"The Anti-Church whose centre is malice, error, falsehood, hypocrisy..."

From Francis the False Prophet:

"Championing the cause of the poor, Pope Francis on Sunday lamented that "the wealthy few" enjoy what, "in justice, belongs to all" and said Christians cannot remain indifferent to the growing cries of the exploited and the indigent, including migrants."


What is the "Social Gospel"?

Venerable Anne Catherine Emmerich was shown this secular humanism which would disguise itself as Christianity:


"...this church was born without a Saviour, good works without faith, the communion of the unbelieving with the appearance but not the reality of virtue; in a word, the anti-Church whose centre is malice, error, falsehood, hypocrisy, tepidity, and the cunning of all the demons of the period... Its mysteries are to have no mysteries and, consequently, its action is temporal, finite, full of pride and presumption, a teacher of evil clothed in specious raiment."

An authentic charity always places God first. We read in the Catechism of the Catholic Church that, "Charity is the theological virtue by which we love God above all things for his own sake, and our neighbor as ourselves for the love of God" (1822).

Proponents of the Social Gospel attempt to reverse this order. They would have us put man first and God (if at all) after. For some 40 years now Catholics have been subjected to a watered-down Catholicism which seeks to replace many basic truths of the Faith with an emphasis on the temporal. It was Bishop Fulton John Sheen who said that the unrepentant sinner turns to 'social justice" to ease his conscience.

The results? In the words of Stephen Brady, President of Roman Catholic Faithful, "By direct promotion of, or by simply ignoring the use of the birth control pill by the faithful, the corrupt Hierarchy has purchased the souls of millions of Catholics who now live as unrepentant sinners. These compromised Catholics are, for the most part, the ones who are pro-choice, pro-homosexual, and represent the liberal wing of the Church that accept all the sinful innovations that have now found a home in the local parish. This sodomite sexual revolution, aided by the abortifacient pill, has brought on all of society's ills, including unchecked abortion, adultery, fornication, out-of-wedlock pregnancy, divorce, sexually transmitted disease like AIDS, and the complete breakdown of the family. This compromised morality, winked at by the Church Hierarchy, has brought about the corruption of every segment of society. The moral guidepost, known as the Catholic Church, has been so weakened by the current Church leadership, that any true moral guidance offered by a Bishop is now ignored."

We have seen this repeatedly. When a faithful Bishop or other member of the Church's hierarchy speaks out against sin, he almost inevitably receives criticism. Especially from the Main Stream Media. Recall what happened when Cardinal Francis Arinze spoke out against the evils of our day (abortion, contraception, sodomy etc) - all of which are destroying the family - in an address given at Georgetown University.

The Social Gospel is not the true Gospel of Christ. It is a counterfeit which has been constructed to pave the way for the Man of Sin.

Francis, who is silent about the cover-up of sexual abuse, especially with regards to Cardinal McCarrick See here, continues to advance an agenda which is anything but the supernatural faith of Roman Catholicism.  See here.

Pray...Pray!

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

Johann Hari provides more evidence of his fanaticism

Protect the Pope is reporting that:

"Johann Hari, militant atheist and gay activist, writes in The Independent, that Catholics who celebrate the Pope’s visit in a week’s time will be ‘understood as endorsing his crimes and his cruelties.’ He concludes that the faith of such Catholics ‘distorts’ their ‘ moral faculties’.

Hari writes: ‘If you turn out to celebrate him, you will be understood as endorsing his crimes and his cruelties. If your faith pulls you towards him rather than his victims, shouldn’t that make you think again about your faith? Doesn’t it suggest that faith in fact distorts your moral faculties?’

In the rest of the piece in The Independent he churns up the usual lies and distortions about Pope Benedict’s handling of child abuse cases. He then makes the disgusting comment that Pope Benedict has ‘facilitated the rape of your children’

He goes on to make the outrageous claim that Jesus demands that Catholics not support the Holy Father’s visit.

‘You have a choice during this state visit: stand with Ratzinger, or stand with his Catholic victims. Which side, do you think, would be chosen by the Nazarene carpenter you find on your crucifixes? I suspect he would want Ratzinger to be greeted with an empty, repulsed silence, broken only by cries for justice – and the low approaching wail of a police siren.’

Protect the Pope comment: As if we needed more evidence, so amply provided by Terry Sanderson, this lurid, outrageous piece by Johann Hari proves that those protesting the Pope’s visit are ANTI- CATHOLIC. He mendaciously and wickedly portrays Pope Benedict as a facilitator of child abuse and then claims that if Catholics celebrate the Papal visit that they do not support the victims of child abuse. Here before our very eyes, Protest the Pope is revealed as Protest the Catholics."

Mr. Hari's anti-Catholic rant may be found here.

Mr. Hari has a history of engaging in falsehood against the Church. At this point he has forfeited what little credibility he may once have enjoyed. Make no mistake, Johann Hari is not a journalist interested in reporting facts. He is an anti-Catholic propagandist.

Do we honor veterans or do we simply forget about them?

There is an old saying: "Nobody loves a soldier until the enemy is at the gate." I have often reflected on that phrase and how at times it rings true. WBZ is reporting that the town of Hardwick has cancelled its Memorial Day Parade. Local veterans (and I'm one of them) are understandably upset. But then, the veteran has often been treated as something akin to a disposable razor: when he has served his purpose, he is promptly discarded. After returning home from Vietnam, Mr. Joe Szczepanek says, "people spit on me. I got hit in the head with a sign. I got called a baby killer." Many other veterans were treated with contempt or simply ignored altogether.

My own father served in Korea and during Vietnam. As a career military veteran, he was denied a hearing aid (he had become tone deaf after serving as a Tank Commander in Korea). And when he died, I had to fight just to obtain a flag marker for his grave. You cannot begin to imagine how that made me feel. In order to understand my hurt, you would have to know the depth of my love for a great man who consecrated his entire life to the United States military - both in the U.S. Army and the U.S. Air Force.

The Church had a policy years ago which was discriminatory toward military families. I addressed this in my previous Blog post entitled Cardinal Sean's rationale which may be found here. A woman named Colleen took exception to my post in a comment left at this Blog. She wrote: "Mr. Melanson, may I ask how old you are? The reason I ask is that the Church USED to, MANY years ago have a policy that families needed to be residents of the Parish associated with the Catholic school where they chose to send their children...simply because the parishioners in those days funded the majority of the happenings in the school. This ruling has been changed for YEARS now and any/all students are welcome to attend. Please get your facts straight before you falsely leading people astray. There is already enough of that going on without your help."

To which I responded: "Colleen, I submit that it is you who are engaging in dishonesty. Either that or your English comprehension skills are sorely deficient.

Cardinal O'Malley, in his feeble attempt to justify his decision to find a Catholic school for the ward of lesbian parents who are engaged in an illicit relationship, wrote, "Catholic schools exist for the good of the children and our admission standards must reflect that. We have never had categories of people who were excluded." The key word in this passage is "never." The Cardinal's statement constitutes [by your own admission in the comment you left] a falsehood.
Which is why I responded, "But His Eminence is mistaken, As my parents can testify, I was denied admission into Catholic schools because my father was career military. My parents were told that five years of residency was required before I could be enrolled. But because my father would receive new orders every three or four years, I was denied admission. Many other children of military families were similarly denied admission into Catholic schools for this reason."

Military dependents were in fact denied admission. You admit this writing that, "..the Church USED to, MANY years ago have a policy that families needed to be residents of the Parish associated with the Catholic school where they chose to send their children...simply because the parishioners in those days funded the majority of the happenings in the school. This ruling has been changed for YEARS now.."

Children of military parents who were serving this great nation were excluded. This is all the more outrageous since their parents were making great sacrifices to serve this great nation.

As for the child of lesbian parents, as Archbishop Chaput so eloquently put it, 'Our schools are meant to be 'partners in faith' with parents. If parents don't respect the beliefs of the Church, or live in a manner that openly rejects those beliefs, then partnering with those parents becomes very difficult, if not impossible. It also places unfair stress on the children, who find themselves caught in the middle, and on their teachers, who have an obligation to teach the authentic faith of the Church.' If anyone needs to get their facts straight to avoid 'falsely leading people astray,' it is yourself. At any rate, I stand by my statement. The Cardinal's statement was incorrect."

I doubt my response will produce the slightest crack in Colleen's wall of conviction. Some people are anxious to accommodate those who "don't respect the beliefs of the Church" or who "live in a manner that openly rejects those beliefs." What a shame that my parents [cradle Catholics who remained faithful to the Church's Magisterium and who served this nation so honorably] couldn't receive at least the same level of respect as those who view the teachings of Christ's Church with contempt and or indifference.

Nobody loves a soldier until the enemy is at the gate.

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.