Devout, Faithful Catholics are angry...and this is bad because....why?

Dr. Rick Fitzgibbons disects the asinine criticism of "anger"  emanating from Rome and directed against faithful Catholics here.

Faithful Catholics have come under near constant criticism from a Vatican which is more sympathetic toward sexual deviants and dissident "Catholics" who are Hell bent on changing the perennial and immutable teachings of the Church founded by Christ Jesus than toward devout Catholics who adhere to those same teachings.

Those of us who refuse to roll dice every week to determine which teachings of Christ we will accept And which are to be shit-canned in the name of self-worship are accused of being "angry" for having the sheer, unmitigated fall to oppose the zeitgeist And the encroaching Moloch State, a haunt of demons.

And what of anger? Is anger always evil or unholy? The Vatican should know better. But many there have succumbed to evil and, like Salome who demanded the head of the Baptist (that scary and angry man), those who have embraced sin almost always mistake zeal for unholy anger or fanaticism).

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).

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).

Under Francis, the Vatican does not deplore error and falsehood as much as it deplores disunity. This is a great tragedy.  A Vatican which has succumbed to "gay" sex orgies has no business casting aspersions at those of us who understand that authentic unity is based in truth.  Weak and effeminate "shepherds" in the Vatican 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).

Pray for Our "shepherds" in Rome. That they may re-discover the Holy Spirit's Gift of Fortitude and return to fidelity.

Francis: God's Holy Word is false, there is no such thing as a witch

Francis just went on record as saying that: "Witches don’t really exist, so they can do no harm..."

The False Prophet works to prepare the way for the Man of Sin and His disciples who will use sorcery (witchcraft) to deceive a new generation.

A sampling of God's Holy Word:


Leviticus 19:31

“Do not turn to mediums or necromancers; do not seek them out, and so make yourselves unclean by them: I am the Lord your God.

Exodus 22:18

“You shall not permit a sorceress to live.

Deuteronomy 18:9-12

“When you come into the land that the Lord your God is giving you, you shall not learn to follow the abominable practices of those nations. There shall not be found among you anyone who burns his son or his daughter as an offering, anyone who practices divination or tells fortunes or interprets omens, or a sorcerer or a charmer or a medium or a necromancer or one who inquires of the dead, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord. And because of these abominations the Lord your God is driving them out before you.

Leviticus 20:27

“A man or a woman who is a medium or a necromancer shall surely be put to death. They shall be stoned with stones; their blood shall be upon them.”

Leviticus 20:6

“If a person turns to mediums and necromancers, whoring after them, I will set my face against that person and will cut him off from among his people.

Galatians 5:19-21

Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Deuteronomy 18:10

There shall not be found among you anyone who burns his son or his daughter as an offering, anyone who practices divination or tells fortunes or interprets omens, or a sorcerer

Isaiah 8:19

And when they say to you, “Inquire of the mediums and the necromancers who chirp and mutter,” should not a people inquire of their God? Should they inquire of the dead on behalf of the living?

Revelation 21:8

But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”

Galatians 5:20-21

Idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

2 Chronicles 33:6

And he burned his sons as an offering in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, and used fortune-telling and omens and sorcery, and dealt with mediums and with necromancers. He did much evil in the sight of the Lord, provoking him to anger.

1 Samuel 15:23

For rebellion is as the sin of divination, and presumption is as iniquity and idolatry. Because you have rejected the word of the Lord, he has also rejected you from being king.”

Revelation 22:15

Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and the sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices falsehood.

1 Chronicles 10:13-14

So Saul died for his breach of faith. He broke faith with the Lord in that he did not keep the command of the Lord, and also consulted a medium, seeking guidance. He did not seek guidance from the Lord. Therefore the Lord put him to death and turned the kingdom over to David the son of Jesse.

Acts 19:19

And a number of those who had practiced magic arts brought their books together and burned them in the sight of all. And they counted the value of them and found it came to fifty thousand pieces of silver.

God's Holy Word condemns all forms of witchcraft, sorcery and other "magic arts" such as those practiced by Pharaoh's priests.  But Francis asserts that witches don't really exist.

Jean Bodin, in his work "De la Demonomanie des Sorciers," writes, "Sorcier est celuy qui par moyens Diaboliques sciemment s'efforce de paruenir a quel que chose" - A sorcerer is one who by commerce with the Devil has a full intention of attaining his own ends."

What does the Catechism of the Catholic Church have to say about such activity? Paragraph 2117 explains that, "All practices of magic or sorcery, by which one attempts to tame occult powers, so as to place them at one's service and have a supernatural power over others - even if this were for the sake of restoring their health - are gravely contrary to the virtue of religion. These practices are even more to be condemned when accompanied by the intention of harming someone, or when they have recourse to the intervention of demons. Wearing charms is also reprehensible. Spiritism often implies divination or magical practices; the Church for her part warns the faithful against it. Recourse to so-called traditional cures does not justify either the invocation of evil powers or the exploitation of another's credulity."

In 1974, the American Council of Witches issued the "Principles of Wiccan Belief." No. 10 states: "Our only animosity towards Christianity, or toward any other religion or philosophy of life, is to the extent that its institutions have claimed to be 'the only way,' and have sought to deny freedom to others and to suppress other ways of religious practice and belief."

So Wicca acknowledges an "animosity" toward Christianity which teaches that salvation is in Jesus alone (Acts 4:12). The question presents itself: what does this animosity consist of?

In an article published in Polish in Panorama and written by Dr. J. Coleman, an Intelligence officer, Dr. Coleman is quoted as having said that, "The One-World Government is going to consist of hereditary oligarchs who will divide the power between themselves. There is going to be only one legal religion and only one state church. Only Satanism and Luciferism will be the legal religious subjects in state schools. No other schools (private, Catholic, etc.) will be allowed. All present Christian education systems are going to be destroyed (and the fact is — they are destroyed in the most part) from inside, and become extinct. Satanism is already considered to be a 'true and legal religion'. In fact, on some U.S. military bases, they already celebrate black masses and worship Satan."

Antichrist will use the dark arts.  He will have his own temple with his own priests just as Pharaoh did.  And they will use sorcery (witchcraft) so as to deceive even the elect if possible.

The Department of Defense: Assaulting the Word of God

World Net Daily is reporting:


A Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute course approved by the Department of Defense is under fire for labeling the Bible, the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence sexist materials.

The Daily Caller reported the class given by the DEOMI, an organization with a mission to provide a “world-class human relations education,” was actually removed from the group’s website upon questioning. But the fact they were there at all – and approved by the Defense Department for use – was alarming enough to some who saw irony in the fact U.S. military service members are actually required to take an oath to uphold the Constitution.

The course called the three texts “historical influences that allow sexism to continue,” a copy of one of the documents indicated. Why?

The Declaration of Independence doesn’t refer to “men and women,” but rather only “men,” the Bible has references that “can be misinterpreted as having sexist influence when brought out of context and not fully understood,” and the Constitution’s reference to “we the people” only included whites, the document stated.

“Slaves and women were not included until later in history,” the course said.

Lt. Cmdr. Nate Christensen, a spokesman for the Department of Defense, said to the Daily Caller: “The content of the lesson is provided to generate academic discussion concerning how these historical documents have been included in discussions about the topic of sexism.”

Since the Daily Caller’s questioning of the matter, the content of the courses, along with a couple of others seen by some as objectionable, have been removed and placed under review.

Christensen downplayed the sudden disappearance of the course materials from the online forum.

“DEOMI online materials are periodically pulled to review to ensure accuracy and relevance,” he said, the news outlet reported. “The racism, sexism and Prejudice & Discrimination are currently undergoing that review process.”


Today we are living in the most decadent, violent and faithless period in the history of mankind. But many cannot see this because they have succumbed to satanic pride. Satan fell in love with his own beauty and wound up rebelling against God and leading other angels to do the same, drawing them to Hell. Today, bishops, priests, religious and laity, puffed up with satanic pride, have become enamored with themselves and their "intellectual prowess." And like their master, the father of all lies (John 8: 44), these too are now rebelling against God and His Holy Church. These sons of Hell spend much of their waking hours contradicting Sacred Scripture, denying dogma and popularizing immorality. These pseudo-intellectuals arrogantly divinize man's intellect while ridiculing the Word of God. Saint Paul spoke of these disciples of Lucifer in 2 Timothy 4: 1-4: "I charge you to preach the word, to stay with this task whether convenient or inconvenient - correcting, reproving, appealing - constantly teaching and never losing patience. For the time will come when people will not tolerate sound doctrine, but, following their own desires, will surround themselves with teachers who tickle their ears. They will stop listening to the truth and will wander off to fables."

In Romans 1, Saint Paul emphasizes the fact that there is a connection between a refusal to acknowledge and obey God and a subsequent degeneration of morality. And yet, with all the sex abuse scandals within the Church and all the sexual immorality and dissent, there has been very little discussion about this truth. False worship and pride in one's own intellect cause spiritual blindness and subject men to the destructive and degrading drives of fallen nature - most especially in the area of sex. Saint Paul tells us that people who fall into such spiritual blindness begin to encourage others to do so. And so infidelity spreads like a cancer.

There is an increasingly hostile attitude toward Sacred Scripture on the part of many who believe that they can "correct" God's Word. Still others, as you note, alter the scriptures because a particular verse convicts them. Contrast this arrogance with the Church Fathers. When confronted with such an arrogant approach to God's Word, they responded in no uncertain terms:

"They have not feared to lay hands upon the sacred Scriptures, saying that they have corrected them. Nor is it likely that they themselves are ignorant of how very bold their offense is. For either they do not believe that the sacred Scriptures were spoken by the Holy Spirit, in which case they are unbelievers, or if they regard themselves as being wiser than the Holy Spirit, what else can they be but demoniacs." (St. Hippolytus of Rome, "Fragment" in Eusebius, History of the Church, 5, ch. 28).

Pope Francis and the Eucharistic fast...

In a review of Michael S. Rose's book entitled, "Goodbye, Good Men," Rev. Robert J. Johansen noted that, "There is too much evidence of the abuse of authority in certain dioceses and seminaries to dismiss Rose’s claims as baseless. It is still the case, even in a seminary with a reputation for orthodoxy such as St. Charles, that seminarians would not openly admit to members of the formation committee that they attended a licit (under the Ecclesia Dei indult) Tridentine liturgy for fear of being branded a “reactionary” and hounded out. I know many priests and seminarians who were subjected to harassment similar to that which Rose describes. I personally was turned away by a Midwestern seminary in the mid-1980’s for being “rigid”, “doctrinaire”, and “lacking in pastoral sensitivity.” These terms are recognized “code words” for describing seminarians and candidates who are loyal to Church teaching and discipline, and are attached to traditional forms of piety and devotion. The genius of using such terms is that they do have a legitimate use: There really is such a thing as being rigid or inflexible; there really are priests who lack sensitivity to people’s needs or situations. By co-opting and re-defining such words, those who wished to advance their own agenda were able to masquerade as agents of the Church. Rose is correct in identifying the existence of these people and their agenda and the damage they caused." See here.

"Rigid," "doctrinaire," "lacking in pastoral sensitivity," these are indeed code words used by liberals who are Catholic in name only and for whom the Church's precepts are merely "man-made rules." How significant then that Pope Francis should employ the code-word "rigid" to denounce Catholic priests who favored the Eucharistic fast, going so far as to compare them with Pharisees. See here.

Pope Francis is on the wrong track. Pope John Paul II, in his Letter to all the Bishops of the Church on the Mystery and Worship of the Eucharist (Dominicae Cenae) says that: "..our Catholic communities certainly do not lack people who could participate in Eucharistic Communion and do not, even though they have no serious sin on their conscience as an obstacle. To tell the truth, this attitude, which in some people is linked with an exaggerated severity, has changed in the present century, though it is still to be found here and there. In fact what one finds most often is not so much a feeling of unworthiness as a certain lack of interior willingness, if one may use this expression, a lack of Eucharistic 'hunger' and 'thirst,' which is also a sign of lack of adequate sensitivity towards the great sacrament of love and a lack of understanding of its nature." (No. 11).

But His Holiness then addresses a more serious problem and one which is much more prevalent today [one which Pope Francis seemingly has no problem with]:

"However, we also find in recent years another phenomenon. Sometimes, indeed quite frequently, everybody participating in the eucharistic assembly goes to Communion; and on some such occasions, as experienced pastors confirm, there has not been due care to approach the sacrament of Penance so as to purify one's conscience. This can of course mean that those approaching the Lord's table find nothing on their conscience, according to the objective law of God, to keep them from this sublime and joyful act of being sacramentally united with Christ. But there can also be, at least at times, another idea behind this: the life of our communities to lose the good quality of sensitiveness of Christian conscience, guided solely by respect for Christ, who, when He is received in the Eucharist, should find in the heart of each of us a worthy abode. This question is closely linked not only with the practice of the sacrament of Penance but also with a correct sense of responsibility for the whole deposit of moral teaching and for the precise distinction between good and evil, a distinction which then becomes for each person sharing in the Eucharist the basis for a correct judgment of self to be made in the depths of the personal conscience. St. Paul's words, 'Let a man examine himself,' are well known; this judgment is an indispensable condition for a personal decision whether to approach Eucharistic Communion or to abstain." (No. 11).

The worthy reception of Holy Communion requires a clear conscience. Because of this, someone in the state of mortal sin is not eligible to receive: "Anyone who desires to receive Christ in Eucharistic communion must be in the state of grace. Anyone aware of having sinned mortally must not receive communion without having received absolution in the sacrament of penance." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1415).

Not long ago, Fr. Catoir, hardly a model of Catholic scholarship or even common sense and good judgment [he has this in common with Francis apparently], wrote, "For centuries, the fear of eternal damnation, even for petty offenses, was taught in the name of religion. George Carlin, the late comedian, abandoned his faith because he saw the absurdity of believing in a God who would send you to hell for all eternity for eating meat on Friday. Many Catholics left the Church for the same reason. Winning them back will take a massive re-education process."

But as Dr. Germain Grisez explains, "Traditionally, the eucharistic fast, required by the Church for the sake of reverence, was considered a grave responsibility which did not admit of parvity. Now, since the requirement is more easily fulfilled, its violation is even harder to excuse...someone who deliberately disregards the eucharistic fast out of irreverence for Jesus or contempt for the Church's law plainly is guilty of grave sin. And, knowing that the fast has been broken , whether by accident or on purpose, in a significant way, anyone as reverent and obedient as he or she should be, will not receive Holy Communion except for a reason sufficient to justify an exception to the Church's law (see CMP. 11.G. 6-7)."

Did George Carlin really leave the Church because he had a problem with the Church's traditional teaching regarding the Eucharistic fast or might not there have been other factors involved in his decision to abandon the Church of Christ? I seem to recall a troubled man who had serious personal problems and who celebrated the use of profanity with a levity which was just disturbing.

Pope John Paul II, in the same Dominicae Cenae, No. 7 writes, "I have already drawn attention to the close link between the sacrament of Penance and the sacrament of the Eucharist. It is not only that Penance leads to the Eucharist, but that the Eucharist also leads to Penance. For when we realize who it is that we receive in Eucharistic communion, there springs up in us almost spontaneously a sense of unworthiness, together with sorrow for our sins and an interior need for purification.."

This is not "rigidity." It's reverence. I would have thought Francis would know the difference. How disappointing that he doesn't.

Yes, the Pharisees were rigid when they chided the Apostles for not washing their hands before eating a common meal. But when we approach Our Eucharistic Jesus, we are not preparing for an ordinary meal. We are about to receive the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity.

Reverence is not rigidity. The so-called "rigidity" of the Catholic Church before Vatican II produced saints such as the Little Flower and Padre Pio.

We watered down the Eucharistic fast. We watered down liturgical rubrics and liturgical music. Reverence was jettisoned, labeled as "rigidity." Now even doctrine is being assailed.

Is the Church better off now than it was in Fulton Sheen's time? If you think so, I have news for you: You're insane.

The Satanic Society: "Penis Crucifix" being offered for Christmas

As noted here,Tom Ford, a designer and self-styled "provocateur," has created a penis crucifix for the Christmas season.

When one of the world's leading exorcists, Father Gabriele Amorth, was asked how one can tell if someone is possessed, he replied, "By their aversion to the sacrament and all things sacred." One of the clearest signs of demonic possession is a hatred for the Eucharist or the crucifix.

And isn't this precisely what we are witnessing today?  As our world immerses itself more and more in sin, the numbers if demon-possessed multiply exponentially.

Back in December of 2009, little Jalen Cromwell of Taunton, Massachusetts, was forced to undergo psychological evaluations for drawing a stick figure of the crucified Jesus. And, in England,  electrician Colin Atkinson's palm cross was deemed "insensitive." And he was fired from his job. And remember when the White House asked Georgetown University to cover the IHS monogram (a symbol of Jesus' holy name) at Gaston Hall where Obama was scheduled to deliver a speech?

Noticing a trend?

There are numerous other examples of this growing hostility toward the cross or the crucifix.  In his treatise on ascetical and mystical theology, The Very Reverend Adolphe Tanquerey, S.S., D.D., explains that, "The Sacramentals and blessed objects are also efficacious remedies [for possession and diabolical temptation] because of the prayers said by the Church when blessing them...The Crucifix, the Sign of the Cross, and especially genuine relics of the True Cross are terrifying to the devil who was vanquished by the Cross: 'That the one who conquered by a tree should himself be likewise conquered by the Tree.'  For the same reason the Evil Spirit dreads the invocation of the Holy Name of Jesus, which, on the Master's Own promise, possesses a wondrous power for putting the devil to flight." (The Spiritual Life: A Treatise on Ascetical and Mystical Theology, p. 724, citing the Preface for the Feast of the Holy Cross, Tan Books).

Antichrist will reveal himself within the context of an atheistic, materialistic society which has lost its faith in God and which is prepared to fall down and worship man.  The Antichrist will not tolerate the Cross or Christian symbols.  In his Life of Christ (Image Books, 1977, p. 10), Archbishop Fulton John Sheen wrote, "We do know that at the end of time, when the great conflict between the forces of good and evil takes place, Satan will appear without the Cross, as the Great Philanthropist and Social Reformer to become the final temptation of mankind." Indeed, Paul Henri-Spaak, who served as Belgian Prime Minister and gained international prominence in 1945 when he was elected chairman of the first session of the General Assembly of the United Nations, had called for such a "Great Philanthropist and Social Reformer": "We do not want another committee, we have too many already. What we want is a man of sufficient stature to hold the allegiance of all people, and to lift us out of the economic morass in which we are sinking. Send us such a man and be he God or the Devil, we will receive him."

Saint Paul assures us that this man of iniquity will seek to displace God and to be worshipped himself.  Robert Hugh Benson, in his classic The Lord of the World (a most prophetic work) describes the humanitarian religion of Antichrist as one which will replace Christian symbols such as the Crucifix with its own symbols:

"Humanitarianism is a religion devoid of the supernatural.  It is developing a ritual under freemasonry; it has a creed, 'God is man'; and the rest.  It has, therefore, a real food of a sort to offer religious cravings: it idealizes, and yet makes no demands upon the spiritual faculties.  Then, they have the use of all the churches except ours, and of all the Cathedrals; and they are beginning at last to encourage sentiment.  Then they may display their symbols and we may not..."

Symbols are powerful because they convey meaning.  Which is why we are experiencing a push to strip Christian symbols from the public square.  While Colin Atkinson came under fire for his palm cross and Jalen Cromwell was forced to undergo psychological evaluations because of his hand-drawn Crucifix, Andres Serrano's "Piss Christ," which depicts a Crucifix submerged in a glass of Serrano's own urine mixed with cow's blood, is considered by some to be a "work of art" and received $15,000 from the taxpayer-funded National Endowment for the Arts.  Serrano's supporters have argued that the "Piss Christ" represents an issue of artistic freedom and freedom of speech.

We are in the midst of a spiritual war.  And things are about to get uglier.

To the President of Anna Maria College: Please learn the difference between a holy and an unholy distraction

By now you've probably heard of how Bishop Robert McManus of the Diocese of Worcester, Massachusetts, asked Anna Maria College to rescind its invitation to atheistic humanist Victoria Kennedy to speak at its 2012 Commencement.  Now the Catholic Free Press is reporting that Sister Yvette Bellerose, chairwoman of the Board of Trustees, and Jack P. Calareso, president of Anna Maria College, have asked Bishop McManus not to attend the Commencement either.  It has been asserted that the Bishop would be a distraction. 

What of it? No doubt Victoria Kennedy would have been a distraction for students who actually accept the Church's teaching.  The Catechism of the Catholic Church tells us that, "..a distraction reveals to us what we are attached to." (2729). Not all distractions are bad. Some are even holy. As Raissa Maritain, writing about Saint Thomas Aquinas, notes: "When he wept and prayed in this way, or when he was trying to find the answer to a difficult question, very often he did not hear nor feel what was going on about him. So one day, when he was at the table of the King Saint Louis, the two saints seated side by side, Brother Thomas, forgetful of the circumstances and the place, rapped loudly on the table and cried out: 'So much for the heresy of the Manicheans!' 'Master,' said the Prior who accompanied him, 'be careful, you are at the table of the King of France.' And saying this, he pulled at his cloak to bring him out of this state of holy distraction." (See here).

In the Gospel of Luke, Chapter 10 verses 38-42, we read: "As they continued their journey he entered a village where a woman whose name was Martha welcomed him. She had a sister named Mary [who] sat beside the Lord at his feet listening to him speak. Martha, burdened with much serving, came to him and said, 'Lord, do you not care that my sister has left me by myself to do the serving? Tell her to help me.' The Lord said to her in reply, 'Martha, Martha, you are anxious and worried about many things. There is need of only one thing. Mary has chosen the better part and it will not be taken from her.'"

A distraction reveals to us what we are attached to. By the grace of God, there are still people who are attached to truth or those who promote and defend it. Like Mary who sat at the very feet of Truth, they are attracted by the beauty of truth and by its sheer power.

Now Catholic News Service is reporting that: "Pope Benedict XVI called on America's Catholic colleges and universities to reaffirm their Catholic identity by ensuring orthodoxy in theological studies and accepting the oversight of bishops."  If officials at Anna Maria College honestly accept the oversight of Bishop McManus, wouldn't they want Bishop McManus in attendance?

The CNS article continues: "While he [Pope Benedict XVI] acknowledged recent efforts by America's Catholic institutions of higher education to 'reaffirm their distinctive identity in fidelity to their founding ideals and the church's mission,'" he also said that "much remains to be done."  And the Holy Father is quoted as having said that, "discord harms the church's witness and, as experience has shown, can easily be exploited to compromise her authority and her freedom."

The CNS article notes how, "U.S. bishops have clashed with the administrations of Catholic colleges and universities on a number of occasions in recent years, with some of the most prominent cases involving invited speakers who dissent from Catholic moral teaching.

In March, Anna Maria University in Worcester, Mass., retracted its invitation to Victoria Reggie Kennedy, widow of the late Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., to speak at the university's commencement, after Bishop Robert J. McManus objected to Victoria Kennedy's support for legalized abortion, contraception and same-sex marriage."

I don't believe for one minute that officials at Anna Maria College are really concerned about Bishop McManus being a distraction to their 2012 Commencement proceedings.  Their request that the Bishop not attend smacks of passive aggressive retaliation for his courageous decision to ask school officials to rescind Victoria Kennedy's invitation. 

The real distraction in this whole sordid affair has been the unholy distraction which was created when Anna Maria officials decided to invite an atheistic humanist to speak at the school's Commencement.

What a shame.

No principle at all, however holy, authentic, ancient, and certain..."

"O homines ad servitutem promptos!" - Tacitus.

Just prior to the Reign of Antichrist, Venerable Bartholomew Holzhauser tells us that, "During this unhappy period there will be laxity in divine and human precepts. Discipline will suffer. The Holy Canons will be completely disregarded, and the clergy will not respect the law of the Church. Everyone will be carried away and led to believe and to do what he fancies, according to the manner of the flesh. They will ridicule Christian simplicity ; they will call it folly and nonsense, but they will have the highest regard for advanced knowledge...As a result no principle at all- however holy, authentic, ancient, and certain it may be, will remain free of censure, criticism, false interpretations, modifications, and delimitation by man.

These are evil times a century full of dangers and calamities. Heresy is everywhere, and the followers of heresy are in power, almost everywhere. Bishops, prelates, and priests say that they are doing their duty, that they are vigilant and that they live as befits their state of life. In like manner therefore they all seek excuses. But God will permit a great evil against His Church; Heretics and tyrants will come suddenly and unexpectedly; they will break into the Church while Bishops prelates and priests are asleep. They will enter Italy and lay Rome waste; they will burn down the churches and destroy everything."

The Reign of Antichrist will witness a celebration of sin and perversion the likes of which few can imagine. Pleasure is the new principle par excellence. If pleasure can justify homosexual behavior (and increasingly that is what our sin-sick society is saying), then other deviant forms of sexual activity which are viewed as pleasurable by some will also be logically justified. This will include pedophilia, pederasty, ephebophilia, gerontophilia, necrophilia, sadism, masochism and bestiality.

Marriage is being redefined everywhere. In Canada, where polygamy has been illegal since the nineteenth century, the Supreme Court in British Columbia is going to decide whether or not the law prohibiting polygamy is constitutional. The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches clearly that "polygamy is not in accord with the moral law" and that "Conjugal communion is radically contradicted by polygamy" (CCC, 2387). Which is exactly why some are anxious to legitimize it. "No principle, however holy..."

Father Pascal Huchede writes, "...how shall he [Antichrist] deprive the world of Christianity and have himself adored as God? Alas, it is only too true that the minds and hearts of men are admirably disposed for revolution and consequently ready to accept and bear the cruel yoke of such a tyrant..." And then, after noting that men will abandon the reasonable and supernatural religion of Jesus Christ to worship the demon, Fr. Huchede adds, "What frightful immorality must follow in the train of this shameless prostitution of religion! Never has the threefold concupiscence made greater ravage among mankind. And this is the religion sought and hoped for as the cherished boon of the aspirations of our modern free thinkers." (History of Antichrist, pp. 13-14).

Father John Catoir: Only half the truth

In his Catholic News Service column Spirituality For Today, in a piece entitled "Free from needless guilt," Fr. John Catoir laments that, "The church was poisoned by heresies over the centuries. The better you understand these errors, the better you will be able to cope with the problem of needless guilt." Fr. Catoir then cites various heresies [all of which were condemned by the Church, so it is inaccurate to suggest that "the Church was poisoned" by them; Rather, some Catholics were influenced by them] including Manichaeism, Albigensianism and Jansenism.

To be sure, the "needless guilt" Fr. Catoir refers to has been a problem for some members of the Church past and present. Pope John Paul II, in his Letter to all the Bishops of the Church on the Mystery and Worship of the Eucharist (Dominicae Cenae) says that: "..our Catholic communities certainly do not lack people who could participate in Eucharistic Communion and do not, even though they have no serious sin on their conscience as an obstacle. To tell the truth, this attitude, which in some people is linked with an exaggerated severity, has changed in the present century, though it is still to be found here and there. In fact what one finds most often is not so much a feeling of unworthiness as a certain lack of interior willingness, if one may use this expression, a lack of Eucharistic 'hunger' and 'thirst,' which is also a sign of lack of adequate sensitivity towards the great sacrament of love and a lack of understanding of its nature." (No. 11). But His Holiness then addresses a more serious problem and one which is much more prevalent today:

"However, we also find in recent years another phenomenon. Sometimes, indeed quite frequently, everybody participating in the eucharistic assembly goes to Communion; and on some such occasions, as experienced pastors confirm, there has not been due care to approach the sacrament of Penance so as to purify one's conscience. This can of course mean that those approaching the Lord's table find nothing on their conscience, according to the objective law of God, to keep them from this sublime and joyful act of being sacramentally united with Christ. But there can also be, at least at times, another idea behind this: the life of our communities to lose the good quality of sensitiveness of Christian conscience, guided solely by respect for Christ, who, when He is received in the Eucharist, should find in the heart of each of us a worthy abode. This question is closely linked not only with the practice of the sacrament of Penance but also with a correct sense of responsibility for the whole deposit of moral teaching and for the precise distinction between good and evil, a distinction which then becomes for each person sharing in the Eucharist the basis for a correct judgment of self to be made in the depths of the personal conscience. St. Paul's words, 'Let a man examine himself,' are well known; this judgment is an indispensable condition for a personal decision whether to approach Eucharistic Communion or to abstain." (No. 11).

The worthy reception of Holy Communion requires a clear conscience. Because of this, someone in the state of mortal sin is not eligible to receive: "Anyone who desires to receive Christ in Eucharistic communion must be in the state of grace. Anyone aware of having sinned mortally must not receive communion without having received absolution in the sacrament of penance." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1415).

Fr. Catoir writes, "For centuries, the fear of eternal damnation, even for petty offenses, was taught in the name of religion. George Carlin, the late comedian, abandoned his faith because he saw the absurdity of believing in a God who would send you to hell for all eternity for eating meat on Friday. Many Catholics left the Church for the same reason. Winning them back will take a massive re-education process."

But as Dr. Germain Grisez explains, "Traditionally, the eucharistic fast,required by the Church for the sake of reverence, was considered a grave responsibility which did not admit of parvity. Now, since the requirement is more easily fulfilled, its violation is even harder to excuse...someone who deliberately disregards the eucharistic fast out of irreverence for Jesus or contempt for the Church's law plainly is guilty of grave sin. And, knowing that the fast has been broken , whether by accident or on purpose, in a significant way, anyone as reverent and obedient as he or she should be, will not receive Holy Communion except for a reason sufficient to justify an exception to the Church's law (see CMP. 11.G. 6-7)."

Did George Carlin really leave the Church because he had a problem with the Church's traditional teaching regarding the Eucharistic fast or might not there have been other factors involved in his decision to abandon the Church of Christ? I seem to recall a troubled man who had serious personal problems and who celebrated the use of profanity with a levity which was just disturbing.

Pope John Paul II, in the same Dominicae Cenae, No. 7 writes, "I have already drawn attention to the close link between the sacrament of Penance and the sacrament of the Eucharist. It is not only that Penance leads to the Eucharist, but that the Eucharist also leads to Penance. For when we realize who it is that we receive in Eucharistic communion, there springs up in us almost spontaneously a sense of unworthiness, together with sorrow for our sins and an interior need for purification.."

This is not the result of "needless guilt." It is the result of reverence before Our Eucharistic Lord. Fr. Catoir needs to present the full truth to his readers.