Update on the Saint Benedict Center Cult

 

From The Union Leader:

The ultra-traditionalist Catholic organization located in Richmond, the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, had their appeal of Bishop Peter Libasci’s restrictions on them rejected by Vatican officials.

“Rome chose not to consider the appeal,” said Rev. Georges de Laire, the judicial vicar and vicar for canonical affairs for the Diocese of Manchester.

The Slaves, who operate the St. Benedict Center on Fay Martin Road, were ordered to stop calling themselves a Catholic organization in January 2019 under the terms of a letter sent to the group by the diocese. See here.

The group was given an extensive list of prohibitions in the precepts letter, including a restriction against raising money for any Catholic entity, and a restriction on having any priest celebrate Mass or any of the Catholic sacraments at its compound. New Hampshire Catholics are warned to stay away from the group.

The leader of the group, Louis Villarubia, who goes by Brother Andre Marie, did not respond to a request for comment.

The group appealed the orders to the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, or CDF, the Vatican governing body that defends Catholic teaching. However, they missed the deadline for that appeal, according to de Laire.

“The decision from CDF says that it was rejected because it fell outside the statute of limitations,” de Laire said. “The decision holds them to the observance of the decree.”

The ruling means that the Slaves must now follow the same rules as all other Catholics, de Laire said. The dispute between the diocese and the Slaves goes back to the Slaves' founding principles. The Slaves were started by the Rev. Leonard Feeney in the 1950s. Feeney held anti-Semitic beliefs and was for a time excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church.

Feeney also taught that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. While that is the official doctrine of the church, the way the Slaves interpret that teaching has put them on the wrong side of Rome, according to letters from the CDF to Villarubia.

The group’s strict adherence to the Catholic teaching of “no salvation outside the Church” is in conflict with the instructions it received years ago from the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith. The CDF’s undersecretary, Monsignor Giacomo Morandi, wrote in a 2016 letter that the group’s theological position was “unacceptable,” and not subject to further discussion.

The group does not allow for the possibility that non-Catholics can be saved through the grace of God, which goes against the full teaching of the church, according to Morandi’s letter.

Villarubia, like the Slaves’ original founder, Feeney, has a history of making anti-Semitic remarks, which has garnered notoriety for the Slaves. Villarubia has called Jewish people the “worst enemy of the Church.”

The Slaves in Richmond are a splinter group that left the Still River, Mass., Slaves organization after Feeney reconciled with Rome shortly before his death. The Slaves in Massachusetts are no longer connected to the Richmond group.

Talks are now underway between de Laire and the Slaves on how they can live in compliance with the bishop's demands.

“We are now engaged in an effort to dialogue, to encourage them to observe the (2019) document,” de Laire said. “It is a complicated relationship that the diocese has with the Slaves and vice-versa.”

Since Libasci's precepts were published and the Slaves lost the right to have a priest celebrate Mass at their compound, Libasci has arranged for a priest from Nashua travel every Sunday to St. Stanislaus Church in Winchester to celebrate a Mass in in Latin using the pre-Vatican II form of the liturgy. This is at the same time that Keene's Parish of the Holy Spirit, which oversees the Winchester church, has been forced to eliminate Mass in English in Winchester because of a lack of priests.

De Laire said there is hope that the rift between the Slaves and Manchester can be mended, and Libasci remains dedicated to serving them as bishop.

“The bishop remains hopeful that a solution can be identified,” de Laire said. “The bishop is committed to the Slaves and their supporters, as they are members of the church and he owes them ministry.”

In 2009, the group’s then-leader, Brother Francis Maluf, signed a letter of obedience to then Bishop John McCormack renouncing anti-Semitism, and several articles about Jewish people were removed from the group’s website. McCormack then allowed the group to bring in a priest of good standing to celebrate Mass for them in Richmond.

For the Church charity is everything; For the Worcester Diocese, some aren't deserving

According to a concluding statement at the end of last month's Synod, “Christ wanted his Church to be a house with doors always open to welcome everyone,” without leaving anyone out. Hence bishops are called to “accompany couples and families and care for their personal and social wounds.” See here.

The Worcester Diocese apparently disagrees.  For I have expressed my interest in discerning a vocation to the priesthood but have been excluded from such a discernment process.  See here.

And when I tried to volunteer at the parish level or have a Mass said for my father, I was put off.  This is not charity. This is hatred and violence.

In his Encyclical Letter Caritas In Veritate, Pope Benedict XVI wrote, Charity is at the heart of the Church's social doctrine. Every responsibility and every commitment spelt out by that doctrine is derived from charity which, according to the teaching of Jesus, is the synthesis of the entire Law (cf. Mt 22:36- 40). It gives real substance to the personal relationship with God and with neighbour; it is the principle not only of micro-relationships (with friends, with family members or within small groups) but also of macro-relationships (social, economic and political ones). For the Church, instructed by the Gospel, charity is everything because, as Saint John teaches (cf. 1 Jn 4:8, 16) and as I recalled in my first Encyclical Letter, “God is love” (Deus Caritas Est): everything has its origin in God's love, everything is shaped by it, everything is directed towards it. Love is God's greatest gift to humanity, it is his promise and our hope."

The Worcester Diocese is not thriving.  In fact, it is gradually disintegrating.  Parishes are closing.  Many are deserting the Church.  They sense the lack of commitment toward authentic charity.  Many just don't feel welcome.

The Diocese of Worcester is betraying love.  It operates as more of a private clique where a few individuals determine who is welcome at the table and who is not.  Who gets the sacraments and who does not.  Who gets to apply for the priesthood and who doesn't. Who may participate in the life of a parish and who may not.

Saint Gregory the Great said that, "The proof of love is in the works.  Where love exists, it works great things.  But when it ceases to act, it ceases to exist."

Too bad Bishop McManus doesn't reflect on that.

Sir Trevor Phillips: Christians, and only Christians, should be denied religious freedom and conscience rights

Saint Thomas Aquinas explains that a law is just if it corresponds to the divine law.  If civil law does conform to the divine law, then it has the power to bind us in conscience and to disobey such a law would be a sin.  But human law cannot exceed the power of its human authors.  Aquinas teaches that the law which is promulgated must correspond to the divine law.  No human authority can declare what is morally evil to be morally good.  For this reason, laws permitting slavery, abortion, euthanasia, divorce and "marriages" between persons of the same gender are immoral, and therefore unjust (Summa theologiae, I-II, q. 96, a.5).

In his Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae, Nos. 72-74, Pope John Paul II teaches that, "The doctrine on the necessary conformity of civil law with the moral law is in continuity with the whole tradition of the Church. This is clear once more from John XXIII’s Encyclical: 'Authority is a postulate of the moral order and derives from God. Consequently,laws and decrees enacted in contravention of the moral order,and hence of the divine will,can have no binding force in conscience…;indeed,the passing of such laws undermines the very nature of authority and results in shameful abuse'. This is the clear teaching of Saint Thomas Aquinas,who writes that 'human law is law inasmuch as it is in conformity with right reason and thus derives from the eternal law. But when a law is contrary to reason,it is called an unjust law; but in this case it ceases to be a law and becomes instead an act of violence'. And again: 'Every law made by man can be called a law insofar as it derives from the natural law. But if it is somehow opposed to the natural law, then it is not really a law but rather a corruption of the law'.


Now the first and most immediate application of this teaching concerns a human law which disregards the fundamental right and source of all other rights which is the right to life, a right belonging to every individual. Consequently, laws which legitimize the direct killing of innocent human beings through abortion or euthanasia are in complete opposition to the inviolable right to life proper to every individual; they thus deny the equality of everyone before the law. It might be objected that such is not the case in euthanasia, when it is requested with full awareness by the person involved. But any State which made such a request legitimate and authorized it to be carried out would be legalizing a case of suicide-murder, contrary to the fundamental principles of absolute respect for life and of the protection of every innocent life. In this way the State contributes to lessening respect for life and opens the door to ways of acting which are destructive of trust in relations between people. Laws which authorize and promote abortion and euthanasia are therefore radically opposed not only to the good of the individual but also to the common good ;as such they are completely lacking in authentic juridical validity. Disregard for the right to life, precisely because it leads to the killing of the person whom society exists to serve, is what most directly conflicts with the possibility of achieving the common good. Consequently, a civil law authorizing abortion or euthanasia ceases by that very fact to be a true, morally binding civil law.

Abortion and euthanasia are thus crimes which no human law can claim to legitimize. There is no obligation in conscience to obey such laws; instead there is a grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. From the very beginnings of the Church, the apostolic preaching reminded Christians of their duty to obey legitimately constituted public authorities (cf. Rom 13:1-7;1 Pet 2:13-14), but at the same time it firmly warned that 'we must obey God rather than men'(Acts 5:29). In the Old Testament, precisely in regard to threats against life, we find a significant example of resistance to the unjust command of those in authority. After Pharaoh ordered the killing of all newborn males, the Hebrew midwives refused. 'They did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but let the male children live'(Ex 1:17). But the ultimate reason for their action should be noted: 'the midwives feared God' (ibid.). It is precisely from obedience to God-to whom alone is due that fear which is acknowledgment of his absolute sovereignty-that the strength and the courage to resist unjust human laws are born. It is the strength and the courage of those prepared even to be imprisoned or put to the sword, in the certainty that this is what makes for 'the endurance and faith of the saints' (Rev 13:10).

In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to 'take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law, or vote for it'.

A particular problem of conscience can arise in cases where a legislative vote would be decisive for the passage of a more restrictive law, aimed at limiting the number of authorized abortions,in place of a more permissive law already passed or ready to be voted on. Such cases are not infrequent. It is a fact that while in some parts of the world there continue to be campaigns to introduce laws favouring abortion,often supported by powerful international organizations, in other nations-particularly those which have already experienced the bitter fruits of such permissive legislation-there are growing signs of a rethinking in this matter. In a case like the one just mentioned,when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official,whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.

The passing of unjust laws often raises difficult problems of conscience for morally upright people with regard to the issue of cooperation, since they have a right to demand not to be forced to take part in morally evil actions. Sometimes the choices which have to be made are difficult; they may require the sacrifice of prestigious professional positions or the relinquishing of reasonable hopes of career advancement. In other cases, it can happen that carrying out certain actions,which are provided for by legislation that overall is unjust, but which in themselves are indifferent, or even positive,can serve to protect human lives under threat. There may be reason to fear, however, that willingness to carry out such actions will not only cause scandal and weaken the necessary opposition to attacks on life, but will gradually lead to further capitulation to a mentality of permissiveness.

In order to shed light on this difficult question,it is necessary to recall the general principles concerning cooperation in evil actions. Christians, like all people of good will, are called upon under grave obligation of conscience not to cooperate formally in practices which, even if permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to God’s law. Indeed, from the moral standpoint,it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil. Such cooperation occurs when an action, either by its very nature or by the form it takes in a concrete situation, can be defined as a direct participation in an act against innocent human life or a sharing in the immoral intention of the person committing it. This cooperation can never be justified either by invoking respect for the freedom of others or by appealing to the fact that civil law permits it or requires it. Each individual in fact has moral responsibility for the acts which he personally performs;no one can be exempted from this responsibility, and on the basis of it everyone will be judged by God himself (cf. Rom 2:6;14:12).

To refuse to take part in committing an injustice is not only a moral duty; it is also a basic human right. Were this not so, the human person would be forced to perform an action intrinsically incompatible with human dignity, and in this way human freedom itself, the authentic meaning and purpose of which are found in its orientation to the true and the good, would be radically compromised. What is at stake therefore is an essential right which, precisely as such, should be acknowledged and protected by civil law. In this sense,the opportunity to refuse to take part in the phases of consultation, preparation and execution of these acts against life should be guaranteed to physicians, health-care personnel, and directors of hospitals, clinics and convalescent facilities. Those who have recourse to conscientious objection must be protected not only from legal penalties but also from any negative effects on the legal, disciplinary,financial and professional plane."

Deacon Nick Donnelly over at Protect the Pope is reporting that Sir Trevor Phillips, the Head of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, has stated categorically that freedom of religion and freedom of conscience is restricted to within the confines of church buildings if they conflict with secular law.  Sir Phillips has been quoted as having said that, "the law stops at the door of the temple as far as I am concerned."  He has accused Christians who insist upon following the teachings of Christ and their consciences of wanting to impose "sharia law"on the UK.

Deacon Nick comments, "The Equality Commissioner, like the Obama administration, is attempting to re-define freedom of religion as freedom to worship. It’s a verbal slight of hand that seeks to strip away our basic human rights as religious believers in public life and wider society. Basically he’s saying we’re free to practice our faith within our church buildings but nowhere else in society.

Trevor Phillips has already removed our right to practice the moral teachings of the faith within our own homes, because, for example, if we run a bed and breakfast we have to allow homosexuals to sleep together in rooms in our houses, or else be taken to court and fined.

Trevor Phillips, and his like, have removed the rights of parents to bring their children up in the faith, because if our children, as young as 13, want contraception or abortion the State will provide it without parental knowledge or consent.

Trevor Phillips trivializes Catholic moral teaching on sexuality and parenthood by saying that we just 'decided we’re different’and that we need a different set of laws'. Catholics didn’t decide we’re different when parliament changed the law, we remained steadfast in upholding the moral law...
Trevor Phillips is also hypocritical by saying Christian demands to follow their teachings and consciences are equivalent to wanting to impose sharia law. Sharia law is being exercised in the UK, creating a parallel legal system with the support of the liberal establishment in this country as an expression of 'diversity'. Here’s the BBC’s support for sharia law in the UK:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7234870.stm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9088957/Trevor-Phillips-stands-by-ridiculous-Sharia-comparison.html

Deacon Nick raises an excellent point here.  When the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, said that it "seems unavoidable" that the UK will have to "face up to the fact" that millions of Muslims do not relate to the British legal system and implied that British law should accommodate Sharia law, where was Sir Phillips?  When the Archbishop said that, "There's a place for finding what would be a constructive accommodation with some aspects of Muslim law," ("Sharia Law for UK is 'Unavoidable,'" BBC News, Feb 7, 2008), Sir Phillips was strangely silent.
It's obvious that Sir Phillip is anxious to strip Christians of their religious freedoms and to deny them - and apparently only them - of the right to follow their conscience.

Interesting no?

President Obama, who claims to be a Christian, has denied that America is a Christian nation

Back in 2009, in an article for Salon.com entitled "America is not a Christian nation," Michael Lind wrote, "Is America a Christian nation, as many conservatives claim it is?  One American doesn't think so.  In his press conference on April 6 in Turkey, President Obama explained: 'One of the great strengths of the United States is...we have a very large Christian population - we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation. We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values.'  Predictably, Obama's remarks have enraged conservative talking heads.  But Obama's observations have ample precedent in American diplomacy and constitutional thought..."  (See here for full article).

Unfortunately for Mr. Lind, the facts of history do not support his theory.  The Charter of New England of 1620 declared that the primary objective of the colony was "the enlargement of Christian religion, to the Glory of God Almighty."  The Mayflower Compact stated clearly that the purpose of the colony was the "advancement of the Christian Faith."  Larry Schweikart notes, in his book "48 Liberal Lies About American History," that: "The founding documents of every one of the original thirteen colonies reveals them to be awash in the concepts of Christianity and God.  Whatever the documents intended by 'religious freedom,' they never in any way, shape, or form intended the state to interfere with Christian religious expression.  It is therefore silly and unsupported to claim, as religious historian Jon Butler tries to do, that "Revolutionary America Wasn't a Christian Nation.'  Christians played so dominant a role in the American revolution that Joseph Galloway, a Loyalist, complained that the rebellion was led by "Congregationalists, Presbyterians, and Smugglers.'.." (Larry Schweikhart, 48 Liberal Lies About American History, p. 75).

President Obama and his minions may believe that America was not founded as a Christian nation.  But the Supreme Court, in its unanimous decision in Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States (1892), said that: "Our laws and institutions necessarily are based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind...In this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian...This is a Christian nation."

President Obama and his minions, in their push for a secularist Socialist State, are engaging in revisionist history when they deny that America was founded as a Christian nation.  Again Larry Schweikart:

"The Continental Congress in 1777 ordered a day of thanksgiving and praise that the people 'join the penitent confession of their manifold sins...that the day, through their humble and ernest supplication...may please God, through the merits of Jesus Christ..." (Schweikart, p. 73).  If America was not a Christian nation, what was the Continental Congress doing praying - and exhorting others to pray - through the merits of Jesus Christ?  This is, of course, an insurmountable problem for historical revisionists such as Michael Lind and Barack Obama.

Schweikart continues:

"Even the supposed Deist Benjamin Franklin urged the members of the Constitutional Convention to pray, saying, 'I have lived, sir, a long time, and, the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth - that God governs in the affairs of men.  And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid?  We have been assured, sir, in the sacred writings, that 'except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it.'" (Schweikart, p. 73).

While Barack Obama and his minions are doing their best to re-write American history and to deny our Christian heritage, a Chinese think tank has said that Christianity is what made America great. See here.

Father Emile "Mike" Boutin and Mandated Reporting

The Archdiocese of Boston, as explained here, says that "The law of the Archdiocese of Boston requires all clergy, archdiocesan personnel, and volunteers to contact the appropriate civil authorities when a person has knowledge or reasonable cause to suspect that a person under eighteen (18) years of age is being, or has been, abused or neglected."

And yet, Father Emile "Mike" Boutin, who is now being charged with indecent assault and battery on an adult male, has reflected on the abuse crisis within the Church at his Blog and has said that "..one of the 'serial offenders' was my friend and priest mentor. He was the pastor of my home parish, and served as my priest mentor in a number of parishes I worked in during the summer while in the seminary. On the day of my ordination, he was chosen by me to put the priestly vestment, the chasuble, over my head for the first time. He abused countless altar boys, including most of the ones who served at my First Mass as a priest...I don't look at my ordination or First Mass pictures any more...Why won't I name him? Why don't I just print his name here and destroy his life the way he destroyed so many other lives? Because I can't...and that's part of the problem."

And so, Father Boutin refuses to comply with both civil and ecclesiastical law. And in refusing to report crimes against innocent children, Father Boutin betrays justice: the giving to another of what is due him. The Catechism of the Catholic Church tells us that, "Justice toward men disposes one to respect the rights of each and to establish in human relationships the harmony that promotes equity with regard to persons and to the common good." (1807).

Father Boutin would rather ignore the rights of those abused by a "serial offender" in order to protect a friend, a "mentor." Some mentor. And so he turns his back on innocent children. He refuses to look at pictures which might disturb his conscience.

It was Cardinal O' Malley who said, during his Installation Homily given on July 30, 2003, that: "...the Catholic Church is working to create a safe environment for young people in our Churches, schools and agencies. It must never be business as usual, but rather a firm commitment of every diocese, parish and school to do all we can to avoid the mistakes of the past and create safeguards for the future."

I guess Father Boutin wasn't in the audience that day.

Small wonder that Catholics United has been critical of Father James Rafferty's decision...

Shortly after Father James Rafferty, pastor of St. Paul's parish in Hingham, Massachusetts, denied admission to a student whose parents are lesbian, the dissent group Catholic United, which is highly partisan and supports President Obama, launched a petition accusing St. Paul's of engaging in discrimination. See here. Catholics United, at its website, describes itself as, "a non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to promoting the message of justice and the common good found at the heart of the Catholic social tradition."

But the fact that Catholics United is anything but non-partisan is obvious to anyone who takes the time to visit the organization's website. For Catholics United promotes the Catholic Campaign for Human Development (CCHD), an organization which was inspired by radical agitator Saul Alinsky, a Marxist who dedicated his Rules for Radicals to Lucifer, whom he called "the first radical."

According to American Life League's Michael Hichborn, "..no less than fifty organizations (one-fifth of all CCHD grantees from 2009) are, in some capacity, engaged in pro-abortion or pro-homosexual causes." See here. And James Salt, Director of Organizing for Catholics United, has worked for Pax Christi USA, another prominent dissent group which is rooted in New Age spirtuality.


Related reading on CCHD here.

Homosexual adoption subjects children to violence. See here.

Does the Archdiocese of Boston respect those evangelical values which provide the basis for educational norms?

As reported here, Father James Rafferty, pastor of St. Paul's parish in Hingham, Massachusetts, denied admission to a student whose parents are openly homosexual. LifeSiteNews is reporting that the Archdiocese of Boston, rather than backing up this courageous priest who cares for souls, will help find a Catholic school for the ward of the lesbian parents who was denied admission on the basis of their illicit relationship. See here.

This is most unfortunate. For, as Father William Breslin of Sacred Heart Church in Boulder, Colorado made clear during a similar case which took place earlier this year, "It is not about punishing the child for the sins of his or her parents. It is simply that the lesbian couple is saying that their relationship is a good one that should be accepted by everyone; and the Church cannot agree to that." (See here).

Father Breslin is right. The Church cannot condone what is an illicit relationship or even appear to do so. She teaches in fact that, "There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God's plan for marriage and family. Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law. Homosexual acts 'close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved." (Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons, No. 4).

What is it exactly about this teaching that the Archdiocese of Boston does not understand? By declaring that it will find a Catholic school for the child in question, the Archdiocese of Boston is providing a tacit acceptance of a homosexual relationship. Additionally, the Archdiocese of Boston has forgotten that, "The implementation of a real educational community, built on the foundation of shared projected values, represents a serious task that must be carried out by the Catholic school. In this setting, the presence both of students and of teachers from different cultural and religious backgrounds requires an increased commitment of discernment and accompaniment. The preparation of a shared project acts as a stimulus that should force the Catholic school to be a place of ecclesial experience. Its binding force and potential for relationships derive from a set of values and a communion of life that is rooted in our common belonging to Christ. Derived from the recognition of evangelical values are educational norms, motivational drives and also the final goals of the school. Certainly the degree of participation can differ in relation to one's personal history, but this requires that educators be willing to offer a permanent commitment to formation and self-formation regarding a choice of cultural and life values to be made present in the educational community." (Congregation for Catholic Education, Educating Together in Catholic Schools: A Shared Mission Between Consecrated Persons and the Lay Faithful, No. 5).

Let's all pray that the Boston Archdiocese will rethink its decision to find a Catholic school for the student in question. It sends the wrong message. And such an attitude fails to respect those evangelical values which provide the basis for educational norms.