Pope Francis, the examen, and Bonny and Clyde

In his book entitled, "Rise, Let Us Be On Our Way," Pope John Paul II writes that: "By his manner of life, a bishop demonstrates that the Christ as "Model" lives on and still speaks to us today. One could say that a diocese reflects the manner of life of its bishop. His virtues - chastity, a spirit of poverty and prayer, simplicity, sensitivity of conscience - will, as it were, be written into the hearts of his priests. They, in their turn, will convey these values to the faithful entrusted to their care, and in this way young people can be led to make a generous response to Christ's call." (p. 129).

And on page 66 of the same book, the Holy Father explains that, "It is very important for a bishop to have a rapport with his people and to know how to relate to them well...Interest in others begins with the bishop's prayer life: his conversations with Christ, who entrusts 'His own' to him. Prayer prepares him for encounter with others."

And so, a Bishop should be a man of deep prayer. And that prayer should motivate him to be a good "paterfamilias" to the faithful who have been entrusted to him by the Lord Jesus. As the Holy Father explains, every individual diocese is a reflection of its Bishop's manner of life. If a diocese is in near constant turmoil, what would this indicate about the Bishop's "manner of life"? If children are sexually abused while a Bishop merely shuffles the abuser from one assignment to another, would this not indicate that something about the Bishop's "manner of life" is gravely wrong? If a diocese is plagued with dissidents and other malcontents who lay siege to various parishes while insisting that the Church's teaching must change or that the very structure of the Church must change, what would this indicate about its Bishop's "manner of life"?

To be sure, not everything negative which transpires in a diocese may be laid at its Bishop's doorstep. However, as the Holy Father makes abundantly clear, "The responsibilities that weigh on a bishop's shoulders are many." (p. 93). He cites St. Augustine's long sermon "On the Shepherds" writing that, "With reference to the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel, the bishop of Hippo strongly rebukes evil shepherds, who are concerned not for the sheep but only for themselves. 'Let us see how the word of God, that flatters no one, addresses the shepherds who are feeding themselves, not the sheep. You take the milk, you clothe yourselves with the wool, you slaughter the fatlings; but you do not feed my sheep. The weak you have not strengthened, the sick you have not healed, the crippled you have not bound up, the strayed you have not brought back, the lost you have not sought; any strong one you have killed; and My sheep are scattered because there is no shepherd.'" (pp. 63,64).

Indeed, the responsibility of a Bishop is a grave one. This is why the great Saint Augustine (Bishop and Doctor of the Church) said that his vocation as a Christian instilled him with "great hope" but that his vocation as Bishop instilled him with "great fear." It was Jesus, after all, who said that: "Much will be required of the person entrusted with much, and still more will be demanded of the person entrusted with more" (Luke 12: 48).

Could this be why the normally gentle Saint John Chrysostom has been quoted as having said that the road to Hell is paved with the skulls of Bishops?

Troubling words coming from a gentle saint who was known not only for his great eloquence (his last name translated as "golden-mouthed") but for his pacific spirit.

In a previous post, I noted how Bishop Johan Bonny is calling on the Church to recognize same-sex "marriage." Can it honestly be said that Bishop Bonny is presenting himself as a model of Christ to the faithful entrusted to his care?

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in its document entitled Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons, warns that even where homosexual unions have been legalized, "clear and emphatic opposition is a duty." (No. 5). This important document stresses that, "any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws" and even any "material cooperation on the level of their application" must be avoided. "In this area," states the document, "everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection."

Considerations makes it abundantly clear that, "The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behavior or to considerations of homosexual unions." (No. 11). In other words, there can be no doubt that all Catholics have a moral duty to oppose the homosexual agenda.

Why hasn't Pope Francis thundered against Bishop Bonny and his insanity?  The Pontiff wants us to examine our conscience.  See here.

I call upon Christ's Vicar to set the example for the rest of us and to examine his own conscience, asking himself: "What, if anything, is my responsibility with regard to insisting upon the RIGHT OF THE FAITHFUL TO RECEIVE CATHOLIC DOCTRINE IN ITS PURITY AND INTEGRITY? (Veritatis Splendor, No. 113).

An orangutan cannot examine his conscience.  A Bishop, like any member of the Church, is called to the examen, both general and particular.  An orangutan cannot understand why homosexual acts are gravely sinful.  A Bishop is called to defend God's Revelation which condemns such acts as an abomination.

A Bishop is called to be something more than an orangutan.  Is that too much to ask from our hierarchy?

Is it time for Margaret Russell, editor of the "Catholic" Free Press, to resign?

Vatican II, in its Decree on the Media of Social Communication (Inter Mirifica), has this to say:

"The principle moral responsibility for the proper use of the media of social communication falls on newsmen, writers, actors, designers, producers, displayers, distributors, operators and sellers, as well as critic and all others who play any part in the production and transmission of mass presentations. It is quite evident what gravely important responsibilities they have in the present day when they are in a position to lead the human race to good or to evil by informing or arousing mankind.


Thus, they must adjust their economic, political or artistic and technical aspects so as never to oppose the common good. For the purpose of better achieving this goal, they are to be commended when they join professional associations, which-even under a code, if necessary, of sound moral practice-oblige their members to show respect for morality in the duties and tasks of their craft.

They ought always to be mindful, however, that a great many of their readers and audiences are young people, who need a press and entertainment that offer them decent amusement and cultural uplift. In addition, they should see to it that communications or presentations concerning religious matters are entrusted to worthy and experienced hands and are carried out with fitting reverence.

The public authority, in these matters, is bound by special responsibilities in view of the common good, to which these media are ordered. The same authority has, in virtue of its office, the duty of protecting and safeguarding true and just freedom of information, a freedom that is totally necessary for the welfare of contemporary society, especially when it is a question of freedom of the press. It ought also to encourage spiritual values, culture and the fine arts and guarantee the rights of those who wish to use the media. Moreover, public authority has the duty of helping those projects which, though they are certainly most beneficial for young people, cannot otherwise be undertaken.

Lastly, the same public authority, which legitimately concerns itself with the health of the citizenry, is obliged, through the promulgation and careful enforcement of laws, to exercise a fitting and careful watch lest grave damage befall public morals and the welfare of society through the base use of these media. Such vigilance in no wise restricts the freedom of individuals or groups, especially where there is a lack of adequate precaution on the part of those who are professionally engaged in using these media." (Nos 11-12).

And in No. 14, we read, ".....To instill a fully Christian spirit into readers, a truly Catholic press should be set up and encouraged. Such a press-whether immediately fostered and directed by ecclesiastical authorities or by Catholic laymen-should be edited with the clear purpose of forming, supporting and advancing public opinion in accord with natural law and Catholic teaching and precepts. It should disseminate and properly explain news concerning the life of the Church. Moreover, the faithful ought to be advised of the necessity both to spread and read the Catholic press to formulate Christian judgments for themselves on all events."

A Catholic press should be edited "with the clear purpose of forming, supporting and advancing public opinion in accord with natural law and Catholic teaching and precepts."  And this so that the Church's children may be "salt and light" to give "savor to the earth and brighten the world." (No. 24).  To this end, the same paragraph insists that "those who have charge of the media" must "strive to turn them solely to the good of society whose fate depends more and more on their proper use."

But time and again, The Catholic Free Press, official newspaper of the Diocese of Worcester, Massachusetts, has failed to live up to the demands of Inter Mirifica.  The newspaper has often given a place to dissent from Catholic teaching and precepts while promoting even those who advance New Age occultism.  See here and here and here and here for a few examples.

This is most unfortunate.  And an ongoing source of scandal to the faithful who possess a right to receive Catholic doctrine in its purity and integrity (Veritatis Splendor, No. 113).  The Catholic Free Press has done violence toward the faithful, assaulting that very right time and again with dissent from revealed truth and ideologies which are hardly consistent with Catholic teaching and precepts.  In the words of one Catholic layman, left as a comment at this Blog, "Dear Paul, I have written three letters over the past two years to complain to Bishop McManus about the 'Catholic-Free' Press giving print space to dissenting Catholics. I am glad to have discovered your blog. I am also glad I am not the only one who has noticed this trend. My courageous and faithful pastor has dumped the CFP from our parish.

I urge all faithfull men of the diocese to boycott CFP and dump into the trash this newspaper until Margaret Russell resigns and an independent editorial board can be set up so that anti-Catholic dissent cannot be surreptitiously published." - Michael F. Poulin.

I have received numerous other comments echoing this concern.

Perhaps it is time for  Margaret Russell to resign.  If she finds it too difficult to live up to the guidelines established by the Church and outlined in Inter Mirifica for the establishment and maintenance of a sound Catholic press, perhaps it is time for someone more qualified to fulfill the role of editor.

Father Robert Bruso: "It seems as if we can no longer have a disagreement without questioning the other's integrity.."

In a guest commentary written for the January 27th edition of The Catholic Free Press, Father Robert D. Bruso of Saint Anthony of Padua Parish in Fitchburg, Massachusetts writes, "We've all witnessed the negative TV ads of the presidential primary.  It seems as if we can no longer have a disagreement without questioning the other's integrity....It's a battle between the forces of goodness and truth (anyone who agrees with me) versus the forces of evil and darkness (anyone who disagrees with me).  In the Church, we should be able to do better."

But sometimes it is necessary to question another's integrity.  Especially when that person is dissenting from the Church's teaching.  Catholics faithful to the Church must resist dissent for the sake of an authentic peace.  Pope John XXIII said that, "...as long as we are journeying in exile over this earth, our peace and happiness will be imperfect. For such peace is not completely untroubled and serene; it is active, not calm and motionless. In short, this is a peace that is ever at war. It wars with every sort of error, including that which falsely wears the face of truth; it struggles against the enticements of vice, against those enemies of the soul, of whatever description, who can weaken, blemish, or destroy our innocence or Catholic faith." (Ad Petri Cathedram No. 93).


So we are involved in "a battle between the forces of goodness and truth versus the forces of evil and darkness."  Father Bruso presents all disagreement within the Church as being nothing more than a clash of different "opinions" and personalities each seking to demonize the other: "anyone who agrees with me" versus "anyone who disagrees with me."  But this is too simplistic.  When the faithful Catholic defends the Church's teaching and exposes those who seek to undermine it, he is not insisting that everyone must agree with his opinion, he is instead insisting that every Catholic must conform to the teaching of the Church.  And that teaching is not opinion.  The Church's teaching represents the mind of Christ.

Pope John Paul II, in his Encyclical Letter Veritatis Splendor, No. 113, reminds us that: "While exchanges and conflicts of opinion may constitute normal expressions of public life in a representative democracy, moral teaching certainly cannot depend simply upon respect for a process: indeed, it is in no way established by following the rules and deliberative procedures typical of a democracy. Dissent, in the form of carefully orchestrated protests and polemics carried on in the media, is opposed to ecclesial communion and to a correct understanding of the hierarchical constitution of the People of God. Opposition to the teaching of the Church's Pastors cannot be seen as a legitimate expression either of Christian freedom or of the diversity of the Spirit's gifts."

In a previous post at this Blog, I noted that "Father Robert Bruso of Saint Anthony Parish in Fitchburg, Massacusetts, was among many area Catholics who signed a May 14, 2004 statement which read: "On May 17th the Commonwealth of Massachusetts will begin issuing civil marriage licenses to same sex couples. This has provoked considerable controversy. Many in our state are opposed and many are in favor. As members of the Catholic community and people of faith, we are reminded of the pastoral message the United States bishops issued to parents of homosexual children, 'always our children,' and recall the guidance they offered with reference to a previous Vatican document:

'Respect for the God-given dignity of all persons means the recognition of human rights and responsibilities. The teachings of the church make it clear that the fundamental human rights of homosexual persons must be defended and that all of us must strive to eliminate any forms of injustice, oppression, or violence against them.' (cf. the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons, 1986, No. 10).

But, as this article makes clear, the controversial document 'Always Our Children' was issued on October 1, 1997, without following the bishops' normal review procedures. It was subsequently revised in June 1998 after a firestorm of criticism erupted over its theological flaws, including its advice to parents to adopt a 'wait and see' approach toward adolescent children suspected of experimenting with homosexual behavior. The admonition has since been eliminated from the document, amidst other modifications made following protests by Father John Harvey, founder of Courage, a Catholic group that helps people struggling with homosexuality live chastely, and other concerned Catholics."

The theologically-flawed document was co-authored by Father James Schexnayder, the founder of the National Association of Catholic Diocesan Lesbian and Gay Ministries, a radical organization which has been unapologetic in its support of the homosexual "lifestyle" and same-sex "marriage."

Among the others who signed the statement with Father Bruso were Father Richard Lewandowski (who was removed from any and all pastoral duties), Deacon Ben Nogueira of the Newman Center at Fitchburg State College and Professor James Nickoloff of Holy Cross College, a former Jesuit priest who has admitted that he is personally engaged in homosexuality and is "married" to another man."

Is this why Fr. Bruso is now so concerned about questioning "the other's integrity"?  Because he has now faced questions about his commitment to Church teaching?

For Father Bruso, everything today is cast "in apocalyptic terms."  Could that be because, as Pope John Paul II warned us, "We are now facing the final confrontation between the Church and the anti-Church, of the Gospel and the anti-Gospel...It is a trial which the whole Church ...must take up." (Wall Street Journal, November 9, 1978 edition).

Could it be that many of the laity are waking from their slumber and realizing, as Archbishop Fulton John Sheen said, "We are living in the days of the Apocalypse - the last days of our era...The two great forces of the Mystical Body of Christ and the Mystical Body of Antichrist are beginning to draw up the battle lines for the catastrophic contest."  Got that?  The two great forces of the Mystical Body of Christ and the Mystical Body of Antichrist!  So it is a case of "us versus them" after all isn't it?  The battle lines are now becoming ever clearer and the dissidents are upset.  That's because it's becoming ever more difficult to fool people.  Camps are being formed.  Each side can see the other more clearly now.  Isn't this what really upsets Fr. Bruso?


Even within the Church the smoke of Satan has entered and those who have succumbed to practical atheism turn on their fellow Catholics with hatred and enmity. Our Lady told Father Gobbi that, "Practical atheism spreads by false ideologies, by the sects, by the errors which are spreading more and more, even within the Church...Practical atheism has spread everywhere the wound of unbridled egoism, of violence, of hatred and of impurity. Impurity is proposed as a value and a good, and it is propagated throughout all the mass media. Sins of impurity are presented as a way of exercising one's personal freedom, and so impure sins against nature [e.g., homosexuality], which cry for vengeance in the sight of God, become justified and exalted. The world has now been reduced to an immense desert, completely covered with filth." (September 2, 1996).

The enmity between the Children of Mary and the Children of Belial is intensifying as St. Louis de Montfort prophesied it would:

"Mary must become as terrible as an army in battle array to the devil and his followers, especially in these latter times. For Satan, knowing that he has little time - even less now than ever - to destroy souls, intensifies his efforts and his onslaughts every day. He will not hesitate to stir up savage persecutions and set treacherous snares for Mary's faithful servants and children whom he finds more difficult to overcome than others.

It is chiefly in reference to these last wicked persecutions of the devil, daily increasing until the advent of the reign of anti- Christ, that we should understand that first and well-known prophecy and curse of God uttered against the serpent in the garden of paradise. It is opportune to explain it here for the glory of the Blessed Virgin, the salvation of her children and the confusion of the devil. 'I will place enmities between you and the woman, between your race and her race; she will crush your head and you will lie in wait for her heel' (Gen. 3:15).

God has established only one enmity - but it is an irreconcilable one - which will last and even go on increasing to the end of time. That enmity is between Mary, his worthy Mother, and the devil, between the children and the servants of the Blessed Virgin and the children and followers of Lucifer."

So it IS a battle between the forces of goodness and truth versus the forces of evil and darkness after all according to St. Montfort.  He continues:
Thus the most fearful enemy that God has set up against the devil is Mary, his holy Mother. From the time of the earthly paradise, although she existed then only in his mind, he gave her such a hatred for his accursed enemy, such ingenuity in exposing the wickedness of the ancient serpent and such power to defeat, overthrow and crush this proud rebel, that Satan fears her not only more than angels and men but in a certain sense more than God himself. This does not mean that the anger, hatred and power of God are not infinitely greater than the Blessed Virgin's, since her attributes are limited. It simply means that Satan, being so proud, suffers infinitely more in being vanquished and punished by a lowly and humble servant of God, for her humility humiliates him more than the power of God. Moreover, God has given Mary such great power over the evil spirits that, as they have often been forced unwillingly to admit through the lips of possessed persons, they fear one of her pleadings for a soul more than the prayers of all the saints, and one of her threats more than all their other torments.

What Lucifer lost by pride Mary won by humility. What Eve ruined and lost by disobedience Mary saved by obedience. By obeying the serpent, Eve ruined her children as well as herself and delivered them up to him. Mary by her perfect fidelity to God saved her children with herself and consecrated them to his divine majesty.

God has established not just one enmity but 'enmities', and not only between Mary and Satan but between her race and his race. That is, God has put enmities, antipathies and hatreds between the true children and servants of the Blessed Virgin and the children and slaves of the devil. They have no love and no sympathy for each other. The children of Belial, the slaves of Satan, the friends of the world, - for they are all one and the same - have always persecuted and will persecute more than ever in the future those who belong to the Blessed Virgin, just as Cain of old persecuted his brother Abel, and Esau his brother Jacob. These are the types of the wicked and of the just. But the humble Mary will always triumph over Satan, the proud one, and so great will be her victory that she will crush his head, the very seat of his pride. She will unmask his serpent's cunning and expose his wicked plots. She will scatter to the winds his devilish plans and to the end of time will keep her faithful servants safe from his cruel claws.

But Mary's power over the evil spirits will especially shine forth in the latter times, when Satan will lie in wait for her heel, that is, for her humble servants and her poor children whom she will rouse to fight against him. In the eyes of the world they will be little and poor and, like the heel, lowly in the eyes of all, down-trodden and crushed as is the heel by the other parts of the body. But in compensation for this they will be rich in God's graces, which will be abundantly bestowed on them by Mary. They will be great and exalted before God in holiness. They will be superior to all creatures by their great zeal and so strongly will they be supported by divine assistance that, in union with Mary, they will crush the head of Satan with their heel, that is, their humility, and bring victory to Jesus Christ." (True Devotion to Mary, 50-54).

We are now living these times. At my last parish, the homilies never mentioned sin or the need for repentance. There were no homilies condemning abortion, homosexual acts, contraception, fornication etc. Not a word. But there was something which absolutely angered the clerics there; something which filled them with rage: my arriving early for each Holy Mass to pray the Holy Rosary. For I was looked upon with scorn and even attacked while praying the Holy Rosary during Christmas Mass.

And we're not in a spiritual war?  These are not apocalyptic times?  Guess again.  There is apostasy and there is dissent posing as Catholicism.