Update on President Trump's alleged remarks on Haiti, El Salvador and African nations...

Update from The Week:


3 Republicans who were at the immigration meeting deny hearing Trump say 'shithole'
12:05 p.m. ET


Sen. David Perdue (R-Ga.), Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), and Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen on Sunday all denied hearing President Trump call Haiti, El Salvador, and African nations "shithole countries" during a Thursday meeting on immigration policy.

Purdue said on ABC's This Week the quote is a "gross misrepresentation" of Trump's remarks; while Cotton said in a CBS interview he "didn't hear" it; and Nielson said on Fox News Sunday she doesn't "recall him saying that exact phrase."

The comment was originally reported by The Washington Post and confirmed by Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.). Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) said Sen. Lindsey Graham* (R-S.C.) told him the Post's report is "basically accurate." The White House did not deny the report, but Trump did, tweeting that "this was not the language used." Other meeting attendees have yet to speak up.

* Senator Graham referred to Mexico as a "Hell Hole."  See here.





A reader comments on Saint Faustina and I respond.....

Reader:

"If you have access to Saint Faustina's Diary, read entry #823 and #824. It references the day of her greatest suffering, which happens to be 12-17-36, Bergolios Birthday!"


My response:

I do. And those messages concern Saint Faustina's experience of Gethsemane. Gethsemane, where Our Lord experienced great anguish and shed tears of blood.

There are no coincidences in the spiritual life. I believe the secret which Saint Faustina indicates she alone knows is the identity of the False Prophet, preparing the way for the Antichrist who will bring the Church to Calvary, following in the footsteps of her Master (CCC, 675).

This could be why St. Faustina is made aware of this secret on Bergoglio's birthday.

Blog comment: "...you are making a lot of potentially very powerful people very, very angry."

In one of his last homilies, Archbishop Oscar Romero, the martyred Archbishop of San Salvador, said: "A preaching that does not point out sin is not the preaching of the gospel. A preaching that makes sinners feel good so that they become entrenched in their sinful state, betrays the gospel's call. A preaching that does not discomfit sinners but lulls them in their sin leaves Zebulun and Naphtali in the shadow of death. A preaching that awakens, a preaching that enlightens -- as when a light turned on awakens and of course annoys a sleeper -- that is the preaching of Christ, calling, "wake up! Be converted!" this is the church's authentic preaching. Naturally, such preaching must meet conflict, must spoil what is miscalled prestige, must disturb, must be persecuted. It cannot get along with the powers of darkness and sin."


Because I oppose that preaching which leaves Zebulun and Naphtali in the shadow of death, I am once again receiving death threats.  Recently I wrote about the fact that Archbishop Vincent Nichols is continuing to tolerate a radical homosexual activist while demonstrating a blatant disregard for the right of the faithful to receive Catholic doctrine in its purity and integrity (Veritatis Splendor, No. 113).  See here.  This resulted in death threats and a comment from an individual calling himself Matt Westwood which, he said, is "a warning that you are making a lot of potentially very powerful people very, very angry."

I will not be deterred.  My patron Saint, St. Paul, exhorts us: "...to stir into flame the gift of God  that you have through the imposition of my hands. For God did not give us a spirit of cowardice but rather of power and love and self-control. So do not be ashamed of your testimony to our Lord, nor of me, a prisoner for his sake; but bear your share of hardship for the gospel with the strength that comes from God." (2 Timothy 1: 6-8).

We are reminded in Lumen Gentium of the Second Vatican Council that, the Church, in its twofold ministry toward its own members and toward those outside her pale, shares in Jesus’ threefold office of Priest, Prophet and King, that is, it participates in Jesus’ ministry to sanctify, to teach and to govern. While bishops, priests and deacons exercise, within the Church, the ministries of sanctifying, teaching and governing through the power and authority bestowed upon them at their sacramental ordination, all Catholic lay men and women also share in this threefold ministry of Christ. Catholic lay men and women, by their baptismal and confirmational character, are empowered, in Christ through the Holy Spirit, to be priests, prophets and kings and so come to share in the Church’s ministry of sanctification, teaching and governing. Lumen Gentium tells us that, in collaboration with their bishops and clergy, "the faithful who by Baptism are incorporated into Christ, are placed in the People of God, and in their own way share the priestly, prophetic and kingly office of Christ, and to the best of their ability carry on the mission of the whole Christian people in the Church and in the world." (No. 31).


The homosexual movement has become totalitarian.  It seeks to impose its agenda with brute force of necessary.  I have been warning of this for years.  Only recently Dr. Jeff Mirus warned that, "No group is more hateful to modern society than the perceived moralistic prigs who, out of what most perceive as religiously-motivated prejudice, seek to diminish the personal sexual liberty of others. Nothing could be more obvious in our current culture than that such people must be silenced and, if necessary, restrained. Moreover, it seems only right and just that their denunciation of the gay lifestyle and their opposition to gay marriage should be criminalized. In fact, it should be criminalized in the name of liberty. That is why gay marriage is the lie that will create the next Gulag. The insistence on ignoring vice is the hallmark of a debased culture, but the insistence that a lie be publicly affirmed as true is the hallmark of ideological totalitarianism." (See here).

Cardinal George, bereft of the Cardinal Virtue of Fortitude, apologizes for warning that the homosexual hate movement could morph into something similar to the Ku Klux Klan

Readers of this Blog know that I agreed with Cardinal Francis George when he said, "You don't want the gay liberation movement to morph into something like the Ku Klux Klan, demonstrating in the streets against Catholicism."  See here.  Now the Cardinal is apologizing for his comments made last month. Click on the title of this Blog post for full article.
The problem?  He has nothing to apologize for.  The homosexual movement is a hate movement.  And it has already engaged in violent anti-Catholicism as well as attacks against other Christian and Mormon churches.  See here.  The LGBT Movement has never expressed regret for violent acts such as this.

When Jose Nunez was assaulted outside a Catholic Church for promoting Prop 8, the goal of which was to define marriage as only between a man and a woman in California, and he was sent to a hospital where he received 16 stitches for a wound below his left eye, where were the apologies from what Cardinal George has unfortunately referred to as the "gay liberation movement"?  Does the Cardinal believe that sin is somehow liberating?  If not, why would he refer to the LGBT Movement as a "liberation movement"?

As I've warned so many times before at this Blog, the same radical homosexual activists who continually cry for more "tolerance" are anything but tolerant. This is a spiritual war. The homosexual movement is not a civil rights movement. It is an attempt at moral revolution. An attempt to change people's view of homosexuality. Writing in the Chicago Free Press, even homosexual activist Paul Varnell admitted this. He wrote, "The fundamental controverted issue about homosexuality is not discrimination, hate crimes or domestic partnerships, but the morality of homosexuality. Even if gays obtain non-discrimination laws, hate crimes law and domestic partnership benefits, those can do little to counter the underlying moral condemnation which will continue to fester beneath the law and generate hostility, fuel hate crimes, support conversion therapies, encourage gay youth suicide and inhibit the full social acceptance that is our goal. On the other hand, if we convince people that homosexuality is fully moral, then all their inclination to discriminate, engage in gay-bashing or oppose gay marriage disappears. Gay youths and adults could readily accept themselves. So the gay movement, whether we acknowledge it or not, is not a civil rights movement, not even a sexual liberation movement, but a moral revolution aimed at changing people's view of homosexuality." (Paul Varnell, "Defending Our Morality," Chicago Free Press, Aug 16, 2000).

At the Beatification of Joan of Arc on December 13, 1908, Pope St. Pius X said that: "..the greatest asset of the evilly disposed is the cowardice and weakness of Catholics.  Oh!  If I might ask the divine Redeemer, as the prophet Zachary did in spirit: 'What are those wounds in the midst of your hands?' the answer would not be doubtful.  'With these I was wounded in the house of those who did nothing to defend me and who, on every occasion, made themselves the accomplices of my adversaries.'  And this reproach can be levelled at the weak and timid Catholics of all countries."

Yes Your Holiness.  Even certain Cardinals and Bishops.

Fr. Vincent Miceli, S.J., my mentor, once said, "Fortitude is that virtue which enduringly resists difficulties of mind and body while persistently seeking, defending and spreading the truth and holiness of the Gospel.  St. Thomas reminds us that fortitude is especially concerned with overcoming the fear of performing difficult deeds for the glory of God.  This virtue prevents a soldier of Christ, and above all officers in Christ's army such as bishops and priests, from fleeing the field of battle, from betraying the brethren when real or imaginary obstacles present themselves.  The great fault of the pusillanimous is that they succumb easily to irrational fears and leave the field of battle to enemy forces.  This moral deformity reveals a lack of faith in the cause of Christ and a distrust of the assurance he gave his followers when he said to his Apostles: 'Have confidence, I have overcome the world.'  The defect of irrational fear weakens virtue and renders Christians cowards.  All the Apostles except Judas overcame this fear when they received the gift of Fortitude from the Holy Spirit on Pentecost Sunday.  And priests should pray daily for this gift which the Holy Spirit will never deny them."

Pray for Cardinal George and all those priests and bishops who lack the Cardinal Virtue of Fortitude.  Without it, they will continue to flee the field of battle and leave the faithful in disarray.

Would the Diocese of Bathurst, New Brunswick classify Pope Benedict XVI's comments as lacking "pastoral sensitivity"?

By now you've probably heard or read about Father Donat Gionet, a member of the Eudist Fathers who was suspended by the Diocese of Bathurst, New Brunswick for denouncing abortion and homosexual behavior.  Father Wesley Wade, the diocese's vicar general, told Radio-Canada that Fr. Gionet's comments were consistent with Church teaching, but lacked the proper "pastoral sensitivity."  See here.

This begs the question: Would Father Wade and his Bishop Valery Vienneau classify Pope Benedict XVI's remarks about abortion and same-sex "marriage," spoken while on a visit to Portugal last year, as lacking "pastoral sensitivity"?  For Pope Benedict XVI, courageous champion of truth that he is, referred to abortion and same-sex "marriage" as being "among the most insidious and dangerous challenges" to society.  See here.

But then the Holy Father was also critical of Catholics who are ashamed of their faith and too willing to "lend a hand to secularism."  Is that not the case here?  Dr. Dietrich von Hildebrand, in his classic work Trojan Horse in the City of God, explains that, "..even some Catholics who experience the exclusivity of truth as liberating and who are not tempted to revolt against its alleged infringement on their freedom believe that the fight against error is uncharitable.  The anathema of the Holy Church seems to them hard and inhuman.  They have forgotten the admirable dictum of St. Augustine, 'Kill the error; love the one who errs.'  They are unwilling to accept the idea that the killing of error is inseperable from love for the one who errs.  Their false irenicism makes them blind to the glorious character of the anathema when spoken by the infallible Church...It should not be forgotten that the words of St. Augustine apply not only to the anathema which is reserved exclusively to the infallible magisterium of the Church; they also imply that everyone should be eager to help liberate his neighbor from error...When, out of a confused notion of charity, a soft-heartedness, or a superficial benevolence, we believe that we should leave the erring person in his error, we have ceased to take him seriously as a person and have no interest in his objective good." (Trojan Horse in the City of God, pp. 200-202).

Bishop Vienneau has described Fr. Gionet's comments as "divisive."  But again, as Dr. Hildebrand explains: "False irenicism is motivated by a misconceived charity at the service of a meaningless unity.  It places unity above truth.  Having severed the essential link between charity and defense of the truth, irenicism is more concerned with reaching a unity with all men than with leading them to Christ and His eternal truth.  It ignores the fact that real unity can be reached only in truth.  Our Lord's prayer 'that they may be one' (John 17:11)  implies being one in Him and must not be seperated from His words in John: 'And other sheep I have that are not of this fold.  Them also I must bring and they shall hear my voice.  And there shall be one fold and one shepherd.' (John 10:16)." (p. 203).

The Diocese of Bathurst has had its problems with priests who were homosexual predators.  See here.  One of these priests was Father Levi Noel, who was sentenced to eight years in prison in January of 2010 for 22 sex-related charges involving 18 boys.  See here.  I have not been able to find any public statement from Church officials in Bathurst accusing these homosexual predators of being "pastorally insensitive" or as being guilty of "dividing the community."

But those accusations are hurled against a faithful priest whose comments were, by the vicar general's own admission, "consistent with Church teaching."

You'll have to excuse me at this point.  I have to go vomit.


Related reading: Homosexual activists are already using Fr. Gionet's suspension for propaganda purposes.

I have been asked to keep this Blog alive....

Because of numerous emails asking me to continue with this Blog, I have decided to bring it back.  I want to thank all of you who forwarded your kind comments.

Paul.

Fr. Brian Harrison responds...

Father Brian Harrison left two comments at this Blog which I will address in this post. In his first comment, he writes, "Please allow me to respond to these attacks. I had never read till now the February 2004 article by E. Michael Jones that was quoted in 'Catalyst,' and it is certainly not true to say that I do not find his theological position, as quoted here, 'problematic.'"

Actually, my Blog post did not constitute an "attack" on Father Harrison. But since Father has portrayed himself as some sort of "authority" on E. Michael Jones and has defended him while asserting that, "Mike Jones principal 'crime' has been to publish extensive historical studies arguing that Jewish activists, intellectuals and financiers have again and again been major players in the various revolutionary movements of the last two millennia aimed at preventing, subverting and overthrowing the dominance in European civilization of Christian values and the Catholic and Orthodox Churches," it's fair to say that he apparently does not find E. Michael Jones' views to be problematic. This because Jones' views have been well-documented.

Father Harrison acknowledges this in his first comment writing, "...I have often expressed to Jones and Sungenis my concern and disapproval about certain things they have said about Jews, especially anything that tends to come across as a sweeping negative generalization about that people as a whole." And what of Jones' belief that "Jewish activists, intellectuals and financiers" have been "major players in the various revolutionary movements of the last two millennia aimed at preventing, subverting and overthrowing" Christian values and Catholic and Orthodox Churches? That sure comes across as "a sweeping negative generalization" about the Jewish people to me.

He then writes, "As regards the St. Benedict Center in New Hampshire, I had no knowledge of anything its spokespersons had ever said on Jewish issues when I spoke at their conference (on a quite different topic) back in August 2007. If indeed SBC representatives have made statements accusing 'the Jewish People' as such of 'corrupting' influences, conspiracies, or whatever, then I totally repudiate such views." But "Brother" Andre Marie of the SBC has said that the Jewish People undermine public morals and Douglas Bersaw has denied the Holocaust, referring to it as a "fraud" and the Jewish People as the "Synagogue of Satan." If Father Harrison is really opposed to such views, then why is he part of the SBC's 2009 "Catholic America Tour"? See here. And if Father is really opposed to such conspiracy theories, why has he defended the conspiracy theories of E. Michael Jones which portray "Jewish activists, intellectuals and financiers" as being behind 2,000 years of plots to overthrow the Catholic and Orthodox Churches and Christian values?

Father Harrison concludes his first comment writing, "...I accept fully the teachings of Vatican Council II about the Jewish people and, with the Church, I condemn and repudiate anti-Semitism. However, since the Council did not attempt [to] define what precise views, expressions and attitudes are to count as being 'anti-Semitic,' there is clearly a certain 'grey area' there. That should be a matter of calm and respectful debate among Catholics, not harsh mutual condemnations."

This is what Vatican II said, "...in her rejection of every persecution against any man, the Church, mindful of the patrimony she shares with the Jews and moved not by political reasons but by the Gospel's spiritual love, decries hatred, persecutions, displays of anti-Semitism, directed against Jews at any time and by anyone." (Nostra Aetate, No. 4). Anti-Semitism expresses itself in many and varied ways. For example, through denial of the Holocaust or "sweeping negative generalizations" such as those issued by SBC representatives or E. Michael Jones and Robert Sungenis.

In his second comment, Father Harrison writes, "Once again Mr. Melanson, I ask space to defend myself - this time from the grave charge of unorthodoxy that you level against me."

Apparently Father has difficulty being honest. Something he should work on this Lent. In the post he refers to, I wrote, "Followers of the late Fr. Leonard Feeney have initiated a discussion thread at the Holy Cross Cardinal Newman Society website with an article written by Fr. Brian W. Harrison, O.S., and entitled "Can an 'implicit faith' in Christ be sufficient for salvation?...The answer is: yes." I then proceeded to present the Magisterial teaching of the Church relative to the subject and added, "Theologians such as Fr. Brian Harrison are not 'pastors' within the Church. They have not been given the mission from the Lord Jesus to instruct the faithful in 'all that serves to make the People of God live their lives in holiness and increase their faith' (Dei Verbum, No. 8). This mission has been entrusted exclusively to the Magisterium of the Church.." (See here).

If Father Harrison has a problem with this statement, perhaps it is because he considers himself to be some sort of ersatz Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith? If this is the case, I submit that dishonesty isn't the only thing he should work on this Lent.

Related reading: Robert Sungenis vs. Bishop Kevin C. Rhoades: A Chronology

Additional reading: E. Michael Jones and the Jews