"..as long as their parents support the Catholic mission of the school and do not offer a serious counter-witness to that mission in their actions."

In an editorial for Catholic Insight entitled "Those who attack the Catholic Faith cannot be part of Catholic schools," Fr. Alphonse de Valk writes, "I am writing this editorial in the third week of Advent, just after Gaudete Sunday. Gaudate is Latin for rejoice. Yes, we rejoice in the coming (advent) or Our Lord Jesus Christ and nothing can, nor should, take away the joy in the Son of God becoming “man” and thereby preparing the way for mankind’s delivery from sin and the devil. Jesus did break the bond of sin created by Adam and Eve’s fall for disobeying God. He did re-open the road to Eternal Life, which, however, we will not, and cannot, enter unless we obey his invitation to accept His commandments. ”My yoke is easy, my burden is light.” If only we believe it.

The magazine enters its 20th year of publication with this issue. From the beginning, the defence of the dignity of each human life has been our chief concern, first the assault on life itself—abortion—and its forerunner contraception—then the associated evils which were to follow—sterilization, homosexual behaviour, euthanasia (the killing of the elderly and the sick), assisted suicide, pornography.

In our first year, 1993, we exposed the false teaching of the priest/professor André Guindon at St. Paul’s Theological University in Ottawa. From then on, after contraception-abortion, Catholic Insight took the homosexual agenda as the most virulent threat to society. Why? Because unlike abortion which does not leave any survivors, only victims, those practising same-sex relations grow in number and ruthlessness as their agenda is strengthened by newly coined “rights” in law and public acceptance. Supported by the enormous popularity of modern pornography, assisted by prostitution and the elimination of old restrictions on human behaviour mostly through judicial fiats, their own insatiable immorality demands public approval for more and more deviant behaviour.

During the last ten years, Catholic Insight has traced the expansion of same-sex relationships throughout the Western hemisphere with special attention to the activity of the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the enshrinement of homosexual behaviour as a human right in Canada in 2005. Since then, we have tracked its expansion in Europe and the U.S., to the newest announcement from American President Barach Obama and his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, on December 5, 2011, to link American foreign aid to the promotion of homosexuality-based “rights” abroad. Just as every American embassy earlier had become an outpost for the promotion of abortion, so they will now become sources for bribing and bullying the whole world but especially African, Asian and South American countries dependant on aid. The great Imperialist of yore has been replaced by the Ugly American of today, interfering in the internal affairs of countries everywhere and doling out hundreds of million of dollars to corrupt their people. Kenya, the Philippines, and South America have been targeted already. Nigeria is on the list.

The mission of Catholic schools has not changed over time. The main purpose of religion, as Archbishop Charles Chaput, then of Denver, now of Philadelphia, wrote two years ago.

“[T]o form students in Catholic faith, Catholic morality and Catholic social values. … Many of our schools also accept students of other faiths and no faith, and from single parent and divorced parent families. These students are always welcome as long as their parents support the Catholic mission of the school and do not offer a serious counter-witness to that mission in their actions …

“That’s the background. Now to the human side of a painful situation. The Church never looks for reasons to turn anyone away from a Catholic education. But the Church cannot change her moral beliefs without undermining her mission and failing to serve the many families who believe in that mission …

“The Church does not claim that people with a homosexual orientation are bad, or that their children are less loved by God … But what the Church does teach is that sexual intimacy by anyone outside marriage is wrong; that marriage is a sacramental covenant; and that marriage can occur only between a man and a woman. These beliefs are central to a Catholic understanding of human nature, family and happiness, and the organization of society. The Church cannot change these teachings because … they are the teaching of Jesus Christ…” (See CI July/August 2010, p. 21)

These words are clear and concise. They apply to Canada and especially to Ontario Catholic schools. Bishops in Quebec and Newfoundland allowed state officials to pull the wool over their eyes. This must not happen in Ontario. (See article “Same-sex relations rampant in Toronto Catholic schools” in this issue, p.28.) If OECTA accepts the same-sex relationship motion in March 2012, it should have the title “Catholic” removed and its Charter as a union for Catholic teachers revoked."  See here.


Reflect very carefully on these words: "Many of our schools also accept students of other faiths and no faith, and from single parent and divorced parent families. These students are always welcome as long as their parents support the Catholic mission of the school and do not offer a serious counter-witness to that mission in their actions..."


The Archdiocese of Boston has said that it will tolerate parents who offer a serious counter-witness to the Catholic mission of the school in their actions.  Cardinal O'Malley believes that Catholic schools can partner with homosexual parents.  See here.

Which view is Catholic and which view represents compromise with the Culture of Death?

Related reading here.

An Advent Reflection: There is still no room at the inn...

There was no room in the inn


In those days a decree went out from Emperor Augustus that all the world should be registered...All went to their own towns to be registered. Joseph also went from the town of Nazareth in Galilea to Judea, to the city of David called Bethlehem, because he was descended from the house and family of david. he went to be registered with Mary, to whom he was engaged and who was expecting a child...And she gave birth to her forst-born son and wrapped him in bands of cloth, and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the inn. (Luke 2:1-7)


Archbishop Fulton John Sheen writes, "Mary is now with child, awaiting birth, and Joseph is full of expectancy as he enters the city of his own family. He searched for a place for the birth of Him to Whom heaven and earth belonged. Could it be that the Creator would not find room in His own creation?

Certainly, thought Joseph, there would be room in the village inn. There was room for the rich; there was room for those who were clothed in soft garments...But when finally the scrolls of history are completed down to the last word of time, the saddest lines of all will be: "There was no room in the inn". No room in the inn, but there was room in the stable. The inn was the gathering place of public opinion, the focal point of the world's moods, the rendezvous of the worldy, the rallying place of the popular and the successful. But there's no room for outcasts, the ignored, and the forgotten. The world might have expected the Son of God to be born in an inn; a stable would certainly be the last place in the world where one would look for Him. The lesson is: divinity is always where you least expect to find it. So the Son of God-Made-Man is invited to enter into His own world through a back door." (Bishop Sheen Catechism)

There was no room for the Incarnate Word - no room for Him Who is Truth.  In many parishes today, there is no room for truth.  And this shouldn't surprise us.  Our Lord assured us that, "They will harry you as they harried me.  They will respect your words as much as they respected mine.  All this they will do to you because of my name, for they know nothing of him who sent me." (John 15: 20-21).

Again, it was Archbishop Fulton John Sheen who once said, "The acceptance of the fullness of Truth will have the unfortunate quality of making you hated by the world. Forget for a moment the history of Christianity, and the fact that Christ existed. Suppose there appeared in this world today a man who claimed to be Divine Truth; and who did not say, 'I will teach you Truth,' but 'I am the Truth.' Suppose he gave evidence by his works of the truth of his statement. Knowing ourselves as we do, with our tendency to relativism, to indifference, and to the fusing of right and wrong, how do you suppose we would react to that Divine Truth? With hatred, with obloquy, with defiance; with charges of intolerance, narrow-mindedness, bigotry, and crucifixion. That is what happened to Christ. That is what our Lord said would happen to those who accept His Truth."



Have you ever noticed how worldly people achieve great fame and success and are entirely welcomed by others but that those who give themselves entirely to God meet with only resistance and persecution? St. Alphonsus de Liguori said that, "As soon as souls give themselves completely to God, God Himself causes or permits others to despise and persecute them." And Archbishop Oscar Romero, the martyred Archbishop of San Salvador, reminded us that: "A preaching that does not point out sin is not the preaching of the gospel. A preaching that makes sinners feel good so that they become entrenched in their sinful state, betrays the gospel's call. A preaching that does not discomfit sinners but lulls them in their sin leaves Zebulun and Naphtali in the shadow of death. A preaching that awakens, a preaching that enlightens -- as when a light turned on awakens and of course annoys a sleeper -- that is the preaching of Christ, calling, "wake up! Be converted!" this is the church's authentic preaching. Naturally, such preaching must meet conflict, must spoil what is miscalled prestige, must disturb, must be persecuted. It cannot get along with the powers of darkness and sin."

As Catholics faithful to the Lord Jesus, Who teaches us through the Magisterium of His Church, we can expect to be shunned, harried, slandered and persecuted in so many different ways by those who remain in the Church but only in a bodily manner - because they have abandoned charity:

"They are fully incorporated in the society of the Church who, possessing the Spirit of Christ accept her entire system and all the means of salvation given to her, and are united with her as part of her visible bodily structure and through her with Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. The bonds which bind men to the Church in a visible way are profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical government and communion. He is not saved, however, who, though part of the body of the Church, does not persevere in charity. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but, as it were, only in a "bodily" manner and not "in his heart." (Lumen Gentium, No. 14).

And it is impossible for a person to claim that they are persevering in charity when they refuse to remain fully incorporated in the society of the Church by remaining obedient to her hierarchical structure.  Our Lord Jesus told His Apostles, "He who hears you hears Me."  And obviously, those who refuse to hear the Church are refusing to hear the Lord Jesus.  Such people must constantly strain to convince themselves that they are in communion with the Church.  But they remain within the Church only in a bodily manner. 

The smoke of Satan has entered into Christ's Church.  Some priests and deacons are serving not the Lord Jesus but the Father of Lies.  Such have given themselves up to various lusts.  Including the lust for power - especially for power over others. Our Lady has warned of this already.  The Immaculate One told Father Gobbi: "I also foretold to you the great crisis which would take place in the Church, because of the great apostasy which has entered into her, caused by an ever wider diffusion of errors, by her interior division, by opposition to the Pope and by the rejection of his Magisterium.  This most beloved Daughter of mine must live the hours of her agony and of her sorrowful passion.  She will be abandoned by many of her children.  The impetuous wind of persecution will blow against her, and much blood will be shed, even by my beloved sons." (October 13, 1994, Anniversary of the Last Apparition at Fatima).

Our troubled world, blinded and wounded by sin, still cannot find room for Truth.  Which is why those who follow the Lord Jesus (in more than a bodily manner but with true obedience), can expect to be persecuted.  All the more so as the Man of Sin makes his approach.

President Obama, the fetus is not an inert blob but an "active and dynamic" child capable of learning and feeling. Why then do you support killing such children?

In an article for LifeSiteNews, Cathy Ruse writes, "In a recent column on CNN online, science writer Annie Murphy Paul discusses her astonishment at finding myriad studies about what babies can learn in the womb.


Once considered a mundane field for the researcher, “[n]ow the nine months of gestation are the focus of intense interest and excitement,” she writes, “pregnancy is not a nine-month wait for the big event of birth, but a crucial period unto itself.”

Researchers are learning that much of what a mother experiences in her daily life is communicated to developing child, from the air she breathes and the food and drink she consumes even to the emotions she feels. Paul likens it to “biological postcards from the world outside.”

“The fetus, we now know, is not an inert blob, but an active and dynamic creature, responding and adapting as it readies itself for life in the particular world it will soon enter.” Amen to that.

The findings won’t shock the pro-lifer, but the fact that they’re gaining attention in the scientific community and are being reported in places like CNN online should cheer the pro-life soul. “The recognition that learning actually begins before birth leads us to a striking new conception of the fetus, the pregnant woman and the relationship between them.”

Some of Paul’s conclusions, though, seem to be a stretch. “By attending to such messages,” she writes, “the fetus learns the answers to questions critical to its survival: Will it be born into a world of abundance, or scarcity? Will it be safe and protected, or will it face constant dangers and threats? Will it live a long, fruitful life, or a short, harried one?” A bit deterministic, if you ask me, but I welcome her acknowledgment of the growing child’s sentience." (See here).

Back in 2008, then candidate Barack Obama, speaking at a Chicago Church where he addressed the problem of absent black fathers, said that, "We need fathers to recognize that responsibility doesn't just end at conception."  See here.  In an ad put out by the Family Research Council, FRC President Tony Perkins responded to Obama by asking, "If, as you say, fatherhood begins at conception, when does life begin?"


An excellent point. If fatherhood begins at conception, so does human life. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot suggest that fatherhood begins at conception but human life does not. As Dr. & Mrs. J.C. Willke explain in their book "Why can't we love them both: questions and answers about abortion," "Biologic human life is defined by examining the scientific facts of human development. This is a field where there is no controversy, no disagreement. There is only one set of facts, only one embryology book is studied in medical school. The more scientific knowledge of fetal development that has been learned, the more science has confirmed that the beginning of any one human individual's life, biologically speaking, begins at the completion of the union of his father's sperm and his mother's ovum, a process called "conception," "fertilization," or "fecundation." This is so because this being, from fertilization, is alive, human, sexed, complete and growing."



In his Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae, Pope John Paul II said that: "Some people try to justify abortion by claiming that the result of conception, at least up to a certain number of days, cannot yet be considered a personal human life. But in fact, "from the time that the ovum is fertilized, a life is begun which is neither that of the father nor the mother; it is rather the life of a new human being with his own growth. It would never be made human if it were not human already. This has always been clear, and ... modern genetic science offers clear confirmation. It has demonstrated that from the first instant there is established the programme of what this living being will be: a person, this individual person with his characteristic aspects already well determined. Right from fertilization the adventure of a human life begins, and each of its capacities requires time-a rather lengthy time-to find its place and to be in a position to act". Even if the presence of a spiritual soul cannot be ascertained by empirical data, the results themselves of scientific research on the human embryo provide "a valuable indication for discerning by the use of reason a personal presence at the moment of the first appearance of a human life: how could a human individual not be a human person?" (No. 60).


During his Father's Day speech, candidate Obama slipped. Even though his record on abortion speaks for itself (he supports even partial-birth abortion, which amounts to infanticide), by telling his audience that fathers need to recognize their responsibility doesn't end at conception, he was admitting that at conception "a life is begun which is neither that of the father nor the mother" but instead "the life of a new human being with his own growth" which the father is responsible for.

And, if a father's responsibility is just beginning at conception, what of the responsibility of the State to guarantee this new human being his or her rights: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness?" (Declaration of Independence).

Scientific research has proven what pro-lifers have known all along: that the unborn child is not an inert blob of tissue "but an active and dynamic creature" capable of learning and feeling.  And Barack Obama believes that this human life, precious in God's sight, doesn't deserve to live.

The photo above shows an unborn child at 5 months.  President Obama supports abortion through all nine months of pregnancy. 

We are in a war....

In hoc signo vinces

John-Henry Westen writes, "Just last month one of the highest-ranking Cardinals in the Vatican alerted Christians that the moral struggle we are facing in the world today 'is a war.' It is 'critical at this time that Christians stand up for the natural moral law,' especially in defense of life and the family, said Cardinal Raymond Burke. We are, he said, 'well on the way' to the persecution of Christians in America.


'If Christians do not stand strong, give a strong witness and insist on what is right and good for us both as and individuals and society,' the former Archbishop of St. Louis warned, 'this secularization will in fact predominate and it will destroy us.'"

For years I have been warning that the United States is in twilight.  Pope John Paul II warned us years ago that this period of persecution was coming.  He said, "We are now facing the final confrontation between the Church and the anti-Church, of the Gospel and the anti-Gospel...It is a trial which the whole Church ...must take up." (Wall Street Journal, November 9, 1978 edition).  And it was Fulton John Sheen who said that: "We are living in the days of the Apocalypse - the last days of our era...The two great forces of the Mystical Body of Christ and the Mystical Body of Antichrist are beginning to draw up the battle lines for the catastrophic contest."

Even within the Church the smoke of Satan has entered and those who have succumbed to practical atheism turn on their fellow Catholics with hatred and enmity.  Our Lady told Father Gobbi that, "Practical atheism spreads by false ideologies, by the sects, by the errors which are spreading more and more, even within the Church...Practical atheism has spread everywhere the wound of unbridled egoism, of violence, of hatred and of impurity.  Impurity is proposed as a value and a good, and it is propagated throughout all the mass media.  Sins of impurity are presented as a way of exercising one's personal freedom, and so impure sins against nature [e.g., homosexuality], which cry for vengeance in the sight of God, become justified and exalted.  The world has now been reduced to an immense desert, completely covered with filth." (September 2, 1996).

The enmity between the Children of Mary and the Children of Belial is intensifying as St. Louis de Montfort prophesied it would:

 "Mary must become as terrible as an army in battle array to the devil and his followers, especially in these latter times. For Satan, knowing that he has little time - even less now than ever - to destroy souls, intensifies his efforts and his onslaughts every day. He will not hesitate to stir up savage persecutions and set treacherous snares for Mary's faithful servants and children whom he finds more difficult to overcome than others.


It is chiefly in reference to these last wicked persecutions of the devil, daily increasing until the advent of the reign of anti- Christ, that we should understand that first and well-known prophecy and curse of God uttered against the serpent in the garden of paradise. It is opportune to explain it here for the glory of the Blessed Virgin, the salvation of her children and the confusion of the devil. 'I will place enmities between you and the woman, between your race and her race; she will crush your head and you will lie in wait for her heel' (Gen. 3:15).

God has established only one enmity - but it is an irreconcilable one - which will last and even go on increasing to the end of time. That enmity is between Mary, his worthy Mother, and the devil, between the children and the servants of the Blessed Virgin and the children and followers of Lucifer.

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

What Lucifer lost by pride Mary won by humility. What Eve ruined and lost by disobedience Mary saved by obedience. By obeying the serpent, Eve ruined her children as well as herself and delivered them up to him. Mary by her perfect fidelity to God saved her children with herself and consecrated them to his divine majesty.

God has established not just one enmity but 'enmities', and not only between Mary and Satan but between her race and his race. That is, God has put enmities, antipathies and hatreds between the true children and servants of the Blessed Virgin and the children and slaves of the devil. They have no love and no sympathy for each other. The children of Belial, the slaves of Satan, the friends of the world, - for they are all one and the same - have always persecuted and will persecute more than ever in the future those who belong to the Blessed Virgin, just as Cain of old persecuted his brother Abel, and Esau his brother Jacob. These are the types of the wicked and of the just. But the humble Mary will always triumph over Satan, the proud one, and so great will be her victory that she will crush his head, the very seat of his pride. She will unmask his serpent's cunning and expose his wicked plots. She will scatter to the winds his devilish plans and to the end of time will keep her faithful servants safe from his cruel claws.


But Mary's power over the evil spirits will especially shine forth in the latter times, when Satan will lie in wait for her heel, that is, for her humble servants and her poor children whom she will rouse to fight against him. In the eyes of the world they will be little and poor and, like the heel, lowly in the eyes of all, down-trodden and crushed as is the heel by the other parts of the body. But in compensation for this they will be rich in God's graces, which will be abundantly bestowed on them by Mary. They will be great and exalted before God in holiness. They will be superior to all creatures by their great zeal and so strongly will they be supported by divine assistance that, in union with Mary, they will crush the head of Satan with their heel, that is, their humility, and bring victory to Jesus Christ." (True Devotion to Mary, 50-54).

We are now living these times.  At my last parish, the homilies never mentioned sin or the need for repentance.  There were no homilies condemning abortion, homosexual acts, contraception, fornication etc.  Not a word.  But there was something which absolutely angered the clerics there; something which filled them with rage: my arriving early for each Holy Mass to pray the Holy Rosary.  For I was looked upon with scorn and even attacked while praying the Holy Rosary during Christmas Mass.

At my current parish, the Deacon - who at first was friendly - now cannot even look at me.  For the same reason I suspect.  And because I warned the priest of the parish (he is not the pastor but has been named administrator instead) that he was promoting CCHD in the parish bulletin (CCHD supports groups which advance abortion and homosexuality), it is obvious that I am now persona non grata.

Now is the time for battle.  We are servants of Jesus and Mary.  Let us not be afraid as we march under the banner of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.  We will be hated and treated with scorn.  But this is because we are not friends with the world.  We refuse to compromise with the demon and so we are persecuted.

So be it!  Christus vincit, Christus regnat, Christus imperat!

Rainbow Sash Movement: Is it dialogue they want or merely surrender to their agenda?

In my last post, I noted how retired Lutheran Bishop Herbert W. Chilstrom has called on the Roman Catholic Bishops of Minnesota to jettison Catholic teaching in the name of "charity" and "dialogue" and to surrender to the radical homosexual agenda and its demands for same-sex "marriage." 

In his Encyclical Letter Ecclesiam Suam, Pope Paul VI told us that, "The Church must enter into dialogue with the world in which it lives. It has something to say, a message to give, a communication to make." (No. 65). The Holy Father goes on to say that, "Dialogue, therefore, is a recognized method of the apostolate. It is a way of making spiritual contact. It should however have the following characteristics:

1) Clarity before all else; the dialogue demands that what is said should be intelligible. We can think of it as a kind of thought transfusion. It is an invitation to the exercise and development of the highest spiritual and mental powers a man possesses. This fact alone would suffice to make such dialogue rank among the greatest manifestations of human activity and culture. In order to satisfy this first requirement, all of us who feel the spur of the apostolate should examine closely the kind of speech we use. Is it easy to understand? Can it be grasped by ordinary people? Is it current idiom?

2) Our dialogue must be accompanied by that meekness which Christ bade us learn from Himself: "Learn of me, for I am meek and humble of heart." It would indeed be a disgrace if our dialogue were marked by arrogance, the use of bared words or offensive bitterness. What gives it its authority is the fact that it affirms the truth, shares with others the gifts of charity, is itself an example of virtue, avoids peremptory language, makes no demands. It is peaceful, has no use for extreme methods, is patient under contradiction and inclines towards generosity.

3) Confidence is also necessary; confidence not only in the power of one's own words, but also in the good will of both parties to the dialogue. Hence dialogue promotes intimacy and friendship on both sides. It unites them in a mutual adherence to the Good, and thus excludes all self-seeking.

4) Finally, the prudence of a teacher who is most careful to make allowances for the psychological and moral circumstances of his hearer, particularly if he is a child, unprepared, suspicious or hostile. The person who speaks is always at pains to learn the sensitivities of his audience, and if reason demands it, he adapts himself and the manner of his presentation to the susceptibilities and the degree of intelligence of his hearers....In a dialogue conducted with this kind of foresight, truth is wedded to charity and understanding to love." (Nos. 81, 82).

As faithful Catholics, we must recognize and embrace these characteristics of authentic dialogue, even when our partners in dialogue refuse to accept these principles. For we will often encounter those who have succumbed to relativism or who do not possess a love of objective truth. For such people, the purpose of dialogue is not to attain truth but rather to achieve personal victory and to triumph at any cost.  For example, Joe Murray, Executive Director of the Rainbow Sash Movement in the United States, after hurling a litany of angry and calumnious accusations against Archbishop Timothy Dolan in particular and the Catholic Church in general, challenges the Archbishop to an open debate.  See here.

The Rainbow Sash Movement declares, "We recognize that our Executive Director’s call for such a public debate will most certainly be met with arrogance, and even dismissal. However, such a refusal will only focus the spotlight on a Catholic Archbishop who lacks the courage to stand up for what he claims to believe in and meet in a public setting for a debate on Gay Marriage. It is time to replace the feeding frenzy of homophobia with a mature exchange of ideas in the Church."


As Dr. Montague Brown explains in his wonderful book "The One-Minute Philosopher" (Sophia Institute Books): "An argument (emotional, not rational) is a disorderly confrontation based on an unwillingness to learn from one another. Desire for victory takes precedence over love of truth, with the result that agreement becomes impossible....in an argument, I simply want my position to be the right one and you to agree with me. I am, indeed, looking for agreement, but on my terms, not in terms of objective truth." (p. 33). An authentic dialogue (which such people are not really interested in) is, "..an orderly confrontation based on a mutual willingness to learn from one another. It involves the presentation of evidence by each party and then a good-faith attempt of the participants in the discussion to come to agreement...In a discussion [or dialogue], I do not primarily want to disagree: I want to know the truth.." (The One-Minute Philosopher, p. 32).

But herein lies the problem.  The radical homosexual activists of the "Rainbow Sash Movement" are not interested in objective truth or authentic dialogue.  They will not - they cannot - come to the table with good will.  And this because they care not for truth.  Only for "power" as they incorrectly perceive power.

The Rainbow Sash Movement is part of the broader Homosexual Hate Movement and has engaged in calumny against Pope Benedict XVI, accusing the Holy Father of having "a Nazi past."  At one point last year, this hate group announced its plans to violate federal law and to show contempt for the celebration of the Holy Mass across the United States on Pentecost Sunday by disrupting the Mass.  See here.

Retired Lutheran Bishop Herbert W. Chilstrom tells Minnesota Catholic Bishops they are "making a significant mistake" on same-sex "marriage."

Retired Lutheran Bishop Herbert W. Chilstrom has found it necessary to lecture the Catholic Bishops of Minnesota, assaulting them with his homosexual agitprop.  In an article which may be found here, the Lutheran propagandist for sodomy writes:

"To My Brothers – The Catholic Bishops of Minnesota:


In 1976 I was elected a Lutheran bishop in Minnesota – one of seven such Lutheran leaders in the state. Over the next years one of the highlights of my time in office was the annual noon-to-noon retreat with our eight Catholic counterparts in the state.

The bond that developed between us was deep and respectful. We shared our differences; we celebrated our likenesses. My friendship with Archbishop John Roach and Bishop Raymond Lucker, in particular, is a blessing I will treasure as long as I live.

May I share a word with all of you who now lead the Roman Catholic community of faith in Minnesota?

First, I would go to the wall to defend your right to work for the adoption of the so-called marriage protection amendment. Having said that, I must tell you that I believe you are making a significant mistake.
Over my 35 years as an active and retired bishop I have come to know hundreds of gay and lesbian persons. I have yet to meet even one who is opposed to the marriage of one man and one woman. After all, they are the daughters and sons of such unions.

What they cannot understand is why church leaders would oppose their fundamental desire and right to be in partnership with someone they love and respect who happens to be of the same gender and sexual orientation. They don't understand why they should not enjoy all the rights and privileges their straight counterparts take for granted.

More than a half century ago Father Francis Gilligan spoke out for equality for African American citizens of Minnesota. Though many argued on the basis of the Bible that these neighbors were inferior to others, Gilligan fought tirelessly for justice for these brothers and sisters.

In our generation homosexual persons are subject to the same discrimination. Their detractors often use the Bible and tradition as weapons of choice.

Is it not time for religious leaders, walking in the footsteps of Father Gilligan, to do the same for another minority, neighbors who are as responsible as our African American sisters and brothers?

I also suggest that you ask yourselves an important question: If the amendment is passed, will it make one particle of difference in our common culture in Minnesota? I don't think so.

Responsible lesbian and gay persons will continue to seek companionship with those they love. This law will only work to drive many of them deeper into closets of anonymity.

Instead, why not welcome them into our communities of faith where they can work side by side with us as equal partners?

Let me put out a challenge to each of you brothers. Invite 15 gay and lesbian persons from your respective areas, one at a time, to spend two hours with you.

Thirty hours are a pittance compared to the time you are investing to promote adoption of the marriage amendment. Use the time, not for confession, but to listen to them describe what it is like to live in our culture in Minnesota.

Hear as they tell you what it means to be a child of God and a faithful member of your church, persons who happen to be gay or lesbian through no choice of their own. I can promise you, based on my experience, that your heart will be deeply moved by what you hear.

When you have finished your time with these sisters and brothers in Christ, spend a quiet hour reflecting on a single question: "As I understand the heart of my Savior Jesus, how would he treat these sons and daughters of my church?"

Herbert W. Chilstrom is former presiding bishop, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.

For Bishop Chilstrom, homosexuality is genetic.    Which is why he refers to "persons who happen to be gay or lesbian through no choice of their own."  But this tired lie has been thoroughly refuted.  See here.  Note too how this confused soul equates the demand for perversion, for same-sex "marriage," with the struggle for civil rights for African-Americans.  It is not discrimination to forbid homosexuals to marry: "The denial of the social and legal status of marriage to forms of cohabitation that are not and cannot be marital is not opposed to justice; on the contrary, justice requires it." (Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons, No. 8).

What is most tragic is that a Lutheran Bishop would refer to those who oppose homosexuality on moral grounds as "detractors" who "often use the Bible and tradition as weapons of choice."    Saint Paul assures us that, "In receiving the word of God from hearing us, you received not a human word but, as it truly is, the word of God." (1 Thessalonians 2:13).  It is the Church's role to proclaim and safeguard the Divine teaching which comes from the Lord Jesus.  This is why the Church condemns all forms of immorality, especially those which are opposed to the natural order such as homosexuality.

Those of us who are authentically Catholic understand - and appreciate - that the Word of God - in both Sacred Scripture and Tradition - is a priceless gift to be cherished and protected at all costs.  But for Lutheran Bishop Herbert Chilstrom, the Word of God is nothing more than a "weapon of choice" employed by hateful bigots - "detractors."  The Word of God is something which can be watered-down at will or simply discarded when it comes into conflict with the demands of "modern man."

Bishop Chilstrom is a progressive to be sure.  And he has forgotten what - or simply couldn't care less - about what the Word of God has to say to progressives: "Anyone who is so 'progressive' that he does not remain rooted in the teaching of Christ does not possess God, while anyone who remains rooted in the teaching possesses both the Father and the Son." (2 John 9).

On rash judgment and genuflecting before the Eucharist exposed

In my last post, I noted how, "Just recently, I found it necessary to inform my parish priest that his promotion of CCHD in the parish bulletin was most unfortunate as the organization promotes abortion, homosexuality and so-called same-sex 'marriage.' Just yesterday, at Holy Mass honoring the Immaculate Conception, this same priest told the faithful present that they should not genuflect on one knee during Eucharistic Adoration and that doing so is a sign of irreverence. He asserted that Catholics must genuflect on both knees."  This information is incorrect.  The U.S. Bishops have said that genuflection before the Eucharist exposed during Adoration is on one knee.  And the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship has said the same in No. 84 of Eucharistiae Sacramentum which may be found here.

This is most unfortunate.  Not only were the faithful in attendance at Holy Mass [on a Holy Day of Obligation - the Feast of the Immaculate Conception] given information that is incorrect, but it was implied that those who follow the rubrics as set forth by the Church are not showing proper reverence for Our Eucharistic Jesus.  Now the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches us that, "To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor's thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way.." (CCC, 2478).  And this because rash judgment, as the Catechism explains, "assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor.." (CCC, 2477).

When I wrote the priest in question to inform him about the background of CCHD, I made no assumptions about his motives.  In an email dated November 13, 2011, I wrote: "Good afternoon Fr. ......, Peace of Christ! Let me begin by saying that I really enjoyed your homily this morning. It is obvious that you value truth. And this is saying something today because most people in our society are allergic to the truth. I couldn't help but notice that the parish bulletin contains a little item regarding the 'Catholic' Campaign for Human Development. Knowing your attention to detail as well as your orthodoxy (not to mention how busy you must be), I know this item just escaped your scrutiny.

The CCHD, an organization which was inspired by radical agitator Saul Alinsky, a Marxist who dedicated his Rules for Radicals to Lucifer, whom he called 'the first radical,' is an umbrella and/or a front for various groups which dissent from the Church's authentic teaching. Especially in the area of sexual morality.

According to American Life League's Michael Hichborn, "..no less than fifty organizations (one-fifth of all CCHD grantees from 2009) are, in some capacity, engaged in pro-abortion or pro-homosexual causes." See here: http://www.all.org/cchd

I have a post here reprinting an excellent article from The Wanderer on Saul Alinsky:

http://lasalettejourney.blogspot.com/2005/06/wanderer-on-saul-alinsky.html


Another relevant article on the CCHD may be found here:

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/feb/10020208.html


In other words, I gave the priest in question the benefit of the doubt.  I wrote him a personal email rather than going public on this Blog because I lacked sufficient foundation to assume moral fault.  What a shame that this priest couldn't find it in his heart to grant the same courtesy to his parishioners who actually attend Eucharistic Adoration (a very small number) and didn't do his homework before attempting to correct what he mistakenly perceived as a fault in these people.

The priest in question made no mention of his mistake in promoting CCHD.  Nor did he admit to giving his parishioners incorrect information pertaining to genuflection while in the presence of Our Eucharistic Jesus - even though I emailed him the relevant information from the U.S. Bishops and the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship.

In his classic work Transformation in Christ, Dr. Dietrich von Hildebrand explains that there is a certain kind of man who takes "pleasure in contemplating the defects of others, against which [his] own superiority stands out more glowingly."  Dr. von Hildebrand explains that for such people, "there lives an evil resentment, not against value as such, to be sure, but against the virtues of others, which they experience as a threat to their self-glory.  Although..the merely self-righteous person is by one degree less execrable than the Pharisee, his attitude is still one of the prototypes of all morally damnable conduct and it insults God.  Although Satanism as well as Pharisaism proper remain excluded, self-righteousness makes a person obdurate and void of love to the extent that it takes hold of him." (Transformation in Christ. p. 172).

Now I'm not accusing this priest of self-righteousness.  And, as you may have noticed, I am not mentioning him by name for the sake of charity.  I believe he has many good qualities and he has not been publically dissenting from the Church's teaching.  But I am alarmed that while I have given him the benefit of the doubt, he was so quick to assume as true something about lay persons which was not true: that their genuflection on one knee constituted a lack of proper reverence for Our Eucharistic Lord.

Rash judgment.

Archbishop Chaput Thunders: Complacency and pride within the Church are the enemy of Faith

My good friend Deacon Nick Donnelly is reporting that:

"In his latest pastoral letter Archbishop Chaput of Philadelphia has written that complacency and pride within the Church are the enemy of Faith.


'Advent is a season of self-examination in the light of God’s word;a season of conversion and looking forward in hope to the birth of a Savior at Christmas. There is no better time to speak frankly about the conditions we now face as a community of believers.’

‘Complacency is the enemy of faith. To whatever degree complacency and pride once had a home in our local Church,events in the coming year will burn them out. The process will be painful. But going through it is the only way to renew the witness of the Church;to clear away the debris of human failure from the beauty of God’s word and to restore the joy and zeal of our Catholic discipleship.’

These words may sound sobering,but they are spoken with love as a father and a brother. They are a plea to take our baptism seriously;and to renew our local Church with Christian charity,justice and zeal. As Scripture reminds us so frequently: Do not be afraid. God uses poor clay to create grandeur and beauty. He can certainly use us to renew and advance the work of the Church —and he will.

Protect the Pope comment: We would do well to remember that Jesus longed to bring fire upon the world, the fire of the Holy Spirit. Complacency and pride, particularly among those called to act in persona Christi Capitis, damps down the fire of faith,hope and love as sure as an ocean of tepid water.

The wreckage that we see around us since the Second Vatican Council is the consequence of complacency and pride. The only antidote to this is humiliation,and its fruit,humility.

Until the majority of the Catholic leaders of our country, bishops, priests, deacons, theologians, catechists, truly feels the bitter pain of humiliation as a result of the appalling failures of the past, such as clergy sexual abuse, the collapse of Catholic education in our schools, the wholesale abandonment of Catholic doctrine by Diocesan catechetical teams and the majority of Catholic institutes of education, for example, then complacency and pride will continue to rule our local church;and the fire will continue to splutter out.

http://www.stbl.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Pastorallet_IC.pdf

Well said Deacon Nick. I have been saying this for many years now. Just recently, I found it necessary to inform my parish priest that his promotion of CCHD in the parish bulletin was most unfortunate as the organization promotes abortion, homosexuality and so-called same-sex "marriage."  Just yesterday, at Holy Mass honoring the Immaculate Conception, this same priest told the faithful present that they should not genuflect on one knee during Eucharistic Adoration and that doing so is a sign of irreverence.  He asserted that Catholics must genuflect on both knees.

Straining at a gnat while swallowing a camel?

I wrote this priest an email in which I said: "During Holy Mass today, the people present were told that they should genuflect on both knees during Eucharistic Adoration. Actually, in 1993 the USCC/NCCB Bishops' Committee on the Liturgy published the Order for the Solemn Exposition of the Holy Eucharist, a resource collection of rites and texts for use by those planning annual solemn exposition. In #9 of that document it states, "Genuflection in the presence of the blessed sacrament, whether reserved in the tabernacle or exposed for public adoration, is on one knee." The footnote references the Vatican document of 1973: the Roman Ritual: Holy Communion and Worship of the Eucharist Outside Mass (HCWEOM.) In #84 of that document is the identical wording.


Father Peter M.J. Stravinskas, Ph.D., S.T.D., in his Catholic Dictionary, notes that, "..genuflection in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament, whether reserved in the tabernacle or exposed for public adoration, is on one knee" (General Instruction on Holy Communion and the Worship of the Eucharist Outside Mass, n. 84).

The faithful should not be made to feel guilty for genuflecting on one knee when the Church proscribes doing just that: "Genuflection in the presence of the blessed sacrament, whether reserved in the tabernacle or exposed for public adoration, is on one knee." (See No. 84 here)."

This same priest had nothing to say about the woman and her several children who disrupted the Holy Mass this past Sunday, screaming and jumping up and down and running through the church.  He didn't speak of this as irreverence.  He kept that accusation for the faithful and devout Catholics - what few there are - who actually go to Eucharistic Adoration and who genuflect on one knee.

God preserve us from such nonsense!

Dalton McGuinty, Premier of Ontario: Anti-Catholic Bully

Father Alphonse de Valk, writing for Catholic Insight, reports that Dalton McGuinty, the Premier of Ontario, is attempting to bully Catholic schools into allowing the celebration of homosexuality.  This comes as no surprise.  For McGuinty is really a Secular Humanist at heart.  Secular Humanism has all the characteristics of a religion. The Secular Humanist places man at the center of things. In the Humanist Manifesto II, which was released in 1973, humanists called for a new faith: "...traditional theism, especially faith in the prayer-hearing God, assumed to love and care for persons, to hear and understand their prayers, and to be able to do something about them is an unproved and outmoded faith. Salvationism, based on mere affirmation, still appears as harmful, diverting people with false hopes of heaven hereafter. Responsible minds look to other means for survival." (Humanist Manifesto II, The Humanist; September/October 1973, p. 4). Humanism is, therefore, fundamentally at odds with Christianity which regards God and not man as the supreme value of the universe.


Because Humanists recognize the importance of the public schools in advancing their man-centered religion, they do everything in their power to ensure that children are indoctrinated into the tenets of Humanism even as they attack faith-based schools. It was Paul Blanshard, writing in The Humanist, who said, "I think that the most important factor moving us toward a secular society has been the educational factor. Our schools may not teach Johnny to read properly, but the fact that Johnny is in school until he is 16 tends to lead toward the elimination of religious superstition. The average American child now acquires a high school education, and this militates against Adam and Eve and all the other myths of alleged history." (The Humanist State, March/April 1976, p. 17).

Humanist John Dumphy, also writing for The Humanist, said "I am convinced that the battle for humankind's future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being. These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preacher, for they will be ministers of another servant, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subjects they teach regardless of the educational level - preschool daycare or large state university. The classroom must and will become and area of conflict between the old and the new - the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery and the new faith of humanism resplendent in its promise of a world in which the never realized Christian idea of 'love thy neighbor' will finally be achieved." (The Humanist, January/February 1983, p. 26).

Humanists have a right to believe as they do. But so do people of faith. Tolerance of different beliefs is an essential ingredient of a free society. But Humanists do not embrace such tolerance. They are, in fact, the most intolerant as they seek to indoctrinate and coerce others into their belief system.

The time is fast-approaching when those of us who are morally opposed to homosexuality will be in physical danger.  For atheistic humanism, when it comes to power, inevitably leads to violence and mass murder.  McGuinty and his comrades have already attempted to silence moral opposition toward homosexuality.  See here.

The Church proposes but the world imposes.

President of HLI: Promoting Condoms as Solution to AIDS in Africa Constitutes "Scandal of Immense Proportions."

From the Human Life International website (November 30, 2001 release):

Human Life International President Father Shenan J. Boquet sent the following message today to HLI Nigeria, the Seminarians for Life of Pope John Paul Major Seminary Awka, university students and all participants of the upcoming March for Life in Nigeria on December 1, 2011 organized by HLI Nigeria to mark the occasion of World AIDS Day:


“Greetings in the name of Christ to our dear friends and fellow defenders of life in Nigeria! We are honored to stand in solidarity with you as you encourage your leaders to remain strong in their defense of life and family. Toward this end, we offer the following points for reflection as you march for life on the occasion of ‘World AIDS Day.’

“First, we stand in solidarity not only with those who march to defend life and family, but also with those who are suffering so greatly from the ravages of HIV and AIDS, and the families of those who have been lost to this dread disease. Our first obligation as Catholics is to reach out with the love of Christ to those who are suffering – in Charity and Truth. It is in the spirit of Charity that the Church has always reached out to those who suffer and has consoled those who mourn the loss of loved ones. We are offering a Mass for those who have been affected by this terrible scourge, and for those who continue to address the spiritual and temporal needs in Nigeria and throughout Africa.

“Second, in the spirit of Truth, we must affirm the now incontrovertible fact that false solutions offered by wealthy international population control organizations do more harm than good. The promotion of condoms as a solution to the HIV-AIDS crisis is such a false solution, and the fact that these now thoroughly discredited efforts continue, despite a growing body of scientific research that demonstrates their ineffectiveness in stopping HIV and AIDS, is a scandal of immense proportions. We have also seen research lately that shows that the widespread use of oral contraception, not surprisingly, correlates with higher rates of STIs, as people become more accustomed to risky behavior and tend to forget the obvious consequences of this behavior. Only a society-wide change in behavior will stop HIV and AIDS, and such a change is only possible if members of society regain a deep respect for women, for families, and for sexuality as it was intended to be lived. It is sad, but not surprising, to find, again and again, that the more we depart from the law of God and of nature, the more we suffer spiritual and natural consequences.

“Finally, while it is very important that we make our voices heard in the streets and in the halls of our political leaders, our defense of life and family is not limited to protest and arguments based in science and reason. Our main argument is always our lived example of faith, hope and charity! When we live as our Creator has intended, even in the midst of terrible challenges and suffering, we can be hopeful, since we know that by His grace our suffering can turn into joy and flourishing. By living lives of charity we bring Christ to one another, as we see Him in one another. And we do so because of our faith, from Holy Scripture through the lives of the saints and the Magisterial teachings of our beloved Church, whose message is never limited to the necessary condemnation of sin, but is in its fullness a doctrine of true human flourishing – a positive message of faith, hope and love!

“Thank you to our friends with Human Life International Nigeria and Seminarians for Life of Pope John Paul Major Seminary Awka. You are an example to us, and we pray that you are successful not only in protecting pro-life and pro-family laws in Nigeria, but in growing a more robust Culture of Life that we in the West can look to as an example of how to go about in creating authentic, integral human development.”

This charitable message of sanity and common sense based upon solid empirical data is opposed by militant atheists such as Brian Bridson, an intellectually impoverished character who refers hatefully to the Vicar of Christ, Pope Benedict XVI as "pope ben-the-dick" while asserting in his blind rage that the Catholic clergy are "pretentious scum bags" who are "all fuc... up." (See his post entitled "More Catholic Bullshit" here).

Bear in mind that it is mental midgets such as this who accuse the Catholic Church of being unable to engage in "reason and dialogue."  Ignoring the hard statistical data which are not supportive of his idiotic agenda, Mr. Bridson insists that the Church prefers that, "..people die in Africa than allow them to use condoms to prevent the spread of HIV and AIDS."

Sophocles, in Antigone 1. 1023, says, "Stubborness and stupidity are twins." How so? Dr. Montague Brown explains as he makes the distinction between tenacity and stubborness: "Tenacity is the dedicated adherence to something we know to be worthwhile. As such, tenacity is positive. It involves a clear purpose - to persevere in what is good - and welcomes new evidence and perspectives that clarify or enrich that good...Tenacity is particularly evident when the adherence required is difficult. If my perseverance requires great effort of body or mind, or if it requires me to face a great deal of peer pressure and perhaps even ridicule, then my holding fast to my good purpose shows strength of mind and courage. In such cases, there may be little to gain in terms of social standing, but much in moral standing. Tenaciously holding to what is true and good not only benefits me in terms of virtue; it also works to ensure the stability of these goods in the community....Stubborness is the uncompromising insistence on having our own way. As such, stubborness is negative. It involves a kind of blindness, along with a willful rejection of evidence and the perspectives of others. Stubborness is particularly evident when the compromise required is easy. If the evidence I need to convince me to change my mind is readily available, or if accepting another's perspective would mean giving up little of importance, then my refusal to yield is not reasonable, but is motivated by stubborness. There is little to lose except my desire to be in control. Such rigid clinging to my own will hurts the community, because I refuse to cooperate with others, and it also prevents me from becoming successful and virtuous." (Dr. Montague Brown, Ph.D, The One-Minute Philosopher, pp. 162-163, Sophia Institute Press).

Don't expect intellectually cramped characters such as Brian Bridson to consider evidence which contradicts their world-view or to even consider the perspectives of others.  Nothing will ever produce the slightest crack in their wall of conviction.  Such people suffer from an adolescent crisis.

Another lying atheist exposed: "Catholic Internet Watch" Blog created by a virulently anti-Catholic atheist

In the comments section of my post "Persecution?  What persecution?", Mr. Michael Cole, writing about an individual who has been attacking myself and other orthodox Catholics at the Blog "Catholic" Internet Watch, writes:

"Brian Bridson is "Scout." At another Blog, this atheist from the UK writes:


Excommunication and Defection from the Catholic Church

First of all, there is a very real difference between excommunication and defection. Excommunication is an action taken by the Roman Catholic Church that comes close to fully removing you from the Church, but, in typical Catholic fashion, they leave you with the option of repenting and reclaiming your good standing with the Church. So even if you are excommunicated, you are still counted as a member of the flock.

Defection is different. Also known as Actus formalis defectionis ab Ecclesia catholica, grants the person seeking it the right to have their name removed from records of the Catholic Church and nullifies your baptismal certificate. Of course, when seeking Actus formalis defectionis ab Ecclesia catholica, it would be good to include the rationale for your defection. You will also want to know where and when you were baptized.

I first called the priest servicing the Church in which I was baptized to inform him that I would be pursuing the issue. He spoke with the bishop about it and confirmed that all I need to do is provide the priest with a letter, stating my intention to defect, with my baptismal information and reasons for defection. He will then take the letter to the Bishop of the Diocese, have it processed, and I will receive a letter in the mail confirming my defection.

Below is the text, minus personally identifiable information, that I provided to the priest stating my intention to defect (submitted Monday, March 21, 2011):

My name is Brian Bridson. I was baptized at xxxx Catholic Church, in xxxx, Ontario, during late August or early September in xxxx. Becoming Catholic, much less confession, communion and confirmation, were never decisions I made myself; I never chose to be Catholic.

Due to the fact that I never chose to be Catholic, and because I believe that not once has any evidence for the existence of any gods, much less the Christian or Catholic one, I hereby request a formal defection from the Catholic Church (Actus formalis defectionis ab Ecclesia catholica).

Please send record of my formal defection from the Catholic Church to the address below:


Brian Bridson

xxxxxxxxxx


Thank you for submitting my Actus formalis defectionis ab Ecclesia catholica.

Brian Bridson

It is short and simple, but all that was needed. Don’t forget to sign (include your signature in) your letter. I will post the letter I receive from the Church when I get it."

http://philosophershaze.com/?page_id=7


There are links to many atheist and secular humanist websites at this blog of his. And in a post on "Catholislam," one of his tags is "catholic internet watch," which, surprise - is the title of his new anti-Catholic blog.

I've copied all of this should he decide to delete the pages. More on the atheist Brian Bridson here:

http://philosophershaze.com/?page_id=127


Here's what Brian Bridson - the "grandson of three Catholic grandparents" - has to say about the Church in his post entitled "Catholislam":

The catholic church isn’t interested in educating its followers, much less encouraging them to be able to have genuine conversations with atheists and agnostics. This attitude is summed up rather nicely by Suzanne Scotconi of the archdiocese of Toronto, who said that “We rather like the weak ones.” (See this post for more information about Scotconi’s remark.) What the church really wants in a bunch of mindless sheep that are too scared to think for themselves and who are unable to have honest, genuine conversations with others who haven’t drank their kool-aid.

And what does this do? Well, with great ignorance comes great misunderstanding. These sheep, especially the good ones who have given over the entire substance of their being to this vampiric organization, become unable to enter into honest dialogues with those who have competing or greatly different outlooks on the world. And this misunderstanding, as it grows, often leads to open animosity towards these various “others”.

Don’t forget though – this is a church of understanding.

Then think about the manner in which the church treats members of the TBLGQ communities. In fact, the contempt is so great for these people that in the UN the church, via the Vatican, tried to strike down a motion that would designate them as having special status under international human rights legislation. And why would they seek to deny ensuring this discriminated group of individuals be given special status? Because their “holy book” tells them that these people are akin to evil monsters; swine even.."

Full anti-Catholic post here:

http://philosophershaze.com/?p=2125


Now, Mr. Bridson (a.k.a. "Scout") just left another post at his new Blog "Catholic" Internet Watch, in which he writes: "A commenter at Paul Anthony Melanson's gay-hating La Salette Journey blog is claiming that I am Brian Bridson. This is not true, and there are no reasonable grounds for such a suspicion outside of the frenziedly paranoid, intellectually dysfunctional little Catholic bubble inhabited by the La Salette Journey set. I left them a comment to correct the mistake, although I rather expect it to be deleted."
Now astute readers of this Blog - and this would exclude mindless atheists such as Brian Bridson - know full well that I have no hatred whatsoever for homosexual persons.  Only the sin of homosexuality.  Astute individuals will also find it interesting that Brian Bridson says that he grew up in London "during the 1980s and 1990s."  In fact he uses the exact phrase which "Scout" uses at "Catholic" Internet Watch: "Growing up in London during the 1980s and 1990s."  In a post at that Blog dated October 26, 2011, "Scout" (a.k.a. Brian Bridson) writes:

"Some complain Catholic Internet Watch is "anti-Catholic". It is not. I am the grandson of three Catholic grandparents and count Catholics amongst my friends. Real anti-Catholic prejudice is something I deplore. Growing up in London during the 1980s and 1990s, I remember the suspicion against Catholics at the time of the IRA bombing campaign.

Critics ask me, "Why focus just on Catholics?" It is true that narrow-mindedness can be found amongst the members of other belief systems. I could start a blog called "Protestant Internet Watch", "Muslim Internet Watch" or "Atheist Internet Watch" and find much of legitimate concern to blog about. If I wanted to be even-handed, I could do an "Everybody Internet Watch" and devote each week to a different misbehaving group.

The fact of the matter is, though, that my time and knowledge is limited, and as the old dictum goes, "it is best to write about what you know best". I believe I am, or hope I am, well-placed to study Catholic internet goings-on because I was immersed in that world for a while myself. But that does not make me "anti-Catholic". In fact, I admire the more beautiful aspects of Catholicism, and was at one time very personally interested in the religion on a positive level.

What eventually turned me off was the effect Catholicism has on so many of its followers. That is why Catholic Internet Watch was born. The internet is a largely anonymous forest where you can often best gauge what people are really like and what they are really thinking. It is here that I learnt about the darker side of the collective Catholic mind, and I believe it has to be exposed if people are to become aware of the problem that exists. In many ways, the Catholic leadership fails to deal with or even encourages bad thinking and bad behaviour, and this is also something that needs to be exposed." (See here).

Mr. Bridson has his own anti-Catholic agenda.  And he is obviously willing to lie and deceive to advance that agenda.  Manipulation is manipulation.  And Mr. Bridson (a.k.a. "Scout"), is a manipulator.

The United States Senate and the National Defense Authorization Act: Repealing bans on the most grievous sins

In my last post, I noted how the U.S. Senate has repealed the bans on sodomy and bestiality in the military.  Article 125 of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice was repealed by S 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act. See here.  Go to page 147.

Article 125 of the UCMJ read:

a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration , however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.
(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.


The UCMJ has always viewed same-sex intercourse and bestiality as unnatural.  What has changed?  Other than the fact that certain U.S. Senators, due to moral cowardice, have decided to cater to radical homosexual activists who demand that their unnatural vice be granted societal approval?


Aquinas on Unnatural Sex





Thomas Aquinas (1224/25-75) is commonly regarded as the greatest Western philosopher of the thirteenth century. In a series of works he addressed all the current issues of theology and philosophy, and in particular the problem Christian thinkers had in dealing with the arrival of good editions of the works of Aristotle in the West.

Aquinas was both intensely productive and quite flexible in his approaches. [On occasion he reportedly was able to write, via dictation, two or more works at a time]. Because of the formidable extent of his works, it is often his two great summas to which we turn to find out what he thought. This is not always wise. The summas were consciously written as compendia, and Aquinas addressed a number of theoretical issues in smaller subject specific treatises. Moreover, many of the common questions in thirteenth centuiy academic discussion were based on questions from the basic Theologiael textbook, Peter Lombard's Four Books of Sentences, and it is to Aquinas' commentaries on these that one should turn for his discussion of issues such as women clergy, or the moment of consecration.

The summas [the Summa Theologiae and the Summa Contra Gentiles] are, however, useful. Echoing the disputation methods of university teaching, the Summa Theologiae presents a summation of Aquinas' opinions on issues from the existence of God, to the sacremental system, to basic moral rules.

The selection here addresses Aquinas discussion of sex and sexuality. It shows both his typical methods - his willingness to face objections openly, his use of authorities, and his use of logic - as well as the effort to construct the intractable realities of human experience into a structured and analyzable form.


Extracts from Summa Theologiae II-II, question 154

The following issues are addressed by Aquinas in these selections:-

Summa Theologica II-II, 154, 11: Whether the unnatural vice is a species of lust?

Summa Theologiae II-II, 154, 12: Whether the unnatural vice is the greatest sin among the species of lust? Aquinas' discussion of sexual morality in general [which includes fornication, incest, and rape], is available in a separate document, Aquinas on Sex

Summa Theologica II-II, 154, 11

Whether the unnatural vice is a species of lust?

Objection 1. It would seem that the unnatural vice is not a species of lust. For no mention of the vice against nature is made in the enumeration given above (1, Objection 1). Therefore it is not a species of lust.

Objection 2. Further, lust is contrary to virtue; and so it is comprised under vice. But the unnatural vice is comprised not under vice, but under bestiality, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. vii, 5). Therefore the unnatural vice is not a species of lust.

Objection 3. Further, lust regards acts directed to human generation, as stated above (153, 2): Whereas the unnatural vice concerns acts from which generation cannot follow. Therefore the unnatural vice is not a species of lust.

On the contrary, It is reckoned together with the other species of lust (2 Cor. 12:21) where we read: "And have not done penance for the uncleanness, and fornication, and lasciviousness," where a gloss says: "Lasciviousness, i.e., unnatural lust."

I answer that, As stated above (A6,9) wherever there occurs a special kind of deformity whereby the venereal act is rendered unbecoming, there is a determinate species of lust. This may occur in two ways: First, through being contrary to right reason, and this is common to all lustful vices; secondly, because, in addition, it is contrary to the natural order of the venereal act as becoming to the human race: and this is called "the unnatural vice." This may happen in several ways. First, by procuring pollution, without any copulation, for the sake of venereal pleasure: this pertains to the sin of "uncleanness" which some call "effeminacy." Secondly, by copulation with a thing of undue species, and this is called "bestiality." Thirdly, by copulation with an undue sex, male with male, or female with female, as the Apostle states (Rm. 1:27): and this is called the "vice of sodomy." Fourthly, by not observing the natural manner of copulation, either as to undue means, or as to other monstrous and bestial manners of copulation.

Reply to Objection 1. There we enumerated the species of lust that are not contrary to human nature: wherefore the unnatural vice was omitted.

Reply to Objection 2. Bestiality differs from vice, for the latter is opposed to human virtue by a certain excess in the same matter as the virtue, and therefore is reducible to the same genus.

Reply to Objection 3. The lustful man intends not human generation but venereal pleasures. It is possible to have this without those acts from which human generation follows: and it is that which is sought in the unnatural vice.

Summa Theologica II-II, 154, 12

Whether the unnatural vice is the greatest sin among the species of lust?

Objection 1. It would seem that the unnatural vice is not the greatest sin among the species of lust. For the more a sin is contrary to charity the graver it is. Now adultery, seduction and rape which are injurious to our neighbor are seemingly more contrary to the love of our neighbor, than unnatural sins, by which no other person is injured. Therefore the unnatural sin is not the greatest among the species of lust.

Objection 2. Further, sins committed against God would seem to be the most grievous. Now sacrilege is committed directly against God, since it is injurious to the Divine worship. Therefore sacrilege is a graver sin than the unnatural vice.

Objection 3. Further, seemingly, a sin is all the more grievous according as we owe a greater love to the person against whom that sin is committed. Now the order of charity requires that a man love more those persons who are united to him---and such are those whom he defiles by incest---than persons who are not connected with him, and whom in certain cases he defiles by the unnatural vice. Therefore incest is a graver sin than the unnatural vice.

Objection 4. Further, if the unnatural vice is most grievous, the more it is against nature the graver it would seem to be. Now the sin of uncleanness or effeminacy would seem to be most contrary to nature, since it would seem especially in accord with nature that agent and patient should be distinct from one another. Hence it would follow that uncleanness is the gravest of unnatural vices. But this is not true. Therefore unnatural vices are not the most grievous among sins of lust.

On the contrary, Augustine says (De adult. conjug. [The quotation is from Cap. Adulterii xxxii, qu. 7. Cf. Augustine, De Bono Conjugali, viii.]) that "of all these," namely the sins belonging to lust, "that which is against nature is the worst."

I answer that, In every genus, worst of all is the corruption of the principle on which the rest depend. Now the principles of reason are those things that are according to nature, because reason presupposes things as determined by nature, before disposing of other things according as it is fitting. This may be observed both in speculative and in practical matters. Wherefore just as in speculative matters the most grievous and shameful error is that which is about things the knowledge of which is naturally bestowed on man, so in matters of action it is most grave and shameful to act against things as determined by nature. Therefore, since by the unnatural vices man transgresses that which has been determined by nature with regard to the use of venereal actions, it follows that in this matter this sin is gravest of all. After it comes incest, which, as stated above (09), is contrary to the natural respect which we owe persons related to us.

With regard to the other species of lust they imply a transgression merely of that which is determined by right reason, on the presupposition, however, of natural principles. Now it is more against reason to make use of the venereal act not only with prejudice to the future offspring, but also so as to injure another person besides. Wherefore simple fornication, which is committed without injustice to another person, is the least grave among the species of lust. Then, it is a greater injustice to have intercourse with a woman who is subject to another's authority as regards the act of generation, than as regards merely her guardianship. Wherefore adultery is more grievous than seduction. And both of these are aggravated by the use of violence. Hence rape of a virgin is graver than seduction, and rape of a wife than adultery. And all these are aggravated by coming under the head of sacrilege, as stated above (10, ad 2).

Reply to Objection 1. Just as the ordering of right reason proceeds from man, so the order of nature is from God Himself: wherefore in sins contrary to nature, whereby the very order of nature is violated, an injury is done to God, the Author of nature. Hence Augustine says (Confess. iii, 8): "Those foul offenses that are against nature should be everywhere and at all times detested and punished, such as were those of the people of Sodom, which should all nations commit, they should all stand guilty of the same crime, by the law of God which hath not so made men that they should so abuse one another. For even that very intercourse which should be between God and us is violated, when that same nature, of which He is the Author, is polluted by the perversity of lust."

Reply to Objection 2. Vices against nature are also against God, as stated above (ad 1), and are so much more grievous than the depravity of sacrilege, as the order impressed on human nature is prior to and more firm than any subsequently established order.

Reply to Objection 3. The nature of the species is more intimately united to each individual, than any other individual is. Wherefore sins against the specific nature are more grievous.

Reply to Objection 4. Gravity of a sin depends more on the abuse of a thing than on the omission of the right use. Wherefore among sins against nature, the lowest place belongs to the sin of uncleanness, which consists in the mere omission of copulation with another. While the most grievous is the sin of bestiality, because use of the due species is not observed. Hence a gloss on Gn. 37:2, "He accused his brethren of a most wicked crime," says that "they copulated with cattle." After this comes the sin of sodomy, because use of the right sex is not observed. Lastly comes the sin of not observing the right manner of copulation, which is more grievous if the abuse regards the "vas" than if it affects the manner of copulation in respect of other circumstances.

This text is part of the Internet Medieval Source Book. The Sourcebook is a collection of public domain and copy-permitted texts related to medieval and Byzantine history.


Paul Halsall
March 1996
halsall@murray.fordham.edu


Our Senators have voted to repeal bans on the most grievous sins.  They have opted to condone such evils.

U.S. Senate repeals bans on sodomy and bestiality in the military

I've been warning for years that the acceptance of sodomy would lead inevitably to the acceptance of bestiality as well.  For example, back in December of 2010, I noted that according to Venerable Bartholomew Holzhauser, just prior to the Reign of Antichrist, "...there will be laxity in divine and human precepts. Discipline will suffer. The Holy Canons will be completely disregarded, and the clergy will not respect the law of the Church. Everyone will be carried away and led to believe and to do what he fancies, according to the manner of the flesh. They will ridicule Christian simplicity ; they will call it folly and nonsense, but they will have the highest regard for advanced knowledge...As a result no principle at all- however holy, authentic, ancient, and certain it may be, will remain free of censure, criticism, false interpretations, modifications, and delimitation by man.


These are evil times a century full of dangers and calamities. Heresy is everywhere, and the followers of heresy are in power, almost everywhere. Bishops, prelates, and priests say that they are doing their duty, that they are vigilant and that they live as befits their state of life. In like manner therefore they all seek excuses. But God will permit a great evil against His Church; Heretics and tyrants will come suddenly and unexpectedly; they will break into the Church while Bishops prelates and priests are asleep. They will enter Italy and lay Rome waste; they will burn down the churches and destroy everything."

And I asserted that:

The Reign of Antichrist will witness a celebration of sin and perversion the likes of which few can imagine. Pleasure is the new principle par excellence. If pleasure can justify homosexual behavior (and increasingly that is what our sin-sick society is saying), then other deviant forms of sexual activity which are viewed as pleasurable by some will also be logically justified. This will include pedophilia, pederasty, ephebophilia, gerontophilia, necrophilia, sadism, masochism and bestiality."

Was I wrong?  No. 

 
 
The Hour of Darkness has arrived for America and the rest of the world.  People are becoming increasingly desensitized to sin and hard of heart.  And they are turning to doctrines of demons.

Persecution? What persecution?

In a recent post dealing with the coming persecution [which has actually already begun but which will become increasingly violent], I noted the gradual process by which secular humanists and other anti-Christian types weed out Christian thought and eventually ban it altogether, often criminalizing the Gospel.  I am now under attack [along with such prominent Catholics as Cardinal Raymond Burke and Dr. Jeff Mirus] for having the audacity to warn of the coming persecution against the Church by the Homosexual Hate Movement.

In a post which may be found here, I am accused of engaging in "Catholic persecution fantasies."  This after the writer asserts that my Blog post and additional articles are "deranged" and "loony."  Referring to my post, the writer asserts:

"The blogpost gets more and more deranged after this, so I will spare most of the details. Amongst other things, he urges us to read another loony article of his called The Homosexual Hate Movement: Another form of totalitarianism, which offers further insight into his demented religious mindset. What is most worrying, though, is how Melanson finds so much encouragement for his political and religious obsessions from the leaders of the Catholic Church. His post was prompted in the first place by news of Cardinal Burke's ludicrous claim that American Catholics are on the brink of a great persecution. He is also able to cite Pope John Paul II writing that 'Authentic democracy is possible only in a State ruled by law, and on the basis of a correct conception of the human person'. Or in other words, democracy is only 'authentic' and legitimate if the government conforms to Catholic teaching."

The writer concludes his confused piece by asserting that, "There is no totalitarian Homosexual Hate Movement...sorry to disappoint you Mr. Melanson, but nobody wants to persecute you.  Get over it."  The homosexual movement has nothing to do with hate?  Tell that to the Catholics, Protestants and Mormons who came under both verbal and physical attack in California after the Prop 8 controversy.  See here.  Nobody wants to persecute me?  That must be why I have received numerous threats and hate mail, not to mention hateful comments at this Blog directed against my person.  Nobody wants to persecute me [and other Christians and people of good will who are morally opposed to the radical homosexual agenda]?  Is that why a homosexual activist called The Mothertown News in Massachusetts to tell them he objected to an article I wrote for that publication - explaining the Church's authentic teaching regarding homosexuality which includes respect for the homosexual person - and that he was going to kill me with his high-powered rifle?

Persecution?  What persecution?  It was the French philosopher Gabriel Marcel, a man whose thought so greatly influenced my own, who said that, "Fanaticism is essentially opinion; opinion pushed to paroxysm; with everything that the notion of opinion may imply of blinded ignorance as to its own nature...whatever ends the fanatic is aiming at or thinks he is aiming at, even if he wishes to gather men together, he can only in fact separate them; but as his own interests cannot lie in effecting this separation, his is led...to wish to wipe his opponents out. And when he is thinking of these opponents, he takes care to form the most degrading images of them possible - they are 'lubricious vipers' or 'hyenas and jackals with typewriters' - and the ones that reduce them to most grossly material terms. In fact, he no longer thinks of these opponents except as material obstacles to be overturned or smashed down. Having abandoned the behaviour of a thinking being, he has lost even the feeblest notion of what a thinking being, outside himself, could be. It is understandable therefore that he should make very effort to deny in advance the rights and qualifications of those whom he wishes to eliminate; and that he should regard all means to this end as fair. We are back here again at the techniques of degradation...fanaticism is, of its very nature, incompatible with any regard for truth; and as truth itself is not really seperable from our regard for it, we need not hesitate to say that the fanatic is the enemy of truth..." (Man Against Mass Society, pp. 149-150).


Which is why Catholics faithful to the Church, faithful to the Lord Jesus, must be painted as "loony" and "deranged."  We must be made to be seen as being somehow "dangerous."  We must be demonized and eventually criminalized.  And then we can be disposed of in the gulag or in front of a firing squad.

Persecution?  What persecution?

Related reading here and most importantly here.