a letter written by the president of Holy Cross College to a student who asked him to cancel the conference: "It is not and has never been the mainstream Catholic position, and certainly is not the Jesuit position, that we should run away from public discussions of issues that are important to us just because of the presence of those whose positions or activities we find to be wrong....To the extent that the church has tried it [pro-life strategies to shun Planned Parenthood], all it has done is marginalize its own voice, which is tragic. By refusing to take part in broad-based efforts to help young girls and their children, we play into the hands of Planned Parenthood, who want to portray us as only caring for our own ideology and not for the welfare of women."

The Church has refused to take part in broad-based efforts to help young girls and their children? With all due respect for the president of Holy Cross College, I think he needs to spend a little time at a Crisis Pregnancy Center or with popular pro-life movements such as Human Life International and Priests for Life, movements which have done so much to help young women and their children.

Concluding her article in which she sides (is anyone surprised?) with the president of Holy Cross, Ms. Williamson wrote, "The Rev. McFarlane understands this and favors an open, respectful exchange of ideas. Bishop McManus doesn't. Instead, the church once again condemns all who fail to march in lockstep with its rigid [ read faithful and uncompromising with regard to truth] ideology, regardless of the casualties."

Of course, Ms. Williamson is really interested in "an open, respectful exchange of ideas." Which is why she asserts in her piece that opposition to the conference at Holy Cross is "clearly orchestrated" by a "fringe anti-abortion group" and that the president of Holy Cross "has shown great courage and integrity by refusing to capitulate to the narrow-minded demands of a bishop who was apparently called to action by fringe pro-life activists."

Indeed in reading her column, one can just feel Ms. Williamson's warmth and dedication to the ideals of a sincere dialogue based upon "an open, respectful exchange of ideas." Goebbels would be proud. Fr. McFarland and Dianne Williamson will no doubt continue to play semantic word-games while capitulating to the culture of death. All the more tragic as innocent human persons continue to be put to death in the womb.

Holy Cross College in Crisis

But thank the Lord Jesus for a faithful Bishop who will not stand for a culture of death mentality.