Tuesday, August 31, 2010

"..remaining in the teaching of the Apostles is indispensable.."

Dissent from the Church's teaching is an attack on truth which is the principle of the Church's communion and common life. Which is why the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in its Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian, No. 40, has this to say:

"The Church 'is like a sacrament, a sign and instrument, that is, of communion with God and of unity among all men' (LG, 1). Consequently, to pursue concord and communion is to enhance the force of her witness and credibility. To succumb to the temptation of dissent, on the other hand, is to allow the 'leaven of infidelity to the Holy Spirit' to start to work."

Pope John Paul II, in his Encyclical Letter Veritatis Splendor, No. 113, says 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. Opposition to the teaching of the Church's Pastors cannot be seen as a legitimate expression either of Christian freedom or of the diversity of the Spirit's gifts. When this happens, the Church's Pastors have the duty to act in conformity with their apostolic mission, insisting that the right of the faithful to receive Catholic doctrine in its purity and integrity must always be respected."

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).

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.’"

The Archdiocese of Boston has forgotten this truth. And as a result, the local Church finds itself polarized.

Related reading here.

Monday, August 30, 2010

President Obama and the basic incapacity to listen...

It comes as no surprise that President Obama admits to ignoring the Restoring Honor rally (which he refers to as the "Beck Rally." See here. When the President and other liberals aren't dismissing their opponents as being "bigots", they simply ignore them. This is the characteristic sign of irreverence.

Dr. Dietrich von Hildebrand defines irreverence as, "the basic incapacity to listen..the attitude that already knows everything before being has the opportunity to inform us. Irreverence is the impertinent, arrogant attitude that makes our minds deaf and blind to reality - the more so, the deeper and more sublime the object.." (The Charitable Anathema, p. 112).

Irreverence is not the proper response to value. But what more can one expect from an egocentric opportunist who poses as a statesman? President Obama is not at all interested in meeting the demands of truth or in acknowledging those valid points raised by political opponents. Which is why he dismisses the Restoring Honor rally by implying that "a certain portion of the country" has been stirred up by Mr. Beck - the implication being that those in attendance cannot think for themselves.

As time marches on, it is becoming increasingly clear to the American people that President Obama, the "Yes we can" President, is nothing more than an intellectual fraud. Especially since he now admits he is powerless to fix the economy.

He has proven himself to be most competent in one area: taking vacations. One should stick to what one is good at I suppose.

Sunday, August 29, 2010

What is it about the Beck rally that has people like Jim Wallis and Al Sharpton so upset?

The Restoring Honor Rally:

Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin addressed several hundred thousand people on the National Mall and called on the nation to recommit itself to traditional values. And this message has some people up in arms. Al Sharpton accused Beck of trying to hijack King's message. Which is all the more strange since Dr. King's niece, Alveda King, also addressed the rally with a plea for prayer "in the public squares of America and in our schools." Sharpton also issued what appeared to be a veiled threat saying, "You don't know who you're messing with."

Jim Wallis, in an email to his Sojourners supporters, wrote:

"Last spring Fox News commentator Glenn Beck told Christians to leave churches that promoted social justice. To do so, Christians would have to walk out on Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.’s 'I Have a Dream' speech too. Dr. King was a social justice Christian, the kind of Christian Mr. Beck constantly derides.

Tomorrow marks the 47th anniversary of Dr. King’s “I Have A Dream” speech. And, if you’re in Washington, D.C., you’ll see Glenn Beck standing on the historic location of King’s speech – only Mr. Beck will be leading his 'Restoring Honor' rally.

I want to challenge Christians to understand the true significance of King’s speech – for our work on social justice, for racial reconciliation, and for the health of the American church."

What can we make of Jim Wallis' assertion that Dr. King was "the kind of Christian Mr. Beck constantly derides." Yes, it's true that Dr. King, a Baptist Minister, was "a social justice Christian." But social justice had a different meaning for Dr. King than it does for Jim Wallis. As Louie Verrechio has noted, "Social justice lies in the fullness of morality as defined by God, not as calculated by majority rule. It is a function of grace, not government." Dr. King understood that. Jim Wallis does not.

Alarmed at the prospect of conservatives calling upon this nation to recommit itself to traditional moral values, many have lost sight of Dr. King's message. Writing for the Associated Press, Philip Elliott and Nafeesa Syeed said that, "Conservative commentator Glenn Beck and tea party champion Sarah Palin appealed Saturday to a vast, predominantly white crowd on the National Mall to help restore traditional American values and honor Martin Luther King's message. Civil rights leaders who accused the group of hijacking King's legacy held their own rally and march."
Does it honestly matter that the crowd was "predominantly white"? Dr. King, in his I Have a Dream speech given on the National Mall on August 28, 1963, said that, "The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to a distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny. They have come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom. We cannot walk alone....I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.."
If King's message has been hijacked, it has been hijacked by those who have lost sight of the true meaning of social justice and by those who still judge people on the basis of skin color rather than the content of their character.

Saturday, August 28, 2010

Archdiocese of Boston: Caritas Christi and Cerberus Capital

As I noted in a previous post, "It is only through fidelity to its proper mission that a Catholic hospital or health care system maintains its identity. Let us heed the U.S. Bishops:

'On the one hand, new partnerships can be viewed as opportunities for Catholic health care institutions and services to witness to their religious and ethical commitments and so influence the healing profession. For example, new partnerships can help to implement the Church's social teaching. New partnerships can be opportunities to realign the local delivery system in order to provide a continuum of health care to the community; they can witness to a responsible stewardship of limited health care resources; and they can be opportunities to provide to poor and vulnerable persons a more equitable access to basic care.

On the other hand, new partnerships can pose serious challenges to the viability of the identity of Catholic health care institutions and services, and their ability to implement these Directives in a consistent way, especially when partnerships are formed with those who do not share Catholic moral principles. The risk of scandal cannot be underestimated when partnerships are not built upon common values and moral principles. Partnership opportunities for some Catholic health care providers may even threaten the continued existence of other Catholic institutions and services, particularly when partnerships are driven by financial considerations alone. Because of the potential dangers involved in the new partnerships that are emerging, an increased collaboration among Catholic-sponsored health care institutions is essential and should be sought before other forms of partnerships.' (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services)."

Most of you are well-aware of the ongoing controversy surrounding the sale of Caritas Christi in the Archdiocese of Boston. As the good folks over at Boston Catholic Insider have noted, Father Bryan Hehir made a "rather emphatic statement" in the October 27th, 2007 edition of The Boston Globe. Father Hehir said, "The idea that the archdiocese would sell Caritas to a for-profit system - it's not going to happen..the position of the archdiocese is that we do not intend to sell either the Caritas system as a whole or any of its parts to a for-profit entity.' BCI then explains how, "Two years later, in November 2009, after Caritas had new management and had just announced turning a $30 million profit, the CEO of Caritas met with Cerberus Capital to set in
motion the deal to sell Caritas and make it for-profit.." (See here).

Cerberus Capital has a reputation which is, to say the very least, rather disturbing. As Mark Ames writes, "Cerberus Capital, one of Wall Street's most notoriously leveraged buyout firms (or 'private equity firms' in PC speak), recently made a $1.8 billion killing on its human plasma investment, a company called Talecris. Talecris was purchased for a mere $82.5 million just four years earlier, meaning Cerberus made 23 times its investment on human plasma. This was accomplished by the most savage, heartless means possible: by paying peanuts to impoverished human plasma donors, who increasingly come from Mexican border towns to blood-pumping stations set up on the American side, jacking up the price of plasma restricting supply (a lawsuit filed by the Federal Trade Commission accused Cerberus Plasma Holdings of 'operating as an oligopoly'), and then selling the refined products to the most desperately ill patients suffering from hemophilia, severe burns, multiple sclerosis and autoimmune deficiencies.." ("Cerberus Capital: Literally Blood-Sucking the Poor to Make Their Billions," Full article here).

Cardinal Sean O'Malley notes on his Blog how, "This past Thursday was Mother Teresa's 100th birthday. In 1995, we were honored to have her visit us in Massachusetts. So many people here got to meet her personally. These encounters were a special encouragement to all of us to be better Catholics and to be better witnesses of the Gospel and servants of the poor."

I wonder if Mother Teresa would view the practices of Cerberus Capital as consistent with being "better witnesses of the Gospel and servants of the poor"?

Related reading here.

Friday, August 27, 2010

Archdiocese of Boston: Catholic Bloggers faithful to the Magisterium causing harm to the community?

"Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil, who change darkness into light, and light into darkness, who change bitter into sweet, and sweet into bitter! Woe to those who are wise in their own sight, and prudent in their own esteem!" (Isaiah 5: 20, 21).

On November 12, 1988, Our Lady told Father Stefano Gobbi of the Marian Movement of Priests that, "My Adversary often wounds you, making use of good persons and persons whom you have also helped in many ways. Sometimes he makes use of your very own confreres. The times which I have foretold to you have come, when those priests who venerate me, listen to me and follow me are being derided, scorned and opposed by other priests, who are nonetheless sons of my maternal predilection....Prepare yourselves to experience the indescribable suffering of being abandoned by the most trustworthy, mocked by confreres, set aside by superiors, opposed by friends, persecuted by those who have accepted a compromise with the world and who have associated themselves with the secret cohort of Masonry. Do not allow yourselves to be seized with discouragement. These are the times for courage and witness. Your voice must proclaim, in an ever more powerful manner, the word of the Gospel and all the truths of the Catholic faith. You must unmask every error whatsoever, overcome subtle snares, reject every compromise with the spirit of the world and give to all an example of your fidelity to Christ and to His Church...Do not allow yourselves to be seized with fear. The time of your immolation has now come. You will be persecuted. It will even be that those who oppose you, who calumniate you, who despise you, who push you aside and who persecute you will believe that they are doing something pleasing to the Heavenly Father and even to me, your immaculate Mother."

Indeed, Catholic bloggers faithful to the Church's Magisterium now find themselves being calumniated. Mark Leccese, a journalism professor at Emerson College, is referring to such bloggers as "dissidents." In a recent article entitled "An unbalanced story on the Archdiocese of Boston and its dissidents," Mr. Emerson wrote, "..there..exists a sizeable and vocal number of Catholics in Boston and around the world who argue more theologically conservative positions than the Cardinal or the Pope.."

This is simply an embroidered way of suggesting that bloggers who have been exposing error within the Archdiocese of Boston believe themselves to be "more Catholic than the Pope." This is a falsehood. Which is why Mr. Leccese cannot cite one example of where bloggers have advanced "more theologically conservative positions than the Pope." One has only to visit the Blog Bryan Hehir Exposed and to actually read some of the excellent posts to see that each and every post is backed up with the Magisterial teaching of Christ's Church. And readers of this Blog know that I only advance the Church's teaching.

The Archdiocese of Boston has also engaged in dishonesty. Responding to bloggers who have raised a multitude of legitimate and very serious concerns, including the promotion of dissent from Church teaching and various scandals such as the Kennedy funeral and an event honoring Mayor Thomas Menino, who is also pro-abortion and supportive of same-sex "marriage," the Archdiocese said in a statement that, "Cardinal O'Malley and his staff are dedicated to building unity in Christ and Christian community within the Archdiocese. Toward that end, we have reached out to bloggers on numerous occasions to ask them to enter into a professional and Christ-centered conversation with us. We are concerned about the harm caused to individuals and to the community by anonymous and unfounded claims on blogs."

Readers of this blog know full well that when Archdiocesan officials were asked - repeatedly - to cite just one example of a post which is "inaccurate" they lapsed into silence. Harm to individuals and the community? Such harm is a result of dissent from Church teaching, not the defense of the same. It is most significant that Bishop Rene Henry Gracida has been posting articles from Catholic bloggers exposing the leaven of infidelity within the Boston Archdiocese at his wonderful Blog in a series entitled "The Boston Virus."

Does the Archdiocese of Boston consider His Excellency to be advancing "unfounded claims" as well? Would Mr. Leccese consider Bishop Gracida to be a "dissident" as well? And how can the Archdiocese honestly claim to be dedicated to "building unity in Christ" when it is really advancing a false irenicism?

God preserve us from such nonsense!
And so while Mayor Thomas Menino, who supports abortion and same-sex "marriage" has been honored by the Archdiocese of Boston, while Father Bryan Hehir has "respect" for the Democratic National Committee (which also advances these evils), Catholic bloggers who promote and defend the Magisterial teaching of the Church are accused of harming individuals and the community.
Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil.
Related reading: A Catholic priest from the Boston Archdiocese who has ridiculed Cardinal Bertone while opposing clerical celibacy. The Archdiocese of Boston has never accused him of harming community.

Wednesday, August 25, 2010

The Archdiocese of Boston is way too cozy with the Party of Death

There can be little doubt that the Archdiocese of Boston has a cozy relationship with the Democratic Party. Many would argue that the relationship is too cozy. In an editorial for LifeSiteNews.com entitled "The Kennedy Funeral - A Golden Opportunity or Capitulation for the Catholic Church," John-Henry Westen wrote: "Saturday's grandiose Catholic funeral for Senator Ted Kennedy has the potential to be a scandal that will make Notre Dame's Obama Day a walk in the park. With all four living former Presidents in attendance and an address from President Barack Obama, the funeral is set to be a royal crowning, right inside a Catholic Church, of a man who betrayed the most fundamental moral teachings of the faith.

What example will this give to Catholics and the rest of the world looking in? It will surely belie the Catholic teachings on the sanctity of life and sexuality. 'Surely,' they will say, 'if one of the most vociferous proponents of abortion and homosexuality in politics is so feted in the Church, the Church cannot possibly regard abortion as murder.' Would anyone so honor one who so advocated what the church officially considers an 'unspeakable crime'?"

We all know what happened. Senator Kennedy was feted by archdiocesan officials as "our brother and friend." Responding to this horrendous scandal, I wrote that, "I have nothing but love and respect for His Eminence, but it would appear that he does not deplore error and falsehood as much as he deplores disunity." See here. And because he does not deplore error as he should, because he has not offered the strong leadership which the Catholic faithful deserve, many Catholics have never considered that there is an incompatibility between their political affiliation and their religious identity. As Dr. David Carlin has said, "..when clerical leadership is weak or foolish, we can't be surprised when the quality of lay Catholicism sinks." (Can a Catholic Be a Democrat? How the Party I Loved Became the Enemy of My Religion," p. 106).

Joe Sacerdo has reported on the close relationship which Fr. J. Bryan Hehir of the Boston Archdiocese has with the DNC. He writes, "Fr. Hehir's comment on a panel that he respects the Democratic National Committee (which vehemently opposes the Catholic Church on key issues like abortion and gay marriage) validates the questions about Fr. Hehir we have been raising for some time." (See here).

How does one reconcile one's Roman Catholic faith with membership in [or identification with] the Democratic Party? Again, Dr. Carlin explains, "Another method Catholics use to validate their membership in the Democratic Party, despite the party's anti-Christian moral agenda, goes like this: they concede that abortion, for example, is morally wrong and that it's tragically wrong for the Democratic Party to support it; but then they talk about the need for 'balance' and the importance of not taking a single-issue approach to politics. 'The Democrats,' they say, 'might be wrong on a few issues, such as abortion and same-sex marriage - but they're right about so many other important issues: race, poverty, peace, education, health care, the environment, and so on. In politics we have to weigh in the balance the evil and the good...This superficially persuasive line of reasoning could have been used to support the Nazis in the 1930s. A pro-Nazi Catholic could say, 'Oh yes, it's too bad - this policy of the Fuehrer toward the Jews. We deplore the firing of Jewish professors, we deplore the Nuremberg laws, we deplore Kristellnacht. But anti-Semitism, while a great evil, isn't the only evil. Far from it. We have to balance the evil done by the National Socialists against the good they've accomplished. Hitler has revived the economy, has restored law and order, has built autobahns and Volkswagens, has won the respect and salutary fear of the international community, has once again made it possible for Germans, who had been so humiliated for so long a time, to lift up their heads and be proud of their nation. Hitler isn't perfect - no politician ever will be. The question is, 'Are the Nazis on the whole producing more good than evil? Are they better than the available alternatives - namely, socialists and communists? The answer to this question is, without doubt, yes.'

Somebody might object that my analogy exaggerates the evil of abortion, which surely isn't comparable to anti-Semitism even in its pre-genocidal stage. Yes 'somebody' might say this, but Catholics who understand the moral teaching of their own religion can't very well say it. To them, the forty million and more abortion-homicides that have taken place in the United States since the 1973 Roe decision are clearly a greater moral evil than Hitler's pre-genocide anti-Semitism of the 1930s and even, it can be argued, no less evil than the six million homicides that made up the Holocaust. Some people will scoff at this comparison, but that's simply an indication that they reject the Catholic teaching that abortion is homicide.." (Can a Catholic Be a Democrat?, pp. 119, 123-124).

Pope Benedict XVI has spoken clearly enough. And he has condemned "gay marriage" and abortion as "among the most insidious and dangerous challenges" to society. The Democratic Party advances both. It's difficult then for any faithful Catholic to understand how one of Cardinal O'Malley's top aides can have "respect" for the Democratic National Committee.
Related reading here and here.

Tuesday, August 24, 2010

Archdiocese of Boston "Social Justice Conference" to feature backer of pro-abortion politician

"It's a madhouse!...a madhouse!"

Joe Sacerdo of Bryan Hehir Exposed writes, "When the archdiocese says they have 'reached out to bloggers on numerous occasions to ask them to enter into a professional and Christ-centered conversation with us' we assume that probably is referring at least to this blog, perhaps others. There are two problems with their statement. First, their latest announcement about speakers for their upcoming Social Justice Conference further proves they don’t care the least about doing something about the problems we have raised. (Remember, the objective of meeting with us from their perspective was '…to have a frank conversation about what is the best way to serve Christ and His Church, and to give you a broader frame of reference for future blog entries.' (Nothing about acting on the issues we have raised–just lecturing us on how to blog in a friendlier, less critical way).

Secondly, the reference to 'unfounded claims' sounds strikingly similar to their comments to us about posts considered 'untrue' or 'inaccurate.' We asked several times in good faith for specific examples so we could correct them and never got a response.

Anyway, welcome to Fr. Bryan Hehir’s Social Justice Conference #3, “Charity and Justice in our Daily Lives.” taking place Saturday, October 9, 2010.

Join parishes from around the Archdiocese of Boston to learn more about Catholic Social Teaching, celebrate the work for justice already going on, and find out concrete ways to connect faith with action in the service of justice. Featuring:

Keynote Address by Fr. J. Bryan Hehir, Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Services for the Archdiocese of Boston

Introduction to Catholic Social Teaching by Fr. Thomas Massaro, SJ, Professor of Moral Theology, Boston College

Fr. Massaro, of course was one of 26 signatories to a letter supporting the nomination of pro-abortion Gov. Kathleen Sebelius as Secretary of Health and Human Services. Just Google on “Fr. Thomas Massaro abortion” and here’s a sampling of what you get.

Catholic Professors Criticized for Supporting Pro-Abortion Sebelius for Health Post

'The pro-abortion group Catholics United has started an organization to defend President Barack Obama’s pro-abortion health selection and has been criticized for spreading misinformation about Sebelius’ record. Now, the Cardinal Newman Society is concerned that half of the 26 Catholic activists, scholars and theologians who signed the CU statement are professors employed by Catholic universities.

These professors are giving comfort and aid to those whose stated goals are to advance policies directly opposed to Catholic teachings on life issues,” CNS president Patrick Reilly told LifeNews.com. Kathleen Sebelius vetoed pro-life legislation on four separate occasions as governor of Kansas,” Reilly said. “After she vetoed the pro-life Comprehensive Abortion Reform Act in April 2008, Bishop Joseph Naumann [said she should stop receiving communion.]'" (For Joe's entire post, go here).
Now, Father Massaro is the same person who, arguing against the war in Iraq, said that:
"We're putting soldiers in combat positions where they're afraid for their lives on a minute-to-minute basis. They're suspicious of every Iraqi they see because they could be suicide bombers...These young soldiers begin to see human life as cheap...Young people come home from the war and not respecting the dignity of human life is a great concern for theologians and ethicists." (See here).
Yes, clearly American soldiers coming home is our real problem*. Not moral theologians and ethicists who back pro-abortion politicians. As a veteran, I find Fr. Massaro's attitude troubling. The combat soldier, more than most, detests violence because he has faced it head on and lived with it up close. He has done his duty. But it is something which stays with him for the rest of his life. If anything, the horrible experience of war gives him a renewed appreciation for the sanctity of life. Which is apparently more than we can say for some of our theologians and ethicists.

*"The right conscience of the Catholic theologian presumes not only faith in the Word of God whose riches he must explore, but also love for the Church from whom he receives his mission, and respect for her divinely assisted Magisterium. Setting up a supreme magisterium of conscience in opposition to the magisterium of the Church means adopting a principle of free examination incompatible with the economy of Revelation and its transmission in the Church and thus also with a correct understanding of theology and the role of the theologian. The propositions of faith are not the product of mere individual research and free criticism of the Word of God but constitute an ecclesial heritage. If there occur a separation from the Bishops who watch over and keep the apostolic tradition alive, it is the bond with Christ which is irreparably compromised." (See here).

Related reading: The Church's understanding of social justice.

Monday, August 23, 2010

Archdiocese of Boston: Boston Catholic Insider Blog blocked because it is "a distraction."

The Catechism of the Catholic Church tells us that, "..a distraction reveals to us what we are attached to." (2729). Not all distractions are bad. Some are even holy. As Raissa Maritain, writing about Saint Thomas Aquinas, notes:

"When he wept and prayed in this way, or when he was trying to find the answer to a difficult question, very often he did not hear nor feel what was going on about him. So one day, when he was at the table of the King Saint Louis, the two saints seated side by side, Brother Thomas, forgetful of the circumstances and the place, rapped loudly on the table and cried out: 'So much for the heresy of the Manicheans!' 'Master,' said the Prior who accompanied him, 'be careful, you are at the table of the King of France.' And saying this, he pulled at his cloak to bring him out of this state of holy distraction." (See here).

In the Gospel of Luke, Chapter 10 verses 38-42, we read:

"As they continued their journey he entered a village where a woman whose name was Martha welcomed him. She had a sister named Mary [who] sat beside the Lord at his feet listening to him speak. Martha, burdened with much serving, came to him and said, 'Lord, do you not care that my sister has left me by myself to do the serving? Tell her to help me.' The Lord said to her in reply, 'Martha, Martha, you are anxious and worried about many things. There is need of only one thing. Mary has chosen the better part and it will not be taken from her.'"

A distraction reveals to us what we are attached to. By the grace of God, there are still people who are attached to truth. Like Mary who sat at the very feet of Truth, they are attracted by the beauty of truth and by its sheer power.

And it will not be taken from them.

Saturday, August 21, 2010

Protest the Pope Supporters Express Their Desire to Commit Violence Against Pope Benedict XVI

Deacon Nick Donnelly has a post detailing how Protest the Pope supporters have expressed their desire to engage in violence against the Vicar of Christ, Pope Benedict XVI.

As I said in a previous post, "John Henry Cardinal Newman, who was truly a prophet, warned more than a hundred years ago of the desolation which we are experiencing today: "Surely there is at this day a confederacy of evil, marshalling its hosts from all parts of the world, organizing itself, taking its measures, enclosing the Church of Christ in a net, and preparing the way for a general apostasy from it..."

It is no secret today that the enemies of the Church want to destroy belief in the divinity of Christ. For, as Fr. Vincent Miceli, S.J., explained, "Once the liturgy is humanized, Christ the Center and Object of it becomes the humanist par excellence, the liberator, the revolutionary, the Marxist ushering in the millenium; he ceases to be the Divine Redeemer. We must be alerted to those who plan, by convincing us to abandon our sacred forms, at length to seduce us into denying our Christian faith altogether. The Church is attacked by these Sons of Satan, in and outside her fold, because she is a living form, the sacrament - sign and instrument - of communion with God and of unity among all men; because she is the visible body of Religion. Hence these shrewd masters of sedition know that when her sacred forms go, religion will also go. Violate the lex orandi and you must inevitably destroy the lex credendi. That is why they rail against so many devotions as superstitions, why they propose so many alterations and changes, a tactic cleverly calculated to shake the foundations of faith...."

We are approaching the day prophesied by Romano Guardini in The Lord, "One day the Antichrist will come: a human being who introduces an order of things in which rebellion against God will attain its ultimate power. He will be filled with enlightenment and strength. The ultimate aim of all aims will be to prove that existence without Christ is possible - nay rather, that Christ is the enemy of existence, which can be fully realized only when all Christian values have been destroyed.." (p. 513).

Inflated in their rebellion against the God-Man, the Sons of Satan, those committed toward the atheistic program of attacking the Church from without and undermining it from within in preparation for the Man-God, will continue to intensify their persecution of craftiness and subversion until it reaches its culmination in an explosion of hate-filled rage which will bear much blood and death. Father Livio Fanzaga, writing about the Antichrist, says that, "Catholicism alone will resist him. How then do we destroy this superstition which alone obstructs the world's self-revelation? How do we destroy this superstition which divides mankind and which prevents man from being truly brotherly and free? The true Antichrist is revealed in the replies to these questions. Here is perceived his profound being as the man of iniquity. He will not tolerate the idea of men who adore any god other than himself. His intolerance obliges him to make an exception to his pacifism and his philosophy of non-violence. He is the greatest pacifist in the history of the human race, but because peace and justice really reign on earth he will make an exception to kill and destroy the great superstition of Catholicism, once and for all time..." (Wrath of God: The Days of the Antichrist, p. 124).

"Whatever the motives for atheist bloodthirstiness, the indisputable fact is that all the religions of the world put together have in 2,000 years not managed to kill as many people as have been killed in the name of atheism in the past few decades.

It's time to abandon the mindlessly repeated mantra that religious belief has been the greatest source of human conflict and violence. Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history.” (Dinesh D'Souza, "Atheism, Not Religion is the Real Force Behind the Mass Murders of History," The Christian Science Monitor, November 21, 2006; See here).

Friday, August 20, 2010

The Archdiocese of Boston has a skewed set of priorities

Deal Hudson notes here how the Archdiocese of Boston has blocked access to the Boston Catholic Insider Blog. He writes, "The controversy leading to this action by the Boston Archdiocese was precipitated by the troubling issues surrounding the proposed sale of Caritas Christi Healthcare, owned by the Archdiocese, to Cerebus Capital. Having watched this story develop for quite a while, and having kept abreast of the ongoing narrative, I agree with those blogging at bostoncatholicinsider.com that the sale is rife with conflict of interest issues. This attempt of the Boston Archdiocese to act in loco parentis towards its employees not only looks silly but also demonstrates an ignorance of how the internet works. Whoever made the decision to block the 'offending' web site will have a hard time blocking all the Catholic web sites containing links to information about the sale of Caritas Christi.."

We can tell much about an individual or a group of individuals [including a Catholic diocese] by examining their priorities. Bearing this in mind, let us consider the fact that the Archdiocese of Boston becomes agitated when the laity engage in constructive criticism, and will take great pains to silence such criticism [to the point of blocking access to a Blog which engages in such fraternal correction], but takes no action whatsoever to block access to a Blog written by one of its own dissenting priests.

Father Emile "Mike" Boutin argued at his Blog that priests should not be celibate and ridiculed Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, a Prince of the Church, for his views. And access to his Blog was not blocked. The confused priest admitted knowing of child abuse committed by his "mentor" and of remaining silent and not revealing his name. And access to his Blog was not blocked. He argued against priests wearing the Roman collar, and access to his Blog was not blocked.

One might think that officials of the Boston Archdiocese would be more concerned with Father Boutin's troubling views than with constructive criticism offered by the Boston Catholic Insider Blog. But one would be wrong.

And this reveals much about the Boston Archdiocese and where its heading.

Why aren't officials of the Boston Archdiocese concerned over this?

Thursday, August 19, 2010

Protest the Pope is anti-Catholic

Terry Sanderson, president of the National Secular Society and spokesman for the Protest the Pope initiative in the UK, insists that "Our title is Protest the Pope and that's what it means - this particular pope, Joseph Ratzinger. It does not mean protest the Catholics.." (See here).

What of this? At their own website, they state: "The Protest the Pope campaign is calling on the British government to disassociate itself from the Pope’s intolerant teachings on issues such as women’s rights, gay equality and the use of condoms to prevent the spread of HIV. On these and many other issues, Benedict is out of step with the majority of British people, including most Catholics. Pope Benedict opposes women’s ordination. Women are deemed unfit to preach the gospel. This is an insult to the whole female sex. The implication of the Pope’s teaching is that women have no moral capability or capacity for spiritual leadership. This is pure patriarchy, sexism and misogyny. The Pope says artificial contraception is a sin..." (See here).

What Protest the Pope refers to as "the Pope's intolerant teachings" is, in reality, not "his" teaching. He is merely its guardian. He confirms his brethren in the faith (Luke 22:32). Pope Benedict XVI is not advancing his own '"opinions." He is teaching what every Pope before him has taught and what the entire episcopate teaches. Therefore, Protest the Pope is anti-Catholic. The initiative opposes the teaching of the Catholic Church with regard to the above-cited issues.

The problem for Protest the Pope is that every one of the issues which they oppose the Church on are taught in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. And, in his Apostolic Constitution Fidei Depositum, Pope John Paul II wrote, "The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved June 25th last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church's faith and of Catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition, and the Church's Magisterium. I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith.." (No. 3).

In the same document (No. 1), Pope John Paul II says that, "It can be said that this Catechism is the result of the collaboration of the whole Episcopate of the Catholic Church.." In other words, all of the Church's Bishops.

Protest the Pope is not being honest. It's hatred of Pope Benedict XVI stems from the fact that the Holy Father courageously teaches the Gospel message. This is why they attack his person and mission. His teaching is not his own. It comes from the Lord Jesus. And because the Holy Father remains faithful to the Lord Jesus, like his predecessors, he is hated by those who reject Jesus' way of love and peace.*

The above image is taken from the Protest the Pope Blog. What these confused souls do not understand is that prior to the Lambeth Conference of 1930, all of the Christian Churches taught that artificial birth control is a sin. The Catholic Church does not feel free to reject God's Commandments.

* John 14:15

Wednesday, August 18, 2010

Richard Dawkins and the Battle for Humankind's Future

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).

Richard Dawkins, and atheist and evolutionary biologist, is doing his best to wage war against faith schools in Britain. Even though Johann Hari, columnist for The Independent, has celebrated what he refers to as "the slow whining death of Christianity" in Britain, writing that, "My country, Britain, is now the most irreligious country on earth. This island has shed superstition faster and more completely than anywhere else," Mr. Dawkins is alarmed at the tremendous growth of faith schools in Britain. We read here, "The number of faith schools in Britain is rising. Around 7,000 publicly-funded schools - one in three - now has a religious affiliation." And Richard Dawkins, being a propagandist for the new religion of Humanism, finds this intolerable. "Enough is enough" he says.

And so it can be seen that Humanists in the UK are engaged in a propaganda war against religion in general and Christianity in particular. When it suits their agenda, they express "alarm" at the tremendous growth of faith schools. At other times, they proclaim cheerfully that Christianity is dying. Humanists are not interested in truth. Their goal is the elimination of religious belief, and most especially belief in Christianity, because it stands in the way of their own religion.

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.

While the Church respects freedom of conscience and shuns any form of coercion, our Holy Father 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.

Tuesday, August 17, 2010

Terry Sanderson's Anti-Catholic Bigotry On Display

Mr. Terry Sanderson, a homosexual activist and columnist for the "Gay Times" who also serves as president of the National Secular Society, is upset over the Papal visit to the UK in September. Mr. Sanderson, who insists that his "Protest the Pope" movement is not anti-Catholic but merely anti-Pope , is most upset over the cost to the taxpayer. He writes, "The entourage accompanying the Pope on his September visit to the UK will be accommodated in a luxury hotel in central London - with eleven of them being funded by the taxpayer...The Pope himself will be staying at the papal nuncio's house in Wimbledon - surely a few more of his flunkies could have been accommodated there at no cost?" (See here). What Mr. Sanderson neglects to tell his readers (being the ardent propagandist that he is), is that the Catholic Churches of England, Scotland and Wales will be contributing to the non-policing costs of the visit. See here.

Yes, Mr. Sanderson is so concerned about the British taxpayer that he didn't complain once when President Obama visited the UK in March of 2009, accompanied by an entourage of 500 - including 200 secret service staff and a medical team. President Obama used a plane, a helicopter, and a limousine and was followed by a fleet of ambulances and decoy vehicles. Manholes in city roads were bolted down, bins were removed and British security snipers were placed in tall buildings. Additionally, Michelle Obama had a staff of eight including a secretary, a press officer and bodyguards. See here. How much of the taxpayers money paid for this visit?

No, that visit didn't concern Mr. Sanderson. Only the upcoming papal visit troubles him. Make no mistake about it, Terry Sanderson is an anti-Catholic bigot. Which is why he refers to those accompanying the Holy Father as "flunkies." His hatred is now on display for the entire world to see. Now it will be obvious to all thinking people what the National Secular Society stands for. Mr. Sanderson is merely its ugly face.

Monday, August 16, 2010

The moral crisis in Boston...

The Archdiocese of Boston is in crisis. Here is yet another symptom of that crisis.

It was Pope John Paul II who said, during his Sixth Ad Limina Address to the Bishops of the United States, that: "In the Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes, the Bishops of the Second Vatican Council stated that 'the well-being of the individual person and of human and Christian society is intimately linked with the healthy condition of the community set up by marriage and the family' (No. 47). We are all aware of certain contemporary trends that seem to threaten the stability, if not the very existence, of the family: a shift of emphasis toward the comfort of the individual over the well-being of the family as society's basic social unit, increasing divorce rates, attitudes of sexual permissiveness and the suggestion that other types of relationships can replace marriage and the family. In the face of these attitudes we have the important mission of proclaiming Christ's Good News about Christian married love, the identity and worth of the family, and the importance of its mission in the Church and in the world..."

Is this important mission taken seriously within the Boston Archdiocese? Many would argue that it is not. See here for related article.

Daniel Greenfield gets it...Obama does not.

Writing for the Canada Free Press, Daniel Greenfield notes how, "Obama has made the case for Islam in America, on the grounds that America’s religious diversity promotes the religious freedom of all. Islam no less than any other belief system. Yet if introducing Islam into America promotes religious freedom, then why is there no religious freedom in the Muslim world? Why are churches firebombed in Malaysia because Christians presumed to use the word Allah? Why are non-Muslims forbidden to enter the city of Mecca, from which Jews and Christians were ethnically cleansed by Mohammed? Why are Coptic Christians being oppressed and humiliated by the Egyptian government? Why are Muslims murdering Buddhist teachers in Thailand? There are a thousand examples, all of which add up to a single conclusion—Muslims demand religious freedom, yet are not willing to give it to others.

Jews are fleeing European cities in record numbers because of Muslim persecution This has ominous implications for the prospects of religious freedom in America. Nor is this a theoretical issue. Jews are fleeing European cities in record numbers because of Muslim persecution. The recent case of Malmo, highlights the fact that Islam actually threatens religious diversity. Simply to protect themselves, Malmo’s 650 Jews were forced to spend half a million Kronor a year. The situation is much the same across Europe, as Jewish institutions are forced to become fortresses. What the Nazis did not succeed in accomplishing in Europe, the rise of Islam seems to be doing.

Nor are Christians safe, they are simply in the majority for now. But Christians and other religions were once in the majority in the Middle East. Until they were massacred and repressed by the tidal wave of Islam. Today the religions that were once a majority, whether it is Jews in Israel, Christians in Byzantium or Zoroastrians in Persia, have become oppressed minorities. Some may take comfort in the notion that “It can’t happen here.” But the fate of Europe’s Jews, shows that it can happen here. And that it is happening here.

Religious freedom requires that the religions which enjoy it, agree to tolerate each other. If they do not, instead of religious freedom, there is a religious war.

Looking at the religious map of the world today, Islam has grown in non-Muslim countries, while non-Muslims continue to dwindle in Muslim countries. And even the number of non-Muslim religious believers in non-Muslim countries dwindles, when Muslims are introduced into the equation. If Islam were a fish in a fish tank, it’s clear that it would be a piranha. If you put it into the fish tank, very soon you have a lot of Islamic piranhas and only a handful of other fish that survive, only because the piranhas need to keep some of them alive in order to feed on them. If you don’t like that picture, take an honest look at the Muslim world, with its dominant Muslim caste and inferior non-Muslims living in the cracks of their walls, and draw a better one.

Over and over again, the rise of Islam has meant the eradication of religious freedom The question is do we want to import this into the United States? Because history and current events show that there is no better way to insure the end of religious freedom in the United States, than to introduce Islam into the picture. Over and over again, the rise of Islam has meant the eradication of religious freedom. And those who fail to learn from that past, will be doomed to repeat it.

Obama attempted to position his remarks as being against religious intolerance, but yet he spoke in defense of religious intolerance. Because what greater act of religious intolerance could there than building a mosque in a place where Muslims had previously murdered 3000 Americans? Nor are such actions unique on the part of Muslims, who have routinely hijacked other people’s sacred areas and structures to make a statement about Islamic supremacism. If Islam were truly as tolerant as Obama claims, its adherents would not attempt to build a massive mosque complex that they do not actually need in this place." (Islam Means the End of Religious Freedom, Canada Free Press, August 15, 2010).
While President Obama has nothing but respect for "peace-loving Islam" (even as the body-count continues to explode across the globe), he has described Christians in Pennsylvania and across the Midwest as people who "cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them." (See here). This says much about Barack Obama. But then, so did his assertion that Americans who disapprove of homosexuality [primarily Christians who accept Revelation and the Natural Law] are clinging to "worn arguments and old attitudes."

Sunday, August 15, 2010

"I love you means you shall not die."

"I love you means you shall not die." - Gabriel Marcel.

"How life changes its meaning when we see the love of the flesh as the reflection of the Eternal Light shot through the prism of time! They who would separate the earthly sound from the heavenly harp can have no music; they who believe that love is only the body's breath soon find love breathes its last and they have made a covenant with death. But they who see in all earthly beauty the faint copy of Divine loveliness, they who see in fidelity to every vow, even when the other is untrue, a proof that God loves us who are so unlovable, they who, in the face of their trials, see that God's love ended on a cross, they who allow the river of their rapture to broaden out the blended channels of prayer and worship - these will, even on earth, learn that love was made flesh and dwelled amongst us. Thus Love becomes an ascension toward that blessed day when the limitless depths of our souls will be filled with the boundless giving, in one eternal now, where love is life's eternity and God is Love." - Fulton John Sheen.

Saturday, August 14, 2010

Steven Slater: The Face of American Decline

Steven Slater, the JetBlue flight attendant and active homosexual who has been hailed by so many as a sort of "folk hero" for engaging in an egocentric meltdown, has previously been arrested for driving under the influence. Hardly someone we should be holding up as a role model for our children.

Why then have so many expressed support for this troubled man? Father Vincent Miceli provides an answer. He writes, "Dr. Abram Kardiner, distinguished physician, psychoanalyst, and anthropologist, states that homosexuality reaches pestilential and plague proportions in morally rotting societies during the final stages of total collapse. The cult of softness is perhaps the most pronounced public phenomenon among nations today. It is certainly responsible for the rotting of the moral fibre of Western Civilization not only in sex but also, in the erosion of Christian truth, in education, in art and in letters, in the repudiation of personal responsibility and in the increasing tendency to side with the forces of crime against the forces of law and order." (The Antichrist, p. 237).

In the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith's Letter to Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons, Cardinal Ratzinger summarized the biblical teaching on homosexuality and explained why the Church's teaching on this subject follows necessarily from her teaching on the nature and purpose of sexuality:

"The Church, obedient to the Lord who founded her and gave to her the sacramental life, celebrates the divine plan of the loving and life-giving union of men and women in the Sacrament of Marriage. It is only in the marital relationship that the use of the sexual faculty can be morally good. A person engaging in homosexual behavior therefore acts immorally. To choose someone of the same sex for one's sexual activity is to annul the rich symbolism and meaning, not to mention the goals, of the Creator's sexual design. Homosexual activity is not a complementary union, able to transmit life; and so it thwarts the call to a life of that form of self-giving which the Gospel says is the essence of Christian living. This does not mean that homosexual persons are not often generous and giving of themselves; but when they engage in homosexual activity they confirm within themselves a disordered sexual inclination which is essentially self-indulgent. As in every moral disorder, homosexual activity prevents one's own fulfillment and happiness by acting contrary to the creative wisdom of God. The Church, in rejecting erroneous opinions regarding homosexuality, does not limit but rather defends personal freedom and dignity realistically and authentically understood."

Homosexual activity is both self-indulgent and narcissistic. Gianfrancesco Zuanazzi, Professor of Psychology and Psychopathology for the John Paul II Institute for Studies at the Pontifical Lateran University, explains that, "The homosexual condition is difficult, sometimes tragic, and not only because of the obstacles it can still encounter in society and the injustices of which it can be the victim, but also because of its narcissistic quality. This quality is expressed in the continual attempts at 'self-recovery' and in searching for the 'better self' or the 'missing self' in another person. The homosexual approach is really one of identification and possession. According to Miller, it is easier for two homosexuals to regard each other as narcissistic extensions of themselves than to be involved in a mutual exchange. Socarides says without hesitation that in a homosexual relationship each partner plays his role, ignoring the complementarity of a sexual union, as if the act were consummated in "splendid isolation" from the other individual, simply as a stratagem for portraying a one-sided emotional conflict. Every homosexual encounter is primarily concerned with disarming the partner by means of seduction, prayer, power, prestige, effeminacy or masculinity, in order to derive satisfaction then from the loser.

Homosexual, like heterosexual, relationships exhibit forms of uplifting tenderness or mere genital expression, but whatever the approach, it always seems that the subjects use each other to fulfil themselves and, at the same time, to defend themselves from one another in a reciprocal way. Even if at the present time, dominated by the fear of AIDS, a couple's relations are not exceptional, as a rule they are unstable, unfaithful, strewn with jealousy and bitterness, marked by possessive love and demands that will never be satisfied. Very often homosexual relationships do not bind the two parties, but reveal that typical self-isolation which is an expression of complete autoerotism. The absence of complementarity, which stems from the radical difference between masculine and feminine identification, prevents the genuine dynamic of a couple. 'There is always something false", Marcel Eck notes, "and deeply painful in these loves which cannot experience reciprocity'. The problem of being, the title of a work by Jean Cocteau, who wrote from direct experience, is precisely the problem of being together.

Hans Giese rightly stresses that the 'foreground' of the homosexual syndrome comes from 'clinging to the self'. The move towards the other is not completed, while the move towards one's own sex is shorter, less costly, simpler; but, since one fears the risk of failure, to take this step involves a new risk, that of egotism. Bergler also maintains that the dominant note is always emotional detachment from the other and the focusing of interest on mere sexual gratification. Kardiner notes that the majority of these experiences are due to casual encounters and are 'one-night stands', i.e., the essential element is the value the experience has for the imagination and not the lasting human relationship. This easily leads to the desire for arousal for its own sake, to repetition and finally to anonymity, the discovery of the other not being worth the effort. Then the body is truly reduced to something corporeal: Pier Paolo Pasolini's posthumous work Petrolio exemplifies this eventuality as amply as it does monotonously. In short, for the homosexual there is the proximate danger of failing into such anonymous, repetitive and ever more demanding sexual behaviour that it becomes a kind of addiction. But this promiscuity or 'tricking', which is so frequent in the gay world, is sometimes praised by those involved as the best of relationships."

Father Euteneuer, President of Human Life International, notes that, "Back in the 90s when Fr. Paul Marx, founder of HLI, was asked his opinion about the efforts to legalize 'same-sex unions' he commented in his usual forthright fashion, "When they do that," he said, "it's the end." He meant 'the end' of the Christian civilization whose values used to form the basis of American common life. Fr. Marx, in a prophetic sense, saw rightly that a society cannot survive the perverse manipulation of the very structure of reality that God Himself has revealed to us, one very fundamental element of which is the institution of marriage. When we allow that to be changed-'It's the end.'

In 2009, 52% of the voting population in California endorsed Proposition 8 which ratified the constitutional protection of marriage as between a man and a woman. One might argue that even 52% was shockingly low on something so important, but the people won that battle despite the veritable war of the homosexual militants to sink that Proposition. In fact, Christian decency won and the structure of reality stayed intact, at least in this aspect of law in California, until this week when a single judge just nullified 7 million votes and the will of the people and lifted the "ban" on gay marriage. There was rejoicing in Sodom on the Bay, but how sad for our nation and even for our poor, misguided world that will weaken in its opposition to the homosexual lifestyle as a result of this decision." See here for full article.

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

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

And this insanity is a preparation.

Friday, August 13, 2010

Why would Father J. Bryan Hehir choose to associate himself with such a leftist radical?

In a previous post I showed how Father J. Bryan Hehir of the Boston Archdiocese has associated himself with leftist radical Jim Wallis and his organization Sojourners (which has been financed by Nazi collaborator George Soros) and which promotes the New Age Globalist Earth Charter which seeks to replace the Ten Commandments and dismantle the Roman Catholic Church.

Jim Wallis, in his book entitled "The Great Awakening," expresses his support for homosexual unions and even spiritual "blessings" for such unions. He writes, "I support civil rights laws for same-sex couples. That, for me, is a justice issue. Many Christians, and I include myself, prefer the solution of ‘civil unions’ from the state, and even spiritual ‘blessings’ for gay couples (from congregations prepared to offer them), rather than altering the church’s sacrament of marriage as between a man and a woman, but those differences should not be fundamentally divisive. Gay marriage should not be the primary battleground in the fight for the health and stability of marriage and family in our society. In a pluralistic democracy, we should support civil and human rights for all our citizens, regardless of our different theological and biblical interpretations of the complicated and thorny issues surrounding homosexuality. New evidence and understanding around those issues could cause any of us to alter our views. But we should find common ground by supporting concrete practices and practical policies that strengthen families and nurture all our children.” (p. 229).

Needless to say, this attitude is not consistent with the Magisterial teaching of the Catholic Church. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in its document entitled "Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons," explains 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." (No. 4).

The "gay movement," as explained here, is not a "civil rights movement." But rather a moral revolution aimed at changing people's view of homosexuality. Interestingly, Jim Wallis advances that same corroding and ambiguous pluralism which Father Hehir advances.

For the last fifty to sixty years, forces within the Church have been working to dismantle the Mystical Body of Christ and to prepare the world for the emergence of the Man of Sin. It was Venerable Anne Catherine Emmerich who said, "God himself had decreed this; and I was likewise told, if I remember rightly, that he [the Devil] will be unchained for a time fifty or sixty years before the year of Christ 2000....a certain number of demons are to be let loose much earlier than Lucifer, in order to tempt men, and to serve as instruments of the divine vengeance.."

It was the same mystic who said that, "The particle of the True Cross renders my sufferings sweet, the relic chases them away." (The Life and Revelations of Anne Catherine Emmerich, Vol. II, p. 561). Relics of the True Cross are most powerful against the demon and his activities:

"As the exorcism progressed, one could see that the benediction of the Blessed Sacrament pained the devil most acutely. That was always something unbearable for him. How he spat and vomited! He twisted and raved at the blessing with the relic of the Cross. Whenever the priest approached him with the Cross and the prescribed words, 'Look at the wood of the Cross! Begone ye powers of hell! The lion of the tribe of Juda shall conquer,' he acted terribly. 'Stop it, stop it, I cannot bear it, I cannot listen to it!' he seemed to say. And when the exorcist approached him with the relic of the Cross hidden under his cassock, Satan became a raving maniac. 'Begone, begone,' he howled, 'I cannot bear it. Oh, this is torture! It is unbearable.'" (See here).

Wherever the Devil is present, he cannot bear a relic of the True Cross. With this in mind, one cannot help but think of recent events which occurred in Boston.

Thursday, August 12, 2010

"You will know the hour of weakness and of poverty.."

"Do not quench the Spirit. Do not despise prophetic utterances. Test everything; retain what is good. Refrain from every kind of evil."
(1 Thessalonians 5: 19-22).

Our Lady to Fr. Stephano Gobbi,
November 15, 1990,
Malvern PA

"I announce to you that the hour of the great trial is on the point of arriving. The great trial has arrived for your country. How many times, as a concerned and sorrowing mother, have I endeavored to urge my children to follow the path of conversion and of return to the Lord. I have not been listened to. You have continued to walk along the way of rejection of God, and of His law of love. Sins of impurity have become ever more widespread, and immorality has spread like a sea which has submerged all things.

Homosexuality, a sin of impurity which is against nature, has been justified; recourse to the means of preventing life have become commonplace, while abortions - these killings of innocent children, that cry for vengeance before the face of God - have spread and are performed in every part of your homeland.The moment of divine justice and of great mercy has now arrived.

You will know the hour of weakness and of poverty; the hour of suffering and defeat; the purifying hour of the great chastisement. The great trial has arrived for your Church. How great is your responsibility, O Pastors of the Holy Church of God! You continue along the path of division from the Pope and of the rejection of his Magisterium; indeed, in a hidden way, there is in preparation a true schism which could soon become open and proclaimed...And then, there will remain only a small faithful remnant, over which I will keep watch in the garden of my Immaculate Heart.The great trial has arrived for all humanity. The chastisement, predicted by me at Fatima and contained in that part of the secret which has not yet been revealed, is about to take place. The great moment of divine justice and of mercy has come upon the world."

Related reading here.

Wednesday, August 11, 2010

Johann Hari: Journalist Or Fanatical Propagandist?

Credibility Hari Kari?

Johann Hari, a homosexual columnist who writes a column for The Independent and whose credibility has been called into question on several occasions by others working in the field of journalism, has written an anti-Christian rant in which he asserts that, "There is now overwhelming evidence that Joseph Ratzinger, the Pope, was involved for over twenty years in an international criminal conspiracy to cover up the rape of children by priests in his Church." See here for full article.

And what is this "overwhelming evidence" Mr. Hari refers to? He doesn't say. Five years ago I challenged attorney Daniel Shea when he said essentially the same thing. Mr. Shea asserted that "Ratzinger and company" were engaged in an "international conspiracy to obstruct justice." And after five years, he still hasn't produced the slightest shred of evidence to corroborate his claims.

This is the mark of the fanatic. 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).

I challenge Mr. Hari to produce his "evidence" of criminal conspiracy just as I challenged attorney Daniel Shea five years ago. I likewise challenge The Huffington Post to publish this "evidence." Failure to do so will be seen for what it is: an admission that no such "evidence" exists.

The credibility of The Independent*, The Huffington Post, and what little credibility Johann Hari might still enjoy, now hang in the balance.
* The Independent has published an article written by Johann Hari which asserted that, "It is now an indisputable fact that the Catholic Church systematically covered up the rape of children across the globe." See here.
Indisputable fact? Why then has this lawsuit been dropped.

Tuesday, August 10, 2010

Lawsuit against Vatican abandoned....

And with good reason. The case lacked any merit. An Associated Press article by Dylan Lovan is reporting that: "Three men who sought to hold the Vatican liable in an American court for sexual abuses by Roman Catholic priests in a Kentucky diocese are abandoning the case.

Lawyers looked to question Pope Benedict XVI under oath but had to leap the high legal hurdle of the Vatican's sovereign immunity status in the U.S. But plaintiffs filed a motion on Monday asking a federal judge in Louisville to dismiss their claims.

Their attorney, William McMurry, said he was seeking to end the case because of an earlier court ruling that recognized the Vatican's immunity and failure to turn up new plaintiffs to add to the lawsuit who haven't yet been involved in a Catholic clergy abuse case.

'Virtually every child who was abused and will come forward as an adult has come forward and sued a bishop and collected money, and once that happens, it's over,' McMurry told The Associated Press. McMurry represented more than 240 abuse victims who settled with the Louisville Catholic archdiocese for $25 million in 2003.

The lawsuit was considered the first in the U.S. to make it to the stage of determining whether victims had a negligence claim against the Vatican, which argued the plaintiffs never showed a connection between Rome and the American clergy abuse scandal.

Filed in 2004 by the three men abused by priests in the Louisville diocese, it argues in part that U.S. bishops should be considered employees or officials of the Holy See.

The case was being closely watched as the clerical abuse scandal swirls around the Holy See. Lawsuits naming top Vatican officials were also filed recently in Wisconsin and another one in Oregon. Both are making their way through the federal courts and it wasn't immediately clear if dropping the Louisville lawsuit would affect them.

An attorney for the Vatican, which is referred to in the lawsuit as the Holy See, said the Kentucky lawsuit lacked merit.

'This development confirms that, contrary to what the plaintiffs' lawyers repeatedly told the media, there has never been a Holy See policy requiring concealment of child sexual abuse,' attorney Jeffrey Lena said in a statement. 'The theory crafted by the plaintiffs' lawyers six years ago misled the American public.'

'That the case against the Holy See always lacked merit does not mean that the plaintiffs themselves did not suffer as a result of sexual abuse,' Lena said. 'But bringing this case only distracted from the important goal of protecting children from harm.'

The judge must still rule on whether the case can be dismissed, but attorneys on both sides say it has virtually ended.

In June, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal from the Holy See in the Oregon lawsuit that was filed in 2002 by a Seattle-area man who said a priest molested him in the late 1960s. Attorneys there are also arguing that priests are Vatican employees for the purpose of American law.

The Wisconsin lawsuit claims top leaders at the Vatican knew about allegations of sexual abuse at St. John's School for the Deaf outside Milwaukee and called off internal punishment of the accused priest, the Rev. Lawrence Murphy.

McMurry wrote in the Kentucky dismissal motion that an earlier court ruling that recognized the Vatican's immunity allowed the plaintiffs to proceed on the narrow argument that U.S. bishops are officials or employees of the Holy See.

McMurry said because of the court's determination, 'the grant of jurisdiction was so narrow that it's meaningless.'

The Vatican has argued that its U.S. bishops act independently, control their own budgets and are not employees of the Holy See.

McMurry said one of the plaintiffs, Michael J. Turner, was involved in the 2003 settlement against the Louisville archdiocese, which voided his ability to seek a claim from the Vatican. Two other plaintiffs, James O'Bryan and Donald Poppe, alleged abuses that occurred several decades ago.

'In both cases the bishops in question are deceased and further discovery regarding the bishops' actions is believed to be impossible,' the motion said.

McMurry said a months-long search for new victims who haven't settled in a clergy abuse case failed to find any willing to come forward.

'No one who has not sued a bishop is in a position to help us despite our best efforts over the past several months," McMurry said.'"

Readers of this Blog will recall my posts some five years ago regarding the attempt to paint the Catholic Church as a "criminal organization" engaged in coverup of child sexual abuse. See here and here. Leading the charge back then was attorney Daniel Shea, who asserted in an email written to me that the Church, "..is a criminal institution and those who contribute to it any longer are aiding and abetting this criminal conduct called obstruction of justice."

Once again that accusation has been shown to have no merit. It's time to move on.

Another myth exposed.
Site Meter