U.S. Doctors being threatened if they contradict or even question the Covid narrative

 As explained here:

"In addition to being subjected to various forms of censorship, for the first time in living memory American doctors are getting threat letters from licensure boards warning them against distributing 'harmful misinformation.' Medical boards in 12 states have disciplined doctors because of this allegation. While it is claimed that there’s an epidemic of misinformation during the COVID-19 pandemic, the warnings don’t spell out what that means.

We don’t have an epidemic of patients dying because doctors told them to refuse treatment or to drink Clorox or aquarium cleaner.

In fact, no patients need to have suffered any harm at all for the medical board to investigate a doctor’s no-longer-free speech. All it takes is an anonymous complaint.

Pharmacists that were converted into the overseers of physicians’ prescribing practices will complain that a doctor had prescribed ivermectin for COVID-19.

Or an employer might complain that a doctor supported a worker’s request for a medical exemption that wasn’t on the CDC’s list of acceptable reasons.

Or the doctor might have spoken at a political meeting at which mask mandates were being challenged.

Or a patient might complain that a doctor wasn’t wearing a mask in his private consulting room, even when no COVID-19 patients were anywhere near, and the doctor had demonstrated immunity.

Or a pathologist might have stated publicly that his busy lab was seeing a higher percentage of cancers in vaccinated patients.

'Harmful misinformation' appears to mean anything that contradicts or asks questions or raises doubt about the dogma that 'vaccines are safe and effective,' or suggests a treatment not endorsed by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National Institutes of Health (NIH), and their corporate sponsors."

This has, of course, happened before.  In Nazi Germany, medical personnel and medical associations began to value political conformity more than medical knowledge. See here.

Am I being an alarmist?  NIH Director Francis Collins has already asserted that anyone who contradicts the party line on Covid should be brought to "justice. " See here.

What does this mean?  A prison sentence?  An internment camp for re-education?  Waterboarding?

And you still think this is all about "health"?

Really?

If we will not have Christ, we will have chaos

An editorial in The New York Post:


"In yet another sign that idealistic protests have given way to mindless destruction, vandals over the weekend targeted two statues of … the Virgin Mary.

It was graffiti in Elmhurst, Queens: 'IDOL' spray-painted across her skirt in the early morning outside the Cathedral Preparatory School and Seminary on 92nd Street.

And arson in Dorchester, Mass.: a statue outside of Saint Peter’s Parish damaged by burns to the face, hands and arms. Fr. John Currie, the pastor, was 'disappointed' by the desecration, noting, 'Our image of our lady is so important to us in our faith.'

Maybe these are simply anti-Catholic bigots who figure they might as well join in on the attacks against monuments.

Maybe the perps pretend they’re somehow forwarding the Black Lives Matter message — after all, BLM thinker Shaun King recently said that images depicting Jesus as a 'white European' should be torn down as forms of 'white supremacy' and 'racist propaganda.'

Whoever’s behind it, it shows that mob rule leads straight to madness."

But the protests we've been subjected to were never "idealistic" expressions of moral outrage.  But rather the immature and hate-filled rage of angry haters of God, His Commandments and His order.

The violence we are witnessing across America today is rooted in hatred of truth.  Today there is a demand for sex without love, for a licentiousness in sex which has wrought a heartless society in which individuals do not care for anyone but themselves. The fruit of this demonic theology is the slaughter through abortion and euthanasia of human beings created in the Imago Dei. It is a theology of violence which is rooted in hatred of truth. For at the heart of immorality is falsity, the hatred of truth.

Fr. Vincent P. Miceli, in an essay entitled "The Taproot of Violence," explains: "...violence entered creation from the rebellion of Lucifer. This rebellion arose from the heart of pride. But the sin of pride is the offspring of the vice known as hatred of truth. Hatred of truth is the result of the creature's attempt to rearrange God's hierarchy of beings and values into an order which the creature prefers to the plan of God. This attempt immediately produces the violence of disorder, the chaos of falsity and immorality. For hatred of truth is really hatred of God who creates all things wisely and governs them lovingly. Lucifer, the Morning Star, was instantly deformed into the Prince of Darkness because he attempted to live a lie. He wanted to dethrone God and become God himself..."

We live in an environment where there is a "violence of disorder" because we have abandoned truth.  And hatred of truth leads to violence.  It is the very root of violence.  Jesus said to the Pharisees, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I proceeded and came forth from God; I came not of my own account, but he sent me.  Why do you not understand what I say?  It is because you cannot bear to hear my word.  You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires.  He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him.  When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.  But, because I tell the truth, you do not believe me." (John 8: 42-45).

It is rejection of truth which leads to violence.  And so we read in verse 59 of the same Chapter, "So they took up stones to throw at him; but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple."  If there is exaggerated rhetoric and violence across our society, it is because many have rejected God's created order.

But there is a consequence to this rejection of truth.  As Dorothy Sayers reminded us, if we will not have Christ, we will have chaos.

If Francis were authentically pro-life, he would condemn the murderous Castro regime

Carlos Eire notes how Francis is once again exposing himself as a hypocrite. He writes: "Once again, Papa Che has come out swinging against an evil, heartless capitalist figure.

Yet, he remains totally silent on evil, heartless socialist and communist dictators.

Papa Che has condemned the Trumpinator for his elimination of the DACA carte blanche to illegal immigrant children.

Granted, he is constantly probed by the left-leaning press on issues such as this, so he can make pronouncements against those who don’t lean left.

In other words, he is provided with more opportunities to criticize capitalist democracies than leftist tyrannies.

So, journalists are partly responsible for prompting and reporting Papa Che’s swipes at capitalist democracies.

Yet, when he visits countries where there is plenty of heartless un-Christian totalitarian abuse of power going on, he says nothing, nada, nichts, zero, null, rien, niente…"

Mr. Eire cites The Daily Mail:


"Pope picks a fight with Trump saying president can’t be pro-life life if he ended DACA

Pope Francis has gone after President Trump over yet another controversial immigration issue, saying if the president is ‘pro-life’ then he should reconsider his order to rescind DACA."

No one can accuse Francis of being a scholar.  But even this dim light should be capable of understanding No. 2273 of The Catechism of the Catholic Church:

"The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:

"The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being's right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death."

"The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . ."

If Francis were authentically pro-life, he would condemn the murderous Castro regime.  Not only has he failed to do so, but this Pharisee has welcomed Raul Castro at the Vatican with open arms. See here.

If the USCCB is to be held as credible with regard to its position regarding same-sex civil unions, it must condemn the actions of Francis

The USCCB has stated that:

"Marriage is a unique good in itself. Nothing compares to the unique partnership of husband and wife, who through their sexual difference form a life-giving communion. No relationship between persons of the same sex can be the same as that between a man and a woman, nor should they ever be treated as analogous to marriage in any way. Thus, legal categories such as "civil unions" or "domestic partnerships" that claim equivalent or analogous status to marriage are wrong and unjust, harmful both to the person and to society. Legal categories such as "civil unions" or "domestic partnerships" should never be treated as analogous to marriage. Such legal approval of "civil unions" contributes to the erosion of the authentic meaning of marriage. As such, they are never acceptable. Basic human rights are not protected but violated by the erosion and redefinition of marriage."

The CDF has also addressed this issue.  See here.

But Francis has signalled his support for recognizing same-sex civil unions.  In a Lifesite News article which may Be found here, we read:

"Pope Francis seems to have affirmed recognizing homosexual relationships under law, an apparent contradiction of the Church's longheld teaching.

In a new book-length interview, the Pope reiterates his strong opposition to same-sex 'marriage,' but recommends using the term 'civil unions' instead.

'Let us call things by their names. Matrimony is between a man and a woman. This is the precise term. Let us call the same-sex union a ‘civil union,’ he said.

Pope Francis made the comment during more than a dozen conversations with French journalist Dominique Wolton, who published the Pope’s words in a 432-page book titled Politics and Society. It was published in French on Wednesday.

The Catholic Church teaches that since homosexual acts are 'intrinsically disordered,' Catholics cannot approve of same-sex civil unions."

If the USCCB is to be taken seriously with regard to its teaching on same-sex civil unions, it must condemn the language used by Francis.  And it must do so immediately.  Otherwise that body will, through the sin of omission, forfeit its credibility.

Francis: "I do not know if I truly love Jesus.."

Francis just told a group of children, "I do not know if I truly love Jesus. I try to love him..."  See here.

What a shame. Saint Peter Julian Eymard reminds us that, "It was from the height of His Cross that our Lord first drew all the souls to Himself by
redeeming them. But when our Lord uttered these words, He certainly also had in mind His Eucharistic throne, to the foot of which He means to draw all souls so as to bind them there with the chains of His love.

Our Lord wants to instill in us a passionate love for Himself. Any virtue or idea which does not end by becoming a passion will never produce
anything great.

A child's affection is not love. A child loves by instinct and because it feels that it us loved; it loves itself in those who do it good.

A domestic servant may be devoted; his love will be real only if he is devoted out of affection for his master, without any thought of personal advantage.

Love cannot triumph unless it becomes the one passion of our life. Without such a passion we may produce isolated acts of love; but our life is not really won or consecrated to an ideal.

Unless we have a passionate love for our Lord in the Most Blessed Sacrament, we shall accomplish nothing.

 Certainly, our Lord loves us passionately in the Eucharist; He loves us blindly without a thought for Himself, devoting Himself entirely for our good. We should love Him as
He loves us."

In John 21: 15-17, we read, "When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, 'Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?' He said to him, 'Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.' He said to him, “Feed my lambs.”
He then said to him a second time, 'Simon, son of John, do you love me?' He said to him, 'Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.' He said to him, 'Tend my sheep.' He said to him the third time, 'Simon, son of John, do you love me?' Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, 'Do you love me?' and he said to him, 'Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.' [Jesus] said to him, 'Feed my sheep.'"

The Vicar of Christ is called to show his love for Jesus by feeding the sheep - and this with the food which is sound doctrine.  But he who sits on the throne of Peter is not offering such food.  No doubt because his love for the Lord Jesus is in question.

He even entertains doubts himself!

"If destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher..."

It was Abraham Lincoln, in a speech given on January 27, 1837, who forewarned: "At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us; it cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time, or die by suicide."

And indeed we are sowing the seeds of our own destruction. It was Pope John Paul II who taught us, in his Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae [the Gospel of Life] that: "...If the promotion of the self is understood in terms of absolute autonomy, people inevitably reach the point of rejecting one another. Everyone else is considered an enemy from whom one has to defend oneself. Thus society becomes a mass of individuals placed side by side, but without any mutual bonds. Each one wishes to assert himself independently of the other and in fact intends to make his own interests prevail. Still, in the face of other people's analogous interests, some kind of compromise must be found, if one wants a society in which the maximum possible freedom is guaranteed to each individual. In this way, any reference to common values and to a truth absolutely binding on everyone is lost, and social life ventures on to the shifting sands of complete relativism. At that point, everything is negotiable, everything is open to bargaining: even the first of the fundamental rights, the right to life. This is what is happening also at the level of politics and government: the original and inalienable right to life is questioned or denied on the basis of a parliamentary vote or the will of one part of the people-even if it is the majority. This is the sinister result of a relativism which reigns unopposed: the 'right' ceases to be such, because it is no longer firmly founded on the inviolable dignity of the person, but is made subject to the will of the stronger part. In this way democracy, contradicting its own principles, effectively moves towards a form of totalitarianism. The State is no longer the 'common home' where all can live together on the basis of principles of fundamental equality, but is transformed into a tyrant State, which arrogates to itself the right to dispose of the life of the weakest and most defenceless members, from the unborn child to the elderly, in the name of a public interest which is really nothing but the interest of one part. The appearance of the strictest respect for legality is maintained, at least when the laws permitting abortion and euthanasia are the result of a ballot in accordance with what are generally seen as the rules of democracy. Really, what we have here is only the tragic caricature of legality; the democratic ideal, which is only truly such when it acknowledges and safeguards the dignity of every human person, is betrayed in its very foundations: How is it still possible to speak of the dignity of every human person when the killing of the weakest and most innocent is permitted? In the name of what justice is the most unjust of discriminations practised: some individuals are held to be deserving of defence and others are denied that dignity?" When this happens, the process leading to the breakdown of a genuinely human co-existence and the disintegration of the State itself has already begun.To claim the right to abortion, infanticide and euthanasia, and to recognize that right in law, means to attribute to human freedom a perverse and evil significance: that of an absolute power over others and against others. This is the death of true freedom: "Truly, truly, I say to you, every one who commits sin is a slave to sin" (Jn 8:34)." (Evangelium Vitae, No. 20).



President Lincoln possessed a wisdom and humility in his approach to government. Let's listen then to what he had to say on March 30, 1863, when he issued a historic Proclamation Appointing a National Fast Day: "...it is the duty of nations as well as of men to own their dependence upon the overruling power of God, to confess their sins and transgressions in humble sorrow yet with assured hope that genuine repentance will lead to mercy and pardon, and to recognize the sublime truth, announced in the Holy Scriptures and proven by all history: that those nations only are blessed whose God is the Lord: And, insomuch as we know that, by His divine law, nations like individuals are subjected to punishments and chastisement in this world, may we not justly fear that the awful calamity of civil war, which now desolates the land may be but a punishment inflicted upon us for our presumptuous sins to the needful end of our national reformation as a whole people? We have been the recipients of the choicest bounties of Heaven. We have been preserved these many years in peace and prosperity. We have grown in numbers, wealth and power as no other nation has ever grown. But we have forgotten God. We have forgotten the gracious Hand which preserved us in peace, and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us; and we have vainly imagined, in the deceitfulness of our hearts, that all these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own. Intoxicated with unbroken success, we have become too self-sufficient to feel the necessity of redeeming and preserving grace, too proud to pray to the God that made us! It behooves us then to humble ourselves before the offended Power, to confess our national sins and to pray for clemency and forgiveness.."All this being done, in sincerity and truth, let us then rest humbly in the hope authorized by the Divine teachings, that the united cry of the nation will be heard on high and answered with blessing no less than the pardon of our national sins and the restoration of our now divided and suffering country to its former happy condition of unity and peace..."

Pope Francis: "If there's a private (homosexual) union, then third parties and society aren't affected."

 "The real responsibility, then, lies with individuals.."



In his book entitled On Heaven and Earth, published in 2010, Pope Francis, speaking about homosexual sex, wrote: "If there's a private union, then third parties and society aren't affected."  And some argue that he is in full continuity with Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI.  See here.

Im beginning to wonder.

Pope Francis should understand that at the root of all social injustice is personal sin.  When people deny God and objective moral limits, they have a tendency to become selfish and to regard others as mere instruments to their own ends.  The teaching magisterium explains: "Having become his own centre, sinful man tends to assert himself and to satisfy his desire for the infinite by the use of things: wealth, power and pleasure, despising other people and robbing them unjustly and treating them as objects or instruments.  Thus he makes his own contribution to the creation of those very structures of exploitation and slavery which he claims to condemn." (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction on Christian Freedom and Liberation, No. 42).

Pope John Paul II, in his Encyclical Letter Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, No. 36, says further, "If the present situation can be attributed to difficulties of various kinds, it is not out of place to speak of 'structures of sin,' which....are rooted in personal sin, and thus always linked to the concrete acts of individuals who introduce these structures, consolidate them and make them difficult to remove.  And thus they grow stronger, spread, and become the source of other sins, and so influence people's behavior."

Thirs parties and society are not affected by homosexual unions?  Really?

In No. 36 of Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, Pope John Paul II continues: "The God who is rich in mercy, the Redeemer of man, the Lord and giver of life, requires from people clear-cut attitudes which express themselves also in actions or omissions toward one's neighbor.  We have here a reference to the 'second tablet' of the Ten Commandments (cf. Exodus 20: 12-17; Deuteronomy 5: 16-21).  Not to observe these is to offend God and hurt one's neighbor, and to introduce into the world influences and obstacles which go far beyond the actions and the brief lifespan of an individual."

Pope John Paul II developed this theme in his Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, No. 16, saying that, "Whenever the Church speaks of situations of sin, or when she condemns as social sins certain situations or the collective behavior of certain social groups, big or small, or even of whole nations and blocs of nations, she knows and she proclaims that such cases of social sin are the result of the accumulation of and concentration of many personal sins.  It is a case of the very personal sins of those who cause or support evil or who exploit it; of those who are in a position to avoid, eliminate or at least limit certain social evils but who fail to do so out of laziness, fear or the conspiracy of silence, through secret complicity or indifference; of those who take refuge in the supposed impossibility of changing the world, and also of those who sidestep the effort and sacrifice required, producing specious reasons of a higher order.  The real responsibility, then, lies with individuals.  A situation - or likewise aninstitution, a structure, society itself - is not in itself the subject of moral acts.  Hence a situation cannot in itself be good or bad."

Jan, a parishioner at St. Joseph's Parish in Fitchburg: If you don't care for the falsification of Catholic Liturgy, don't come

In my last post, I noted how Saint Joseph's Parish in Fitchburg omitted the Nicene Creed at Holy Mass and that, because I took exception to this, a parishioner left a comment at this Blog calling me an idiot.  Now another parishioner named Jan (who some have indicated is most likely the parish secretary Janice Potter), left a comment here  saying, "What a wonderful church. I love it here. If you have a problem with it, which you obviously do as you seem to slam it every chance you get, then don't come."

In other words, if I believe that the priests who celebrate Mass at Saint Joseph's should not omit the Creed, that's my problem and I am the one who should solve the problem by leaving.

In other words, Jan is implying that that the priest has a right to alter the liturgy at will and to omit the Creed [or anything else he desires] and if I don't like it, I am the problem.

The Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum stresses that, "Whenever an abuse is committed in the celebration of the sacred Liturgy, it is to be seen as a real falsification of Catholic Liturgy. St Thomas wrote, 'the vice of falsehood is perpetrated by anyone who offers worship to God on behalf of the Church in a manner contrary to that which is established by the Church with divine authority, and to which the Church is accustomed.'" (RS, 169).


The same document tells us that, "In order that a remedy may be applied to such abuses, 'there is a pressing need for the biblical and liturgical formation of the people of God, both pastors and faithful,' so that the Church’s faith and discipline concerning the sacred Liturgy may be accurately presented and understood. Where abuses persist, however, proceedings should be undertaken for safeguarding the spiritual patrimony and rights of the Church in accordance with the law, employing all legitimate means." (RS, 170).

An excellent article over at EWTN tells us that:


"When the justice of obedience to ecclesiastical law is not rendered and thus the proper Order of the Mass is violated, there can be no real unity in the parish and thus no peace. As a result, the Catholic unity of communion with the bishop and with and through the bishop with Peter is disturbed. Hierarchical Communion is one of the three marks of unity to be found in the Church, the others being unity of faith and unity in the discipline of the Sacraments. Liturgical disobedience uniquely disturbs all three! This is not surprising since the Eucharist is the principal source and sign of the unity of the Church. By its very nature, it MUST be either a sign of unity or a sign of disunity.


Of course, many other evils enter in by liturgical disobedience, including the serious injustice of depriving the faithful of licit, and in some cases valid, sacraments, something to which as Catholics they have a right.

Canon 214 The Christian faithful have the right to worship God according to the prescriptions of their own rite approved by the legitimate pastors of the Church, and to follow their own form of spiritual life consonant with the teaching of the Church.

When these evils occur they have the right, and even the responsibility, to make their voices heard.


Canon 212

1. The Christian faithful, conscious of their own responsibility, are bound by Christian obedience to follow what the sacred pastors, as representatives of Christ, declare as teachers of the faith or determine as leaders of the Church.

2. The Christian faithful are free to make known their needs, especially spiritual ones, and their desires to the pastors of the Church.

3. In accord with the knowledge, competence and preeminence which they possess, they have the right and even at times a duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church, and they have a right to make their opinion known to the other Christian faithful, with due regard for the integrity of faith and morals and reverence toward their pastors, and with consideration of the common good and dignity of persons.

Bishop Robert McManus needs to look into this situation.  Liturgical abuses are very serious.  The solution is not for faithful Catholics to be told to "move on."  The solution is for the priests at Saint Joseph's Parish to return to fidelity, to cease abusing the liturgy and disrupting the Church's unity.

Archbishop Dolan: If New York City is not a "Neo-Sodom and Gomorrah," what would you call it? A Neo-Nineveh?

"New York seems to have an innate interest and respect for religion and I'm going to bring that up because I don't like that caricature that New York is some neo-Sodom and Gomorrah" - Archbishop Timothy Dolan.  See here.

Greenwich Village is the birthplace of the American homosexual movement.  New York City is known far and wide for being a "gay" hotspot.  So much so that Michael Musto writes openly about "The Five Best Places To Have Gay Sex in New York."  See here.

In a press release dated July 7, 2011, Senator Ruben Diaz said that,  "I voted my conscience and opposed Governor Andrew Cuomo's key piece of social legislation in the New York State Senate that redefines our marriage laws away from the traditional definition of one man and one woman. I was the only Democrat in the Senate to vote against this legislation, and I wear my vote as a badge of honor.

I have been congratulated by religious leaders and constituents not only from my district, but from districts all over New York State. I have received messages of encouragement and gratitude from people throughout the United States. Alberto Martinez tweeted: "Jesus said: 'Whoever is ashamed of Him and His words, the Son of Man will also be ashamed of such person at His coming.' Bravo Senator Diaz." All of these supporters know that I am unashamed to be a Christian. If we talk the talk, we must walk the walk.

Although Republican Senate Leader Dean Skelos ushered the gay marriage vote to the floor in order to make the 11:00PM news, and even though the vote passed, the hatred that has spewed in my direction before June 24th continues.

Yesterday I received a series of five emails in my Senate account from one person that read like homicidal rantings: "You eat s***. You are s***." "There is no worse person on Earth than you. God has told me so." "You worthless pile of human excrement!!!" "I hope you die! I hope you die soon! I'm waiting for you to die!" "Satan would sooner nail a stake through your heart than admit to knowing you. Your very own lover!!!"

To err on the side of caution and especially since one of the messages awaits my demise, those emails were properly reported to the FBI.

Those messages suggest that even though the gay marriage vote passed, that author did not get what he wanted which suggests to me that for some reason, I am the embodiment of his disappointment. He may also be upset because I am unashamed of my vote.

Last Tuesday, a website posted an article titled: "Sen. Ruben Douchebag: I Made History." The tag labels that follow that online piece are as vulgar as possible. I quote them here not to amplify their vulgarity, but to let people know the ever-growing hatred freely expressed by those who claim to promote tolerance: "assholery, batshittery, bigotry, bovine spongiform encephalopathy, douchenozzles, evil, and f***weasels".

I am amazed that the author of that site continues to fixate on me as he does. I was told that he even tweeted about me just one hour after the supposed May 21 rapture: "An hour past #Rapture in New York City and this town is still infested with Sen. Ruben Diaz and his filthy ilk. #Disappointed."

For all intents and purposes I am a stranger to this person, yet for some reason I have his full attention. As a religious leader I thank the Lord that he continues to pay attention to my efforts to spread the Word of God. I hope and pray that since he seems to be a grown man, he will try to no longer promote vulgarity, indecency and hatred online or elsewhere.

After the June 24 vote, so many people who disguise themselves as victims and decry bullies hide behind their computer screens and demonstrate what is called "keyboard courage" by posting hateful and vicious comments about me.

In the great spirit of interfaith unity I will continue to work to promote what the late Pope John Paul II called the Culture of Life and continue to highlight the actions of the opposition which is still not pleased even with their declared victory in New York against traditional marriage.

For my part, I will continue to be unashamed to be a Christian.

The homosexual lobby used threats and strong tactics to smash their same-sex depravity law through the New York Assembly and to Governor Cuomo’s pen. I guess one can call this the tactics of homosexual mafia." (See here).

Every year New York City celebrates "Gay Pride" and a satanic organization called the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, cross-dressing "Sisters" who mock Jesus and His Church while celebrating sodomite debauchery, calls New York City home. 

Your Excellency, if New York City is not a Neo-Sodom, what would you call it?  A Neo-Nineveh?  The people of Nineveh repented of their sins and their city was spared from disaster. The spirit of penance which saved them from chastisement was expressed through the sackcloth and ashes. We are told in Sacred Scripture that, "The word of the Lord came to Jonah a second time: Set out for the great city of Nineveh, and announce to it the message that I will tell you. So Jonah set out for Nineveh, in accord with the word of the Lord. Now Nineveh was an awesomely great city; it took three days to walk through it. Jonah began his journey through the city, and when he had gone only a single day’s walk announcing, “Forty days more and Nineveh shall be overthrown,” the people of Nineveh believed God; they proclaimed a fast and all of them, great and small, put on sackcloth. When the news reached the king of Nineveh, he rose from his throne, laid aside his robe, covered himself with sackcloth, and sat in ashes. Then he had this proclaimed throughout Nineveh: 'By decree of the king and his nobles, no man or beast, no cattle or sheep, shall taste anything; they shall not eat, nor shall they drink water. Man and beast alike must be covered with sackcloth and call loudly to God; they all must turn from their evil way and from the violence of their hands. Who knows? God may again repent and turn from his blazing wrath, so that we will not perish.' When God saw by their actions how they turned from their evil way, he repented of the evil he had threatened to do to them; he did not carry it out." (Jonah 3: 1-10).


Where is the fast in New York City? [not that there's not sin elsewhere but we're speaking of NYC here] Where is the penance? Saint Paul tells us that all men have the basic moral law before them, the Ten Commandments written in their hearts. All men are capable of knowing good from evil:

"For what can be known about God is evident to them, because God made it evident to them. Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made. As a result, they have no excuse.." (Romans 1: 19-20).

But excuses are all we find today.  Not to mention a celebration of sin - even that sin which is most detestable - sodomy. As Father Albert J. Hebert, S.M. put it, "All great pagan judicial systems admitted the fact of wrong-doing and their legal systems prescribed punishment for it. It is only in our day that there is such a widespread denial of the existence of sin and moral laws. This makes God appear as the Creator of evil, and God hates this blasphemy, pride, and hypocrisy on the part of His creature man...Today, persons great and lowly commit sin, deny it and even blasphemously call it virtue. For example, active homosexuals and lesbians call their perverse practices 'love' and demand the legal status of normal married man and wife."

With all due respect Your Excellency, let's not forget the words Our Lord spoke 2,000 years ago to another generation but which nevertheless apply to our own sin-sick generation:

"The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation and shall condemn it: because they did penance at the preaching of Jonah. And behold a greater than Jonah here." (Matthew 12: 41).

New York City is not another Sodom?  I'm afraid I must disagree Archbishop. I believe in truth in advertising.  I believe a thing should be called what it is.  And I agree with St. Francis de Sales, a Doctor of the Church, who reminded us in his Introduction to the Devout Life that, "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."

"If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a slave of Christ."

It was Blaise Pascal who said that, "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."

Not all Catholics understand this.  One just wrote, "There are writers who, even as they say they are faithful to the Magisterium, attack priests and bishops publicly. Some attack the Pope. That is harmful to the unity of charity."

Now obviously those who attack the Pope are placing themselves in spiritual danger.  It was Pope St. Pius X, the Pope of the Eucharist, who said that: "When people love the pope, they do not discuss his orders; they do not question the extent of their obedience, nor in what matters they are to obey.  When people love the pope, they do not pretend that he has not spoken clearly enough, as if he were obliged to whisper in each one's ear that which he has often expressed so clearly in words and encyclicals.  They cannot cast doubt upon his order under the pretext so commonly adduced by those who are unwilling to obey, that it is not the pope who commands but those who surround him; they cannot limit the ground on which he may and ought to exercise his authority; in matters of authority, they cannot give preference to persons whose ideas clash with those of the pope, however learned these may be, for though they be learned, they are not saints."

That is precisely the creed of this Blog.  Which is why I have made so many enemies [and even more friends] over the years.  I stand with the Holy Father and those Bishops who are in communion with him.  Deacon Nick Donnely of Protect the Pope [himself a real gift to the Church] knows this.  He has said that this humble Blog was the inspiration for his website. I stand with the Pope because obedience and loyalty to the Holy Father are the hallmarks of true Catholics.  And true Catholics - as opposed to those counterfeit Catholics who are comfortable with the Magisterium being attacked and undermined - fully agree with Pope Pius XII who, in his Encyclical Letter Humani Generis, stated clearly that: "...God has given to His Church a living Teaching Authority to elucidate and explain what is contained in the deposit of faith only obscurely and implicitly.  This deposit of faith our Divine Redeemer has given for authentic interpretation not to each of the faithful, not even to theologians, but only to the Teaching Authority of the Church."

But standing with the Holy Father and the Magisterium of the Church does not require us, as faithful Catholics, to look the other way while the seeds of dissent are being sown by clerics who have lost, or are in the process of losing - their Catholic Faith.  Which is why when Cardinal Francis George suggested that the Church's teaching relative to homosexuality and same-sex "marriage" may have to change, I took him to task publically.  You see, not even a Cardinal may contradict the Magisterial teaching of the Church.  And because sodomite priest Father Bernard Lynch is actively engaged in a campaign to promote radical homosexual agitprop, I publically took him to task.

St. Francis de Sales, a Doctor of the Church, in his Introduction to the Devout Lfe, 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." Charity obliges us to oppose the wolf, "in every way and place we may meet him." Both those wolves which attack within the Church. And those wolves which attack from without.

Our attitude should be that of St. Paul: "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach (to you) a gospel other than the one that we preached to you, let that one be accursed! As we have said before, and now I say again, if anyone preaches to you a gospel other than the one that you received, let that one be accursed! 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: 8-10).

Sadly, many Catholics confuse criticism with condemnation - as evidenced in a recent post at this Blog.  Even some clerics confuse the two.  See here.

Related reading: Fr. Robert Hoatson's constructive criticism for Cardinal O'Malley.

See also the series entitled The Boston Virus over at Bishop Rene Gracida's Blog Abyssus Abyssum Invocat.  His Excellency is a friend of mine, a faithful servant of God and example to all.

If we only knew what makes for authentic peace.  See here.

"Educating is very demanding...But educating becomes a marvelous mission if it is done in collaboration with God.."

Pope Benedict XVI, on the feast of the Baptism of the Lord, exhorted parents to understand that prayer is the first step in educating children and said that, "Educating is very demanding...But educating becomes a marvelous mission if it is done in collaboration with God, who is the first and true educator of every man...It is very important for you parents and also for you godfathers and godmothers to believe strongly in the presence and the action of the Holy Spirit, to call upon him and welcome him in you through prayer and the sacraments...He is the one in fact who enlightens the mind, who makes the heart of the educator burn so that he or she knows how to transmit the knowledge of the love of Christ. Prayer is the first condition for educating, because in praying we create the disposition in ourselves of letting God have the initiative, of entrusting our children to him, who knows them before we do and better than us, and knows perfectly what their true good is. And, at the same time, when we pray we open ourselves to the inspirations of God to do our part better, which in any case is our duty and we must accomplish. The sacraments, especially Eucharist and Penance, permit us to perform the educative action in union with Christ, in communion with him and continually renewed by his forgiveness.."

Our Holy Father has said it: educating children becomes a marvelous mission if it is done in collaboration with God.  But can homosexual parents honestly be said to be collaborating with God in the mission of transmitting the knowledge of the love of Christ when they are engaging in gravely sinful acts and doing violence to their children?  The Archdiocese of Boston has said that homosexual parents can collaborate with God in the task of educating children.  See here.

This is most unfortunate.  The CDF has said, quite clearly, that adoption of children by homosexuals "would actually mean doing violence to these children," by placing them "in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development."  Besides being gravely immoral, adoption of children by homosexuals violates the principle that "the weaker and more vulnerable party" must always be favored and protected. (Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons, No. 7).

How can those who are actually doing violence to children be said to be collaborating with God?

Cardinal O'Malley?