Francis: We should caress our neuroses

 

You just can't make this up.  Francis, whose mental health has been in question for many years, said that we should "caress our neuroses."  See here.

Pope Francis has admitted that he has "some nerve problems" which require treatment as well as various neuroses. See here. A neuroses is defined as, "A relatively mild mental illness* that is not caused by organic disease, involving symptoms of stress such as depression, anxiety, obsessive behavior and hypochondria."

* Francis has been described as a "sociopath." See here.

Profile of the sociopath here.

Faithful Catholics should resist Bishop Mitchell Rozanski, a modernist thug who wants to use Covid-19 as an excuse for prohibiting Communion on the tongue

As noted here:

"Tension is brewing between the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) and the bishop of Springfield, Massachusetts, who is forbidding Holy Communion on the tongue in spite of the USCCB's recent decision to the contrary.

In anticipation of Massachusetts' planned multiphase reopening, Springfield bishop Mitchell T. Rozanski sent his clergy a document titled 'Re-Opening Considerations' to give guidelines and suggestions for conducting public Masses as they resume.

Maintaining previous diocesan restrictions and state guidelines, Rozanski is requiring that at public Masses, Holy Communion is offered in the hand only, Holy Water fonts remain empty and covered, social distancing is enforced at a minimum of six feet between individuals and masks be worn at all times. 

Rozanski's prohibition of Holy Communion on the tongue contradicts the USCCB's "Guidelines for Sacraments and Pastoral Care" published in late April, which states:

We have carefully considered the question of Communion on the tongue vs. Communion in the hand. Given the Church's existing guidance on this point (see Redemptionis Sacramentum, no. 92), and recognizing the differing judgments and sensibilities that are involved, we believe that, with the precautions listed here, it is possible to distribute on the tongue without unreasonable risk.

Bishop Rozanski has no right to prohibit Holy Communion on the tongue and faithful Catholics should resist this ecclesial modernist thug to his face.  A Canon Law expert here.

More on Rozanski here, here and here

Update on Bishop Rozanski: Complaint filed against him.  See here.

Francis: The attack on Our Lady's modesty...

As this Catholic website notes:


"For over twenty-five years the late Father Bernard Kunkel, who died in 1969 and who was the pastor of St. Cecilia's in Bartelso, Illinois, waged an almost impossible fight for purity and modesty [scroll down]. Even then the customary clothing was indecent. Here are some some of the things he wrote in  1969 issues of Divine Love magazine and in an issue of the 1957 Marylike Crusader:

"One of the strange phenomena of history is the fact that the Devil has succeeded so well in keeping concealed the existence of the corrupting Body of Satan, with its long-range program for the destruction of the Church. Catholics just do not seem to be aware that, as soon as Christ instituted His Church---His Mystical Body---the Devil likewise organized his anti-church, his corrupting body. St. Augustine, St. John, St. Paul and other Saints have referred to it, as well as Pope Leo XIII and other Church leaders. The corrupting body of Satan still exists in our time and is very well organized in its efforts to use the modem fashions, filthy literature, indecent movies, pagan TV shows, drugs, drink, etc. to break down morality among Catholics in order eventually to destroy the Church and Christianity. Its most effective weapon was to be corruption from within.

"Since the fall of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, Satan has been able to use the weapon of impurity very effectively In the 16th century he used as his tools the founders of the two Parent-Protestant religions in Germany and England, Martin Luther and King Henry VIII. The first founder entered a sacrilegious marriage, the second an adulterous one. Our Mother Most Chaste being dethroned from their hearts, there was no other logical course for them, than to exile Her from their man-made churches and from the hearts of their millions of followers. But the devil could not hope to corrupt completely Christ's Mystical Body, the Catholic Church, unless he could first succeed in dethroning Mary, the Mother Most Chaste, from the hearts of Catholics. 

"Our Blessed Mother, in all Her apparitions, is fully covered. At Fatima in 1917 she appeared in a world that was beginning to cut sleeves and necklines and to curtail skirts. Shouldn't she, the model for girls also in the 20th century, show some signs of following the modern trend? True, as Heavenly Queen, she is attired in queenly robes. Even so, she could do a little cutting on the sleeves, neckline and skirt. Why so determined to cling to the traditional standards? Why doesn't she give the modern girl a break, and give some sign that she approves a little cutting here and there? 

"The answer is, because she does not approve of the modern trend of uncovering those parts of the body as the chest, upper arms, shoulders, and the thighs. She disapproves. In fact, she came down from Heaven to earth to warn against this disrobing trend. Listen to what she revealed to little ten year old Jacinta of Fatima, while Jacinta lay dying in a hospital in Lisbon, Portugal in 1920: 'Certain fashions will be introduced which will offend Our Divine Lord very much. Those who serve God ought not to follow these fashions. The Church has no fashions. Our Lord is always the same.' And she also revealed to Jacinta that 'the sins that lead most souls to hell are the sins of the flesh.'

"The devil seeks, therefore, to destroy that veneration which the faithful have always paid to Mary's chaste and virginal Body through which Christ entered this world. For centuries he has sought to find a way to remove Mary as their perfect model of chastity and modesty. Only then could he hope to bring about that mass corruption which might lead Catholics to his 'world religion'---the impure worship of the body and unrestrained sex gratification. 

"This is apparently what Satan attempted through his agents, the powers of corruption, during the French Revolution. For, on Dec. 10, 1793 an angry mob rushed into the Cathedral of Notre Dame in Paris, seized the statue of the Blessed Virgin on the altar, and dashed it to the floor. Hatred against the Mother of God? Quite evidently. But their hatred was directed chiefly against the Virgin with modest attire, the model of purity and modesty. This is clear from their subsequent action of enthroning on the altar in Mary's place a nude woman, the Goddess of Reason.' To this day Paris remains the capital of the semi-nude fashion world.

"But why should women be the first victim of the Devil's plot? Because women have a much more delicate sense of modesty, and that is exactly why the devil strives first to destroy this feminine sense of modesty which makes womanhood the guardian of chastity in the world.
"Even with the success of the French Revolution, the demon of lust was too cunning to reveal immediately his full program of moral destruction to be carried out by his human agents. To escape detection, he must develop it gradually. Had the entire program been unfolded at once, Christian women would have risen up in open rebellion. Yet, long before feminine gowns became modem'. a portion of this secret, graduated, program was disclosed by a French paper, 'The French Woman' as follows: 'Our children must realize the ideal of nakedness... Thus the mentality of the child is rapidly transformed. To escape opposition, progress must be methodically graduated; first, feet and legs naked; then, upturned sleeves; afterwards the upper and lower limbs; the upper part of the chest; the back; ...in summer the children will go around almost naked.'

"In other words, applying this to our day, keep the children in sun suits, or next to nothing, as long as possible, that becoming accustomed to this, they will see nothing wrong with exposing the body later on. Make the blouses sheerer year after year; the sweaters and jeans tighter; the shorts, shorter; the daytime dresses, sleeveless; the formals, strapless or with thin straps at best; the bathing suits more daring; all with the idea that the fashions should reveal as much as possible, rather than conceal. Who but the Devil could devise such a clever scheme, knowing the inevitable result that would follow because of fallen human nature caused by original sin?

"This plan was published many years ago, but we see from the current fashions how modern women have fallen for it, including many Catholics. Since it was done so gradually, without their being aware of any organized program, is it any wonder our young girls ask, 'What's wrong with the modem fashions?' Having been reared in them, many from the time they were children, they see nothing wrong with them, nor the dangers to themselves or to others."

Where does Francis fall on this question?  He just said:

“Since the ceremony (The Holy Mass) is a little long, someone’s crying because he’s hungry,” the pope said in Italian, referencing the noise of a crying baby. “That’s the way it is. You mothers, go ahead and breastfeed, without fear. Just like the Virgin Mary nursed Jesus.”

What is this if not a direct attack on Our Lady and her modesty?

Let's recall what Pope Pius XI said in his encyclical "On The Christian Education of Youth":


" These principles [i.e. of the basic difference between the sexes], with due regard to time and place, must in accordance with Christian prudence, be applied to all schools, particularly in the most delicate and decisive period of formation, that namely, of adolescence; and in gymnastic exercises and deportment, special care must be had of Christian modesty in young women and girls, which is so gravely impaired by any kind of exhibition in public."

Pope Francis: Homosexual unions should not be dismissed

As noted here: Pope Francis asserts that,

"The Catholic Church should not dismiss out of hand civil unions, but should study them" and that, "the issue of gay marriage should be studied and not dismissed out-of-hand.."

This papacy should be dismissed.

The sin of homosexuality, [and here we are speaking of homosexual acts] is condemned in both the Old and New Testaments.  Saint Peter, our first Pope, in his Second Epistle, says:

"And reducing the cities of the Sodomites, and of the Gomorrhites, into ashes, God condemned them to be overthrown, making them an example to those that should afterwards act wickedly.  And he delivered just Lot, oppressed by the injustice and lewd conversation of the wicked." (2 Peter 2: 6-7).

The sin of homosexuality has been condemned by Fathers and Doctors of the Church, and by the Popes, for 2,000 years.  And with good reason, Saint Peter Damian [himself a Doctor of the Church] explains that the sin "should not be considered an ordinary vice, for it surpasses all of them in enormity." (The Book of Gomorrah).

The Catechism of the Catholic Church tells us that: "Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that 'homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.'" (2357).  Which is why, in his 1994 Angelus Address, protesting against a special resolution crafted by the European Parliament encouraging the nations of Europe to approve homosexual "marriage," Pope John Paul II said that, "What is not morally acceptable, however, is the legalization of homosexual acts.  To show understanding towards the person who sins, towards the person who is not in the process of freeing himself from this tendency, does not at all mean to diminish the demands of the moral norm (cf. Veritatis Splendor, No. 95)...

But we must say that what was intended with the European Parliament's resolution was the legitimization of a moral disorder.  Parliament improperly conferred an institutional value to a conduct that is deviant and not in accordance with God's plan...Forgetting the words of Christ 'The truth shall set you free' (John 8:32), an attempt was made to show the people of our continent a moral evil, a deviance, a certain slavery, as a form of liberation, falsifying the very essence of the family." (See here).

But Pope Francis is now implying that respect for homosexual persons, which should consist of an authentic charity which shows them the unnatural lie they have embraced and that they should view with horror the sin in which they find themselves, might mean changing the Church's teaching.

Really?  The Church teaches otherwise.  The CDF has taught authoritatively that, "There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God's plan for marriage and family.  Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law.  Homosexual acts '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." (Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons, 4).

Pray for the Church.  That she may be delivered from such evil.

Atheists should follow their conscience Holy Father?....Not so fast!

Back in 2011, before giving the traditional Christmas blessing to the City of Rome and the world ("urbi et orbi"), Pope Benedict XVI reflected on the Child of Bethlehem as Savior.  His Holiness said (in part): "He was sent by God the Father to save us above all from the evil deeply rooted in man and in history: the evil of separation from God, the prideful presumption of being self-sufficient, of trying to compete with God and to take his place, to decide what is good and evil, to be the master of life and death.."

The Holy Father said that human beings cannot save themselves from this sin, "unless we rely on God's help, unless we cry out to him: 'Veni ad salvandum nos! -- Come to save us!'"

He affirmed, though, that "the very fact that we cry to heaven in this way already sets us aright; it makes us true to ourselves: We are in fact those who cried out to God and were saved."

The Bishop of Rome spoke of God as the physician, while we are the infirm. And to realize this, he said, "is the first step towards salvation, towards emerging from the maze in which we have been locked by our pride. To lift our eyes to heaven, to stretch out our hands and call for help is our means of escape, provided that there is Someone who hears us and can come to our assistance."

"Jesus Christ is the proof that God has heard our cry," the Pope declared. "And not only this! God's love for us is so strong that he cannot remain aloof; he comes out of himself to enter into our midst and to share fully in our human condition. The answer to our cry which God gave in Jesus infinitely transcends our expectations, achieving a solidarity which cannot be human alone, but divine. Only the God who is love, and the love which is God, could choose to save us in this way, which is certainly the lengthiest way, yet the way which respects the truth about him and about us: the way of reconciliation, dialogue and cooperation." (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) 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."

This deification of subjectivity is something Pope Francis appears to have advanced.  He has said that, "Sin, even for those who have no faith, is when one goes against their conscience,” he added. “To listen and to obey to (one’s conscience) means to decide oneself in relation to what’s perceived as good and evil. And this decision is fundamental to determining the good or evil of our actions."  See here.

It's not that simple Holy Father.


There is a difference in meaning between a certain and a correct conscience. The term "correct" describes the objective truth of the person's judgment, that in fact his conscience represents the real state of things. The term "certain" describes the subjective state of the person judging, how firmly he holds to his assent and how thoroughly he has excluded fear of the opposite. The kind of certitude which is meant here is a subjective certitude, which may easily exist along with objective error. It follows then that we have two possibilities here:

1. A certain and correct conscience.

2. A certain but erroneous conscience.


Now, a certain and correct conscience offers no difficulty and our obligation is therefore clear. A certain and correct conscience is merely the moral law promulgated to the individual and applied to to his own individual act. But the moral law must always be obeyed. Consequently, a certain and correct conscience must be obeyed. And what degree of certitude is required? It is sufficient that the individual's conscience be prudentially certain. Prudential certitude is not absolute but relative. As such, it excludes all prudent fear that the opposite may be true, but does not rule out imprudent fears which are based upon bare possibilities. The reasons are convincing enough to satisfy a normally prudent man in an important matter and this results in that individual feeling safe in practice while there is a theoretical chance of his being incorrect. In such a case, the individual has taken every reasonable precaution but he cannot guarantee against rare contingencies and "freaks of nature."

In moral matters, a complete mathematical certitude is not to be expected. This because when there is question of action, of something to be done in the here and now, but which also involves future consequences (some of which are dependent upon the wills of other individuals), the absolute possibility of error cannot be entirely excluded. However, it can be so reduced that no prudent man, one who is free of neurotic whimsies, would be deterred from acting through fear of it. Therefore, prudential certitude, since it excludes all reasonable fear of error, is much more than high probability, which fails to exclude such reasonable fear.

What happens when an individual is in possession of an erroneous conscience? That depends. If the error is vincible, it must be corrected. In such a case, the person knows that he may be wrong, is able to correct the possible error, and is obliged to do so before acting. A vincibly erroneous conscience cannot be a certain conscience. This is easily demonstrated. For example, an individual may have a merely probable opinion which he neglects to verify, (through laziness or fear of discovering that he is in fact in error), although he is able to do so. Or perhaps he may have judged certainly and yet erroneously at one point, but now begins to doubt whether or not his judgment was in fact correct. For as long as this individual did not realize his error, his conscience was invincibly erroneous; the error becomes vincible at the precise moment that the individual is no longer subjectively certain and has begun to doubt. Anyone who has read Dr. Scott Hahn's personal conversion story will recall that, when he realized the truth of Catholic teaching and that the Catholic Church was in fact the Church founded by Christ, he knew he had a responsibility to enter that Church. I would also refer readers to Lumen Gentium, No. 14 which deals with this subject.

If an error is invincible, there appears to be a dilemma. On the one hand, it doesn't seem right that a person should be obliged to follow an erroneous judgment; on the other, the individual is not aware of being in error and has no means of correcting it. But this dilemma is solved by recalling that conscience is a subjective guide to conduct, that invincible error and ignorance are unavoidable, that any wrong which occurs is not done voluntarily and therefore may not be charged to the agent. An individual acting with an invincibly erroneous conscience may in fact do something that is objectively wrong. However, since he does not recognize it as such it is not subjectively wrong. Such a person is thereby free of guilt by the invincible ignorance which is bound up in his error.

Conclusion: The will depends on the intellect to present the good to it. The will-act is good so long as it tends to the good presented by the intellect. It is bad or deficient if it tends to what the intellect judges evil. Invincible error in the intellect does not change the goodness or badness of the will-act, in which morality essentially consists. If an individual is firmly convinced that his or her action is right, that person is obeying the moral law to the degree that he or she can. If that same individual is firmly convinced that his or her action is wrong, that person is disobeying the moral law in intention, even though the act may not be objectively wrong.

I would recommend a thorough read of what the Catechism of the Catholic Church has to say with regard to forming a correct conscience.

A broken conscience, an ill-formed conscience, can become 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?

 

Related reading: Catechism of the Catholic Church, Nos. 1783-1785.

Demonizing Christianity on Facebook

By Kirsten Anderson Image


Writing for LifeSiteNews, Kirsten Anderson reports that, "The head of a Christian ministry that succeeded in having an anti-Christian hate page removed from Facebook last year is taking action once again after discovering the page has been reinstated.

Cary Bogue, CEO of Project Wildfire and owner of the 'Catholics & Protestants United Against Christian Discrimination' Facebook page, objects to a page called 'Virgin Mary Should’ve Aborted,' (WARNING: obscene content) which depicts as its cover image the unborn Jesus as an abortion victim wearing a crown of thorns, while the Virgin Mary smokes a marijuana cigar with a satisfied smirk. The page’s profile image is similarly offensive, featuring a cartoon image of the Virgin looking down at her swollen belly and muttering an expletive.

The page’s description reads, 'People have rights, ideas do not. No beliefs are above criticism. Organized religion is AIDS and we desperately need a cure.'

Bogue argues the page violates Facebook’s Community Standards, which state: 'While we encourage you to challenge ideas, institutions, events, and practices, we do not permit individuals or groups to attack others based on their race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, disability or medical condition.'

'If this is not the exact definition of hate speech directed at a religion, I am not sure what is,' Bogue said. 'We all know Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg is an avowed atheist, pro-abortion and a strong advocate for the LGBT, but that does not excuse him from continuing to allow this page to remain. It also does not excuse the apparent lack of integrity and bias this shows. I challenge him or anyone at Facebook to explain to the Christians across America how this isn’t hate speech directed against Christianity.'

Last summer, Bogue succeeded in having the offensive page temporarily taken down after a Tweetfest featuring the hashtag '#StopFBAntiChristianBias.' A concurrent petition drive urging Facebook to remove the page garnered more than 20,000 signatures.

When the women who run the page immediately put up a second page, 'Virgin Mary STILL Should Have Aborted,' Bogue urged Facebook to remove that one, too.

Facebook did remove the spin-off page and notified Bogue by e-mail. But within two days, the page owners successfully appealed the ban, and the original page was back up and running – unbeknownst to Bogue.

'When I first got the e-mail I thought they had reconsidered on the original page,' said Bogue. 'While it had about 2,300 fans it has a much smaller impact than Virgin Mary Should’ve Aborted (VMSA). There is no logic in Facebook removing one without the other. A quick perusal of the page makes that obvious.'

Most of what is posted on the VMSA page cannot be reprinted here due to its obscenity, but the posts mainly fall into one of three categories: anti-Christian, pro-abortion, or pro-LGBT. None of those sentiments are exactly uncommon among Facebook’s 1.3 billion users, but it is the sheer virulence of the posts that would seem to violate Facebook’s Community Standards. The page’s administrators wear their hatred for religious people on their sleeve, often calling them 'religtards' or 'God-botherers,' but more frequently referring to them with obscene euphemisms for genitalia and immoral sex acts.

Explaining why she started the VMSA page in a recent post, one of the page’s administrators wrote, 'Nothing tickled me more than the squirming image of a right-wing conservative receiving the notification ‘Virgin Mary Should've Aborted likes your post!’ I relished this [discomfort] and it made me realize that these kind of extreme religious interactions will only be available in this time period, for a few more years. This is the age of technology and science, and one day religion will be a scarcity; a laughable stain on our past.'

As Bogue renewed the effort to have the page shut down, the administrators taunted him, writing, 'Sorry, dudebro, but we were unpublished before, but Facebook backed us. We came back harder than before, and look at us now.'

But Bogue, who says he has received death threats and had Facebook pages put up attacking him and his family by fans of VMSA, is undaunted.

'I expect lots of nasty personal attacks and pages to be put up,' he said. 'But I am a servant of Christ. So bring it on!'

'"Remember the word that I said to you, the servant is not greater than his Lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you,'" he added, quoting John 15:20.

Bogue is calling on Facebook users who are offended by VMSA’s content to report it to the company as hate speech....
Bogue filed a police report, as well, on Tuesday with the Milwaukee County Sheriff, saying a car followed his wife in and out of traffic, snapping pictures of her. 'I found it concerning when one of the VMSA admins denied it and in the denial stated she lived exactly 1,414 miles from me,” he told LifeSiteNews. “She obviously knew exactly where I live.'"

Just a couple of years ago, students at Clark University's "Freethought Society" were demonizing Christian belief and practice.  Because I have posted two photos over the years of aborted babies, I was referred to as a "delusional nutter."  See here: http://lasalettejourney.blogspot.com/2012/01/is-clark-university-really-committed-to.html

Facebook warned me to cease posting photos of aborted babies.  But this forum, owned by an avowed atheist, routinely tolerates (and perhaps even encourages) those who oppose religious belief and who engage 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 abortion and 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 and Culture of Death ideologues seek to demonize any and all moral opposition toward homosexuality and abortion and will use any and all means to achieve that end.

The Worcester Diocese should have held onto this faithful priest

Some years ago, a faithful and dedicated priest decided to leave the Diocese of Worcester and become a Chaplain for the United States Army.  During a conversation back in 2000, this priest-friend told me that he had had enough of the nonsense within the diocese.  This was after he presided over a graveside service for my father.

This same faithful priest has a letter in this week's "Catholic" [when they feel like it] Free Press.  As usual, it is an excellent letter.  But then, this priest reads the life of Jesus Christ.  The letter is entitled  "Choose life and love, not moral decay."  Fr. Anthony Kazarnowicz writes:


"According to a survey (CFP, June 1), 83% of Catholics consider it 'morally acceptable' to use contraceptives to prevent pregnancy, 'despite church teachings to the contrary.'  The Church teaches that God designed sex for bonding between a husband and wife and for procreation.  In deciding for ourselves that it is 'morally acceptable' to unnaturally close sex to life, we have made ourselves (not God, or those whom Jesus placed in authority over us) the final arbiters of what is good and evil.  It's Satan's temptation to Adam and Eve all over again.

Next, we judged it 'morally acceptable' to separate sex from marriage.  So now, we have rampant sexual promiscuity, cohabitation before marriage and women treated as sex objects.  A pleasure-seeking 'Me Generation' was born.  Dads had live-in girlfriends; moms, live-in boyfriends.

With this denial of moral wrongdoing came the corresponding denial of sin and even a loss of a sense of sin.  Sacramental confessions dwindled.  However, divorces rose to 50% for first marriages, 65% for second marriages and higher for third marriages.

According to the survey, 53% of Catholics favor same-sex 'marriage.'  Heterosexuals who have lifeless sex are not likely to condemn lifeless homosexual sex.  Though homosexual sex is indeed unnatural, there is something even more unnatural - mothers killing their own babies by abortion - 'morally acceptable' to 35% of Catholics.

Before contraception, families were large.  But, children knew right from wrong, were disciplined, respected authority and learned sacrifice.  Families prayed together.  Confessions thrived; divorces were rare.  Most couples waited until marriage before having sex.  Parents accepted children as God's gift. Womanhood and motherhood were cherished.  Vocations to the priesthood and religious life flourished.

Contrasted are a culture of moral decay after contraception and a culture of life and love before contraception.  I pray all Catholics choose life and love."

Sadly, the Worcester Diocese has not always opted for a culture of life and love.  Back in March, I examined an article published in the dissent-friendly diocesan newspaper and written by Father John Catoir, a cleric who also has difficulty telling the truth.  This article was entitled "Birth Control Revisited."  And it was Father Catoir's assertion, while promoting a subjectivist conscience, that the Church's teaching regarding artificial contraception is "beyond the strength" of many Catholics. 

So much for the Worcester Diocese choosing a culture of life and love.

In a talk entitled "Legalism, Moral Truth and Pastoral Practice" given at a 1990 symposium in Philadelphia, Dr. Germain Grisez explained to those present that, "Theologians and pastors who dissent from received Catholic teaching think they are rejecting legalism because they set aside what they think are mere rules in favor of what they feel are more reasonable standards. Their views are thoroughly imbued with legalism, however. For dissenters think of valid moral norms as rules formulated to protect relevant values. Some even make their legalism explicit by denying that there is any necessary connection between moral goodness (which they restrict to the transcendental level of a love with no specific content) and right action (which they isolate at the categorical level of inner-worldly behavior). But whether their legalism is explicit or not, all the dissenters hold that specific moral norms admit exceptions whenever, all things considered, making an exception seems the best - or least bad - thing to do. Most dissenters also think that specific moral norms that were valid in times past can be inappropriate today, and so they regard the Church’s contested moral teachings as outdated rules that the Church should change."


Dr. Grisez reminded his listeners at the Philadelphia symposium, "During the twentieth century, pastoral treatment of repetitious sins through weakness - especially masturbation, homosexual behavior, premarital sex play and contraception within marriage - grew increasingly mild. Pastors correctly recognized that weakness and immaturity can lessen such sins’ malice. Thinking legalistically, they did not pay enough attention to the sins’ inherent badness and harmfulness, and they developed the idea that people can freely choose to do something that they regard as a grave matter without committing a mortal sin. This idea presupposes that in making choices people are not responsible precisely for choosing what they choose. That presupposition makes sense within a legalistic framework, because lawgivers can take into account mitigating factors and limit legal culpability. But it makes no sense for morality correctly understood, because moral responsibility in itself is not something attached to moral acts but simply is moral agents’ self-determination in making free choices.

Repetitious sinners through weakness also were handicapped by their own legalism. Not seeing the inherent badness of their sins, they felt that they were only violating inscrutable rules. When temptation grew strong, they had little motive to resist, especially because they could easily go to confession and have the violation fixed. Beginning on Saturday they were holy; by Friday they were again sinners. This cyclic sanctity robbed many people’s lives of Christian dynamism and contributed to the dry rot in the Church that became manifest in the 1960s, when the waves of sexual permissiveness battered her."


Dr. Grisez went on to explain that, "Pastors free of legalism will teach the faithful how sin makes moral requirements seem to be alien impositions, help them see through this illusion, and encourage them to look forward to and experience the freedom of God’s children, who rejoice in the fruit of the Spirit and no longer experience the constraint of law..They will explain that while one sometimes must choose contrary to positive laws and cannot always meet their requirements, one always can choose in truth and abide in love. They will acknowledge the paradox of freedom - that we seem unable to resist freely choosing to sin - the paradox that Saint Paul neatly formulates: ‘I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate’ (Romans 7:15). But they also will proclaim the liberating power of grace, and help the faithful learn by experience that when one comes to understand the inherent evil of sin and intrinsic beauty of goodness, enjoys the support of a community of faith whose members bear one another’s burdens, begs God for His help, and confidently expects it, then the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead raises him from his sins, and he discovers that with the Spirit’s grace one can consistently resist sin and choose life."

We would have more vocations to the priesthood in the Worcester Diocese if young men witnessed fidelity to the magisterial teaching of the Church from pastors [not to mention the diocesan newspaper] and if orthodox candidates were not excluded because of their commitment to the Church's authentic teaching, especially in the area of sexual morality.

I should know.  I'm one of the excluded.

What should be our prayer during Holy Week?

What should be our prayer during Holy Week?

As I Am, Lord


Because I am obnoxious, forgive me Lord.
Because I am dishonest, forgive me Lord.
Because I am egotistical, forgive me Lord.
Because I am undisciplined, forgive me Lord.
Because I am weak, forgive me Lord.
Because I am impure, forgive me Lord.
Because I am arrogant, forgive me Lord.
Because I am self-centered, forgive me Lord.
Because I am pompous, forgive me Lord.
Because I am insincere, forgive me Lord.
Because I am unchaste, forgive me Lord.
Because I am grasping, forgive me Lord.
Because I am judgmental, forgive me Lord.
Because I am impatient, forgive me Lord.
Because I am shallow, forgive me Lord.
Because I am inconsistent, forgive me Lord.
Because I am unfaithful, forgive me Lord.
Because I am immoral, forgive me Lord.
Because I am ungrateful, forgive me Lord.
Because I am disobedient, forgive me Lord.
Because I am selfish, forgive me Lord.
Because I am lukewarm, forgive me Lord.
Because I am slothful, forgive me Lord.
Because I am unloving, forgive me Lord.
Because I am uncommitted, forgive me Lord.
Because I am sinful, forgive me Lord.
Because I am loved by You, thank you Lord!

Prayer composed by Father Raymond A. Pavlick

Roman Catholic Diocese of Paterson, N.J.

Why should those who produce The Catholic Free Press be surprised that government is now mandating contraception?

In an editorial entitled, "Stop the erosion of religious liberty," The Catholic Free Press, official newspaper of the Diocese of Worcester, Massachusetts, laments that, "The Obama administration has embarked on a systematic effort to erode religious liberty to the point of non-existence by attempting to restrict it solely to freedom of worship.  Through administrative policies and mandates, religious liberty and freedom of conscience in the United States is under attack, as witnessed by the most recent 'accommodation.'..The Obama administration has been chipping away at the right of religious institutions to abide by their beliefs when those beliefs oppose the secularist agenda, particularly in the arena of morality.  This was clearly evident in the decision not to renew a federal grant by the Department of Health and Human Services to the bishops'  Migration and Refugee Services for its human trafficking program because it would not provide the full range of reproductive services, including abortion and contraception, to human trafficking victims and unaccompanied refugee minors...President Obama made the decision to impose the Department of Health and Human Services' Interim Final Rules on Preventive Services, requiring all private health plans, including those of Catholic hospitals, charities and schools, to provide coverage of prescription contraceptives, including abortion-inducing drugs, and sterilization for women.  The so-called "religious employer" exemption that was put forth with these rules is so narrowly defined that it is meaningless.  Unless a religious institution employs and serves only individuals of the same religious tradition, it does not qualify for the exemption.  Therefore, Catholic hospitals and schools who serve people of all faiths, precisely because of their Catholic mission, do not qualify for the exemption.  The recent 'accommodation' offered in response to the outcry that resulted from this mandate, which was unquestionably a direct assault on the Roman Catholic Church's religious liberty, does not lessen the concerns initially raised...We cannot lose sight of the fact that the 'accommodation' does not alter the Obama administration's mandate promoting contraception, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs as a matter of government policy.  It is particularly troubling that the attitude toward human life identifies pregnancy as a disease, posing a threat to one's health.."

How did we get to where we are in the United States?  In the words of Archbishop Charles Chaput, spoken in 2009, "40 years of American Catholic complacency and poor formation are bearing exactly the fruit we should have expected...We can't talk about following St. Paul and converting our culture until we sober up and get honest about what we've allowed ourselves to become. We need to stop lying to each other..."


Once a people appeal to conscience in order to condone sin, it is only a matter of time before such sin is openly mandated.  Long before contraception was being mandated by the government, there were those in the Church - including throughout the Diocese of Worcester - who were unleashing the leaven of infidelity by neglecting to preach against sin or by appealing to a dissenting notion of the primacy of conscience.

Richard Blanchard was documenting this infidelity (within the Worcester Diocese) at the same time I was writing against it in the pages of The Catholic Free Press more than twenty years ago.  For example, in his newsletter "Just The Facts," No. 6, (1993), Richard noted how a Couple-to-Couple team was teaching CCD students preparing for Confirmation in Leominster, Massachusetts (St. Leo's Parish) that, "If your conscience convinces you that birth control is right, even if the Church says its wrong, you can practice birth control and not be sinning."  And then Richard explains: "This has been taught for over 20 years and still is being taught in this diocese [Worcester].  The basis for this teaching is dissent and a dissenting concept of the primacy of conscience which is nothing less than situation ethics."

In the same newsletter, Richard Blanchard noted that, "During the episcopate of Timothy J. Harrington...dissent and disobedience has flourished and taken deep roots....in September of 1984 Sister Anna Kane was appointed Vicar of Religious and Director of the then Office of Women, at the same time she became a member of Bishop Harrington's administrative cabinet.  She became very militant against Humanae Vitae.  Under the administration of Fr. Piermarini, (now Msgr), the religious education department employed Dr. Vincent Forde, Bernard Cooke and Alice Laffey as instructors of the Education in Ministry Program, also known as the Master Catechist Program which has for its goal, master certification for CCD teaching.  All [of these instructors] openly strong advocates against the teaching on birth control in Humanae Vitae."

Within the pages of The Catholic Free Press, Humanae Vitae was openly mocked.  For example, in his "Essay in Theology" column entitled "Humanae Vitae; a troubling silence (CFP, August 13, 1993), dissident priest Father Richard P. McBrien referred to the Church as "a dysfunctional family" because it will not change its teaching on the sinfullness of artificial contraception to appease those who just cannot or will not accept it.


As a result of 40 years of poor catechesis - or none at all - and outright complacency throughout the Catholic Church in America,  too many people today (including sadly, many Catholics) have come to view conscience as a sort of fortress built so as to shelter them 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."

And subjectivity raised to the ultimate standard gives rise to dictatorship. For, as Pope John Paul II reminded us in Centesimus Annus, "Authentic democracy is possible only in a State ruled by law, and on the basis of a correct conception of the human person. It requires that the necessary conditions be present for the advancement both of the individual through education and formation in true ideals, and of the 'subjectivity' of society through the creation of structures of participation and shared responsibility. Nowadays there is a tendency to claim that agnosticism and sceptical relativism are the philosophy and the basic attitude which correspond to democratic forms of political life. Those who are convinced that they know the truth and firmly adhere to it are considered unreliable from a democratic point of view, since they do not accept that truth is determined by the majority, or that it is subject to variation according to different political trends. It must be observed in this regard that if there is no ultimate truth to guide and direct political activity, then ideas and convictions can easily be manipulated for reasons of power. As history demonstrates, a democracy without values easily turns into open or thinly disguised totalitarianism."

Why should those who produce The Catholic Free Press be surprised that government is now mandating contraception?  The Church in the United States is only reaping what it has sown.

Sir Trevor Phillips: Christians, and only Christians, should be denied religious freedom and conscience rights

Saint Thomas Aquinas explains that a law is just if it corresponds to the divine law.  If civil law does conform to the divine law, then it has the power to bind us in conscience and to disobey such a law would be a sin.  But human law cannot exceed the power of its human authors.  Aquinas teaches that the law which is promulgated must correspond to the divine law.  No human authority can declare what is morally evil to be morally good.  For this reason, laws permitting slavery, abortion, euthanasia, divorce and "marriages" between persons of the same gender are immoral, and therefore unjust (Summa theologiae, I-II, q. 96, a.5).

In his Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae, Nos. 72-74, Pope John Paul II teaches that, "The doctrine on the necessary conformity of civil law with the moral law is in continuity with the whole tradition of the Church. This is clear once more from John XXIII’s Encyclical: 'Authority is a postulate of the moral order and derives from God. Consequently,laws and decrees enacted in contravention of the moral order,and hence of the divine will,can have no binding force in conscience…;indeed,the passing of such laws undermines the very nature of authority and results in shameful abuse'. This is the clear teaching of Saint Thomas Aquinas,who writes that 'human law is law inasmuch as it is in conformity with right reason and thus derives from the eternal law. But when a law is contrary to reason,it is called an unjust law; but in this case it ceases to be a law and becomes instead an act of violence'. And again: 'Every law made by man can be called a law insofar as it derives from the natural law. But if it is somehow opposed to the natural law, then it is not really a law but rather a corruption of the law'.


Now the first and most immediate application of this teaching concerns a human law which disregards the fundamental right and source of all other rights which is the right to life, a right belonging to every individual. Consequently, laws which legitimize the direct killing of innocent human beings through abortion or euthanasia are in complete opposition to the inviolable right to life proper to every individual; they thus deny the equality of everyone before the law. It might be objected that such is not the case in euthanasia, when it is requested with full awareness by the person involved. But any State which made such a request legitimate and authorized it to be carried out would be legalizing a case of suicide-murder, contrary to the fundamental principles of absolute respect for life and of the protection of every innocent life. In this way the State contributes to lessening respect for life and opens the door to ways of acting which are destructive of trust in relations between people. Laws which authorize and promote abortion and euthanasia are therefore radically opposed not only to the good of the individual but also to the common good ;as such they are completely lacking in authentic juridical validity. Disregard for the right to life, precisely because it leads to the killing of the person whom society exists to serve, is what most directly conflicts with the possibility of achieving the common good. Consequently, a civil law authorizing abortion or euthanasia ceases by that very fact to be a true, morally binding civil law.

Abortion and euthanasia are thus crimes which no human law can claim to legitimize. There is no obligation in conscience to obey such laws; instead there is a grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. From the very beginnings of the Church, the apostolic preaching reminded Christians of their duty to obey legitimately constituted public authorities (cf. Rom 13:1-7;1 Pet 2:13-14), but at the same time it firmly warned that 'we must obey God rather than men'(Acts 5:29). In the Old Testament, precisely in regard to threats against life, we find a significant example of resistance to the unjust command of those in authority. After Pharaoh ordered the killing of all newborn males, the Hebrew midwives refused. 'They did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but let the male children live'(Ex 1:17). But the ultimate reason for their action should be noted: 'the midwives feared God' (ibid.). It is precisely from obedience to God-to whom alone is due that fear which is acknowledgment of his absolute sovereignty-that the strength and the courage to resist unjust human laws are born. It is the strength and the courage of those prepared even to be imprisoned or put to the sword, in the certainty that this is what makes for 'the endurance and faith of the saints' (Rev 13:10).

In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to 'take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law, or vote for it'.

A particular problem of conscience can arise in cases where a legislative vote would be decisive for the passage of a more restrictive law, aimed at limiting the number of authorized abortions,in place of a more permissive law already passed or ready to be voted on. Such cases are not infrequent. It is a fact that while in some parts of the world there continue to be campaigns to introduce laws favouring abortion,often supported by powerful international organizations, in other nations-particularly those which have already experienced the bitter fruits of such permissive legislation-there are growing signs of a rethinking in this matter. In a case like the one just mentioned,when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official,whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.

The passing of unjust laws often raises difficult problems of conscience for morally upright people with regard to the issue of cooperation, since they have a right to demand not to be forced to take part in morally evil actions. Sometimes the choices which have to be made are difficult; they may require the sacrifice of prestigious professional positions or the relinquishing of reasonable hopes of career advancement. In other cases, it can happen that carrying out certain actions,which are provided for by legislation that overall is unjust, but which in themselves are indifferent, or even positive,can serve to protect human lives under threat. There may be reason to fear, however, that willingness to carry out such actions will not only cause scandal and weaken the necessary opposition to attacks on life, but will gradually lead to further capitulation to a mentality of permissiveness.

In order to shed light on this difficult question,it is necessary to recall the general principles concerning cooperation in evil actions. Christians, like all people of good will, are called upon under grave obligation of conscience not to cooperate formally in practices which, even if permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to God’s law. Indeed, from the moral standpoint,it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil. Such cooperation occurs when an action, either by its very nature or by the form it takes in a concrete situation, can be defined as a direct participation in an act against innocent human life or a sharing in the immoral intention of the person committing it. This cooperation can never be justified either by invoking respect for the freedom of others or by appealing to the fact that civil law permits it or requires it. Each individual in fact has moral responsibility for the acts which he personally performs;no one can be exempted from this responsibility, and on the basis of it everyone will be judged by God himself (cf. Rom 2:6;14:12).

To refuse to take part in committing an injustice is not only a moral duty; it is also a basic human right. Were this not so, the human person would be forced to perform an action intrinsically incompatible with human dignity, and in this way human freedom itself, the authentic meaning and purpose of which are found in its orientation to the true and the good, would be radically compromised. What is at stake therefore is an essential right which, precisely as such, should be acknowledged and protected by civil law. In this sense,the opportunity to refuse to take part in the phases of consultation, preparation and execution of these acts against life should be guaranteed to physicians, health-care personnel, and directors of hospitals, clinics and convalescent facilities. Those who have recourse to conscientious objection must be protected not only from legal penalties but also from any negative effects on the legal, disciplinary,financial and professional plane."

Deacon Nick Donnelly over at Protect the Pope is reporting that Sir Trevor Phillips, the Head of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, has stated categorically that freedom of religion and freedom of conscience is restricted to within the confines of church buildings if they conflict with secular law.  Sir Phillips has been quoted as having said that, "the law stops at the door of the temple as far as I am concerned."  He has accused Christians who insist upon following the teachings of Christ and their consciences of wanting to impose "sharia law"on the UK.

Deacon Nick comments, "The Equality Commissioner, like the Obama administration, is attempting to re-define freedom of religion as freedom to worship. It’s a verbal slight of hand that seeks to strip away our basic human rights as religious believers in public life and wider society. Basically he’s saying we’re free to practice our faith within our church buildings but nowhere else in society.

Trevor Phillips has already removed our right to practice the moral teachings of the faith within our own homes, because, for example, if we run a bed and breakfast we have to allow homosexuals to sleep together in rooms in our houses, or else be taken to court and fined.

Trevor Phillips, and his like, have removed the rights of parents to bring their children up in the faith, because if our children, as young as 13, want contraception or abortion the State will provide it without parental knowledge or consent.

Trevor Phillips trivializes Catholic moral teaching on sexuality and parenthood by saying that we just 'decided we’re different’and that we need a different set of laws'. Catholics didn’t decide we’re different when parliament changed the law, we remained steadfast in upholding the moral law...
Trevor Phillips is also hypocritical by saying Christian demands to follow their teachings and consciences are equivalent to wanting to impose sharia law. Sharia law is being exercised in the UK, creating a parallel legal system with the support of the liberal establishment in this country as an expression of 'diversity'. Here’s the BBC’s support for sharia law in the UK:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7234870.stm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9088957/Trevor-Phillips-stands-by-ridiculous-Sharia-comparison.html

Deacon Nick raises an excellent point here.  When the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, said that it "seems unavoidable" that the UK will have to "face up to the fact" that millions of Muslims do not relate to the British legal system and implied that British law should accommodate Sharia law, where was Sir Phillips?  When the Archbishop said that, "There's a place for finding what would be a constructive accommodation with some aspects of Muslim law," ("Sharia Law for UK is 'Unavoidable,'" BBC News, Feb 7, 2008), Sir Phillips was strangely silent.
It's obvious that Sir Phillip is anxious to strip Christians of their religious freedoms and to deny them - and apparently only them - of the right to follow their conscience.

Interesting no?

Atheist Brian Bridson of "Philosopher's Haze": Catholics are bigots who should be told to shut up and who should be put in their place

Brian Bridson, the same atheist mental midget who has referred to Pope Benedict XVI as "Ben-the-Dick," (which in itself reveals his adolescent mindset), is angry at the Catholic Church and is calling for Catholics to be "put in their place."  And what is their place?  For Bridson, it would be better for all Catholics to live at the Vatican because their views do not belong in the public square.  Maybe he would like to stick Catholics in concentration camps?

Why is Bridson so angry?  Well, Dalton McGuinty, the Premier of Ontario, is attempting to bully Catholic schools into allowing the celebration of homosexuality.  Responding to Catholic Tim Storey, who wrote in The Intelligencer, "I am appalled at Premier Dalton McGuinty's recent comments in which he plans to impose the homosexual agenda on Catholic schools under the guise of anti-bullying Gay-Straight Alliance clubs.  McGuinty is the one who needs a 'change of attitude' - not Catholics.  Catholics were the first to introduce the idea of anti-bullying.  Anti-bullying does not mean the approval of a lifestyle that is not in accord with Catholic teaching," Bridson, in the typical knee-jerk response of the unthinking atheist, writes:

"But Tim, catholic schools accept public monies that keep them in business. These catholic schools are not private institutions: they exist in the public realm and take money from the public. Therefore, whether you like it or not, you must adhere to ethical standards being established by the public."

Bridson conveniently ignores the fact that Catholic citizens pay taxes which support public schools.  If he doesn't want Catholic schools to receive "public monies," does he support Catholic citizens being exempt from taxes which go to support public schools?

Erik Stanley, Senior legal counsel and head of the Pulpit Initiative for the Alliance Defense Fund, explains that, "There is said to be an old Arabian proverb: 'If the camel once gets his nose in the tent, his body will soon follow.' This expression is especially pertinent in the tax exemption context. Churches are tax exempt under the principle that there is no surer way to destroy the free exercise of religion than to tax it. If the government is allowed to tax churches (or to condition a tax exemption on a church refraining from the free exercise of religion), the camel's nose is under the tent, and its body is sure to follow. But that's not just my opinion; it's the understanding of the U.S. Supreme Court.


In its 1970 opinion in Walz vs. Tax Commission of the City of New York, the high court stated that a tax exemption for churches 'creates only a minimal and remote involvement between church and state and far less than taxation of churches. [An exemption] restricts the fiscal relationship between church and state, and tends to complement and reinforce the desired separation insulating each from the other.' The Supreme Court also said that "the power to tax involves the power to destroy." Taxing churches breaks down the healthy separation of church and state and leads to the destruction of the free exercise of religion."


Of course, this is what the atheist Brian Bridson, anti-Catholic bigot that he is, wants: the destruction of the free exercise of religion.  His animus is so extreme that he writes,  "..yes, it is true the religion has been around for a very long time, and for most of that time, religion has enjoyed far too many exemptions from the rules that citizens and other public organizations have been subject too: such as the exemption from paying taxes. But this has never been a proper relationship between the state and religion, as religious interests do not, and ought not to supersede the interests of the state’s citizens. Remember, catholics, you have the Vatican city-state, so if you really want state-endorsed catholic-ignorance-and-bigotry-made-law, move there and let the state be as prejudicial as hell."

But, as the Supreme Court has said here in the United States, tax exemptions restrict the fiscal relationship between the church and state and actually tend to complement and reinforce the desired separation which insulates each from the other.  So Bridson's argument falls flat.  It has no substance.  Much like its author.
Continuing his anti-Catholic tirade, Bridson the bigot asserts that in every country "the church, and all other religious organizations, take a back seat."  In other words, for Bridson, Catholics do not have a place in the public square.  Therefore he writes, "So, catholics, shut the hell up and accept what you are being instructed to do."

For Bridson, the Catholic political viewpoint is "skewed."  Why?  Because, he insists, "..they are quick to yell and scream and cry when they believe their ability to practice their religion as they see fit is infringed upon, but have no reservation about pushing their religion down the throats of the rest of society."  This charge is particularly ironic since,  as Pope John Paul II wrote in his Encyclical Letter Redemptoris Missio (The Mission of the Redeemer), "The Church proposes; she imposes nothing." (No. 39).

Such was the teaching of Vatican II: "The Church strictly forbids forcing anyone to embrace the faith, or alluring or enticing people by worrisome wiles. By the same token, she also strongly insists on this right, that no one be frightened away from the faith by unjust vexations on the part of others." (Ad Gentes, No. 13). And Dignitatis Humanae, No. 10 teaches that: "It is one of the major tenets of Catholic doctrine that man's response to God in faith must be free: no one therefore is to be forced to embrace the Christian faith against his own will. This doctrine is contained in the word of God and it was constantly proclaimed by the Fathers of the Church. The act of faith is of its very nature a free act. Man, redeemed by Christ the Savior and through Christ Jesus called to be God's adopted son, cannot give his adherence to God revealing Himself unless, under the drawing of the Father, he offers to God the reasonable and free submission of faith. It is therefore completely in accord with the nature of faith that in matters religious every manner of coercion on the part of men should be excluded. In consequence, the principle of religious freedom makes no small contribution to the creation of an environment in which men can without hindrance be invited to the Christian faith, embrace it of their own free will, and profess it effectively in their whole manner of life."

So Bridson is simply lying when he asserts that the Church attempts to push its faith "down the throats of the rest of society."  Separation of church and state does not mean separation of religious belief from the state.  Believers have the same rights as other citizens to engage in political discourse.  Even someone with Bridson's limited intellectual capacity should be able to understand that.

But Bridson is an anti-Catholic ideologue.  He wants the Catholic Church removed entirely from the public square.  He writes, "Enough is enough! It is time to stop allowing this ancient and ignorant group to meddle in public affairs. The hypocrites! They bitch about public policy but have no problem taking public money. Ignorant and Intolerant! They have nothing to justify their beliefs, including their beliefs about such things as homosexuality (except for a book of ancient ignorance and hatred), but expect these beliefs to dictate how we all live our lives and how we all choose to think about things."

And then he concludes his hate-diatribe by sending a message to the Catholic Church:

"To the catholic church and its SS-esque Minions: The only people who prefer your ideologies and assorted plans for society are other catholics. No one else wants or needs your ridiculous and lie-filled dogma. Keep it to yourselves…because we are not going to take your nonsense any longer. We will not allow our rights and privileges be sacrificed because you would prefer that they were.

So catholic church: shut up or get the hell out!"  (Article may be found here).

There you have it.  For Brian Bridson, Catholics around the world - more than 1 billion people - are comparable to the Nazi SS and their Church should be banished from the public square.  The face of anti-Catholic bigotry.

What should be our attitude toward the Magisterial teaching of the Church?

In her most recent blog post, Stacy Trasancos, a Catholic writer who contributes a regular column for The Catholic Free Press, writes, "One thing I learned very quickly about Catholicism was that Catholics argue a lot. I wanted to be faithful to the Magisterium but I was often confused about the details. If I listened to this argument from a trusted theologian, and learned it, then I thought I was being sufficiently faithful. I thought, naively, that theologians all learned the same things, kind of like mathematicians, and they just taught it. I even began a Masters degree in theology with that purpose in mind — I want to be able to communicate the faith better.

Then I began to encounter opposing theological arguments, and that left me confused. Who is right? 'Wait! I thought we all just learned the catechism and spread the word.' It’s not so simple. Theologians, laity all the way to the Pope, often disagree. Church Councils dealt with disagreements. There have always been disagreements, even among the Apostles. Over time I realized something really quite profound. Catholics, unified though we are, are also supposed to challenge each other, and in doing so they aid in the maturation of our understanding of revealed truth. In this way we aid the Magisterium, remaining in service to this authority, not in opposition to it. We grow together." (See here).

What of this?  May a Catholic disagree with [dissent from] the Magisterial teaching of the Church?  Is there such a thing as "faithful dissent"?  In a word, no.  In its 1990 Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith addressed this matter in detail and, in so doing, provided us with a helpful commentary on the nature of what Vatican II (Lumen Gentium, No. 25) refers to as "religious submission of soul" or of "will and mind" which all of the faithful - including theologians - must give to authoritative Magisterial teachings, even when they are proposed noninfallibly.

First of all, let's see what Lumen Gentium of the Second Vatican Council had to say:


"Among the principal duties of bishops the preaching of the Gospel occupies an eminent place. For bishops are preachers of the faith, who lead new disciples to Christ, and they are authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach to the people committed to them the faith they must believe and put into practice, and by the light of the Holy Spirit illustrate that faith. They bring forth from the treasury of Revelation new things and old, making it bear fruit and vigilantly warding off any errors that threaten their flock. Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking."


Getting back to the CDF's Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian, the document clearly differentiates, in No. 24, between questioning and dissent [or disagreement] by ephasizing that "the willingness to submit loyally to the teachings of the Magisterium...must be the rule" when questioning Magisterial teachings.  Any questioning of Magisterial teachings by the theologian must take place within the context of the religious submission of mind and will which is owed to the more-than-human authority within the Church.  What do we mean by "more-than-human-authority"?  Read the second sentence of Lumen Gentium 25 above: "For bishops are preachers of the faith, who lead new disciples to Christ, and they are authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ.."

The CDF Instruction goes on to clearly repudiate the false claim that dissent is somehow reconcilable with Church teaching.  In his Encyclical Letter Veritatis Splendor, No. 113, Pope John Paul II emphasizes that, "dissent, in the form of carefully orchestrated protests and polemics carried on in the media, is opposed to ecclesial communion and to a correct understanding of the hierarchical constitution of the People of God."

May Catholics challenge the Magisterium by disagreeing with it?  Not if they wish to remain in communion with the Church.  It is important to recall the teaching of Dei Verbum of the Second Vatican Council: "..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. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed."


The issue here is: Who speaks for the Church?  Who has the authority from Christ Jesus to settle disputes which may arise within the Church?  The answer is that is that this authority is vested exclusively in the Pope and the Bishops in communion with the Holy Father.  The Church is Mater et Magistra (the title of an Encyclical Letter of Pope John XXIII), Mother and Teacher.  The Magisterium alone has been entrusted with the task of authentically interpreting the Word of God, whether found in Sacred Scripture or Tradition.

This post should not be interpreted as a criticism of Stacy Trasancos' person.  She comes across as a delightful young lady who is bright and personable.  She has so much good to offer.  It is offered only in the service of truth and charity.

Code of Canon Law:

Canon 750 – § 1. Those things are to be believed by divine and catholic faith which are contained in the word of God as it has been written or handed down by tradition, that is, in the single deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and which are at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn Magisterium of the Church, or by its ordinary and universal Magisterium, which in fact is manifested by the common adherence of Christ’s faithful under the guidance of the sacred Magisterium. All are therefore bound to avoid any contrary doctrines.


§ 2. Furthermore, each and everything set forth definitively by the Magisterium of the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals must be firmly accepted and held; namely, those things required for the holy keeping and faithful exposition of the deposit of faith; therefore, anyone who rejects propositions which are to be held definitively sets himself against the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Related reading on the sensus fidelium here.

Catholics should not donate monies to CCHD. For to do so would constitute formal cooperation in an immoral project

In a letter to Mr. Paul Rondeau, the Executive Director of American Life League, Dr. William Marshner, a moral theologian who teaches at Christendom College, explains why Catholics should refrain from donating monies to the "Catholic" Campaign for Human Development (CCHD).  He writes, "..the funding of an organization is formal cooperation in what it regularly does.  But in Catholic moral theology, it is never licit to cooperate formally in an immoral project." (See here).

And, in the same letter, Dr. Marshner, referring to the report on CCHD's development grants for the fiscal year 2010-2011 prepared by Reform CCHD Now, writes, "Your Report has documented at least 11 cases which, in my judgment, are cases in which prima facie the grantee has done or promoted an immoral activity.


These cases are:

Centro Campesino (granted $35 K), which distributes condoms, as CCHD now admits; it claims to have defunded the group, but evidence for this correct decision is not yet forthcoming; the bishops are owed an explanation of what exactly has been done;

Somos un Pueblo Unido (granted $45 K), which trains immigrant women to advocate “reproductive justice” (i.e. contraception and abortion) and which took from other sources at least two grants to do so; CCHD has yet to explain its lack of response to this information;

NY City AIDS Housing Network (granted $30 K) which is listed on an NYC government website as a place to get condoms; CCHD has yet to explain its lack of response;

Southwest Organizing Project (granted $ 45 K); which is involved in the Elev8 sex-ed program, which distributes condoms and IUDs and refers for abortions at Marquette Middle School in Chicago; CCHD was informed of this problem by its own regional director, Mr. Ray Florez; to date, CCHD has explained neither its lack of response nor its termination of Mr. Florez;

Desis Rising Up and Moving (granted $ 35 K), which advocates and participates in groups advocating sexual “liberation” and abortion;

Michigan Interfaith Voice, A.K.A. Gamaliel of Michigan (granted $ 25 K), which has taken grants from the pro-abortion and pro-homosexual Arcus Foundation to advance Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual and Trans-sexual (LGBT) rights, which include a “right” to be legally “married”;

Michigan Organizing Project (granted $40 K), which has taken grants from the Arcus Foundation for the same purpose in 2007-2009 and in 2011;

Coalition LA (granted $45 K), which produced a voters’ guide favoring same-sex marriage and telling people to vote NO on the ballot-measure to repeal it; the issue here is not just how the state will treat homosexual persons but whether state law will abandon the meaning of the word ‘marriage’, contrary to Catholic doctrine;

Women’s Community Revitalization Project ($40 K), which sponsored a pro-abortion voter’s guide in Pennsyl-vania and took money from a feminist, pro-abortion organization called Women’s Way; CCHD was informed of this problem in 2009 but re-funded the group in 2010; since the bishops of PA have played an historic role in the pro-life cause, they are certainly owed a specific explanation of this payment to their declared enemy;

Philadelphia Unemployment Project (given $25 K), which, despite its good work toward issues of workers’ compensation, sponsored the same kind of pro-abortion voter’s guide; in a state as heavily Catholic and Democratic as Pennsylvania, it passes belief that the Church cannot find a pro-labor organization that keeps fully clear of the culture of death;

Restaurant Opportunities Center of NY (given $40 K), which produced “guidelines” telling businesses to make questionable accommodations to LGBT preferences, including permission to cross-dress during work-hours and to choose whichever lavatory suited the worker’s subjective preference.


In every one of these cases, the grantee has behaved in such a way that continued funding puts the Church in a position of formal cooperation (or in the apparent and proximate danger of formal cooperation) with moral evil."
 
Dr. Germain Grisez explains that formal cooperation in other's wrong acts is always wrong.  He writes, "Cooperation is formal in the following three kinds of cases: (i) one intends or one's purpose includes that another commit a sin; (ii) one shares the other's wrong intention, in the sense that the proposal one adopts - that is, precisely what one chooses to do - includes something (and perhaps everything) objectively wrong in the other's proposal; or (iii) one's proposal includes the other's successfully carrying out an objectively wrong choice.
 
In all these cases, one wills moral evil; thus, formal cooperation of all three kinds is always wrong.  It occurs in the first way, for example, when a misguided counselor encourages a person to commit embarassing sins, imagining that this will lead to his or her spiritual growth; in the second way, when a nurse who favors abortion volunteers her service in an abortion clinic, in order to help women seeking abortions to get them; in the third way, when an inspector takes bribes to approve faulty construction, wishing the fraud to succeed so that the bribery will not be exposed.
 
Formal cooperation with others' sinful acts can be by means of an omission.  For instance, a police officer who ignores criminal activities in order to obtain a percentage of the proceeds intends the success of the criminal act; thus, he or she formally cooperates with them by omitting the police work that would impede them."
 

Catholic priests who are faithful to the Church's teaching and who have a genuine love for souls will not ask the faithful entrusted to their care to donate monies to the "Catholic" Campaign for Human Development.  To do so is to ask faithful Catholics to formally cooperate in an immoral project.