Diocese of Charlotte in opposition to Vatican II and Canon Law

 As noted here:

"The Diocese of Charlotte – headed by Bishop Michael Martin, who notoriously banned the Latin Mass in his diocese – is siding with a school that expelled children after their parents complained about the school’s adoption of woke ideology, including graphic, sexually explicit LGBTQ+ books.

The lawsuit by parents of the expelled children, Doug and Nicole Turpin, Turpin v. Charlotte Latin School, now before the North Carolina Supreme Court, “asks whether a private school can invite open dialogue and then expel students in retaliation for their parents’ protected speech.”

____________________________________________

My commentary

This decision represents an act of violence against the child's right to live his or her own sexuality in conformity with Christian principles: "Since each child or young person must be able to live his or her own sexuality in conformity with Christian principles, and hence be able to exercise the virtue of chastity, no educator — not even parents — can interfere with this right to chastity (cf. Matthew 18: 4-7)." ( Pontifical Council for the Family,  The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality, No. 118).

The decision of the Diocese of Charlotte also represents an attack on parental rights. Vatican II teaches us that, in raising children, the responsibility of parents is primary: "Since parents have given life to their children, they have a very grave duty to educate them, and so are to be recognized as their primary and principal educators" (GE, No. 3). 

And Pope John Paul II, explaining the conciliar teaching more fully in Familiaris consortio No. 36, says that: "The right and duty of parents to give education is essential, since it is connected with the transmission of human life; it is original and primary with regard to the educational role of others, on account of the uniqueness of the loving relationship between parents and children; and it is irreplaceable and inalienable, and therefore incapable of being entirely delegated to others or usurped by others."

Canon Law is also very clear on this matter. Canon 793, 1., states that: "Parents as well as those who take their place are obliged and enjoy the right to educate their offspring; Catholic parents also have the duty and the right to select those means and institutions through which they can provide more suitably for the Catholic education of the children according to local circumstances" and Canon 1136 says that: "Parents have the most serious duty and the primary right to do all in their power to see to the physical, social, cultural, moral and religious upbringing of their children."

This inalienable right of parents has been recognized by the United States Supreme Court. In 1922, the State of Oregon attempted to enact legislation that would have forced all children to attend the public schools within that state. But the Supreme Court overturned that decision and established that "The child is not the mere creature of the state; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations."

The question before us: Will the Vatican intervene to ensure that Catholic teaching is upheld,  the rights of parents as primary educators of their children be respected and that Canon Law is adhered to?

For Archbishop Chaput, Father James Martin's ad hominem trashing of faithful Catholics is apparently just fine

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Cardinal Sean O'Malley: Where is your clear and emphatic opposition to a sin that cries to Heaven for vengeance?

As noted here, "Immaculate Heart of Mary School of Still River, MA has withdrawn its marching band and float of Saint Patrick from this year’s Saint Patrick’s Day Parade after learning that a small homosexual activist group will be allowed to march while publicly identifying its homosexuality.

The school is compelled by the teachings of the Catholic Church to pull out. According to the Principal, Brother Thomas Dalton, 'Catholics are forbidden to sponsor or even participate in an event which openly promotes unnatural and immoral behavior. The Church will never accept nor condone same sex marriage and the homosexual life style.'

For 25 years the school has participated in the parade dedicated to Saint Patrick and believes that to have a float with his representation leading a group openly promoting and proud of its homosexual identity would draw down the ire of this great patron of the Boston Archdiocese. 'Saint Patrick stands with Saint Paul in condemning the sin of sodomy,' stated Brother Dalton. 'The name of Saint Patrick should be dropped from the parade as he would have nothing to do with the likes of it today.'

The director of the Band, Br. Peter Bracket stated, 'All the Band members and their parents—although greatly disappointed in not being able to march—are fully supportive of the School’s decision. We have to remain loyal to Church teachings which states in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, promulgated by Saint John Paul II, that ‘homosexual acts are acts of grave depravity’ and ‘are intrinsically disordered…Under no circumstances can they be approved.’ (#2357)'

Brother Peter Bracket is right. 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.

The good folks at Immaculate Heart of Mary School in Still River, Massachusetts understand this.  What a shame that Cardinal Sean O'Malley does not.

The Catholic community in and around Boston deserves an authentic shepherd who understands that opposition to all sin - AND ESPECIALLY SINS THAT CRY TO HEAVEN FOR VENGEANCE-  is a duty of each and every Catholic.

The faithful deserve wheat.  And they suffer from a Cardinal who offers only chaff.

Attorney General Eric Holder wants the "Supreme Court" to set itself in opposition to the Author of Marriage

High court to hear gay marriage cases in April
Associated Press

WASHINGTON (January 16, 2015) — Setting the stage for a potentially historic ruling, the Supreme Court announced Friday it will decide whether same-sex couples have a right to marry everywhere in America under the Constitution.

The justices will take up gay-rights cases that ask them to overturn bans in four states and declare for the entire nation that people can marry the partners of their choice, regardless of gender. The cases will be argued in April, and a decision is expected by late June.

Proponents of same-sex marriage said they expect the court to settle the matter once and for all with a decision that invalidates state provisions that define marriage as between a man and a woman.

Attorney General Eric Holder said the Obama administration would urge the court "to make marriage equality a reality for all Americans."

On the other side, advocates for traditional marriage want the court to let the political process play out, rather than have judges order states to allow same-sex couples to marry.

"The people of every state should remain free to affirm marriage as the union of a man and a woman in their laws," said Austin R. Nimocks, senior counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom.

Same-sex couples can marry in 36 states and the District of Columbia.

That number is nearly double what it was just three months ago, when the justices initially declined to hear gay marriage appeals from five states seeking to preserve their bans on same-sex marriage. The effect of the court's action in October was to make final several pro-gay rights rulings in the lower courts.

Now there are 14 states in which same-sex couples cannot wed. The court's decision to get involved is another marker of the rapid change that has redefined societal norms in the space of a generation.

The court will be weighing in on major gay rights issues for the fourth time in in 27 years. In the first of those, in 1986, the court upheld Georgia's anti-sodomy law in a devastating defeat for gay rights advocates.

But the three subsequent rulings, all written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, were major victories for gay men and lesbians. In its most recent case in 2013, the court struck down part of a federal marriage law in a decision that has paved the way for a wave of lower court rulings across the country in favor of same-sex marriage rights.

The court is extending the time it usually allots for argument from an hour to two-and-a-half hours. The justices will consider two related questions. The first is whether the Constitution requires states to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The other is whether states must recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere.

The appeals before the court come from gay and lesbian plaintiffs in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee. The federal appeals court that oversees those four states upheld their same-sex marriage bans in November, reversing pro-gay rights rulings of federal judges in all four states. It was the first, and so far only, appellate court to rule against same-sex marriage since the high court's 2013 decision.

Ten other states also prohibit such unions. In Arkansas, Mississippi, Missouri, South Dakota and Texas, judges have struck down traditional marriage laws, but they remain in effect pending appeals. In Missouri, same-sex couples can marry in St. Louis and Kansas City only.

Louisiana is the only other state that has seen its gay marriage ban upheld by a federal judge. There have been no rulings on lawsuits in Alabama, Georgia, Nebraska and North Dakota.

In his Encyclical Letter Libertas Humana, Pope Leo XIII explained that:

"It is manifest that the eternal law of God is the sole standard and rule of human liberty, not only in each individual man, but also in the community and civil society which men constitute when united. Therefore, the true liberty of human society does not consist in every man doing what he please, for this would simply end in turmoil and confusion, and bring on the overthrow of the state; but rather in this, that through the injunctions of the civil law all may more easily conform to the prescriptions of the eternal law . . . the binding force of the human laws is in this, that they are to be regarded as applications of the eternal law, and incapable of sanctioning anything which is not contained in the eternal law, as in the principle of all law . . . where a law is enacted contrary to reason, or to the eternal law, or to some ordinance of God, obedience is unlawful, lest while obeying man we become disobedient to God."

Human laws are "incapable of sanctioning anything which is not contained in the eternal law." This is crystal clear Catholic teaching. There is no room for doubt. All other "laws" are unjust and are, therefore, not laws at all. And Catholics are not bound to obey them. In fact, Catholics have a duty to resist them. As I mentioned in a previous post, "Any law supportive of same-sex 'marriage' is no law at all. This because any law which is promulgated must correspond to the divine law. No human authority can declare what is morally evil to be morally good. Laws permitting slavery, abortion, euthanasia, divorce and "marriages" between persons of the same gender are immoral, and therefore unjust (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I-II, q. 96, a.5)."

Men might actually believe that they have the right to change the definition of marriage, but this is merely symptomatic of an illusion which is rooted in pride. As such, it represents a form of insanity. Men are not free to change God's eternal law to suit their own pleasures. Recall the teaching of Pope Pius XI in his famous Encyclical "On Christian Marriage":

"First of all, let this remain the unchanged and unshakable foundation: Matrimony was neither established nor restored by man but by God. It has been protected, strengthened, and elevated not by the laws of men, but by those of God, the author of human nature, and of Christ who restored that same nature. Consequently, these laws cannot be changed according to men's pleasure, nor by any agreement of the spouses themselves that is contrary to these laws. This is the teaching of Sacred Scripture (see Gen 1:27; 2:22f.; Mt 19:3ff.; Eph 5:23ff.); this is the constant, universal tradition of the Church; this is the solemn definition of the holy Council of Trent, which in the words of Sacred Scripture teaches and reasserts that the permanent and indissoluble bond of matrimony, its unity and strength, have their origin in God."

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, Nos. 1603-1605, explain marriage in the order of creation:

"The intimate community of life and love which constitutes the married state has been established by the Creator and endowed by him with its own proper laws. . . . God himself is the author of marriage." The vocation to marriage is written in the very nature of man and woman as they came from the hand of the Creator. Marriage is not a purely human institution despite the many variations it may have undergone through the centuries in different cultures, social structures, and spiritual attitudes. These differences should not cause us to forget its common and permanent characteristics. Although the dignity of this institution is not transparent everywhere with the same clarity, some sense of the greatness of the matrimonial union exists in all cultures. "The well-being of the individual person and of both human and Christian society is closely bound up with the healthy state of conjugal and family life."


God who created man out of love also calls him to love the fundamental and innate vocation of every human being. For man is created in the image and likeness of God who is himself love. Since God created him man and woman, their mutual love becomes an image of the absolute and unfailing love with which God loves man. It is good, very good, in the Creator's eyes. And this love which God blesses is intended to be fruitful and to be realized in the common work of watching over creation: "And God blessed them, and God said to them: 'Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it.'"


Holy Scripture affirms that man and woman were created for one another: "It is not good that the man should be alone." The woman, "flesh of his flesh," his equal, his nearest in all things, is given to him by God as a "helpmate"; she thus represents God from whom comes our help. "Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh." The Lord himself shows that this signifies an unbreakable union of their two lives by recalling what the plan of the Creator had been "in the beginning": "So they are no longer two, but one flesh."

Again, we may choose to reject these truths. But in so doing, we lose our grip on sanity as it were. In the words of the late (great) F.J. Sheed:

"..if we see anything - ourself or some other man, or the Universe as a whole or any part of it - without at the same time seeing God holding it there, then we are seeing it all wrong. If we saw a coat hanging on a wall and did not realize that it was held there by a hook, we should not be living in the real world at all, but in some fantastic world of our own in which coats defied the law of gravity and hung on walls by their own power. Similarly if we see things in existence and do not in the same act see that they are held in existence by God, then equally we are living in a fantastic world, not the real world. Seeing God everywhere and all things upheld by Him [such as marriage, my note] is not a matter of sanctity; but of plain sanity, because God is everywhere and all things are upheld by Him...To overlook God's presence is not simply to be irreligious; it is a kind of insanity, like overlooking anything else that is actually there." (Theology and Sanity, p.6).

The choice is ours: We either view marriage within the context of the order of creation with God as its Author, or we sink into insanity.

If this nation continues to set itself against the Author of marriage, the Eternal Lawgiver, it will find out soon enough what the judgment of the real Supreme Court is.

Paul Gomille: Champion for Modesty

Writing for the National Post, Matt Gurney tells us that, 'Last month, on Valentine’s Day, student Paul Gomille circulated 136 copies of a speech that he had written. He passed them out in the cafeteria of his Toronto-area Catholic high school. The speech was on the topic of a woman’s inner beauty — Mr. Gomille, 17, clearly believes that many of his female peers do not treat each other, or themselves, with due respect, and he wishes that everyone would focus more on how wonderful they are on the inside and not how attractive they can make themselves on the outside.


For circulating this speech...Mr. Gomille was suspended for two days. The reason for the suspension? 'Opposition to authority.' Apparently stating the obvious about teenagers now counts as an act of rebellion.

The decision to suspend Mr. Gomille goes back to his original hope to deliver his thoughts in a public address. Mr. Gomille reportedly approached the principal with his idea and asked for permission to address the school. This was initially met favourably, especially since the school received much public attention earlier this (academic) year when administrators noted that many of the female student body (no pun intended) were hiking their kilt skirts too high, yet another statement of the blindingly obvious. Principal Donna Modeste, according to Mr. Gomille, welcomed the positive nature of Mr. Gomille’s message.

But not all of it, in the end. Principal Modeste objected to a particular section of Mr. Gomillle’s letter, which she felt was 'judgmental':

The people this message concerns are the young women of this school, and of the world. In particular, it concerns the silent ones, the intelligent ones, the ones that don’t talk about people behind their backs, the ones that guys don’t flock to in droves, the ones that don’t dress in revealing clothing, the ones who would love to be in love, and the ones that are continually disappointed in their appearance because the only thing they have to compare themselves to are the women that have been put on pedestals by our society. This message also concerns those of you who may consider yourselves the so called 'opposite' to the demographic I just described. The ones who do dress in revealing clothing, and the ones who try to fit in with the crowd.

Principal Modeste requested changes to this section of the speech. Rather than comply, Mr. Gomille chose instead to distribute his speech, in its original form, by handing out copies of the text in the cafeteria. That’s when he was suspended for opposition to authority." (See full National Post article here).

In our modern, paganistic world, we are constantly bombarded with the promotion of immodesty and impurity and far too many "good" people remain apathetic to the problem.  And along comes Mr. Gomille, a courageous young man who is willing to take a stand for modesty and purity, and he is suspended for "opposition to authority."  But are we not told in Acts 5: 29 that when the authority of men comes into conflict with the authority of God, it is "better for us to obey God than men"?  Or does Principal Modeste believe that her authority trumps God's authority?  Are we not told in 1 Peter 2: 12 to, "Be careful to live properly among your unbelieving neighbors. Then even if they accuse you of doing wrong, they will see your honorable behavior, and they will give honor to God when he judges the world."  And in 1 Timothy 2:9, does not the Holy Spirit tell us through the Apostle that, - "..I want women to be modest in their appearance. They should wear decent and appropriate clothing and not draw attention to themselves by the way they fix their hair or by wearing gold or pearls or expensive clothes."  And are we not told in 1 Peter 3: 3-4 - that, "Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as braided hair and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes. Instead, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God's sight."

What of Principal Modeste's accusation that a passage from Paul's speech is judgmental?  What if it is?   As Dr. Germain Grisez explains, "It might seem to follow that love must accept everyone, even enemies, just as they are, and to affirm them even in the error or sin which is present in them. But the law of love does not require indiscriminate affirmation of everything about other persons (see Saint Thomas Aquinas, S.t., 2-2, q.34, a.3). One's love must be like Jesus'. He loves sinners and brings them into communion with himself in order to overcome their error and sin. When the scribes and pharisees bring a woman caught in adultery to Jesus, he not only saves her from being stoned to death but warns her not to sin again (see John 8:3-11). In a true sense, Jesus is not judgmental, he sets aside the legalistic mentality, readily forgives sinners, does not condemn the world, and points out that those who refuse to acknowledge their sinfulness are self-condemned by the truth they violate (see John 3:16-21). But he realistically recognizes sinners as sinners and never accepts error as truth...Similarly, if Christians' love of neighbor is genuine, it not only permits but requires them both to 'hold fast to what is good' and to 'hate what is evil' (Romans 12:9)."


And again, according to Dr. Grisez, "Vatican II neatly formulates the prohibition against judging others" 'God alone is the judge and searcher of hearts; for that reason, he forbids us to make judgments about the internal guilt of anyone' (Gaudium et Spes, No. 28). This norm, however, does not preclude judgments necessary for determining that one should try to dissuade others from committing sins or to encourage them to repent if they have sinned."

At Fatima (1917), Our Lady said that, "Certain fashions will be introduced that will offend Our Lord very much." Sadly, such fashions may be found even in Catholic parishes. This is the direct result of a lack of reverence before sacred mysteries. Dietrich von Hildebrand explains that, "..lack of reverence may have two roots...the first is to be found in pride. The man who lacks reverence because of pride and arrogance approaches everything with conceit and presumption, imagines that he knows everything, that he sees through everything....The world holds no mystery for him. He treats everything tactlessly, with easy familiarity...There is..another form of irreverence, one which is born of concupiscence. The concupiscent man is interested in the world only as a means of procuring pleasure for himself


The lack of reverence is a specific defect of our age. On the one hand, the feeling of reverence is undermined by the increasing technicalization and instrumentalization of the world wherein everything is considered only as a means for the attainment of practical aims, and being is not allowed to be taken seriously. On the other hand, the attitude of self-glorification is increased in man by progress in the knowledge of secondary causes and by the conquest of the physical world. This makes us forget that 'He has made us and we have not made ourselves.' It makes the shortsighted intoxicated with superficial knowledge so that they overlook the causa prima because of the causae secundae" (Liturgy and Personality, pp. 49, 51-52).

How important is modesty? Saint John Chrysostom warned the immodest that:

"You carry your snare everywhere and spread your nets in all places. You allege that you never invited others to sin. You did not, indeed, by your words, but you have done so by your dress and your deportment, and much more effectively than you could by your voice. When you have made another sin in his heart, how can you be innocent? Tell me, whom does this world condemn? Whom do judges in court punish? Those who drink poison or those who prepare it and administer the fatal potion? You have prepared the abominable cup, you have given the death-dealing drink, and you are more criminal than are those who poison the body; you murder not the body, but the soul. And it is not to enemies that you do this, nor are you urged on by any imaginary necessity, nor provoked by injury, but out of foolish vanity and pride."

Paul Gomille understands this.  And because he has sought to spread this truth, he finds himself suspended from his Catholic school.  In short, he finds himself being persecuted for the sake of truth.  But Our Lord has words of comfort for Mr. Gomille: "Be glad and rejoice, for your reward is great in heaven; they persecuted the prophets before you in the very same way." (Mt 5: 12).

Clark University in Worcester: Demonizing religious opposition toward homosexuality

Clark University in Worcester, Massachusetts is engaging in what the French philosopher Gabriel Marcel labelled the "techniques of degradation."


In his work of critical importance entitled "Man Against Mass Society," Marcel explains, "I understand by 'techniques of degradation' a whole body of methods deliberately put into operation in order to attack and destroy in human persons belonging to some definite class or other their self-respect, and in order to transform them little by little into mere human waste products, conscious of themselves as such, and in the end forced to despair of themselves, not merely at an intellectual level, but in the very depths of their souls.." (p. 42).

Through the fanatical employment of such techniques, radical homosexual activists hope to smash down their opponents, to categorize them as mentally ill (suffering from a "phobia"), as hate-filled "bigots" who cling to "worn out arguments" based upon an "archaic morality" which is rooted in Divine Revelation and Natural Law, as superstitious and backward people who need to be re-educated in order to fit into the new Culture of Sodomy.

Marcel writes, "Having abandoned the behaviour of a thinking being, he [the fanatic of any stripe who seeks to impose rather than propose] has lost even the feeblest notion of what a thinking being, outside himself, could be. It is understandable therefore that he should make every effort to deny in advance the rights and qualifications of those whom he wishes to eliminate; and that he should regard all means to this end as fair. We are back here again at the techniques of degradation.." (p. 149).

In the New Order, those who oppose homosexuality on moral grounds must be degraded. They must be placed in a ghetto. Just as the National Socialists employed the techniques of degradation in their propaganda war against the Jewish People, portraying them as rats emerging from a sewer, as subhuman people who stood in the way of a new republic and a more glorious era, so too radical homosexual activists seek to demonize any and all moral opposition toward homosexuality and will use any and all means to achieve that end.

Clark University, the same institution which employs Doctor Abbie Goldberg, a radical homosexual activist, is most anxious to demonize those who oppose homosexuality on moral grounds [Divine Revelation and/or the Natural Moral Law] and to paint such people as hateful and discriminatory.  Those who believe that marriage is between a man and a woman are categorized as "heterosexists," as people who mistreat homosexuals and lesbians and who have the audacity to believe that heterosexual relationships are the norm.  The University asserts:

"Heterosexism is the systematic, day-to-day, institutional mistreatment of gay, lesbian, transsexual and bisexual people by a heterosexually dominated culture. At its core, heterosexism assumes that heterosexual relationships represent the norm and are, therefore, implicitly superior to gay, lesbian, transsexual or bisexual relationships. Out of heterosexism stems homophobia which is the fear and/or hatred of gays, lesbians, transsexuals and bisexuals because of their sexual orientations." (See here).

By affixing the homophobic label on those who oppose the deviancy of homosexuality, Clark University (as with other institutions which seek to impose the radical homosexual agenda) hopes to intimidate those who oppose the psychopathology by dismissing their arguments based on right reason as "irrational fears."

Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, in their blueprint for propagandizing Americans to accept homosexuality entitled "After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear & Hatred of Gays in the 90s," write that, "By conversion we actually mean something far more profoundly threatening to the American Way of Life, without which no truly sweeping social change can occure.  We mean conversion of the average American's emotions, mind, and will, through a planned psychological attack, in the form of propaganda fed to the nation via the media." (p. 153).

These tactics are employed not only via the media but by college campuses across the nation.  As this article makes clear, the propagandists will stop at nothing to desensitize the "average American" and will even resort to violence if all else fails:

"In 1989, Dr. Chuck McIlhenny, pastor of San Francisco's First Orthodox Presbyterian Church, exercised his Constitutional rights of free speech and assembly and helped engineer the defeat of a domestic partnership law that would have forced the public to accept homosexual immorality by compelling everyone to treat two sodomites as a family.


McIlhenny and his family soon became the focus of intense and vicious sodomite hate. For three years, they received thousands of threatening and harassing phone calls 24 hours a day, and many callers swore to sodomize and then kill the McIlhenny's three daughters.

His home and church were firebombed. In 1990, sodomite groups repeatedly vandalized the church and home with graffiti like 'Dykes for Choice,' and attacked the crisis pregnancy center housed in the church. Cowardly, skulking sodomites broke the church's windows so many times the parishioners boarded them up permanently.

Institutions such as Clark University are encouraging this sort of climate by portraying Christians and others who oppose homosexuality on moral grounds as "bigots" who suffer from irrational fears and as religious fanatics (see here).

Clark University is fomenting hatred and Christianophobia.  This shouldn't really come as a surprise.  The Church proposes but the world imposes.  See here.

England's new Cyber Security Strategy: Will it treat Christians who oppose homosexuality as "cyber bullies"?

England's intelligence agency GCHQ will play a key role in the new UK Cyber Security Strategy.  This new strategy was crafted, we are told, to protect against "criminals, hackers, foreign intelligence services..who want to harm us by compromising or damaging our critical data and systems."  See here.  Sounds like good news right?

But if one reads this document very carefully, a few red flags begin to emerge.  It's not only criminals, hackers and foreign intelligence services which the new Cyber Security Strategy will target by banning them from the internet, but "cyber-bullies" as well.  Here we enter a very subjective area.  What exactly is it that constitutes a "cyber-bully"?   The Human Rights Campaign [pro-homosexual] says that, "Perpetrators of cyber bullying may use personal computers or cellular phones to harass victimes through email, instant messages, online bulletin boards, websites or text messages." See here.  In other words, an individual who opposes the homosexual agenda on moral grounds at his or her website or Blog, or who argues against another individual's "gay lifestyle" at an online "bulletin board" could also be considered to be a "cyber-bully."

There is real reason for concern here.  The new UK Cyber Security Strategy, on page 39, states that it will, "Continue the process started by the London Conference on Cyberspace to establish international norms of acceptable behaviour in cyberspace."

And who or what exactly was behind the London Conference on Cyberspace?  And what does this reveal, if anything, about the approach which the UK Cyber Security Strategy will take as it works to "establish international norms of acceptable behaviour in cyberspace"?  The Conference was sponsored by the Foreign & Commonwealth Office, the same entity which provides travel advice for LGBT travellers.  This office tells such people:

"If you intend to frequent cruising areas or internet chat rooms find out about the local situation - police in some countries have been known to carry out entrapment campaigns."  Translation: Before you cruise for gay or lesbian sex on the internet in chat rooms, make sure you're not chatting with a police officer who is there to protect minors from being sexually assaulted by adult perverts.

Then there is this gem from the Foreign & Commonwealth Office:

"You're more likely to experience difficulties in rural areas so its best to exercise discretion."  Translation: When travelling in countries such as the United States, watch your conduct particularly in rural areas where the people are ignorant and backward because they live in the Bible Belt or because they still maintain their religious heritage and beliefs.


I don't know about you.  But I have a strong feeling that the new UK Cyber Security Strategy will find any excuse to ban internet content which is faith-based and which opposes the LGBT agenda.  What do you think?  Will cyber security soon become cyber censorship?

Read all of the Foreign & Commonwealth Office advice for LGBT travellers here.

For when I am weak it is then that I am strong...

"As soon as souls give themselves completely to God, God Himself causes or permits others to despise and persecute them." - Saint Alphonsus de Liguori.

I am something of a pariah in my own diocese. I am treated with nothing but contempt because I have the audacity to stand with the Church's Magisterium and to promote and defend the teaching of the same. I am hated so much that when I wrote my Bishop a letter expressing my interest in pursuing a vocation to the priesthood, I received absolutely no response. By contrast, the late Senator Edward Kennedy was treated with the utmost respect and referred to by high-ranking Church officials as "our brother and friend." This even though the Senator dissented from Church teaching and promoted the killing of the unborn. Many of our local priests have engaged in dissent from the Church's teaching and they are welcome within the diocese. One that I know of has gone so far as to promote fornication. Others were in support of homosexual "marriage."

Why do I relate all of this? Because I am envious? Not at all. Because I am feeling sorry for myself? Again, no. I'm not that self-involved. I know I am nothing. A blade of grass. A puff of smoke. Here today and gone tomorrow. Of no special importance. I actually rejoice in being small. My very name means "little one." That's all I am and all I will ever be. Praise the Lord Jesus. For when I am weak, it is then that I am strong.

So why do I even mention all of this. Because as Christians who strive to live a holy and authentic life in the Lord Jesus, there is something which becomes immediately apparent as we survey this broken world. And it is this: while as disciples of the Lord we receive the power of God and His gifts which include wisdom and fortitude (courage), often we are hesitant or slow to do good or when we do choose to do good we meet almost constant opposition. By contrast, those who receive the power of the devil appear to be tireless in their activities as they work frenetically to discover new ways of doing evil or deceiving others and everything seems to come to them very easily.

There is an important spiritual lesson here. The world we live in is under the dominion of Satan, the "Prince of this world." When we witness an individual achieve outstanding success without any real setbacks, opposition or persecution, there is a very real possibility that such a person is an adept of the Prince of this world and is receiving his "gifts": "All these I shall give to you, if you will prostrate yourself and worship me." By contrast, often lack of success and persecution are sure signs that one really stands for God.

Father Joseph Esper explains, "Why does the Lord allow failure? According to St. Paul of the Cross, 'The works of God always meet with opposition so that the Divine Magnificence may shine forth. It is when things appear to be crashing to the ground that you will see them even more be raised on high.' Just as 'God is able to write straight with crooked lines,' so His servants, with the help of His grace, are able to grow in holiness in spite of their setbacks. St. John Vianney reminds us, 'The saints did not become saints without many a sacrifice and many a struggle,' and St. John of the Cross offers these reassuring words: 'The Lord measures our perfection neither by the multitude nor the magnitude of our deeds, but by the manner in which we perform them.' Talented and productive hands count for much less in God's eyes than a loving heart; we are therefore advised by Bl. Zeferino Agostini, 'Do not be dismayed by toil or suffering, nor by the meager fruit of your labors. Remember that God rewards not according to results but according to efforts.' By Heaven's standards, faithfulness equals success, especially when serving the Lord involves something contrary to our own preferences. As St. Vincent de Paul notes, 'One act of resignation to the divine will, when it ordains what is repugnant to us, is worth more than a hundred thousand successes according to our own will and pleasure.'.....Once we've overcome our human desire for popularity and success, the world is no longer able to ensnare us or to lead us astray - and on that day we will truly become successful in God's sight." (Saintly Solutions, pp. 108-109, Sophia Institute Press).

And so, as anonymous commenters continually inform me how stupid I am; how ignorant, backward and useless I am; as I continue to be ostracized even within my own diocese, I meditate on the words of Our Lord Himself:

"Blessed are you when men revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so men persecuted the prophets who were before you" (Mt 5: 11, 12)...Woe to you, when all men speak well of you, for so their fathers did to the false prophets." (Lk 6: 26).

The world has a far different measure of success. God's ways are different. On the Day of Judgment, we will be judged primarily on how we have loved.

Perhaps this is why the Day of Judgment is referred to as the Dies Irae - Day of Wrath. Because there is so little love.

President Obama: Does he support efforts to silence Christian opposition to homosexuality?

Congressman Louie Gohmert (R-Texas), a former judge, is warning that the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act (H.R. 1913) - also known as the Matthew Shepard Act - could potentially lead to the arrest* of Christian pastors (and others) who speak out against homosexuality. The Obama administration supports the Matthew Shepard Act: see here.

Related reading here.


"As a Catholic and by my Catholic Faith, I am bound in conscience to no human, theological, or philosophical opinion, however well founded it may be, and still less to any judgments on contingent or worldly matters, or to any temporal power. Nor am I bound to any particular form of culture or civilization, and still less of race or blood. I am bound uniquely to what is universality itself and super-universality: to the Divine, to the words and precepts of Him who said, 'I am the Truth, I who speak to you.'"

- Jacques Maritain


* Read here.