Chaput goes kaput...

Every now and again, I receive criticism from another Catholic who accuses me of "lacking peace" simply because I defend the Church's authentic teaching on a variety of issues and because I oppose dissent from the same. These confused Catholics have a distorted notion of what constitutes "peace" and are often motivated by guilt which stems from their own refusal to live up to their duty, their responsibility, to both defend and promote the Magisterial teaching of the Church.

Such is the case, sadly, with Archbishop Charles Chaput.  In an article published in First Things, the Archbishop, who is fast becoming a modern-day Judas, says:


"Fr. Martin* is a man of intellect and skill whose work I often admire. Like all of us as fellow Christians, he deserves to be treated with fraternal good will. It’s one thing to criticize respectfully an author’s ideas and their implications. It’s quite another to engage in ad hominem trashing. In Dr. Faggioli’s view, Fr. Martin is yet another victim brought low by a mob of conservative cyber-militias. And these militias have allegedly been fostered by a generation of John Paul II and Benedict XVI bishops, who reshaped “the U.S. episcopate in the image of the ‘culture warrior.’”

As I mentioned in a previous post, Christopher Ferrara explains that the homosexual activist dissident Father Martin continues, "preaching the lie that homosexual acts are not only not depraved, but on the contrary are genuine expressions of what he calls 'love.'  Martin even dared to proclaim openly during a conference at Fordham University (my alma mater) that there is nothing wrong with the depraved acts performed by his homosexual friend 'Mark' and that he professes not to understand how 'even the most traditionalist, homophobic, closed-minded Catholic cannot look at my friend and say: that is a loving act...'"

I never lose any sleep over asinine criticisms such as those from Archbishop Chaput. However, for the sake of those faithful Catholics who take their responsibility to defend and promote the Church's authentic teaching seriously, I submit the following. While it can be constructive (and even necessary) for people to dissent from the official policies of a democratic society and even to resist such policies, because these policies are only grounded in a human consensus, within the Church it's a different story.

How so? The policies of the Church are not merely grounded in a human consensus. They are grounded on faith and directed toward salvation. Therefore, dissent is a tactic which is not appropriate within the Church. In fact, dissent within the Church is only divisive. Dissent from the constant and most firm of Church teaching is an attack on truth. In its Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith had this to say: "The Church 'is like a sacrament, a sign and instrument, that is, of communion with God and of unity among all men' (LG, 1). Consequently, to pursue concord and communion is to enhance the force of her witness and credibility. To succumb to the temptation of dissent, on the other hand, is to allow the 'leaven of infidelity to the Holy Spirit' to start to work." (No. 40, AAS, 82 (1990) 1568, OR, 2 July 1990, 4.).

Some will still object: "But even if people dissent from Church teaching, that's not our concern. Leave them to God. We shouldn't say anything for the sake of peace. They will come to the truth in God's time." What of this? Is this an authentic peace?

Well, no. In the words of Pope John XXIII, who was an extremely good-natured and peacable Pontiff, a lover of peace, an authentic 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." (Ad Petri cathedram, AAS, 51 (1959) 517, PE, 263.93).

And in so doing, one may justly employ strong language.  See here.

There you have it. The Church's understanding of peace. The next time a chicken Catholic like Charles Chaput levels an accusation against you of betraying peace simply because you defend and promote the Church's Magisterial teaching, remind them that they are in reality judging your interior dispositions. Remind them as well that perfect love casts out all fear and that the Holy Spirit gives His gift of Fortitude to those who ask for it. If this doesn't work, pray for them while letting their childish criticism roll off your back.

Mother Teresa used to say that people will always be around who will question your motives and, with an air of "superiority," castigate you for the good you do. Do good anyway. And on the Day of Judgment, these people can explain to Jesus not only why they refused to promote and defend Catholic teaching (which is their responsibility as a baptized Catholic), but why they even attempted to discourage faithful Catholics from their mission.

It is interesting that Archbishop Chaput has nothing to say about Father Martin's and other's  unjust criticism of faithful Catholics who defend the immutable teaching of Christ's Church.
But then, evil attracts evil.

*  See here

This year's Walter Duranty Award goes to Hilary Mantel

The sexual abuse of children is not a "Catholic problem."  It is a societal problem.  In point of fact, there has been far less less abuse within the Church than there has been across the rest of society.  See here.  Your children are much safer in the Church than they are in the public schools.

But you would never know this to listen to Hilary Mantel, the Booker Prize-winning author who was raised Roman Catholic and educated at a convent school.  According to the now enlightened Ms. Mantel, the Catholic Church "is not an institution for respectable people" because the sexual abuse scandals involving a tiny percentage of Roman Catholic priests have demonstrated the "cruelty" and "hypocrisy" of the Church. See here. In other words, because of the sinful and even criminal actions of a handful of men, in a Church comprised of more than one billion people,  everyone in the Church is deserving of condemnation: from the Holy Father down to the last little lady sitting in a pew somewhere.

And so Ms. Mantel left the Mystical Body of Christ thereby proving that she never belonged to our company anyway: "It was from our ranks that they took their leave - not that they really belonged to us; for if they had belonged to us, they would have stayed with us.  It only served to show that none of them was ours." (1 John 2: 19).

The Church is not an institution for respectable people?  But such has always been our boast: "Brothers, you are among those called.  Consider your situation.  Not many of you are wise, as men account wisdom; not many are influential; and surely not many are well-born [read "respectable"].  God chose those whom the world considers absurd to shame the wise; he singled out the weak of this world to shame the strong.  He chose the world's lowborn and despised, those who count for nothing, to reduce to nothing those who were something; so that mankind can do no boasting before God..." (1 Corinthians 1: 26-29).

A few men betrayed the Gospel and engaged in cruelty and that's your reason for leaving the Church founded by Christ?  That's your reason for leaving behind the Eucharist - the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ?  Note how Ms. Mantel has also abandoned faith in the Eucharist.

There is absolutely no doubt that the human history of the Church, like all of human history, has its dark pages. But if anyone cares to take an objective look at this history, one must quickly acknowledge that the doctrine of the Church has always implicitly condemned abuses introduced by Her members.


In the words of Dr. Dietrich Von Hildebrand, "There were sinners in the Church yesterday and there are sinners in the Church today. But the Church Herself, in her divine teaching, emerges gloriously unspotted in a history stained by human weaknesses, errors, imperfections, and sins."

In the words of the great Cardinal Journet:

"All contradictions are eliminated as soon as we understand that the members of the Church do indeed sin, but they do so by their betraying the Church. The Church is thus not without sinners, but She is without sin. The Church as person is responsible for penance. She is not responsible for sins....The members of the Church themselves - laity, clerics, priests, Bishops, and Popes - who disobey the Church are responsible for their sins, but the Church as person is not responsible...It is forgotten that the Church as person is the Bride of Christ, 'Whom He has purchased with His own blood." (Acts 20:28).

Hilary Mantel prefers the company of "respectable" society.  You know, the sort of people who sip tea as they discuss the merits of abortion and the value of sodomite unions.  The sort of people who condemn the Church they never understood even as they embrace myriad evils.  For such "enlightened" souls, abortion is not cruelty, it is simply "choice."  And the millions of murdered babies discarded in trash bags is necessary to promote the "health" of women and the progress of human society.

And so, this years Walter Duranty Award for living in denial goes to Hilary Mantel, for proving that even the most "respectable" people can live a life of dim-wittedness and hypocrisy.  Please compare Ms. Mantel's photograph with the New Oxford Review graphic (featured in one of their ads) depicting the dumbed-down liberal "Catholic."

Is it just me or is there a resemblance?
Oh boy.