Bishop Robert McManus pleads guilty

As this article explains, Bishop Robert McManus has decided to take responsibility for his recent hit and run episode in Rhode Island.  This is encouraging.  Most of us are aware that sin destroys our relationship with God and that it also undermines our relationships with family members, friends and others with whom we come into contact. Reconciliation refers to that precise effect of Christ's redemption of the human race by His sacrificial death on the Cross which restores our relationship with God and breaks down the barriers of sin which prevent us from engaging in authentic relationships with others.


In the words of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, "Conversion is accomplished in daily life by gestures of reconciliation, concern for the poor, the exercise and defense of justice and right, by the admission of faults to one's brethren, fraternal correction, revision of life, examination of conscience, spiritual direction, acceptance of suffering, endurance of persecution for the sake of righteousness. Taking up one's cross each day and following Jesus is the surest way of penance." (1435).

In other words, our transformation in Christ, our daily conversion, is made manifest by such gestures of reconciliation by which we demonstrate our commitment toward the theological virtue of charity "by which we love God above all things for his own sake, and our neighbor as ourselves for the love of God" (CCC, 1822). We are told in Sacred Scripture that a faith without works is dead (James 2:14-19). An authentic reconciliation, therefore, will show itself in a charity which embraces both God and neighbor. As Jean Jaouen so eloquently puts it, "..Christian compassion cannot be a cerebral, fleshless reality. It is completely impossible for one who loves people coldly to dissociate eternal salvation from the temporal well-being of a human person. A person is a whole. Time is eternity already begun yet still not completely visible. The conflict will be resolved if Christian apostles learn to live with their people while remaining present to the Lady who, with her Son, weeps over both the death of souls and the death of little children. 'Lady of heaven, empress of earth.' Through the Virgin Mediator and Queen, apostles will find a balance between the demands of heaven and those of earth." (Jean Jaouen, m.s., "A Grace Called La Salette: a story for the world," pp. 327-328, grassroots publishing international, Enfield, New Hampshire, English edition 1991).

I continue to pray for Bishop McManus.  I pray that he will find it within himself to treat Catholics faithful to the Magisterium with dignity and respect and that he will not continue to ignore our legitimate and charitably expressed concerns.

"...temptations that can slowly yet effectively turn us away from God and the moral teachings of the Catholic Church.."

In his recently released Pastoral Letter on the Sacrament of Penance, which may be found here, Bishop Robert J. McManus writes, "It is well-known that in the last forty years, there has been a precipitous decline in the number of Catholics who regularly receive the Sacrament of Penance. A recent survey of American Catholics revealed some startling and sobering statistics. One statistic that was particularly unsettling was that 45% of Catholics who attend Mass weekly never receive the Sacrament of Penance. The reasons for the virtual disappearance from the lives of the majority of Catholics of the regular practice of going to confession are, no doubt, varied. Yet, an explanation of this disconcerting pastoral situation has to include to a significant degree a loss of the sense of sin among among contemporary Catholics..." What the Bishop neglects to mention is that this "disconcerting pastoral situation" is largely the result of theologians and pastors who succumbed to legalism.

Dr. Germain Grisez, in a talk entitled "Legalism, Moral Truth and Pastoral Practice" given at a 1990 symposium held in Philadelphia, had this to say:

"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."


Dr. Grisez reminded his listeners at the Philadelphia symposium that, "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 then went 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."

I fully support Bishop McManus. And I firmly believe that his Pastoral Letter is a step in the right direction. But His Excellency would do well to examine the pastoral problem of pastors who have embraced legalism and who view valid moral norms as mere rules which may be jettisoned when they become "inconvenient."

Meditation: Luke 12: 48.

Related reading: Father Robert Bruso of Saint Anthony's Parish in Fitchburg and false compassion.

When conscience is so broken that we no longer see what we should see.

The Newman Center at Fitchburg State College: A commitment to Catholic teaching or homosexual agitprop?

In a previous post I discussed how the Newman Center at Fitchburg State College has published a lecture from a Catholic priest which presents the Church's teaching on homosexuality as "evolving" at its website (see here). The Newman Center's website, which may be found here, has a directory of related links. One of these links is to the website of the National Association of Catholic Diocesan Lesbian and Gay Ministries, an organization which advertises (at its website) its goal "to welcome gay and lesbian Catholics into the Church." Unfortunately, NACDLGM also condones an actively homosexual lifestyle.

In a special report for The Wanderer, the full text of which may be found here, a veteran reporter covered a 2005 NACDLGM conference which was held at the San Jose Hilton in California. This reporter writes, "For the most part, participants were unashamedly 'out and proud,' with some priests freely admitting their homosexuality and attendees railing against upcoming seminary visits and the impending approval by Pope Benedict XVI of a document banning homosexuals from the priesthood. One participant was overheard by this reporter calling the Holy Father, Benedict XVI, 'a big queen'...Copies of OutNow, a Bay Area homosexual news magazine containing advertisements for bathhouses and XXX 'gay' videos were free for the taking at the registration table..."

Is the Newman Center at Fitchburg State College engaging in homosexual agitprop? Why would this Center link to an organization which condones homosexual sex and which rails against the Holy Father and Catholic teaching while distributing "gay" pornographic literature?

Bishop McManus?

The Newman Center at Fitchburg State College: faithful to the Church's teaching regarding homosexuality?

The Newman Center at Fitchburg State College has published a series of lectures given by Fr. Bruce Williams, O.P., at its website. One of these lectures deals specifically with the Church's teaching regarding homosexuality and same-sex "marriage." In this lecture, the full text of which may be found here, Fr. Williams presents the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church as "evolving," and adds, "Support for gay and lesbian rights legislation and (or) municipal ordinances is well within the parameters of Catholic moral teaching..."

Really? The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith would beg to differ. In its document entitled, "Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons, which was published on July 31, 2003 and signed by the Congregation's Prefect Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, the CDF explains that marriage "is not just any relationship between human beings. It was established by the Creator with its own nature, essential properties and purpose." This important document continues:

"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).

Considerations refutes the objection often raised by those within the homosexual movement (or by those who are sympathetic toward its agenda) that laws permitting homosexual unions would not harm the common good since they do not impose anything:

"In this area, one needs first to reflect on the difference between homosexual behavior as a private phenomenon and the same behavior as a relationship in society, foreseen and approved by the law, to the point where it becomes one of the institutions in the legal structure. This second phenomenon is not only more serious, but also assumes a more wide-reaching and profound influence, and would result in changes to the entire organization of society, contrary to the common good. Civil laws are structuring principles of man's life in society, for good or for ill. They 'play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behavior.' Lifestyles and the underlying presuppositions these express not only externally shape the life of society, but also tend to modify the younger generation's perception and evaluation of forms of behavior. Legal recognition of homosexual unions would obscure certain basic moral values and cause a devaluation of the institution of marriage." (No. 10).

Considerations points out the grave consequences to society if homosexual unions were to be legalized:

"The inevitable consequence of legal recognition of homosexual unions would be the redefinition of marriage, which would become, in its legal status, an institution devoid of essential reference to factors linked to heterosexuality; for example, procreation and raising children. If, from the legal standpoint, marriage between a man and a woman were to be considered just one possible form of marriage, the concept of marriage would undergo a radical transformation, with grave detriment to the common good. By putting homosexual unions on a legal plane analogous to that of marriage and the family, the State acts arbitrarily and in contradiction with its duties." (No. 8). Which is precisely what I argued here.

Fr. Williams doesn't see it that way. He concludes his lecture by saying, "speaking for myself as a Catholic and as a priest who has served the church for 33 years, in my prayers I try to imagine the church some day (probably after my lifetime) having a very different impact on the social status of gay and lesbian people than the impact it has had historically and still continues to have to some degree. Instead of being an influence for social homophobia and discrimination, as has been the case, could the church not become a force for society’s affirmation and inclusion of gays and lesbians – precisely by modelling such affirmation and inclusion in its own life? In moving to this point, could the church not benefit from the example of other faith communities that have already progressed further along the way.." Like the Episcopalians maybe? Better yet, let's not travel down that particular road of infidelity and self-destruction.

It is noteworthy that Fr. Williams has served on the Advisory Board of "Other Sheep," an organization which promotes the radical homosexual agenda. Sister Jeannine Gramick has also served on this Advisory Board. See here. Remember Sister Gramick? Here's what Archbishop Charles Chaput had to say about this dissident religious and the Holy See's Notification regarding her:

July 13, 1999

"Ministry to homosexual persons is important to Catholics. It will remain so. Common sense requires, however, that people ordained or consecrated for Church service should teach what the Church teaches. Unfortunately, on issues pertaining to homosexuality, Sister Gramick and Father Nugent do not, as evidenced by the body of their work.

The Holy See's action regarding Sister Gramick and Father Nugent concludes more than 15 years of study, explanation and discussion of their views on homosexuality and the nature of their pastoral work with homosexual persons. It is guided by the Holy See's commitment to teach God's truth about the dignity of the human person, and by a respect for the rights of all involved — the rights of the everyday faithful, as well as the rights of Sister Gramick and Father Nugent."

Most Reverend Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap.
Archbishop of Denver

The full text of the Holy See's Notification may be found here.

Small wonder that Fr. Williams would view the Church's teaching on homosexuality as "evolving" and would accuse the Church of promoting "homophobia." After all, Other Sheep has the following Mission Statement:

"Other Sheep - Multicultural Ministries with Sexual Minorities is the only worldwide ecumenical Christian organization dedicated to empowering sexual minorities throughout the world with the Good News of God's unconditional love for all and salvation through God's Son, Jesus Christ. With other LGBT activists throughout the world, we recognize that ideological fundamentalism in various religions, especially Christianity, Judaism and Islam, constitutes the major obstacle to justice for our people. Consequently, within the International Lesbian and Gay Association, Other Sheep pioneered the establishment of the ILGA Working Party on Homophobia, Ideology and Religion."

Does the Newman Center at Fitchburg State College also view the Church's teaching regarding homosexual acts and same-sex "marriage" as nothing but "ideological fundamentalism"? If not, why would the Center publish a lecture which accuses the Church of "being an influence for social homophobia and discrimination"?

Where does Deacon Ben Nogueira of FSC's Newman Center (who also serves at St. Camillus de Lellis Parish in Fitchburg) stand with regard to the Church's teaching? Does he view the Magisterial teaching of Christ's Church as "ideological fundamentalism"? Does he view the Church as having been "an influence for social homophobia and discrimination"?

Is Bishop Robert McManus aware that FSC's Newman Center has published this lecture at its website?

Bishop McManus: Authority and Service

Faithful Catholics of the Worcester Diocese are blessed to have a spiritual leader such as The Most Reverend Robert J. McManus. As Father Euteneuer of Human Life International has observed (see here), "In a time when far too many scandals go unaddressed in our Catholic institutions it is very encouraging to see a bishop take a bold stand in defense of his people and the integrity of the Church."

There are some who would criticize the Bishop, asserting that he should have done more. They would argue, along with Dr. Dietrich von Hildebrand, that: "The right use of the sacred authority of a bishop or a religious superior is much more necessary, more urgently called for by God when it is not just the deviation of an individual which is at stake, but rather the spreading of a terrible spiritual plague by one who is either malicious or ignorant. The failure to use God-given authority against such a person [and one could add an institution of higher learning] is a betrayal of Christ. Anyone who, from cowardice or insufficient moral courage, fails to take up a fight, brings a terrible responsibility upon himself...The betrayal of God-given authority, by keeping silent or by not intervening where this is a sacred duty before God, is always a very grave fault. Sometimes it comes from the ostrich-policy of burying one's head in the sand and not wanting to see the evils which authority can and should eliminate; sometimes it comes from the slogan, 'Authority is no longer effective today, it belongs to the Middle Ages.' This is much more dangerous than the abuse of authority which we just discussed; it is an even worse naturalism than this abuse, it is a failure to see what is demanded by the sacred office of a bishop or a religious superior. One looks upon authority as uncharitable and harsh because one looks at it 'from without,' and fails to understand that it is a deed of the greatest love, that it is true love of neighbor to use God-given authority in the spirit of Christ and with the full awareness of being responsible before God." (The Devastated Vineyard, pp. 205-207).

And this is certainly true. But what exactly is "the right use of sacred authority"? Is it only command and not service? Does a Bishop have to abandon the pastoral dimension of his ministry? Of course not. In Mark 10: 42-44, Jesus tells His Disciples: "..You know that those who are recognized as rulers over the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones make their authority over them felt. But it shall not be so among you. Rather, whoever wishes to be great among you will be your servant; whoever wishes to be first among you will be the slave of all."

In his book entitled, "Rise, Let Us Be On Our Way," Pope John Paul II wrote, "There is always a problem in achieving a balance between authority and service. Maybe I should have been more assertive. I think this is partly a matter of my temperament. Yet it could also be related to the will of Christ, who asked His Apostles not to dominate but to serve. Obviously a bishop has authority, but much depends on the way he exercises it. If a bishop stresses his authority too much, then the people think all he can do is issue commands. On the other hand, if he adopts an attitude of service, the faithful spontaneously tend to listen to him and willingly submit to his authority. So a certain balance is needed. If a bishop says, 'I'm in charge here' or 'I'm only here to serve,' then something is missing: He must serve by ruling and rule by serving. We have an eloquent model of this dual approach in Christ Himself: He served unceasingly, but in the spirit of serving God He was also able to expel the money changers from the temple when this was needed." (Rise, Let Us Be On Our Way, pp. 49-50).

Bishop McManus has warned Holy Cross that continued dissent will have its consequences. He is also being pastoral while remembering that authority is not just command but service. He is striving to achieve a balance. And he deserves our prayers and our support.