Showing posts with label Don't. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Don't. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 10, 2019
Catholics in name only: Don't criticize "Culture Warrior" Catholics
From Phil Lawler over at CatholicCulture.org:
"'Pride Month' has come to an end. And for the first two days of July, the first readings at Mass told the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. I’d call that a coincidence—if I believed in coincidences.

Just after the middle of the month, Joseph Sciambra posted a very provocative comment on his Facebook page. Sciambra knows whereof he speaks; having once been caught up in the homosexual underworld, since experiencing a conversion he has made it his special mission to reach out to homosexuals, helping to heal their wounds. And they are wounded. The grotesque excesses on display at 'Gay Pride' events are evidence that these people need help. Sciambra observes:
But there is a far greater evil (than any 'Pride' Parade) that goes largely unchecked and mostly unchallenged in the Catholic Church: the ongoing problem of priests and prelates and their lay underlings who openly disseminate their own spin on LGBT propaganda. What makes their actions grossly evil—is that they do so in the name of God.
Building on Sciambra’s argument, let me suggest that when Catholics complain about the 'Pride' activists, they are aiming at the wrong target. Not because the complaints are unjustified—they are not—but because we have a more pressing problem on our hands. Before we lament what is happening on the city streets, let’s address what is happening in our own churches. We Catholics cannot restore sanity to society until we have restored integrity in our Church. We cannot continue fighting a two-front war.
In Hoboken, New Jersey, a Catholic parish capped the month with a 'Pride Mass,' encouraging members of the congregation to join the parade in New York. In Lexington, Kentucky, Bishop John Stowe offered a 'celebration of Pride' prayer card, featuring a crucifix bathed in rainbow-colored light. How can we expect to gain a hearing for Catholic moral teachings, when the Church issues such confusing messages?
Unfortunately, those examples in Hoboken and Lexington can no longer be considered exceptional. If you think your own diocese is free of such problems, you should probably think again. Are there one or two parishes that welcome and encourage LGBT activists? Has Father James Martin come to speak to a parish or college group? Are there gay-straight alliances in parochial schools? If so, then you should address that situation before you begin to worry about the secular activists. We must speak with clarity. We must show unity in support of Christian morality. We must display the integrity that comes only when we practice what we preach.
Liberal Catholics scoff at bishops and priests—yes, and internet pundits—who they dismiss as 'culture warriors.' But that characterization begs the question. Is there a culture war going on: a battle for the soul of our society? If you answer that question with a No, I probably can’t convince you otherwise. But if you say Yes, then don’t criticize the 'culture warrior' Catholics. On the contrary; you should criticize those who do not earn that sobriquet.
The battle is real, and the conflict is escalating. As a presidential candidate, just a bit more than a decade ago, Barack Obama opposed legal recognition of same-sex marriage. Today that stand would disqualify him as a Democratic candidate. A decade ago a frat boy might have earned guffaws from his classmates by suggesting (in jest) that biological men should have legal access to abortion; this year a Democratic presidential hopeful made that point in all seriousness.
And while the sexual revolutionaries continue to rack up victories, the middle ground is shrinking. Anyone who dares to oppose the LGBT agenda is subject to public denunciation for 'hate speech,' perhaps barred from social media, or even 'doxed' and harassed at home.
'Things fall apart, the centre cannot hold,' wrote Yeats in what is probably his most-quoted line. Look down just a couple of lines in that poem ( 'The Second Coming') and the Irish poet seems to be speaking of our own time:
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
We adults will survive these culture wars, one way or another. But think of the children; think of 'ceremony of innocence.' We owe it to our children to preserve their innocence, to preserve a culture in which they can find stability, serenity, and strength.
Do you want to know why I am a culture warrior? The Left will tell you that I’m consumed by fear. In a way that is true. I am afraid that if I remain silent, I shall have no defense when I am asked, 'What did you do during the culture wars, Grandpa?'
Don’t ask whether or not there is a war going on: a war for the soul of our society, a war for the integrity of our Church. There is. The right question to ask—first of yourself, then of your pastor and your bishop and your Catholic friends—is: Which side are you on?"
Precisely!
As I've warned so many times before at this Blog, the same radical homosexual activists who continually cry for more "tolerance" are anything but tolerant. This is a spiritual war. The homosexual movement is not a civil rights movement. It is an attempt at moral revolution. An attempt to change people's view of homosexuality. Writing in the Chicago Free Press, even homosexual activist Paul Varnell admitted this. He wrote, "The fundamental controverted issue about homosexuality is not discrimination, hate crimes or domestic partnerships, but the morality of homosexuality. Even if gays obtain non-discrimination laws, hate crimes law and domestic partnership benefits, those can do little to counter the underlying moral condemnation which will continue to fester beneath the law and generate hostility, fuel hate crimes, support conversion therapies, encourage gay youth suicide and inhibit the full social acceptance that is our goal. On the other hand, if we convince people that homosexuality is fully moral, then all their inclination to discriminate, engage in gay-bashing or oppose gay marriage disappears. Gay youths and adults could readily accept themselves. So the gay movement, whether we acknowledge it or not, is not a civil rights movement, not even a sexual liberation movement, but a moral revolution aimed at changing people's view of homosexuality." (Paul Varnell, "Defending Our Morality," Chicago Free Press, Aug 16, 2000).
At the Beatification of Joan of Arc on December 13, 1908, Pope St. Pius X said that: "..the greatest asset of the evilly disposed is the cowardice and weakness of Catholics. Oh! If I might ask the divine Redeemer, as the prophet Zachary did in spirit: 'What are those wounds in the midst of your hands?' the answer would not be doubtful. 'With these I was wounded in the house of those who did nothing to defend me and who, on every occasion, made themselves the accomplices of my adversaries.' And this reproach can be levelled at the weak and timid Catholics of all countries."
Yes, even certain priests, Bishops and Cardinals.
Fr. Vincent Miceli, S.J., my mentor, once said, "Fortitude is that virtue which enduringly resists difficulties of mind and body while persistently seeking, defending and spreading the truth and holiness of the Gospel. St. Thomas reminds us that fortitude is especially concerned with overcoming the fear of performing difficult deeds for the glory of God. This virtue prevents a soldier of Christ, and above all officers in Christ's army such as bishops and priests, from fleeing the field of battle, from betraying the brethren when real or imaginary obstacles present themselves. The great fault of the pusillanimous is that they succumb easily to irrational fears and leave the field of battle to enemy forces. This moral deformity reveals a lack of faith in the cause of Christ and a distrust of the assurance he gave his followers when he said to his Apostles: 'Have confidence, I have overcome the world.' The defect of irrational fear weakens virtue and renders Christians cowards. All the Apostles except Judas overcame this fear when they received the gift of Fortitude from the Holy Spirit on Pentecost Sunday. And priests should pray daily for this gift which the Holy Spirit will never deny them."
I can attest to that. As a Catholic layman named after two heroic preachers (St. Paul, Apostle to the Gentiles who endured every measure of hardship and persecution and St. Anthony de Padua, popularly known as the Hammer of the Heretics), and who took the Confirmation name Michael (after the glorious Archangel St. Michael who, by the power of God, cast the Devil out of Heaven), I pray every day for the Cardinal Virtue of Fortitude as well as the three other Cardinal Virtues of Prudence, Justice and Temperance. Not to mention the Theological Virtues of Faith, Hope and Charity.
I can do all things in Him Who strengthens me - Omnia possum in eo, qui me confortat (Phil 4:13).
This apostolate has been attacked more times than I can remember. I have more enemies than you can shake a stick at - and, thank God, even more friends!
I have received death threats. One from a homosexual activist threatening to execute me with a high-powered rifle. Stormfront has vilified me as the "village communist." This even though I have railed against Communism and it's slower twin Socialism.
Priests of Almighty God: What are you afraid of? The same God who parted the Red Sea and incinerated the five cities of the plain will guide and protect you.
Remember the words of Blessed Miguel Pro, S.J., when fear enters. Standing before a firing squad, which is much more terrifying than the ridicule of functional idiots in the public square, this heroic priest said, "Viva Christo Rey." Long live Christ the King.
Amen!
Monday, December 03, 2018
Francis: Homosexual men don't belong in priesthood
From American Spectator, the pederast legacy of Wright, Wuerl and Dinardo - see here.
For some 28 years, I have been saying that homosexual men do not belong in a seminary and that such persons should not be ordained. In fact, in a piece written for The Wanderer back in the 1990s entitled "A possibility wrought with dire implications," I wrote: "On October 1, 1986, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith published an Instruction entitled 'Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on Pastoral Service for Homosexual Persons, signed by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger and approved by Pope John Paul II. In this Instruction, Cardinal Ratzinger writes, 'It is necessary to point out that the particular inclination of a homosexual person, though not a sin in itself, nevertheless constitutes a more or less strong tendency to an intrinsically evil behavior from the moral standpoint. For this reason, the very inclination should be considered as objectively disordered.' (No. 3).
This would appear to be especially significant since Canon 1040 of the Code of Canon Law states that: 'Persons who are affected by a perpetual impediment, which is called an irregularity, or a simple impediment, are prevented from receiving orders.' Now, irregularities arise either from defect (ex defectu) or from crime (ex delicto). It seems clear to me that a homosexual inclination, which Cardinal Ratzinger has referred to as "objectively disordered," constitutes an irregularity ex defectu.
In fact, when asked by a Bishop if it is licit to confer priestly ordination to men with manifest homosexual tendencies, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments replied with a letter signed by Jorge Cardinal Medina Estevez which stated that, 'Ordination to the diaconate and the priesthood of homosexual men or men with homosexual tendencies is absolutely inadvisable and imprudent and, from the pastoral point of view, very risky. A homosexual person, or one with a homosexual tendency is not, therefore, fit to receive the sacrament of Holy Orders."
I was ridiculed for saying this. In fact, I have been referred to as "mentally ill" and as being somehow "unstable" for saying this.
Now, under pressure from a laity sick and tired of the rampant homosexual abuse culture, look at what Francis is finally saying here.
Morning sunshine!
For some 28 years, I have been saying that homosexual men do not belong in a seminary and that such persons should not be ordained. In fact, in a piece written for The Wanderer back in the 1990s entitled "A possibility wrought with dire implications," I wrote: "On October 1, 1986, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith published an Instruction entitled 'Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on Pastoral Service for Homosexual Persons, signed by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger and approved by Pope John Paul II. In this Instruction, Cardinal Ratzinger writes, 'It is necessary to point out that the particular inclination of a homosexual person, though not a sin in itself, nevertheless constitutes a more or less strong tendency to an intrinsically evil behavior from the moral standpoint. For this reason, the very inclination should be considered as objectively disordered.' (No. 3).
This would appear to be especially significant since Canon 1040 of the Code of Canon Law states that: 'Persons who are affected by a perpetual impediment, which is called an irregularity, or a simple impediment, are prevented from receiving orders.' Now, irregularities arise either from defect (ex defectu) or from crime (ex delicto). It seems clear to me that a homosexual inclination, which Cardinal Ratzinger has referred to as "objectively disordered," constitutes an irregularity ex defectu.
In fact, when asked by a Bishop if it is licit to confer priestly ordination to men with manifest homosexual tendencies, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments replied with a letter signed by Jorge Cardinal Medina Estevez which stated that, 'Ordination to the diaconate and the priesthood of homosexual men or men with homosexual tendencies is absolutely inadvisable and imprudent and, from the pastoral point of view, very risky. A homosexual person, or one with a homosexual tendency is not, therefore, fit to receive the sacrament of Holy Orders."
I was ridiculed for saying this. In fact, I have been referred to as "mentally ill" and as being somehow "unstable" for saying this.
Now, under pressure from a laity sick and tired of the rampant homosexual abuse culture, look at what Francis is finally saying here.
Morning sunshine!
Sunday, December 24, 2017
Father Shaun O'Connor of Saint Mary's Church in Orange, Massachusetts: A priest who understands the message of 1 Corinthians 12
In his Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Christifideles Laici, Pope John Paul II wrote that, "Through their participation in the prophetic mission of Christ, 'who proclaimed the kingdom of his Father by the testimony of his life and by the power of his word,' the lay faithful are given the ability and responsibility to accept the Gospel in faith and to proclaim it in word and deed, without hesitating to courageously denounce evil." (No. 14).
And yet, how often do the lay faithful encounter opposition from other members of the laity as well as priests and religious when they strive to fulfill their prophetic mission and to "courageously denounce evil." Why is this? Largely because, "To understand properly the lay faithful's position in the Church in a complete, adequate and specific manner it is necessary to come to a deeper theological understanding of their secular character in light of God's plan of salvation and in the context of the mystery of the Church" (Christifideles Laici, No. 15).
Pope John Paul II explains that, "..all the members of the Church are sharers in this secular dimension but in different ways. In particular the sharing of the lay faithful has its own manner or realization and function, which, according to the Council, is 'properly and particularly' theirs. Such manner is designated with the expression 'secular character.' In fact the Council, in describing the lay faithful's situation in the secular world, points to it above all, as the place in which they receive their call from God.." (Christifideles Laici, No. 15).
We read in 1 Corinthians 12 that, "As a body is one though it has many parts, and all the parts of the body, though many, are one body, so also Christ. For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, slaves or free persons, and we were all given to drink of one Spirit...there are many parts, yet one body. The eye cannot say to the hand, 'I do not need you.'" (1 Cor 12: 12, 13; 20, 21).
And yet, this is precisely what so many of the lay faithful encounter as they strive to fulfill their prophetic mission and to act as salt and light upon the secular world. Too often, the lay faithful are looked upon by certain priests and religious as "second-class citizens" within the Church. Then again, some parishes - anxious to maintain a status quo - will only permit a select few to participate in the life of the parish.
But such an attitude is not holy. It is devilish. It is demonic: "..have you not made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil designs" (James 2: 4). And again, "For where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there is disorder and every foul practice." (James 3: 16).
Let us all strive to remember that the gifts of the Holy Spirit are not our "private preserve." Let's leave behind all pride, selfish ambition, envy and jealousy. And when we come across another who has been graced with particular gifts which we may not possess ourselves, let's give thanks to the Holy Spirit who distributes His gifts as He pleases and to whom He wants.
Father Shaun O'Connor, the new pastor of Saint Mary's Church in Orange, Massachusetts, apparently understands this. The parish bulletin this weekend reads, "Early in the New Year, Fr. Shaun wants to work with parish members to establish a committee to plan and implement a calendar of parish dinners and other events; and a committee to reach out to inactive members and to others in our area who might be interested in learning about the Catholic Faith. If you'd be interested in either of these groups, please talk with Fr. Shaun after Mass or drop us an email to the office or leave a phone message."
This is a positive development. At least it has the potential of being such. In the past, I attempted to volunteer at Saint Mary's Church but was turned down because of my fidelity to the Magisterial teaching of the Church and because I'm not part of the small private "clique" of individuals who have been deemed "acceptable" by the status quo and have been relegated to "second-class" status.
Pray for Father Shaun's endeavour to be a success. I don't expect to be included in parish ministry myself. I'm not unrealistic. But it looks as if the demonic attitude which asserts, "I do not need you"* may be on its way out.
* See here.
Related reading here.
And yet, how often do the lay faithful encounter opposition from other members of the laity as well as priests and religious when they strive to fulfill their prophetic mission and to "courageously denounce evil." Why is this? Largely because, "To understand properly the lay faithful's position in the Church in a complete, adequate and specific manner it is necessary to come to a deeper theological understanding of their secular character in light of God's plan of salvation and in the context of the mystery of the Church" (Christifideles Laici, No. 15).
Pope John Paul II explains that, "..all the members of the Church are sharers in this secular dimension but in different ways. In particular the sharing of the lay faithful has its own manner or realization and function, which, according to the Council, is 'properly and particularly' theirs. Such manner is designated with the expression 'secular character.' In fact the Council, in describing the lay faithful's situation in the secular world, points to it above all, as the place in which they receive their call from God.." (Christifideles Laici, No. 15).
We read in 1 Corinthians 12 that, "As a body is one though it has many parts, and all the parts of the body, though many, are one body, so also Christ. For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, slaves or free persons, and we were all given to drink of one Spirit...there are many parts, yet one body. The eye cannot say to the hand, 'I do not need you.'" (1 Cor 12: 12, 13; 20, 21).
And yet, this is precisely what so many of the lay faithful encounter as they strive to fulfill their prophetic mission and to act as salt and light upon the secular world. Too often, the lay faithful are looked upon by certain priests and religious as "second-class citizens" within the Church. Then again, some parishes - anxious to maintain a status quo - will only permit a select few to participate in the life of the parish.
But such an attitude is not holy. It is devilish. It is demonic: "..have you not made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil designs" (James 2: 4). And again, "For where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there is disorder and every foul practice." (James 3: 16).
Let us all strive to remember that the gifts of the Holy Spirit are not our "private preserve." Let's leave behind all pride, selfish ambition, envy and jealousy. And when we come across another who has been graced with particular gifts which we may not possess ourselves, let's give thanks to the Holy Spirit who distributes His gifts as He pleases and to whom He wants.
Father Shaun O'Connor, the new pastor of Saint Mary's Church in Orange, Massachusetts, apparently understands this. The parish bulletin this weekend reads, "Early in the New Year, Fr. Shaun wants to work with parish members to establish a committee to plan and implement a calendar of parish dinners and other events; and a committee to reach out to inactive members and to others in our area who might be interested in learning about the Catholic Faith. If you'd be interested in either of these groups, please talk with Fr. Shaun after Mass or drop us an email to the office or leave a phone message."
This is a positive development. At least it has the potential of being such. In the past, I attempted to volunteer at Saint Mary's Church but was turned down because of my fidelity to the Magisterial teaching of the Church and because I'm not part of the small private "clique" of individuals who have been deemed "acceptable" by the status quo and have been relegated to "second-class" status.
Pray for Father Shaun's endeavour to be a success. I don't expect to be included in parish ministry myself. I'm not unrealistic. But it looks as if the demonic attitude which asserts, "I do not need you"* may be on its way out.
* See here.
Related reading here.
Sunday, January 22, 2017
Francis: I don't believe in judging...unless you're Donald Trump
From Fox News:
During an interview published on Saturday, Pope Francis said he would wait and see what a new President Donald Trump does before judging. The Pope was interviewed on Friday at the Vatican by the Spanish newspaper El Pais.
Francis went on to tell the interviewer that he doesn’t like “judging people early. We’ll see what Trump does.”
I thought Francis said, "Who am I to judge"? Oh yeah, that only applies to homosexual persons, socialist genocidal maniacs and leftist-leaning politicians such as Barack Obama who embrace the pro-abortion Culture of death.
Bizarre!
The partisan ideologue who judges selectively. See here.
Is Barack Obama "non-Christiano" for his support of abortion? No word from Francis.
During an interview published on Saturday, Pope Francis said he would wait and see what a new President Donald Trump does before judging. The Pope was interviewed on Friday at the Vatican by the Spanish newspaper El Pais.
Francis went on to tell the interviewer that he doesn’t like “judging people early. We’ll see what Trump does.”
I thought Francis said, "Who am I to judge"? Oh yeah, that only applies to homosexual persons, socialist genocidal maniacs and leftist-leaning politicians such as Barack Obama who embrace the pro-abortion Culture of death.
Bizarre!
The partisan ideologue who judges selectively. See here.
Is Barack Obama "non-Christiano" for his support of abortion? No word from Francis.
Friday, February 26, 2016
Francis: "I do not know if I truly love Jesus.."
Francis just told a group of children, "I do not know if I truly love Jesus. I try to love him..." See here.
What a shame. Saint Peter Julian Eymard reminds us that, "It was from the height of His Cross that our Lord first drew all the souls to Himself by
redeeming them. But when our Lord uttered these words, He certainly also had in mind His Eucharistic throne, to the foot of which He means to draw all souls so as to bind them there with the chains of His love.
Our Lord wants to instill in us a passionate love for Himself. Any virtue or idea which does not end by becoming a passion will never produce
anything great.
A child's affection is not love. A child loves by instinct and because it feels that it us loved; it loves itself in those who do it good.
A domestic servant may be devoted; his love will be real only if he is devoted out of affection for his master, without any thought of personal advantage.
Love cannot triumph unless it becomes the one passion of our life. Without such a passion we may produce isolated acts of love; but our life is not really won or consecrated to an ideal.
Unless we have a passionate love for our Lord in the Most Blessed Sacrament, we shall accomplish nothing.
Certainly, our Lord loves us passionately in the Eucharist; He loves us blindly without a thought for Himself, devoting Himself entirely for our good. We should love Him as
He loves us."
In John 21: 15-17, we read, "When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, 'Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?' He said to him, 'Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.' He said to him, “Feed my lambs.”
He then said to him a second time, 'Simon, son of John, do you love me?' He said to him, 'Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.' He said to him, 'Tend my sheep.' He said to him the third time, 'Simon, son of John, do you love me?' Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, 'Do you love me?' and he said to him, 'Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.' [Jesus] said to him, 'Feed my sheep.'"
The Vicar of Christ is called to show his love for Jesus by feeding the sheep - and this with the food which is sound doctrine. But he who sits on the throne of Peter is not offering such food. No doubt because his love for the Lord Jesus is in question.
He even entertains doubts himself!
What a shame. Saint Peter Julian Eymard reminds us that, "It was from the height of His Cross that our Lord first drew all the souls to Himself by
redeeming them. But when our Lord uttered these words, He certainly also had in mind His Eucharistic throne, to the foot of which He means to draw all souls so as to bind them there with the chains of His love.
Our Lord wants to instill in us a passionate love for Himself. Any virtue or idea which does not end by becoming a passion will never produce
anything great.
A child's affection is not love. A child loves by instinct and because it feels that it us loved; it loves itself in those who do it good.
A domestic servant may be devoted; his love will be real only if he is devoted out of affection for his master, without any thought of personal advantage.
Love cannot triumph unless it becomes the one passion of our life. Without such a passion we may produce isolated acts of love; but our life is not really won or consecrated to an ideal.
Unless we have a passionate love for our Lord in the Most Blessed Sacrament, we shall accomplish nothing.
Certainly, our Lord loves us passionately in the Eucharist; He loves us blindly without a thought for Himself, devoting Himself entirely for our good. We should love Him as
He loves us."
In John 21: 15-17, we read, "When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, 'Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?' He said to him, 'Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.' He said to him, “Feed my lambs.”
He then said to him a second time, 'Simon, son of John, do you love me?' He said to him, 'Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.' He said to him, 'Tend my sheep.' He said to him the third time, 'Simon, son of John, do you love me?' Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, 'Do you love me?' and he said to him, 'Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.' [Jesus] said to him, 'Feed my sheep.'"
The Vicar of Christ is called to show his love for Jesus by feeding the sheep - and this with the food which is sound doctrine. But he who sits on the throne of Peter is not offering such food. No doubt because his love for the Lord Jesus is in question.
He even entertains doubts himself!
Saturday, February 06, 2016
Hillary Clinton: We don't need to hear from a Catholic priest
LifeSite News is reporting that, "Hillary Clinton's pledge to 'defend' abortion-on-demand and support Planned Parenthood won her a rousing response at a Democratic town hall event in New Hampshire on Wednesday - but not everyone was applauding.
A viral video shows a priest in a clerical collar shaking his head in disagreement as Clinton says, 'We’re going to defend a woman’s right to make her own health care decisions. We’re going to defend Planned Parenthood.'
'We're going to defend marriage equality and end discrimination against LGBT Americans,' she continues. 'And we're going to take on the gun lobby.'
The clergyman, who confirmed he is a Roman Catholic priest in New Hampshire but did not wish for his name to be revealed, told The Blaze that he disagreed with Clinton's views on abortion..."
And when this same priest wanted to ask Hillary Clinton a ququestion, he was prevented from doing so. Is anyone really surprised by this? Ms. Clinton isn't interested in authentic freedom. She has an agenda and will not tolerate views which contradict her own.
In his Encyclical Letter Redemptoris Missio (The Mission of the Redeemer), Pope John Paul II said that, "The Church proposes; she imposes nothing." (No. 39). Such was the teaching of Vatican II: "The Church strictly forbids forcing anyone to embrace the faith, or alluring or enticing people by worrisome wiles. By the same token, she also strongly insists on this right, that no one be frightened away from the faith by unjust vexations on the part of others." (Ad Gentes, No. 13). And Dignitatis Humanae, No. 10 teaches that: "It is one of the major tenets of Catholic doctrine that man's response to God in faith must be free: no one therefore is to be forced to embrace the Christian faith against his own will. This doctrine is contained in the word of God and it was constantly proclaimed by the Fathers of the Church. The act of faith is of its very nature a free act. Man, redeemed by Christ the Savior and through Christ Jesus called to be God's adopted son, cannot give his adherence to God revealing Himself unless, under the drawing of the Father, he offers to God the reasonable and free submission of faith. It is therefore completely in accord with the nature of faith that in matters religious every manner of coercion on the part of men should be excluded. In consequence, the principle of religious freedom makes no small contribution to the creation of an environment in which men can without hindrance be invited to the Christian faith, embrace it of their own free will, and profess it effectively in their whole manner of life."
But while the Church respects freedom of conscience and shuns any form of coercion, our Holy Father reminds us that, "We are building a dictatorship of relativism that does not recognize anything as definitive and whose ultimate goal consists solely of one's own ego and desires.
We, however, have a different goal: the Son of God, the true man. He is the measure of true humanism. An "adult" faith is not a faith that follows the trends of fashion and the latest novelty; a mature adult faith is deeply rooted in friendship with Christ. It is this friendship that opens us up to all that is good and gives us a criterion by which to distinguish the true from the false, and deceit from truth."
This dictatorship of relativism seeks to impose its immoral agenda on Christians in the name of "tolerance." But this "tolerance" is a sham. It is simply an attempt to make an idol out of a false conception of freedom. Again, our Holy Father explains that, "..what clearly stands behind the modern era's radical demand for freedom is the promise: You will be like God...The implicit goal of all modern freedom movements is, in the end, to be like a god, dependent on nothing and nobody, with one's own freedom not restricted by anyone else's...The primeval error of such a radically developed desire for freedom lies in the idea of a divinity that is conceived as being purely egotistical. The god thus conceived of is, not God, but an idol, indeed, the image of what the Christian tradition would call the devil, the anti-god, because therein lies the radical opposite of the true God: the true God is, of his own nature, being-for (Father), being-from (Son), and being-with (Holy Spirit). Yet man is in the image of God precisely because the being-for , from, and with constitute the basic anthropological shape. Whenever people try to free themselves from this, they are moving, not toward divinity, but toward dehumanizing, toward the destruction of being itself through the destruction of truth. The Jacobin variant of the idea of liberation...is a rebellion against being human in itself, rebellion against truth, and that is why it leads people - as Sartre percipiently observed - into a self-contradictory existence that we call hell. It has thus become fairly clear that freedom is linked to a yardstick, the yardstick of reality - to truth*. Freedom to destroy oneself or to destroy others is not freedom but a diabolical parody. The freedom of man is a shared freedom, freedom in a coexistence of other freedoms, which are mutually limiting and thus mutually supportive: freedom must be measured according to what I am, what we are - otherwise it abolishes itself."
In the name of "tolerance," the New World Order seeks to impose its rebellion from truth on all. It will not tolerate any dissent, any disagreement. Coercion is an acceptable tool in a dictatorship. Soon, the New Order will use violence to achieve its goals and not just coercion and propaganda. In the end, every dictatorship must rely on violence in its vain attempt to hold onto power.
Is there really any doubt that Ms. Clinton would shrink from such violence?
A viral video shows a priest in a clerical collar shaking his head in disagreement as Clinton says, 'We’re going to defend a woman’s right to make her own health care decisions. We’re going to defend Planned Parenthood.'
'We're going to defend marriage equality and end discrimination against LGBT Americans,' she continues. 'And we're going to take on the gun lobby.'
The clergyman, who confirmed he is a Roman Catholic priest in New Hampshire but did not wish for his name to be revealed, told The Blaze that he disagreed with Clinton's views on abortion..."
In his Encyclical Letter Redemptoris Missio (The Mission of the Redeemer), Pope John Paul II said that, "The Church proposes; she imposes nothing." (No. 39). Such was the teaching of Vatican II: "The Church strictly forbids forcing anyone to embrace the faith, or alluring or enticing people by worrisome wiles. By the same token, she also strongly insists on this right, that no one be frightened away from the faith by unjust vexations on the part of others." (Ad Gentes, No. 13). And Dignitatis Humanae, No. 10 teaches that: "It is one of the major tenets of Catholic doctrine that man's response to God in faith must be free: no one therefore is to be forced to embrace the Christian faith against his own will. This doctrine is contained in the word of God and it was constantly proclaimed by the Fathers of the Church. The act of faith is of its very nature a free act. Man, redeemed by Christ the Savior and through Christ Jesus called to be God's adopted son, cannot give his adherence to God revealing Himself unless, under the drawing of the Father, he offers to God the reasonable and free submission of faith. It is therefore completely in accord with the nature of faith that in matters religious every manner of coercion on the part of men should be excluded. In consequence, the principle of religious freedom makes no small contribution to the creation of an environment in which men can without hindrance be invited to the Christian faith, embrace it of their own free will, and profess it effectively in their whole manner of life."
But while the Church respects freedom of conscience and shuns any form of coercion, our Holy Father reminds us that, "We are building a dictatorship of relativism that does not recognize anything as definitive and whose ultimate goal consists solely of one's own ego and desires.
We, however, have a different goal: the Son of God, the true man. He is the measure of true humanism. An "adult" faith is not a faith that follows the trends of fashion and the latest novelty; a mature adult faith is deeply rooted in friendship with Christ. It is this friendship that opens us up to all that is good and gives us a criterion by which to distinguish the true from the false, and deceit from truth."
This dictatorship of relativism seeks to impose its immoral agenda on Christians in the name of "tolerance." But this "tolerance" is a sham. It is simply an attempt to make an idol out of a false conception of freedom. Again, our Holy Father explains that, "..what clearly stands behind the modern era's radical demand for freedom is the promise: You will be like God...The implicit goal of all modern freedom movements is, in the end, to be like a god, dependent on nothing and nobody, with one's own freedom not restricted by anyone else's...The primeval error of such a radically developed desire for freedom lies in the idea of a divinity that is conceived as being purely egotistical. The god thus conceived of is, not God, but an idol, indeed, the image of what the Christian tradition would call the devil, the anti-god, because therein lies the radical opposite of the true God: the true God is, of his own nature, being-for (Father), being-from (Son), and being-with (Holy Spirit). Yet man is in the image of God precisely because the being-for , from, and with constitute the basic anthropological shape. Whenever people try to free themselves from this, they are moving, not toward divinity, but toward dehumanizing, toward the destruction of being itself through the destruction of truth. The Jacobin variant of the idea of liberation...is a rebellion against being human in itself, rebellion against truth, and that is why it leads people - as Sartre percipiently observed - into a self-contradictory existence that we call hell. It has thus become fairly clear that freedom is linked to a yardstick, the yardstick of reality - to truth*. Freedom to destroy oneself or to destroy others is not freedom but a diabolical parody. The freedom of man is a shared freedom, freedom in a coexistence of other freedoms, which are mutually limiting and thus mutually supportive: freedom must be measured according to what I am, what we are - otherwise it abolishes itself."
In the name of "tolerance," the New World Order seeks to impose its rebellion from truth on all. It will not tolerate any dissent, any disagreement. Coercion is an acceptable tool in a dictatorship. Soon, the New Order will use violence to achieve its goals and not just coercion and propaganda. In the end, every dictatorship must rely on violence in its vain attempt to hold onto power.
Is there really any doubt that Ms. Clinton would shrink from such violence?
Tuesday, August 25, 2015
Men and boys simply don't volunteer?
Over at Father Ray Blake's Blog, in a post dealing with the feminization of the Church, one reader complained, "I do get a bit tired at the recurrent whining over the 'feminization' of the Church. The reason there are so many women and girls acting as sacristans, choir leaders, and servers is that the men and boys simply don't volunteer."
Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke would disagree. In an interview, the Cardinal said, "I think there has been a great confusion with regard to the specific vocation of men in marriage and of men in general in the Church during the past 50 years or so. It’s due to a number of factors, but the radical feminism which has assaulted the Church and society since the 1960s has left men very marginalized.
Unfortunately, the radical feminist movement strongly influenced the Church, leading the Church to constantly address women’s issues at the expense of addressing critical issues important to men; the importance of the father, whether in the union of marriage or not; the importance of a father to children; the importance of fatherhood for priests; the critical impact of a manly character; the emphasis on the particular gifts that God gives to men for the good of the whole society.
The goodness and importance of men became very obscured, and for all practical purposes, were not emphasized at all. This is despite the fact that it was a long tradition in the Church, especially through the devotion of St. Joseph, to stress the manly character of the man who sacrifices his life for the sake of the home, who prepares with chivalry to defend his wife and his children and who works to provide the livelihood for the family. So much of this tradition of heralding the heroic nature of manhood has been lost in the Church today."
And that's why most real men do not volunteer. They do not feel comfortable surrounded by effeminacy.
Several years ago, in a piece entitled "Priestly Identity: Crisis and Renewal," Annamarie Adkins interviewed Father David Toups, Associate Director of the Secretariat of Clergy, Consecrated Life and Vocations of the U.S. episcopal conference. Annamarie Adkins wrote, "A general crisis of authentic masculinity in society has also affected the priesthood as only 'real men' can adequately fulfill the role of priest and pastor, says Father David Toups. Father Toups, the associate director of the Secretariat of Clergy, Consecrated Life and Vocations of the U.S. episcopal conference, is the author of 'Reclaiming Our Priestly Character.'
It was Jacques Maritain who said, “Christianity must inform or, rather, transpenetrate the world; not that this is its principal aim (although it is an indispensable secondary end), and not in order that the world become right now the kingdom of God, but in order that grace may be more and more effective in it, and in order that man may better live there his temporal life.”
If grace is to be more and more effective in the world, if a new Christendom is to arise from the ashes of our morally-bankrupt, sin-sick society which subjects mankind to constant and ever-growing threats of degradation and destruction, then saints will have to arise in the midst of our broken world. These saints will be, according to St. Louis de Montfort in his classic treatise True Devotion to Mary, “..like thunder-clouds flying through the air at the slightest breath of the Holy Spirit. Attached to nothing, surprised at nothing, troubled at nothing, they will shower down the rain of God’s word and of eternal life. They will thunder against sin, they will storm against the world, they will strike down the devil and his followers and for life and for death, they will pierce through and through with the two-edged sword of God’s word all those against whom they are sent by almighty God.” (True Devotion, 57).
Such disciples will not be “part-time Catholics” or “Chicken-Catholics,” devoting only one hour a week to their Creator and Redeemer while retreating in fear from any and all conflict during the spiritual battles ahead. St. Montfort insists that, “..we know they will be true disciples of Jesus Christ, imitating his poverty, his humility, his contempt of the world and his love. They will point out the narrow way to God in pure truth according to the holy Gospel, and not according to the maxims of the world. Their hearts will not be troubled, nor will they show favor to anyone; they will not spare or heed or fear any man, however powerful he may be. They will have the two-edged sword of the Word of God in their mouths and the blood-stained standard of the Cross on their shoulders. They will carry the crucifix in their right hand and the rosary in their left, and the holy names of Jesus and Mary on their heart. The simplicity and self-sacrifice of Jesus will be reflected in their whole behavior.” (True Devotion, 59).
George Weigel, weighing in on the supreme crisis which faces the Catholic Church in the United States in the wake of President Obama’s re-election, asserts (correctly) that: “..the opportunity embedded in this crisis..is nothing less than to be the Church of the New Evangelization, full-throttle. Shallow, tribal, institutional-maintenance Catholicism is utterly incapable of meeting the challenges that will now come at the Catholic Church from the most aggressively secular administration in American history. Only a robustly, unapologetically evangelical Catholicism, winsomely proposing and nobly living the truths about the human condition the Church teaches, will see us through the next four years. Radically converted Christian disciples, not one-hour-a-week Catholics whipsawed by an ever more toxic culture, are what this hour of crisis..demands.” (The crisis of a second Obama administration).
Sadly, the militant evangelical Catholicism described by George Weigel is not encouraged - or even tolerated - in some corners of the Catholic Church here in the United States. In some dioceses, the Cult of Softness has all but crippled an authentic, militant evangelization and replaced it with a sacharrin-spirituality which sugar-coats sin while leaving Zebulun and Naphtali in the shadow of death. As part of the Ecclesia Militans, I am persona non grata in my own diocese - the Diocese of Worcester, Massachusetts. New Age advocates, dissidents who rail against the Magisterium and those who engage in radical homosexual agitprop are welcome. But an orthodox Catholic who vigorously promotes and defends the teaching of the Magisterium is deemed "rigid" and "too pre-Vatican II." And, because of my military background, I am held in contempt.
This is our moment as Catholics: We can choose to take a courageous stand for the Faith of our Fathers, witnessing to Gospel truths with the whole of our lives and even unto death; or we can fall back into the shadows and thereby cooperate in the spiritual destruction of a once-great nation.
Along with the Church’s other martyrs, St. Thomas More was confronted with the same choice. While remaining a loyal servant of the King, he chose to be God’s servant first. Will we?
The Church needs men if there is to be a militant evangelization. Real men who are ready to join the battle. Not sissies who identify more with women than men, frustrated and psychologically cramped characters who have gender identity issues or latent homosexual tendencies.
I wrote my Bishop expressing interest in discerning a vocation to the priesthood. I never did get a response. See here.
But then, I am probably considered "too macho."
Recommended meditation: 1 Corinthians 6: 9-10:
"Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, Nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God."
Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke would disagree. In an interview, the Cardinal said, "I think there has been a great confusion with regard to the specific vocation of men in marriage and of men in general in the Church during the past 50 years or so. It’s due to a number of factors, but the radical feminism which has assaulted the Church and society since the 1960s has left men very marginalized.
Unfortunately, the radical feminist movement strongly influenced the Church, leading the Church to constantly address women’s issues at the expense of addressing critical issues important to men; the importance of the father, whether in the union of marriage or not; the importance of a father to children; the importance of fatherhood for priests; the critical impact of a manly character; the emphasis on the particular gifts that God gives to men for the good of the whole society.
The goodness and importance of men became very obscured, and for all practical purposes, were not emphasized at all. This is despite the fact that it was a long tradition in the Church, especially through the devotion of St. Joseph, to stress the manly character of the man who sacrifices his life for the sake of the home, who prepares with chivalry to defend his wife and his children and who works to provide the livelihood for the family. So much of this tradition of heralding the heroic nature of manhood has been lost in the Church today."
And that's why most real men do not volunteer. They do not feel comfortable surrounded by effeminacy.
Several years ago, in a piece entitled "Priestly Identity: Crisis and Renewal," Annamarie Adkins interviewed Father David Toups, Associate Director of the Secretariat of Clergy, Consecrated Life and Vocations of the U.S. episcopal conference. Annamarie Adkins wrote, "A general crisis of authentic masculinity in society has also affected the priesthood as only 'real men' can adequately fulfill the role of priest and pastor, says Father David Toups. Father Toups, the associate director of the Secretariat of Clergy, Consecrated Life and Vocations of the U.S. episcopal conference, is the author of 'Reclaiming Our Priestly Character.'
It was Jacques Maritain who said, “Christianity must inform or, rather, transpenetrate the world; not that this is its principal aim (although it is an indispensable secondary end), and not in order that the world become right now the kingdom of God, but in order that grace may be more and more effective in it, and in order that man may better live there his temporal life.”
If grace is to be more and more effective in the world, if a new Christendom is to arise from the ashes of our morally-bankrupt, sin-sick society which subjects mankind to constant and ever-growing threats of degradation and destruction, then saints will have to arise in the midst of our broken world. These saints will be, according to St. Louis de Montfort in his classic treatise True Devotion to Mary, “..like thunder-clouds flying through the air at the slightest breath of the Holy Spirit. Attached to nothing, surprised at nothing, troubled at nothing, they will shower down the rain of God’s word and of eternal life. They will thunder against sin, they will storm against the world, they will strike down the devil and his followers and for life and for death, they will pierce through and through with the two-edged sword of God’s word all those against whom they are sent by almighty God.” (True Devotion, 57).
Such disciples will not be “part-time Catholics” or “Chicken-Catholics,” devoting only one hour a week to their Creator and Redeemer while retreating in fear from any and all conflict during the spiritual battles ahead. St. Montfort insists that, “..we know they will be true disciples of Jesus Christ, imitating his poverty, his humility, his contempt of the world and his love. They will point out the narrow way to God in pure truth according to the holy Gospel, and not according to the maxims of the world. Their hearts will not be troubled, nor will they show favor to anyone; they will not spare or heed or fear any man, however powerful he may be. They will have the two-edged sword of the Word of God in their mouths and the blood-stained standard of the Cross on their shoulders. They will carry the crucifix in their right hand and the rosary in their left, and the holy names of Jesus and Mary on their heart. The simplicity and self-sacrifice of Jesus will be reflected in their whole behavior.” (True Devotion, 59).
George Weigel, weighing in on the supreme crisis which faces the Catholic Church in the United States in the wake of President Obama’s re-election, asserts (correctly) that: “..the opportunity embedded in this crisis..is nothing less than to be the Church of the New Evangelization, full-throttle. Shallow, tribal, institutional-maintenance Catholicism is utterly incapable of meeting the challenges that will now come at the Catholic Church from the most aggressively secular administration in American history. Only a robustly, unapologetically evangelical Catholicism, winsomely proposing and nobly living the truths about the human condition the Church teaches, will see us through the next four years. Radically converted Christian disciples, not one-hour-a-week Catholics whipsawed by an ever more toxic culture, are what this hour of crisis..demands.” (The crisis of a second Obama administration).
Sadly, the militant evangelical Catholicism described by George Weigel is not encouraged - or even tolerated - in some corners of the Catholic Church here in the United States. In some dioceses, the Cult of Softness has all but crippled an authentic, militant evangelization and replaced it with a sacharrin-spirituality which sugar-coats sin while leaving Zebulun and Naphtali in the shadow of death. As part of the Ecclesia Militans, I am persona non grata in my own diocese - the Diocese of Worcester, Massachusetts. New Age advocates, dissidents who rail against the Magisterium and those who engage in radical homosexual agitprop are welcome. But an orthodox Catholic who vigorously promotes and defends the teaching of the Magisterium is deemed "rigid" and "too pre-Vatican II." And, because of my military background, I am held in contempt.
This is our moment as Catholics: We can choose to take a courageous stand for the Faith of our Fathers, witnessing to Gospel truths with the whole of our lives and even unto death; or we can fall back into the shadows and thereby cooperate in the spiritual destruction of a once-great nation.
Along with the Church’s other martyrs, St. Thomas More was confronted with the same choice. While remaining a loyal servant of the King, he chose to be God’s servant first. Will we?
The Church needs men if there is to be a militant evangelization. Real men who are ready to join the battle. Not sissies who identify more with women than men, frustrated and psychologically cramped characters who have gender identity issues or latent homosexual tendencies.
I wrote my Bishop expressing interest in discerning a vocation to the priesthood. I never did get a response. See here.
But then, I am probably considered "too macho."
Recommended meditation: 1 Corinthians 6: 9-10:
"Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, Nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God."
Thursday, July 23, 2015
Don't obsess over abortion....Mary Gatter wants a Lamborghini
Charlie Butts, writing for OneNewsNow,
notes how, "A second Planned Parenthood official has been recorded discussing the sale of baby parts, this time joking that she hopes to buy an Italian sports car with the revenue.
The first undercover video by the Center for Medical Progress showed Planned Parenthood medical director Deborah Nucatola discussing the sale of aborted baby parts, which is illegal.
The latest undercover video features Dr. Mary Gatter, a medical director for a California abortion clinic in Pasadena. She was recorded discussing the cost of tissue samples to actors pretending to represent a research lab.
In this second video, Gattner refers to an abortionist using a "less crunchy technique" to get "whole specimens," meaning being careful to not crush the baby's organs and limbs.
Nucatola was caught on tape at a lunch meeting, describing how to "crush" the baby in certain places to "see if I can get it all intact."
"I'd say a lot of people want liver," she says at one point, describing an aborted baby's organs.
Planned Parenthood responded to the first controversial video by insisting that the non-profit abortion giant, partially funded by American taxpayers, does not profit from selling the baby parts to research facilities.
The costs for the babies' organs and tissues are "reimbursements," the organization claims.
In the second video, however, Gatter suggests a "specimen" price of $75, telling the "buyers" that she has to compare their $100 offer with other Planned Parenthood faciltiies before agreeing to it. The price may have to be "bumped up," she says.
Gattner then jokes about the income. "I want a Lamborghini," she says, laughing. "I want a Lamborghini."
Read the full article at One News Now.
The sexual morality popular in the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah brought them to complete and utter destruction. Today we are building a New Sodom, a Moloch State which offers not law and justice but an oppressive demonic order which claims total jurisdiction over man and defies God and His plan for humanity. So it is no surprise that many within the priesthood (as throughout society in general) have succumbed to homosexual ideology as they deny the true God and His Commandments. Rousas Rushdoony exposes the nature of the demonic Moloch State which so many of the clergy now willingly serve:
"The Moloch state simply represents the supreme effort of man to command the future, to predestine the world, and to be as God. Lesser efforts, divination, spirit-questing, magic and witchcraft are equally anathema to God. All represent efforts to have the future on other than God's terms, to have a future apart from and in defiance of God. They are assertions that the world is not of God but of brute factuality, and that men can somehow master the world and the future by going directly to the raw materials thereof."
The Devil seduces men through the deceitful tactics of pseudo-saviors. And ours is a perverse age in which many pseudo-saviors pretend to offer liberation through sex without love, violence and drug abuse as well as the occult. As Fr. Miceli, S.J., warned: "In the name of its new secular gods, Progress and Liberty, titles that are false fronts for Rebellion and Licentiousness, many formerly Christian nations are driving their sons and daughters through the demonic fires of sacrificial murder. Thus..so-called Christian nations, having legalized abortion and while preparing to to legalize euthanasia, have become Moloch states."
A new class of priests is necessary to serve the emerging Moloch State. Such priests will never speak of sin, the need for repentance and conversion, the reality of Hell and the possibility of finding your soul there after death, etc. When is the last time you heard a homily from your priest discussing these items or citing the Catechism of the Catholic Church? We now have a Pope who tells us not to "obsess" over abortion.
Of course, there are still good priests who still preach sound Catholic doctrine - but these are now in a minority. In the New Order, priests who preach traditional Catholic doctrine will be replaced by priests who traffick in souls by substituting the doctrines of demons for the Word of God and Holy Tradition and the City of Progress for the City of God.
A new city is arising which is based upon Satan's blueprints. Many cannot see this. Others choose not to. But all around us things are changing.
A counterfeit church is rising within the Church founded by Christ. Anne Catherine Emmerich was shown this counterfeit church in vision and it has arrived.
Not everyone is enthralled. See here.
notes how, "A second Planned Parenthood official has been recorded discussing the sale of baby parts, this time joking that she hopes to buy an Italian sports car with the revenue.
The first undercover video by the Center for Medical Progress showed Planned Parenthood medical director Deborah Nucatola discussing the sale of aborted baby parts, which is illegal.
The latest undercover video features Dr. Mary Gatter, a medical director for a California abortion clinic in Pasadena. She was recorded discussing the cost of tissue samples to actors pretending to represent a research lab.
In this second video, Gattner refers to an abortionist using a "less crunchy technique" to get "whole specimens," meaning being careful to not crush the baby's organs and limbs.
Nucatola was caught on tape at a lunch meeting, describing how to "crush" the baby in certain places to "see if I can get it all intact."
"I'd say a lot of people want liver," she says at one point, describing an aborted baby's organs.
Planned Parenthood responded to the first controversial video by insisting that the non-profit abortion giant, partially funded by American taxpayers, does not profit from selling the baby parts to research facilities.
The costs for the babies' organs and tissues are "reimbursements," the organization claims.
In the second video, however, Gatter suggests a "specimen" price of $75, telling the "buyers" that she has to compare their $100 offer with other Planned Parenthood faciltiies before agreeing to it. The price may have to be "bumped up," she says.
Gattner then jokes about the income. "I want a Lamborghini," she says, laughing. "I want a Lamborghini."
Read the full article at One News Now.
The sexual morality popular in the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah brought them to complete and utter destruction. Today we are building a New Sodom, a Moloch State which offers not law and justice but an oppressive demonic order which claims total jurisdiction over man and defies God and His plan for humanity. So it is no surprise that many within the priesthood (as throughout society in general) have succumbed to homosexual ideology as they deny the true God and His Commandments. Rousas Rushdoony exposes the nature of the demonic Moloch State which so many of the clergy now willingly serve:
"The Moloch state simply represents the supreme effort of man to command the future, to predestine the world, and to be as God. Lesser efforts, divination, spirit-questing, magic and witchcraft are equally anathema to God. All represent efforts to have the future on other than God's terms, to have a future apart from and in defiance of God. They are assertions that the world is not of God but of brute factuality, and that men can somehow master the world and the future by going directly to the raw materials thereof."
The Devil seduces men through the deceitful tactics of pseudo-saviors. And ours is a perverse age in which many pseudo-saviors pretend to offer liberation through sex without love, violence and drug abuse as well as the occult. As Fr. Miceli, S.J., warned: "In the name of its new secular gods, Progress and Liberty, titles that are false fronts for Rebellion and Licentiousness, many formerly Christian nations are driving their sons and daughters through the demonic fires of sacrificial murder. Thus..so-called Christian nations, having legalized abortion and while preparing to to legalize euthanasia, have become Moloch states."
A new class of priests is necessary to serve the emerging Moloch State. Such priests will never speak of sin, the need for repentance and conversion, the reality of Hell and the possibility of finding your soul there after death, etc. When is the last time you heard a homily from your priest discussing these items or citing the Catechism of the Catholic Church? We now have a Pope who tells us not to "obsess" over abortion.
Of course, there are still good priests who still preach sound Catholic doctrine - but these are now in a minority. In the New Order, priests who preach traditional Catholic doctrine will be replaced by priests who traffick in souls by substituting the doctrines of demons for the Word of God and Holy Tradition and the City of Progress for the City of God.
A new city is arising which is based upon Satan's blueprints. Many cannot see this. Others choose not to. But all around us things are changing.
A counterfeit church is rising within the Church founded by Christ. Anne Catherine Emmerich was shown this counterfeit church in vision and it has arrived.
Not everyone is enthralled. See here.
Tuesday, May 20, 2014
Peter Hitchens: Atheists want all the joys and advantages of Christianity but don't want to pay the dues...
Peter Hitchens writes:
"I called my book on the New Atheism, ‘The Rage Against God,’ because I was repeatedly struck by the fury and resentment shown by the enemies of Christianity. Of course, I know perfectly well there are plenty of reasonable, courteous atheists. I make a point of referring to one such, Professor Thomas Nagel, in my book. But they are not typical of this strange and rather lucrative new wave as seen in Richard Dawkins and my late-brother Christopher, who are full of mockery and spite. I argue with them mainly on my blog, where the most oblique mention of religion can bring them swarming like mosquitoes, often within a few minutes. It is actually tedious and disappointing to have to read their contributions. Even the learned ones contain the same arrogant assumption of perfect certainty, not coupled with any sense that their certainty might require proof.
Indeed, atheism is rooted in immaturity. In his work entitled "Trojan Horse in the City of God," Dr. Dietrich von Hildebrand wrote that, "Incessantly we hear today the self-satisfied slogan, 'Man has finally come of age.' Yet there are so many features of the present epoch - the dethronement of truth by historical relativism, the fetishization of science, the devastation of our lives as a result of the laboratory view, and many others - that make it more than doubtful that modern man has really and truly come of age. There is, moreover, something inherently self-deceptive in the very idea. It is a characteristic symptom of immaturity to feel oneself more mature and independent than men of previous times, to forget what one owes the past, and, in a kind of adolescent self-assertion, to refuse any assistance. One need only recall Dostoyevsky's masterly description of the puberty crisis - Kolya Krassotkin in The Brothers Karamazov, Hypolit in The Idiot, the hero of The Adolescent - to grasp the special immaturity of the man who is convinced of his superior maturity, who thinks that in him humanity has in a unique way come of age, who is dominated by one preoccupation - to show his independence. His ludicrous smallness is manifest as he looks down on everything passed on through tradition, even the most timeless values. The illusion of an historic coming of age is not the exclusive possession of our epoch. In the period of the so-called Enlightenment, man also felt themselves to have come of age and looked down on former times as periods of darkness and immaturity. This illusion is a recurring phenomenon in social history and it bears a striking resemblance to the puberty crisis in the life of the individual person. But the contemporary assertion that whereas this perennial boast was never before justified, it is now really true makes its self-serving character all the more clear.One of the many indications of the intellectual and moral immaturity of the present age is the fact that the percentage of worthless books and articles that captivate the minds of intellectuals seems greater today than in any other time in history." (pp.143-144).
This illusion of man having "come of age" is a characteristic of psychological, spiritual and intellectual immaturity. It is also at the core of atheistic humanism. For atheistic humanism advances the notion, rooted in adolescent pride and rebellion, that the human race has reached a leap of advancement, a new stage of development and enlightenment in which man must abandon any notion of divine authority and rely only upon himself to build a utopia here on earth. A utopia where there are no dogmas, no permanent truths, no objective principles or fixed concepts. In the words of Harvey Cox, "Religion is in a sense the neurosis of culture; secularization corresponds to maturation, for it signifies the emancipation of man first from religion and then from metaphysical control." (The Secular City).
This is America's brand of atheism. It is represented in mythology by Prometheus challenging the old gods and stealing fiery power from them to bring man on earth a freedom from divine authority, liberation from childish beliefs and sexual taboos so that man come of age may create for himself a temporal utopia of plenty and a society of peace. This atheism was advanced in 1933 in The New Humanist magazine in a document entitled the "Humanist Manifesto I," by a group of 34 "liberal humanists." However, forty years later The Humanist magazine published "Humanist Manifesto II." This was necessary because the foolish optimism of the "liberal humanists" regarding the natural goodness of man was utterly demolished by the sheer brutality and horror of the Second World War. Not to mention the savage and evil systems of Nazism, Fascism and Communism.
The adolescent rebellion from God which is atheistic humanism continues. It has not learned anything from the harsh realities of history. It refuses to. And this refusal will only lead to more such disasters in the future for mankind. For as George Santayana reminded us, "Those who will not learn from history are condemned to repeat it." Already we are witnessing the brutality of an atheistic humanism which declares its "love for humankind" even as it approves of the worst form of child abuse - abortion - as well as euthanasia and all varieties of sexual experimentation and immoral "lifestyles" such as fornication and homosexuality. And when those who believe in objective truth and morality object, as did those who opposed same-sex "marriage" in California, Churches were attacked and Christians and Mormons were subjected to violence and intimidation - all in the name of "love" and "freedom."
This will be their legacy.
"I called my book on the New Atheism, ‘The Rage Against God,’ because I was repeatedly struck by the fury and resentment shown by the enemies of Christianity. Of course, I know perfectly well there are plenty of reasonable, courteous atheists. I make a point of referring to one such, Professor Thomas Nagel, in my book. But they are not typical of this strange and rather lucrative new wave as seen in Richard Dawkins and my late-brother Christopher, who are full of mockery and spite. I argue with them mainly on my blog, where the most oblique mention of religion can bring them swarming like mosquitoes, often within a few minutes. It is actually tedious and disappointing to have to read their contributions. Even the learned ones contain the same arrogant assumption of perfect certainty, not coupled with any sense that their certainty might require proof.
This puzzles me, because since returning hesitantly to faith from my days of atheism, I have been determined to keep my position within the strict bounds of reason, based upon a foundation of testable fact, not on emotion or superstition. This leaves many of my more conventionally Christian friends and acquaintances regarding my religious opinions as "feeble," and not much of an improvement from agnosticism. They are right in that facts and logic by themselves cannot take anyone past that point, everything else beyond requires faith. Yet, most of us feel it within ourselves to choose between theism and atheism, between existence and non-existence. Both are impossible to prove.
I concede to my atheist opponents that belief or unbelief is a choice. As a choice, it is based upon desire. I desire, and therefore choose to believe in, one kind of universe, one that has laws and purpose with justice woven into its very fabric. The unbeliever desires, and therefore chooses to believe in, a chaotic universe where the dead remain dead and actions have no effect beyond their immediately observable consequences.
I accept that atheists may be right in their summation of the universe, and I only ask they be prepared to allow me the same in return. A tolerant person would surely accept such concession from their opponent.
They do not.
The truth is that modern atheists have constructed their position very carefully so that they can never be asked why they hold it. Like the annoying Christian who declares he’s had a "special" religious experience that has wholly persuaded him of the Gospel’s absolute truth, the New Atheist declares that his entire life and education is an "anti" religious experience, which proves, without further discussion, that there is no God. Any evidence the believer suggests that there might be a God is dismissed by the New Atheists as not being evidence at all.
This close-minded attitude makes a rather dismal statement about where the debate stands: He who does not believe in the existence of God requires no evidence to reach his conclusion.
In their view, there is absolutely no equivalence between the person who, after much examination, prefers the theistic explanation of the universe, and the other person who, with exactly the same experience, prefers the atheistic explanation.
There are many ways in which this formula is unsatisfactory, but its one major strength is that it excludes any discussion of motive. As I point out in my book, Somerset Maugham beautifully encapsulates the atheist’s motive in his autobiographical novel ‘Of Human Bondage,’ where the hero, Philip Carey, counts himself freed from all kinds of restraints on his behavior when he decides to abandon his faith. My "liberated" feelings were nearly identical in my own atheistic mid-teens.
What Maugham wanted, and what I wanted in that hedonistic era, was personal autonomy, to be that common misunderstanding of J.S. Mill’s theory of liberty that I could live as I wish, provided I “thought” I was doing nobody harm.
The problem with this system is that it tends to define “harm” in a rather self-serving way. All non-theistic moral systems (and there are many) allow the individual to set his own weights and measures without an objective scale to gauge it on. This even applies to the Golden Rule, which some Christians unwisely forget that it begins, above all things, with loving God himself, before moving on to our neighbors. In a Godless universe, what is the difference between doing unto others that we would wish them to do unto us, and merely appearing to do unto others that we would wish them to do unto us? The answer, alas, is that if there is no God who knows the secrets of our hearts, it is all too easy to appear to be good, and even to do formally good deeds, all of which are empty of real goodness.
So what are we left with in such an world? One where our natural tendency to selfishness reigns supreme. Fundamentally, once our society has dispensed with the concept of God we are left with nothing. The modern atheists don't wish to discuss this because they are very well aware of the implications of what I'm saying for society in general. They know perfectly well that if everybody didn't believe in God, the comfortable lives they live in extremely agreeable suburbs, where they can trust people not to cheat them and rob them and mug them and rape them, would come to an end. They want to keep the secret to themselves. They want to have all the joys and all the advantages provided by Christianity, and not pay the dues.
They are, in moral terms, children clamoring for their own desires, but children who have grown large and articulate in the years they might have learned true adulthood and full humanity. That is why they rage against God."
Indeed, atheism is rooted in immaturity. In his work entitled "Trojan Horse in the City of God," Dr. Dietrich von Hildebrand wrote that, "Incessantly we hear today the self-satisfied slogan, 'Man has finally come of age.' Yet there are so many features of the present epoch - the dethronement of truth by historical relativism, the fetishization of science, the devastation of our lives as a result of the laboratory view, and many others - that make it more than doubtful that modern man has really and truly come of age. There is, moreover, something inherently self-deceptive in the very idea. It is a characteristic symptom of immaturity to feel oneself more mature and independent than men of previous times, to forget what one owes the past, and, in a kind of adolescent self-assertion, to refuse any assistance. One need only recall Dostoyevsky's masterly description of the puberty crisis - Kolya Krassotkin in The Brothers Karamazov, Hypolit in The Idiot, the hero of The Adolescent - to grasp the special immaturity of the man who is convinced of his superior maturity, who thinks that in him humanity has in a unique way come of age, who is dominated by one preoccupation - to show his independence. His ludicrous smallness is manifest as he looks down on everything passed on through tradition, even the most timeless values. The illusion of an historic coming of age is not the exclusive possession of our epoch. In the period of the so-called Enlightenment, man also felt themselves to have come of age and looked down on former times as periods of darkness and immaturity. This illusion is a recurring phenomenon in social history and it bears a striking resemblance to the puberty crisis in the life of the individual person. But the contemporary assertion that whereas this perennial boast was never before justified, it is now really true makes its self-serving character all the more clear.One of the many indications of the intellectual and moral immaturity of the present age is the fact that the percentage of worthless books and articles that captivate the minds of intellectuals seems greater today than in any other time in history." (pp.143-144).
This illusion of man having "come of age" is a characteristic of psychological, spiritual and intellectual immaturity. It is also at the core of atheistic humanism. For atheistic humanism advances the notion, rooted in adolescent pride and rebellion, that the human race has reached a leap of advancement, a new stage of development and enlightenment in which man must abandon any notion of divine authority and rely only upon himself to build a utopia here on earth. A utopia where there are no dogmas, no permanent truths, no objective principles or fixed concepts. In the words of Harvey Cox, "Religion is in a sense the neurosis of culture; secularization corresponds to maturation, for it signifies the emancipation of man first from religion and then from metaphysical control." (The Secular City).
This is America's brand of atheism. It is represented in mythology by Prometheus challenging the old gods and stealing fiery power from them to bring man on earth a freedom from divine authority, liberation from childish beliefs and sexual taboos so that man come of age may create for himself a temporal utopia of plenty and a society of peace. This atheism was advanced in 1933 in The New Humanist magazine in a document entitled the "Humanist Manifesto I," by a group of 34 "liberal humanists." However, forty years later The Humanist magazine published "Humanist Manifesto II." This was necessary because the foolish optimism of the "liberal humanists" regarding the natural goodness of man was utterly demolished by the sheer brutality and horror of the Second World War. Not to mention the savage and evil systems of Nazism, Fascism and Communism.
The adolescent rebellion from God which is atheistic humanism continues. It has not learned anything from the harsh realities of history. It refuses to. And this refusal will only lead to more such disasters in the future for mankind. For as George Santayana reminded us, "Those who will not learn from history are condemned to repeat it." Already we are witnessing the brutality of an atheistic humanism which declares its "love for humankind" even as it approves of the worst form of child abuse - abortion - as well as euthanasia and all varieties of sexual experimentation and immoral "lifestyles" such as fornication and homosexuality. And when those who believe in objective truth and morality object, as did those who opposed same-sex "marriage" in California, Churches were attacked and Christians and Mormons were subjected to violence and intimidation - all in the name of "love" and "freedom."
The atheistic humanists who promise us a utopia of "freedom" and
"love" will lead us all back to the Gulag and the concentration camp.
This will be their legacy.
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
Jan, a parishioner at St. Joseph's Parish in Fitchburg: If you don't care for the falsification of Catholic Liturgy, don't come
In my last post, I noted how Saint Joseph's Parish in Fitchburg omitted the Nicene Creed at Holy Mass and that, because I took exception to this, a parishioner left a comment at this Blog calling me an idiot. Now another parishioner named Jan (who some have indicated is most likely the parish secretary Janice Potter), left a comment here saying, "What a wonderful church. I love it here. If you have a problem with it, which you obviously do as you seem to slam it every chance you get, then don't come."
In other words, if I believe that the priests who celebrate Mass at Saint Joseph's should not omit the Creed, that's my problem and I am the one who should solve the problem by leaving.
In other words, Jan is implying that that the priest has a right to alter the liturgy at will and to omit the Creed [or anything else he desires] and if I don't like it, I am the problem.
The Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum stresses that, "Whenever an abuse is committed in the celebration of the sacred Liturgy, it is to be seen as a real falsification of Catholic Liturgy. St Thomas wrote, 'the vice of falsehood is perpetrated by anyone who offers worship to God on behalf of the Church in a manner contrary to that which is established by the Church with divine authority, and to which the Church is accustomed.'" (RS, 169).
The same document tells us that, "In order that a remedy may be applied to such abuses, 'there is a pressing need for the biblical and liturgical formation of the people of God, both pastors and faithful,' so that the Church’s faith and discipline concerning the sacred Liturgy may be accurately presented and understood. Where abuses persist, however, proceedings should be undertaken for safeguarding the spiritual patrimony and rights of the Church in accordance with the law, employing all legitimate means." (RS, 170).
An excellent article over at EWTN tells us that:
"When the justice of obedience to ecclesiastical law is not rendered and thus the proper Order of the Mass is violated, there can be no real unity in the parish and thus no peace. As a result, the Catholic unity of communion with the bishop and with and through the bishop with Peter is disturbed. Hierarchical Communion is one of the three marks of unity to be found in the Church, the others being unity of faith and unity in the discipline of the Sacraments. Liturgical disobedience uniquely disturbs all three! This is not surprising since the Eucharist is the principal source and sign of the unity of the Church. By its very nature, it MUST be either a sign of unity or a sign of disunity.
Of course, many other evils enter in by liturgical disobedience, including the serious injustice of depriving the faithful of licit, and in some cases valid, sacraments, something to which as Catholics they have a right.
Canon 214 The Christian faithful have the right to worship God according to the prescriptions of their own rite approved by the legitimate pastors of the Church, and to follow their own form of spiritual life consonant with the teaching of the Church.
When these evils occur they have the right, and even the responsibility, to make their voices heard.
Canon 212
1. The Christian faithful, conscious of their own responsibility, are bound by Christian obedience to follow what the sacred pastors, as representatives of Christ, declare as teachers of the faith or determine as leaders of the Church.
2. The Christian faithful are free to make known their needs, especially spiritual ones, and their desires to the pastors of the Church.
3. In accord with the knowledge, competence and preeminence which they possess, they have the right and even at times a duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church, and they have a right to make their opinion known to the other Christian faithful, with due regard for the integrity of faith and morals and reverence toward their pastors, and with consideration of the common good and dignity of persons.
Bishop Robert McManus needs to look into this situation. Liturgical abuses are very serious. The solution is not for faithful Catholics to be told to "move on." The solution is for the priests at Saint Joseph's Parish to return to fidelity, to cease abusing the liturgy and disrupting the Church's unity.
Tuesday, May 29, 2012
You don't have a vocation in the Worcester Diocese unless you place community above truth?
Dr. Dietrich von Hildebrand reminds us, in his essay entitled "Is Unity among the Faithful the Highest Value?," that, "There is another great danger which goes together with the distortion of love of neighbor: the danger of putting community above truth, and of implicitly making peace the highest value. Unfortunately this tendency to regard community as more important than truth is very widespread in the holy Church today.
The first great error which we find here is the separation of community from truth. All genuine community among men presupposes that they encounter one another in a certain realm of goods. The solidarity which comes from worshipping the same idol and working for it, or from working together for something false or evil, does not deserve the name of community. Such a pseudo-community is a definite evil, and possesses a disvalue. The value which community possesses as such is here poisoned by the disvalue of that which brings people together, of that in whose name they are united. Surely unity, community has a value of its own. The unity of man is something of value not only because it the opposite of strife and struggle; it also has a value which is absent as long as individual men are indeed at peace, but not united in community...Community based upon error or something evil not only has no value, it has a definite disvalue. A pseudo-community built on some evil idol is something much worse than many individual, unrelated men who are in error or do evil. It is not only that it is worse for many to fall into error or heresy than for one to do so; it is not a question merely of a quantitative increase. No, it is the very unity of those who encounter one another in untruth and evil which gives birth to a pure disvalue and heightens the evil.
The value of true community, the concordia, becomes in a pseudo-community a definite disvalue. Thus it is utterly impossible to separate community from truth, and to make community the most important thing. Community is dependent in both its nature and value on the truth on which it is built....The value of the truth and of the true Faith is thus undeniably greater than that of community...Indeed, the value of standing in the truth, and confessing the true God, is even greater than that of the marvelous community of the mystical body of Christ. For it is in the true Faith and in real love of God that community with Him is constituted, and this is clearly the most important thing, and that from which all other community is dependent in its nature and value...overemphasis on community, on unity among men, this tendency to put unity above the truth and orthodoxy, is a consequence of the disastrous this-worldliness which is analogous to emphasizing love of neighbor at the expense of love of God.."
It would certainly appear that the Worcester Diocese has succumbed over the years to this tragic tendency to place unity above the truth. The company man who is willing to "go along" with sin and error "for the sake of friendship" is most welcome in this distorted notion of "community." But the man who puts the truth first is pushed to the margins and ostracized. For example, I stand fully with the Church's magisterial teaching. I defend the same. On numerous occasions I have expressed my desire to pursue a vocation to the priesthood. But my queries have been ignored. But Mr. Jonathan Joseph Slavinskas has been welcomed with open arms. The difference? Deacon Slavinskas has had praise for the late Bishop Timothy J. Harrington (who was dissent-friendly) and for Fr. Joseph Coonan, a priest who was mired in scandal and who was placed on leave in 2002 when accusations were made against him. Specifically, Fr. Coonan was accused of physically abusing as many as fifteen men as well as his own mother and sister.
Regarding Bishop Timothy J. Harrington, Catholic apologist Richard Blanchard wrote him an open letter in his "Just the Facts" newsletter some years ago. In this open letter, Richard Blanchard wrote (in part):
"When the Holy Father's legate, Archbishop Pio Laghi, handed you the crosier he confirmed your three-fold ministry as head shepherd of the Worcester diocese. You became the officially authorized Prophet, Priest, and King to the people of God....These are powers of God's making that you freely accepted to serve the people of God. To exercise these duties in all their integrity you must be one with the Chief Shepherd, the Holy Father. You have sworn allegiance to the Holy Father in a formal way before Bishop Flanagan and the appropriate documents were sent to Rome...
We are now in the seventh year of shepherding. How does your sworn oath of allegiance stand? Over the years dissenters have been allowed access to the diocesan newspaper of which you are the publisher. Dissenters have free play in the Office of Vicar of Religious, the Diocesan Commission for Women, and the Department of Religious Education. Dissenters have spread their lies about abortion, contraception, women priests, and the legitimacy to dissent against the Supreme Authority in the Church, the Holy Father....The Holy Father has asked that all bishops give proof of their pastoral ability and leadership by withholding all support from individuals or groups who, in the name of progress, justice, or compassion, or for any other reason, promote the ordination of women to the priesthood. Yet you fully support your own Diocesan Commission for Women that has constantly promoted the cause for women's ordination.....You were given the names of arch-dissidents who freely go about their work of undermining the Faith in your diocese. The list included Sister Anna Marie Kane, S.S.J., who is pro-choice and pro-women's ordination, Dr. Vincent Ford, Dr. Alice affey, Dr. Bernard Cooke, Dr. David O'Brien, all professors at Holy Cross, who dissent against Church teaching. How does your sworn allegiance stand up to this?"
Because I have been asking the same questions since the early 1990s, because I too oppose such dissent, I am not welcome. You see, I refuse to place community above truth. I refuse to march in lockstep with those who oppose the mind of Christ. I refuse to condone the sexual abuse of children or homosexual behavior or to portray such evils as "harmless fun and sex games."
The Third Reich placed unity over truth. The Communists did the same. So too did Jim Jones' "People's Temple" which soon enough became the People's Tomb.
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
What the anti-Catholic protesters in Madrid don't want you to know: World Youth Day was an economic boon for Madrid
As this article notes, anti-Catholic protesters took to the streets of Madrid and clashed with police, complaining about the 73 million dollare price tag of the Holy Father's visit and World Youth Day celebrations. Of course, the same anti-Catholic bigots have nothing to say about the 230 million that WYD has brought into Madrid.
I view that as a net of 157 million for Madrid.
It is easy to see what drives such complaints. Protesters in Madrid were overheard chanting, "We are not the Pope's youth," "I am a sinner, sinner, sinner" and "Nazi, nazi," a hateful reference to Pope Benedict XVI having been an unwilling participant in the Hitler Youth movement.
Anti-Catholic protesters may not be honest. But they are at least consistent in their tactics. Remember the Holy Father's visit to England last year? Anti-Catholic bigots there were suddenly concerned about the British taxpayer.
If you doubt that hatred is what drove the protests in Madrid, view these pictures and then we'll talk.
I view that as a net of 157 million for Madrid.
It is easy to see what drives such complaints. Protesters in Madrid were overheard chanting, "We are not the Pope's youth," "I am a sinner, sinner, sinner" and "Nazi, nazi," a hateful reference to Pope Benedict XVI having been an unwilling participant in the Hitler Youth movement.
Anti-Catholic protesters may not be honest. But they are at least consistent in their tactics. Remember the Holy Father's visit to England last year? Anti-Catholic bigots there were suddenly concerned about the British taxpayer.
If you doubt that hatred is what drove the protests in Madrid, view these pictures and then we'll talk.
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Senator Frank Lautenberg's comments come as no surprise...
In a post three years ago which may be found here, I quoted from Fr. Vincent Miceli, S.J., who warned that, "Absolute humanism is the sure road to absolute despotism. Denial of God as truth begets the imprisonment of man in the self-imposed darkness of his own myths. Flight from total dependence on God guarantees for man the utter loss of his freedom in a brutal enslavement either to sheer anarchy or to the tyrant who must eventually arise to impose upon the chaos of limitless human liberty the artificial, inhuman order of the concentration camp."
Eventually this 'inner threat' manifests itself externally: in the concentration camp (which might be euphemistically referred to as a 'civilian internment camp'), in torture and in mass-genocide. But first it is necessary to demonize those ideologically unwanted people one wants to silence (or worse). Such people must be cast in the most negative light possible. They must be labelled as being somehow 'backward' or 'obsolete.' They must be portrayed as people who are delusional and even perhaps dangerous."
Was I merely being an alarmist? Senator Frank Lautenberg, a Democrat from New Jersey, has just gone on record as saying that pro-life advocates "..don't deserve the freedoms in the Constitution." See here. The Moloch State which is being prepared for the arrival of the Man of Sin will not tolerate Christian opposition to abortion and homosexuality. As Fr. Miceli explains, "..a religious pagan state that claims total jurisdiction over man is a state directed by demons through the actions of rulers who justify their tyranny by having recourse to their Moloch god. Such a state provides its subjects not with law and justice, but with order - a man-centered, oppressive, demonic order. It begets the totalitarian state. The modern world everywhere is succumbing to the power of such a Moloch state. For secular, rational and occult humanism denies that there is any really transcendent, higher-than-human voice of authority that cares for man. Secular and occult humanists are at one in denying the true God. They are at one in divinizing man, the secularist through science, the occultist through demonic powers. Both seek power. The secularist seeks political power in the name of humanity; the occultist seeks the power of the underworld in the name of humanity. Both seek power for their own benefit. And both eventually come together to create the super-instrument of power, the modern omnicompetent state which claims absolute authority over the life and death of each citizen."
Eventually this 'inner threat' manifests itself externally: in the concentration camp (which might be euphemistically referred to as a 'civilian internment camp'), in torture and in mass-genocide. But first it is necessary to demonize those ideologically unwanted people one wants to silence (or worse). Such people must be cast in the most negative light possible. They must be labelled as being somehow 'backward' or 'obsolete.' They must be portrayed as people who are delusional and even perhaps dangerous."
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Peekaboo civility and a definition of what is "rational" from the White House
It was just over a week ago that President Obama and the White House were calling for a return to civility and calm rhetoric in American public discourse. Now the White House is calling the mental health of those who don't believe Barack Obama was born in Hawaii into question, suggesting that such people are irrational. White House press secretary Robert Gibbs, during Monday's White House briefing, said, "I think rational people have - have long ago, many when they first saw and heard the president, come to the conclusion of his citizenship." See here.
But as Dr. Kreeft has reminded us, "Usually, people seem to choose what to believe not by looking at the evidence but by looking at ideological labels, especially 'liberal' or 'conservative,' or by asking which group of people they want to be associated with, or by vague feelings and associations evoked by an idea within their consciousness, rather than by looking at the idea itself and the reality it points to outside their consciousness." Isn't this exactly what Mr. Gibbs is suggesting happened? He suggests that many people, "when they first saw and heard the president," came to "the conclusion of his citizenship."
Well gosh darn, that's a really rational approach. I saw and heard Barack Obama speak and came to the conclusion that he was a U.S. citizen. And this even though his birth certificate cannot be produced.
Not only does civility come and go at the White House, so does rational thought.
But as Dr. Kreeft has reminded us, "Usually, people seem to choose what to believe not by looking at the evidence but by looking at ideological labels, especially 'liberal' or 'conservative,' or by asking which group of people they want to be associated with, or by vague feelings and associations evoked by an idea within their consciousness, rather than by looking at the idea itself and the reality it points to outside their consciousness." Isn't this exactly what Mr. Gibbs is suggesting happened? He suggests that many people, "when they first saw and heard the president," came to "the conclusion of his citizenship."
Well gosh darn, that's a really rational approach. I saw and heard Barack Obama speak and came to the conclusion that he was a U.S. citizen. And this even though his birth certificate cannot be produced.
Not only does civility come and go at the White House, so does rational thought.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
