"I saw the secret sect relentlessly undermining the great Church..."

The staff of The Week reports:

Disgusted by waves of scandal, Ireland’s Catholics are boycotting Mass and turning their backs on the church    

June 28, 2014     

 

Ireland's Catholic Church is losing its faithful fast.   

 

 

 

How Catholic was Ireland?
It used to be easily the most Catholic country in the world. The church's connection to the island nation dates to St. Patrick's conversion in the 5th century, and the modern Irish state is explicitly bound up with the church. The constitution opens with the words, "In the name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority..." and continues with reference to "obligations to our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ, Who sustained our fathers through centuries of trial." In Ireland, the church, not the state, runs almost the entire education system. Until recently, social life, too, revolved around the local church. In 1984, nearly 90 percent of Irish Catholics went to Mass every week. But by 2011, only 18 percent did. It's a massive cultural shift.

 

What changed?
Mass attendance began dropping rapidly during the 1990s, as Ireland began its "Celtic Tiger" economic boom. The country was modernizing, urbanizing, and taking on a more global perspective, and the local church was no longer the only nexus of community life. For the first time, the country had a vigorous debate about abortion and began teaching sex education in schools. At the same time, several long-hidden scandals began to emerge. In 1992, the Irish learned that a powerful and beloved bishop, Eamon Casey, had a fathered a son, and that the Rev. Michael Cleary, the "Singing Priest" with best-selling records and his own radio show, had a secret family with his housekeeper. But the biggest seismic jolt came over the last decade, when the priestly sex-abuse scandal horrified the entire country.

 

How widespread was the abuse?
The scale was greater in Ireland than in any other country. Across the world, the Vatican routinely protected individual priests who were raping boys and, to a lesser extent, girls, responding to complaints of abuse by transferring offenders to other parishes. Ireland had hundreds of such cases, but because of the church's enormous power there, it was not just individual priests who were involved, but large institutions. Until the 1990s, the church ran orphanages and industrial schools that warehoused 30,000 children deemed delinquents — pickpockets, or the poor, or those with unmarried parents. The 2009 Ryan Report found that thousands of children were savagely raped or molested in these homes, while thousands more were beaten and starved and forced to work. Boys described nights of terror, lying in bed waiting for priests to come and molest them. "In some schools a high level of ritualized beating was routine," the report said. A new scandal has rocked the church, with the recent discovery that up to 4,000 infants and children — many malnourished and poorly treated — had been buried in unmarked graves at homes for unwed mothers run by Catholic nuns.

 

How have the Irish reacted?
The string of revelations has undermined the very legitimacy of the church. To a great extent, the church's authority was premised on control of sexuality. "They made this island into a concentration camp where they could control everything — and the control was really all about sex," says Father Mark Patrick Hederman, abbot of Glenstal Abbey. "Generations of people were crucified with guilt complexes. Now the game is up." Since priests were the enforcers of sexual purity, to have so many exposed not merely as sexually active, but as sexual predators of children, has deeply shaken Irish faith. The priesthood has lost its luster, and enrollment at seminaries has plummeted.

 

Will there be a priest shortage?
There already is. In Dublin, there are just two priests under the age of 40. Across the country, two thirds of priests are over 55. Some towns are already sharing priests, having Mass at the local church only every other week. In about a decade, church authorities say, the number of priests in Ireland may decline to 1,500 — down from 4,500 a few years ago — and the church will have to start importing priests from other countries. Well over 80 percent of the Irish still identify as Catholics, but now they practice their religion privately. Tourism at Station Island, where St. Patrick had his religious epiphany in the 5th century, is way up. Disaffected Catholics are using the site as a kind of private church, a way to worship unmediated by the hierarchy.

 

What will the church do?
The Association of Catholic Priests, an Irish group, has recommended that women be ordained and that priests be allowed to marry. Surveys have found that the Irish people would support both changes by huge margins: 77 percent for women's ordination and 87 percent for married priests. Even in the unlikely event that the Vatican approved such changes, it may be too late to reverse Ireland's secular tide. "No one doubts that a growing anti-Catholic element exists in Irish society," Father Gerard Moloney wrote in The Irish Times. "The church has provided its enemies with weapons of mass destruction. It has no one to blame but itself."

 

Northern Ireland, too
Northern Ireland, which is part of Great Britain, has seen nearly as steep a decline in weekly Catholic Church attendance, from 90 percent in the 1980s to some 40 percent today. That drop is not the result of the abuse scandal alone. In fact, in Northern Ireland, the official inquiry into priestly abuse didn't begin until last fall, and it has yet to release its findings. But Northern Ireland was the center of the Troubles, the violence between Protestants and Catholics, and there Catholicism was as much a political identity as a religious one. Once the Good Friday Agreement of 1998 ended the armed struggle, religious adherence began to fade as political polarization eased. Now, overt religiosity is widely seen as backward — as a form of resistance to peace. "There's no stigma in not going to church," said William Crawley, a Presbyterian minister in Belfast. "In fact, there's a stigma to going. Parents need to explain why they are sending their children to church."

The situation is worse in France, where only 1 in 20 attend Holy Mass.  See here.

Some years ago, Fr. Vincent Miceli warned that: "The West has divinized Security and Technocracy; the East, Science and Revolution. But in both camps atheistic humanism has become the State religion. And both of these systems of secular humanism eclipse the person, eliminate his freedom, deny his human-divine value and subject him to the tyranny of technological impersonalism. The alarming signs of the times testify to a fierce spirit of evil advancing everywhere. It is the spirit of rebellion against God and man. Hitherto the powers of government in each country, as yet relying on God and reason, were firm and vigorous enough to restrain this rebellion. But today many agnostic countries can barely contain that lawless spirit, while many others have actually legalized the principle of lawlessness itself, the principle of license masquerading as liberty.

We are reminded of St. Paul's warning to the Thessalonians. In the last days there will be an awful, unparalleled outbreak of evil everywhere. This will be called the Great Apostasy. In the midst of this general falling away a certain Man of Sin, having the image of Satan and breathing hatred toward God and man, will appear. He will exercise frightening preternatural powers of destruction against the just. This Child of Perdition will be so special and singular an enemy of Christ that he will be called Antichrist. For just as types of Christ went before Jesus, heralding his coming, so shadows of Antichrist have already preceded him....
But compared to the final Antichrist all forerunners of him were so many mini-Antichrists. This Arch-Antichrist will orchestrate revolutions so expertly that the very framework of society will shatter into pieces under his wicked hand. In a stunningly evil way, he will knit together his totalitarian rule of heresy, sedition, revolution, schism, war - indeed of every evil movement - and hurl them effectively against the Church. Preceded by apostasy, conceived in apostasy, gestated in apostasy, born in apostasy, the Man of Sin will come to power through a General Apostasy. In other words, Antichrist could never have existed except for the decision of the majority of persons in East and West to apostatize from God and to join the forces of atheism.." (Essay entitled "Detente All Around: Prelude to Antichrist?").

Evil is indeed spreading everywhere. Men have grown weary of being men and are beginning to deny Christ more and more. Even in the Church, many are coming to accept homosexuality and abortion as good. Such persons, such enemies of Christ, may still use Christian jargon as they go through the motions of Christian worship, but at base they have opted for evil and radiate the spirit of Antichrist. More than a century ago, Cardinal John Henry Newman predicted the Desolate City which we find ourselves in today: "Surely there is at this day a confederacy of evil, marshalling its hosts from all parts of the world, organizing itself, taking its measures, enclosing the Church of Christ in a net, and preparing the way for a general apostasy from it..."

Our own time is a fulfillment of the prophecy issued by St. Louis de Montfort in his Prayer for Missionaries: "Tempus faciendi, Domine, dissipaverunt legem tuam: it is time to act, O Lord, they have rejected your law. It is indeed time to fulfill your promise. Your divine commandments are broken, your Gospel is thrown aside, torrents of iniquity flood the whole earth carrying away even your servants. The whole land is desolate, ungodliness reigns supreme, your sanctuary is desecrated and the abomination of desolation has even contaminated the holy place.." (PM, 5)

The Church and the world are in crisis.  Even in the Church, however, there are deluded souls who insist that "all is well" and that anyone who sounds a prophetic warning is an "alarmist," a "reactionary," a fanatic who should be either silenced or ignored altogether.

These people would have us believe that we have begun a New Age, a Civilization of Love where man has "come of age" and is no longer in need of the "myths" of the past.

The words of Soren Kierkegaard seem prophetic on this score: "Having refused to use their freedom of thought, men claim freedom of speech as compensation."

Dr. Von Hildebrand reminds us that: "This temporal parochialism - this feeling above others who are not living in the same historical epoch - performs the same psychological function that pride in Aryan descent performed for many Germans during the National Socialist epoch. The most insignificant German, suddenly exalted by the mere fact that he was of pure Aryan descent, could now look down on the most gifted intellectual who happened to have a Jewish grandmother. There is a general tendency in human nature to seek such compensations for inferiority or to look for ways of 'putting oneself up' in pride...This epochalism existed in former times just as did nationalism, yet the revolt against tradition is especially strong today.."
And why is this revolt against tradition stronger than ever today? Dr. Von Hildebrand doesn't say. But I would like to present my theory. It hinges around prophecies given to us by an Augustinian nun and stigmatist named Anna-Katarina Emmerick - whom the Church venerates as Blessed.

In the 1820's, Sister Emmerick had visions of the Church in the future. On September 12, 1820, Sister Emmerick said:

"I saw a strange church being built against every rule....No angels were supervising the building operations. In that church nothing came from high above....There was only division and chaos. It's probably a church of human creation, following the latest fashion, as well as the new heterodox church of Rome, which seems of the same kind....I saw again the strange big church that was being built there [in Rome]. There was nothing holy in it....Everything was being done according to human reason. I saw all sorts of people, things, doctrines, and opinions. There was something proud, presumptuous, and violent about it, and they seemed to be very successful. I did not see a single angel nor a single saint helping in the work. But far away in the background, I saw the seat of a cruel people armed with spears, and I saw a laughing figure which said: 'Do build it as solid as you can; we will pull it to the ground.'"
Is this "future church" a preparation for the Man of Sin, the Antichrist? From August to October of 1820, Sister Emmerick says: "I see more martyrs, not now but in the future....I saw the secret sect relentlessly undermining the great Church. Near them I saw a horrible beast coming up from the sea....When the Church had been for the most past destroyed [by the secret sect], and when only the sanctuary and altar were still standing, I saw the wreckers enter the Church with the Beast. There they met a Woman of noble carriage who seemed to be with child because she walked slowly. At this sight, the enemies were terrorized, and the Beast could not take but another step forward. It projected its neck towards the Woman as if to devour her, but the Woman turned about and bowed down [towards the altar], her head touching the ground. Thereupon, I saw the Beast taking flight towards the sea again, and the enemies were fleeing in the greatest confusion....Then I saw that the Church was being promptly rebuilt, and she was more magnificent than ever before."

The armies are poised for battle. On the one side, Satan and his cohort (which includes many priests and religious as well as lay people) who are building a church in their own image and likeness, a "FutureChurch" where sin is not confessed (see here) but celebrated and where lying and homicide serve as ersatz "sacraments." On the other, the Immaculata and her little children who are humble and despised by the world.

Satan and his followers have their tactics which revolve around the false idols of money, power, lust, and greed all clothed in the mantle of pride. The Immaculata and her cohort have their own tactics: prayer, fasting, penance, reconciliation, humility and a smallness which is clothed in the mantle of love.

Since 1984, over 1 billion, 600 million children have been murdered in their mother's wombs.  And the world continues its slide toward the abyss as homosexual "marriage," contraception and pornography claim countless souls.  At the same time, a Pollyanna element within the Church would have us believe that things are looking up.  See here for an excellent response to such blatant stupidity.


 

Susan Bailey of the Worcester Commission for Women and Richard Rohr

Susan W. Bailey, of the Worcester Diocese 'Commission for Women," [the same dissent group which has heavily promoted the work of Joyce Rupp and other well-known dissidents], writes, "Today I started reading a book entitled The Naked Now by Richard Rohr. I originally planned on reading it because a group I belong to, the Commission of Women of the Diocese of Worcester, chose this book as the one they wished to study this year. A dear friend of mine, a deacon in the Catholic Church, had also highly recommended it.

Rohr aims to teach the reader to see as the mystics see.

I have long resisted the notion of being a mystic though this same friend insisted that I be open to the idea. The pragmatist in me, the one who is unimpressed with splashy theatrics and celebrity, would have nothing to do with it. I saw no connection between my earthly life and supposed “heavenly visions.” I mistakenly connected mysticism with crying statues; I wanted nothing to do with it.
However, the creative in me, now being regularly exercised with reading and study, began to speak up and say,

“Hold on a minute. Maybe there is more to this than meets the eye.”

And my inner self, also exercised daily with prayer and reflection, objected too.
The Naked Now is now affirming something I’ve been experiencing ever since I started all this exercising: this newfound ability to “read between the lines,” and it is growing exponentially.
Rohr spells out three ways to view the world through a simple example: how three people view a sunset. One simply enjoys the beauty, nothing more. A second enjoys the beauty and understands the science behind a sunset, giving him extra insight.

The third not only appreciates the beauty and perhaps the science, but also “tastes” the experience. His vision enables him to transcend the physical experience to something mystical.

Rohr calls this seeing with the “third eye.” And I knew exactly what he meant.

I experienced that kind of vision all summer long in my lunchtime walks through the woods, past streams and alongside the lake at Wellesley College. Some of these experiences were quite intense, most especially my kayak trip on Lake Waban.

And I had noticed this vision even before the summer.

Reading the Bible had always been a difficult and dry experience. I simply could not understand what it was trying to tell me. However, last year I began to experience a strange sensation while reading: my mind and my heart would be literally flooded with ideas and insights. It was thrilling and a little scary. It was like God was chattering at me!

I don’t remember when I began acquiring this “third eye” but I am guessing it is connected to a few newer habits in my life: challenging reading, journaling and blogging, and set times for prayer. (This blog is a result of those new habits.)

I allowed myself to be carried in the flow of God’s will, just like my kayak floats down river. I went with the flow and without realizing it, accepted an invitation from God to go deeper with my faith.

I didn’t really know what was happening but had a sense that it was better to just “go with it” rather than to question.

And now, I have a book that will explain what’s been happening.

And the best part is, you can experience this too.

Everyone is called to be a mystic. It’s what Jesus intended. It was not just for those saints we see commemorated in statues and prayer cards.

Jesus means for each of us to experience this “third eye,” a direct result of a close, intimate relationship with Him.

The closer we get, the better we see.

And that’s when life really starts to take off. Surrounded by and immersed fully in this Divine love, we can experience what Henri Nouwen wrote in that post I highlighted the other day, “It is in the heart of God that we can come to the full realisation of the unity of all that is, created and uncreated.”  See here for full article.

Susan Bailey's belief in a "Third Eye" is very disturbing.  It is a concept rooted in New Age occultism.  See here for example.  But then, the Worcester "Commission for Women" has long promoted New Age spirituality.  See here, here and here for example.

Nor is it surprising that Bailey would promote the work of Fr. Richard Rohr.  As Bryce Andrew Sibley explains:

"Rohr makes it very clear that he does not want to be limited to having to call God "Father." He writes in Adam's Return (which was the basis for his presentations) that we must "find public ways to recognize, honor, and name the feminine nature of God...."
Rohr bases this claim on his belief that "God is the ultimate combination of whatever it means to be male and whatever it means to be female." He asserts that God is in no way sexed, and here he seems to be in agreement with the Catechism, which states: "In no way is God in man's image. He is neither man nor woman. God is pure spirit in which there is no place for the difference between the sexes" (#370). However, this does not mean that it would be proper to refer to God as "Mother." Rohr's thesis runs into the problem of Divine Revelation: Christ has definitively revealed God as Father. To say that God could just as easily be called "Mother" is in direct contradiction to Divine Revelation. As the Catechism states, "Jesus revealed that God is Father in an unheard-of sense: He is Father not only in being Creator; he is eternally Father in relation to his only Son, who is eternally Son only in relation to his Father..." (#240).
Rohr's problem also extends to his vision of the Church. During his presentations, he made several negative references to patriarchy, particularly to the Church as a patriarchal institution (patriarchy finding its roots in the Latin word pater, meaning "father"). The vague references he made during the conference become clearer when seen in relation to what he writes about the patriarchal dimension of the Church in his book Simplicity, in the first chapter, titled, "God the Father -- God the Mother?" Here Rohr describes the structure of Catholicism as patriarchal. Jesus was happy to call God "father," but "presumably that has something to do with his patriarchal culture." The Gospel text then "reveals the beginnings of the bias against women," and the beginnings of patriarchy. Our "liturgical texts are almost completely patriarchal, and they perpetuate this narrow image of God." But fortunately (according to Rohr), "we belong to the first generation of the Church that has come to consciously recognize our patriarchal biases."
Like many others today, Rohr thinks that patriarchy carries a negative connotation. Once again, however, he runs into the problem of Revelation. It was Christ who became incarnate as male, who deliberately chose men to lead His Church.
Although the Church is patriarchal by structure and office, the true symbol of the Church is not Peter, but Mary. Maybe having a more developed image of the Church as feminine would assuage Rohr's desire to have God reveal Himself in feminine terms.
The ultimate irony here is that, while concentrating on the problem of rejecting our earthly fathers, Fr. Rohr rejects his heavenly Father. He also rejects the spiritual fathers whom God has called to be representatives of His paternal authority on earth. It follows logically that if someone rejects the definitive Revelation of God as Father, then it is very difficult to teach men to be good Christian fathers (or males) themselves.

Homosexual Advocacy   The reality of sexual difference -- that man was created as male and female by God for a reason -- is a basic teaching of Catholic anthropology and theology. Pope John Paul II wrote beautifully about the significance of sexual difference in his apostolic letter Mulieris Dignitatem, in which he calls the reality of man being created as male and female a "truth which is immutably fixed in human experience" (#2). At first, I was encouraged to see that Rohr appeared to ground his "male spirituality" in the reality of sexual difference as one truly positive aspect of his presentation. However, when I took a closer look at some of his other writings, particularly those dealing with homosexuality, I began to question whether Rohr really holds a strong belief in the importance of sexual difference.
The website of Soulforce, a homosexual advocacy group, carries a letter written by Fr. Rohr (dated 2000) supporting this organization's mission. Soulforce claims that its purpose is non-violent resistance to the "spiritual violence" perpetrated against "gay," lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered persons by social and religious groups. The Soulforce website defines spiritual violence as "the misuse of religion to sanction the condemnation and rejection of any of God's children." Soulforce claims that spiritual violence is a misuse of God and religion to perpetuate society's prejudices against "gays," lesbians, etc. Needless to say, Soulforce protests the condemnation of homosexual activity and homosexual "marriages" by the Church and other religious organizations.
Rohr's support of Soulforce and its goals is rooted in his interpretation of Jesus' all-inclusive love. He writes that the Church has failed to live up to the Gospel values by "judging" and "excluding" homosexuals. He hopes that the Church will realize the error of her ways, but until she does he hopes that Soulforce will maintain its loving, inclusive position because "our gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered brothers and sisters have been left outside of [Christ's] realm of grace for far too long."
Since homosexual activity is the ultimate denial of sexual difference, Rohr's support of homosexual-advocacy groups such as Soulforce (and thus his implicit support of homosexual activity) is a radical contradiction of the apparent importance he places on sexual difference in his presentation on "male spirituality." As the Catechism states, "Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that ‘homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.' They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved" (#2357). "They do not proceed from a genuine sexual complementarity" clearly states that homosexual activity runs counter to the God-given meaning of sexual difference.
There is yet another irony. While Rohr endorses the work of a homosexual advocacy group (on that group's website), he criticizes political conservatives active in the 2004 presidential election for their preoccupation with what he refers to as a "body oriented morality." He writes in an essay posted on the website of his Center for Action and Contemplation, "In the upcoming years we must find ways to address this ‘body oriented' morality, which has always held churchy people captive, but now seems to be widespread. The body holds human shame and inferiority, and people can be most controlled at that level.... We [i.e., political conservatives] want body morality, not really a demanding Biblical morality. No concern about social values, or justice values, or basic truthfulness, just puritanical concern for keeping human bodies so called ‘pure,' by preoccupation with issues like abortion, those terrible gays, and stem cell research. All of which can be addressed by a more nuanced morality. But America does not like nuance or compassion.... These body issues, these pretensions at being pro-life, demand very little change of 90% of the population, but allow us to remain preoccupied with trying to change others. How convenient for the ego. How disturbing for the future of religion and state." Rohr echoed these same sentiments in his conference when he said that religious people often use religion to condemn others, particularly those who participate in abortion and homosexual activity. Religious people do this, he claimed, so that they do not have to hear the Gospel message and transform themselves. (Of course, Rohr is condemning those who condemn.)
So, if Rohr thinks we should look beyond these "body issues" to a more "demanding Biblical morality" why is he so concerned with the "body issue" of homosexuality?

"He Was Paying No Debt"   And so our discussion of the body brings us to Rohr's thinking on the Redemption that Christ brought about in His body. In the first chapter of Adam's Return, Rohr makes this very puzzling assertion regarding the Incarnation: "‘Incarnation is already redemption,' and you do not need any blood sacrifice to display God's commitment to humanity. Once God says yes to flesh, then flesh is no longer bad but the very ‘hiding and revealing' place of God." Rohr is saying that the crucifixion of our Lord was not necessary for redemption; that the Incarnation already brought about redemption. This is made more evident in this passage from his critique of Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ, supposedly taking the teaching of John Duns Scotus as his justification: "As many of you know, I am a strong proponent of the Franciscan understanding of the redemption, based on the teaching of Blessed John Duns Scotus in the 13th century. He did not believe in any ‘substitutionary atonement theory' of the cross: Jesus did not have to die to make God love us, he was paying no debt, He was changing no Divine mind. Jesus was only given to change our mind about the nature of God! (Imagine what we are saying about the Father, if he needed blood from his son to decide to love us! It is an incoherent world with no organic union between Creator and creature. No wonder so few Christians have gone on the mystical path of love, since God is basically untrustworthy and more than a little dangerous.) For Duns Scotus, Jesus was the ‘image of the invisible God' who revealed to us a God's eternal suffering love for humanity, in an iconic form that we could not forget. He was not ‘necessary,' but a pure gift. The suffering was simply to open our hearts, not to open God's -- which was always open."
I will not belabor arguing the point in detail that the crucifixion and death of our Lord was not only part of God's eternal plan but also necessary for the atonement of sins. I would hope all faithful Catholics already know this. Rohr's teaching here is at best confused. It does not seem clear to me that the "substitutionary atonement theory" teaches that the death of Christ was necessary for God to love us or to change His mind about us. What the atonement theory does teach, however, is that there is a real debt rendered to God when we sin, which is our death. How can we, of ourselves, mend a relationship initiated freely by God Himself? How could our sin, our rejection of the free friendship offered us by God at the creation, result in anything else but our death? In terms of our sinfulness, only God can fix what we broke, and He did. Christ died in our place. He himself suffered the real punishment for our real sins -- He paid the debt -- and therefore those who accept Christ have access to divine life.
Instead of focusing on Rohr's error in claiming that Christ's death was not necessary for redemption, let's look at his teaching on Original Sin and how his teaching leads to an erroneous proposition. In the section on Original Sin in Adam's Return, Rohr says that Original Sin "names the ‘corporate body pain' that we all suffer from together." It is the "tragic flaw in all of us" and we should not "waste time blaming anybody" for its existence. It is the collective hurts that have been passed on to us by our parents, just as they were passed on to them. Baptism washes away this "original wound" and "our endless capacity for self-rejection and self-hatred" by "situating one's life in a much bigger picture." For Rohr, Original Sin is the "original wounding," it is the "shadow self that you do not understand," "the dark side that seems to be in everything," "the common pain of being human." "It does not deserve punishment. It deserves tears."
Clearly, Rohr has a very weak understanding of Original Sin. Once again, I do not think it necessary to go into great detail about the teaching of the Church on Original Sin (see the Catechism, #388-421). It should suffice to say that Original Sin comes as the result of the sin of the first man. It resulted in the loss of the state of grace and a tendency toward sin that is passed on through human nature. It is more than just a "tragic flaw" or an "original wound" -- it is a loss of grace and divine friendship, which is what necessitates a Messiah and Redeemer. One paragraph from the Catechism explains this point particularly well: "The doctrine of original sin is, so to speak, the ‘reverse side' of the Good News that Jesus is the Savior of all men, that all need salvation, and that salvation is offered to all through Christ. The Church, which has the mind of Christ, knows very well that we cannot tamper with the revelation of original sin without undermining the mystery of Christ" (#389).
Here we see the real root of Rohr's redemptive theology. His "tampering" with the correct understanding of Original Sin truly leads to an undermining of the saving mystery of Christ. If Original Sin is nothing more than a "tragic flaw" or "shadow side," if Original Sin is not seen from the perspective of the fall from grace, then the just penalty due for that, and hence the necessity of salvation, of Christ, His message, His death and Resurrection are all meaningless. As the above quote from the Catechism points out, one cannot have the Good News of salvation that comes through Christ without the bad news of condemnation that comes through Adam. Without a proper understanding of Original Sin, Christ is reduced to nothing more than a prophet who teaches us to love ourselves, and this is unfortunately who Rohr's Christ turns out to be."

The fact that Susan Bailey would promote this deeply confused and troubled priest should concern Worcester diocesan officials.  But no doubt they are far more concerned with banning orthodox, heterosexual candidates to the priesthood while ensuring that speakers like Robert Spencer never see the light of day within the Diocese.

Never mind that Fr. Richard Rohr is a heretic who promotes New Age spirituality and presided over a "lesbian wedding."  See here.  No, the Diocese is bent on pursuing its mission of ostracizing those who defend orthodoxy and stand up for Magisterial teaching.  Just a couple of weeks ago I was told that I would be ostracized for standing up for sound liturgical rubrics.

As Michael Brown would say: Our sad time!

Beware of the Worcester Diocese.....really

In a recent post, I noted how the Worcester Diocese, through its official newspaper The "Catholic" Free Press, has long promoted dissent from Church teaching and just recently published an editorial challenging the Church's teaching, which is expressed so powerfully in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, that Christ instituted a hierarchical Church.  It should come as no surprise, then, that Bishop Robert McManus, who is the Publisher of this dissenting newspaper, should have permitted Dr. Thomas Groome to appear as a speaker within his diocese.  I have already detailed in previous posts why this is so disturbing.  And I have shown how the Worcester Diocese, through the "Commission for Women," agitates for women's ordination and radical feminist theology as well as New Age spirituality, which is occultic.  See here and here.

In an  article entitled "Beware of Thomas Groome or Anything Associated with Him, Stacey Johnson, a homeschooling mother of four, writing for New Oxford Review, explains: "In these decades of crisis in the Catholic Church in America, we must be on guard to threats to our children's faith. However, those threats are not always easily recognized, and the average Catholic frequently overlooks what is possibly the most dangerous one: your parish CCD program.

Many recognize that there has been a crisis of catechesis for the past thirty years or so. According to the oft-cited Gallup Poll, the majority of American Catholics either cannot identify Catholic teaching on the Eucharist or do not believe it. Catholics cohabit, contracept, sterilize, abort, divorce, and support same-sex "marriages" at about the same rate as the population at large, indicating a large-scale rejection or ignorance of the Church's moral teachings. And as many commentators have aptly pointed out, the Catechism of the Catholic Church received a cool reception among the catechetical elite of the U.S.

Numerous publishers of Catholic religious education materials, however, now claim to be developing programs in response to the Catechism. These materials usually have a statement in the front indicating that the program has been found by a committee of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) to be in conformity with the Catechism. Concerned parents looking over the programs will often be hard-pressed to find blatant doctrinal errors, though there is often a lopsided emphasis on social justice and environmental concerns, and the truths of the Faith aren't always presented in the most convincing fashion.

So far, this doesn't sound so bad. Not the strongest presentation of the Faith perhaps, but nothing to get excited about, right? Wrong. One of the most significant problems with many of the CCD programs is the way in which the teachings are presented. They actually appear to be designed to reduce the chances that our children will accept the teachings of the Church.

Arguably the single most influential person in Catholic religious education circles in the U.S. today is Thomas H. Groome. He is a laicized priest and professor of theology and religious education at Boston College, and a prominent theorist and writer in the field of religious education. His writings have appeared in the USCCB's catechetical journal, The Living Light, and he is a frequent speaker and honoree at religious education conferences. The National Catholic Educational Association offers workshops for catechetical leaders developed from a text of which Groome is one of two editors. Groome is a consultant for William H. Sadlier Inc., a major publisher of catechetical materials used in every diocese in the U.S. He is the primary author of two of Sadlier's K-8 programs for Catholic children: Coming to Faith and God With Us. His books include Educating for Life: A Spiritual Vision for Every Teacher and Parent, and Sharing Faith: A Comprehensive Approach to Religious Education and Pastoral Ministry. The latter provides a detailed explanation of his methodology for religious education, which he calls "shared Christian praxis."
According to Groome, shared Christian praxis has five steps, called movements, which comprise the method. None of the movements can be eliminated; each is considered essential to the educational approach. The movements are as follows: (1) Naming / Expressing "Present Praxis": Participants communicate either their own or society's current behavior or beliefs. (2) Critical Reflection on Present Action: Participants are called to look critically at what motivates their present behaviors and beliefs, including any prejudices or societal influences. (3) Making Accessible Christian Story / Vision. (4) Dialectical Hermeneutic to Appropriate Christian Story / Vision to Participants' Stories and Visions: Participants compare their critically understood present praxis from Movement Two with the "Christian Story" that was presented in Movement Three, and develop a new understanding of "their truth." (5) Decision / Response for Lived Christian Faith: Participants have an opportunity to decide how they intend to live their faith as a result of the decisions that they made about it in Movement Four. Each of these movements requires a fuller explanation in order for us to see their true import.

Movement One is the simplest of the five. It requires only that the participants in the session have an opportunity to communicate (or at least reflect upon) their own or a larger society's (for example, the Church's) current practice of belief as it relates to the topic at hand. The main issue would be that it is their own expression of it, rather than someone else's, that they communicate.

Movement Two then has the participants critically reflect upon why they act or think as they do. The students are to examine anything that might affect their current practice or belief, whether it is prejudices, ideologies, societal influences, consequences, or past experiences. As Groome writes in Sharing Faith, "As a constitutive activity of shared Christian praxis, critical reflection encourages 'disbelief' as well as belief, 'disbelief' especially toward the controlling myths . . . that maintain structures of domination — sexism, racism . . . and so on." Participants are encouraged to see how their history affects their current behavior and beliefs as well as their interpretation of them and to see how they should change. One example Groome gives of how to apply Movement Two is the assignment of a paper to male undergraduate students who are resistant to "feminist consciousness."

In Movement Three, things really get interesting. Here is where the "Christian Story" is presented. According to Groome, the "Christian Story" is "the whole faith life and practical wisdom of the Christian community." It is important to note, however, that according to shared Christian praxis, the "Christian Story" must be "made accessible" in a particular way. The educator is responsible for discerning both what part of the "Christian Story" to make accessible and how to do it. The "Story" is to be adapted and interpreted to the participants, using hermeneutics (methods of interpretation) or retrieval, suspicion, and creative commitment. Groome explains that religious educators should have a "healthy suspicion" of their faith tradition and that it is the educator's responsibility to uncover the true meaning of the original texts, a meaning that probably has been lost due to "distortions" in the "accepted interpretations" of Christian tradition. Movement Three is totally incompatible with an understanding of any sort of traditional moral or theological absolutes. And Groome himself agrees. To provide any sort of absolute truth is the furthest thing from his mind. From Groome's perspective, to absolutize either an expression or interpretation of a faith tradition is to deaden it. Rather, as he makes clear in Educating for Life, it is necessary to constantly reinterpret both Scripture and Tradition "in light of what we bring to it from the present."

For Groome, one of the building blocks for wisdom is feminist theology, so when the educator is determining how to present the "Christian Story," he would do well to consider such things as the insights of "the great Scripture scholar, Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza," who is a radical feminist theologian who believes that Jesus (whom she refers to as "the woman-identified man" in her book In Memory of Her) intended to liberate women from "patriarchal structures" but, as Groome summarizes for us in Sharing Faith, this "central characteristic of the Jesus movement was 'written out' of the New Testament and must now be reconstructed."

One way this translates into religious education is that the emphasis is always on the "equality and mutuality" of men and women, rather than their complementarity. Add to this the repeated assertion that discrimination in all its forms must be fought against wherever it is found. Consequently, when the Sacrament of Holy Orders is presented without any explanation as to why only men may be ordained, it is practically a given that most students will dissent. In fact, it would be surprising if any did not.

Movement Four is even worse. Its purpose is to have the participants place their own "stories" in dialectic with the "Christian Story" presented in Movement Three. This means that besides examining their current beliefs and practices in light of the "Christian Story," the students are to

bring present praxis to interpret Christian Story / Vision . . . there are aspects of it they affirm and cherish and aspects of present understanding and living of Christian faith that are called into question and refused if necessary (the Story has had distortions), and . . . participants can construct a more appropriate understanding of the Story. (Ibid.)

Groome says that some people prefer to accept that something is true based upon the authority of the Church, but they are "arrested" at a lower stage in their faith journey. The point is that if children are exposed to shared Christian praxis long enough, they will believe that any aspect of the Faith is up for grabs.
The only thing apparently absolutely necessary for salvation is a commitment to modern social-justice issues, though that does not seem to include opposition to abortion. In fact, although both the books mentioned in this article have lengthy sections devoted to social-justice issues, abortion is rarely mentioned. What Groome sees as important is a commitment to "The Reign of God," which, although he occasionally acknowledges as having an eschatological component, is largely to be realized in time by making everyone feel accepted and by making sure that every aspect of everyone's lives is valued (unless, of course, one of those aspects is one of the "deadly social sins" of absolutism, sexism, specieism, etc.).

Not surprisingly, Groome himself does not believe in a hierarchical Church or an ordained priesthood, and dissents from Church teaching on issues related to human sexuality, the papacy, and biblical inerrancy. He demands "inclusive" language and believes that all language we have regarding God is a human construct, rather than being divinely revealed. Groome draws heavily from the "scholarship" of numerous feminist theologians, as well as well-known dissenter Richard McBrien, and neo-Modernist Scripture scholar Raymond Brown. Quoting Kenan Osborne in a footnote to a discussion of the priesthood in Sharing Faith, Groome notes, "In spite of the long tradition of this view [that the Apostles were commissioned at the Last Supper to preside at the Eucharist], contemporary scholars find no basis for this interpretation. In other words, Jesus did not ordain the apostles (disciples) at this final supper to be 'priests.'" Rather, Groome believes that the ability to celebrate the Eucharist comes from the power of the Holy Spirit working through the assembly. He also has, understandably, a rather faulty understanding of the Mass and the Eucharist.

Finally, in Movement Five, the students make some commitment to action based upon the determinations made in the previous movements. An example that Groome gives from personal experience is informative. He was asked to speak with a group of women on "Women in the Church." When he began the session it was apparent that the women accepted the Church's teaching on male-only ordination, something that Groome believes is an injustice against women. As he puts it, "It seems that the exclusion of women from ordained ministry is the result of a patriarchal mind-set and culture and is not of Christian faith. The injustice of excluding women from the priesthood debilitates the church's sacramentality in the world; it is a countersign to God's reign" (Sharing Faith). By the end of their time together, the women had all "come to see" that the Church was a patriarchal, oppressive social structure. As part of their Movement Five activity, the women resolved to each write to a young woman in order to encourage her to fight for "full inclusion" in the Church.
This is the methodology that also underpins the Coming to Faith series from William H. Sadlier Inc. As a methodology for religious instruction, however, it clearly undermines the Faith. In this series, shared Christian praxis is used not only to "educate" the children, but to "educate" the catechists as well. For example, catechists are asked to come up with their own definition of conscience, to develop and work to implement their personal vision of a "hospitable Church," to determine what they think helps their parish to grow (choices including "spirited" liturgies, an attractive building, involvement in peace and justice issues, and a congenial pastor, but not including a commitment to orthodoxy or devotion to the Eucharist), to assess the "kind of relationship" they have with the sun, moon, wind, and rain, or their "relationship" with grass, trees, house plants, and soil. Additionally, the uniqueness of Christ's Presence in the Eucharist is downplayed. For example, the second-grade teacher's manual, Coming to Jesus, says, "Jesus, already present in the community and in the word of God, now becomes present in another dimension." God is not referred to as "Father" unless absolutely necessary. In fact, one of the objectives of the lesson on the "Our Father" for first-graders is "to help the children believe that God cares for us as a loving parent" (italics added).
There is a trend in the Coming to Faith series toward syncretism with Native American spirituality, including the use of non-Christian Native American prayers. In one instance in the sixth-grade teacher's manual, the catechist is instructed to have the children form a circle around a globe with each child saying a line of the prayer, the teacher having pointed out that "through the Eucharist, we are one with all the people in this earth." The prayer goes like this:

Every part of this earth is sacred . . .
Every clearing and humming insect is holy . . .
All belong to the same family.
Teach your children that the earth is our mother . . .
The wind gave our children the spirit of life.
This we know, the earth does not belong to us; we belong to the earth . . .
(Coming to God's Word, William H. Sadlier Inc.)

Actually, our Catholic Faith teaches that the Church and Mary are to be regarded as our Mother, not the earth; that God gave us the "spirit of life," not the wind; and that people and insects do not belong to the same family!
The kindergarten teacher's manual, Coming to God's World, informs the catechist that, "By its emphasis on kinship with the elements and the environment, Native-American spirituality can complement our own faith tradition." Consequently, one of the "Justice and Peace" resources that follow every lesson encourages the catechist to suggest that the children "[pamper] or cater to Mother Earth." Perhaps this also explains why sixth-graders are instructed in their activity book to center their prayer on a rock.
The catechists and children are also exposed to the teachings of some whose works have been condemned by the Church, including Teilhard de Chardin and Anthony de Mello. Moreover, liturgical abuses are canonized in a number of ways. One example: In the first-grade teacher's manual, a litany for use in class is proposed that invokes the intercession of non-canonized and even non-Catholic personages, including Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King Jr., and Cesar Chavez.
Groome's approach to Scripture is clearly seen in the sixth-grade book of Sadlier's Coming to Faith series, Coming to God's Word. This grade level focuses on Scripture and presents it in such a fashion that the average child would have no understanding of what the Church actually teaches about the Bible upon completion of the course. Not even the Gospels are given as examples of history, so the student is likely to be left with the impression that perhaps nothing in the Bible actually happened.
Groome proposes that his methodology allows people to come to their own decisions about "their truth." He believes that it is important to just make the "Story" accessible, but that defending it or asserting its truth is to deny the work of the Holy Spirit in the person to whom it is presented. Ironically, the way in which the "Story" is presented, as well as the entire methodology of shared Christian praxis, is designed to manipulate a person into seeing it in a particular way. Rather than being presented as Truth, Christianity is presented as one frequently distorted option among many roads leading to God. The only absolutes are that orthodoxy is wrong (due to being sexist, absolutist, patriarchal, etc.) and that social justice, in the style of liberation and feminist theology and "creation spirituality," is what saves you.
So, what's a person to do upon finding this methodology present in his parish CCD program? Obviously, it's important to do what you can to have it replaced by a solid, faithful program such as the Faith and Life or Image of God series from Ignatius Press. But that's easier said than done. In order to present an effective case, you'll need to do a little homework and a lot of praying. I would highly recommend reading Eamonn Keane's A Generation Betrayed from Hatherleigh Press for a more thorough presentation of this topic than possible in a magazine article. You might also want to read Donna Steichen's Ungodly Rage, available from Ignatius Press, for an orthodox presentation of feminist theology, since it is one of the underpinnings of Groome's theology. Share what you have learned with other concerned parents in your parish. Then talk to your priest. He may not be aware of the problems with the program, since they are often very subtle. You might even convince him to read Keane's book. If that doesn't work, you can appeal to your bishop. Unfortunately, Groome seems to be well-respected in catechetical and episcopal circles, and these books have been rubberstamped by a committee at the USCCB. It may come down to withdrawing your children from the parish program and teaching them yourself, using one of the above-mentioned resources, while you continue to fight for the rights of the rest of the children to receive a truly Catholic education. It is also important to remember that parents have the primary right and responsibility to educate their children (Catechism, #1653, 2221-2225). It is time for us to insist that our rights in these matters be respected and that our children be educated in the Truths of the faith."


Stacey Johnson is correct in suggesting that faithful Catholics should "Beware of Thomas Groome and anything associated with him."  And this would certainly include the Worcester Diocese.

The goal of ecclesiastical masonry: A masonic Pope who will preside over a New Church

For a long time now, modernists have dreamt of  changing the Church from within through infiltration.  The ultimate goal of Freemasonry within the Church (ecclesiastical masonry) is to obtain a Pope favorable to masonic principles, a Pope who will preside over a revolution which will permit the man of iniquity to enter the Church's interior and to conquer the saints.

This is not religious paranoia.  This is not religious fiction.  Many popes have warned (and most notably Pope Leo XIII) about the designs of Freemasonry.  It was Pope Leo XIII who warned that, "Freemasonry is the permanent personification of the Revolution; it constitutes a sort of society in reverse whose aim is to exercise an occult overlordship upon society as we know it, and whose sole raison d'etre consists in waging war against God and His Church." (Encyclical Letter On the 25th year of Our Pontificate, March 19, 1902).

Freemasons believe that the Catholic Church must fall apart and dissolve and that a secular, humanitarian religion must - and will - take its place - Freemasonry.  In his Encyclical Letter Humanum Genus, Pope Leo XIII emphasizes that the ultimate aim of Freemasonry "is to uproot completely the whole religious and political order of the world, which has been brought into existence by Christianity, and to replace it by another in harmony with their way of thinking.  This will mean that the foundation and the laws of the new structure of society will be drawn from pure Naturalism."

In a letter dated April 3, 1844, a high-ranking mason known as Nubius commented to another highly-placed mason: "Now then, in order to ensure a pope in the required proportions, we must first of all prepare a generation worthy of the kingdom of which we dream...Cast aside the old and men of a mature age, go to the youth, and if possible, even to children....It is to the youth that we must go, it is the youth that we must lead, unperceived by them, under the flag of the secret societies...Once your reputation has been established....Such reputation will give your doctrine access to the young clergy and to convents.  In a few years, this clergy will naturally have invaded all functions; they will govern, administer, judge, form the Sovereign's council, be called to choose the Pontiff who must reign; and this Pontiff, like most of his contemporaries, will be more or less imbued with Italian and humanitarian principles that we will start placing in circulation.....Let the clergy move forward under your standard always believing they are advancing under the banner of the apostolic Keys.  Cast your net like Simon Bar Jonas; spread it to the bottom of sacristies, seminaries, and convents...we promise you a catch even more miraculous than his....You will have fished a revolution dressed in the Pope's triple crown and cape, carrying the cross and the flag, a revolution that will need only a small stimulus to set fire to the four corners of the earth." (Taken from Les infiltrations maconiques dans l'Eglise, by Father Emmanuel Barbier, p. 5).

This is the plan of ecclesiastical masonry - a corrupt pope who will lead his flock into the new kingdom of sin which will be presided over by the Son of Perdition, the very person of the Antichrist.

How close are we to such an evil scheme actually being fulfilled?  Could this papal election be the one which results in a masonic pope?  Our Lady warned Father Stefano Gobbi that, "The hour of its great trial has above all come for the Church, because it will be shaken by the lack of faith, obscured by apostasy, wounded by betrayal, abandoned by its children, divided by schisms, possessed and dominated by Freemasonry, turned into fertile soil from which will spring up the wicked tree of the man of iniquity, the Antichrist, who will bring his kingdom into its interior."

Pope Benedict XVI has already warned that we are entering a profound period of testing.  Indeed we are.  Pray for the Church.  Now is the time of diabolical disorientation.

Susan Bailey, The Catholic Free Press and historical revisionism

The Catholic Free Press is published by the Roman Catholic Bishop of Worcester, the Most Rev. Robert J. McManus.  Unfortunately, Bishop McManus doesn't seem to spend enough time (if any at all) overseeing what goes into the publication.  It is a Bishop's vocation to watch over his diocese as a spiritual father (the word Bishop comes from the Greek word episcopos meaning overseer), ensuring that anything which is opposed to faith and morals is dealt with quickly and appropriately.

Once again, because of the Bishop's failure to oversee The Catholic Free Press and its content, the publication has engaged in historical revisionism as it attempts to re-write the legacy of the Commission for Women and one of its more prominent members - Mary T. Donovan.

Writing for The Catholic Free Press, Susan Bailey attempts to sell the idea that Mary Donovan, a member and former chairperson of the "Commission for Women" of the diocese whp passed away last month, was "a wise woman born of a deep faith," a woman whose wisdom was "devoid of arrogance." (In remembrance of a pioneer, February 8, 2013 edition of The Catholic Free Press).

In reality, Mary Donovan was an angry and self-important radical feminist who believed that it was her role to "correct" the living teaching office of the Catholic Church, the Magisterium.  But then, the commission she was associated with was little more itself than an instrument of dissent and radical feminist agitprop.  And nothing has changed.  Read my previous posts on the Commission for Women and its "Gather us In Conference" which features dissident speakers who agitate for women's ordination and New Age spirituality.

Writing for The Catholic Free Press back in 1992, Ms. Donovan freely acknowledged this herself.  In an article entitled "Save the women for the Church," she wrote: "Most of us on the Commission are diehards, women who decided long ago that women should have a place in the Church and that the Church needed women...What we want is simple.  We want to be considered active participants in the worship of God.  We want to move from the passive role where men study the Word of God, interpret it and relay the message to us.  We want to share the study, to discuss, refine, enlarge, enhance, dispute interpretation if necessary, and deliver the good news with equal stature and credibility.  We know that structure that exists today has no stairway for women that go to the top floor.  We know what problems exist in renovating..." (May 22, 1992 edition of The Catholic Free Press).

In another article published in the diocesan newspaper, Ms. Donovan insisted that there are, "..women who sense the same gifts within themselves as men who feel called to the service of God." (Women walk a Tightrope, January 29, 1992 edition of The Catholic Free Press).

While Mary Donovan and her cohorts were demanding women's ordination and the right to "dispute interpretation" of the Church's teaching, the Second Vatican Council had already taught authoritatively that, "...the task of authentically interpreting the Word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ." (Dei Verbum, No. 10).

Yes indeed, Mary Donovan was so wise and devoid of arrogance that she openly rejected the teaching of Vatican II and the perennial teaching of the Catholic Church, as exemplified in the post conciliar document entitled "The Ministerial Priesthood in the Light of the Mystery of Christ" that, "..we can never ignore the fact that Christ is a man.  Therefore, unless one is to disregard the importance of this symbolism for the economy of Revelation, it must be admitted that, in actions which demand the character of ordination and in which Christ Himself, the Author of the Covenant, the Bridegroom and Head of the Church, is represented, exercising His ministry of salvation - which is in the highest degree the case of the Eucharist - His role must be taken by a man."

Susan Bailey would have us believe that Mary Donovan was a "role model" and a "woman of strong faith."  But these lies do not square with the facts.  Mary Donovan was more of a petulant child who, along with her associates in dissent at the "Commission for Women," was more concerned with pursuing her own wants and desires ("we want, we want, we want") than on fulfilling the duties of her vocation while remaining obedient to Christ Jesus Who guides us through the living teaching office of His Church.

I too pray that Mary Donovan will "rest in peace."  For she lacked peace in her lifetime here on earth.

The Diocese of Worcester, Constructive Criticism and New Age Spirituality

In his Encyclical Letter Redemptor Hominis, No. 4, Pope John Paul II emphasized that the Church, “...should have a critical sense with regard to all that goes to make up her human character and activity and..should always be very demanding on herself.” Reminding the faithful that constructive criticism has a role within the Church, John Paul says in this same paragraph that such criticism “should have its just limits...otherwise it ceases to be constructive and does not reveal truth.”


But the critical sense called for by Pope John Paul II is not welcome within the Diocese of Worcester. Recently, Stacy Trasancos, a columnist for The “Catholic” Free Press, the official newspaper of the Diocese of Worcester, advanced an erroneous concept of loyalty to the Church’s hierarchy when she asserted that a Bishop should never be criticized . It’s not surprising that Trasancos’ view was published in The “Catholic” Free Press while my rebuttal was censored. For years, diocesan officials have promoted and tolerated dissent from the Magisterial teaching of the Church while welcoming those who advance New Age spirituality.

And these same officials obviously believe that they are “above criticism” or any need for a critical sense.

Pride goeth before a fall.

A few weeks ago, Sister Joyce Rupp, a Servite Sister who promotes New Age spirituality, was once again received by the Diocese with open arms. An article in The “Catholic” Free Press (October 5th edition, p. 8), makes mention of the fact that Joyce Rupp’s books are available at the diocesan book store at the Chancery. This is what happens without the critical sense. No one at the Chancery is concerned over Sister Rupp’s New Age background or the fact that respected Catholic personalities such as Johnette Benkovic have expressed concerns over her troubling views and New Age spirituality.

New Agers will freely admit that Jesus Christ is God but insist that He is no more God than anyone else. They believe that the “Christ” is a divine principle, a “Christ consciousness” attainable by all people. New Age guru Benjamin Creme, in his work entitled “The Reappearance of the Christ and the Masters of Wisdom,” writes that, “Christ is not God, he is not coming as God. He is an embodiment of an aspect of God, the love aspect of God. He is the embodied soul of all creation. He embodies the energy which is a consciousness aspect of the Being we call God.” (P. 135).

Catholics and other Christians believe that Jesus Christ is the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, True God and True Man Who came to Redeem us from our sins and to deliver us from the prince of this world. New Agers hold that Christ is merely an energy force - the basic evolutionary force within creation.

The Bishop of Worcester, The Most Rev. Robert McManus, is deserving of criticism for his decision to carry Sister Rupp’s books at his Chancery. Her writings will only serve to confuse some of the faithful. Even if the specific books being carried by the Chancery bookstore are not objectionable, readers will nevertheless be introduced to a woman whose ideas regarding spirituality (not to mention her attitude toward the Church’s hierarchy) are gravely disturbing.

If only the Diocese of Worcester could learn to be more demanding of itself. Without the critical sense, this is unlikely. It’s far more easy to deflect any criticism, no matter how constructive it may be, and to embrace complacency and a smug, self-satisfied attitude. But just as individual Catholics are required to be honest with themselves when preparing for the Sacrament of Penance, so too it is necessary for the spiritual health of a diocese for its leaders to embrace honesty and the spirit of self-examination.

The darkness spreads.  The Man of Sin approaches.

Father Joseph Jurgelonis, Sister Joyce Rupp and God's Will

As I mentioned in a previous post, back in 2004, while accepting the "U.S. Catholic Award," angry feminist and New Age advocate Sister Joyce Rupp lapsed into a hate-filled rant against the Church and her hierarchy while promoting the concept of Yin and Yang and complaining that women are abused within the Catholic Church because they cannot be ordained to the priesthood.

 Rupp asserted that, "Many women in the Roman Catholic Church are in immense pain because of how women are treated by this church, particularly by the hierarchy and other ordained clergy. I once told the late Bishop Kenneth Untener that I felt like I had 'just one little toe in the church.' He responded with a twinkle in his eye: 'Keep it there.' I have, but I also understand the throng of women who have left the church because of such things as the continued arrogant use of exclusive language and the constant refusal to recognize the fullness of their gifts in church ministry."


Rupp may have kept her little toe in the Church. But in her heart and mind, she has left the Church. She speaks often about "compassion," but her words and actions have betrayed the fact that she has not persevered in charity. And as Lumen Gentium of the Second Vatican Council reminded us, "He is not saved..who, though part of the body of the Church, does not persevere in charity. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but, as it were, only in a 'bodily' manner and not 'in his heart.' All of the Church's children should remember that their exalted status is to be attributed not to their own merits but to the special grace of Christ. If they fail, moreover, to respond to that grace in thought, word and deed, not only shall they not be saved but they will be the more severely judged." (Lumen Gentium, No. 14).

Can a person honestly be said to be "persevering in charity" within the Church if they attack the Lord Jesus by attacking His faithful Pastors? Of course not. And we shouldn't lie by suggesting otherwise.

During her hate speech against the Church founded by Christ, Rupp insisted that, "Women suffer a lot because of the church" and asserted that, "..it's not just the ordination issue that drives women away...Women are not cows to be herded back into pens; they are not hens to be shooed away from the altar. It's this attitude of sneering domination and the obvious lack of respect for their individual worth that causes such immense angst in Catholic women today. I am very disappointed with the recent church document on women. I am saddened because it blames feminists for 'the lethal effects in the structure of the family.' Once again women are being blamed for society's failures. I am offended by the way this document pushes the power issue off onto women when the official church has, time and again, used power abusively to silence those longing for dialogue and has threatened into conformity those who dare to question doctrinal ultimatums.

Obviously someone forgot to inform Rupp that, "..the task of authentically interpreting the Word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church." (Dei Verbum, No. 10 of the Second Vatican Council).

Even though Sister Rupp has engaged in dissent from the Church's authoritative teaching for many years while promoting New Age concepts, many parishes across the Worcester Diocese continue to promote her upcoming  day-long retreat at St. Anne's Parish Hall in Shrewsbury.  One such parish is Holy Cross in Templeton.  This morning the "pastor," Father Joseph Jurgelonis, included in his Mass intentions the following: that all Catholics grow in unity in accord with God's Will.  This as he promotes Sister Rupp's day-long retreat in the parish bulletin and with a flyer on the bulletin board.


How is such unity to be achieved by promoting dissent or those who engage in such dissent? It should come as no surprise to any of us (unless of course you're a priest of the Worcester Diocese), that dissent within the Church leads to polarization and undermines truth which is the principle of the Church’s communion. In its Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian, No. 40, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith said that, “The Church ‘is like a sacrament, a sign and instrument, that is, of communion with God and of unity among all men’ (LG, 1). Consequently, to pursue concord and communion is to enhance the force of her witness and credibility. To succumb to the temptation of dissent, on the other hand, is to allow the ‘leaven of infidelity to the Holy Spirit’ to start to work.”

The warning of Pope Paul VI, given during his Homily at Holy Thursday Mass on April 3, 1969, has been largely ignored: "There is talk of renewal in the doctrine and in the conscience of the Church of God; but how can the living and true Church be authentic and persistent if the complex structure that forms it and defines it a spiritual and social 'mystical body', is today so often and so gravely corroded by dissent and challenge and by forgetfulness of its hierarchical structure, and is countered in its divine and indispensable constituent charism, its pastoral authority? How can it claim to be a Church, that is a united people, even though locally broken up and historically and legitimately diversified, when a practically schismatic ferment is dividing it, subdividing it and breaking it into groups which are more than anything else zealous for arbitrary and fundamentally egoistical autonomy, masked by Christian pluralism or liberty of conscience?"

Hypocrisy is pretending to be good or virtuous in order to get something we want or to advance our own personal agenda.  It includes deception and the willingness to manipulate others.  Cicero says that, "No type of injustice is more glaring than that of the hypocrite who, in the very instant of being most false, makes the pretense of appearing virtuous." (On Moral Obligation, Bk. 1, ch. 13).

Any priest who preaches on the importance of unity, charity and communion while promoting Sister Joyce Rupp, knowing about her New Age beliefs and her dissent from Church teaching, is engaging in hypocrisy.  Father Jurgelonis was notified several weeks ago about Joyce Rupp's troubling views.  And he has chosen to promote her anyway.

This represents a real tragedy.  Especially considering today's reading from 2 Corinthians 5: 6-10:

"Therefore, we continue to be confident.  We know that while we dwell in the body we are away from the Lord.  We walk by faith, not by sight.  I repeat, we are full of confidence and would much rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord.  This being so, we make it our aim to please him whether we are with him or away from him.  The lives of all of us are to be revealed before the tribunal of Christ so that each one may receive his recompense, good or bad, according to his life in the body."

Do we honestly believe that we please the Lord Jesus by railing against His Church?  Our Lord told His Disciples (the Pastors of the Church): "He who hears you, hears Me."  Can we honestly say that Sister Joyce Rupp, who ridicules the Church's authoritative teaching and her living teaching authority, is pleasing to the Lord?  If not, how can we promote her or her works?  Do we wish to share in the recompense which she will receive for her disobedience?

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.

The Diocese of Worcester promotes angry dissident Joyce Rupp

In a previous post, I noted how The Catholic Free Press is once again promoting Sister Joyce Rupp, a dissident religious who rails against the hierarchical Church while promoting New Age spirituality.  Many parishes throughout the Worcester Diocese are also promoting the upcoming day-long retreat with this angry, dissenting religious.  The retreat, which is to be held on September 29th at St. Anne's Parish hall in Shrewsbury, is being sponsored by the "Commission for Women," and has as its theme: "The Gift of Self - Compassion."

Sister Rupp, the self proclaimed spiritual midwife, claims to have learnt a lot from Eagle Crux a native American spiritualist and feels that she resonates with mystical islamic sufism. She tells us that everything is made of stardust including ourselves and that stones have as much right to be here as we have, in fact more so because they have been here longer. Her books include how to draw sacred mandela dancing circles and even have the rites for the blessing of the sexual organs! On Ireland she says that the Irish love of learning was first fostered by the wise druids and in the same article goes on to extoll New-Ageism as valuable and that some in the church are envious of it because it draws people toward spiritual growth.

In her book entitled "Cosmic Dance," this lost soul gleefully described a gathering of lesbians which she attended: "Different from me , thousands of them. Holding hands, kissing, arms around each other, stretching me beyond the safe world of heterosexuality. A gathering of lesbians challenging me to enter a world I never visit."

Is this why she is so welcome in the Worcester Diocese?  Because she advocates New Age occultism and stretching "beyond the safe world of heterosexuality"?

Back in 2004, while accepting the "U.S. Catholic Award," the angry feminist lapsed into a hate-filled rant against the Church and her hierarchy while promoting the concept of Yin and Yang and complaining that women are abused wihtin the Catholic Church. Rupp asserted that, "Many women in the Roman Catholic Church are in immense pain because of how women are treated by this church, particularly by the hierarchy and other ordained clergy. I once told the late Bishop Kenneth Untener that I felt like I had 'just one little toe in the church.' He responded with a twinkle in his eye: 'Keep it there.' I have, but I also understand the throng of women who have left the church because of such things as the continued arrogant use of exclusive language and the constant refusal to recognize the fullness of their gifts in church ministry."

Rupp may have kept her little toe in the Church.  But in her heart and mind, she has left the Church.  She speaks often about "compassion," but her words and actions have betrayed the fact that she has not persevered in charity.  And as Lumen Gentium of the Second Vatican Council reminded us, "He is not saved..who, though part of the body of the Church, does not persevere in charity.  He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but, as it were, only in a 'bodily' manner and not 'in his heart.'  All of the Church's children should remember that their exalted status is to be attributed not to their own merits but to the special grace of Christ.  If they fail, moreover, to respond to that grace in thought, word and deed, not only shall they not be saved but they will be the more severely judged." (Lumen Gentium, No. 14).

Can a person honestly be said to be "persevering in charity" within the Church if they attack the Lord Jesus by attacking His Pastors?  Of course not.  And we shouldn't lie by suggesting otherwise.

During her hate speech against the Church founded by Christ, Rupp insisted that, "Women suffer a lot because of the church" and asserted that, "..it's not just the ordination issue that drives women away...Women are not cows to be herded back into pens; they are not hens to be shooed away from the altar. It's this attitude of sneering domination and the obvious lack of respect for their individual worth that causes such immense angst in Catholic women today. I am very disappointed with the recent church document on women. I am saddened because it blames feminists for 'the lethal effects in the structure of the family.' Once again women are being blamed for society's failures. I am offended by the way this document pushes the power issue off onto women when the official church has, time and again, used power abusively to silence those longing for dialogue and has threatened into conformity those who dare to question doctrinal ultimatums.

Obviously someone forgot to inform Rupp that, "..the task of authentically interpreting the Word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church." (Dei Verbum, No. 10 of the Second Vatican Council). 

Rupp, flying into an uncontrolled temper tantrum because women cannot be ordained to the priesthood, complained that, "Power rightly exercised can be healthy and helpful. Rome agrees, but only so long as this power is in the hands of men. When women begin to assert their rights* and seek to have their God-given potential and gifts fully acknowledged and accepted for service in the church, they are not only denied this right but are written off as adversaries, reactionaries, and power-seekers."

So much for persevering in charity.  By venting such hatred against the Church, Rupp has shown her contempt for Christ.  For the Pastors of the Church rule in His name and by His authority.  If you want to read more of Rupp's hate speech against the Mystical Body of Christ, it may be found here.

Bishop Robert McManus asked Anna Maria College - and rightfully so - to disinvite Victoria Kennedy, an atheistic humanist, from speaking at its Commencement this year.  One has to wonder why one dissident isn't welcome while another is.  Is it simply because one is a Catholic religious?  Dissent is dissent Your Excellency, whether one wears a religious habit (or in Rupp's case, I'm sure, a small pin to denote that she's a "Catholic" religious) or a business suit.

Bishop McManus, do you really think Joyce Rupp is the best person to be giving a presentation on compassion to the faithful of this diocese?  Does her dissent trouble you at all?  Her New Age spirituality?

* Ordination to the priesthood is not a "right," even for men.  No one can take by force what God is not calling him to.  Hence the need for a discernment period for men considering the priesthood and the Church's ratification of the vocation.