Susan Bailey of the Worcester Commission for Women and Richard Rohr

Susan W. Bailey, of the Worcester Diocese 'Commission for Women," [the same dissent group which has heavily promoted the work of Joyce Rupp and other well-known dissidents], writes, "Today I started reading a book entitled The Naked Now by Richard Rohr. I originally planned on reading it because a group I belong to, the Commission of Women of the Diocese of Worcester, chose this book as the one they wished to study this year. A dear friend of mine, a deacon in the Catholic Church, had also highly recommended it.

Rohr aims to teach the reader to see as the mystics see.

I have long resisted the notion of being a mystic though this same friend insisted that I be open to the idea. The pragmatist in me, the one who is unimpressed with splashy theatrics and celebrity, would have nothing to do with it. I saw no connection between my earthly life and supposed “heavenly visions.” I mistakenly connected mysticism with crying statues; I wanted nothing to do with it.
However, the creative in me, now being regularly exercised with reading and study, began to speak up and say,

“Hold on a minute. Maybe there is more to this than meets the eye.”

And my inner self, also exercised daily with prayer and reflection, objected too.
The Naked Now is now affirming something I’ve been experiencing ever since I started all this exercising: this newfound ability to “read between the lines,” and it is growing exponentially.
Rohr spells out three ways to view the world through a simple example: how three people view a sunset. One simply enjoys the beauty, nothing more. A second enjoys the beauty and understands the science behind a sunset, giving him extra insight.

The third not only appreciates the beauty and perhaps the science, but also “tastes” the experience. His vision enables him to transcend the physical experience to something mystical.

Rohr calls this seeing with the “third eye.” And I knew exactly what he meant.

I experienced that kind of vision all summer long in my lunchtime walks through the woods, past streams and alongside the lake at Wellesley College. Some of these experiences were quite intense, most especially my kayak trip on Lake Waban.

And I had noticed this vision even before the summer.

Reading the Bible had always been a difficult and dry experience. I simply could not understand what it was trying to tell me. However, last year I began to experience a strange sensation while reading: my mind and my heart would be literally flooded with ideas and insights. It was thrilling and a little scary. It was like God was chattering at me!

I don’t remember when I began acquiring this “third eye” but I am guessing it is connected to a few newer habits in my life: challenging reading, journaling and blogging, and set times for prayer. (This blog is a result of those new habits.)

I allowed myself to be carried in the flow of God’s will, just like my kayak floats down river. I went with the flow and without realizing it, accepted an invitation from God to go deeper with my faith.

I didn’t really know what was happening but had a sense that it was better to just “go with it” rather than to question.

And now, I have a book that will explain what’s been happening.

And the best part is, you can experience this too.

Everyone is called to be a mystic. It’s what Jesus intended. It was not just for those saints we see commemorated in statues and prayer cards.

Jesus means for each of us to experience this “third eye,” a direct result of a close, intimate relationship with Him.

The closer we get, the better we see.

And that’s when life really starts to take off. Surrounded by and immersed fully in this Divine love, we can experience what Henri Nouwen wrote in that post I highlighted the other day, “It is in the heart of God that we can come to the full realisation of the unity of all that is, created and uncreated.”  See here for full article.

Susan Bailey's belief in a "Third Eye" is very disturbing.  It is a concept rooted in New Age occultism.  See here for example.  But then, the Worcester "Commission for Women" has long promoted New Age spirituality.  See here, here and here for example.

Nor is it surprising that Bailey would promote the work of Fr. Richard Rohr.  As Bryce Andrew Sibley explains:

"Rohr makes it very clear that he does not want to be limited to having to call God "Father." He writes in Adam's Return (which was the basis for his presentations) that we must "find public ways to recognize, honor, and name the feminine nature of God...."
Rohr bases this claim on his belief that "God is the ultimate combination of whatever it means to be male and whatever it means to be female." He asserts that God is in no way sexed, and here he seems to be in agreement with the Catechism, which states: "In no way is God in man's image. He is neither man nor woman. God is pure spirit in which there is no place for the difference between the sexes" (#370). However, this does not mean that it would be proper to refer to God as "Mother." Rohr's thesis runs into the problem of Divine Revelation: Christ has definitively revealed God as Father. To say that God could just as easily be called "Mother" is in direct contradiction to Divine Revelation. As the Catechism states, "Jesus revealed that God is Father in an unheard-of sense: He is Father not only in being Creator; he is eternally Father in relation to his only Son, who is eternally Son only in relation to his Father..." (#240).
Rohr's problem also extends to his vision of the Church. During his presentations, he made several negative references to patriarchy, particularly to the Church as a patriarchal institution (patriarchy finding its roots in the Latin word pater, meaning "father"). The vague references he made during the conference become clearer when seen in relation to what he writes about the patriarchal dimension of the Church in his book Simplicity, in the first chapter, titled, "God the Father -- God the Mother?" Here Rohr describes the structure of Catholicism as patriarchal. Jesus was happy to call God "father," but "presumably that has something to do with his patriarchal culture." The Gospel text then "reveals the beginnings of the bias against women," and the beginnings of patriarchy. Our "liturgical texts are almost completely patriarchal, and they perpetuate this narrow image of God." But fortunately (according to Rohr), "we belong to the first generation of the Church that has come to consciously recognize our patriarchal biases."
Like many others today, Rohr thinks that patriarchy carries a negative connotation. Once again, however, he runs into the problem of Revelation. It was Christ who became incarnate as male, who deliberately chose men to lead His Church.
Although the Church is patriarchal by structure and office, the true symbol of the Church is not Peter, but Mary. Maybe having a more developed image of the Church as feminine would assuage Rohr's desire to have God reveal Himself in feminine terms.
The ultimate irony here is that, while concentrating on the problem of rejecting our earthly fathers, Fr. Rohr rejects his heavenly Father. He also rejects the spiritual fathers whom God has called to be representatives of His paternal authority on earth. It follows logically that if someone rejects the definitive Revelation of God as Father, then it is very difficult to teach men to be good Christian fathers (or males) themselves.

Homosexual Advocacy   The reality of sexual difference -- that man was created as male and female by God for a reason -- is a basic teaching of Catholic anthropology and theology. Pope John Paul II wrote beautifully about the significance of sexual difference in his apostolic letter Mulieris Dignitatem, in which he calls the reality of man being created as male and female a "truth which is immutably fixed in human experience" (#2). At first, I was encouraged to see that Rohr appeared to ground his "male spirituality" in the reality of sexual difference as one truly positive aspect of his presentation. However, when I took a closer look at some of his other writings, particularly those dealing with homosexuality, I began to question whether Rohr really holds a strong belief in the importance of sexual difference.
The website of Soulforce, a homosexual advocacy group, carries a letter written by Fr. Rohr (dated 2000) supporting this organization's mission. Soulforce claims that its purpose is non-violent resistance to the "spiritual violence" perpetrated against "gay," lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered persons by social and religious groups. The Soulforce website defines spiritual violence as "the misuse of religion to sanction the condemnation and rejection of any of God's children." Soulforce claims that spiritual violence is a misuse of God and religion to perpetuate society's prejudices against "gays," lesbians, etc. Needless to say, Soulforce protests the condemnation of homosexual activity and homosexual "marriages" by the Church and other religious organizations.
Rohr's support of Soulforce and its goals is rooted in his interpretation of Jesus' all-inclusive love. He writes that the Church has failed to live up to the Gospel values by "judging" and "excluding" homosexuals. He hopes that the Church will realize the error of her ways, but until she does he hopes that Soulforce will maintain its loving, inclusive position because "our gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered brothers and sisters have been left outside of [Christ's] realm of grace for far too long."
Since homosexual activity is the ultimate denial of sexual difference, Rohr's support of homosexual-advocacy groups such as Soulforce (and thus his implicit support of homosexual activity) is a radical contradiction of the apparent importance he places on sexual difference in his presentation on "male spirituality." As the Catechism states, "Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that ‘homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.' They are contrary to the natural law. They 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" (#2357). "They do not proceed from a genuine sexual complementarity" clearly states that homosexual activity runs counter to the God-given meaning of sexual difference.
There is yet another irony. While Rohr endorses the work of a homosexual advocacy group (on that group's website), he criticizes political conservatives active in the 2004 presidential election for their preoccupation with what he refers to as a "body oriented morality." He writes in an essay posted on the website of his Center for Action and Contemplation, "In the upcoming years we must find ways to address this ‘body oriented' morality, which has always held churchy people captive, but now seems to be widespread. The body holds human shame and inferiority, and people can be most controlled at that level.... We [i.e., political conservatives] want body morality, not really a demanding Biblical morality. No concern about social values, or justice values, or basic truthfulness, just puritanical concern for keeping human bodies so called ‘pure,' by preoccupation with issues like abortion, those terrible gays, and stem cell research. All of which can be addressed by a more nuanced morality. But America does not like nuance or compassion.... These body issues, these pretensions at being pro-life, demand very little change of 90% of the population, but allow us to remain preoccupied with trying to change others. How convenient for the ego. How disturbing for the future of religion and state." Rohr echoed these same sentiments in his conference when he said that religious people often use religion to condemn others, particularly those who participate in abortion and homosexual activity. Religious people do this, he claimed, so that they do not have to hear the Gospel message and transform themselves. (Of course, Rohr is condemning those who condemn.)
So, if Rohr thinks we should look beyond these "body issues" to a more "demanding Biblical morality" why is he so concerned with the "body issue" of homosexuality?

"He Was Paying No Debt"   And so our discussion of the body brings us to Rohr's thinking on the Redemption that Christ brought about in His body. In the first chapter of Adam's Return, Rohr makes this very puzzling assertion regarding the Incarnation: "‘Incarnation is already redemption,' and you do not need any blood sacrifice to display God's commitment to humanity. Once God says yes to flesh, then flesh is no longer bad but the very ‘hiding and revealing' place of God." Rohr is saying that the crucifixion of our Lord was not necessary for redemption; that the Incarnation already brought about redemption. This is made more evident in this passage from his critique of Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ, supposedly taking the teaching of John Duns Scotus as his justification: "As many of you know, I am a strong proponent of the Franciscan understanding of the redemption, based on the teaching of Blessed John Duns Scotus in the 13th century. He did not believe in any ‘substitutionary atonement theory' of the cross: Jesus did not have to die to make God love us, he was paying no debt, He was changing no Divine mind. Jesus was only given to change our mind about the nature of God! (Imagine what we are saying about the Father, if he needed blood from his son to decide to love us! It is an incoherent world with no organic union between Creator and creature. No wonder so few Christians have gone on the mystical path of love, since God is basically untrustworthy and more than a little dangerous.) For Duns Scotus, Jesus was the ‘image of the invisible God' who revealed to us a God's eternal suffering love for humanity, in an iconic form that we could not forget. He was not ‘necessary,' but a pure gift. The suffering was simply to open our hearts, not to open God's -- which was always open."
I will not belabor arguing the point in detail that the crucifixion and death of our Lord was not only part of God's eternal plan but also necessary for the atonement of sins. I would hope all faithful Catholics already know this. Rohr's teaching here is at best confused. It does not seem clear to me that the "substitutionary atonement theory" teaches that the death of Christ was necessary for God to love us or to change His mind about us. What the atonement theory does teach, however, is that there is a real debt rendered to God when we sin, which is our death. How can we, of ourselves, mend a relationship initiated freely by God Himself? How could our sin, our rejection of the free friendship offered us by God at the creation, result in anything else but our death? In terms of our sinfulness, only God can fix what we broke, and He did. Christ died in our place. He himself suffered the real punishment for our real sins -- He paid the debt -- and therefore those who accept Christ have access to divine life.
Instead of focusing on Rohr's error in claiming that Christ's death was not necessary for redemption, let's look at his teaching on Original Sin and how his teaching leads to an erroneous proposition. In the section on Original Sin in Adam's Return, Rohr says that Original Sin "names the ‘corporate body pain' that we all suffer from together." It is the "tragic flaw in all of us" and we should not "waste time blaming anybody" for its existence. It is the collective hurts that have been passed on to us by our parents, just as they were passed on to them. Baptism washes away this "original wound" and "our endless capacity for self-rejection and self-hatred" by "situating one's life in a much bigger picture." For Rohr, Original Sin is the "original wounding," it is the "shadow self that you do not understand," "the dark side that seems to be in everything," "the common pain of being human." "It does not deserve punishment. It deserves tears."
Clearly, Rohr has a very weak understanding of Original Sin. Once again, I do not think it necessary to go into great detail about the teaching of the Church on Original Sin (see the Catechism, #388-421). It should suffice to say that Original Sin comes as the result of the sin of the first man. It resulted in the loss of the state of grace and a tendency toward sin that is passed on through human nature. It is more than just a "tragic flaw" or an "original wound" -- it is a loss of grace and divine friendship, which is what necessitates a Messiah and Redeemer. One paragraph from the Catechism explains this point particularly well: "The doctrine of original sin is, so to speak, the ‘reverse side' of the Good News that Jesus is the Savior of all men, that all need salvation, and that salvation is offered to all through Christ. The Church, which has the mind of Christ, knows very well that we cannot tamper with the revelation of original sin without undermining the mystery of Christ" (#389).
Here we see the real root of Rohr's redemptive theology. His "tampering" with the correct understanding of Original Sin truly leads to an undermining of the saving mystery of Christ. If Original Sin is nothing more than a "tragic flaw" or "shadow side," if Original Sin is not seen from the perspective of the fall from grace, then the just penalty due for that, and hence the necessity of salvation, of Christ, His message, His death and Resurrection are all meaningless. As the above quote from the Catechism points out, one cannot have the Good News of salvation that comes through Christ without the bad news of condemnation that comes through Adam. Without a proper understanding of Original Sin, Christ is reduced to nothing more than a prophet who teaches us to love ourselves, and this is unfortunately who Rohr's Christ turns out to be."

The fact that Susan Bailey would promote this deeply confused and troubled priest should concern Worcester diocesan officials.  But no doubt they are far more concerned with banning orthodox, heterosexual candidates to the priesthood while ensuring that speakers like Robert Spencer never see the light of day within the Diocese.

Never mind that Fr. Richard Rohr is a heretic who promotes New Age spirituality and presided over a "lesbian wedding."  See here.  No, the Diocese is bent on pursuing its mission of ostracizing those who defend orthodoxy and stand up for Magisterial teaching.  Just a couple of weeks ago I was told that I would be ostracized for standing up for sound liturgical rubrics.

As Michael Brown would say: Our sad time!

It's time for the CDF to investigate the Worcester Diocese

In an article for The American Catholic which may be found here, The Motley Monk writes:


"It’s pretty easy to tell that the folks over at the National Catholic Reporter (NCR) aren’t happy campers these days. Some of their heroes fighting on the front lines for women’s ordination are being “disciplined.”
According to a recent NCR article:

A longtime peace and human rights activist arrested countless times, Franciscan Fr. Jerry Zawada has been removed from public ministry for concelebrating Mass with a woman priest in 2011.

Poor Fr. Zawada! After all he’s done over the decades to promote the cause of social justice. He’s been jailed numerous times and now at the age of 76, one would think the Vatican would overlook Fr. Zawada’s minor infelicity for merely concelebrating “Mass” with the Roman Catholic “WomanPriest,” the Rev. Ms. Janice Sevre-Duszynska.

The enemy in the NCR’s narrative is the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), which reviewed documentation related to the November 22, 2011 “Mass.” NCR obtained a copy of the CDF’s private letter which stated:

Having carefully examined the acts of the case, and the vota of the former Minister General and the Rev. Zawada’s Provincial Superior, this Dicastery has decided to impose on Rev. Jerome Zawada, OFM, a life of prayer and penance to be lived within the Queen of Peace Friary in Burlington, Wisconsin.

The letter also forbids Fr. Zawada from presenting himself in public as a priest or celebrating the sacraments publicly. However, Fr. Zawada is allowed to concelebrate Mass with other friars at the friary and in private.

Zawada isn’t too pleased. He told the NCR:

I don’t mind the prayer part, but when they called, when they say that I need to be spending time in penance, well, I’m not going to do penance for my convictions and the convictions of so many others, too.

Apparently, CDF isn’t going to wink and ignore any priest who concelebrates “Mass” with so-called “WomenPriests.”

• Strike #1 involved the former Maryknoll priest, Ray Bourgeois, who was excommunicated in November 2012 for doing so.
• Strike #2 involved the Jesuit priest, Bill Brennen, who was relieved of his priestly ministry in the Archdiocese of Milwaukee for concelebrating “Mass” with a “WomanPriest” one month later.
• Strike #3 is Fr. Zawada.

And that’s only the cases that the priests involved have made public.
“You’re out!” the umpire yells after a batter takes three strikes.
And, by the way, the baseball season opens today.
Perhaps those priests who support the cause for the ordination of women should place their money on the Chicago Cubs winning the World Series this year. Both have about an equal chance of happening anytime soon."


To read the NCR article, click on the following link:
http://ncronline.org/news/peace-justice/longtime-peace-activist-removed-ministry-after-concelebrating-mass-woman-priest

- See more at: http://the-american-catholic.com/2014/03/31/womenpriests-and-their-supporters-strike-three-and-youre-out/#sthash.bxKgcPW8.dpuf

For years I have fought dissent within the Worcester Diocese.  And part of that dissent has been the push for women's ordination.  Although my articles and letters to the editor of The "Catholic" Free Press have been regularly censored, Stacy Trasancos has been given space in that publication for a regular column.  This most likely because she has advanced the idea that women's ordination might be a possibility.  A while back I exposed how Trasancos had written: "We know that by the end of the first century the Roman Catholic Church was established and there can be little doubt that the cultural influences of that time and place affected the doctrine [that only men are called to the ministerial priesthood].  We do also know that the Church has evolved over time and that part of theology's goal is to communicate faith to changing cultures.  For these reasons, maybe the question of women in the priesthood will remain unsettled.  There isn't any hard logic to support the idea that the concrete forms of the ecclesiastical offices cannot be changed....Whether women should or will someday be priests, isn't for this single writer to say."

See here for my response.

Of course, because I have stood against such nonsense, I have been ostracized from this diocese.  But not dissidents such as Mary Donovan of the Worcester "Commission for Women."  Writing for The Catholic Free Press back in 1992, Ms. Donovan implied that women are not "active participants in the worship of God" and that women should be able to "dispute interpretation" of Church doctrine. In an article entitled "Save the women for the Church," she wrote: "Most of us on the Commission are diehards, women who decided long ago that women should have a place in the Church and that the Church needed women...What we want is simple.  We want to be considered active participants in the worship of God.  We want to move from the passive role where men study the Word of God, interpret it and relay the message to us.  We want to share the study, to discuss, refine, enlarge, enhance, dispute interpretation if necessary, and deliver the good news with equal stature and credibility.  We know that structure that exists today has no stairway for women that go to the top floor.  We know what problems exist in renovating..." (May 22, 1992 edition of The Catholic Free Press).

It's not renovation that Ms. Donovan stood for but wreckovation.  Her ideology was rooted in pride and falsehood.

In another article published in the diocesan newspaper, Ms. Donovan insisted that there are, "..women who sense the same gifts within themselves as men who feel called to the service of God." (Women walk a Tightrope, January 29, 1992 edition of The Catholic Free Press).

While Mary Donovan and her cohorts were demanding women's ordination and the right to "dispute interpretation" of the Church's teaching, the Second Vatican Council had already taught authoritatively that, "...the task of authentically interpreting the Word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ." (Dei Verbum, No. 10).
Mary Donovan and other sophomoric souls throughout the Worcester Diocese have openly rejected the teaching of Vatican II and the perennial teaching of the Catholic Church, as exemplified in the post conciliar document entitled "The Ministerial Priesthood in the Light of the Mystery of Christ" that, "..we can never ignore the fact that Christ is a man.  Therefore, unless one is to disregard the importance of this symbolism for the economy of Revelation, it must be admitted that, in actions which demand the character of ordination and in which Christ Himself, the Author of the Covenant, the Bridegroom and Head of the Church, is represented, exercising His ministry of salvation - which is in the highest degree the case of the Eucharist - His role must be taken by a man."
But those who shout Non Serviam along with Lucifer will not be silent.  No amount of truth will produce the slightest crack in their wall of conviction.  The time has come to discipline them.  If necessary, with excommunication.

Such an anathema would amount to an expression of supreme charity.


Related reading here and here.

Beware of the Worcester Diocese.....really

In a recent post, I noted how the Worcester Diocese, through its official newspaper The "Catholic" Free Press, has long promoted dissent from Church teaching and just recently published an editorial challenging the Church's teaching, which is expressed so powerfully in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, that Christ instituted a hierarchical Church.  It should come as no surprise, then, that Bishop Robert McManus, who is the Publisher of this dissenting newspaper, should have permitted Dr. Thomas Groome to appear as a speaker within his diocese.  I have already detailed in previous posts why this is so disturbing.  And I have shown how the Worcester Diocese, through the "Commission for Women," agitates for women's ordination and radical feminist theology as well as New Age spirituality, which is occultic.  See here and here.

In an  article entitled "Beware of Thomas Groome or Anything Associated with Him, Stacey Johnson, a homeschooling mother of four, writing for New Oxford Review, explains: "In these decades of crisis in the Catholic Church in America, we must be on guard to threats to our children's faith. However, those threats are not always easily recognized, and the average Catholic frequently overlooks what is possibly the most dangerous one: your parish CCD program.

Many recognize that there has been a crisis of catechesis for the past thirty years or so. According to the oft-cited Gallup Poll, the majority of American Catholics either cannot identify Catholic teaching on the Eucharist or do not believe it. Catholics cohabit, contracept, sterilize, abort, divorce, and support same-sex "marriages" at about the same rate as the population at large, indicating a large-scale rejection or ignorance of the Church's moral teachings. And as many commentators have aptly pointed out, the Catechism of the Catholic Church received a cool reception among the catechetical elite of the U.S.

Numerous publishers of Catholic religious education materials, however, now claim to be developing programs in response to the Catechism. These materials usually have a statement in the front indicating that the program has been found by a committee of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) to be in conformity with the Catechism. Concerned parents looking over the programs will often be hard-pressed to find blatant doctrinal errors, though there is often a lopsided emphasis on social justice and environmental concerns, and the truths of the Faith aren't always presented in the most convincing fashion.

So far, this doesn't sound so bad. Not the strongest presentation of the Faith perhaps, but nothing to get excited about, right? Wrong. One of the most significant problems with many of the CCD programs is the way in which the teachings are presented. They actually appear to be designed to reduce the chances that our children will accept the teachings of the Church.

Arguably the single most influential person in Catholic religious education circles in the U.S. today is Thomas H. Groome. He is a laicized priest and professor of theology and religious education at Boston College, and a prominent theorist and writer in the field of religious education. His writings have appeared in the USCCB's catechetical journal, The Living Light, and he is a frequent speaker and honoree at religious education conferences. The National Catholic Educational Association offers workshops for catechetical leaders developed from a text of which Groome is one of two editors. Groome is a consultant for William H. Sadlier Inc., a major publisher of catechetical materials used in every diocese in the U.S. He is the primary author of two of Sadlier's K-8 programs for Catholic children: Coming to Faith and God With Us. His books include Educating for Life: A Spiritual Vision for Every Teacher and Parent, and Sharing Faith: A Comprehensive Approach to Religious Education and Pastoral Ministry. The latter provides a detailed explanation of his methodology for religious education, which he calls "shared Christian praxis."
According to Groome, shared Christian praxis has five steps, called movements, which comprise the method. None of the movements can be eliminated; each is considered essential to the educational approach. The movements are as follows: (1) Naming / Expressing "Present Praxis": Participants communicate either their own or society's current behavior or beliefs. (2) Critical Reflection on Present Action: Participants are called to look critically at what motivates their present behaviors and beliefs, including any prejudices or societal influences. (3) Making Accessible Christian Story / Vision. (4) Dialectical Hermeneutic to Appropriate Christian Story / Vision to Participants' Stories and Visions: Participants compare their critically understood present praxis from Movement Two with the "Christian Story" that was presented in Movement Three, and develop a new understanding of "their truth." (5) Decision / Response for Lived Christian Faith: Participants have an opportunity to decide how they intend to live their faith as a result of the decisions that they made about it in Movement Four. Each of these movements requires a fuller explanation in order for us to see their true import.

Movement One is the simplest of the five. It requires only that the participants in the session have an opportunity to communicate (or at least reflect upon) their own or a larger society's (for example, the Church's) current practice of belief as it relates to the topic at hand. The main issue would be that it is their own expression of it, rather than someone else's, that they communicate.

Movement Two then has the participants critically reflect upon why they act or think as they do. The students are to examine anything that might affect their current practice or belief, whether it is prejudices, ideologies, societal influences, consequences, or past experiences. As Groome writes in Sharing Faith, "As a constitutive activity of shared Christian praxis, critical reflection encourages 'disbelief' as well as belief, 'disbelief' especially toward the controlling myths . . . that maintain structures of domination — sexism, racism . . . and so on." Participants are encouraged to see how their history affects their current behavior and beliefs as well as their interpretation of them and to see how they should change. One example Groome gives of how to apply Movement Two is the assignment of a paper to male undergraduate students who are resistant to "feminist consciousness."

In Movement Three, things really get interesting. Here is where the "Christian Story" is presented. According to Groome, the "Christian Story" is "the whole faith life and practical wisdom of the Christian community." It is important to note, however, that according to shared Christian praxis, the "Christian Story" must be "made accessible" in a particular way. The educator is responsible for discerning both what part of the "Christian Story" to make accessible and how to do it. The "Story" is to be adapted and interpreted to the participants, using hermeneutics (methods of interpretation) or retrieval, suspicion, and creative commitment. Groome explains that religious educators should have a "healthy suspicion" of their faith tradition and that it is the educator's responsibility to uncover the true meaning of the original texts, a meaning that probably has been lost due to "distortions" in the "accepted interpretations" of Christian tradition. Movement Three is totally incompatible with an understanding of any sort of traditional moral or theological absolutes. And Groome himself agrees. To provide any sort of absolute truth is the furthest thing from his mind. From Groome's perspective, to absolutize either an expression or interpretation of a faith tradition is to deaden it. Rather, as he makes clear in Educating for Life, it is necessary to constantly reinterpret both Scripture and Tradition "in light of what we bring to it from the present."

For Groome, one of the building blocks for wisdom is feminist theology, so when the educator is determining how to present the "Christian Story," he would do well to consider such things as the insights of "the great Scripture scholar, Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza," who is a radical feminist theologian who believes that Jesus (whom she refers to as "the woman-identified man" in her book In Memory of Her) intended to liberate women from "patriarchal structures" but, as Groome summarizes for us in Sharing Faith, this "central characteristic of the Jesus movement was 'written out' of the New Testament and must now be reconstructed."

One way this translates into religious education is that the emphasis is always on the "equality and mutuality" of men and women, rather than their complementarity. Add to this the repeated assertion that discrimination in all its forms must be fought against wherever it is found. Consequently, when the Sacrament of Holy Orders is presented without any explanation as to why only men may be ordained, it is practically a given that most students will dissent. In fact, it would be surprising if any did not.

Movement Four is even worse. Its purpose is to have the participants place their own "stories" in dialectic with the "Christian Story" presented in Movement Three. This means that besides examining their current beliefs and practices in light of the "Christian Story," the students are to

bring present praxis to interpret Christian Story / Vision . . . there are aspects of it they affirm and cherish and aspects of present understanding and living of Christian faith that are called into question and refused if necessary (the Story has had distortions), and . . . participants can construct a more appropriate understanding of the Story. (Ibid.)

Groome says that some people prefer to accept that something is true based upon the authority of the Church, but they are "arrested" at a lower stage in their faith journey. The point is that if children are exposed to shared Christian praxis long enough, they will believe that any aspect of the Faith is up for grabs.
The only thing apparently absolutely necessary for salvation is a commitment to modern social-justice issues, though that does not seem to include opposition to abortion. In fact, although both the books mentioned in this article have lengthy sections devoted to social-justice issues, abortion is rarely mentioned. What Groome sees as important is a commitment to "The Reign of God," which, although he occasionally acknowledges as having an eschatological component, is largely to be realized in time by making everyone feel accepted and by making sure that every aspect of everyone's lives is valued (unless, of course, one of those aspects is one of the "deadly social sins" of absolutism, sexism, specieism, etc.).

Not surprisingly, Groome himself does not believe in a hierarchical Church or an ordained priesthood, and dissents from Church teaching on issues related to human sexuality, the papacy, and biblical inerrancy. He demands "inclusive" language and believes that all language we have regarding God is a human construct, rather than being divinely revealed. Groome draws heavily from the "scholarship" of numerous feminist theologians, as well as well-known dissenter Richard McBrien, and neo-Modernist Scripture scholar Raymond Brown. Quoting Kenan Osborne in a footnote to a discussion of the priesthood in Sharing Faith, Groome notes, "In spite of the long tradition of this view [that the Apostles were commissioned at the Last Supper to preside at the Eucharist], contemporary scholars find no basis for this interpretation. In other words, Jesus did not ordain the apostles (disciples) at this final supper to be 'priests.'" Rather, Groome believes that the ability to celebrate the Eucharist comes from the power of the Holy Spirit working through the assembly. He also has, understandably, a rather faulty understanding of the Mass and the Eucharist.

Finally, in Movement Five, the students make some commitment to action based upon the determinations made in the previous movements. An example that Groome gives from personal experience is informative. He was asked to speak with a group of women on "Women in the Church." When he began the session it was apparent that the women accepted the Church's teaching on male-only ordination, something that Groome believes is an injustice against women. As he puts it, "It seems that the exclusion of women from ordained ministry is the result of a patriarchal mind-set and culture and is not of Christian faith. The injustice of excluding women from the priesthood debilitates the church's sacramentality in the world; it is a countersign to God's reign" (Sharing Faith). By the end of their time together, the women had all "come to see" that the Church was a patriarchal, oppressive social structure. As part of their Movement Five activity, the women resolved to each write to a young woman in order to encourage her to fight for "full inclusion" in the Church.
This is the methodology that also underpins the Coming to Faith series from William H. Sadlier Inc. As a methodology for religious instruction, however, it clearly undermines the Faith. In this series, shared Christian praxis is used not only to "educate" the children, but to "educate" the catechists as well. For example, catechists are asked to come up with their own definition of conscience, to develop and work to implement their personal vision of a "hospitable Church," to determine what they think helps their parish to grow (choices including "spirited" liturgies, an attractive building, involvement in peace and justice issues, and a congenial pastor, but not including a commitment to orthodoxy or devotion to the Eucharist), to assess the "kind of relationship" they have with the sun, moon, wind, and rain, or their "relationship" with grass, trees, house plants, and soil. Additionally, the uniqueness of Christ's Presence in the Eucharist is downplayed. For example, the second-grade teacher's manual, Coming to Jesus, says, "Jesus, already present in the community and in the word of God, now becomes present in another dimension." God is not referred to as "Father" unless absolutely necessary. In fact, one of the objectives of the lesson on the "Our Father" for first-graders is "to help the children believe that God cares for us as a loving parent" (italics added).
There is a trend in the Coming to Faith series toward syncretism with Native American spirituality, including the use of non-Christian Native American prayers. In one instance in the sixth-grade teacher's manual, the catechist is instructed to have the children form a circle around a globe with each child saying a line of the prayer, the teacher having pointed out that "through the Eucharist, we are one with all the people in this earth." The prayer goes like this:

Every part of this earth is sacred . . .
Every clearing and humming insect is holy . . .
All belong to the same family.
Teach your children that the earth is our mother . . .
The wind gave our children the spirit of life.
This we know, the earth does not belong to us; we belong to the earth . . .
(Coming to God's Word, William H. Sadlier Inc.)

Actually, our Catholic Faith teaches that the Church and Mary are to be regarded as our Mother, not the earth; that God gave us the "spirit of life," not the wind; and that people and insects do not belong to the same family!
The kindergarten teacher's manual, Coming to God's World, informs the catechist that, "By its emphasis on kinship with the elements and the environment, Native-American spirituality can complement our own faith tradition." Consequently, one of the "Justice and Peace" resources that follow every lesson encourages the catechist to suggest that the children "[pamper] or cater to Mother Earth." Perhaps this also explains why sixth-graders are instructed in their activity book to center their prayer on a rock.
The catechists and children are also exposed to the teachings of some whose works have been condemned by the Church, including Teilhard de Chardin and Anthony de Mello. Moreover, liturgical abuses are canonized in a number of ways. One example: In the first-grade teacher's manual, a litany for use in class is proposed that invokes the intercession of non-canonized and even non-Catholic personages, including Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King Jr., and Cesar Chavez.
Groome's approach to Scripture is clearly seen in the sixth-grade book of Sadlier's Coming to Faith series, Coming to God's Word. This grade level focuses on Scripture and presents it in such a fashion that the average child would have no understanding of what the Church actually teaches about the Bible upon completion of the course. Not even the Gospels are given as examples of history, so the student is likely to be left with the impression that perhaps nothing in the Bible actually happened.
Groome proposes that his methodology allows people to come to their own decisions about "their truth." He believes that it is important to just make the "Story" accessible, but that defending it or asserting its truth is to deny the work of the Holy Spirit in the person to whom it is presented. Ironically, the way in which the "Story" is presented, as well as the entire methodology of shared Christian praxis, is designed to manipulate a person into seeing it in a particular way. Rather than being presented as Truth, Christianity is presented as one frequently distorted option among many roads leading to God. The only absolutes are that orthodoxy is wrong (due to being sexist, absolutist, patriarchal, etc.) and that social justice, in the style of liberation and feminist theology and "creation spirituality," is what saves you.
So, what's a person to do upon finding this methodology present in his parish CCD program? Obviously, it's important to do what you can to have it replaced by a solid, faithful program such as the Faith and Life or Image of God series from Ignatius Press. But that's easier said than done. In order to present an effective case, you'll need to do a little homework and a lot of praying. I would highly recommend reading Eamonn Keane's A Generation Betrayed from Hatherleigh Press for a more thorough presentation of this topic than possible in a magazine article. You might also want to read Donna Steichen's Ungodly Rage, available from Ignatius Press, for an orthodox presentation of feminist theology, since it is one of the underpinnings of Groome's theology. Share what you have learned with other concerned parents in your parish. Then talk to your priest. He may not be aware of the problems with the program, since they are often very subtle. You might even convince him to read Keane's book. If that doesn't work, you can appeal to your bishop. Unfortunately, Groome seems to be well-respected in catechetical and episcopal circles, and these books have been rubberstamped by a committee at the USCCB. It may come down to withdrawing your children from the parish program and teaching them yourself, using one of the above-mentioned resources, while you continue to fight for the rights of the rest of the children to receive a truly Catholic education. It is also important to remember that parents have the primary right and responsibility to educate their children (Catechism, #1653, 2221-2225). It is time for us to insist that our rights in these matters be respected and that our children be educated in the Truths of the faith."


Stacey Johnson is correct in suggesting that faithful Catholics should "Beware of Thomas Groome and anything associated with him."  And this would certainly include the Worcester Diocese.

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.

The Diocese of Worcester's Commission for Women invites Peggy Patenaude to "Gather Us In"

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.

Ms. Patenaude, in her newsletter, has 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.


Dutch psychologist Gerard J.M. van den Aardweg, Ph.D., a specialist on homosexuality, writes:

"The term neurotic describes such relationships [same-sex] well. It suggests the ego-centeredness of the relationship; the attention-seeking instead of loving...Neurotic, in short, suggests all kinds of dramas and childish conflicts as well as the basic disinterestedness of in the partner, notwithstanding the shallow pretensions of 'love.' Nowhere is there more self-deception in the homosexual than in his representation of himself as a lover. One partner is important to the other only insofar as he satisfies that other's needs. Real, unselfish love for a desired partner would, in fact, end up destroying homosexual 'love'!" (Gerard J.M. van den Aardweg, The Battle for Normality, Ignatius Press, 1997, pp. 62-63).

"Van den Aardweg says that the claim that homosexuality is normal is one of those statements that are "so foolish that only intellectuals could believe them." It is like saying that anorexia nervosa is healthy. And he denies that homesexuality is caused by the genes, or the structure of the brain; the evidence shows that it is acquired. Nor is it a necessary result of effeminacy; it is the child's "self-perception as masculine or feminine" that makes the difference. It is caused by pressure to develop an opposite-sex role. Often mothers do not view or treat their sons as "real men," and fathers do not view or treat their daughters as "real girls." (From the Catholic Insight book review of "The Battle for Normality."

Pope Benedict XVI reminded us that:


"The first novelty of biblical faith consists, as we have seen, in its image of God. The second, essentially connected to this, is found in the image of man. The biblical account of creation speaks of the solitude of Adam, the first man, and God's decision to give him a helper. Of all other creatures, not one is capable of being the helper that man needs, even though he has assigned a name to all the wild beasts and birds and thus made them fully a part of his life. So God forms woman from the rib of man. Now Adam finds the helper that he needed: “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh” (Gen 2:23). Here one might detect hints of ideas that are also found, for example, in the myth mentioned by Plato, according to which man was originally spherical, because he was complete in himself and self-sufficient. But as a punishment for pride, he was split in two by Zeus, so that now he longs for his other half, striving with all his being to possess it and thus regain his integrity. While the biblical narrative does not speak of punishment, the idea is certainly present that man is somehow incomplete, driven by nature to seek in another the part that can make him whole, the idea that only in communion with the opposite sex can he become “complete”. The biblical account thus concludes with a prophecy about Adam: “Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife and they become one flesh” (Gen 2:24).

Two aspects of this are important. First, eros is somehow rooted in man's very nature; Adam is a seeker, who “abandons his mother and father” in order to find woman; only together do the two represent complete humanity and become “one flesh”. The second aspect is equally important. From the standpoint of creation, eros directs man towards marriage, to a bond which is unique and definitive; thus, and only thus, does it fulfil its deepest purpose. Corresponding to the image of a monotheistic God is monogamous marriage. Marriage based on exclusive and definitive love becomes the icon of the relationship between God and his people and vice versa. God's way of loving becomes the measure of human love. This close connection between eros and marriage in the Bible has practically no equivalent in extra-biblical literature." Pope Benedict XVI, Encyclical Letter Deus Caritas Est, No. 11).

How much longer will Bishop Robert J. McManus tolerate (and even approve of) dissident speakers who spread their poison to confuse the faithful? 

Susan Bailey, The Catholic Free Press and historical revisionism

The Catholic Free Press is published by the Roman Catholic Bishop of Worcester, the Most Rev. Robert J. McManus.  Unfortunately, Bishop McManus doesn't seem to spend enough time (if any at all) overseeing what goes into the publication.  It is a Bishop's vocation to watch over his diocese as a spiritual father (the word Bishop comes from the Greek word episcopos meaning overseer), ensuring that anything which is opposed to faith and morals is dealt with quickly and appropriately.

Once again, because of the Bishop's failure to oversee The Catholic Free Press and its content, the publication has engaged in historical revisionism as it attempts to re-write the legacy of the Commission for Women and one of its more prominent members - Mary T. Donovan.

Writing for The Catholic Free Press, Susan Bailey attempts to sell the idea that Mary Donovan, a member and former chairperson of the "Commission for Women" of the diocese whp passed away last month, was "a wise woman born of a deep faith," a woman whose wisdom was "devoid of arrogance." (In remembrance of a pioneer, February 8, 2013 edition of The Catholic Free Press).

In reality, Mary Donovan was an angry and self-important radical feminist who believed that it was her role to "correct" the living teaching office of the Catholic Church, the Magisterium.  But then, the commission she was associated with was little more itself than an instrument of dissent and radical feminist agitprop.  And nothing has changed.  Read my previous posts on the Commission for Women and its "Gather us In Conference" which features dissident speakers who agitate for women's ordination and New Age spirituality.

Writing for The Catholic Free Press back in 1992, Ms. Donovan freely acknowledged this herself.  In an article entitled "Save the women for the Church," she wrote: "Most of us on the Commission are diehards, women who decided long ago that women should have a place in the Church and that the Church needed women...What we want is simple.  We want to be considered active participants in the worship of God.  We want to move from the passive role where men study the Word of God, interpret it and relay the message to us.  We want to share the study, to discuss, refine, enlarge, enhance, dispute interpretation if necessary, and deliver the good news with equal stature and credibility.  We know that structure that exists today has no stairway for women that go to the top floor.  We know what problems exist in renovating..." (May 22, 1992 edition of The Catholic Free Press).

In another article published in the diocesan newspaper, Ms. Donovan insisted that there are, "..women who sense the same gifts within themselves as men who feel called to the service of God." (Women walk a Tightrope, January 29, 1992 edition of The Catholic Free Press).

While Mary Donovan and her cohorts were demanding women's ordination and the right to "dispute interpretation" of the Church's teaching, the Second Vatican Council had already taught authoritatively that, "...the task of authentically interpreting the Word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ." (Dei Verbum, No. 10).

Yes indeed, Mary Donovan was so wise and devoid of arrogance that she openly rejected the teaching of Vatican II and the perennial teaching of the Catholic Church, as exemplified in the post conciliar document entitled "The Ministerial Priesthood in the Light of the Mystery of Christ" that, "..we can never ignore the fact that Christ is a man.  Therefore, unless one is to disregard the importance of this symbolism for the economy of Revelation, it must be admitted that, in actions which demand the character of ordination and in which Christ Himself, the Author of the Covenant, the Bridegroom and Head of the Church, is represented, exercising His ministry of salvation - which is in the highest degree the case of the Eucharist - His role must be taken by a man."

Susan Bailey would have us believe that Mary Donovan was a "role model" and a "woman of strong faith."  But these lies do not square with the facts.  Mary Donovan was more of a petulant child who, along with her associates in dissent at the "Commission for Women," was more concerned with pursuing her own wants and desires ("we want, we want, we want") than on fulfilling the duties of her vocation while remaining obedient to Christ Jesus Who guides us through the living teaching office of His Church.

I too pray that Mary Donovan will "rest in peace."  For she lacked peace in her lifetime here on earth.

I agree with Father Daniel J. Becker on the need for exorcism and deliverance prayer...let's begin within the Diocese itself!

Pope Benedict XVI, a little while back, said that: "Today we see in a truly terrifying way that the greatest persecution of the church does not come from outside enemies but is born of sin within the church." (See here).  This truth is often downplayed by some when it is not forgotten altogether.  In this week's Catholic Free Press, Father Daniel J. Becker (who to his credit acknowledges that "each one of us is a sinner, with particular faults and bad habits which darken our souls"), writes in an article entitled "Shine the light on evil": "The truth of today's Gospel passage, 'men preferred darkness to light, because their works are evil' is evident at Planned Parenthood in Worcester.  Those promoting the evil of abortion do not want to hear the truth, nor do they want anyone else to hear it...Anyone paying attention can see that our society prefers darkness to light, and also can see 'an enemy's hand in this.' (Mt 13: 30)."

Unfortunately, the same may be said of many of those who have, or are currently, serving within the Worcester Diocese.  For example, Sister Anna Marie Kane, S.S.J., who served as Vicar of Religious for the diocese, once said that, "Abortion is a delicate and complex reality.  We must continue our struggle of respecting other's choices even if we don't agree with them."    Dr. Vincent Forde, who served in the Office of Religious Education for the diocese, when asked if contraception is sinful, responded by saying, "I have plenty of words from the Church that it is sinful.  I've not word from God on that." Dr. Forde also insisted that, "The Church does not have objective certainty in anything God has not revealed, and He has not on questions of contraception or homosexuality." Father Paul O'Connell, who served as a Religious Educator, said that, "The issue is not whether someone is sexually active before marriage, but is it moral and committed?" and "..whether someone should have sex before marriage is an individual moral decision, based on their conscience."  Douglas Kimball, who served with the Office of Family Life Ministry, asserted that, "Humanae Vitae is simply advice from the Pope.  The Pope did not mean this was the last word on the subject."

Just last year, the Worcester Commission for Women invited dissident theologian Elizabeth Dreyer to speak at its "Gather Us In" conference.  Dreyer is known for her dissent from the Church's teaching on women's ordination and was one of sixteen who signed a document agitating for change in the Church's teaching.  See here and here.

The Commission for Women has also featured Joyce Rupp as a speaker.  A self proclaimed "spiritual midwife," Rupp, a Catholic religious - at least in name -  claims to have learnt a lot from Eagle Crux a native American spiritualist and feels that she resonates with mystical islamic sufism. She tells us that everything is made of stardust including ourselves and that stones have as much right to be here as we have, infact more so because they have been here longer. Her books include how to draw sacred mandela dancing circles and even have the rites for the blessing of the sexual organs! On Ireland she says that the Irish love of learning was first fostered by the wise druids and in the same article goes on to extoll New-Ageism as valuable and that some in the church are envious of it because it draws people toward spiritual growth. In her work entitled "Cosmic Dance," Rupp describes an encounter with a group of lesbians: :Different from me, thousands of them. Holding hands, kissing, arms around each other, stretching me beyond the safe world of heterosexuality. A gathering of lesbians challenging me to enter a world I never visit."

 I could go on but you get the idea.  Years of institutionalized apostasy have taken their toll on a diocese crippled by a deep spiritual sickness.  I agree with Fr. Becker when he says that, "There is evidence for [a] connection between demonic activity and the abortion industry.."  Which is why I called for deliverance prayer in Fitchburg, Massachusetts when Planned Parenthood set up shop.  My call was simply ignored. See here.

I fully agree with Father Becker that exorcism prayers will drive out the demons which are behind the demonic abortion industry.  I also support deliverance prayer and fasting (and most importantly the Sacrament of Penance - hence the title of this Blog which is dedicated to Our Lady of La Salette who brings us to reconciliation with her Son Jesus) as weapons in the spiritual battle.  But just as Jesus cleansed the Temple with a whip fashioned by cord, we must first cleanse the local Church before seeking to evangelize a broken world which prefers darkness to light.  Why?  Because until we remove the plank from our own eyes, we will not be able to see clearly enough to remove the speck from our brother's eye.  Yes, I believe somebody said that.  Hence the old axiom: Nemo potest dare quod non habet - You can't give what you do not possess.

When can we expect the Diocese or Worcester to begin?

The Catholic Free Press and Eco-Feminist Sister Kathy Sherman, CSJ

Donna Steichen, the author of Ungodly Rage, explains the identifying characteristics of Eco-feminism.  She writes, "Religion is the heart of the Catholic school curriculum. But in today's Catholic schools, it may not be the Catholic religion. Feminist spirituality-the religion of WomenChurch-is pushing Catholicism out of the heart of the parochial curriculum in many places. Its identifying characteristics are the gradual displacement of traditional Catholic doctrine, culture and practices with a subtle but relentless infusion of feminist theology, steady but stealthy movement toward the worship of a female deity in feminist rituals, inappropriate if not obsessive focus on sex education, and fanatic environmentalism..."  (See here).

Writing in this week's edition of the dissent-friendly diocesan newspaper The Catholic Free Press [Diocese of Worcester, Massachusetts], Mary Donovan, a member of the Worcester Commission for Women, an organization which promotes New Age relativism with the blessing of the diocese, promotes yet another speaker who will be appearing at the Commission for Women's "Gather Us In" conference to be held this November.  Writing about Kathy Sherman, CSJ, she says, "She has a strong commitment to earth issues, to saving and healing planet Earth.  She works to help others understand that the universe is an interconnected whole that is sacred and in need of our protection..." (See here).

Actually, Sister Sherman does more than that.  She promotes the Eco-feminism described by Donna Steichen above.  And, as this article explains, "Eco-feminism is basically the same as the earth-centered and feminist centered belief of Wicca (witchcraft).  Note how Mary Donovan capitalizes the word "earth" even though it comes at the end of the sentence.  For the Eco-feminist, the Wiccan, worships the earth.  Eco-feminism embraces not only a fanatic environmentalism but relativism.  As Pope Benedict XVI has warned, "There is..a consciously antirationalist response to the experience that 'everything is relative,' a complex reality that is lumped together under the title of New Age. The way out of the dilemma of relativism is now sought, not in a new encounter of the 'I' with the 'Thou' or the 'We,' but in overcoming subjective consciousness, in a re-entry into the dance of the cosmos through ecstasy. As in the case of Gnosis in the ancient world, this way believes itself to be fully in tune with all the teachings and the claims of science, making use of scientific knowledge of every kind (biology, psychology, sociology, physics). At the same time, however, it offers against this background a a completely antirationalist pattern of religion, a modern 'mysticism': the absolute is, not something to be believed in, but something to be experienced. God is not a person distinct from the world; rather, he is the spiritual energy that is at work throughout the universe. Religion means bringing my self into tune with the cosmic whole, the transcending of all divisions...Objectifying reason, New Age thinking tells us, closes our way to the mystery of reality; existing as the self shuts us out from the fullness of cosmic reality; it destroys the harmony of the whole and is the real reason for our being unredeemed. Redemption lies in breaking down the limits of the self, in plunging into the fullness of life and all that is living, in going back home to the universe....The gods are returning. They have become more credible than God. Aboriginal rites must be renewed in which the self is initiated into the mysteries of the universe and freed from its own self. There are many reasons for the renewal of pre-Christian religions and cults that is being widely undertaken today. If there is no truth shared by everyone, a truth that is valid simply because it is true, then Christianity is merely a foreign import, a form of spiritual imperialism, which needs to be shaken off just as much as political imperialism. If what takes place in the sacraments is not the encounter with the one living God of all men, then they are empty rituals that mean nothing and give us nothing and, at best, allow us to sense the numinous element that is actively present in all religions. It then seems to make better sense to seek after what was originally our own than to permit alien and antiquated things to be imposed on us. But above all, if the 'rational intoxication' of the Christian mystery cannot make us intoxicated with God, then we just have to conjure up the real, concrete intoxication of effective ecstasies, the passionate power of which catches us up and turns us, at least for a moment, into gods..." (Truth and Tolerance, pp. 126-128).

Related reading here.

Bishop Robert J. McManus has personally approved dissident theologian Elizabeth Dreyer to speak at the 2011 "Gather Us In" Conference?

Pope John Paul II, in his book entitled "Rise, Let Us Be On Our Way," in a chapter entitled simply "The Shepherd," writes, "Christian tradition has adopted the biblical image of the shepherd in three forms: as the one who carries the lost sheep on his shoulders, as the one who leads his flocks to green pastures, and as the one who gathers his sheep with his staff and protects them from danger. 

In all three images there is a recurring theme: The shepherd is for the sheep, not the sheep for the shepherd.  He is bound so closely to them, if he is a real shepherd, that he is ready to lay down his life for the sheep (John 10:11).  Every year during the twenty-fourth and twenty-fifth week of Ordinary Time, the Liturgy of the Hours presents Saint Augustine's long sermon 'On the Shepherds.'  With reference to the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel, the bishop of Hippo strongly rebukes evil shepherds, who are concerned not for the sheep but only for themselves.  'Let us see how the word of God, that flatters no one, addresses the shepherds who are feeding themselves, not the sheep.  'You take the milk, you clothe yourselves with the wool, you slaughter the fatlings; but you do not feed my sheep.  The weak you have not strenghtened, the sick you have not healed, the crippled you have not bound up, the strayed you have not brought back, the lost you have not sought; any strong one you have killed; and my sheep are scattered because there is no shepherd.'" (pp. 63-64).

And in the chapter entitled "Courageous in Faith," the Holy Father, citing Stefan Cardinal Wyszynski, writes, "'The bishop has the duty to serve not only through his words and through the liturgy, but also through offering up his sufferings.'  Cardinal Wyszynski returned to these thoughts again on another occasion: 'Lack of courage in a bishop is the beginning of disaster.  Can he still be an apostle?  Witnessing to the Truth is essential for an apostle.  And this always demands courage.'  These words are also his: 'The greatest weakness in an apostle is fear.  What gives rise to fear is lack of confidence in the power of the Lord; this is what oppresses the heart and tightens the throat.  The apostle then ceases to offer witness.  Does he remain an apostle?  The disciples who abandoned the Master increased the courage of the executioners.  Silence in the presence of the enemies of a cause encourages them.  Fear in an apostle is the principal ally of the enemies of the cause'...Truly, there can be no turning one's back upon the truth, ceasing to proclaim it, hiding it, even if it is a hard truth that can only be revealed at the cost of great suffering.  'You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free' (John 8:32): this is our duty and our source of strength!  Here there is no room for compromise nor for an opportunistic recourse to human diplomacy.  We have to bear witness to the truth, even at the cost of persecutions, even to the shedding of our blood, like Christ Himself..." (pp. 190-191).

Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz (God love him) has displayed the courage of a real shepherd.  Back in 1996, His Excellency warned that membership in certain dissenting groups "is always perilous to the Catholic Faith and most often is totally incompatible with the Catholic Faith."  See here.

It would appear that the Bishop of Worcester, Massachusetts, lacks this same courage.  I say this because according to Susan W. Bailey of the Diocese's "Commission for Women," all of the speakers for the Commission's 2011 "Gather Us In" Conference "were vetted and approved of by Bishop McManus."  See the comments at this thread of the Commission's Blog here.

This would have to include Elizabeth Dreyer, who has agitated for a long time in support of women's ordination   The same radical feminist theologian who has asserted that "There's a lot of misogyny and oppression" in the Catholic Church.  See here.

This represents a real prayer need.  Pray for the Bishop of Worcester, His Excellency The Most Rev. Robert J. McManus.  That he may have the courage to speak out against such dissent and the fortitude to insist that those who dissent from the mind of Christ will not be permitted to speak at Catholic functions within his diocese.

California legislators propose homosexual indoctrination of children

California lawmakers are proposing a law that would require schools to portray homosexuals, lesbians, transsexuals and those who have chosen other alternative sexual lifestyles [pedophilia?] as positive role models to children in all public schools.  The Campaign for Children and Families warns that under this proposed legislation, "children as young as kindergarten will be taught to admire homosexuality, same-sex 'marriages,' bisexuality, and transsexuality."

The Pontifical Council for the Family, in its document entitled The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality, cites Pope John Paul II in Familiaris Consortio: "'The right and duty of parents to give education is essential, since it is connected with the transmission of human life; it is original and primary with regard to the educational role of others, on account of the uniqueness of the loving relationship between parents and children; and it is irreplaceable and inalienable, and therefore incapable of being entirely delegated to others or usurped by others', except in the case, as mentioned at the beginning, of physical or psychological impossibility." (No. 41).

This important document then explains that, "This doctrine is based on the teaching of the Second Vatican Council, and is also proclaimed by the Charter of the Rights of the Family: 'Since they have conferred life on their children, parents have the original, primary and inalienable right to educate them; hence they ...have the right to educate their children in conformity with their moral and religious convictions, taking into account the cultural traditions of the family which favour the good and the dignity of the child; they should also receive from society the necessary aid and assistance to perform their educational role properly'. The Pope insists upon the fact that this holds especially with regard to sexuality: 'Sex education, which is a basic right and duty of parents, must always be carried out under their attentive guidance, whether at home or in educational centres chosen and controlled by them. In this regard, the Church reaffirms the law of subsidiarity, which the school is bound to observe when it cooperates in sex education, by entering into the same spirit that animates the parents'. The Holy Father adds, 'In view of the close links between the sexual dimension of the person and his or her ethical values, education must bring the children to a knowledge of and respect for the moral norms as the necessary and highly valuable guarantee for responsible personal growth in human sexuality'. No one is capable of giving moral education in this delicate area better than duly prepared parents." (The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality, Nos 42, 43).

As I said in a previous post, the new humanitarian religion of Antichrist will embrace homosexuality and any other form of deviancy.  Pleasure will be the ultimate principle.  And children must be indoctrinated in the ways of Hell so that they may take their place in the New Satanic Society, the Moloch State where the only thing which will be forbidden is orthodox Christianity.  Under this new satanic religion, all will be encouraged to create their own reality according to what feels right to them.  This spirit is already infecting certain corners of the Church.  See here for example.

This New Age relativism is promoted by the Worcester Commission for Women [Diocese of Worcester, Massachusetts]. In a Blog post which may be found here, the Commission has published a prayer by New Age advocate Joyce Rupp. Ms. Rupp writes, "We will make choices and decisions in 2010 of how we create our reality." She prays that we will all "..let go of aversion and avoidance of the unwanted" so that we will, "welcome people and events disturbing [our] comfort zone."


Sister Joyce Rupp, a self-proclaimed spiritual midwife who feels that she resonates with mystical islamic sufism, has extolled New-Ageism as valuable and claims to have stretched herself "beyond the safe world of heterosexuality" while attending a "gathering of lesbians." And this certainly explains what she means when she prays that we "let go of aversion and avoidance of the unwanted." In an interview with US Catholic (April 2000), Sister Joyce Rupp said that, "In many ways, New Age has become the new enemy. That's unfortunate because some things about New Age are valuable...I think some Church people are envious about New Age, because it does draw people toward spiritual growth."

There you have it.  A new credo for a New Age.  Create your own reality.  And if that reality entails engaging in homosexual acts then so be it.  Do what feels good for you.  This is what the sons of hell want to impart to your children.  It is an education for Hell.