It's time for the CDF to investigate the Worcester Diocese

In an article for The American Catholic which may be found here, The Motley Monk writes:


"It’s pretty easy to tell that the folks over at the National Catholic Reporter (NCR) aren’t happy campers these days. Some of their heroes fighting on the front lines for women’s ordination are being “disciplined.”
According to a recent NCR article:

A longtime peace and human rights activist arrested countless times, Franciscan Fr. Jerry Zawada has been removed from public ministry for concelebrating Mass with a woman priest in 2011.

Poor Fr. Zawada! After all he’s done over the decades to promote the cause of social justice. He’s been jailed numerous times and now at the age of 76, one would think the Vatican would overlook Fr. Zawada’s minor infelicity for merely concelebrating “Mass” with the Roman Catholic “WomanPriest,” the Rev. Ms. Janice Sevre-Duszynska.

The enemy in the NCR’s narrative is the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), which reviewed documentation related to the November 22, 2011 “Mass.” NCR obtained a copy of the CDF’s private letter which stated:

Having carefully examined the acts of the case, and the vota of the former Minister General and the Rev. Zawada’s Provincial Superior, this Dicastery has decided to impose on Rev. Jerome Zawada, OFM, a life of prayer and penance to be lived within the Queen of Peace Friary in Burlington, Wisconsin.

The letter also forbids Fr. Zawada from presenting himself in public as a priest or celebrating the sacraments publicly. However, Fr. Zawada is allowed to concelebrate Mass with other friars at the friary and in private.

Zawada isn’t too pleased. He told the NCR:

I don’t mind the prayer part, but when they called, when they say that I need to be spending time in penance, well, I’m not going to do penance for my convictions and the convictions of so many others, too.

Apparently, CDF isn’t going to wink and ignore any priest who concelebrates “Mass” with so-called “WomenPriests.”

• Strike #1 involved the former Maryknoll priest, Ray Bourgeois, who was excommunicated in November 2012 for doing so.
• Strike #2 involved the Jesuit priest, Bill Brennen, who was relieved of his priestly ministry in the Archdiocese of Milwaukee for concelebrating “Mass” with a “WomanPriest” one month later.
• Strike #3 is Fr. Zawada.

And that’s only the cases that the priests involved have made public.
“You’re out!” the umpire yells after a batter takes three strikes.
And, by the way, the baseball season opens today.
Perhaps those priests who support the cause for the ordination of women should place their money on the Chicago Cubs winning the World Series this year. Both have about an equal chance of happening anytime soon."


To read the NCR article, click on the following link:
http://ncronline.org/news/peace-justice/longtime-peace-activist-removed-ministry-after-concelebrating-mass-woman-priest

- See more at: http://the-american-catholic.com/2014/03/31/womenpriests-and-their-supporters-strike-three-and-youre-out/#sthash.bxKgcPW8.dpuf

For years I have fought dissent within the Worcester Diocese.  And part of that dissent has been the push for women's ordination.  Although my articles and letters to the editor of The "Catholic" Free Press have been regularly censored, Stacy Trasancos has been given space in that publication for a regular column.  This most likely because she has advanced the idea that women's ordination might be a possibility.  A while back I exposed how Trasancos had written: "We know that by the end of the first century the Roman Catholic Church was established and there can be little doubt that the cultural influences of that time and place affected the doctrine [that only men are called to the ministerial priesthood].  We do also know that the Church has evolved over time and that part of theology's goal is to communicate faith to changing cultures.  For these reasons, maybe the question of women in the priesthood will remain unsettled.  There isn't any hard logic to support the idea that the concrete forms of the ecclesiastical offices cannot be changed....Whether women should or will someday be priests, isn't for this single writer to say."

See here for my response.

Of course, because I have stood against such nonsense, I have been ostracized from this diocese.  But not dissidents such as Mary Donovan of the Worcester "Commission for Women."  Writing for The Catholic Free Press back in 1992, Ms. Donovan implied that women are not "active participants in the worship of God" and that women should be able to "dispute interpretation" of Church doctrine. In an article entitled "Save the women for the Church," she wrote: "Most of us on the Commission are diehards, women who decided long ago that women should have a place in the Church and that the Church needed women...What we want is simple.  We want to be considered active participants in the worship of God.  We want to move from the passive role where men study the Word of God, interpret it and relay the message to us.  We want to share the study, to discuss, refine, enlarge, enhance, dispute interpretation if necessary, and deliver the good news with equal stature and credibility.  We know that structure that exists today has no stairway for women that go to the top floor.  We know what problems exist in renovating..." (May 22, 1992 edition of The Catholic Free Press).

It's not renovation that Ms. Donovan stood for but wreckovation.  Her ideology was rooted in pride and falsehood.

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

While Mary Donovan and her cohorts were demanding women's ordination and the right to "dispute interpretation" of the Church's teaching, the Second Vatican Council had already taught authoritatively that, "...the task of authentically interpreting the Word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ." (Dei Verbum, No. 10).
Mary Donovan and other sophomoric souls throughout the Worcester Diocese have openly rejected the teaching of Vatican II and the perennial teaching of the Catholic Church, as exemplified in the post conciliar document entitled "The Ministerial Priesthood in the Light of the Mystery of Christ" that, "..we can never ignore the fact that Christ is a man.  Therefore, unless one is to disregard the importance of this symbolism for the economy of Revelation, it must be admitted that, in actions which demand the character of ordination and in which Christ Himself, the Author of the Covenant, the Bridegroom and Head of the Church, is represented, exercising His ministry of salvation - which is in the highest degree the case of the Eucharist - His role must be taken by a man."
But those who shout Non Serviam along with Lucifer will not be silent.  No amount of truth will produce the slightest crack in their wall of conviction.  The time has come to discipline them.  If necessary, with excommunication.

Such an anathema would amount to an expression of supreme charity.


Related reading here and here.

Stacy Trasancos and the sign of the cross...

Stacy Trasancos rightly observes that, "The sign of the cross is the sacramental seal that marks the forehead of those who belong to Christ" while noting that the early Church Fathers "knew the seal brings protection against demons." ("The gift of the 'sphragis,'" The Catholic Free Press, June 14, 2013 edition).

It is true that the sign of the cross "strengthens us in temptations and difficulties" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2157).  But this sacramental does not automatically bring protection against demons as some sort of ersatz magical wand against the diabolical.

Sacramentals are sacred signs, whether objects such as scapulars or medals or holy water, or actions such as the sign of the cross, whose effects are obtained by the prayer of the Church (Canon 1166).  Unlike the sacraments, which were instituted by Christ and which effect grace by virtue of themselves, sacramentals are instituted by the Church and impart grace according to the disposition of the recipients and the intercession of the Church.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches us that, "Sacramentals do not confer the grace of the Holy Spirit in the way that the sacraments do, but by the Church's prayer, they prepare us to receive grace and dispose us to cooperate with it.  'For well-disposed members of the faithful, the liturgy of the sacraments and sacramentals sanctifies almost every event of their lives with the divine grace which flows from the Paschal mystery of the Passion, Death, and Resurrection of Christ.  From this source all sacraments and sacramentals draw their power..'" (CCC, 1670, citing Sacrosanctum concilium, No. 61).

As Christians we are more than conquerors through the shed Blood of Jesus Christ (Romans 8: 37-39).  The Lord Jesus gives His people who are faithful to Him (are well-disposed) the power and authority over demonic forces.  But if one is not living an authentically Catholic life - avoiding mortal sin while making use of the sacraments of the Church (including the sacrament of reconciliation), daily prayer and Scripture reading, one can make the sign of the cross and it surely will not serve as a seal which brings protection against demons.

I knew a woman who made frequent use of the sign of the cross while serving as an Extraordinary Minister of the Eucharist at Saint Joseph's Parish in Gardner, Massachusetts.  Unfortunately, this woman also promoted abortion and pro-abortion politicians such as John Olver while engaging in sexual intercourse outside of marriage and making no secret of it.

Sacramentals are most helpful to us in the spiritual life if we are living an authentically Catholic life and are well-disposed to receiving grace from Christ and His Church.  Otherwise, we use them in vain.

The Diocese of Worcester, Constructive Criticism and New Age Spirituality

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


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

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

Pride goeth before a fall.

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

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

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

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

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

The darkness spreads.  The Man of Sin approaches.

Letter submitted to the Editor of The Catholic Free Press

To the Editor:




In his important work entitled The Devastated Vineyard, Dr. Dietrich von Hildebrand examines three false responses to the devastation within the Catholic Church while emphasizing that, "the most dangerous one would be to imagine that there is no devastation of the vineyard of the Lord" and that "our task as laymen is simply to adhere with complete loyalty to whatever our bishop says." Dr. von Hildebrand warns that, "the basis of this attitude is a false idea of loyalty to the hierarchy." (p. 246).



The Church's pastoral authority is not totalitarian. Her authority is subordinate to the theological virtues of faith and love, both of which redeem and perfect persons instead of merely subjecting them to a particular ideology. There are some who believe that the laith should never criticize a bishop because "it is impossible for a lay person to know all that goes into his decision-making process" and because "it just seems backwards to mistrust a man who authoritatively speaks in the name of Christ."



But a bishop only teaches authoritatively if he offers a teaching which conforms to that of the Church's Magisterium. And while the laity may not always be privy to all the factors that go into a bishop's decision-making process, they still are able to see the results of a particular decision and "have the right and even at times a duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church." (Canon 212).Dr. Germain Grisez reminds us, "That the Church is a communion of faith and love does not mean popes and other bishops may ignore the conditions necessary for the just use of authority in any human community. Like any community's leaders, the Church's pastoral leaders can make wise decisions only if they deliberate well. The other members of the community should contribute to their deliberation by responsibly expressing their opinions on matters concerning the Church's good."



Pope John Paul II said that there is room in the Church for constructive criticism. Sometimes such criticism must be directed toward a bishop. Especially when he sets himself against the Church's teaching or fails to protect the faithful entrusted to his care.



Paul Anthony Melanson


This letter may or not be published.  But many today, including sadly many Catholics, equate criticism with condemnation.  Dr. Montague Brown explains the difference between the two nicely: “Criticism is the honest appraisal of the value of ideas or actions…Pursued in the right spirit, it is a positive undertaking whose purpose is to gain an accurate understanding for the sake of growing in wisdom and virtue….Condemnation goes beyond evaluation of an idea or action to a declaration of the worthlessness of a human being. It is never fair and is a wholly negative judgment, referring only to weaknesses. Because condemnation is unreasonable, it serves no purpose in our quest for wisdom and virtue.” (The One-Minute Philosopher, pp. 28,29).



“We invite you to criticize our institutions without reserve. One is not insulted by being informed of something amiss, but rather gets an opportunity for amendment, if the information is taken in good part, without resentment.” – Plato, Laws, Bk. 1, 635a

We must offer women who have had an abortion hope and encouragement and avoid judging their internal guilt

It was St. Augustine, Father and Doctor of the Church, who said, "Interficere errorem, diligere errantem" - Kill the error, love the one who errs.  I have actually taken that as the motto for this Blog.  Gaudium et Spes of the Second Vatican Council put it this way: "..it is necessary to distinguish between error, which always merits repudiation, and the person in error, who never loses the dignity of being a person even when he is flawed by false or inadequate religious notions. God alone is the judge and searcher of hearts, for that reason He forbids us to make judgments about the internal guilt of anyone." (No. 28).

This teaching isn't always understood by some.  In an article on abortion which may be found at LifeSiteNews, Stacy Trasancos, who writes a column for The Catholic Free Press, writes, "It's a faulty question to ask whether or not a woman suffers mental anguish after she kills her own child.  Of course she does, a woman with her sanity and dignity intact doesn't do that in the first place....a woman  who kills her child in the womb is suffering mentally and will suffer mentally afterwards.  Something is terribly wrong in her soul and in her life." See here.

But here we encounter an immediate problem.  To say that there is something "terribly wrong" in the soul of a woman who has had an abortion and that her sanity and dignity are not intact is to make a judgment about her internal guilt and her motives.  The very thing which the teaching of the Church forbids.


Pope John Paul II, in his wonderful Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae, explains that many factors influence the decision which a woman makes when she is burdened with an untimely pregnancy.  He writes, "As well as the mother, there are often other people too who decide upon the death of the child in the womb. In the first place, the father of the child may be to blame, not only when he directly pressures the woman to have an abortion, but also when he indirectly encourages such a decision on her part by leaving her alone to face the problems of pregnancy...Nor can one overlook the pressures which sometimes come from the wider family circle and from friends. Sometimes the woman is subjected to such strong pressure that she feels psychologically forced to have an abortion: certainly in this case the moral responsibility lies particularly with those who have directly or indirectly obliged her to have an abortion. (EV, No. 59)

The Holy Father also places responsibility for the tragedy of abortion on, "doctors and nurses...when they place at the service of death skills which were acquired for promotion of life," and on "legislators who have promoted and approved abortion laws," and, "to the extent that they have a say in the matter, on the administrators of the health-care centers were abortions are performed” (EV, No. 59).

It is always a tragedy when a woman makes the decision to have an abortion.  But this decision to have an abortion is made in the context of multiple personal and societal pressures in what Pope John Paul II so aptly termed the "culture of death." Although the responsibility for the abortion decision is not entirely, nor perhaps even primarily hers, she must bear its burdensome consequences almost entirely alone for the rest of her life. So perhaps it's best to avoid questioning her sanity and dignity?

Perhaps instead, we should follow the lead of Pope John Paul II, whose pastoral outreach to women who have had an abortion is a model of tenderness and compassion [rightly understood] as well as being hopeful:

"I would like to say a special word to women who have had an abortion. The Church is aware of the many factors which may have influenced your decision, and she does not doubt that in many cases I was a painful and even shattering decision. The wound in your heart may not yet have healed. Certainly what happened was and remains terribly wrong. But do not give in to discouragement and do not lose hope. Try rather to understand what happened and face it honestly. If you have not already done so, give yourselves over with humility and trust to repentance. The Father of mercies is ready to give you his forgiveness and his peace in the Sacrament of Reconciliation." (EV, No. 99).

Notice how the Holy Father does not condone sin or error?  He rightly stresses that an abortion is, objectively speaking, a grave wrong even as he offers hope and encouragement by reminding women who have had an abortion that forgiveness and peace may be theirs in the Sacrament of Reconciliation. 

One would think that Stacy Trasancos would understand this better than most.  For she has herself admitted, at the website Catholic Online, that she got pregnant in college, has had an abortion, that she's taken drugs and worked as a stripper, that she's been divorced, and that her seven children are from three different men.

The same Good God Who forgave Stacy her sins offers His Mercy to every woman who has had an abortion.  Perhaps instead of questioning the souls of such women or their dignity and sanity, Stacy could follow Pope John Paul II's lead?  As should we all.

Kill the error, love the one who errs.  Hate the sin, love the sinner.

Catholic Free Press columnists and falsity...

Falsity is the heart of immorality.  And the Diocese of Worcester, Massachusetts has been crippled for years by the spirit of falsity.  In a previous post, I said that: "Any priest who convinces those entrusted to his care to rationalize sin is no lover of souls but is instead an enemy of souls. When a person is encouraged to rationalize what is known to be wicked in the sight of the Lord, that person opens a chasm between themselves and God which continues to grow wider and wider until they can no longer hear His call and discern the word of truth that He has spoken."


Recently, I received an anonymous comment accusing me [falsely] of "slandering" a couple of columnists who have been featured in The Catholic Free Press.  This because I exposed their errors.  I usually don't respond to anonymous comments [anyone who refuses to use their real name when making an accusation isn't really worth the time after all], but I do so here to once again highlight the spirit of dishonesty which has infected the Worcester Diocese like a cancer.  Calumny, as defined by the Catechism of the Catholic Church [something this confused soul should spend some time with],  consists of "remarks contrary to the truth" which results in harm to "the reputation of others" while giving "occasion for false judgments concerning them." (CCC, 2477).

Now the two columnists which I am supposed to have "slandered" are Father John Catoir and Stacy Trasancos.  The first, as noted here, is promoting what amounts to subjectivist conscience.  And, as Dr. Germain Grisez tells us: "The sin of deliberate nonassent is committed by those who rationalize their failure to assent as following their 'conscience,' using the word in a subjectivist sense.  Conscience truly so-called is formed by moral truth, which can be known with certitude by the help of the Church's teaching.  'Conscience' in a subjectivist sense refers to one's own opinions and preferences, treated as more authoritative than any practical truth or requirement originating beyond oneself.  But to treat one's own opinions and preferences as more authoritative than the Church's teaching is deliberate refusal to give that teaching the assent it deserves; and this refusal is only rationalized, not justified, by saying: 'My conscience tells me it is right for me to do X, so it is right for me, no matter what the Pope says!'"

In his Encyclical Letter Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul VI teaches clearly that spouses, "are not free to do as they like in the service of transmitting life, on the supposition that it is lawful for them to decide independently of other considerations what is the right course to follow.  On the contrary, they are bound to ensure that what they do corresponds to the will of God the Creator."  What is this if not a complete rejection of subjectivist conscience?

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in its Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian, explains that, "..argumentation appealing to the obligation to follow one's own conscience cannot legitimate dissent.  This is true, first of all, because conscience illumines the practical judgment about a decision to make, while here we are concerned with the truth of a doctrinal pronouncement.  This is furthermore the case because while the theologian, like every believer, must follow his conscience, he is also obliged to form it.  Conscience is not an independent and infallible faculty.  It is an act of moral judgment regarding a responsible choice.  A right conscience is one duly illumined by faith and by the objective moral law and it presupposes, as well, the uprightness of the will in the pursuit of the true good."

So much for Fr. Catoir, purveyor of a subjectivist conscience.  The second, Stacy Trasancos, I dealt with here.  I wrote, "In a Blog post on the subject of women's ordination, Mrs. Trasancos writes, "We know that by the end of the first century the Roman Catholic Church was established and there can be little doubt that the cultural influences of that time and place affected the doctrine [that only men are called to the ministerial priesthood]. We do also know that the Church has evolved over time and that part of theology's goal is to communicate faith to changing cultures. For these reasons, maybe the question of women in the priesthood will remain unsettled. There isn't any hard logic to support the idea that the concrete forms of the ecclesiastical offices cannot be changed....Whether women should or will someday be priests, isn't for this single writer to say." (See here).

I appealed to the CDF's document Inter Insigniores to refute Trasancos' falsehood [that the Church's doctrine was affected by cultural influences] as well as her assertion (via a quotation she cites) that there isn't any "hard logic to support the idea that the concrete forms of the ecclesiastical offices cannot be changed."  And then I cited Pope John Paul II in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, No. 4: "..in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful."

When one sets oneself against a teaching of the Church which must be held definitively, one sets oneself against the teaching of the Church.  This truth is made clear in Canon 750 of the Code of Canon Law.  Archbishop J. Francis Stafford of Denver has said [correctly] that the issue of women's ordination has been explored exhaustively, and now "it is time to move on...The Church's teaching is definitive, and has been set forth infallibly by formal declaration. It will not and cannot change. Therefore, for those who see with the eyes of faith, the matter is resolved"

For Trasancos to suggest that the matter isn't necessarily resolved is dishonest. 

I'll say it again: falsity is the heart of immorality.

Catholic Free Press columnist Stacy Trasancos: Faithful to the Magisterium?

In a previous post, I noted how Catholic Free Press columnist Stacy Trasancos implied in a Blog post that the faithful can challenge the Church's Magisterial teaching.  Mrs. Trasancos became very angry and left a comment here in which she said, "My attitude toward the Magisterial teaching of the Church is one of complete assent."  I was prepared to take her at her word even though her post seemed to imply that the faithful can indeed challenge the Magisterium.

Now I really have my doubts about Stacy Trasancos' fidelity to the Church's teaching.  In a Blog post on the subject of women's ordination, Mrs. Trasancos writes, "We know that by the end of the first century the Roman Catholic Church was established and there can be little doubt that the cultural influences of that time and place affected the doctrine [that only men are called to the ministerial priesthood].  We do also know that the Church has evolved over time and that part of theology's goal is to communicate faith to changing cultures.  For these reasons, maybe the question of women in the priesthood will remain unsettled.  There isn't any hard logic to support the idea that the concrete forms of the ecclesiastical offices cannot be changed....Whether women should or will someday be priests, isn't for this single writer to say." (See here).

The Church's doctrine was affected by cultural influences?  Really?  The Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in its Declaration on the Question of the Admission of Women to the Ministerial Priesthood (Inter Insigniores), which was approved for publication by Pope Paul VI on October 15, 1976, refutes this asinine thesis: "Jesus Christ did not call any woman to become part of the Twelve. If he acted in this way, it was not in order to conform to the customs of his time, for his attitude towards women was quite different from that of his milieu, and he deliberately and courageously broke with it.


For example, to the great astonishment of his own disciples, Jesus converses publicly with the Samaritan woman (cf. Jn 4:27); he takes no notice of the state of legal impurity of the woman who had suffered from hemorrhages (cf. Mt 9:20-22), he allows a sinful woman to approach him in the house of Simon the Pharisee (cf. Lk 7:37 ff); and by pardoning the woman taken in adultery, he means to show that one must not be more severe towards the fault of a woman than that of a man (cf. Jn 8:11). He does not hesitate to depart from the Mosaic Law in order to affirm the equality of the rights and duties of men and women with regard to the marriage bond (cf. Mk 10:2-11; Mt 19:3-9).

In his itinerant ministry Jesus was accompanied not only by the Twelve but also by a group of women: "Mary, surnamed the Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out, Joanna the wife of Herod's steward Chuza, Susanna and several others who provided for them out of their own resources" (Lk 8:2-3). Contrary to the Jewish mentality, which did not accord great value to the testimony of women, as Jewish law attests, it was nevertheless women who were the first to have the privilege of seeing the Risen Lord and it was they who were charged by Jesus to take the first paschal message to the Apostles themselves (cf. Mt 28:7-10; Lk 24:9-10; Jn 20:11-18), in order to prepare the latter to become the official witnesses to the Resurrection.

It is true that these facts do not make the matter immediately obvious. This is no surprise, for the questions that the Word of God brings before us go beyond the obvious. In order to reach the ultimate meaning of the mission of Jesus and the ultimate meaning of Scripture, a purely historical exegesis of the texts cannot suffice. But it must be recognized that we have here a number or convergent indications that make all the more remarkable the fact that Jesus did not entrust the apostolic charge to women. Even his Mother, who was so closely associated with the mystery of her Son, and whose incomparable role is emphasized by the Gospels of Luke and John, was not invested with the apostolic ministry. This fact was to lead the Fathers to present her as the example or Christ's will in this domain; as Pope Innocent III repeated later, at the beginning of the 13th century, "Although the Blessed Virgin Mary surpassed in dignity and in excellence all the Apostles, nevertheless it was not to her but to them that the Lord entrusted the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven."

III - THE PRACTICE OF THE APOSTLES

The apostolic community remained faithful to the attitude of Jesus towards women. Although Mary occupied a privileged place in the little circle of those gathered in the Upper Room after the Lord's Ascension (cf. Acts 1:14), it was not she who was called to enter the College of the Twelve at the time of the election that resulted in the choice of Matthias: those who were put forward were two disciples whom the Gospels do not even mention.

On the day of Pentecost, the Holy Spirit filled them all, men and women (cf. Acts 2:1; 1-14), yet the proclamation of the fulfillment of the prophecies in Jesus was made only by "Peter and the Eleven" (Acts 2:14).

When they and Paul went beyond the confines of the Jewish world, the preaching of the Gospel and the Christian life in the Greco-Roman civilization impelled them to break with Mosaic practices, sometimes regretfully. They could therefore have envisaged conferring ordination on women, if they had not been convinced that their duty of fidelity to the Lord on this point. In the Hellenistic world, the cult of a number of pagan divinities was entrusted to priestesses. In fact, the Greeks did not share the ideas of the Jews: although their philosophers taught the inferiority of women, historians nevertheless emphasize the existence of a certain movement for the advancement of women during the Imperial period. In fact, we know from the book of the Acts and from the Letters of Saint Paul that certain women worked with the Apostles for the Gospel (cf. Rom 16:3-12; Phil 4:3). Saint Paul lists their names with gratitude in the final salutations of the Letters. Some of them often exercised an important influence on conversions: Priscilla, Lydia and others; especially Priscilla, who took it on herself to complete the instruction of Apollos (cf. Acts 18:26); Phoebe, in the service of the Church of Cenchreae (cf. Rom 16:1). All these facts manifest within the apostolic Church a considerable evolution vis-a-vis the customs of Judaism. Nevertheless, at no time was there a question of conferring ordination on these women.

In the Pauline Letters, exegetes of authority have noted a difference between two formulas used by the Apostle: he writes indiscriminately "my fellow workers" (Rom 16:3; Phil 4:2-3) when referring to men and women helping him in his apostolate in one way or another; but he reserves the title "God's fellow workers" (1 Cor 3:9; cf. 1 Thes 3:1) to Apollos, Timothy and himself, thus designated because they are directly set apart for the apostolic ministry and the preaching of the Word of God. In spite of the so important role played by women on the day of the Resurrection, their collaboration was not extended by Saint Paul to the official and public proclamation of the message, since this proclamation belongs exclusively to the apostolic mission."

The Church is viewed by the egalitarians as archaic because it will not go against the Lord Jesus and ordain women to the ministerial priesthood. Nothing could be further from the truth. It was Pope Pius XII who recalled that, "The Church has no power over the substance of the sacraments, that is to say, over what Christ the Lord, as the sources of Revelation bear witness, determined should be maintained in the sacramental sign." (Apostolic Constitution Sacramentum Ordinis).


This is the teaching of the Council of Trent: "In the Church there has always existed this power, that in the administration of the sacraments, provided that their substance remains unaltered, she can lay down or modify what she considers more fitting either for the benefit of those who receive them or for respect towards those same sacraments, according to varying circumstances, times or places." (Council of Trent, Session 21, chap. 2: Denziger-Schonmetzer, Enchiridion Symbolorum 1728).

The practice of not ordaining women to the ministerial priesthood has a normative character. This norm is based upon the example of the Lord Jesus and has an unbroken tradition throughout the history of the Church. Which is why Pope John Paul II, in his Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, nos. 2-4, wrote: "In the Apostolic Letter Mulieris Dignitatem, I myself wrote in this regard: 'In calling only men as his Apostles, Christ acted in a completely free and sovereign manner. In doing so, he exercised the same freedom with which, in all his behavior, he emphasized the dignity and the vocation of women, without conforming to the prevailing customs and to the traditions sanctioned by the legislation of the time.'


In fact the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles attest that this call was made in accordance with God's eternal plan; Christ chose those whom he willed (cf. Mk 3:13-14; Jn 6:70), and he did so in union with the Father, "through the Holy Spirit" (Acts 1:2), after having spent the night in prayer (cf. Lk 6:12). Therefore, in granting admission to the ministerial priesthood, the Church has always acknowledged as a perennial norm her Lord's way of acting in choosing the twelve men whom he made the foundation of his Church (cf. Rv 21:14). These men did not in fact receive only a function which could thereafter be exercised by any member of the Church; rather they were specifically and intimately associated in the mission of the Incarnate Word himself (cf. Mt 10:1, 7-8; 28:16-20; Mk 3:13-16; 16:14-15). The Apostles did the same when they chose fellow workers who would succeed them in their ministry. Also included in this choice were those who, throughout the time of the Church, would carry on the Apostles' mission of representing Christ the Lord and Redeemer.

Furthermore, the fact that the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God and Mother of the Church, received neither the mission proper to the Apostles nor the ministerial priesthood clearly shows that the non-admission of women to priestly ordination cannot mean that women are of lesser dignity, nor can it be construed as discrimination against them. Rather, it is to be seen as the faithful observance of a plan to be ascribed to the wisdom of the Lord of the universe.

The presence and the role of women in the life and mission of the Church, although not linked to the ministerial priesthood, remain absolutely necessary and irreplaceable. As the Declaration Inter Insigniores points out, 'the Church desires that Christian women should become fully aware of the greatness of their mission: today their role is of capital importance both for the renewal and humanization of society and for the rediscovery by believers of the true face of the Church.'

The New Testament and the whole history of the Church give ample evidence of the presence in the Church of women, true disciples, witnesses to Christ in the family and in society, as well as in total consecration to the service of God and of the Gospel. 'By defending the dignity of women and their vocation, the Church has shown honor and gratitude for those women who-faithful to the Gospel-have shared in every age in the apostolic mission of the whole People of God. They are the holy martyrs, virgins and mothers of families, who bravely bore witness to their faith and passed on the Church's faith and tradition by bringing up their children in the spirit of the Gospel.'

Moreover, it is to the holiness of the faithful that the hierarchical structure of the Church is totally ordered. For this reason, the Declaration Inter Insigniores recalls: 'the only better gift, which can and must be desired, is love (cf. 1 Cor 12 and 13). The greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven are not the ministers but the saints.'

Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church's judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force.

Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful."

Got that?  The Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and this judgment is to be definitively held by all of the Church's faithful.  But Stacy Trasancos believes otherwise.  She insists that "maybe the question of women in the ministerial priesthood will remain unsettled."  Mrs. Trasancos believes she knows better than Christ's Vicar and treats women's ordination as something which might still be possible.  For her, there is no "hard logic" to support the idea that women cannot be ordained.

Not even the Holy Father's definitive judgment, made in virtue of his supreme teaching ministry is enough for her.

This is fidelity to the Magisterium?  God preserve us from such nonsense.  Small wonder the Catholic Free Press gave her a weekly column.  Small wonder my views are censored.  I fully adhere to, defend and propagate the teaching of the Magisterium. 

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.

Stacy Trasancos, homosexual activists and dialogue...

Earlier this year I posted on how an Ontario panel, organized by the University of Toronto's Institute for Studies in Education, discussed how to silence religious opposition to LGBT propaganda in schools.  See here.  Although there are, of course, homosexual persons who are people of good will, the homosexual movement itself is totalitarian in nature and seeks to impose its agenda on all.  Even if this means silencing religious opposition.

Most of those who advance the radical homosexual agenda are simply not interested in authentic dialogue.  See here for example.  Stacy Trasancos discovered this recently when she blogged on homosexual activity and received many insults and even threats directed against herself and her family.  Readers of this Blog know that I have been threatened repeatedly.  One homosexual activist called the Mothertown News to tell them that he was going to kill me with his high-powered rifle because I had written a piece for that paper explaining the magisterial teaching of the Church regarding homosexual acts.

In his Encyclical Letter Redemptoris Missio (The Mission of the Redeemer), Pope John Paul II said that, "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."


But while the Church respects freedom of conscience and shuns any form of coercion, our Holy Father reminds us that, "We are building a dictatorship of relativism that does not recognize anything as definitive and whose ultimate goal consists solely of one's own ego and desires.

We, however, have a different goal: the Son of God, the true man. He is the measure of true humanism. An "adult" faith is not a faith that follows the trends of fashion and the latest novelty; a mature adult faith is deeply rooted in friendship with Christ. It is this friendship that opens us up to all that is good and gives us a criterion by which to distinguish the true from the false, and deceit from truth."

This dictatorship of relativism seeks to impose its immoral agenda on Christians in the name of "tolerance." But this "tolerance" is a sham. It is simply an attempt to make an idol out of a false conception of freedom. Again, our Holy Father explains that, "..what clearly stands behind the modern era's radical demand for freedom is the promise: You will be like God...The implicit goal of all modern freedom movements is, in the end, to be like a god, dependent on nothing and nobody, with one's own freedom not restricted by anyone else's...The primeval error of such a radically developed desire for freedom lies in the idea of a divinity that is conceived as being purely egotistical. The god thus conceived of is, not God, but an idol, indeed, the image of what the Christian tradition would call the devil, the anti-god, because therein lies the radical opposite of the true God: the true God is, of his own nature, being-for (Father), being-from (Son), and being-with (Holy Spirit). Yet man is in the image of God precisely because the being-for , from, and with constitute the basic anthropological shape. Whenever people try to free themselves from this, they are moving, not toward divinity, but toward dehumanizing, toward the destruction of being itself through the destruction of truth. The Jacobin variant of the idea of liberation...is a rebellion against being human in itself, rebellion against truth, and that is why it leads people - as Sartre percipiently observed - into a self-contradictory existence that we call hell. It has thus become fairly clear that freedom is linked to a yardstick, the yardstick of reality - to truth*. Freedom to destroy oneself or to destroy others is not freedom but a diabolical parody. The freedom of man is a shared freedom, freedom in a coexistence of other freedoms, which are mutually limiting and thus mutually supportive: freedom must be measured according to what I am, what we are - otherwise it abolishes itself."

In the name of "tolerance," the New World Order seeks to impose its rebellion from truth on all. It will not tolerate any dissent, any disagreement. Coercion is an acceptable tool in a dictatorship. Soon, the New Order will use violence to achieve its goals and not just coercion and propaganda. In the end, every dictatorship must rely on violence in its vain attempt to hold onto power.

Already the signs are emerging.  Catholics who oppose homosexuality on religious and moral grounds are being demonized.  So too the teaching authority of the Catholic Church.  See here for example.  Before a dictatorship can resort to violence, it must first demonize the group it wants to suppress or eliminate.