The artificial vocations crisis and Francis the "Merciful"...

Writing on the continued vocations crisis, Father John Zuhlsdorf correctly notes:

"The crisis of priestly vocations is largely artificial.   It has, in some cases, been manufactured.

Tradition is the counter-measure to the crisis.  It works where it is tried.

Also, we need to pray explicitly for vocations and keep the sound of that prayer ringing constantly in the ears of parents and their sons.  Again, I propose that every parish adopt the following prayer, to be prayed while kneeling by the entire congregation at every Sunday Mass immediately after the Gospel..."

Readers of this Blog know that I've been addressing the vocations crisis for years.  My own vocation was sabotaged by the La Salette Missionaries because I oppose the ordination of women to the priesthood.  See here.

Although I have had extensive psychological testing and screening for the United States military (as part of my security clearance for military intelligence) and have received glowing reports which indicate that I am free of any pathologies - including a homosexual inclination, when I contacted the Worcester Diocese (twice) to express my interest in discerning a priestly vocation, I received no response whatsoever.

Meanwhile, the Diocese of Worcester has ordained homosexual men to the priesthood.  For example, a psychological evaluation in 1977 prior to the ordination of Fr. Jean Paul Gagnon  indicated that the candidate had possible "sex role identification" problems. See here.

When I left a comment on Francis' Facebook page detailing my struggle to pursue a vocation to the priesthood, I received no response whatsoever.  And yet, Francis found the time to personally meet with a homosexual activist who claims to be married to another man - Simon Cazal.  See here.

But then, as a pesky orthodox Catholic who actually believes everything contained in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, no doubt the "merciful" Francis seems me too "rigid" and not open to change.

That's okay though.  I'd rather be a faithful member of the Common Priesthood of the Faithful than Francis' idea of a priest.

For what does it profit a man...you know the rest!

But not to worry folks, all is well.  See here.

Francis' notion of what constitutes charity has been thoroughly refuted...

Francis is at it again, building walls and creating chaos within the Church.  This time he's saying: “…This rigidity [the solid Catholic Faith of young traditional Catholics who prefer the Latin Mass] always hides something, insecurity or even something else. Rigidity is defensive. True love is not rigid.”

Wrong. This liberal notion charity has already been thoroughly refuted.

In his classic work Liberalism is a Sin," Fr. Felix Sarda Y Salvany writes:


"Charity is a supernatural virtue which induces us to love God above all things and our neighbors as ourselves for the love of God. Thus after God, we ought to love our neighbor as ourselves, and this not in any way, but for the love of God and in obedience to His law. And now what is to love? Amare est velle bonum, replies the philosopher: "To love is to wish good to him whom we love." To whom does charity command us to wish good? To our neighbor, that is to say, not to this or that man only but to everyone. What is that good which true love wishes? First of all supernatural good; then goods of the natural order, which are not incompatible with it. All this is included in the phrase "for the love of God."

It follows, therefore, that we can love our neighbor, when displeasing him, when opposing him, when causing him some material injury and even, on certain occasions, when depriving him of life. All is reduced to this in short: Whether in the instance where we displease, oppose or humiliate him, it is or is not for his own good, or for the good of someone whose rights are superior to his, or simply for the greater service of God.

If it is shown, that in displeasing or offending our neighbor, we act for his good, it is evident that we love him even when opposing or crossing him. The physician cauterizing his patient or cutting off his gangrened limb may none the less love him. When we correct the wicked by restraining or by punishing them none the less do we love them. This is charity and perfect charity. It is often necessary to displease or offend one person, not for his own good, but to deliver another from the evil he is inflicting. It is then an obligation of charity to repel the unjust violence of the aggressor; one may inflict as much injury on the aggressor as is necessary for the defense. Such would be the case should one see a highwayman attacking a traveler. In this instance, to kill, wound, or at least take such measures as to render the aggressor impotent, would be an act of true charity.

The good of all good is the divine good, just as God is for all men the neighbor of all neighbors. In consequence the love due to a man inasmuch as he is our neighbor ought always to be subordinated to that which is due to our common Lord. For His love and in His service we must not hesitate to offend men. The degree of our offense towards men can only be measured by the degree of our obligation to him. Charity is primarily the love of God, secondarily the love of our neighbor for God's sake. To sacrifice the first is to abandon the latter. Therefore to offend our neighbor for the love of God is a true act of charity. Not to offend our neighbor for the love of God is a sin.

Modern Liberalism reverses this order. It imposes a false notion of charity; our neighbor first, and, if at all, God afterwards."

This is why he puts the creature before the Creator.  This is why he condemns traditional Catholics as "rigid" and "sick," even while showing great respect for active sodomites who demand a change in Church teaching, such as Simon Cazal.  See here.

If anyone is sick, it's Francis.  See Romans 1: 25.

Why no similar statement from the Vatican after Pope Francis' meeting with a sodomite?

Writing for The New York Times, Jim Yardley notes that the Vatican issued a statement indicating that Pope Francis’ Meeting with Kim Davis wasn’t an endorsement of her views.

One has to wonder why no such statement was issued by the Vatican after Francis met with radical homosexual activist Simon Cazal who agitated for the Church to change her teaching relative to the sin that cries to Heaven for vengeance.

Pope Francis to meet with active sodomite and radical homosexual activist Simon Cazal

MSNBC reports:

"Pope Francis will meet with a gay rights activist in Paraguay in July, in what will be the first time the leader of the Catholic Church has publicly engaged with LGBT activists.

Recognizing the 'large impact of your organization on Paraguayan society,' Simón Cazal, executive director of SOMOSGAY, was invited to send a representative to meet with the pope at a group gathering on July 11, according to a letter obtained and posted by Buzzfeed.

SOMOSGAY lobbies for better protections and legal rights for those in the LGBT community in Paraguay — where there are no legal protections at all for gay people. Ahead of the pope’s expected visit and this invitation, SOMOSGAY launched a campaign pressing the Catholic Church to accept gay people.

'One can be lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender AND a Catholic at the same time; there is no contradiction between being an LGBT person and being a religious person. Respect for personal beliefs is inherent in democracy,' Sergio López, a SOMOSGAY activist and Cazal’s husband, said in a press release.

The invitation is the latest effort by the pope to soften the church’s approach and reach out to communities normally shunned by the Catholic Church, like divorced Catholics and gay people.

Francis famously said 'who am I to judge?' about a celibate gay priest. Earlier this year, he lunched with gay and transgender inmates in a prison."

And now, back to reality.  The Church already accepts people with a homosexual inclination.  The Catechism of the Catholic Church:

"The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition." CCC, 2358.

But homosexual activists aren't content with this.  They want the Church to affirm them in their sin. This she cannot do.

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

Let's hope Pope Francis can remember this as he dialogues with an individual committed toward living a sinful lifestyle while encouraging others to do the same.

Below are photos of Simon Cazal and the man he claims to be married to.

Will Pope Francis tell Simon to, "Go and sin no more" or will he say, "Who am I to judge?"

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Lord, mercy.

Meditation: Luke 12: 48.

Juda Myers: Living in the Truth?

After previously threatening me with a lawsuit because of my accurate Blog posts detailing her hateful comments about the Catholic Church, Juda Myers wrote me a new message on Facebook stating that, "..after direction from the Lord based on the bible, I am not going to pursue legal actions."

Translation: I spoke with an attorney who told me I have no case.

The legal definition of libel:

libel

1) n. "To publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others. Libel is the written or broadcast form of defamation, distinguished from slander, which is oral defamation. It is a tort (civil wrong) making the person or entity (like a newspaper, magazine or political organization) open to a lawsuit for damages by the person who can prove the statement about him/her was a lie."

The statement has to be a lie. The problem for Ms. Myers is that I have copies of our exchanges.

Now Ms. Myers is attempting to demonize me on Facebook. She has accused me of being "angry" and is asserting that I need "someone to attack." The hypocrisy is so thick it's almost unbelievable. This from the woman who wrote, "I am sorry that you have been deceived to think that the CATHOLIC church killing, stealing, overpowering, ostentatious, and filled with the greed for supremacy has any resemblance of Jesus our humble Savior who DIED for His followers. He NEVER sat on a throne on earth and NEVER even suggested for anyone to sit on a throne and be kissed and bowed to...There is a way that seems right unto a man but the end leads to destruction. Their mouths honor me but their hearts are far from me (Jesus' words) Many will say in that day, 'Lord Lord didn't I do this in your name.' and He will say 'Depart from me. I never knew you!' You'd better be absolutely sure the god you serve will save you. Pope of any kind will answer to God almighty. I will go straight to the throne for my headship..." Yes, clearly I'm the one with the anger management problem who's looking for a fight.

This is most unfortunate. For, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches us, "The Old Testament attests that God is the source of all truth. His Word is truth. His 'faithfulness endures to all generations.' Since God is 'true,' the members of his people are called to live in the truth." (CCC, 2465). And again, "Truth or truthfulness is the virtue which consists in showing oneself true in deeds and truthful in words, and in guarding against duplicity, dissimulation, and hypocrisy." (CCC, 2468).

This obligation is very serious. In 1 John 1:6, we are told that, "If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not live according to the truth."

I call upon Juda Myers to apologize for her hateful characterization of the Catholic Church, the Mystical Body of Christ. To accuse the Church of evil is to accuse Christ of evil. To attack the Church is to attack Christ Jesus Himself. When the Lord Jesus appeared to Saul, who had been persecuting the Church, He asked him, "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?" (Acts 9:4).