Abbie Goldberg: Objective scientist or homosexual propagandist?

Abbie Goldberg, a psychologist at Clark University in Worcester, Massachusetts, is asserting that her research shows homosexual parents "tend to be more motivated, more committed than heterosexual parents on average, because they chose to be parents."  Goldberg says that, "That translates to greater commitment on average and more involvement." 

According to this Huffington Post article, "research indicates that kids of gay parents show few differences in achievement, mental health, social functioning and other measures, these kids may have the advantage of open-mindedness, tolerance and role models for equitable relationships, according to some research.."

Homosexual parents are motivated and committed?  That's just wonderful.  But then, a serial killer is also motivated and committed to his cause.  Does this justify his end?

Is Ms. Goldberg an objective scientist/researcher interested in drawing honest conclusions or is she merely another homosexual propagandist who could care less if the hand that rocks the cradle is warped in personality?  Dale O'Leary, a writer and researcher for the Catholic Medical Association, says that, "...adoption agencies have disregarded the evidence that persons with same-sex attractions are far more likely to suffer from psychological disorders than the general public."

In an interview with ZENIT, which may be found here, O'Leary says that the CMA has found in its research that, "..the social workers in the adoption field are disproportionately homosexual themselves or are extremely sympathetic to homosexual adoptions and are directing children to same-sex couples, when there are married heterosexual couples available. She is extremely concerned about this trend.


I asked how could so many same-sex couples qualify, given the evidence that persons with same-sex attractions are far more likely to suffer from psychological and other problems than married heterosexual couples. She replied that it appeared to her that many of the same-sex couples who adopted had psychological and other problems that would have disqualified a married man and woman from adoption.

This, of course, is only anecdotal evidence, but well-designed studies that compare persons with same-sex attractions with the general public have found that persons with same-sex attractions are far more likely to suffer from psychological disorders.

A same-sex couple has, by definition, two persons at high risk for psychological disorders. The studies published in the Archives of General Psychiatry found that persons self-identified as homosexual in comparison to the general public had almost double the rate of suicidal ideation or attempts, substance abuse problems and psychological disorders. One of the studies found that 78.6% of the gay, lesbian or bisexual group suffered from multiple disorders.

And there are other problems: Domestic violence is more common among same-sex couples. Men with same-sex attractions are more likely to become infected with a STD, including HIV, hepatitis or HPV, which can lead to cancer. Thus, several studies suggest that 50% of men who have sex with men will become HIV positive before age 50.

Any of these problems would negatively affect an adopted child. When dealing with married heterosexual couples, agencies have been extremely strict in ruling out couples with risk factors, yet seem to be ignoring real risk when evaluating same-sex couples who want to adopt."

But Goldberg, who is less interested in science and objective reality than she is with engaging in radical homosexual agitprop, insists that same-sex couples with adopted children living in states with "anti-gay" adoption laws and attitudes had more mental health issues in their first year of parenthood than couples with adopted children living in more accepting states."  You see what Ms. Goldberg is doing here?  She is assigning blame for the mental-health issues of homosexual parents on the communities in which they live.  She insists that, "..anti-gay attitudes [which obviously have their root in Christian moral opposition toward homosexuality] reflected in anti-gay adoption policies are likely to 'trickle down into community attitudes' and that her data suggests this can have a negative effect on the mental health of gay and lesbian parents." (See here).

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


The term neurotic describes the homosexual relationship well.  And neurosis is not the foundation of healthy parenting.

Abbie Goldberg: scientist or propagandist?

Pope Benedict XVI calls for educating young people in the true meaning of justice and peace

Vatican City, Jan 13, 2012 (CNA/EWTN News).

In a bid to end violence against Christians and other religions, Pope Benedict XVI used a Jan. 13 speech to Italian police to call for educating young people in the true meaning of justice and peace.


“Even the past year, unfortunately, was marked by violence and intolerance,” he said in the Vatican’s Apostolic Palace on Jan 13.

“Frequently, in different parts of the world, the object of reprisals and attacks were Christians, who paid with their lives for their adherence to Christ and to the Church.”

The Pope made his comments to a gathering of those Italian state police who are charged with patrolling and protecting St. Peter’s Square and the Vatican.

The Pope said that while young people often hear the words “justice” and “peace” being mentioned, not enough is done to explain what the terms really mean.

“Justice,” he explained, “is not a mere human convention.” If it is viewed as such, he added, it can end up being dominated and subverted by the “criteria of utility, profit and material possession.” Pope Benedict said that when justice is corrupted in this way, the value and dignity of people can be “trampled underfoot.”

In reality, justice is a virtue that guides the human will “prompting us to give others what is due to them by reason of their existence and their actions,” he said.

Similarly, “peace” is not merely defined as the “absence of war, or the result of man’s actions to avoid conflict.”

Instead, it is primarily “a gift of God which must be implored with faith, and which has the way to its fulfillment in Jesus.” Therefore, “true peace” must be “constructed day after day with compassion, solidarity, fraternity and collaboration on everyone’s part,” the Pope said.

The Pope’s comments reflected his message earlier this month when he dedicated the Church’s 45th World Day of Peace on New Year’s Day to the education of the young in justice and peace.

He concluded his remarks today by holding up the police officers present as “true promoters of justice and sincere builders of peace,” and commending all present to Mary “the Mother of God, Queen of Peace.”

“To her we entrust this year of 2012, that everyone may live in mutual respect and strive after the common good, in the hope that no act of violence will be committed in the name of God, supreme guarantor of justice and peace.”

___________________________________________________________________

True peace must be constructed day after day with compassion, solidarity, fraternity and collaboration on everyone's part.  And of course, it must be remembered that there is no authentic peace without prayer and a genuine love for truth.  In the words of Pope John XXIII:  "...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." (Ad Petri Cathedram No. 93).

Pope Paul VI, in his Apostolic Exhortation Recurrens Mensis October (The recurrence of the month of October), 1969, said that, "Undoubtedly, peace is the concern of men and a good common to all. As such, it must be the constant care of everyone...Despite much good will, there are many interests in opposition; much selfishness is shown; many antagonisms increase; many rivalries conflict with one another. Who does not see, then, the unflagging action demanded from each and all in order that love may triumph over discord and that peace may be restored to the city of men?"

There is no peace without God. And no peace without prayer. Which is why there is no peace among men. Most men do not pray - even many of those who give lip service to prayer. Pope Paul VI continues, "..peace is also the concern of God. He has placed in our hearts the ardent desire for peace. He urges us to work toward it, each doing his share, and for that purpose He sustains our feeble energies and our vacillating wills. He alone can give us a peaceful soul, and confirm in depth and solidity our efforts for peace. Prayer, by which we ask for the gift of peace, is therefore an irreplaceable contribution to the establishment of peace. It is through Christ, in whom all grace is given us, that we dispose ourselves to welcome the gift of peace. And in that undertaking, how can we do otherwise than to depend lovingly upon the incomparable intercession of Mary, His Mother, of whom the Gospel tells us that she 'found favor with God'?"

A call to false irenicism is not the answer.  Sticking our heads in the sand of denial and pretending "all is well" is not the answer.  Selfishness and self-will, obstacles to authentic peace [and justice], are overcome only through constant prayer. As Pope Benedict XVI explained back in 2009: "Conflict and lack of reconciliation in the world stem from the fact that we are locked into our own interests and opinions, into our own little private world. Selfishness, both individual and collective, makes us prisoners of our interests and our desires that stand against the truth and separate us from one another. Awake, the Gospel tells us. Step outside, so as to enter the great communal truth, the communion of the one God. To awake, then, means to develop a receptivity for God: for the silent promptings with which he chooses to guide us; for the many indications of his presence..." (Christmas homily 2009).

Our youth must be educated in the truth that the Church is a communion of persons with the Living God, brought about by the Lord Jesus in the Holy Spirit. And, as Pope John Paul II teaches in Christifideles Laici, No. 64, "..an awareness of a commonly shared Christian dignity, an ecclesial consciousness brings a sense of belonging to the mystery of the Church as Communion. This is a basic and undeniable aspect of the life and mission of the Church. For one and all, the earnest prayer of Jesus at the Last Supper, 'That all may be one' (Jn 17: 21), ought to become daily a required and undeniable program of life and action." When we understand what is meant by the Church's communion, the words of Pope Benedict XVI make perfect sense: "..In order to remain in unity with the crucified and risen Lord, the practical sign of juridical unity, 'remaining in the teaching of the apostles' is indispensable." (Pilgrim Fellowship of Faith: The Church as Communion, p. 69, Ignatius Press).

Sadly, not all Catholics understand this.  For some, the "unity of charity" has come to mean little more than a false irenicism. Which is why they castigate those who defend the truth.  But as Dr. Dietrich von Hildebrand explains, "False irenicism is motivated by a misconceived charity at the service of a meaningless unity. It places unity above truth. Having severed the essential link between charity and defense of the truth, irenicism is more concerned with reaching a unity with all men than with leading them to Christ and His eternal truth. It ignores the fact that real unity can be reached only in truth. Our Lord’s prayer ‘that they may be one’ implies being one in Him and must not be separated from His words in John: ‘And other sheep I have that are not of this fold. Them also I must bring and they shall hear my voice. And there shall be one fold and one shepherd.’"

"If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a slave of Christ."

It was Blaise Pascal who said that, "It is as much a crime to disturb the peace when truth prevails as it is a crime to keep the peace when truth is violated. There is therefore a time in which peace is justified and another time when it is not justifiable. For it is written that there is a time for peace and a time for war and it is the law of truth that distinguishes the two. But at no time is there a time for truth and a time for error, for it is written that God's truth shall abide forever. That is why Christ has said that He has come to bring peace and at the same time He has come to bring the sword. But He does not say that He has come to bring both the truth and the falsehood."

Not all Catholics understand this.  One just wrote, "There are writers who, even as they say they are faithful to the Magisterium, attack priests and bishops publicly. Some attack the Pope. That is harmful to the unity of charity."

Now obviously those who attack the Pope are placing themselves in spiritual danger.  It was Pope St. Pius X, the Pope of the Eucharist, who said that: "When people love the pope, they do not discuss his orders; they do not question the extent of their obedience, nor in what matters they are to obey.  When people love the pope, they do not pretend that he has not spoken clearly enough, as if he were obliged to whisper in each one's ear that which he has often expressed so clearly in words and encyclicals.  They cannot cast doubt upon his order under the pretext so commonly adduced by those who are unwilling to obey, that it is not the pope who commands but those who surround him; they cannot limit the ground on which he may and ought to exercise his authority; in matters of authority, they cannot give preference to persons whose ideas clash with those of the pope, however learned these may be, for though they be learned, they are not saints."

That is precisely the creed of this Blog.  Which is why I have made so many enemies [and even more friends] over the years.  I stand with the Holy Father and those Bishops who are in communion with him.  Deacon Nick Donnely of Protect the Pope [himself a real gift to the Church] knows this.  He has said that this humble Blog was the inspiration for his website. I stand with the Pope because obedience and loyalty to the Holy Father are the hallmarks of true Catholics.  And true Catholics - as opposed to those counterfeit Catholics who are comfortable with the Magisterium being attacked and undermined - fully agree with Pope Pius XII who, in his Encyclical Letter Humani Generis, stated clearly that: "...God has given to His Church a living Teaching Authority to elucidate and explain what is contained in the deposit of faith only obscurely and implicitly.  This deposit of faith our Divine Redeemer has given for authentic interpretation not to each of the faithful, not even to theologians, but only to the Teaching Authority of the Church."

But standing with the Holy Father and the Magisterium of the Church does not require us, as faithful Catholics, to look the other way while the seeds of dissent are being sown by clerics who have lost, or are in the process of losing - their Catholic Faith.  Which is why when Cardinal Francis George suggested that the Church's teaching relative to homosexuality and same-sex "marriage" may have to change, I took him to task publically.  You see, not even a Cardinal may contradict the Magisterial teaching of the Church.  And because sodomite priest Father Bernard Lynch is actively engaged in a campaign to promote radical homosexual agitprop, I publically took him to task.

St. Francis de Sales, a Doctor of the Church, in his Introduction to the Devout Lfe, expresses himself: "If the declared enemies of God and of the Church ought to be blamed and censured with all possible vigor, charity obliges us to cry wolf when the wolf slips into the midst of the flock and in every way and place we may meet him." Charity obliges us to oppose the wolf, "in every way and place we may meet him." Both those wolves which attack within the Church. And those wolves which attack from without.

Our attitude should be that of St. Paul: "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach (to you) a gospel other than the one that we preached to you, let that one be accursed! As we have said before, and now I say again, if anyone preaches to you a gospel other than the one that you received, let that one be accursed! Am I now currying favor with human beings or God? Or am I seeking to please people? If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a slave of Christ." (Galatians 1: 8-10).

Sadly, many Catholics confuse criticism with condemnation - as evidenced in a recent post at this Blog.  Even some clerics confuse the two.  See here.

Related reading: Fr. Robert Hoatson's constructive criticism for Cardinal O'Malley.

See also the series entitled The Boston Virus over at Bishop Rene Gracida's Blog Abyssus Abyssum Invocat.  His Excellency is a friend of mine, a faithful servant of God and example to all.

If we only knew what makes for authentic peace.  See here.

In France: No Conscientious Objection for Pharmacists Required to Sell RU-486

In France: A Rising Dictatorship of Relativism

Europe for Christ is reporting that:

"The pill to terminate intrauterine pregnancies known as RU-486 ['morning after pill'] has been available in France since May 1988. The French government has given the drug a non-prescription status under civl law, making it available on request from pharmacists who are required to have it in stock. The cost of the drug is 65% reimbursed under national health insurance, and available for free from family planning clinics. In December 2000, the French Assembly passed a law allowing public and parochial high school nurses to provide emergency contraception. In January 2002, French officials issued a decree allowing minors to obtain emergency contraceptives from a pharmacy at no cost and without parent's consent. Pharmacists are required to counsel young women and provide them with information about other forms of birth control. Since 1999, over 1.5 million such pills have been sold in France, 97% without a prescription. As of 2006, abortion using RU-486 was 46% of the total amount of abortions.


Catholic French pharmacists have tried to challenge the regulation under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights (freedom of conscience and religion) with no success. The European Court of Human Rights in its ruling of October 2, 2001 described the refusal to sell RU-486 as 'illegal' because Article 9 does not always guarantee the right to act according to personal convictions in public, adding that if the sale of a product is legal, pharmacists should not impose their beliefs to refuse the sale of the product. The Direction Générale de la Santé (Health General Department) rejected the claim of conscientious objection based on the fact that pharmacists do not deliver the drug 'directly' to the patient, but it is the patient who actually takes it at home in exercise of her free will. The Catholic Association of French Pharmacist has underlined the right to work respecting life and the human person as stated in Article R4235-2 of the French Code of Public Health, and requested the amendment of Article L. 2212-8 to include pharmacist among health professionals entitled to claim conscientious objection.

This request is also supported by the Parliamentary Assembly of Council of Europe (PACE) on its October 7, 2010 resolution which rejected Christine McCafferty's proposal to reduce conscientious objection. PACE understands the fundamental principle to defend and promote the right of medical personnel to conscientious objection. The new resolution now says that 'no hospital, institution or person can under pressure be responsible or suffer discrimination of any kind for refusing to perform, allow or assist an abortion, miscarriage caused or euthanasia, or to submit to, or for refusing to perform any action to cause the death of a fetus or an embryo, whatever be the reasons.'

This resolution applies to both individuals and institutions, hospitals and clinics, public and private. It also protects medical personnel objectors against the pressures and discrimination that can be exercised against them.

The European Parliament has also established a a new clause (Article L. 2151-7-1) on bioethics that states 'no scientist, no engineer, technician or research assistant of any kind, no medial doctor or auxiliary is required to participate in any capacity whatsoever to research on human embryos or embryonic cells.' Therefore, pharmacists should be allowed to claim the same rights granted to other health professionals." See here.

Pope John Paul II, in his Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae, says that: "...in the democratic culture of our time it is commonly held that the legal system of any society should limit itself to taking account of and accepting the convictions of the majority. It should therefore be based solely upon what the majority itself considers moral and actually practises. Furthermore, if it is believed that an objective truth shared by all is de facto unattainable, then respect for the freedom of the citizens-who in a democratic system are considered the true rulers-would require that on the legislative level the autonomy of individual consciences be acknowledged. Consequently, when establishing those norms which are absolutely necessary for social coexistence, the only determining factor should be the will of the majority, whatever this may be. Hence every politician, in his or her activity, should clearly separate the realm of private conscience from that of public conduct.


As a result we have what appear to be two diametrically opposed tendencies. On the one hand, individuals claim for themselves in the moral sphere the most complete freedom of choice and demand that the State should not adopt or impose any ethical position but limit itself to guaranteeing maximum space for the freedom of each individual, with the sole limitation of not infringing on the freedom and rights of any other citizen. On the other hand, it is held that, in the exercise of public and professional duties, respect for other people's freedom of choice requires that each one should set aside his or her own convictions in order to satisfy every demand of the citizens which is recognized and guaranteed by law; in carrying out one's duties the only moral criterion should be what is laid down by the law itself. Individual responsibility is thus turned over to the civil law, with a renouncing of personal conscience, at least in the public sphere..." (No. 69).

In No. 74 of the same Encyclical Letter, the Holy Father warns 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."

The Fathers of Vatican II, in their Declaration on Religious Freedom (Dignitatis Humanae) stressed the importance of religious freedom and the right of the individual, or groups, to be free from coercion:

"This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.


The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself. This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right.

It is in accordance with their dignity as persons-that is, beings endowed with reason and free will and therefore privileged to bear personal responsibility-that all men should be at once impelled by nature and also bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth. They are also bound to adhere to the truth, once it is known, and to order their whole lives in accord with the demands of truth However, men cannot discharge these obligations in a manner in keeping with their own nature unless they enjoy immunity from external coercion as well as psychological freedom. Therefore the right to religious freedom has its foundation not in the subjective disposition of the person, but in his very nature. In consequence, the right to this immunity continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it and the exercise of this right is not to be impeded, provided that just public order be observed."

But while the Church respects freedom of conscience and shuns any form of coercion, our Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI reminds us that, "We are building a dictatorship of relativism that does not recognize anything as definitive and whose ultimate goal consists solely of one's own ego and desires.


We, however, have a different goal: the Son of God, the true man. He is the measure of true humanism. An "adult" faith is not a faith that follows the trends of fashion and the latest novelty; a mature adult faith is deeply rooted in friendship with Christ. It is this friendship that opens us up to all that is good and gives us a criterion by which to distinguish the true from the false, and deceit from truth."

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



In the name of "tolerance," the New World Order seeks to impose its rebellion from truth on all. It will not tolerate any dissent, any disagreement. Coercion is an acceptable tool in a dictatorship. Soon, the New Order will use violence to achieve its goals and not just coercion and propaganda. In the end, every dictatorship must rely on violence in its vain attempt to hold onto power.

What should be our attitude toward the Magisterial teaching of the Church?

In her most recent blog post, Stacy Trasancos, a Catholic writer who contributes a regular column for The Catholic Free Press, writes, "One thing I learned very quickly about Catholicism was that Catholics argue a lot. I wanted to be faithful to the Magisterium but I was often confused about the details. If I listened to this argument from a trusted theologian, and learned it, then I thought I was being sufficiently faithful. I thought, naively, that theologians all learned the same things, kind of like mathematicians, and they just taught it. I even began a Masters degree in theology with that purpose in mind — I want to be able to communicate the faith better.

Then I began to encounter opposing theological arguments, and that left me confused. Who is right? 'Wait! I thought we all just learned the catechism and spread the word.' It’s not so simple. Theologians, laity all the way to the Pope, often disagree. Church Councils dealt with disagreements. There have always been disagreements, even among the Apostles. Over time I realized something really quite profound. Catholics, unified though we are, are also supposed to challenge each other, and in doing so they aid in the maturation of our understanding of revealed truth. In this way we aid the Magisterium, remaining in service to this authority, not in opposition to it. We grow together." (See here).

What of this?  May a Catholic disagree with [dissent from] the Magisterial teaching of the Church?  Is there such a thing as "faithful dissent"?  In a word, no.  In its 1990 Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith addressed this matter in detail and, in so doing, provided us with a helpful commentary on the nature of what Vatican II (Lumen Gentium, No. 25) refers to as "religious submission of soul" or of "will and mind" which all of the faithful - including theologians - must give to authoritative Magisterial teachings, even when they are proposed noninfallibly.

First of all, let's see what Lumen Gentium of the Second Vatican Council had to say:


"Among the principal duties of bishops the preaching of the Gospel occupies an eminent place. For bishops are preachers of the faith, who lead new disciples to Christ, and they are authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach to the people committed to them the faith they must believe and put into practice, and by the light of the Holy Spirit illustrate that faith. They bring forth from the treasury of Revelation new things and old, making it bear fruit and vigilantly warding off any errors that threaten their flock. Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking."


Getting back to the CDF's Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian, the document clearly differentiates, in No. 24, between questioning and dissent [or disagreement] by ephasizing that "the willingness to submit loyally to the teachings of the Magisterium...must be the rule" when questioning Magisterial teachings.  Any questioning of Magisterial teachings by the theologian must take place within the context of the religious submission of mind and will which is owed to the more-than-human authority within the Church.  What do we mean by "more-than-human-authority"?  Read the second sentence of Lumen Gentium 25 above: "For bishops are preachers of the faith, who lead new disciples to Christ, and they are authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ.."

The CDF Instruction goes on to clearly repudiate the false claim that dissent is somehow reconcilable with Church teaching.  In his Encyclical Letter Veritatis Splendor, No. 113, Pope John Paul II emphasizes that, "dissent, in the form of carefully orchestrated protests and polemics carried on in the media, is opposed to ecclesial communion and to a correct understanding of the hierarchical constitution of the People of God."

May Catholics challenge the Magisterium by disagreeing with it?  Not if they wish to remain in communion with the Church.  It is important to recall the teaching of Dei Verbum of the Second Vatican Council: "..the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church,  whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed."


The issue here is: Who speaks for the Church?  Who has the authority from Christ Jesus to settle disputes which may arise within the Church?  The answer is that is that this authority is vested exclusively in the Pope and the Bishops in communion with the Holy Father.  The Church is Mater et Magistra (the title of an Encyclical Letter of Pope John XXIII), Mother and Teacher.  The Magisterium alone has been entrusted with the task of authentically interpreting the Word of God, whether found in Sacred Scripture or Tradition.

This post should not be interpreted as a criticism of Stacy Trasancos' person.  She comes across as a delightful young lady who is bright and personable.  She has so much good to offer.  It is offered only in the service of truth and charity.

Code of Canon Law:

Canon 750 – § 1. Those things are to be believed by divine and catholic faith which are contained in the word of God as it has been written or handed down by tradition, that is, in the single deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and which are at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn Magisterium of the Church, or by its ordinary and universal Magisterium, which in fact is manifested by the common adherence of Christ’s faithful under the guidance of the sacred Magisterium. All are therefore bound to avoid any contrary doctrines.


§ 2. Furthermore, each and everything set forth definitively by the Magisterium of the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals must be firmly accepted and held; namely, those things required for the holy keeping and faithful exposition of the deposit of faith; therefore, anyone who rejects propositions which are to be held definitively sets himself against the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Related reading on the sensus fidelium here.

Churches in Hawaii threatened by government...

A new law in Hawaii can force churches to make their property available to homosexuals for civil union ceremonies.  Under this law, if a church should refuse to allow the ceremonies on their property they could be subject to sanctions or fines.  See here.  In in its Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons, No. 17, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith emphasized the fact that church property should not be used for promoting homosexuality in general or same-sex unions.  The CDF said that such activity, "..is contradictory to the purpose for which these institutions were founded" and that such activity would be "misleading and..scandalous."

Dignitatis Humanae of the Second Vatican Council insists that, "The freedom or immunity from coercion in matters religious which is the endowment of persons as individuals is also to be recognized as their right when they act in community. Religious communities are a requirement of the social nature both of man and of religion itself.


Provided the just demands of public order are observed, religious communities rightfully claim freedom in order that they may govern themselves according to their own norms, honor the Supreme Being in public worship, assist their members in the practice of the religious life, strengthen them by instruction, and promote institutions in which they may join together for the purpose of ordering their own lives in accordance with their religious principles.

Religious communities also have the right not to be hindered, either by legal measures or by administrative action on the part of government, in the selection, training, appointment, and transferral of their own ministers, in communicating with religious authorities and communities abroad, in erecting buildings for religious purposes, and in the acquisition and use of suitable funds or properties." (No. 4).

These rights are now under attack in Hawaii.  As the article notes, "Now churches throughout America await the effects of this dangerous law and the inevitable attempt by homosexual activists to force them to use their property in violation of their religious convictions."

Once again, homosexual activists are attempting to use force to impose their agenda. 

Related reading here.

"Educating is very demanding...But educating becomes a marvelous mission if it is done in collaboration with God.."

Pope Benedict XVI, on the feast of the Baptism of the Lord, exhorted parents to understand that prayer is the first step in educating children and said that, "Educating is very demanding...But educating becomes a marvelous mission if it is done in collaboration with God, who is the first and true educator of every man...It is very important for you parents and also for you godfathers and godmothers to believe strongly in the presence and the action of the Holy Spirit, to call upon him and welcome him in you through prayer and the sacraments...He is the one in fact who enlightens the mind, who makes the heart of the educator burn so that he or she knows how to transmit the knowledge of the love of Christ. Prayer is the first condition for educating, because in praying we create the disposition in ourselves of letting God have the initiative, of entrusting our children to him, who knows them before we do and better than us, and knows perfectly what their true good is. And, at the same time, when we pray we open ourselves to the inspirations of God to do our part better, which in any case is our duty and we must accomplish. The sacraments, especially Eucharist and Penance, permit us to perform the educative action in union with Christ, in communion with him and continually renewed by his forgiveness.."

Our Holy Father has said it: educating children becomes a marvelous mission if it is done in collaboration with God.  But can homosexual parents honestly be said to be collaborating with God in the mission of transmitting the knowledge of the love of Christ when they are engaging in gravely sinful acts and doing violence to their children?  The Archdiocese of Boston has said that homosexual parents can collaborate with God in the task of educating children.  See here.

This is most unfortunate.  The CDF has said, quite clearly, that adoption of children by homosexuals "would actually mean doing violence to these children," by placing them "in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development."  Besides being gravely immoral, adoption of children by homosexuals violates the principle that "the weaker and more vulnerable party" must always be favored and protected. (Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons, No. 7).

How can those who are actually doing violence to children be said to be collaborating with God?

Cardinal O'Malley?

Cardinal Francis George: The Church's teaching on homosexuality may have to change

The sin of homosexuality [here we are speaking of homosexual acts] is condemned in both the Old and New Testaments.*  Saint Peter, our first Pope, in his Second Epistle, says:

"And reducing the cities of the Sodomites, and of the Gomorrhites, into ashes, God condemned them to be overthrown, making them an example to those that should afterwards act wickedly.  And he delivered just Lot, oppressed by the injustice and lewd conversation of the wicked." (2 Peter 2: 6-7).

The sin of homosexuality has been condemned by Fathers and Doctors of the Church, and by the Popes, for 2,000 years.  And with good reason, Saint Peter Damian [himself a Doctor of the Church] explains that the sin "should not be considered an ordinary vice, for it surpasses all of them in enormity." (The Book of Gomorrah).

The Catechism of the Catholic Church tells us that: "Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that 'homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.'" (2357).  Which is why, in his 1994 Angelus Address, protesting against a special resolution crafted by the European Parliament encouraging the nations of Europe to approve homosexual "marriage," Pope John Paul II said that, "What is not morally acceptable, however, is the legalization of homosexual acts.  To show understanding towards the person who sins, towards the person who is not in the process of freeing himself from this tendency, does not at all mean to diminish the demands of the moral norm (cf. Veritatis Splendor, No. 95)...

But we must say that what was intended with the European Parliament's resolution was the legitimization of a moral disorder.  Parliament improperly conferred an institutional value to a conduct that is deviant and not in accordance with God's plan...Forgetting the words of Christ 'The truth shall set you free' (John 8:32), an attempt was made to show the people of our continent a moral evil, a deviance, a certain slavery, as a form of liberation, falsifying the very essence of the family." (See here).

But Cardinal Francis George is now suggesting that respect for homosexual persons, which should consist of an authentic charity which shows them the unnatural lie they have embraced and that they should view with horror the sin in which they find themselves, might mean changing the Church's teaching.  As noted here, Cardinal George asked, "Does respect [for homosexual persons] mean that we have to change our teaching?  That's an ongoing discussion, of course."

Really?  The Church teaches otherwise.  The CDF has taught authoritatively that, "There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God's plan for marriage and family.  Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law.  Homosexual acts 'close the sexual act to the gift of life.  They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity.  Under no circumstances can they be approved." (Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons, 4).

Cardinal George has also referred to the homosexual movement as the "gay liberation movement."  But again, Pope John Paul II rebuked the European Parliament for presenting "a moral evil, a deviance, a certain slavery, as a form of liberation."

Why is Cardinal George suggesting that Church teaching may have to change and that this is an "ongoing discussion"?  It would appear that he is succumbing to the darkness.  Today there is a demand for sex without love, for a licentiousness in sex which has wrought a heartless society in which individuals do not care for anyone but themselves. The fruit of this demonic theology is the slaughter through abortion and euthanasia of human beings created in the Imago Dei. It is a theology of violence which is rooted in hatred of truth. For at the heart of immorality is falsity, the hatred of truth. Fr. Vincent P. Miceli, in an essay entitled "The Taproot of Violence," explains:


"...violence entered creation from the rebellion of Lucifer. This rebellion arose from the heart of pride. But the sin of pride is the offspring of the vice known as hatred of truth. Hatred of truth is the result of the creature's attempt to rearrange God's hierarchy of beings and values into an order which the creature prefers to the plan of God. This attempt immediately produces the violence of disorder, the chaos of falsity and immorality. For hatred of truth is really hatred of God who creates all things wisely and governs them lovingly. Lucifer, the Morning Star, was instantly deformed into the Prince of Darkness because he attempted to live a lie. He wanted to dethrone God and become God himself..."


* C.f. Gen 19: 1-19; Lev 18: 22; Deut 22: 5; 2 Pet 2: 6-7; Rom 1: 24-27; 1 Cor 6: 9-10, Jude.

Cardinal George, bereft of the Cardinal Virtue of Fortitude, apologizes for warning that the homosexual hate movement could morph into something similar to the Ku Klux Klan

Readers of this Blog know that I agreed with Cardinal Francis George when he said, "You don't want the gay liberation movement to morph into something like the Ku Klux Klan, demonstrating in the streets against Catholicism."  See here.  Now the Cardinal is apologizing for his comments made last month. Click on the title of this Blog post for full article.
The problem?  He has nothing to apologize for.  The homosexual movement is a hate movement.  And it has already engaged in violent anti-Catholicism as well as attacks against other Christian and Mormon churches.  See here.  The LGBT Movement has never expressed regret for violent acts such as this.

When Jose Nunez was assaulted outside a Catholic Church for promoting Prop 8, the goal of which was to define marriage as only between a man and a woman in California, and he was sent to a hospital where he received 16 stitches for a wound below his left eye, where were the apologies from what Cardinal George has unfortunately referred to as the "gay liberation movement"?  Does the Cardinal believe that sin is somehow liberating?  If not, why would he refer to the LGBT Movement as a "liberation movement"?

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

At the Beatification of Joan of Arc on December 13, 1908, Pope St. Pius X said that: "..the greatest asset of the evilly disposed is the cowardice and weakness of Catholics.  Oh!  If I might ask the divine Redeemer, as the prophet Zachary did in spirit: 'What are those wounds in the midst of your hands?' the answer would not be doubtful.  'With these I was wounded in the house of those who did nothing to defend me and who, on every occasion, made themselves the accomplices of my adversaries.'  And this reproach can be levelled at the weak and timid Catholics of all countries."

Yes Your Holiness.  Even certain Cardinals and Bishops.

Fr. Vincent Miceli, S.J., my mentor, once said, "Fortitude is that virtue which enduringly resists difficulties of mind and body while persistently seeking, defending and spreading the truth and holiness of the Gospel.  St. Thomas reminds us that fortitude is especially concerned with overcoming the fear of performing difficult deeds for the glory of God.  This virtue prevents a soldier of Christ, and above all officers in Christ's army such as bishops and priests, from fleeing the field of battle, from betraying the brethren when real or imaginary obstacles present themselves.  The great fault of the pusillanimous is that they succumb easily to irrational fears and leave the field of battle to enemy forces.  This moral deformity reveals a lack of faith in the cause of Christ and a distrust of the assurance he gave his followers when he said to his Apostles: 'Have confidence, I have overcome the world.'  The defect of irrational fear weakens virtue and renders Christians cowards.  All the Apostles except Judas overcame this fear when they received the gift of Fortitude from the Holy Spirit on Pentecost Sunday.  And priests should pray daily for this gift which the Holy Spirit will never deny them."

Pray for Cardinal George and all those priests and bishops who lack the Cardinal Virtue of Fortitude.  Without it, they will continue to flee the field of battle and leave the faithful in disarray.

"No one will enter the New World Order unless he or she will make a pledge to worship Lucifer.."

“And they adored the beast, saying, who is like to the beast? And who shall be able to fight with him?” (Revelation 13:4).


As Rev. P. Huchede explains in his book History of Antichrist, “All vile parasites of fortune, astonished at the rapidity with which Antichrist achieves his conquests and also at the unlimited sway of his power, deceived by his prodigies, will prostrate themselves before him and adore him as their god. As soon as he believes himself master of the bodies and souls of all peoples, he will decree and proclaim his divinity and establish a new religion. According to the Apostle, he will lift himself up above all that is called God or that is worshipped, so that he sitteth in the temple of God showing himself as if he were God (2 Thessalonians 2:4). He will command all peoples to place his statue in the public places to be worshipped, the image of the beast whose wound was healed (Revelation 13: 13-15)…..Then he shall think himself able to change times and laws – religious, political, and sacred – by which the world had been governed up to his advent (Daniel 7: 25)…None but adorers of this new god can enjoy the possession of riches or honors. This god shall increase their glory and shall give them power over many and shall divide the land for nothing (Revelation 13: 7)….Those who will refuse to obey his impious orders shall be the object of a terrible and universal persecution….No language can give an adequate idea of the atrocity and effects of this frightful persecution. “I beheld and lo that horn made war against the saints, and prevailed over them” (Daniel 7: 21). The beast shall make war against the saints and shall overcome them and kill them (Revelation 11: 7). And he “shall crush the saints of the Most High” (Daniel 7: 25). And he will put to death all those who will not adore the image of the beast (Revelation 13: 15). Then the truth shall be oppressed. The Church shall see her children apostatize in vast numbers, and in the agony of her heart-rending grief, she will cry out in the words of her divine spouse, ‘My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?’ (Mark 15: 34). Then by order of the tyrant the continual sacrifice shall be abolished (Daniel 9: 27). The holy sacrifice of the Mass shall no longer be offered up publicly on the altars. The Church shall be devastated; the sacred vessels desecrated; the priests shall be scattered and separated from their flocks and put to death….The Church has taken up her abode in the catacombs.” (History of Antichrist, pp. 23-26, Tan Books).

In order for the new religion of humanitarianism to succeed, all dissenting voices will have to be either converted, silenced or removed. The Reign of Antichrist, which will be presented as an age of “love and harmony” will have to be brutally violent in order to achieve world unity. There are already many voices which have called or are calling for such a “global purge” or “cleansing action.” Harvard historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr, in the July-August 1995 edition of Foreign Affairs, said that, “We are not going to achieve a new world order without paying for it in blood as well as in words and money.” Likewise, David Spangler, Director of Planetary Initiative at the United Nations, has said, “Lucifer comes to give us the final Luciferic initiation…that many people now and in the days ahead, will be facing – for it is an initiation into the New Age…No one will enter the New World Order unless he or she will make a pledge to worship Lucifer. No one will enter the New Age unless he will take a Luciferian initiation.”* Benjamin Crème, another prominent New Age “prophet,” on page 128 of “Maitreya’s mission,” insists that those who refuse to join in this World Initiation will find themselves in the minority and will have to “withdraw from this life.” Creme exhorts his followers to, “Be not afraid, therefore, when the ‘men of cloth’ raise their voices against the Great Lord, naming Him anti-Christ and arch-deceiver, for they know little of the laws which underlie their faiths and act and speak from ignorance and fear.” (April, 1997).

In the New Order, a Police State will employ the use of various technologies to keep the citizenry in line. In the words of Zbigniew Brzezinski, “The Technocratic Age is slowly designing an every day more controlled society. The society will be dominated by an elite of persons free from traditional values who will have no doubt in fulfilling their objectives by means of purged techniques with which they will influence the behavior of people and will control and watch society in all details…it will become possible to exert a practically permanent watch on each citizen of the world.” Mr. Brzezinski is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations who has attended meetings of the Bilderberg Group.

Related reading: Obama primed to create New World Order

* http://lasalettejourney.blogspot.com/2011/06/department-of-veterans-affairs.html

Obama pushing the radical homosexual agenda around the world

"The Western world in general has been hard at work promoting sterile sex for nearly a century now. We began by sanctioning the break-up of families through ever-easier divorce. Divorce is a kind of pretense that the marital covenant is ultimately sterile, in the sense that children do not matter. Next we embraced contraception so that our sexual pleasures could not be diminished through responsibility. Promiscuity inevitably followed, and with it abortion, which is simply fruitfulness in denial. We’ve covered our eyes and stopped our ears. “Nyah, nyah, nyah, I can’t SEE you! I can’t HEAR you!”


A culture like this, a culture which embraces these values, has no argument against homosexual sex, no case against homosexual marriage. A huge percentage of our marriages are deliberately and totally sterile; most of the rest are deliberately sterile much of the time. Huge numbers of marriages, by deliberate design, result neither in children to preserve the race nor in future citizens to enhance and develop the social order. There is no conceivable public interest in such unions, and no significant personal interest in them either, apart from the fuel they temporarily provide for the couple’s doomed egoism à deux.

Far from having a natural revulsion against homosexual intimacy, modern Western culture can hardly help seeing it as the jewel which crowns and protects its own warped vision of sex. We recognize and defend a right of men and women to engage in sexual intimacy without fruit. It follows that rank prejudice must be the only reason anyone could possibly oppose the same freedom between men and men or women and women.

No group is more hateful to modern society than the perceived moralistic prigs who, out of what most perceive as religiously-motivated prejudice, seek to diminish the personal sexual liberty of others. Nothing could be more obvious in our current culture than that such people must be silenced and, if necessary, restrained. Moreover, it seems only right and just that their denunciation of the gay lifestyle and their opposition to gay marriage should be criminalized. In fact, it should be criminalized in the name of liberty. That is why gay marriage is the lie that will create the next Gulag.

The insistence on ignoring vice is the hallmark of a debased culture, but the insistence that a lie be publicly affirmed as true is the hallmark of ideological totalitarianism."  - Dr. Jeff Mirus


I'll be back later today with another post. 

Homosexual activists such as Michael Bayly see Jesus as a "sissy." On the Dies Irae, they will learn the truth

In their zeal to promote the Cult of Softness and effeminacy in general, many homosexual activists attempt to portray the Lord Jesus as being soft and effeminate Himself.  For example, at the homosexual Blog The Wild Reed, Michael J. Bayly, referring to the work of Dr. David Rankin, writes, "I’ve had a cassette tape of Rankin’s talk, 'Jesus Was A Sissy,' floating around for years. I can’t recall when and how I obtained it, and an Internet search for Rankin provides little information about him or when and where he gave this particular talk. Listening to it again this evening I realized that it actually dates back to the 1980s, as Rankin mentions that Ronald Reagan is president.


Regardless of all of this, I found much of what Rankin had to say still very pertinent, and so thought I would share it on this day that we honor the Sacred Heart of Jesus.

A fraud

Rankin begins his talk by noting that perhaps, in a sort of secret way, we have always known that Jesus was a sissy. All efforts to align him with soldiers, marching, battles, banners, and wars (as, for example, in hymns like 'Onward Christian Soldiers') are part of a widespread fraud – 'a pious, well-intentioned fraud,' says Rankin, 'but a fraud nonetheless. For Jesus was a sissy.'

Rankin himself was taught from an early age that male success was synonymous with aggressive physical behavior. Indeed, he internalized this message so well that he became a professional fighter – 'Rocky Rankin'! 'Violence was rewarded,' he remembers, and all his teachers were proud of him.

He has since learned that human behavior has been 'arbitrarily categorized as masculine and feminine,' that societies have 'carefully defined sexual stereotypes that lead to victimization,' and that 'according to our own particular stereotypes, Jesus was not a ‘soldier marching to war,’ but an honest-to-goodness sissy.' To insist otherwise is to feed into a 'dangerous and damaging fraud.'...Rankin declares his thesis absolutely inescapable: Jesus was a sissy. After all, Jesus was able to feel and express a wide range of tender emotions. He wept without shame, even raved and screamed and moaned and won no battles. He was an intuitive thinker, often the victim of wild imaginings and flights of fantasy. He responded to beauty, embracing the birds of the air and the lilies of the field. He nurtured little children, relating to them in the manner of a mother. He freely touched other men and kissed them.

'Does Jesus really fit the American ideal of manhood?' Rankin asks. Can we imagine Jesus as a United States Marine? As a linebacker for the Detroit Lions? As the Marlboro Man? 'By almost every standard in our culture,' concludes Rankin, 'Jesus was a real live honest-to-goodness sissy.'" (See full post here).

What of this?  Was Jesus a "sissy"?  The Sacred Scriptures show otherwise.  In the wonderful Catholic classic entitled "My Meditation on the Gospel," published by the Confraternity of the Precious Blood, Rev. James E. Sullivan provides us with the following meditation on Christian Fortitude:


"After a few days' stay at Capharnaum, Jesus and Mary and the first five Apostles made the journey to Jerusalem for the Passover. When they entered the Temple, they heard its usual peace broken by a great uproar. Men were shouting and bargaining, oxen and sheep were bleating. Jesus stiffened, His Father's house made into a market place! A fierce, set look came over His features. His hands seized some cords and tied them into a whip. His eyes never left the scene before Him. He walked forward then, arms outstretched. 'Take these things away!' He cried out. His voice was strong, yet trembling with anger. An uneasy fear came over the crowd, as His eyes burned into theirs. They hurried away their oxen and sheep, those in back urging on those in front. The money-changers alone held their ground. Jesus seized the end of their tables and sent them flying end over end. They became panic-stricken then. They grasped what coins they could and ran. Jesus stood alone in the courtyard. Peace settled again over the Temple.

My Lord, how I admire You in ths scene! We are so liable to think that being a Christian means being a weakling and a 'mouse'! How wonderful to see that distorted notion so firmly dispelled by the example of Your magnificent courage! Your Father's house was being desecrated; there was reason for the fighting - so You fought! You didn't care what they thought or what they would say. His glory was primary! Nor did it matter to You that You were alone against them all. Your courage was so great and Your cause so just that the entire crowd fled before You."

Does the cleansing of the Temple come across as the action of a "sissy"?

Jesus' Apostles were hardy men.  They were men used to hard labor and were by no means effeminate in any way.  But Jesus rebuked them for being frightened when it appeared their ship would capsize in the story Sea of Galilee:

"He got into a boat and his disciples followed him. Suddenly a violent storm came up on the sea, so that the boat was being swamped by waves; but he was asleep. They came and woke him, saying, 'Lord, save us! We are perishing!' He said to them, 'Why are you terrified, O you of little faith?' Then he got up, rebuked the winds and the sea, and there was great calm. The men were amazed and said, 'What sort of man is this, whom even the winds and the sea obey?'


The Apostles were afraid for their lives.  And they cried out to Jesus.  Sissy?  How many real men would cry out to a sissy for help when their lives are in danger?

Jesus is presented in the Gospels as one who taught with authority.  In fact, an evil spirit, so fearful of Him, instantly fled at His command:

"Then they came to Capernaum, and on the sabbath he entered the synagogue and taught. The people were astonished at his teaching, for he taught them as one having authority and not as the scribes.  In their synagogue was a man with an unclean spirit; he cried out, 'What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are—the Holy One of God!' Jesus rebuked him and said, 'Quiet! Come out of him!' The unclean spirit convulsed him and with a loud cry came out of him. All were amazed and asked one another, 'What is this? A new teaching with authority. He commands even the unclean spirits and they obey him.' His fame spread everywhere throughout the whole region of Galilee." (Mark 1: 21-28).

Jesus came to die for our sins.  And His death involved a level of torture that was almost indescribably horrific.  Hardly the actions of a "sissy."

No, Dr. Rankin's idea of Jesus as "sissy" is the one which is a fraud.  And on the Dies Irae (the Day of Wrath) those who bought into his asinine idea will learn just how wrong he was.  For the King of Kings, the Lion of Judah, is not going to return as the suffering and sacrificial Lamb.  He tells us:

"..Behold, I make all things new..I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end.  To the thirsty I will give a gift from the spring of life-giving water.  The victor will inherit these gifts, and I shall be his God, and he will be my son.  But as for cowards [read sissies if you will], the unfaithful, the depraved, murderers, the unchaste, sorcerers, idol-worshipers, and deceivers of every sort, their lot is in the burning pool of fire and sulfur, which is the second death." (Revelation 21: 5-8).

Jesus a sissy?  Don't kid yourself.  The Word of God assures us that: "It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God." (Hebrews 10: 31). 

Now why would it be a fearful thing if Jesus were a "sissy"?

"A day will come when the civilized world will deny its God..."

"Suppose, dear friend, that Communism [one of 'the errors of Russia' mentioned in the Message of Fatima] was only the most visible of the instruments of subversion to be used against the Church and the traditions of Divine Revelation...


"I am worried by the Blessed Virgin's messages to Lucy of Fatima. This persistence of Mary about the dangers which menace the Church is a divine warning against the suicide of altering the Faith, in her liturgy, her theology and her soul....

"I hear all around me innovators who wish to dismantle the Sacred Chapel, destroy the universal flame of the Church, reject her ornaments and make her feel remorse for her historical past.

"A day will come when the civilized world will deny its God, when the Church will doubt as Peter doubted. She will be tempted to believe that man has become God. In our churches, Christians will search in vain for the red lamp where God awaits them, like Mary Magdalene weeping before the empty tomb, they will ask, "Where have they taken Him?"  (Pope Pius XII, quoted in the book Pius XII Devant L'Histoire, pp. 52-53, by Msgr. Georges Roche).

How will this be accomplished?  Pope St. Pius X, the Pope of the Eucharist, warned back in 1907, in his Encyclical Letter Pascendi Dominici Gregis, that the enemies of the Church, knowing that external persecution of Her actually brings about Her greater growth ("The blood of the martyrs is the seed of Christianity" - Tertullian), would focus in the future on destroying Her through infiltration.

Our Lady told Fr. Stefano Gobbi of the Marian Movement of Priests: "I am weeping because the Church is continuing along the road of division, of loss of the true faith, of apostasy and of errors which are being spread more and more without anyone offering opposition to them. Even now, that which I predicted at Fatima and that which I have revealed here in the third message confided to a little daughter of mine (i.e. Sister Lucia) is in the process of being accomplished. And so, even for the Church the moment of its great trial has come, because the man of iniquity will establish himself within it and the abomination of desolation will enter into the holy temple of God." (To the Priests, Our Lady's Beloved Sons, No. 362, September 15, 1987, p. 572.)

And again: "The black beast like a leopard indicates Freemasonry; the beast with the two horns like a lamb indicates Freemasonry infiltrated into the interior of the Church, that is to say, ecclesiastical Masonry, which has spread especially among the members of the hierarchy. This Masonic infiltration, in the interior of the Church, was already foretold to you by me at Fatima, when I announced to you that Satan would enter in even to the summit of the Church. If the task of Masonry is to lead souls to perdition, bringing them to the worship of false divinities, the task of ecclesiastical Masonry on the other hand is that of destroying Christ and his Church, building a new idol, namely a false christ and a false church." (To the Priests, Our Lady's Beloved Sons, No. 406, June 13, 1989, p. 649)


The false church Our Lady refers to was also foretold by Anne Catherine Emmerich (1774-1824), a German Augustinian nun, stigmatist, and miracle-worker, who subsisted entirely on water and Holy Communion for many years. Venerable Emmerich received numerous visions of the future crisis in the Church and the infiltration of the Masons. In her visions, she describes men in aprons destroying the Church with a trowel, The Masons wear aprons and their symbol is the Mason's trowel. The following excerpts are from page 565 of the Life of Anne Catherine Emmerich, Vol. 1, by Rev. K.E. Schmöger, Tan Books, 1976:


"I saw St. Peter's. A great crowd of men was trying to pull it down whilst others constantly built it up again. Lines connected these men one with another and with others throughout the whole world. I was amazed at their perfect understanding." The demolishers, mostly apostates and members of different sects, broke off whole pieces and worked according to rules and instructions. They wore WHITE APRONS bound with blue riband. In them were pockets and they had TROWELS stuck in their belts. The costumes of the others were various."There were among the demolishers distinguished men wearing uniforms and crosses. They did not work themselves but they marked out on the wall with a TROWEL where and how it should be torn down. To my horror, I saw among them Catholic Priests. Whenever the workmen did not know how to go on, they went to a certain one in their party. He had a large book which seemed to contain the whole plan of the building and the way to destroy it. They marked out exactly with a TROWEL the parts to be attacked, and they soon came down. They worked quietly and confidently, but slyly, furtively and warily. I saw the Pope praying, surrounded by false friends who often did the very opposite to what he had ordered..."

We have witnessed the gradual emergence of this false church within Christ's Church. And that which this false church proposes is a new religion in which man, and not God, is the object of worship. And all will be accomplished in the name of humanitarianism. Through one of his characters in his prophetic book The Lord of the World, Fr. Robert Hugh Benson describes this humanitarian religion: "Humanitarianism...is becoming an actual religion itself, though anti-supernatural. It is a pantheism. Pantheism deifies all nature, God is the world, but naturally, man above all is God since he is the highest expression of nature. It is a religion devoid of the 'super' natural, because since God is nature itself, there is no longer a distinction between Creator and creature. The creature is God and hence arbitrator of his own destiny and establishes the moral law for himself. Nature, and man is its highest expression, has all the divine attributes. Humanitarianism is a religion devoid of the supernatural. It is developing a ritual under Freemasonry; it has a creed, 'God is man'; and the rest. It has, therefore, a real food of a sort to offer religious cravings: it idealizes, and yet makes no demands upon the spiritual faculties. Then, they have the use of all the churches except ours, and of all the Cathedrals; and they are beginning at last to encourage sentiment. Then they may display their symbols and we may not: I think they will be established legally in another ten years" (Introduction, p. xvii).

The new humanitarian religion of Antichrist has already taken root within the true Church founded by the Lord Jesus.  This new humanitarian religion will embrace homosexuality.  As Father Vincent Miceli, S.J., has explained, "For the Modernist dogmas are tentative, provisional formulas, the outcome of on-going religious experience, as changeable as that experience itself.  The Collective Conscience of the many sharing similar dogmas forms the Church.  And Church authority originates from the Collective Conscience."  John Smeaton, writing for LifeSiteNews, explains that, "Only two months ago I watched him [Archbishop Vincent Nichols] in an exchange on Catholic teaching and gay unions during an interview on BBC's Hardtalk (Friday, 2nd July). Stephen Sackur, the Hardtalk interviewer, asked the archbishop:


"Some of their vicars are also prepared to sanction gay unions. That church is showing flexibility. Is the Catholic church not going to have to do the same eventually?"

To which the archbishop replied

"I don't know. Who knows what's down the road?"

Faithful Catholics, now a remnant, do know "what's down the road."  They are able to read the "signs of the times."  And they know in advance what is coming.

Archbishop Vincent Nichols: Respect for the Holy Eucharist and Church Teaching?

The Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments, in its document entitled Immensae Caritatis: On Facilitating Reception Of Communion In Certain Circumstances, provided for the use of Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist under rather strict guidelines and said that "The faithful who are special ministers of communion must be persons whose good qualities of Christian life, faith, and morals recommend them. Let them strive to be worthy of this great office, foster their own devotion to the eucharist, and show an example to the rest of the faithful by their own devotion and reverence toward the most august sacrament of the altar. No one is to be chosen whose appointment the faithful might find disquieting." (No. 6).

Apparently Archbishop Vincent Nichols could care less about this teaching.  For one of his Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist is Mr. Terence Weldon, a radical homosexual activist and propagandist who has engaged in blasphemy against the Lord Jesus and who routinely dissents from the Church's teaching on homosexuality while holding the Bishops of the Church up to ridicule.  As I noted in my last post, Mr. Weldon's hatred for the Holy Catholic Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, is so intense that, referring to the CDF document entitled "Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons," which says that the homosexual inclination is intrinsically disordered, he writes, "I just don’t buy that. The claim may be in the notorious CDF document, but anybody who is prepared to swallow every disordered statement on human sexuality from the Vatican, just because it has been written by sexually repressed, celibate theologians with no real-life experience of the subject they are able to admit to, is not living on the same planet as the rest of us. (See here).

An individual who has such disdain for the Lord Jesus, His Church, and the Bishops who serve in His name and with His authority cannot honestly be said to possess those "good qualities of Christian life, faith and morals" which the Church demands in its Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion.

Additionally, Archbishop Nichols continues to tolerate the scandal of the so-called "Soho Masses," a bizarre experiment in liturgical terrorism where Christ is mocked in the Eucharist and Church teaching is relegated to the waste bin.  So much for the teaching of the Catechism of the Catholic Church that the Eucharist is properly the sacrament of those who are in full communion with the Church (1395). 

In a Keynote Address entitled Good Shepherd: Living Christ's Own Pastoral Authority, which was delivered at the 10th Annual Symposium on the Spirituality and Identity of the Diocesan Priest on March 18, 2011, Bishop Samuel J. Aquila had some important things to say about the role of Bishops. His Excellency noted that:


"Perhaps most difficult for us who lead in the Church today, due to the influence of the secular world with its rejection of God and the authority of God, along with a real skepticism of authority, is the exercise of the office of governance. Benedict XVI reminds us as bishops and priests again to turn to Jesus Christ to learn how to exercise this authority. No one is really able to feed Christ's flock, unless he lives in profound and true obedience to Christ and the Church, and the docility of the people towards their priests depends on the docility of the priests towards Christ; for this reason the personal and constant encounter with the Lord, profound knowledge of him and the conformation of the individual will to Christ's will is always at the root of the pastoral ministry. (General Audience, May 26, 2010).

Jesus at times was direct in calling people to conversion – to change their way of acting and thinking. This directness makes many of us uncomfortable today. We should follow his example and language, even if we do not use his precise words. His language is good to contemplate and definitely should challenge us to look at how we correct the faithful, including priests and bishops, and speak the truth especially with those who say they are with Christ and the Church but do not accept the teaching of Jesus and the Church.

One has only to read Matthew 23 to hear the forceful language Jesus uses when speaking with the Pharisees and Scribes. He refers to them as ―hypocrites, blind guides, and white washed tombs and towards the end asks them the question, ―You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell? In our politically correct world this type of language would never be tolerated today, and yet the Gospel writers were not hesitant to pass on these exhortations of Jesus.

Furthermore, when Peter began to remonstrate with Jesus about going up to Jerusalem, he did not softly tell Peter, ―You do not understand. Rather Jesus spoke the vigorous words, ―Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me; for you are not on the side of God, but of men (Mt 16:23). Jesus speaks these words with force to the apostle he has chosen and the one whom he made first among the apostles. In love Jesus makes these direct statements to open the eyes of those whose hearts and minds are hardened. His straight talk, given in love for the person, desires the conversion and holiness of the person to the ways of God.

Jesus provides the Church and her leaders with the criteria for correcting a brother or sister. ―If your brother sins against you; go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector (Mt 18:16-17).

The steps in this passage are clear and Jesus is teaching us, but do we listen and follow his example? If this criteria had been followed with dissenting theologians, priests, religious and faithful in 1968 with the encyclical, Humanae Vitae, would we still be dealing with the problem today of those who dissent on contraception, abortion, same sex unions, euthanasia and so many other teachings of the Church?

One must honestly ask, how many times and years may a Catholic politician vote for the so called ―right to abortion, ―murder in the words of John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae (58), and still be able to receive Holy Communion? The continual reception of Holy Communion by those who so visibly contradict and promote a grave evil, even more than simply dissent, only creates grave scandal, undermines the teaching and governing authority of the Church and can be interpreted by the faithful as indifference to the teaching of Christ and the Church on the part of those who have the responsibility to govern. If we honestly pray with the Gospel we can see that hesitancy and non-accountability are not the way of Jesus Christ, but rather are a failure in the exercise of governance.

Bishops and priests, as an act of loving obedience to Christ, must return to a full exercise of the governing authority of Christ witnessed in the Gospel. If we do not exercise that authority, are hesitant to exercise it, or doubt it, then it only leads to the ―father of lies taking hold of the minds and hearts of the faithful, and their continuing to act in the ways of man and not the ways of God.

Pope Benedict XVI, in his conversation with Peter Seewald in the book Light of the World, made the following observation concerning the sexual abuse crisis among clergy, after speaking with the Archbishop of Dublin. In their conversation they spoke to a mentality prevalent after Vatican II. ―The prevailing mentality was that the Church must not be a Church of laws but, rather, a Church of love; she must not punish. Thus the awareness that punishment can be an act of love ceased to exist. This led to an odd darkening of the mind, even in very good people. Today we have to learn all over again that love for the sinner and love for the person who has been harmed are correctly balanced if I punish the sinner in the form that is possible and appropriate. In this respect there was in the past a change of mentality, in which the law and need for punishment were obscured. Ultimately this also narrowed the concept of love, which in fact is not just being nice or courteous, but is found in the truth (emphasis added). And another component of truth is that I must punish the one who has sinned against real love (Pages 25-26)." (Full Address here).

Is Archbishop Nichols being a good and caring shepherd of souls?  Or are his actions [and lack of] merely ensuring that the Father of Lies [John 8: 44] will take hold of the minds and hearts of the faithful who have been entrusted to his care?

As I ponder this, I cannot help but think of the words which came forth from St. John Chrysostom, Doctor of the Church, "The road to Hell is paved with the skulls of many bishops."  Strong words from a great saint who was known for his pacific spirit and outstanding charity.

Dear Lord, mercy.

Meditation: Luke 12: 48.