Archbishop Jozef De Kesel warns against hatred of Islam

Catholic World News is reporting that Archbishop Jozef De Kesel of Mechelen-Brussels, in an interview, "warned of the 'current risk' of 'hatred' of Islam—something, he said, that the terrorists wish to provoke. He called for prayer and for commitment to 'a more fraternal society, with more solidarity, built on respect for the other: these are Gospel values.'"

Solidarity with evil?

We shouldn't hate error?

Archbishop, with all due respect for your office, have you lost your mind?

Our Lord wept over Jerusalem and said, "If only you knew what makes for peace" (Lk 19:42). And now we do know (those of us who Christian in more than name). Only a life lived in conformity with the mind of Christ as shown to us by His Catholic Church can bring true peace. By contrast, "Pride inflates man; envy consumes him; avarice makes him restless; anger rekindles his passions; gluttony makes him ill; comfort destroys him; lies imprison him; murder defiles him...the very pleasures of sin become the instruments of punishment in the hands of God." (Pope Innocent III, On the Misery of the Human Condition).

It is our duty as Catholics to remind others of these truths and to expose those who are promoting sin or error. But often we will find ourselves being criticized (even by other Catholics, whose commitment toward Catholic teaching is, at best, questionable) for doing so. This should never deter us. When such people accuse us of "negativity," we should recall the words of Dr. Dietrich von Hildebrand: "..the rejection of evil and of sin is a response which is purely positive and morally called for, and it possesses a high moral value. One cannot truly love God, without hating the devil. One cannot really love the truth, without hating error. One cannot find the truth and grasp it clearly as such, without seeing through errors. Knowledge of truth is inseparably linked with knowledge of error, with the unmasking of error.* All talk about the superiority of 'yes' over 'no,' about the 'negativity' of rejecting that which should be rejected, is so much idle chatter." (The Cult of the 'Positive').

* "I would maintain that fear of error is simply necessary to the genuine love of truth." (John Cardinal Newman, Grammar of Assent).

Fr. Felix Sarda Y Salvany explains in his work "Liberalism is a Sin," that, "..the wolf has always been called the wolf; and in so calling it, no one has ever believed that wrong was done to the flock and the shepherd...In his Introduction to the Devout Life, that precious and popular work, he [St. Francis de Sales, a Doctor of the Church] expresses himself: 'If the declared enemies of God and of the Church ought to be blamed and censured with all possible vigor, charity obliges us to cry wolf when the wolf slips into the midst of the flock and in every way and place we may meet him.'" (pp. 97, 100-101).

Pope John XXIII said essentially the same thing: "...as long as we are journeying in exile over this earth, our peace and happiness will be imperfect. For such peace is not completely untroubled and serene; it is active, not calm and motionless. In short, this is a peace that is ever at war. It wars with every sort of error, including that which falsely wears the face of truth; it struggles against the enticements of vice, against those enemies of the soul, of whatever description, who can weaken, blemish, or destroy our innocence or Catholic faith."

I have often been criticized for speaking the hard truths. For exposing error and for calling it what it is. So be it. I'm not interested in popularity contests or being a friend of the world. Simply put, I choose not to be a coward. I agree with Pope Leo XIII who said, "To recoil before an enemy, or to keep silence when from all sides such clamors are raised against truth, is the part of a man either devoid of character or who entertains doubt as to the truth of what he professes to believe. In both cases such mode of behaving is base and is insulting to God, and both are incompatible with the salvation of mankind." ( Sapientiae Christianae, AAS 22 (1889-90) 390, PE, 111.14).

How about you dear reader? Aren't there enough chicken-Catholics in the world?

Meditation: Galatians 1:10

It is a grave error to imagine that the highest authority is the Pope

I thought I would publish this excellent article without comment.  I believe Mark Mallett could benefit from reading it prayerfully.  Then again, maybe not.


It Just Doesn't Matter Anymore
Written by  Megaera Erinyes



Dear Miss Erinyes

I'm just wondering what your opinion is. Do you think that Francis really is pope? I cannot imagine the real pope doing and saying the things that Francis is doing and saying.

Do you think that it is possible that the last conclave was rigged, making Francis' election illegitimate?

Fr. M
_

Dear Father,

The truth is that I have no idea. I am not a canonist; I have no training in theology or Church history and have no special ability to discern between the various arguments now being commonly bruited about the internet. I can see that we have a very large problem, one in the person of Francis that seems to equal the horrifying problems in the world. He seems to me to be, indeed, an intrinsic part of those external problems, a product of them, one might even say.
Unfortunately, I also have no special knowledge, other than what can be found out on the internet, about what happened in the Vatican in the last 2 years. I know what I have seen, and what I have heard, and it is obviously going to go down in Church history (if there is going to be anyone to write such things down in what is left of our future) as one of our most dangerous and inexplicable periods. Other than that, I know what anyone knows; rumours and counter rumours.

What I can see as a simple observer is that we are in a situation, with the Church and the world as a whole, that is apparently totally unprecedented in our long history. I hope you will forgive a long answer, since your question, as simple as it seems, encompasses quite a lot.

I suppose it is possible, and has probably happened in the past, that a pope has been brought out of illicit elections who really is pope, and has gone on to do his duty as perfectly as any pope. I don't think that the nature of the election process is so crucial, though given our situation I can see why it is an attractive answer. We have a serious problem with Bergoglio, and it is one that an irregular election would solve, if it could be proved. What a relief it would be to simply shrug off his strange speeches by saying, “Oh, just more anti-pope talk.”  Tempting indeed.

But I think there is a more generally useful answer that can be taken on board by any Catholic who still believes: If the pope is not a Catholic, and is pursuing goals contrary to those of Christ, does it matter if he is canonically an anti-pope? Does it matter if the election process was violated in this or that way?

Since the Ascension of Our Lord, we Christians have been charged with the conversion of the whole world. I do not find it surprising that it has taken us 2000 years to accomplish this, particularly since at the time the charge was given we still had much of the world left to discover and were dependent upon others to invent things like sailing ships and oceanic navigational tools. Given distractions like the human love of making war and the Black Death, I find a time frame of two millennia to be fairly reasonable. But in the end, by the end of the 19th century or thereabouts, I think we have done as well as we could be expected to do.

Christ is known throughout the world, even to people who, in the age of iPhones still live in round tents made of reindeer skins. There are Christians in every jungle, in every city, in every university, in every prison, every mine, every desert, and the blood of the martyrs has soaked with equal ubiquity into every soil and sand on earth. I think, though of course there are still millions unconverted, in general terms we have done what we were told to do. That He has also been rejected, again, by the majority of those who have heard Him, is not something we can control today any more than His friends could control it then.

My own ancestors were brought into the Faith a long time ago, while there was still an Emperor in Rome. But I have a good friend whose country did not see a Christian missionary until the 15th century. I met a bishop some time ago who said the first Catholic missionary didn't arrive in his country until the 1950s. But now, in the age of the internet, moreover, there can only be a handful of people left on earth (North Korea?) who have had no exposure at all to Christ and His truth.

So the Big Job we were given by the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, for Whom and through Whom all things were made, appears to be mainly done. Everyone has heard it, and those who are going to respond have done so. Which realisation came home to me shortly after that distressing night last March: the one communal task we have as human beings and as Catholics, is complete, so what comes next?

And now looking at the precedent, which is something quite natural to Catholics, I find that I cannot discover any precise parallel. We have a pope... a pope! who is capable of uttering complete nonsense, like "Corruption is a worse evil than sin," who not only appears to believe that it makes some kind of sense but who is instantly lauded and praised by millions of people, Catholics included, for having said it.




Have we ever in all our long history had the great mass of the Catholic faithful know so little of the doctrine of the Faith while at the same time positively believing so much that is directly opposed to it? We have converted the world to the Faith, indeed, but it seems that immediately after the completion of this great task, through a strange and inexplicable confluence of social and historical factors, the world has instantly lost it again.

Could we ever imagine another time in which millions of Catholics believe it is possible to be a "pro-choice Catholic"? Or who could possibly believe themselves to be good Catholics who accept concubinage as a moral good? Or even worse, unnatural perversions? And these, perhaps even more importantly, never definitively corrected by either bishop or pope?

But apparently we look to Rome in vain, for we have now seen, before all the eyes of the world in the first two weeks of this month, that these beliefs are not held only by the vast masses of Catholic laity, but are equally the belief of a plain majority of the men who attended the Synod as successors of the Apostles! What kind of precedent do we have for a Church, in the person of its most senior ministers, which has lost its own reason for existence, its own Faith? What does God say is to be done with salt that is no longer salty?

The approved prophets of the Catholic Church, all those visionaries who had visits in their little stone huts from the glorious Queen of Heaven, have all conveyed more or less the same message: that a time will come, soon, indeed is even upon us, of a "great apostasy," when there will be a vast loss of the hard-won Faith, and a terrible darkness will descend upon the world as a result. And the one historical reality that I cannot help but think of is the indiscriminate slaughter of, by now, perhaps billions of human beings before birth, with barely more than silence as a response from those consecrated to the service of God. All those holy prophets have said that this time of apostasy, that I cannot help but believe is upon us now, will be followed, and ended, by the most terrifying supernatural chastisement the world has ever seen. And looking at the abortion statistics it seems just, since evil on such a scale cannot go unanswered forever.

So, returning to your question, my answer is that I believe it to be moot. We are looking to the past for precedent in the answer to the conundrum of this strange and obviously intellectually corrupted man, Bergoglio. But if precedent is not helping us with any of the other strangenesses of the modern Church why do we look to it for the answer to this pope? Have we ever had a situation in which, after doctrine has been settled for two millennia, the pope opens it to questioning and "debate" at a Synod of bishops? And that Synod of bishops did not instantly shout him down and denounce him as a heretic? Could we possibly imagine that such a body would close its session leaving such issues to remain unanswered, and that swiftly, as to whether we should condone public concubinage or even the bizarre legal fiction of "homosexual unions"?!

I ask you, if the pope is not a Catholic, does it matter if he is an anti-pope? Do such canonically defined categories, dependent upon longstanding precedent, apply to this? How can they?

I do not know what Bergoglio is. But I know that nothing he says makes any sense. I know that he cannot be followed or obeyed, not because of his heresies, which are growing more manifest by the hour, but because of the incomprehensibility, the sheer nonsense of his utterances. There are two kinds of orders a soldier cannot obey: those that contradict the law and those that cannot be understood.

In such a situation, the lower ranks of an army must look to more obviously lawful and mentally competent leadership. And if that fails, which it does in many cases throughout the Catholic world, he is left to follow the law and his duty as best he can with the last intelligible, coherent and explicit orders has been given. He knows in general what the goals of the war are and he knows he has a duty to continue fighting that war until his last breath or until it is won.

If a pope is not a Catholic, does it really matter if he is an anti-pope? I don't pretend to know what really goes on inside the obviously confused and contradictory mind of Jorge Bergoglio, whether his oddness and confusion is a deliberate ruse or if it is simply a sign of dementia or if it is merely illustrative of what happens to a mind formed by Jesuits in the 1960s, but judging strictly from what he says and does, I know that he cannot be prosecuting the same goals in this war that we have been charged with. Two and two do not equal five, even if it is a pope who asserts it. And no solider is bound to follow orders that are contrary to the goals of the war he is in.

It is a grave error to imagine that the highest authority is the pope. He receives his authority from the Head of the Church, and if he begins to stray from his orders, he cannot be obeyed. I cannot determine what he believes, certainly not from what he says, but if he cannot be understood, believed or obeyed within the confines of the Faith we have received, I think I don't care very much whether Francis was elected illicitly or not.

______________________

Our Lady told Fr. Stefano Gobbi of the Marian Movement of Priests:

"I am weeping because the Church is continuing along the road of division, of loss of the true faith, of apostasy and of errors which are being spread more and more without anyone offering opposition to them. Even now, that which I predicted at Fatima and that which I have revealed here in the third message confided to a little daughter of mine (i.e. Sister Lucia) is in the process of being accomplished. And so, even for the Church the moment of its great trial has come, because the man of iniquity will establish himself within it and the abomination of desolation will enter into the holy temple of God." (To the Priests, Our Lady's Beloved Sons, No. 362, September 15, 1987, p. 572.)

And again:

"The black beast like a leopard indicates Freemasonry; the beast with the two horns like a lamb indicates Freemasonry infiltrated into the interior of the Church, that is to say, ecclesiastical Masonry, which has spread especially among the members of the hierarchy. This Masonic infiltration, in the interior of the Church, was already foretold to you by me at Fatima, when I announced to you that Satan would enter in even to the summit of the Church. If the task of Masonry is to lead souls to perdition, bringing them to the worship of false divinities, the task of ecclesiastical Masonry on the other hand is that of destroying Christ and his Church, building a new idol, namely a false christ and a false church." (To the Priests, Our Lady's Beloved Sons, No. 406, June 13, 1989, p. 649)

Deacon Nick Donnelly: His charity is perfect but his superiors charity is not

Writing for LifeSiteNews, Hillary White reported last Friday that Bishop Michael Campbell, "...has pressured one of his deacons to cease blogging in a move described by critics as an effort to silence the deacon’s lively defense of orthodox Catholic doctrine and the papacy."  White continues: "Deacon Nick Donnelly’s well-travelled blog, 'Protect the Pope,' now carries the note, 'From its inception to the beginning of March 2014, Rev. Nick Donnelly, was the main author and editor of this blog. At this time he is in a period of reflection and prayer.'

Deacon Nick Donnelly

The diocese of Lancaster issued a statement this week saying that Bishop Michael Campbell had invited Deacon Donnelly to stop posting, and to enter a period of 'reflection and prayer … on the duties involved for ordained bloggers/website administrators to truth, charity and unity in the Church.' No reasons were given for the bishop’s action. Donnelly’s wife, Martina, has taken over posting and has invited other authors to contribute, and Deacon Donnelly himself has said that he has no control over what is posted.

LifeSiteNews contacted Bishop Campbell’s office but was told there would likely not be any further comment."

Is anyone surprised?

White continues:

Donnelly told LifeSiteNews that he has been able to speak to Bishop Campbell, but prefers to keep the details of his face-to-face discussion private. He added, however, that bishops in general have a 'very low opinion of blogs' and cited a speech by Westminster Archbishop, Cardinal Vincent Nichols, who accused Catholic bloggers of 'spreading gossip and complaints and destroying love in the Church.'

Donnelly launched his blog in 2010 in response to the frenzy of attacks against Pope Benedict XVI by the secular press in the lead-up to his state visit to Britain that year. Its popularity on the internet is without question, with over a million hits per year and readers logging in from 188 countries around the world. Donnelly is a permanent deacon for the diocese of Lancaster, but includes a disclaimer on the blog that says, 'Protect the Pope is a private initiative and is in no way officially associated with the Diocese of Lancaster.'

Donnelly strongly denied that his blog has ever been used to spread 'gossip' and insists that it only commented on material available in the public domain. But Donnelly strongly defended the rights of Catholics to object to the near-universal disintegration of the faith.

'Don’t we have the right to complain when dissent is disseminated in the Church? Don’t we have the right to challenge the betrayal of the Faith entrusted to us by Our Lord Jesus Christ? Blogs are often the only way that faithful Catholics have a voice in the Church.'

 'When I ran Protect the Pope I was often privately contacted by Catholics who wanted to tell me about their concerns and complaints about dissent and disobedience in their parish or diocese because they had been given the brush off by their parish priest or bishop when they approached them,' he told LifeSiteNews.

Bishop Campbell’s decision has caused a considerable backlash, and other clerical and lay Catholic bloggers have commented that bishops who hope to stave off controversy by suppressing writers are accomplishing only the opposite result..."


Indeed.  What is most ironic is that Archbishop Vincent Nichols and Bishop Michael Campbell should express concerns over charity.  Father Felix Sarda Y Salvany, in his classic work entitled Liberalism is a Sin, reminds us that, "The Catechism of the Council of Trent, that popular and most authoritative epitome of Catholic theology, gives us the most complete and succinct definition of charity; it is full of wisdom and philosophy.  Charity is a supernatural virtue which induces us to love God above all things and our neighbor as ourselves, and this not just in any way, but for the love of God and in obedience to His law.  And now, what is it to love?  Amare est velle bonum, replies the philosopher.  'To love is to wish good to him whom we love.'  To whom does charity command us to wish good?  To our neighbor, that is to say, not to this or that man only, but to everyone.  What is that good which true love wishes?  First of all supernatural good, then goods of the natural order which are not incompatible with it.  All this is included in the phrase 'for the love of God.'  It follows, therefore, that we can love our neighbor when displeasing him, when opposing him...If it is shown that in displeasing or offending our neighbor we act for his good, it is evident that we love him, even when opposing or crossing him.  The physician cauterizing his patient or cutting off his gangrened limb may nonetheless love him.  When we correct the wicked by restraining or by punishing them, we do nonetheless love them.  This is charity - and perfect charity." (pp. 92, 93).

The new Catechism of the Catholic Church (see 1822), promulgated by Pope John Paul II, gives us the same definition of charity.  While Deacon Nick Donnelly has shown us such authentic charity, his superiors have not.  As another Vicar of Christ once said, "All the evils of the world are due to lukewarm Catholics."  Apparently the sort of Catholic Bishops Campbell and Nichols would prefer.  Nevertheless, as my Latin professor used to repeat so often, "Si palam res est, repetition injuria non est" - To say what everybody knows is no injury.

Saint Thomas Aquinas taught that the laity (as with the ordained) possess the right - an absolute right - to expect and demand both sound doctrine (see Veritatis Splendor, No. 113) and good example on the part of the clergy and Church leaders.  And, if this is not given to them, they have the right to press for the reform and the removal of corrupt elements.

Pope John XXIII taught us in his Encyclical Letter Ad Petri Cathedram: On Truth, Unity and Peace: "Anyone who consciously and wantonly attacks known truth, who arms himself with falsehood in his speech, his writings, or his conduct in order to attract and win over less learned men and to shape the inexperienced and impressionable minds of the young to his own way of thinking, takes advantage of the inexperience and innocence of others and engages in an altogether despicable business." (No. 11).

And what should our response to such a "despicable business" be? Our Beloved Holy Father Pope John XXIII again provides an answer:

"...as long as we are journeying in exile over this earth, our peace and happiness will be imperfect. For such peace is not completely untroubled and serene; it is active, not calm and motionless. In short, this is a peace that is ever at war. It wars with every sort of error, including that which falsely wears the face of truth; it struggles against the enticements of vice, against those enemies of the soul, of whatever description, who can weaken, blemish, or destroy our innocence or Catholic faith." (No. 93).

Deacon Nick, like myself, has chosen to dedicate his life to the Lord Jesus Christ by waging a war against every sort of error.  Should he punished for such or should his superiors be rebuked by Christ's Vicar?

You know the answer.

Is Archbishop Vincent Nichols interested in authentic charity?  If so, why does he tolerate dissent?  See here.

Our Lady Immaculate Parish in Athol: Losing Their Religion?

As I said in a previous post, "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."

This truth seems to have been forgotten by parishioners at Our Lady Immaculate Parish in Athol, Massachusetts.  Among the responses to a "Cluster Survey" (Clint Eastwood's character in Heartbreak Ridge would have called it something else), are the following suggestions: The Church needs to address facts that this age group [20-40] is practicing birth control and divorce, More tolerance (especially in preaching) - this one is particularly disturbing since there are never homilies addressing the sinfulness of abortion, contraception, fornication, homosexuality etc, Teach less theology, Model after Paulist Center in Boston and be "more open and loving" as opposed to "old-time/rigid/closed-minded."

The parish bulletin insert which lists these responses goes on to say that volunteers are requested to evaluate and implement the suggestions.

One can just imagine how that's going to proceed.

Model the parish after the Paulist Center in Boston?  Never mind that the Paulist Center is a hotbed of dissent from Church teaching and a center for homosexual agitprop.  See here.  More tolerance in preaching?  Again, the priests at Our Lady Immaculate have not been preaching against sin as it is.  But tolerance is for external conduct, it is not for the mind.  The mind cannot tolerate error for an instant.  Error and truth are not equally good.  And Catholics are supposed to be on the side of truth. 

If Our Lady Immaculate Parish in Athol is losing the 20-40 age group (and it is), it's not because the Gospel has been preached there.  It's because it hasn't been.  Young people are naturally idealistic.  They are hungry for truth - even, and especially, the hard truths.  But Our Lady Immaculate Parish - as with many other parishes which have embraced a liberal "gospel" - has only offered spiritual pablum.  The youth need wheat not chaff.

And the parish "leadership" has failed to produce.



Related reading here.

"I saw how baleful would be the consequences of this false church..."

"Among the strangest things that I saw, were long processions of bishops. Their thoughts and utterances were made known to me through images issuing from their mouths. Their faults towards religion were shown by external deformities ... I saw what I believe to be nearly all the bishops of the world, but only a small number were perfectly sound. I also saw the Holy Father - God-fearing and prayerful. Nothing left to be desired in his appearance, but he was weakened by old age and by much suffering. His head was lolling from side to side, and it dropped onto his chest as if he was falling asleep ...Then I saw that everything pertaining to Protestantism was gradually gaining the upperhand, and the Catholic religion fell into complete decadence. Most priests were lured by the glittering but false knowledge of young school-teachers, and they all contributed to the work of destruction. In those days, Faith will fall very low, and it will be preserved in some places only, in a few cottages and in a few families which God has protected from disasters and wars....

As we came nearer, however, the fire abated and we saw the blackened building. We went through a number of magnificent rooms, and we finally reached the Pope. He was sitting in the dark and slept in a large arm chair. He was very ill and weak; he could no longer walk. The ecclesiastics in the inner circle looked insincere and lacking in zeal; I did not like them. I told the Pope of the bishops who are to be appointed soon. I told him also that he must not leave Rome. If he did so, it would be chaos. He thought that the evil was inevitable and he should leave in order to save many things beside himself. He was very much inclined to leave Rome, and he was insistently urged to do so....


I also saw the various regions of the earth. My Guide (Jesus) named Europe and pointing to a small and sandy region, He uttered these words: 'Here is Prussia (East Germany), the enemy.' Then He showed me another place, to the north, and He said: 'This is Moskva, the land of Moscow, bringing many evils'...


I saw also the relationship between two popes ... I saw how baleful would be the consequences of this false church. I saw it increase in size; heretics of every kind came into the city of Rome. The local clergy grew lukewarm, and I saw a great darkness...

I had another vision of the great tribulation. It seems to me that a concession was demanded from the clergy which could not be granted. I saw many older priests, especially one, who wept bitterly. A few younger ones were also weeping. But others, and the lukewarm among them, readily did what was demanded. It was as if people were splitting into two camps.

I saw that many pastors allowed themselves to be taken up with ideas that were dangerous to the Church. They were building a great, strange, and extravagant Church. Everyone was to be admitted in it in order to be united and have equal rights: Evangelicals, Catholics, sects of every description. Such was to be the new Church ... But God had other designs...

I saw again the strange big church that was being built there in Rome. There was nothing holy in it. I saw this just as I saw a movement led by Ecclesiastics to which contributed angels, saints, and other Christians. But there in the strange big church all the work was being done mechanically according to set rules and formulae. Everything was being done according to human reason ...I saw all sorts of people, things, doctrines, and opinions. There was something proud, presumptuous, and violent about it, and they seemed very successful. I did not see a single Angel nor a single saint helping in the work. But far away in the background, I saw the seat of the cruel people armed with spears, and I saw a laughing figure which said: 'Do build it as solid as you can; we will pull it to the ground'...

I saw again the new and odd-looking church which they were trying to build. There was nothing holy about it ... People were kneading bread in the crypt below ... but it would not rise, nor did they receive the body of our Lord, but only bread. Those who were in error, through no fault of their own, and who piously and ardently longed for the Body of Jesus were spiritually consoled, but not by their communion. Then my Guide (Jesus) said: 'This is Babel'...

I saw deplorable things: they were gambling, drinking, and talking in church; they were also courting women. All sorts of abominations were perpetrated there. Priests allowed everything and said Mass with much irreverence. I saw that few of them were still godly... All these things caused me much distress....

Then I saw an apparition of the Mother of God, and she said that the tribulation would be very great. She added that people must pray fervently with outstretched arms, be it only long enough to say three Our Fathers. This was the way her Son prayed for them on the Cross. They must rise at twelve at night, and pray in this manner; and they must keep coming to the Church. They must pray above all for the Church of Darkness to leave Rome... These were all good and devout people, and they did not know where help and guidance should be sought. There were no traitors and enemies among them, yet they were afraid of one another...

I saw more martyrs, not now but in the future ... I saw the secret sect relentlessly undermining the great Church. Near them I saw a horrible beast coming up from the sea. All over the world, good and devout people, especially the clergy, were harassed, oppressed, and put into prison... Whole Catholic communities were being oppressed, harassed, confined, and deprived of their freedom. I saw many churches closed down, great miseries everywhere, wars and bloodshed. A wild and ignorant mob took violent action. But it did not last long... " (Venerable Anne Catherine Emmerich, The Life and Revelations of Anne Catherine Emmerich).

More than ever faithful Catholics need to pray for the Holy Father and for those Bishops, priests and religious who remain faithful to the Magisterium. There is in preparation a schism the likes of which few can imagine. Ecclesiastical masonry seeks to build a counterfeit church within the true Church, one which is based on a humanitarian religion which will serve the Antichrist. Our Lady told Fr. Gobbi of the Marian Movement of Priests, "When there will have entered into her the man of iniquity, who will bring to fulfillment the abomination of desolation which will reach its climax in the horrible sacrilege, as the great apostasy will have spread everywhere, then my Immaculate Heart will gather together the little faithful remnant which, in suffering, in prayer and in hope, will await the return of my Son Jesus in glory." (May 13, 1994).

"...And his tail was dragging along the third part of the stars of heaven and he dashed them to the earth.."

"'And a great sign appeared in heaven,' wrote St. John in the twelfth chapter of his Apocalypse. 'A woman clothed in the sun, and the moon under her feet, having on her head a crown of twelve stars...and I heard a voice in heaven saying: Now is come salvation and strength and the kingdom of God and the power of His Christ.....And another sign was seen in the heaven, and behold, a great red dragon having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his head seven diadems. And his tail was dragging along the third part of the stars of heaven and he dashed them to the earth.'

Most Scripture scholars agree that the sign of the Woman in heaven has a double symbolism, referring to Mary and to the Church. The sign of the red dragon and the beast, who comes up from the abyss to wage war against the camp of the saints, refers to Satan and the Antichrist. Earlier in chapter nine, St. John depicts the confusion and division, through heresy and schism, that these two agents of evil will bring upon the Church and the whole world in the last days.

Once again it is profitable to apply St. John's vision of falling stars, but this time with special application to the relationship between Mary and her priests. In her many apparitions Mary constantly requests prayers, reparation and compensation for the sins of priests. As the most valiant of all women, indeed, of all saints, she wants to bestow on all who have been ordained into the holy priesthood of her Son a high degree of her own heroic faith, fidelity and zeal. For she knows how necessary these virtues are for priests if they are to dedicate their lives wholeheartedly to attaining the glory of God and the salvation of souls. Mary knows, too, that priests are the special target of Satan's malice who would destroy her Son's Church through the corruption of His priests. St. John, using striking dramatic metaphors, reveals the destructive tactics of Satan and the Antichrist.

'And I saw a star which had fallen from heaven to the earth, and there was given to him the key of the bottomless pit, and there went up from the pit a smoke like that of a furnace; and the sun was darkened and the air, by reason of the smoke of the pit. And out of the smoke locusts went forth upon the earth and they were told...to harm only such men as have not the seal of God upon their forehead.'

Now in prophetic symbolism falling stars almost always refer to tepid, weak or apostate bishops and priests who are harbingers of grief and disaster to the whole world. The key to the shaft of the abyss is an emblem of their apostasy. Such traitorous religious leaders and teachers ally themselves with the rebellious angels. Instead of using the keys of the kingdom of God, which they have received from the Church through their priesthood and the mission of teaching the Gospel so as to suppress and defeat the satanic forces incarnate in wicked men while advancing the holiness of the faithful, they rather abuse their powers to foster and propagate error and evil. They opt to open the abyss and let loose upon the earth the plagues of darkness and wickedness.

Today too many fallen stars - rebellious bishops, priests, theologians, philosophers, nuns and Catholic intellectuals - are abusing their sacerdotal powers and intellectual gifts to seduce, enslave and precipitate into hell vast numbers of wayward sheep. Out of the darkness of the pit they have loosed the forces of error, evil and scandal. The smoke streaming from the pit darkens the sun of Christ's truth and obliterates the splendour of His holiness; it infects the air with decadent, immoral odors. Everything is cast into confusion; gloom infests the world of religion and reason; grace, the life-giving oxygen of the soul and body, is strangled out of the supernatural organisms of the children of God. Moreover, the darkening sun and sky betoken the eclipse of the Teaching Authority of the Church, the lowering of men's respect and love for her, their loss of reverence for her Master and the demeaning of both Christ and His Church to the level of being mere natural, defective organs of society lusting after domination over men's souls and bodies through the accumulation of material riches and political power.." (Fr. Vincent P. Miceli, S.J., The Antichrist: Has he lauched his final campaign against the Savior?", pp. 260-261).

More than ever today, we need to pray for Christ's priests. This is not a time to engage in anti-clericalism. Faithful priests need our support. They need our prayers. We are now facing the final confrontation between two camps: the one belonging to Our Lord Jesus and His Mother and the other to Satan and the Antichrist.

Pray and offer reparation. Offer your Holy Mass and your Holy Rosary every day not only for your own spiritual needs but for priests.

Related reading here.

Tolerance is for external conduct...

"For generations now, we have denied the food of revealed truth to our
children; and we have permitted the moral polluters to dump their garbage
into our culture with abandon. Why then, are we surprised that ours
has become a stunted and sick society?" - Patrick J. Buchanan



In his book "Apologetics: A Philosophic Defense and Explanation of the Catholic Religion," Monsignor Paul J. Glenn, Ph.D, S.T.D., writes, "Let Catholic apologists..not surrender the cause of Christ...by a milk-and-water philosophy of tolerance. Tolerance is for external conduct; it is not for the mind; the mind cannot tolerate error for an instant." (p. 278). And this because error and truth are not "equally good." In other words, we must always strive to tolerate people [including those who disagree with us; and our worst enemies], but we cannot tolerate error. Differing opinions are not equally valid.

And in his important work "The New Tower of Babel," Dr. Dietrich von Hildebrand explains that, "Although the dethronement of truth manifests itself in the most drastic and radical way in Nazism and Bolshevism, unfortunately many symptoms of this spiritual disease are also to be found in democratic countries. For example, in discussions we sometimes hear the following argument: 'Why should your opinion be more valid than mine? We are equal and have the same rights. It is undemocratic to pretend that your opinion is preferable.' This attitude is extremely significant because it reveals the complete absence of the notion of truth, the tacit elimination of truth as the determining norm for the value of an opinion....The immanent theme of every opinion is truth; the only thing that matters here is whether or not it is in conformity with reality..This brings us to another slogan disclosing the dethronement of truth. It is the often repeated statement 'It is true for me, but it may not be true for you.' The truth of a proposition is essentially objective; a truth which as such would be valid for one person only is a contradiction in terms. A proposition is true or false, but it can never be true for one person and false for another. The statement that a certain action is morally good may be true or false; but if it is true, it can never be false for any other person.." (pp. 56-58).

Some might be tempted to believe that the rejection of error and falsehood [ and here, again, we are speaking of ideas not persons] is something "negative" and even cult-like. But such is simply not the case. Again, Dr. Hildebrand explains: "Perhaps never before has there been as much intellectual fraud as there is today. In the mass media - and even in discussions on university campuses - this intellectual fraud appears chiefly as the manipulation of slogans designed to bluff the hearer or reader, and prevent him from thinking clearly. For a typical example, let us consider how the terms positive and negative are now most often used to discredit the refutation of pernicious errors and to give credit to the most shallow speculations. The intellectual swindlers who play such an important role in public discussions will often denominate as 'positive' propositions and attitudes they favor. They thereby seek to forestall questions of truth and value by enveloping their prejudices in a vague suggestion of 'creativity,' 'originality,' 'openness,' 'unaggressiveness.' This is the device of the cuttlefish. The moment one tries to grasp it, it emits a murky substance to confuse and deceive.

In reality, the popular slogan usages of positive and negative is a distortion of the genuine meanings of the terms. In proper usage they can refer to existence and nonexistence or to value and disvalue. They can refer to desirability and undesirability, or to answers to questions and demands, or to results of tests and inquiries. But when these terms are applied to attitudes of mind or to theses - by way of suggesting an evaluation - an intellectual fraud is committed; for they are then being used to evoke vague associations that distract from the question that alone matters - namely: Is this attitude objectively called for? Or: Is this thesis true?...It is the nature of truth to exclude every contradiction of itself. Thus, the rejection of errors and falsehoods can never be separated from the affirmation of truth. The one implies the other...

To give the impression that affirmations are 'positive' and denials 'negative' is to misrepresent completely the nature of judgments and propositions. This abuse of the language transforms the terms positive and negative into deceptive slogans and thus amounts to an intellectual swindle..." (The Charitable Anathema, pp. 45-47).

When others falsely accuse you of seeing only "black and white" because you accept the authoritative teaching of Jesus Christ as made known through His Church's Magisterium, remind them that you aren't dealing with "black and white" but right and wrong. Remind them that while we must respect persons, still "..the task of authentically interpreting the Word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ.." (Dei Verbum, No. 10 of the Second Vatican Council).

If we insist that 2 + 2 = 4, this does not make us cult-like or "negative." If we respect the demands of truth while still respecting the person who disagrees with us, we are not cult-like. We are being faithful to Christ and His Church.

Cardinal Sean O'Malley: Unity over truth?

"It is as much a crime to disturb the peace when truth prevails as it is a crime to keep the peace when truth is violated. There is therefore a time in which peace is justified and another time when it is not justifiable. For it is written that there is a time for peace and a time for war and it is the law of truth that distinguishes the two. But at no time is there a time for truth and a time for error, for it is written that God's truth shall abide forever. That is why Christ has said that He has come to bring peace and at the same time He has come to bring the sword. But He does not say that He has come to bring both the truth and the falsehood." - Blaise Pascal.




In an article entitled "O'Malley defends role at Kennedy rites," The Boston Globe says that the Cardinal has refused to join the ranks of those Bishops "who would deny Communion to Catholic politicians who support abortion rights.." In other words, he has refused to act in accordance with Canon 915 of the Code of Canon Law which states clearly, "Those who are excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion." And this represents a direct challenge to the teaching authority of the Magisterium which tells us (in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 1395) that "The Eucharist is properly the sacrament of those who are in full communion with the Church."

Dismissing the concerns of those who view Senator Edward Kennedy's Catholic funeral (which was televised and therefore very public) as a source of scandal, the Cardinal was quoted as having said that, "If any cause is motivated by judgment, anger or vindictiveness it will be doomed to marginalization." But doesn't this represent a judgment aimed at those who oppose genuflecting before the Culture of Death and who viewed the Senator's funeral as a source of scandal? In other words, isn't His Eminence guilty of the very fault he would attribute to others?

And what of anger? Is anger always evil or unholy? His Eminence should know better. Our age has succumbed to a cult of softness. It is fashionable to believe that any display of anger is due to a lack of charity or to some psychological problem. This cult of softness has, in turn, contributed much to an effeminate Christianity which is incapable of opposing the evils of our present epoch.

It is forgotten that sometimes anger is the proper response to value. In the words of Fr. Bede Jarrett, O.P., "Not only may I sin by being angry when I should not, but I may sin by not being angry when I should be. If my reason tells me that it is right to be angry, then I disobey God when I refuse to give place to wrath; for, as the New Testament teaches, it is possible to "be angry and sin not" (Ephesians 4:26). Our Lord Himself, when need arose, roped together a bundle of cords and drove from the Temple those who trafficked in the House of Prayer, and down the front steps He flung the tables of the money-changers. Perhaps for most of us, the fault is not that we are too angry, but that we are not angry enough. Think of the evils that are in the world, that are known to all, admitted to exist by public press and on public platform. Would they have survived thus far, had folk all shown the indignant anger of Christ? Hypocrisy, cant, and the whole blatant injustice that stalks naked and unashamed in national life - may not our own weakness and silence have helped to render impotent all efforts to reduce these terrible things?....I have got to make myself realize that anger is itself neither evil nor good, and that it can be either. Hence I must pledge myself to see how far I allow anger to rule me when it should not, and how far I overrule it when I should give it a free hand." (Classic Catholic Meditations, p. 168, Sophia Institute Press).

All too many Catholics refuse to give vent to a righteous anger which opposes the myriad evils of our time. Has the Cardinal's way worked? Senator Kennedy wrote a letter to our Holy Father in which he sought to justify his pro-abortion stance. His Eminence has forgotten a truth expressed by my dear friend Dr. Dietrich von Hildebrand (whom Pope Pius XII referred to as the "20th century Doctor of the Church"): "St. Paul says there always will be heresies and he adds that God permits them to test the faithful. The disunity that is based on the incompatibility of truth and falsehood cannot and should not be avoided...To deplore disunity as such, instead of deploring heresies, instead of condemning these and calling them by their name, implies first of all that one would keep unity even at the cost of truth. But, of course, true unity presupposes unity in truth. Error, falsehood, can never be the basis for true unity. That holy, supernatural unity of which our Lord speaks in the priestly prayer ut unum sint - that all may be one - can come to pass only in the profession of divine truth, in the membership of the Mystical Body of Christ. It is a unity which includes some but, by the same token, excludes others. As Father Werenfried van Straaten [the Bacon priest, my note] reminds us, 'Jesus' prayer that all may be one'...may not be separated from His other words: 'I say unto you that whoever does not enter by the door of the sheepfold is a thief and a robber...I am the door!' The same principle is expressed in the first encyclical of Pope Pius XI: Pax Christi in regno Christi, the peace of Christ in the reign of Christ. Even on the natural level, unity that is not grounded in truth is either a very silly or a very dangerous thing. That shallow comradeship so typical of modern society, for example, in which we approach everyone regardless of his relation to God in a spirit of 'tolerance' - the spirit incarnated in the words of Frederick II of Prussia: 'Let everyone attain beatitude in his own fashion' - that is a foolish pseudo-unity lacking any common principle to truly unite men. Such 'togetherness,' however, can be worse than foolish; it can be a sinister force when it is based not on a lack of principle, but on a common error - on an idol. The togetherness found in Nazism or in Communism is an amazing thing. Devotion to the common idol goes so far that the devotees are ready to die for it. So many young Germans gave their lives in the war while screaming, 'Heil Hitler!' They had given themselves in unity, to the devil." (The Charitable Anathema, pp. 3-4).

I have nothing but love and respect for His Eminence. But it would appear that he does not deplore error and falsehood as much as he deplores disunity. This is a great tragedy and more than likely the result of a lack of the Holy Spirit's gift of Fortitude. Something His Eminence should pray for. But he should refrain from casting aspersions at those of us who understand that authentic unity is based in truth. His Eminence may believe that Catholics who are firm in faith are guilty of "attitudes and practices" which do "irreparable damage to the communion of the Church." But faithful Catholics know that it is a false irenicism which really damages the communion of the Church.

Dissent in the Church leads to polarization and destroys peace within the Church. Faithful Catholics who refuse to accept a dissenting view must resist it for the sake of restoring an authentic peace, a peace which Pope John XXIII taught: "is not completely untroubled and serene; it is active, not calm and motionless. In short, this is a peace that is ever at war. It wars with every sort of error, including that which falsely wears the face of truth; it struggles against the enticements of vice, against those enemies of the soul, of whatever description, who can weaken, blemish, or destroy our innocence or Catholic faith." (Ad Petri cathedram, AAS 51 (1959) 517, PE, 263.93).

Dear Cardinal O'Malley please meditate carefully on these words from St. Paul, my patron saint, "Am I now currying favor with human beings or God? Or am I seeking to please people? If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a slave of Christ." (Galatians 1: 10).

Your Eminence, ask yourself the very same question.

You are in my prayers.

Related reading here.

Notes from yesterday...the apostasy spreads

Attended Holy Mass (Vigil Mass) at St. Cecilia's Parish in Leominster yesterday. Although it was the Feast of the Assumption, not one word was said about the Blessed Virgin. This is a tragedy. For the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary was defined as a doctrine of the faith on November 1, 1950 by Pope Pius XII. This feast has been celebrated by Christians since as early as the seventh century. Today it is celebrated as a holy day of obligation in the United States on August 15th. The Catechism has this to say about Our Lady's Assumption:


"Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, so that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and conqueror of sin and death." The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is a singular participation in her Son's Resurrection and an anticipation of the resurrection of other Christians:

In giving birth you kept your virginity; in your Dormition you did not leave the world, O Mother of God, but were joined to the source of Life. You conceived the living God and, by your prayers, will deliver our souls from death." (CCC, 966).

But we are in a time of apostasy. It was Our Lady who told Father Gobbi [back in 1988]: "The hour of the great apostasy has come. What has been foretold in Holy Scripture, in the Second Letter of Saint Paul to the Thessalonians, is now on the point of coming to pass. Satan, my Adversary, with snares and by means of his subtle seduction, has succeeded in spreading errors everywhere, under the form of new and more updated interpretations of the truth, and he has led many to choose with full knowledge - and to live in - sin, in the deceiving conviction that this is no longer an evil, and even that it is a value and a good. The times of the general confusion and of the greatest agitation of spirits has come. Confusion has entered into the souls and the lives of many of my children. This great apostasy is spreading more and more , even through the interior of the Catholic Church. Errors are being taught and spread about, while the fundamental truths of the faith, which the authentic Magisterium of the Church has always taught and energetically defended against any heretical deviation whatsoever, are being denied with impunity. The episcopates are maintaining a strange silence and are no longer reacting. When my Pope speaks with courage and reaffirms with force the truths of the Catholic faith, he is no longer listened to and is even publicly criticized and derided. There is a subtle and diabolical tactic, woven in secrecy by Masonry, which is used today against the Holy Father in order to bring ridicule upon his person and his work and to neutralize his Magisterium.....In these times, in the Catholic Church, there will remain a little remnant who will be faithful to Christ, to the Gospel, and to its entire truth. The little remnant will form a little flock, all guarded in the depths of my Immaculate Heart. This little flock will be made up of those bishops, priests, religious and faithful who will remain strongly united to the Pope, all gathered together in the cenacle of my Immaculate Heart, in an act of unceasing prayer, of continual immolation, of total offering to prepare the painful way for the second and glorious coming of my Son Jesus."

There is confusion even in the Church's interior. C. Joseph Doyle is Executive Director of the Catholic Action League of Massachusetts. He has agreed to appear as a guest speaker at the 2009 Saint Benedict Center Conference to be held this October in Richmond, New Hampshire. The Saint Benedict Center, which is not in communion with the Catholic Church and which has no permission from Bishop John McCormack to do any ministry within the Diocese of Manchester, describes Mr. Doyle as "..the media's go-to man whenever traditional Catholic values are threatened in the public arena, appearing for television and radio interviews approximately 150 times a year...C.J....worked in the Massachusetts House of Representatives for many years as an adviser and aide to the late Rep. James Craven...He also served as National Director for William Donohue's Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights before the Massachusetts CAL [Catholic Action League] was established.."

The Massachusetts Catholic Conference (website may be found here), is the public-policy arm of the Massachusetts Bishops. The Massachusetts Catholic Conference website has a link to Mr. Doyle's Catholic Action League website. I wrote an email to Sean Cardinal O' Malley yesterday and forwarded a copy to The Most Rev. Robert J. McManus, Bishop of Worcester. This is what I wrote:

Dear Cardinal O'Malley,


I am writing to you (and forwarding a copy of this email to my Bishop, The Most Rev. Robert McManus) because it has been brought to my attention that Mr. C. Joseph Doyle, Executive Director of the Catholic Action League of Massachusetts, has agreed to appear as a guest speaker at the 2009 Saint Benedict Center Conference to be held in Richmond, New Hampshire this October.

The Center is not in communion with the Catholic Church. In fact, in a letter written by Fr. Edward Arsenault, Moderator of the Curia for the Diocese of Manchester, New Hampshire, to a Mrs. Terri O'Rorke, Father Arsenault makes this clear:

"I write to you in reply to your letter dated May 24, 2007. I share your concern about the ongoing controversy and difficulties with the Saint Benedict Center. As you know, the Saint Benedict Center has no permission or authority to exercise any Ministry on behalf of the Roman Catholic Church in New Hampshire. Bishop McCormack has and will continue to do all that he can to encourage people to refrain from participating in any of the spiritual exercises at the Saint Benedict Center.

For my part, I will continue to make it clear that Saint Benedict Center has no affiliation with the Roman Catholic Church in any way. Please know that I will continue to pray for you and all those who are affected by difficulties that have been created by the Saint Benedict Center."


I have worked tirelessly to expose the anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial of the Saint Benedict Center in Richmond, New Hampshire. Some background may be found in this article: http://splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=782 I am well-aware that the Southern Poverty Law Center is not without its own problems. But in this matter (as the Diocese of Manchester will attest to), they got it right. The news-magazine Chronicle dedicated an episode back in 2007 to the whole controversy surrounding the Center.

Since this organization is not in communion with the Catholic Church, has absolutely no permission to do any ministry whatsoever and engages in anti-Semitism and Holocaust-denial, I think it inappropriate that someone of Mr. Doyle's stature should associate himself with this entity. It will only serve as a source of scandal to many of the faithful and reflect poorly on the Catholic Church in Massachusetts.

It is my hope that Your Eminence will agree.

Asking the Blessing of Your Eminence,

I am, Yours Respectfully,

Paul Anthony Melanson


Related reading here, here and here.

"If only you knew what makes for peace"

Our Lord wept over Jerusalem and said, "If only you knew what makes for peace" (Lk 19:42). And now we do know (those of us who Christian in more than name). Only a life lived in conformity with the mind of Christ as shown to us by His Catholic Church can bring true peace. By contrast, "Pride inflates man; envy consumes him; avarice makes him restless; anger rekindles his passions; gluttony makes him ill; comfort destroys him; lies imprison him; murder defiles him...the very pleasures of sin become the instruments of punishment in the hands of God." (Pope Innocent III, On the Misery of the Human Condition).

It is our duty as Catholics to remind others of these truths and to expose those who are promoting sin or error. But often we will find ourselves being criticized (even by other Catholics, whose commitment toward Catholic teaching is, at best, questionable) for doing so. This should never deter us. When such people accuse us of "negativity," we should recall the words of Dr. Dietrich von Hildebrand: "..the rejection of evil and of sin is a response which is purely positive and morally called for, and it possesses a high moral value. One cannot truly love God, without hating the devil. One cannot really love the truth, without hating error. One cannot find the truth and grasp it clearly as such, without seeing through errors. Knowledge of truth is inseparably linked with knowledge of error, with the unmasking of error.* All talk about the superiority of 'yes' over 'no,' about the 'negativity' of rejecting that which should be rejected, is so much idle chatter." (The Cult of the 'Positive').

* "I would maintain that fear of error is simply necessary to the genuine love of truth." (John Cardinal Newman, Grammar of Assent).

Fr. Felix Sarda Y Salvany explains in his work "Liberalism is a Sin," that, "..the wolf has always been called the wolf; and in so calling it, no one has ever believed that wrong was done to the flock and the shepherd...In his Introduction to the Devout Life, that precious and popular work, he [St. Francis de Sales, a Doctor of the Church] expresses himself: 'If the declared enemies of God and of the Church ought to be blamed and censured with all possible vigor, charity obliges us to cry wolf when the wolf slips into the midst of the flock and in every way and place we may meet him.'" (pp. 97, 100-101).

Pope John XXIII said essentially the same thing: "...as long as we are journeying in exile over this earth, our peace and happiness will be imperfect. For such peace is not completely untroubled and serene; it is active, not calm and motionless. In short, this is a peace that is ever at war. It wars with every sort of error, including that which falsely wears the face of truth; it struggles against the enticements of vice, against those enemies of the soul, of whatever description, who can weaken, blemish, or destroy our innocence or Catholic faith." (No. 93).

I have often been criticized for speaking the hard truths. For exposing error and for calling it what it is. So be it. I'm not interested in popularity contests or being a friend of the world. Simply put, I choose not to be a coward. I agree with Pope Leo XIII who said, "To recoil before an enemy, or to keep silence when from all sides such clamors are raised against truth, is the part of a man either devoid of character or who entertains doubt as to the truth of what he professes to believe. In both cases such mode of behaving is base and is insulting to God, and both are incompatible with the salvation of mankind." ( Sapientiae Christianae, AAS 22 (1889-90) 390, PE, 111.14).

How about you dear reader? Aren't there enough chicken-Catholics in the world?

Meditation: Galatians 1:10

President Obama: Comparison doesn't necessarily give rise to conflict

Marcello Pera, professor of the philosophy of science at the University of Pisa, in an essay entitled "Relativism, Christianity, and the West," writes, "To argue that the model of Western democratic institutions and rights is better than the Islamic model does not imply taking any particular course of action. One could say that the West is better than Islam and still tolerate Islam, respect Islam, dialogue with Islam, ignore Islam, or even obstruct Islam, clash with Islam, among the many possible stances. According to the old proverb , it's one thing to say, another to do. To rephrase this proposition in logical terms, there are no formal implications between 'is' and 'ought' (ab esse ad oportere non valet consequentia, as one says in Latin). The dominant culture in the West, however, thinks the opposite, and reveals its prejudices through a major flaw in reasoning. It thinks that 'ought' descends from 'is.' According to this way of thinking, if a person maintains that the West is better than Islam - or, to be more specific, that democracy is better than theocracy, a liberal constitution better than sharia, a parliamentary decision better than a sura, a civil society better than an umma, a sentence by an independent tribunal better than a fatwa, citizenship better than dhimma, and so forth - then he or she ought to clash with Islam. This is an error of logic that compounds the error of believing that our institutions have no right or basis to be proclaimed as universal. The consequence of these two errors is that today the West is paralyzed twice over. It is paralyzed because it does not believe that there are good reasons to say that it is better than Islam. And it is paralyzed because it believes that, if such reasons do indeed exist, then the West would have to fight Islam.

I personally reject these positions. I deny that there are no valid reasons for comparing and judging institutions, principles, and values. I deny that such a comparison cannot conclude that Western institutions are better than their Islamic counterparts. And I deny that a comparison will necessarily give rise to a conflict. I do not deny, however, that if an offer to dialogue is responded to with a conflict, then the conflict should not be accepted. For me the opposite holds true. I affirm the principles of tolerance, peaceful coexistence, and respect that are characteristic of the West today. However, if someone refuses to reciprocate these principles and declares hostility or a jihad against us, I believe that we must acknowledge that this person is our adversary. In short, I reject the self-censorship of the West. This self-censorship - much more than the universalist claims of Western institutions...is something that I find unjustified and dangerous."

President Obama does not understand that a comparison of Western institutions to their Islamic counterparts (and acknowledging the logical conclusion that Western institutions are superior) need not necessarily give rise to conflict. Speaking in Cairo, the President asserted that, "Given our interdependence, any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail."

But why should this be so? Mr. President?