Bishop Robert McElroy's response at a "listening session" highlights the need for a revision of Canon Law

From the San Diego Union Tribune, San Diego Bishop Robert McElroy, during one of his "listening sessions," was asked:

"Would engaging in homosexual acts with another consenting adult end a priest’s career?"

To which the Bishop replied:

“It could. It’s a serious violation of his vow of celibacy...But I am not prepared to say that any single action between consenting adults would mean automatic dismissal."

As this excellent article from CWR explains:

"..it has only been in the last 35 years, since the advent of the 1983 Code, that such “consensual adult relationships” among clergy have not been treated as crimes under canon law!

1917 CIC 2359 § 2 stated:

If [clerics] engage in a delict against the sixth precept of the Decalogue with a minor below the age of sixteen, or engage in adultery, debauchery, bestiality, sodomy, pandering, [or] incest with blood-relatives or affines in the first degree, they are suspended, declared infamous, and are deprived of any office, benefice, dignity, responsibility, if they have such, whatsoever, and in more serious cases, they are to be deposed."

Perhaps it's time to revise the Code of Canon Law once again so that these perverted "consensual adult relationships" may once more be deemed crimes under Church Law?

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."

Pope Francis and the Eucharistic fast...

In a review of Michael S. Rose's book entitled, "Goodbye, Good Men," Rev. Robert J. Johansen noted that, "There is too much evidence of the abuse of authority in certain dioceses and seminaries to dismiss Rose’s claims as baseless. It is still the case, even in a seminary with a reputation for orthodoxy such as St. Charles, that seminarians would not openly admit to members of the formation committee that they attended a licit (under the Ecclesia Dei indult) Tridentine liturgy for fear of being branded a “reactionary” and hounded out. I know many priests and seminarians who were subjected to harassment similar to that which Rose describes. I personally was turned away by a Midwestern seminary in the mid-1980’s for being “rigid”, “doctrinaire”, and “lacking in pastoral sensitivity.” These terms are recognized “code words” for describing seminarians and candidates who are loyal to Church teaching and discipline, and are attached to traditional forms of piety and devotion. The genius of using such terms is that they do have a legitimate use: There really is such a thing as being rigid or inflexible; there really are priests who lack sensitivity to people’s needs or situations. By co-opting and re-defining such words, those who wished to advance their own agenda were able to masquerade as agents of the Church. Rose is correct in identifying the existence of these people and their agenda and the damage they caused." See here.

"Rigid," "doctrinaire," "lacking in pastoral sensitivity," these are indeed code words used by liberals who are Catholic in name only and for whom the Church's precepts are merely "man-made rules." How significant then that Pope Francis should employ the code-word "rigid" to denounce Catholic priests who favored the Eucharistic fast, going so far as to compare them with Pharisees. See here.

Pope Francis is on the wrong track. Pope John Paul II, in his Letter to all the Bishops of the Church on the Mystery and Worship of the Eucharist (Dominicae Cenae) says that: "..our Catholic communities certainly do not lack people who could participate in Eucharistic Communion and do not, even though they have no serious sin on their conscience as an obstacle. To tell the truth, this attitude, which in some people is linked with an exaggerated severity, has changed in the present century, though it is still to be found here and there. In fact what one finds most often is not so much a feeling of unworthiness as a certain lack of interior willingness, if one may use this expression, a lack of Eucharistic 'hunger' and 'thirst,' which is also a sign of lack of adequate sensitivity towards the great sacrament of love and a lack of understanding of its nature." (No. 11).

But His Holiness then addresses a more serious problem and one which is much more prevalent today [one which Pope Francis seemingly has no problem with]:

"However, we also find in recent years another phenomenon. Sometimes, indeed quite frequently, everybody participating in the eucharistic assembly goes to Communion; and on some such occasions, as experienced pastors confirm, there has not been due care to approach the sacrament of Penance so as to purify one's conscience. This can of course mean that those approaching the Lord's table find nothing on their conscience, according to the objective law of God, to keep them from this sublime and joyful act of being sacramentally united with Christ. But there can also be, at least at times, another idea behind this: the life of our communities to lose the good quality of sensitiveness of Christian conscience, guided solely by respect for Christ, who, when He is received in the Eucharist, should find in the heart of each of us a worthy abode. This question is closely linked not only with the practice of the sacrament of Penance but also with a correct sense of responsibility for the whole deposit of moral teaching and for the precise distinction between good and evil, a distinction which then becomes for each person sharing in the Eucharist the basis for a correct judgment of self to be made in the depths of the personal conscience. St. Paul's words, 'Let a man examine himself,' are well known; this judgment is an indispensable condition for a personal decision whether to approach Eucharistic Communion or to abstain." (No. 11).

The worthy reception of Holy Communion requires a clear conscience. Because of this, someone in the state of mortal sin is not eligible to receive: "Anyone who desires to receive Christ in Eucharistic communion must be in the state of grace. Anyone aware of having sinned mortally must not receive communion without having received absolution in the sacrament of penance." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1415).

Not long ago, Fr. Catoir, hardly a model of Catholic scholarship or even common sense and good judgment [he has this in common with Francis apparently], wrote, "For centuries, the fear of eternal damnation, even for petty offenses, was taught in the name of religion. George Carlin, the late comedian, abandoned his faith because he saw the absurdity of believing in a God who would send you to hell for all eternity for eating meat on Friday. Many Catholics left the Church for the same reason. Winning them back will take a massive re-education process."

But as Dr. Germain Grisez explains, "Traditionally, the eucharistic fast, required by the Church for the sake of reverence, was considered a grave responsibility which did not admit of parvity. Now, since the requirement is more easily fulfilled, its violation is even harder to excuse...someone who deliberately disregards the eucharistic fast out of irreverence for Jesus or contempt for the Church's law plainly is guilty of grave sin. And, knowing that the fast has been broken , whether by accident or on purpose, in a significant way, anyone as reverent and obedient as he or she should be, will not receive Holy Communion except for a reason sufficient to justify an exception to the Church's law (see CMP. 11.G. 6-7)."

Did George Carlin really leave the Church because he had a problem with the Church's traditional teaching regarding the Eucharistic fast or might not there have been other factors involved in his decision to abandon the Church of Christ? I seem to recall a troubled man who had serious personal problems and who celebrated the use of profanity with a levity which was just disturbing.

Pope John Paul II, in the same Dominicae Cenae, No. 7 writes, "I have already drawn attention to the close link between the sacrament of Penance and the sacrament of the Eucharist. It is not only that Penance leads to the Eucharist, but that the Eucharist also leads to Penance. For when we realize who it is that we receive in Eucharistic communion, there springs up in us almost spontaneously a sense of unworthiness, together with sorrow for our sins and an interior need for purification.."

This is not "rigidity." It's reverence. I would have thought Francis would know the difference. How disappointing that he doesn't.

Yes, the Pharisees were rigid when they chided the Apostles for not washing their hands before eating a common meal. But when we approach Our Eucharistic Jesus, we are not preparing for an ordinary meal. We are about to receive the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity.

Reverence is not rigidity. The so-called "rigidity" of the Catholic Church before Vatican II produced saints such as the Little Flower and Padre Pio.

We watered down the Eucharistic fast. We watered down liturgical rubrics and liturgical music. Reverence was jettisoned, labeled as "rigidity." Now even doctrine is being assailed.

Is the Church better off now than it was in Fulton Sheen's time? If you think so, I have news for you: You're insane.

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.