"Clergy will not respect the laws of the Church."

Catholic prophecy being fulfilled in our time

Venerable Bartholomew Holzhauser left us these words on the end times. Reading them, one cannot help but see that he is describing our own day with astonishing detail:

Venerable Bartholomew Holzhauser (17th century, Germany)

"During this period, many men will abuse the freedom of conscience conceded to them. It is of such men that Jude, the Apostle, spoke when he said: 'These men blaspheme- whatever they do not understand; and they corrupt whatever they know naturally as irrational animals do. . . They feast together without restraint, feeding themselves, grumbling murmurers, walking according to their lusts; their mouth speaketh proud things, they admire people for the sake of gain; they bring about division, sensual men, having not the spirit.'"

"During this unhappy period, there will be laxity in divine and human precepts. Discipline will suffer. The Holy Canons will be completely disregarded, and the Clergy will not respect the laws of the Church. Everyone will be carried away and led to believe and to do what he fancies, according to the manner of the flesh."

"They will ridicule Christian simplicity; they will call it folly and nonsense, but they will have the highest regard for advanced knowledge, and for the skill by which the axioms of the law, the precepts of morality, the Holy Canons and religious dogmas are clouded by senseless questions and elaborate arguments. As a result, no principle at all, however holy, authentic, ancient, and certain it may be, will remain free of censure, criticism, false interpretations, modification and delimitation by man."

These are evil times, a century full of dangers and calamities. Heresy is everywhere, and the followers of heresy are in power almost everywhere. Bishops, prelates, and priests say that they are doing their duty, that they are vigilant, and that they live as befits their state in life. In like manner, therefore, they all seek excuses. But God will permit a great evil against His Church: Heretics and tyrants will come suddenly and unexpectedly; they will break into the Church while bishops, prelates, and priests are asleep. They will enter Italy and lay Rome waste; they will burn down the churches and destroy everything."(Yves Dupont, Catholic Prophecy,Tan Books and Publishers, 1973).

The dragon's tail is sweeping away a third of the stars.  See here.

Bishop Mitchell Rozanski wants to pay respect to the Reformation which was against the Holy Spirit

From Lifesite News:

Cardinal Gerhard Müller has rebuked the secretary-general of the Italian Episcopal Conference for claiming that the Protestant Reformation was an 'event of the Holy Spirit.'

It is "unacceptable to assert that Luther's reform ‘was an event of the Holy Spirit,’" wrote Cardinal Müller, the former prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in a recent article published in the Italian newspaper La Nuova Bussola Quotidiana. 

"On the contrary, it was against the Holy Spirit. Because the Holy Spirit helps the Church to maintain her continuity through the Church’s magisterium, above all in the service of the Petrine ministry: on Peter has Jesus founded His Church (Mt 16:18), which is 'the Church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth' (1 Tim 3:15)," the cardinal wrote.

“The Holy Spirit does not contradict Himself,” added Müller.

Müller’s rebuke was directed to a verbatim quote of the secretary-general of the Italian Episcopal Conference, Bishop Nunzio Galantino, who spoke on the topic October 19 at the Pontifical University of the Lateran.

During his address on the topic of “the spirituality of the Reformation in ecclesial practice,” Galantino reportedly said, “The Reformation was, is, and will be in the future, an event of the Spirit,” and “The Reformation carried out by Martin Luther 500 years ago was an event of the Holy Spirit,” according to various Italian media.

Exactly.  The "Reformation" was against the Holy Spirit.  Which probably explains why Bishop Mitchell Rozanski wants to pay respect to it.  See here.

Our sad time.

Bishop Mitchell Rozanski wants to pay respect to an excommunicated heretic and the tragedy of his heretical movement...

Over at RadTrad Thomist we read:

"Lest we forget the other anniversary we have this month --- soon after the 100th Anniversary of the Miracle of the Sun performed by the Mother of God in front of 70,000 people at precisely the exact time as announced in order to confirm the people who believed in their Catholic Faith and to prove to the unbelievers that her messages and secrets which she gave to the three children were true --- the second anniversary is that of October 31, 2017 which will be the 500th anniversary of the "nailing of the 95 theses to the church doors at Wittenberg Cathedral" by Fr. Martin Luther.

The reason that we have put up a picture of Luther's toilet, fairly recently discovered in Wittenberg, is because of Luther's own statements that he came up with his 95 theses while suffering from chronic constipation. It is also while resting on the facilities that he was enlightened by his revolutionary theological idea of "faith without works" according to which you cannot do anything to contribute to your own salvation, in fact, to strive for holiness is itself a grave sin..."

For an adequate understanding of the so-called "Reformation" and the excommunicated heretic Martin Luther, See here.

Why was Martin Luther excommunicated by the Catholic Church?  Here are fifty reasons from The National Catholic Register.  See here.

And now a question.  Why is Bishop Mitchell Rozanski commemorating the "Reformation" and why is Saint Mary's Parish in Orange, Massachusetts promoting this event?  See here.

As Henri Daniel-Rops explains: "Protestantism marks a complete break in the history of Christendom, the most grievous and most tragic there has ever been.."

And Bishop Rozanski wants to pay respect to this tragedy?

com·mem·o·rate
kəˈmeməˌrāt/
verb
recall and show respect for (someone or something).


I'm beginning to understand more and more why Bishop Rozanski and Saint Mary's Parish have blocked me from being able to comment on their respective Facebook pages.  They don't want their distorted views to be questioned or challenged.

Some prefer living in a bubble where they can all the more easily maintain their fantasy world.

Tom Brady doesn't get it...why we stand for the National Anthem

Father George Rutler on taking a knee during the National Anthem here.

"As a former NFL player, I am one American who will have nothing to do with any NFL Team that cannot find the corporate courage to stand for the millions of courageous past great Americans whose sacrifice gave meaning to our flag and national anthem and to the millions upon millions who still dream to come to its free shores."

Burgess Owens

From Cornell Law School: Standing for the National Anthem, here.

Turns out Tom Brady has deflated balls after all....

Tom Brady, enamored with his own celebrity, and completely ignorant of the extent of his intellectual paucity, has referred to President Donald Trump as "divisive" for asserting that NFL Football players should observe respect and proper protocol toward the United States Flag and the National Anthem.  See here.

Of course, President Trump is correct:


"Proper protocol for Star-Spangled Banner is found in a separate code under Title 36 of Patriotic and National Observances, Ceremonies,and Organizations, and listed under Chapter 3, Section 301 on the National Anthem:xx During a rendition of the National Anthem, when the flag is displayed, (a) all present should stand at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart; (b) men not in uniform should remove their headdress with their right hand and hold the headdress at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart; and (c) individuals in uniform should give the military salute at the first note of the anthem and maintain that position until the last note; and (d) when the flag is not displayed, all present should face toward the music and act in the same manner they would if the flag were displayed."

Source:

http://legionstuff.blogspot.com/2011/11/proper-protocol-for-allegiance-natl.html?m=1

But for sniveling simps like Tom Brady, who understand nothing of the sacrifices made by professional soldiers such as my father Joe Melanson and my uncle Arthur, whose body was never recovered, "freedom of speech" includes dissing the United Stated Flag and the National Anthem.

I think he may have received one too many concussions.

Pauline Hanson once said, "To survive in peace and harmony, united and strong, we must have one people, one nation, one flag."

To individuals like Tom Brady, infected by a sophomoric philosophy, the flag is nothing more than a useless symbol, so why respect it? And our national anthem is something to be pissed on in the name of political expediency and appeals to "freedom of speech," akin to Serrano's display of freedom of speech with his "Piss Christ."

Boycott the NFL.  And while you're at it, Tom Brady.

Pope Francis has forgotten that conscience has a right to respect and obedience in the measure in which the person himself respects it and gives it the care which its dignity deserves

Even now the Man of Sin readies to reveal himself.  Various signs are emerging.  There is a growing diabolical disorientation.  Life Site reports:

"The most controversial moment of Pope Francis’ new apostolic exhortation – Amoris Laetitia (The Joy of Love) – might be confined to a humble footnote, but the implication is clear: the pope has opened the door to Cardinal Walter Kasper’s proposal that in some circumstances divorced and remarried Catholics could be readmitted to the sacraments, including the Eucharist.

In so doing the pope appears to have taken up a position contrary to that of his predecessors, most notably Pope Saint John Paul II, who had flatly rejected the idea of admitting the divorced and remarried to Communion in his apostolic exhortation Familiaris Consortio. Pope Benedict XVI, during his time as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, had also addressed the controversy, coming down definitively against liberalizing the Church’s practice.

 

It isn’t until Chapter 8 of Pope Francis’ historically lengthy apostolic exhortation that he deals directly with the question that has embroiled the Church in debate for the past two years - ever since Cardinal Kasper, at Pope Francis’ personal invitation, outlined his controversial proposal in a keynote address to a consistory of Cardinals at the Vatican.

 

The text of the final document (or relatio) of last year’s Synod on the Family had caused concern among some synod fathers by referencing the idea of the “internal forum” in relation to the debate over the divorced and remarried. This idea has been used by some theologians to argue that a penitent who persists in an objectively sinful state could discern, in private discussion with his confessor, that his subjective culpability is limited, and he could therefore return to the sacraments.

 

In the exhortation released today, Pope Francis has adopted and expanded that reasoning.

Though the entire thrust of Chapter 8 is making the case for a deeper “integration” of those in “irregular unions” into the life of the Church, in the main body of the text the pope leaves the meaning of the phrase more or less ambiguous. However, he provides a clear answer at the end of a footnote to paragraph 305, where he states that this “integration” can, “in certain cases,” involve admittance to the sacraments, including the Eucharist. He does not explicitly elucidate what those "certain cases" might be, though broad principles for discernment are given elsewhere in the text. 

In paragraph 305, the pope warns that “a pastor cannot feel that it is enough simply to apply moral laws to those living in ‘irregular’ situations, as if they were stones to throw at people’s lives.” Quoting a well-known section of his own speech at the conclusion of the Synod on the Family last October, Francis says that such a pastor would be “sitting on the chair of Moses and judging at times with superiority and superficiality difficult cases and wounded families.”

He adds:

Because of forms of conditioning and mitigating factors, it is possible that in an objective situation of sin – which may not be subjectively culpable, or fully such – a person can be living in God’s grace, can love and can also grow in the life of grace and charity, while receiving the Church’s help to this end.

 

At the end of that sentence, he includes a footnote (351), which clarifies: “In certain cases, this can include the help of the sacraments,” and then refers to both Confession and the Eucharist. He writes: “I would also point out that the Eucharist ‘is not a prize for the perfect, but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak.’”

 

Speaking of the problem of integrating people in irregular unions, the pope says it would be impossible to establish “general rules,” such as through canon law. Rather, he encourages individuals to discern their individual circumstances in the “internal forum” - i.e. in private consultation with their priest - and following guidelines established by the bishop.

 

He writes: “What is possible is simply a renewed encouragement to undertake a responsible personal and pastoral discernment of particular cases, one which would recognize that, since ‘the degree of responsibility is not equal in all cases’, the consequences or ef­fects of a rule need not necessarily always be the same.”

 

This applies even to “sacramental discipline,” he writes in a footnote to that text, because “discernment can recognize that in a particular situation no grave fault exists.”

 

Quoting the Synod on the Family’s final text, he says the discernment “can never prescind from the Gospel demands of truth and charity, as proposed by the Church.” Still quoting the Synod text, he says the discernment must involve several conditions: “humility, discretion and love for the Church and her teaching, in a sincere search for God’s will and a desire to make a more per­fect response to it.”

 

He then writes: “These attitudes are essen­tial for avoiding the grave danger of misunder­standings, such as the notion that any priest can quickly grant ‘exceptions’, or that some people can obtain sacramental privileges in exchange for favours.”

 

The pope bases his argument on a radical interpretation of the role of conscience - which he suggests could, in some cases, actually reveal to a person that God may in fact be “asking” them to continue in a situation that does not achieve the “objective ideal” of the Gospel.

 

The pope writes that “individual conscience needs to be incorporated into the Church’s praxis in certain situations which do not objectively embody our understanding of marriage.” He continues:

Naturally, every effort should be made to encourage the development of an enlightened conscience, formed and guided by the responsible and serious discernment of one’s pastor, and to encourage an ever greater trust in God’s grace. Yet conscience can do more than recognize that a given situation does not correspond objectively to the overall demands of the Gospel. It can also recognize with sincerity and honesty what for now is the most generous response which can be given to God, and come to see with a certain moral security that it is what God himself is asking amid the concrete complexity of one’s limits, while yet not fully the objective ideal.*

 

Perhaps the most surprising aspect of the exhortation’s treatment of irregular unions is the pope’s apparent dismissal of the idea that couples in such unions who find themselves unable to separate for legitimate reason should be required or even encouraged to live together as “brother and sister” - i.e. to forego engaging in sexual relations.

 

Pope John Paul II had, in Familiaris Consortio, proposed sexual continence as the only moral solution for couples who, repenting of their irregular union, find that “for serious reasons” - such as the need to raise their children - they “cannot satisfy the obligation to separate.” In such cases, wrote John Paul II, the couple must "take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples."

 

Pope Francis, however, while citing this sentence of Familiaris Consortio to show that the Church does acknowledge cases where separation may be impossible, leaves out the latter half of the sentence, which references the obligation to continence. In a footnote, Pope Francis then casts into doubt the wisdom of living in continence for such couples, suggesting that doing so could harm the couple’s relationship and children.  

 

“In such situations, many people, knowing and accepting the possibility of living ‘as brothers and sisters’ which the Church offers them, point out that if certain expressions of intimacy are lacking, ‘it often happens that faithfulness is endangered and the good of the children suffers.’” This footnote in turn cites the Second Vatican Council’s document, Gaudium et Spes - in particular a section that acknowledges the strain married couples face during periods of abstinence in the practice of natural family planning. However, Pope Francis’ usage of the quote applies it to those in irregular unions.

Pope Francis acknowledges that the pastoral approach he has outlined may be viewed by some as causing confusion, but suggests that this is a risk he is willing to take. "I understand those who prefer a more rigorous pastoral care which leaves no room for confusion," he writes. "But I sincerely believe that Jesus wants a Church attentive to the goodness which the Holy Spirit sows in the midst of human weakness, a Mother who, while clearly expressing her objective teaching, 'always does what good she can, even if in the process, her shoes get soiled by the mud of the street'.”

 

The pope’s decision today follows decades of pressure on the issue from progressives in the aftermath of Vatican II. In particular, it was a major point of discussion at the Synod on the Family that Pope John Paul II convened in 1980. It was in his exhortation following that Synod, Familiaris Consortio, that he firmly shut the door on the question, citing Scripture and the Church’s doctrine. His short paragraph on the issue still offers the most cogent and concise explanation for why the proposal is impossible. He wrote:

However, the Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried. They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist. Besides this, there is another special pastoral reason: if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church's teaching about the indissolubility of marriage."

See here.


*  There is a famous hymn written by Martin Luther which begins, "A mighty fortress is our God, a bulwark never failing.." For all too many people today (including sadly, many Catholics and Francis himself) the conscience has become a "mighty fortress" built so as to shelter one from the exacting demands of truth. In the words of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, "In the Psalms we meet from time to time the prayer that God should free man from his hidden sins. The Psalmist sees as his greatest danger the fact that he no longer recognizes them as sins and thus falls into them in apparently good conscience. Not being able to have a guilty conscience is a sickness...And thus one cannot aprove the maxim that everyone may always do what his conscience allows him to do: In that case the person without a conscience would be permitted to do anything. In truth it is his fault that his conscience is so broken that he no longer sees what he as a man should see. In other words, included in the concept of conscience is an obligation, namely, the obligation to care for it, to form it and educate it. Conscience has a right to respect and obedience in the measure in which the person himself respects it and gives it the care which its dignity deserves. The right of conscience is the obligation of the formation of conscience. Just as we try to develop our use of language and we try to rule our use of rules, so must we also seek the true measure of conscience so that finally the inner word of conscience can arrive at its validity.

For us this means that the Church's magisterium bears the responsibility for correct formation. It makes an appeal, one can say, to the inner vibrations its word causes in the process of the maturing of conscience. It is thus an oversimplification to put a statement of the magisterium in opposition to conscience. In such a case I must ask myself much more. What is it in me that contradicts this word of the magisterium? Is it perhaps only my comfort? My obstinacy? Or is it an estrangement through some way of life that allows me something which the magisterium forbids and that appears to me to be better motivated or more suitable simply because society considers it reasonable? It is only in the context of this kind of struggle that the conscience can be trained, and the magisterium has the right to expect that the conscience will be open to it in a manner befitting the seriousness of the matter. If I believe that the Church has its origins in the Lord, then the teaching office in the Church has a right to expect that it, as it authentically develops, will be accepted as a priority factor in the formation of conscience." (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Keynote Address of the Fourth Bishops' Workshop of the National Catholic Bioethics Center, on "Moral Theology Today: Certitudes and Doubts," February 1984).

In the same address, Cardinal Ratzinger explains that, "Conscience is understood by many as a sort of deification of subjectivity, a rock of bronze on which even the magisterium is shattered....Conscience appears finally as subjectivity raised to the ultimate standard."

A broken conscience, an ill-formed conscience, becomes a mighty fortress which shuts the truth out. Have we built an interior castle, as did St. Teresa of Avila, which remains open to the demands of truth and the promptings of the Holy Spirit? Or has our conscience become a mighty fortress built to prevent our encounter with truth? 

Francis is preparing the way for the Beast.  Where the Holy Spirit brings clarity and peace, the False Prophet brings confusion, disorientation and discord.

Make no mistake about it, Francis is proposing (and imposing) a radical interpretation of the role of conscience which directly contradicts the perennial Magisterial teaching of Holy Mother Church.


Soon, the Man of Sin will reveal himself openly.  As we approach the 100th anniversary of Our Lady of Fatima's apparitions (where the Queen of Heaven gave us the weapons for fighting against the Devil and his followers), the False Prophet - in a cruel and sick parody of the Baptist - prepares the way for the Man-god.

Pray.  Prepare the catacombs.  The New Church foretold by Venerable Emmerich, behold, is upon us.  Sin and evil will increasingly be justified and openly celebrated.
Suggested reading: Catechism of the Catholic Church Nos. 1783-1785.

 

 

Photo courtesy of TradCatKnight

 

 

Related reading here.

The Catholic Herald notes:

"Islamist militants claiming loyalty to ISIS have released a video appearing to show the beheading of 21 Coptic Christians who were taken hostage in Libya several weeks ago.

The video shows men apparently being beheaded after being forced to kneel next to the Mediterranean Sea. A militant says they are sending a message 'from the south of Rome'. At the end of the footage the same English-speaking fighter raises his knife to the water and says ISIS would 'conquer Rome'.

This morning Egypt and the Libyan government said they had launched air strikes in retaliation against Islamic State targets.

Egypt said the strikes were intended 'to avenge the bloodshed and to seek retribution from the killers', adding: 'Let those far and near know that Egyptians have a shield that protects them.' Most of the victims are believed to be Egyptian.

Bishop Angaelos, leader of the Coptic Orthodox church in Britain, said the massacre showed 'not only a disregard for life but a gross misunderstanding of its sanctity and equal value in every person'.

He said his prayers were with the victims’ families and also with the militants who carried out the atrocity. 'We pray for an end to the dehumanisation of captives who become mere commodities to be bartered, traded and negotiated with,' the bishop said.

In the video released by the militants, an Islamist says in English: 'All crusaders: safety for you will be only wishes, especially if you are fighting us all together. Therefore we will fight you all together… The sea you have hidden Sheikh Usama Bin Laden’s body in, we swear to Allah we will mix it with your blood.'

This must be the "harvest of mutual respect, understanding and cooperation throughout the world" which Bishop Robert McManus of the Worcester Diocese spoke of when he rescinded Robert Spencer's invitation to speak at the "Catholic" Men's Conference a couple of years ago.  See here.

Militant Islam wants to conquer Rome but have no fear folks: Bishop Robert McManus assures us we are reaping a harvest of respect

Writing for The Telegraph, Damien McElroy notes that:

"Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the self-proclaimed leader of the 'Islamic State' stretching across Iraq and Syria, has vowed to lead the conquest of Rome as he called on Muslims to immigrate to his new land to fight under its banner around the globe.

Baghdadi, who holds a PhD in Islamic studies, said Muslims were being targetted and killed from China to Indonesia. Speaking as the first Caliph, or commander of the Islamic faithful since the dissolution of the Ottoman empire, he called on Muslims to rally to his pan-Islamic state.

'Those who can immigrate to the Islamic State should immigrate, as immigration to the house of Islam is a duty,' he said in an audio recording released on a website used by the group formerly known as the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham.

 

'Rush O Muslims to your state. It is your state. Syria is not for Syrians and Iraq is not for Iraqis. The land is for the Muslims, all Muslims...This is my advice to you. If you hold to it you will conquer Rome and own the world, if Allah wills.'
 

Having claimed the title of 'caliph', Baghdadi appealed to 'judges and those who have military and managerial and service skills, and doctors and engineers in all fields.'
 
He also called on jihadi fighters to escalate fighting in the holy month of Ramadan, which began on Sunday. 'In this virtuous month or in any other month, there is no deed better than jihad in the path of Allah, so take advantage of this opportunity and walk the path of you righteous predecessors,' he said. 'So to arms, to arms, soldiers of the Islamic s, fight, fight.'
 
In a reflection of the havoc wreaked the past month by the Sunni insurgency led by the group, the United Nations said more than 2,400 people were killed in Iraq in June, making it the deadliest month in the country in years.

Baghdadi's claims to control vast territority have yet to be tested by an Iraqi government counter attack. Many Muslim groups dispute his putative caliphate. However some experts fear his rise could transform the appeal of extremist Islam, partly by harassing social media to build a global following.
Hassan Hassan, an analyst at Abu Dhabi's Delma Institute, wrote that Baghdadi provided the most radical challenge since the emergence of Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda. 'The whispers of support to a caliph in Afghanistan are now replaced by clear words and acts, amplified by social media,' he said. 'Jihadism has evolved significantly. It is no longer limited to narrow “elitists” who travel to distant countries to wage jihad. Today’s jihad is more sophisticated and individualised and can be waged everywhere.'" See here.

Although militant Islamists across the globe have a stated goal of conquering Rome and driving Jews in Israel into the sea, have no fear folks.  Bishop Robert McManus assures us that, "..the Catholic Church has engaged herself in inter-religious dialogue with Muslims.  This dialogue has produced a harvest of mutual respect, understanding and cooperation throughout the world."  See here.

Curiously, the same Bishop McManus who says he believes in dialogue, mutual respect, understanding and cooperation, refuses to answer letters from Catholics faithful to the Magisterium when they witness doctrinal dissent, various liturgical abuses, radical feminist ideology or New Age occultism.  Apparently Bishop McManus believes in a sort of peekaboo dialogue - now you see it, now you don't.  For when I wrote to His Excellency expressing my interest in pursuing a vocation to the ministerial priesthood, I received no response whatsoever. 

So be of good cheer folks.  Even though militant Islam is committing genocide while destroying entire Christian communities, everything is really okay.  Bishop McManus assures us that we are reaping a harvest of respect.

 

Archbishop Vincent Nichols: Respect for the Holy Eucharist and Church Teaching?

The Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments, in its document entitled Immensae Caritatis: On Facilitating Reception Of Communion In Certain Circumstances, provided for the use of Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist under rather strict guidelines and said that "The faithful who are special ministers of communion must be persons whose good qualities of Christian life, faith, and morals recommend them. Let them strive to be worthy of this great office, foster their own devotion to the eucharist, and show an example to the rest of the faithful by their own devotion and reverence toward the most august sacrament of the altar. No one is to be chosen whose appointment the faithful might find disquieting." (No. 6).

Apparently Archbishop Vincent Nichols could care less about this teaching.  For one of his Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist is Mr. Terence Weldon, a radical homosexual activist and propagandist who has engaged in blasphemy against the Lord Jesus and who routinely dissents from the Church's teaching on homosexuality while holding the Bishops of the Church up to ridicule.  As I noted in my last post, Mr. Weldon's hatred for the Holy Catholic Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, is so intense that, referring to the CDF document entitled "Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons," which says that the homosexual inclination is intrinsically disordered, he writes, "I just don’t buy that. The claim may be in the notorious CDF document, but anybody who is prepared to swallow every disordered statement on human sexuality from the Vatican, just because it has been written by sexually repressed, celibate theologians with no real-life experience of the subject they are able to admit to, is not living on the same planet as the rest of us. (See here).

An individual who has such disdain for the Lord Jesus, His Church, and the Bishops who serve in His name and with His authority cannot honestly be said to possess those "good qualities of Christian life, faith and morals" which the Church demands in its Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion.

Additionally, Archbishop Nichols continues to tolerate the scandal of the so-called "Soho Masses," a bizarre experiment in liturgical terrorism where Christ is mocked in the Eucharist and Church teaching is relegated to the waste bin.  So much for the teaching of the Catechism of the Catholic Church that the Eucharist is properly the sacrament of those who are in full communion with the Church (1395). 

In a Keynote Address entitled Good Shepherd: Living Christ's Own Pastoral Authority, which was delivered at the 10th Annual Symposium on the Spirituality and Identity of the Diocesan Priest on March 18, 2011, Bishop Samuel J. Aquila had some important things to say about the role of Bishops. His Excellency noted that:


"Perhaps most difficult for us who lead in the Church today, due to the influence of the secular world with its rejection of God and the authority of God, along with a real skepticism of authority, is the exercise of the office of governance. Benedict XVI reminds us as bishops and priests again to turn to Jesus Christ to learn how to exercise this authority. No one is really able to feed Christ's flock, unless he lives in profound and true obedience to Christ and the Church, and the docility of the people towards their priests depends on the docility of the priests towards Christ; for this reason the personal and constant encounter with the Lord, profound knowledge of him and the conformation of the individual will to Christ's will is always at the root of the pastoral ministry. (General Audience, May 26, 2010).

Jesus at times was direct in calling people to conversion – to change their way of acting and thinking. This directness makes many of us uncomfortable today. We should follow his example and language, even if we do not use his precise words. His language is good to contemplate and definitely should challenge us to look at how we correct the faithful, including priests and bishops, and speak the truth especially with those who say they are with Christ and the Church but do not accept the teaching of Jesus and the Church.

One has only to read Matthew 23 to hear the forceful language Jesus uses when speaking with the Pharisees and Scribes. He refers to them as ―hypocrites, blind guides, and white washed tombs and towards the end asks them the question, ―You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell? In our politically correct world this type of language would never be tolerated today, and yet the Gospel writers were not hesitant to pass on these exhortations of Jesus.

Furthermore, when Peter began to remonstrate with Jesus about going up to Jerusalem, he did not softly tell Peter, ―You do not understand. Rather Jesus spoke the vigorous words, ―Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me; for you are not on the side of God, but of men (Mt 16:23). Jesus speaks these words with force to the apostle he has chosen and the one whom he made first among the apostles. In love Jesus makes these direct statements to open the eyes of those whose hearts and minds are hardened. His straight talk, given in love for the person, desires the conversion and holiness of the person to the ways of God.

Jesus provides the Church and her leaders with the criteria for correcting a brother or sister. ―If your brother sins against you; go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector (Mt 18:16-17).

The steps in this passage are clear and Jesus is teaching us, but do we listen and follow his example? If this criteria had been followed with dissenting theologians, priests, religious and faithful in 1968 with the encyclical, Humanae Vitae, would we still be dealing with the problem today of those who dissent on contraception, abortion, same sex unions, euthanasia and so many other teachings of the Church?

One must honestly ask, how many times and years may a Catholic politician vote for the so called ―right to abortion, ―murder in the words of John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae (58), and still be able to receive Holy Communion? The continual reception of Holy Communion by those who so visibly contradict and promote a grave evil, even more than simply dissent, only creates grave scandal, undermines the teaching and governing authority of the Church and can be interpreted by the faithful as indifference to the teaching of Christ and the Church on the part of those who have the responsibility to govern. If we honestly pray with the Gospel we can see that hesitancy and non-accountability are not the way of Jesus Christ, but rather are a failure in the exercise of governance.

Bishops and priests, as an act of loving obedience to Christ, must return to a full exercise of the governing authority of Christ witnessed in the Gospel. If we do not exercise that authority, are hesitant to exercise it, or doubt it, then it only leads to the ―father of lies taking hold of the minds and hearts of the faithful, and their continuing to act in the ways of man and not the ways of God.

Pope Benedict XVI, in his conversation with Peter Seewald in the book Light of the World, made the following observation concerning the sexual abuse crisis among clergy, after speaking with the Archbishop of Dublin. In their conversation they spoke to a mentality prevalent after Vatican II. ―The prevailing mentality was that the Church must not be a Church of laws but, rather, a Church of love; she must not punish. Thus the awareness that punishment can be an act of love ceased to exist. This led to an odd darkening of the mind, even in very good people. Today we have to learn all over again that love for the sinner and love for the person who has been harmed are correctly balanced if I punish the sinner in the form that is possible and appropriate. In this respect there was in the past a change of mentality, in which the law and need for punishment were obscured. Ultimately this also narrowed the concept of love, which in fact is not just being nice or courteous, but is found in the truth (emphasis added). And another component of truth is that I must punish the one who has sinned against real love (Pages 25-26)." (Full Address here).

Is Archbishop Nichols being a good and caring shepherd of souls?  Or are his actions [and lack of] merely ensuring that the Father of Lies [John 8: 44] will take hold of the minds and hearts of the faithful who have been entrusted to his care?

As I ponder this, I cannot help but think of the words which came forth from St. John Chrysostom, Doctor of the Church, "The road to Hell is paved with the skulls of many bishops."  Strong words from a great saint who was known for his pacific spirit and outstanding charity.

Dear Lord, mercy.

Meditation: Luke 12: 48.

The Paulist Center Boston: Respect for Homosexual Persons or a "Gospel" of Violence?

“If one has the spirit of God, chastity is not a troublesome and humiliating burden, but a joyful affirmation.” -Josemaria Escriva de la Balaguer.


The Church’s teaching concerning sexual morality is not a mere set of rules created and imposed by the Church. Those who have adopted a legalistic attitude toward the Church’s teaching have already been answered by Saint Paul, “For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from unchastity; that each one of you know how to control his own body in holiness and honour, not in the passion of lust like heathen who do not know God; that no man transgress, and wrong his brother in this matter, because the Lord is an avenger in all these things, as we solemnly forewarned you. For God has not called us for uncleanness, but in holiness. Therefore whoever disregards this, disregards not man but God, who gives his Holy Spirit to you.”

Notice the wording from Saint Paul, “that no man transgress, and wrong his brother in this matter.” Chastity is the virtue which regulates one’s sexual thoughts, desires and actions. Primarily a natural virtue, chastity helps us to see the dignity of other persons as children of God created in the Imago Dei and not as sexual objects. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2337, explains that, “Chastity means the successful integration of sexuality within the person and thus the inner unity of man in his bodily and spiritual being. Sexuality, in which man’s belonging to the bodily and biological world is expressed, becomes personal and truly human when it is integrated into the relationship of one person to another, in the complete and lifelong mutual gift of a man and a woman. The virtue of chastity therefore involves the integrity of the person and the integrality of the gift.”

The same Catechism teaches clearly that homosexual acts are among the sins gravely contrary to chastity, “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). See also 2396 of the Catechism. Now Saint Paul teaches that the unchaste will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven, “Be sure of this, that no fornicator or impure man, or one who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for it is because of these things that the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience.” (Ephesians 5: 5, 6).


Let no one deceive you with empty words. Now this is precisely what some are attempting to do as they lead others to believe that homosexual acts are not illicit and even that they represent a positive good. This even though the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has stated clearly that such an attitude represents an act of violence against those with homosexual tendencies, "The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behavior or to considerations of homosexual unions.” ( Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons, No. 11, July 31, 2003). This because, “Homosexual persons [like everyone else] are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.” (Catechism, 2359). If we truly respect homosexual persons, we will not affirm acts which are gravely contrary to chastity but will challenge such persons to live out that chastity which leads to inner freedom and Christian perfection. We will also remind such persons that those who engage in sexual acts outside of marriage [and this includes heterosexual persons as well] inevitably harm themselves and others.

The Paulist Center in Boston, as this article details, is not committed toward assisting homosexual persons to live chaste lives. Instead, the Center is engaged in violence toward homosexual persons.

Related reading here.