Does Francis believe in Hell?

Pat Buchanan asks, Does Francis believe in Hell?  And this is an entirely legitimate question.  See here.

Perhaps Francis should spend some time with Lumen Gentium, No. 48 and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Nos. 1033-1035.

Faithful Catholics will reflect very carefully on the fact that the Lord Himself speaks about the damned in a form that is grammatically future: "...and those who have done evil will go to the resurrection of condemnation" (Mt 25: 46). Does Francis consider Christ to be a liar? Does he believe Christ to be mistaken?

Nearly half of all Americans believe liberal media outlets manufacture fake news to discredit President Trump

The Washington Times is reporting that:

"Nearly half of all Americans believe media outlets fabricate negative stories about President Trump, according to a new survey.

Forty-four percent of respondents in the 2017 Poynter Media Trust Survey say the media invent 'fake news' to make the president look bad."

Vatican II, in its Decree on the Means of Social Communication (Inter Mirifica) had this to say:

"A special responsibility for the proper use of the means of social communication rests on journalists, writers, actors, designers, producers, exhibitors, distributors, operators, sellers, critics - all those, in a word, who are involved in the making and transmission of communications in any way whatever. It is clear that a very great responsibility rests on all of these people in today's world: they have power to direct mankind along a good path or an evil path by the information they impart and the pressure they exert.

It will be for them to regulate economic, political and artistic values in a way that will not conflict with the common good. To achieve this result more surely, they will do well to form professional organizations capable of imposing on their members-if necessary by a formal pledge to observe a moral code-a respect for the moral law in the problems they encounter and in their activities."

Most of the so-called "mainstream media" is informed by a radical leftist ideology.  Those who produce these media are more often than not guided not by objectivity but by a desire to manipulate public opinion through propaganda, which degrades both propagandist and the intended audience.

Related reading here.

Francis and the code word "rigid": The Joseph Goebbels Strategy

Once again Francis the False Prophet is prattling on about"rigidity."  And this comes as no surprise.  Modernists employ this word as a semantic weapon levied against devout Catholics who actually accept Revelation and for whom God's Commandments are something more than mere suggestions. See here.

In a talk entitled "Legalism, Moral Truth and Pastoral Practice" given at a 1990 symposium in Philadelphia, Dr. Germain Grisez explained to those present that, "Theologians and pastors who dissent from received Catholic teaching think they are rejecting legalism because they set aside what they think are mere rules in favor of what they feel are more reasonable standards. Their views are thoroughly imbued with legalism, however. For dissenters think of valid moral norms as rules formulated to protect relevant values. Some even make their legalism explicit by denying that there is any necessary connection between moral goodness (which they restrict to the transcendental level of a love with no specific content) and right action (which they isolate at the categorical level of inner-worldly behavior). But whether their legalism is explicit or not, all the dissenters hold that specific moral norms admit exceptions whenever, all things considered, making an exception seems the best - or least bad - thing to do. Most dissenters also think that specific moral norms that were valid in times past can be inappropriate today, and so they regard the Church’s contested moral teachings as outdated rules that the Church should change."

It would seem that Francis has succumbed to such a legalism, for he has once again implied that the Church's moral norms are merely "a set of rules and regulations."  See here.


Dr. Grisez reminded his listeners at the Philadelphia symposium, "During the twentieth century, pastoral treatment of repetitious sins through weakness - especially masturbation, homosexual behavior, premarital sex play and contraception within marriage - grew increasingly mild. Pastors correctly recognized that weakness and immaturity can lessen such sins’ malice. Thinking legalistically, they did not pay enough attention to the sins’ inherent badness and harmfulness, and they developed the idea that people can freely choose to do something that they regard as a grave matter without committing a mortal sin. This idea presupposes that in making choices people are not responsible precisely for choosing what they choose. That presupposition makes sense within a legalistic framework, because lawgivers can take into account mitigating factors and limit legal culpability. But it makes no sense for morality correctly understood, because moral responsibility in itself is not something attached to moral acts but simply is moral agents’ self-determination in making free choices. Repetitious sinners through weakness also were handicapped by their own legalism. Not seeing the inherent badness of their sins, they felt that they were only violating inscrutable rules. When temptation grew strong, they had little motive to resist, especially because they could easily go to confession and have the violation fixed. Beginning on Saturday they were holy; by Friday they were again sinners. This cyclic sanctity robbed many people’s lives of Christian dynamism and contributed to the dry rot in the Church that became manifest in the 1960s, when the waves of sexual permissiveness battered her."

Dr. Grisez goes on to explain that, "Pastors free of legalism will teach the faithful how sin makes moral requirements seem to be alien impositions, help them see through this illusion, and encourage them to look forward to and experience the freedom of God’s children, who rejoice in the fruit of the Spirit and no longer experience the constraint of law..They will explain that while one sometimes must choose contrary to positive laws and cannot always meet their requirements, one always can choose in truth and abide in love. They will acknowledge the paradox of freedom - that we seem unable to resist freely choosing to sin - the paradox that Saint Paul neatly formulates: ‘I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate’ (Romans 7:15). But they also will proclaim the liberating power of grace, and help the faithful learn by experience that when one comes to understand the inherent evil of sin and intrinsic beauty of goodness, enjoys the support of a community of faith whose members bear one another’s burdens, begs God for His help, and confidently expects it, then the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead raises him from his sins, and he discovers that with the Spirit’s grace one can consistently resist sin and choose life."

The faithful deserve an authentic Shepherd who helps them live Jesus' Law of Love - If you love Me, keep My Commandments (John 14:15), not a legalist who views unchangeable moral norms as "mere rules."

But Francis the Modernist, as with another enemy of the truth - Hitler's Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels - will keep repeating the lie that Catholics who adhere to Divine Revelation and to God's Commandments are "rigid" and therefore "sick."

This was Goebbels' strategy for placing those committed to truth in a ghetto: "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it..."

And those who refuse to accept the lie or who resist efforts to "re-educate" them will eventually have to be "sanitized."

Francis: I don't believe in judging...unless you're Donald Trump

From Fox News:

During an interview published on Saturday, Pope Francis said he would wait and see what a new President Donald Trump does before judging. The Pope was interviewed on Friday at the Vatican by the Spanish newspaper El Pais.

Francis went on to tell the interviewer that he doesn’t like “judging people early. We’ll see what Trump does.”

I thought Francis said, "Who am I to judge"?  Oh yeah, that only applies to homosexual persons, socialist genocidal maniacs and leftist-leaning politicians such as Barack Obama who embrace the pro-abortion Culture of death.

Bizarre!


The partisan ideologue who judges selectively.  See here.

Is Barack Obama "non-Christiano" for his support of abortion?  No word from Francis.

Francis: You have forgotten that the work of God is to believe in Him Whom the Father has sent

After saying that, "To be a Christian means to do: to do the will of God," Francis asserted that, "on the last day – because all of us we will have one – that day what shall the Lord ask us? Will He say: 'What you have said about me?' No. He shall ask us about the things we did."

In other words, Francis is saying that it's not belief that matters but social action. If it's not important what we say about Him, why did the Lord Jesus ask His Disciples, "And who do you say that I am?" Mark 8:29.

Back in December of 2012, I wrote, "The "Social Gospel" is more concerned about an earthly future than eternity

Standing before a statue of Mary near the Spanish Steps some years ago, on the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, Pope Benedict XVI reminded his listeners that the Gospel is the good news of freedom from sin, that it is "the proclamation of the victory of grace over sin, of life over death."  Proponents of the "social gospel" have forgotten this.  The mission of the Church is not to eradicate poverty or social injustice.  As Dr. Dietrich von Hildebrand explains, while "a deep interest in the earthly welfare of our neighbor is a central duty of the Christian and an essential demand of the love of neighbor," still, "it is definitely no part of the message of Christ that there is to be no more poverty, no more war, that the earth is to become a natural paradise."

Proponents of the "social gospel" fail to understand, as Dr. Hildebrand reminds us, that "..the primary task of the Church is the proclamation of the divine Revelation, the protection of it against all heresies, the the sanctification of the soul of the individual, the securing of his eternal salvation - this is the spreading of the kingdom of God on earth, and not the attempt to build up an earthly paradise." (Essay entitled This-Worldliness).

Dr. Hildebrand explains that, "...the motive of many for eliminating poverty (which itself is not morally wicked, but only a morally relevant evil) is not rooted in the spirit of Christ or His Gospel, but in a humanitarian ideal.  The widespread tendency today to demand everything as a right and to refuse to accept any gifts is surely no manifestation of a Christian spirit.  There is in reality a clear, sharply delineated difference between justice and love.  Justice can and should be protected and demanded by state law; but love of neighbor could never be demanded by any law.  For it is a duty before God, and no state law could or should prescribe it or enforce it.  Love of neighbor presupposes the fulfillment of the claims of justice, but it goes far beyond this.  The words of the Gospel, 'if someone asks you to go one mile, go two miles with him,' clearly go far beyond the sphere of justice.  Of course, it is a pharisaical hypocrisy to the demands of justice as if one were giving alms.  But it is a terrible pride not to want to accept any alms, and to demand that which comes as a gift.  The true Christian should be happier to receive alms and to be grateful for them, than simply to receive what he has a right to. When he receives a gift he is happy not only over the good which is the gift, but also over the goodness of the giver; and he experiences it as a great source of happiness that he can and should be grateful."

Priests and deacons who have succumbed to the distortions of the "social gospel" seldom, if ever, preach against sin or remind their listeners of the reality of Hell.  Dr. Hildebrand addresses this fact saying that, "this-worldly tendency can be detected in various pastoral letters, and above all in countless sermons.  One speaks more about the fight against poverty and for social justice and world peace - in a word, more about improving the world - than about offending God by our sins, sanctifying the individual, about heaven and hell, eternity and the hope of eternal union with God in the beatific vision.  The this-worldly tendency emphasizes the earthly future more than eternity..." (This-Worldliness).

The true Christian, in the Creed, proclaims: Et exspecto resurrectionem mortuorum, et vitam venturi saeculi - 'We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come." But proponents of the "social gospel" have largely abandoned such a hope and prefer instead to embrace a humanitarian religion and to work for an earthly "utopia."  Robert Hugh Benson, in his classic work entitled The Lord of the World, describes this humanitarian religion:

"Humanitarianism..is becoming an actual religion itself; though anti-supernatural.  It is a pantheism.  Pantheism deifies all nature, God is the world, but naturally, man above all is God since he is the highest expression of nature.  It is a religion devoid of the 'super' natural, because since God is nature itself, there is no longer a distinction between Creator and creature.  The creature is God and hence arbitrator of his own destiny and establishes the moral law for himself....Humanitarianism is a religion devoid of the supernatural.  It is developing a ritual under Freemasonry; it has a creed, 'God is man'; and the rest.  It has, therefore, a real food of a sort to offer religious cravings: it idealizes and yet makes no demands upon the spiritual faculties..." (Introduction, p. xvii).

The Church's mission is not to solve poverty.  In fact, Jesus said that we would always have the poor with us (Mark 14: 7).  The Church's mission is the salvation of souls.  When a crowd of people went searching for Jesus and found Him on the other side of the Sea of Galilee, they said to Him, 'Rabbi, when did you come here?'  And Jesus answered them, 'Truly, truly, I say to you you seek me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves.  Do not labour for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you; for on Him has God the Father set His seal."  The crowd said to Him, "What must we do, to be doing the works of God?"  And Jesus answered them: "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him who He has sent." (John 6: 25-29).

The work of God is believing in Him whom the Father has sent.  Jesus reveals Himself as the Bread of Life.  He reveals in the synagogue who He is, where He comes from and the good things He has in store for those who believe in Him: faith, the Eucharist and eternal life.

Proponents of the 'social gospel" have forgotten that "man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God" (Matthew 4: 4).  Crippled by distorted humanitarian ideals, such confused souls forget Our Lord's injunction to "seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things (food, drink, clothing etc) shall be yours as well." (Matthew 6: 33).

Way back in the 1970's, I purchased an excellent book written by my hero and good friend Fulton J. Sheen entitled "The Electronic Christian" and published by the Macmillan Publishing Company. In this important book (indeed every book written By Sheen could be labelled as important), the saintly Archbishop who thoroughly intrigued his audience throughout the 1950's as "Uncle Fultie" - a Catholic counterpart if you will to Milton Berle's "Uncle Miltie," explains the importance and indeed the necessity of a religion with Dogma. Here is his essay:


The modern man must decide for himself whether he is going to have a religion with thought or a religion without it. He already knows that thoughtless policies lead to the ruin of society, and he may begin to suspect that thoughtless religion ends in confusion worse confounded.

The problem is simple. The modern man has two maps before him: one the map of sentimental religion, the other the map of dogmatic religion. The first is very simple. It has been constructed only in the last few years by a topographer who has just gone into the business of map making and is extremely adverse to explicit directions. He believes that each man should find his own way and not have his liberty taken away by dogmatic directions. The other map is much more complicated and full of dogmatic detail. It has been made by topographers who have been over every inch of the road for centuries and know each detour and each pitfall. It has explicit directions and dogmas such as, 'Do not take this road - it is swampy,' or 'Follow this road; although rough and rocky at first, it leads to a smooth road on a mountaintop.'

The simple map is very easy to read, but those who are guided by it are generally lost in a swamp of mushy sentimentalism. The other map takes a little more scrutiny, but it is simpler in the end, for it takes you up through the rocky road of the world's scorn to the everlasting hills where is seated the original Map Maker, the only One who ever has associated rest with learning: 'Learn of Me...and you shall find rest for your souls.'

Every new coherent doctrine and dogma add to the pabulum for thought; it is an extra bit of garden upon which we can intellectually browse; it is new food into which we can put our teeth and thence absorb nourishment; it is the discovery of a new intellectual planet that adds fullness and spaciousness to our mental world. And simply because it is solid and weighty, because it is dogmatic and not gaseous and foggy like a sentiment, it is intellectually invigorating, for it is with weights that the best drill is done, and not with feathers.

It is the very nature of a man to generate children of his brain in the shape of thoughts, and as he piles up thought on thought, truth on truth, doctrine on doctrine, conviction on conviction, and dogma on dogma, a very coherent and orderly fashion, so as to produce a system complex as a body and yet one and harmonious, the more and more human he becomes. When, however, in response to false cries for progress, he lops off dogmas, breaks with the memory of his forefathers, denies intellectual parentage, pleads for a religion without dogmas, substitutes mistiness for mystery, mistakes sentiment for sediment, he is sinking back slowly, surely, and inevitably into the senselessness of stones and into the irresponsible unconsciousness of weeds. Grass is broad-minded. Cabbages have heads - but no dogmas. (pp. 74-74).

Francis would have us sink into the senselessness of stones and the unconsciousness of weeds.  And so he continues to offer his listerners not solid food but pablum, not mystery but mistiness.

Does Pope Francis really believe in the promise of Jesus that the Gates of Hell will never prevail against the Church?

It was Pope Paul VI who said, back in 1977, "There is a great uneasiness, at this time, in the world and in the Church, and that which is in question is the faith.  It so happens now that I repeat to myself the obscure phrase of Jesus in the Gospel of St. Luke: 'When the Son of Man returns, will He still find faith on the earth?'  It so happens that there are books coming out in which the faith is in retreat on some important points, that the episcopates are remaining silent and these books are not looked upon as strange.  This, to me, is strange.  I sometimes read the Gospel passage of the end times and I attest that, at this time, some signs of this end are emerging.."

And this was 38 years ago when, compared with today, things were much better.  Pope Paul VI also said, "What strikes me, when I think of the Catholic world, is that within Catholicism, there seems sometimes to predominate a non-Catholic way of thinking, and it can happen that this non-Catholic thought within Catholicism, will tomorrow become the stronger.  But it will never represent the thought of the Church.  It is necessary that a small flock subsist, no matter how small it might be." (The Secret Paul VI, by Jean Guitton).

Every day the non-Catholic way of thinking Pope Paul VI spoke of grows stronger.  Minds are succumbing to the darkness.  Our Lady told Father Stefano Gobbi on November 15, 1990, "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...there will remain only a small faithful remnant, over which I will keep watch in the garden of my Immaculate Heart..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."

It is necessary that a small flock subsist, no matter how small it might be.  Why? Because Jesus told Peter, "...thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

But we have a Pope who doesn't seem to trust in Divine Providence and who seems fearful of speaking the truth in season and out of season.  In fact, he has asserted that unless the Church which is bogged down by "small-minded rules" finds a "new balance," it is "likely to fall like a house of cards." See here.

And now, under the Pope who asserted that the church has grown “obsessed” with abortion, "gay marriage" and contraception, numerous Catholics are abandoning the Church at the same time that the U.S. Supreme Court "legalizes" sodomite unions.

At this critical moment in history, faithful Catholics need a strong shepherd who fears God more than men and is able to feed the sheep with the wheat of pure doctrine rather than the chaff of worldly pablum.

We need a shepherd who trusts in Jesus and His power and promises.  Not a cowardly cleric who trembles before the world and its illusory "power."

For the earth and everything on it will be consumed by fire.  And only faith, hope and love will endure.

Does Father Krzysztof Korcz really believe in the Fatima message or is he all show?

In a previous post, I Noted how Peggy Patenaude, a radical feminist who often conducts retreats at the La Salette Shrine in Attleboro, Massachusetts, will be a guest speaker at this year's "Gather Us In" Conference sponsored by the Diocese of Worcester's "Commission for Women," itself a dissenting organization.

In her newsletter, Ms. Patenaude said that: "In January, I had the privilege of facilitating my first retreat for five gay couples. It turned out to be an affirming experience for all. I was very moved by the warmth, goodness, depth and genuineness of these ten women. The fact that they were so receptive and appreciative confirmed for me the need for such programs in a world that is not always kind to minorities....

It was gratifying to see how much the participants enjoyed and benefited from the weekend. The retreat exceeded my expectations. 'It gave us the opportunity to take time out to focus on us and our relationship which means so much to us,' commented one woman. Another added, 'The retreat was very helpful. It helped my partner and me to communicate better.' The gratitude of all ten women for the supportive and respectful atmosphere was obvious. As one retreatant said, 'We are just people in love…like any other couple.' I am humbled and grateful for the opportunity to have assisted them in keeping their love alive. See here.

So I was not entirely surprised to learn that Father Krzysztof Korcz, "pastor" of Our Lady Immaculate parish in Athol, had decided to promote the "Gather Us In" conference in his parish bulletin.  I am not surprised because Fr. Korcz is anything but a child of Mary, even if he goes through the motions of promoting the Fatima message for appearances sake.   

St. Louis Marie Grignon de Montfort, in his classic work True Devotion to Mary, advises us that, the person who wishes to be led by this spirit of Mary:

p. 259 1) Should renounce his own spirit, his own views and his own will before doing anything, for example, before making meditation, celebrating or attending Mass, before Communion. For the darkness of our own spirit and the evil tendencies of our own will and actions, good as they may seem to us, would hinder the holy spirit of Mary were we to follow them.

2) We should give ourselves up to the spirit of Mary to be moved and directed as she wishes. We should place and leave ourselves in her virginal hands, like a tool in the hands of a craftsman or a lute in the hands of a good musician. We should cast ourselves into her like a stone thrown into the sea. This is done easily and quickly by a mere thought, a slight movement of the will or just a few words as, "I renounce myself and give myself to you, my dear Mother." And even if we do not experience any emotional fervour in this spiritual encounter it is none the less real. It is just as if a person with equal sincerity were to say - which God forbid! - "I give myself to the devil." Even though this were said without feeling any emotion, he would no less really belong to the devil.

3) From time to time during an action and after it, we should renew this same act of offering and of union. The more we do so, the quicker we shall grow in holiness and the sooner we shall reach union with Christ, which necessarily follows upon union with Mary, since the spirit of Mary is the spirit of Jesus.

With Mary

p. 260. We must do everything with Mary, that is to say, in all our actions we must look upon Mary, although a simple human being, as the perfect model of every virtue and perfection, fashioned by the Holy Spirit for us to imitate, as far as our limited capacity allows. In every action then we should consider how Mary performed it or how she would perform it if she were in our place. For this reason, we must examine and meditate on the great virtues she practised during her life, especially:

1) Her lively faith, by which she believed the angel's word without the least hesitation, and believed faithfully and constantly even to the foot of the Cross on Calvary.

2) Her deep humility, which made her prefer seclusion, maintain silence, submit to every eventuality and put herself in the last place.

3) Her truly divine purity, which never had and never will have its equal on this side of heaven.

And so on for her other virtues.

Remember what I told you before, that Mary is the great, unique mould of God, designed to make living images of God at little expense and in a short time. Anyone who finds this mould and casts himself into it, is soon transformed into our Lord because it is the true likeness of him.

In Mary

p. 261. We must do everything in Mary. To understand this we must realise that the Blessed Virgin is the true earthly paradise of the new Adam and that the ancient paradise was only a symbol of her. There are in this earthly paradise untold riches, beauties, rarities and delights, which the new Adam, Jesus Christ, has left there. It is in this paradise that he "took his delights" for nine months, worked his wonders and displayed his riches with the magnificence of God himself. This most holy place consists of only virgin and immaculate soil from which the new Adam was formed with neither spot nor stain by the operation of the Holy Spirit who dwells there. In this earthly paradise grows the real Tree of Life which bore our Lord, the fruit of Life, the tree of knowledge of good and evil, which bore the Light of the world.

In this divine place there are trees planted by the hand of God and watered by his divine unction which have borne and continue to bear fruit that is pleasing to him. There are flower-beds studded with a variety of beautiful flowers of virtue, diffusing a fragrance which delights even the angels. Here there are meadows verdant with hope, impregnable towers of fortitude, enchanting mansions of confidence and many other delights.

Only the Holy Spirit can teach us the truths that these material objects symbolise. In this place the air is perfectly pure. There is no night but only the brilliant day of the sacred humanity, the resplendent, spotless sun of the Divinity, the blazing furnace of love, melting all the base metal thrown into it and changing it into gold. There the river of humility gushes forth from the soil, divides into four branches and irrigates the whole of this enchanted place. These branches are the four cardinal virtues.

262. The Holy Spirit speaking through the Fathers of the Church, also calls our Lady the Eastern Gate, through which the High Priest, Jesus Christ, enters and goes out into the world. Through this gate he entered the world the first time and through this same gate he will come the second time.

The Holy Spirit also calls her the Sanctuary of the Divinity, the Resting-Place of the Holy Spirit, the Throne of God, the City of God, the Altar of God, the Temple of God, the World of God. All these titles and expressions of praise are very real when related to the different wonders the Almighty worked in her and the graces which he bestowed on her. What wealth and what glory! What a joy and a privilege for us to enter and dwell in Mary, in whom almighty God has set up the throne of his supreme glory!

p. 263. But how difficult it is for us to have the freedom, the ability and the light to enter such an exalted and holy place. This place is guarded not by a cherub, like the first earthly paradise, but by the Holy Spirit himself who has become its absolute Master. Referring to her, he says: "You are an enclosed garden, my sister, my bride, an enclosed garden and a sealed fountain." Mary is enclosed. Mary is sealed. The unfortunate children of Adam and Eve driven from the earthly paradise, can enter this new paradise only by a special grace of the Holy Spirit which they have to merit.

264. When we have obtained this remarkable grace by our fidelity, we should be delighted to remain in Mary. We should rest there peacefully, rely on her confidently, hide ourselves there with safety, and abandon ourselves unconditionally to her, so that within her virginal bosom:

1) We may be nourished with the milk of her grace and her motherly compassion.
2) We may be delivered from all anxiety, fear and scruples.
3) We may be safeguarded from all our enemies, the devil, the world and sin which have never gained admittance there. That is why our Lady says that those who work in her will not sin, that is, those who dwell spiritually in our Lady will never commit serious sin.

4) We may be formed in our Lord and our Lord formed in us, because her womb is, as the early Fathers call it, the house of the divine secrets where Jesus and all the elect have been conceived. "This one and that one were born in her."

For Mary

265. Finally, we must do everything for Mary. Since we have given ourselves completely to her service, it is only right that we should do everything for her as if we were her personal servant and slave. This does not mean that we take her for the ultimate end of our service for Jesus alone is our ultimate end. But we take Mary for our proximate end, our mysterious intermediary and the easiest way of reaching him.

Like every good servant and slave we must not remain idle, but, relying on her protection, we should undertake and carry out great things for our noble Queen. We must defend her privileges when they are questioned and uphold her good name when it is under attack. We must attract everyone, if possible, to her service and to this true and sound devotion. We must speak up and denounce those who distort devotion to her by outraging her Son, and at the same time we must apply ourselves to spreading this true devotion. As a reward for these little services, we should expect nothing in return save the honour of belonging to such a lovable Queen and the joy of being united through her to Jesus, her Son, by a bond that is indissoluble in time and in eternity. Glory to Jesus in Mary! Glory to Mary in Jesus! Glory to God alone!"


A true child of Mary does not engage in dissent from Church teaching or in the promotion of dissenting individuals and organizations.  The Commission for Women is a vehicle for such dissent.  See here, here and here for example.  And also here.

If Father Korcz wants to encourage true devotion to Mary and an authentic marian spirit of prayer and obedience at Our Lady Immaculate parish, he will first have to set the example by actually living such

an authentic devotion.

Does D.J. Bettencourt really believe that conservative solutions are best for New Hampshire?

New Hampshire House Majority Leader D.J. Bettencourt has been quoted in The Union Leader as having said that, "It is our responsibility [Granite State conservatives] to teach them [young people] why conservative solutions are best for New Hampshire."  See here.  And yet, Rep. Bettencourt has also expressed his belief that any debate on repealing same-sex "marriage" should be put off until next year so that "full and undivided attention" may be focused on New Hampshire's "outstanding financial issues."

One has to wonder how committed D.J Bettencourt is toward preserving the traditional understanding of marriage or promoting conservative values and solutions.  In the same article cited above he is quoted as having said that, "..the GOP must address the issues that have traditionally been outside of our comfort zone, but which are significant to young voters...I believe we need to do more to attract them."

Would this include watering down opposition toward same-sex "marriage"? Is Bettencourt suggesting that it possible to reconcile conservative principles with the homosexual lifestyle or ideology?  Star Parker so eloquently refutes such an asinine notion.  She writes, "The idea of 'gay conservative' is an oxymoron. 'Gay' is everything that 'conservative' is not. The foundation of the worldview that so-called 'gay conservatives' embrace has far more in common with liberalism than with conservatism. It's a worldview that is man-centered rather than God-centered. It is a worldview that rejects eternal truths passed on from the beginning of time. Although the worldview that 'gay conservatives' choose to invent may diverge from the worldview of liberals, their common ground is they make it all up. And it is here where 'gay conservatives' and 'liberals' fundamentally depart from conservatives. Conservatives believe that there are objective and eternal truths, not of the product of any individual human mind, that are transmitted through the generations. Culture is not like HDTV or iPhones where the newest model is the best. These eternal truths provide the light in the fog that keeps us from crashing on the rocky shores where our base instincts lead us. 'Gay' is liberal, not conservative, regardless of what their stand may be on government spending or taxes. It's why, like all liberals, they use language to create reality, rather than appreciate that words have meaning that reflect reality. So they have re-invented the word 'gay,' re-invented the word 'marriage', and now they want to re-invent the word 'conservative.' Finally, we will re-invent the word 'freedom' and we'll put the final stamp on the idea that a free society, rather than being the path to truth, is the path to meaninglessness. What individuals choose in private, and for which they bear personal responsibility, is separate from what we sanction publicly for which we all must bear responsibility. A value-neutral government is impossible. The central battle in our country today is about values and how we understand freedom. It is a battle for our very soul." (Full article here).

Is it D.J. Bettencourt's hope to re-define or re-invent what it means to be a New Hampshire conservative?  Is this what he means when he says that conservatives must leave their "comfort zone" and do more to attract young people?  Is this merely code for "let's change the ideals of the GOP in New Hampshire"?

Let's hope not.

Peekaboo civility and a definition of what is "rational" from the White House

It was just over a week ago that President Obama and the White House were calling for a return to civility and calm rhetoric in American public discourse.  Now the White House is calling the mental health of those who don't believe Barack Obama was born in Hawaii into question, suggesting that such people are irrational.  White House press secretary Robert Gibbs, during Monday's White House briefing, said, "I think rational people have - have long ago, many when they first saw and heard the president, come to the conclusion of his citizenship."  See here.

But as Dr. Kreeft has reminded us, "Usually, people seem to choose what to believe not by looking at the evidence but by looking at ideological labels, especially 'liberal' or 'conservative,' or by asking which group of people they want to be associated with, or by vague feelings and associations evoked by an idea within their consciousness, rather than by looking at the idea itself and the reality it points to outside their consciousness."  Isn't this exactly what Mr. Gibbs is suggesting happened?  He suggests that many people, "when they first saw and heard the president," came to "the conclusion of his citizenship."

Well gosh darn, that's a really rational approach.  I saw and heard Barack Obama speak and came to the conclusion that he was a U.S. citizen.  And this even though his birth certificate cannot be produced.

Not only does civility come and go at the White House, so does rational thought.