Sorry Francis, moral goodness reflects and glorifies God more than any achievement whatsoever...

Once again Francis is taking a swipe at Faithful Catholics who adhere to sound doctrine and who understand that the teaching of the Living God is immutable.

Religion News Service reports:

"Pope Francis is calling for ordinary Catholics to live holy lives in whatever they do, stressing that the 'saints next door' are more pleasing to God than religious elites who insist on perfect adherence to rules and doctrine."

Really?

As Dr. Dietrich von Hildebrand has reminded us:


"The attempt to make man the absolute center of the universe has in reality led to a progressive blindness toward the true nature of his dignity. The attempt to make a god out of man ended in making of him a more highly developed ape. The idolatry of great achievements shares the same fate...

When confronting the worship of great achievements, it is imperative to recall man's primary vocation. Great as is the range of values which man is capable of realizing, moral values hold a unique position in man's life. They alone are indispensable for every human being, whatever his special gifts and talents may be. They alone belong to the unum necessarium. Man is called above all to glorify God by his justice, his purity, his veracity, his goodness. 'Be you perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect.' (Mt. 5:48). Moral disvalues are an incomparable evil; they alone offend God; moral goodness reflects and glorifies God more than any achievement whatsoever....Compared with this vocation, the noblest talents and the creation of the greatest impersonal goods are secondary. Progress in the domination of nature, inventions, great achievements in science, cultural activities, and even the creation of masterpieces in art - great as they are in themselves, much as they manifest man's greatness - do not constitute man's primary vocation. No excellence in these fields can be compared at all with the value embodied in a saint." (Dr. Dietrich von Hildebrand, The New Tower of Babel, pp. 181-182, Sophia Institute Press).


Archbishop Sheen once noted that, "Christian love bears evil, but it does not tolerate it. It is not broad-minded about sin."

The great Archbishop also made an important distinction: "Tolerance applies to the erring, intolerance to the error."  And again: "Tolerance does not apply to truth or principles. About these things we must be intolerant."

What Francis rails against, referring to as "rigidity" as "sickness," is authentic Christian love, as defined by 1822 of the Catechism.

Before labeling others as sick, Francis should reflect prayerfully on the fact that his one-time Superior General in the Jesuits referred to him as a "sociopath."  See here.

Bishop Mitchell Rozanski: More concerned with one attack against a mosque than 174 attacks perpetrated by Islamic extremists

Once again, Bishop Mitchell T. Rozanski and members of the USCCB are revealing just how out of touch they are with reality.

Bishop Rozanski has been strangely quiet with regard to the daily carnage perpetrated by violent Islamic extremists, but on his Facebook Page he is denouncing the London Mosque attack:

But, as documented here:

Got that?  During Ramadan, extremists who operate in the name of a cult which is a manifestation of Antichrist murdered 1,595 people and injured 1,960 others.

But Bishop Rozanski and his liberal confreres are more concerned with the one attack on a London Mosque which resulted in one death and which was carried out by a lone individual who was intoxicated and who suffers from mental health issues.

Isn't it gratifying to know that Bishop Rozanski possesses such  a firm grasp on reality as well as the ability to see the big picture?

Dear God, preserve us from "shepherds" such as this!

Related reading here.

Kim Davis: We must obey God rather than men

The New York Times reports: "Defying the Supreme Court and saying she was acting 'under God’s authority,' a county clerk in Kentucky denied marriage licenses to gay couples on Tuesday, less than a day after the court rejected her request for a delay.

A raucous scene unfolded shortly after 8 a.m. at the Rowan County Courthouse here as two same-sex couples walked into the county clerk’s office, followed by a throng of journalists and chanting protesters on both sides of the issue. One couple, David Ermold and David Moore, tried to engage the county clerk, Kim Davis, in a debate before the cameras, but as she had before, she turned them away, saying repeatedly that she would not issue licenses to any couples, gay or straight.

'Under whose authority?' Mr. Ermold asked.

'Under God’s authority,' Ms. Davis replied."

Pope John Paul II, in his Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae, reminded us that, "The passing of unjust laws often raises difficult problems of conscience for morally upright people with regard to the issue of cooperation,  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 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.' (Evangelium Vitae, No. 74).

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in its document entitled Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons, warns that even where homosexual unions have been legalized, "clear and emphatic opposition is a duty." (No. 5). This important document stresses that, "any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws" and even any "material cooperation on the level of their application" must be avoided. "In this area," states the document, "everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection."


Considerations makes it abundantly clear that, "The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behavior or to considerations of homosexual unions." (No. 11). In other words, there can be no doubt that all Catholics (as well as all those who profess to be Christian) have a moral duty to oppose the homosexual agenda.

I wonder if Pope Francis will raise his voice on this issue.  I won't be holding my breath.  But Kim Davis, standing with the truth of God's Holy Word, may be heard exclaiming as the Apostles did some 2,000 years ago when the will of mere mortal men came into opposition with the command of the Living God: “We must obey God rather than human beings!" (Acts 5:29).

What a shame that so few clerics appear to have such faith and courage.

Pope Francis' devotion to Mary is "more personal" than Saint John Paul II's was?

From CNS:

"Mother and son: Pope Francis shares personal, intimate devotion to Mary

From Easter to Pentecost — and especially during the Marian month of May — Catholics recite the 'Regina Coeli' prayer 'with the emotion of children who are happy because their mother is happy' that Jesus has risen from the dead, Pope Francis said.

Although his devotion to the Mother of God is profound, it is simple in many ways: Mary is a mother to every believer; Jesus would not leave his followers orphans.

While his connection to Mary clearly is a matter of heart and mind, it is also physical. Whenever Pope Francis passes a statue or icon of Mary, he kisses it or allows his hand to rest tenderly upon it.


Honoring the Mother of God, of course, is a solid part of Catholic tradition and a mainstay in the devotion and teaching of the popes. St. John Paul II’s motto, 'Totus Tuus' ('All yours'), and the large M on his coat of arms were just the most graphic elements of a devotion that led to a whole body of teaching about Mary, her role in Catholics’ faith life and the importance of praying the rosary.

Pope Francis would not have an argument with any of St. John Paul’s Marian piety or discourse.

But there are differences.

'The sense of Pope Francis’ devotion to Mary is a little more personal, more intimate' than St. John Paul’s was, said Redemptorist Father Sabatino Majorano, a professor at Rome’s Alphonsianum Institute. Pope Francis expresses 'that feeling that exists between a son and his mother, where I think Pope John Paul’s was more that of a subject and his queen.'

The difference, he believes, comes from their roots: Pope Francis’ Latin roots — not just in Argentina, but also from his Italian family — and St. John Paul’s Slavic, Polish culture."

Francis' devotion to Mary is "more personal" than SAINT POPE JOHN PAUL II THE GREAT?

Really?

Pope John Paul's approach to Mary was less personal and more akin to the relationship between a subject and his queen than a son and his mother?

Is this the same Pope John Paul II who wrote:

"After recalling the presence of Mary and the other women at the Lord's cross, St John relates: "When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, 'Woman, behold, your son!'. Then he said to the disciple, 'Behold, your mother!’" (Jn 19:26-27).

These particularly moving words are a "revelation scene": they reveal the deep sentiments of the dying Christ and contain a great wealth of meaning for Christian faith and spirituality. At the end of his earthly life, as he addressed his Mother and the disciple he loved, the crucified Messiah establishes a new relationship of love between Mary and Christians.

Interpreted at times as no more than an expression of Jesus' filial piety towards his Mother whom he entrusts for the future to his beloved disciple, these words go far beyond the contingent need to solve a family problem. In fact, attentive consideration of the text, confirmed by the interpretation of many Fathers and by common ecclesial opinion, presents us, in Jesus' twofold entrustment, with one of the most important events for understanding the Virgin's role in the economy of salvation.

Jesus completes his sacrifice by entrusting Mary to John

The words of the dying Jesus actually show that his first intention was not to entrust his Mother to John, but to entrust the disciple to Mary and to give her a new maternal role. Moreover, the epithet "woman", also used by Jesus at the wedding in Cana to lead Mary to a new dimension of her existence as Mother, shows how the Saviour's words are not the fruit of a simple sentiment of filial affection but are meant to be put at a higher level.

Although Jesus' death causes Mary deep sorrow, it does not in itself change her normal way of life: in fact, in departing from Nazareth to start his public life, Jesus had already left his Mother alone. Moreover, the presence at the Cross of her relative, Mary of Clopas, allows us to suppose that the Blessed Virgin was on good terms with her family and relatives, by whom she could have been welcomed after her Son's death.

Instead, Jesus' words acquire their most authentic meaning in the context of his saving mission. Spoken at the moment of the redemptive sacrifice, they draw their loftiest value precisely from this sublime circumstance. In fact, after Jesus' statements to his Mother, the Evangelist adds a significant clause: "Jesus, knowing that all was now finished...." (Jn 19:28), as if he wished to stress that he had brought his sacrifice to completion by entrusting his Mother to John, and in him to all men, whose Mother she becomes in the work of salvation.

3. The reality brought about by Jesus' words, that is, Mary's new motherhood in relation to the disciple, is a further sign of the great love that led Jesus to offer his life for all people. On Calvary this love is shown in the gift of a mother, his mother, who thus becomes our mother too.

We must remember that, according to tradition, it is John whom the Blessed Virgin in fact recognized as her son; but this privilege has been interpreted by Christians from the beginning as the sign of a spiritual generation in relation to all humanity.

The universal motherhood of Mary, the "Woman" of the wedding at Cana and of Calvary, recalls Eve, "mother of all living" (Gn 3:20). However, while the latter helped to bring sin into the world, the new Eve, Mary, co-operates in the saving event of Redemption. Thus in the Blessed Virgin the figure of "woman" is rehabilitated and her motherhood takes up the task of spreading the new life in Christ among men."

Astute Catholics will observe how everything Francis says and does is painted in such a light that he is made out to be "better than all previous popes." His devotion to Mary is "more personal" than one of the greatest pontiffs who has ever lived,  raised to the altars, a Pope who consecrated his whole being and ministry to the Immaculata; He draws "larger crowds" to the Vatican than Pope Benedict XVI; he prays three rosaries (he says) every day.

John Paul II prayed 10 hours a day.  But we didn't know that until the mystic died.  Unlike the self-promoting Francis, John Paul II took these words seriously:

“And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full.  But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you." (Matthew 6: 5-6).

Francis is always saying that he cannot abide with Pharisees and hypocrites. Shouldn't he take Our Lord's advice then?

Father Peter Carota: Traditional Catholic Love is greater than the Hate of Progressive Catholics

Traditional Catholic Love Is Greater Than The Hate Of Progressive Catholics

By Father Peter Carota 

During Lent we relived the evil actions of the religious authorities of Jesus’ time.  We read from the Bible of their planning and paying for the eradication of Jesus.
As soon as Jesus began His public ministry of forgiving sins, exorcising devils, healing the sick (especially on the Sabbath), and preaching, He evoked the hatred and jealousy of the Jewish Religious leaders (Scribes, Pharisees, Lawyers and Priest).  All His actions were works of love that only brought on Him their hatred.  I would say that there is a constant law even at work today.  That law is this; evil and hypocritical people will always hate good people who do good things.
The religious leaders at the time of Jesus were faithful to all the prescribed religious actions.  But in their hearts, they were far from God.  How else can you explain the beatings, spitting, scourging, ridicule, false accusations and the final infamous scandal of Jesus crucified naked on the cross.
Pontius Pilate tries to free Jesus from them.  He continually pronounced His innocence and knew that it was only out of jealousy that they hated Him.  He also had Him scourged, hoping that this torturous beating would quell their hatred and let Him live.  But nothing could stop the power of the evil in the Jewish Church at that time from taking their hatred out on Jesus.
But their hatred and secret actions to destroy the loving Jesus backfired on them.  Yes they were able to torture Him and killed Him, but Love had the last say over hate.  While Jesus was going through His excruciating death on the cross, He forgave them, out of love, the religious men, who should have loved Him and followed Him.
They used all their religious and political power to kill Jesus.  And they were very successful.  But after they had tortured Him to death, there was no other way to continue to take out their hatred and blood thirsty jealousy on Him.  They could do no more to the silent Lamb before the slaughter.
On Easter, the Love of Jesus triumphs over the hatred of the Jewish religious.  He can die no more.  He now reigns forever.
But as soon as Jesus was gone, they went after his disciples with the same hatred, jealousy, floggings, imprisonments and killing.  But after they tortured them and killed them, His disciples also shared in His resurrection and now reign with Him forever.
So, when we see so many religious leaders in the Church today who hate the 1800+ year old Latin Mass, (the Mass of all Ages), we should not be surprised.  It is exactly as it was at the time of Jesus.  And when we see so many Catholics hating the Holy Latin Mass, hating to kneeling to receive Jesus and hating priests who condemn sin and immodesty, we are only again seeing the exact same reaction of hatred and jealousy that Jesus evoked from the religious people of His time.  When we see so many Catholics behind the scenes trying to get rid of traditional priests and the Latin Mass, we should not be surprised at all.
But, as Jesus triumphed, by going through His passion and death, we also will triumph though all this persecution and hatred.  And just we need to remember how He triumphed.  It was by suffering with loved.  He forgave from the heart and He went on.
Jesus knew what His mission was.  He did not let the passion get in the way of Him completing His Father will.  He thirsted for the souls of sinners, and shed every drop of His blood, out of love for them, to save them.


Let us traditional Catholic remember that, like the Master we follow, we also will have to suffer.  Religious leaders and people of today, will continue to secretly work against us, behind the scenes, in parishes and chanceries.  We will have every form of obstacles imaginable put in our way.  But we will still stay faithful to our mission, at what ever price, to restore Jesus’ Church and to save of souls.  And in the end, love, truth and life will triumph.

Readers of this Blog know full well how I have been attacked, demonized and ostracized for standing up for the Magisterial Teaching of the Church and sound liturgy.  Only a couple of weeks ago, I objected to the carnival atmosphere at Saint Vincent de Paul Parish in Baldwinville, Massachusetts and the "pastor" there - Father Francis Roberge - accused me falsely of being threatening.  And because I have opposed so-called "gay marriage," women's ordination and New Age spirituality, I have been labeled "hateful."

I've said it before and I'll say it again: While it is true that everything must be done to help sinners, this cannot include helping them to sin or to remain in sin. Because of human frailty, every sinner deserves both pity and compassion. However, vice and sin must be excluded from this compassion. This because sin can never be the proper object of compassion. (Summa Theologica, II-II, q. 30, a.1, ad 1).

It is a false compassion which supplies the sinner with the means to remain attached to sin. Such 'compassion' provides an assistance (whether material or moral) which actually enables the sinner to remain firmly attached to his evil ways. By contrast, true compassion leads the sinner away from vice and back to virtue. As Thomas Aquinas explains:

"We love sinners out of charity, not so as to will what they will, or to rejoice in what gives them joy, but so as to make them will what we will, and rejoice in what rejoices us. Hence it is written: 'They shall be turned to thee, and thou shalt not be turned to them.'" (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, II-II, q. 25, a.6, ad 4, citing Jeremiah 15:19).
St. Thomas Aquinas teaches us that the sentiment of compassion only becomes a virtue when it is guided by reason, since "it is essential to human virtue that the movements of the soul should be regulated by reason." (Summa Theologica, II-II, q. 30, c.3). Without such regulation, compassion is merely a passion. A false compassion is a compassion not regulated and tempered by reason and is, therefore, a potentially dangerous inclination. This because it is subject to favoring not only that which is good but also that which is evil (Summa Theologica, II-II, q. 30, a.1, ad 3).

An authentic compassion always stems from charity. True compassion is an effect of charity (Summa Theologica, II-II, q. 30, a.3, ad 3). But it must be remembered that the object of this virtue is God, whose love extends to His creatures. (Summa Theologica, II-II, q. 25, a.3). Therefore, the virtue of compassion seeks to bring God to the one who suffers so that he may thereby participate in the infinite love of God. As St. Augustine explains:

"'Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.' Now, you love yourself suitably when you love God better than yourself. What, then, you aim at in yourself you must aim at in your neighbor, namely, that he may love God with a perfect affection." (St. Augustine, Of the Morals of the Catholic Church, No. 49,
Let us remember this as we go forth to do battle against the Progressive Catholics who have been poisoned by the fire of Hell.

Charles Curran and the National Catholic Reporter: The Church should not be certain of her teaching

Upset that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has issued a notification criticizing Sister Margaret Farley's book on sexual ethics entitled "Just Love," Charles Curran, writing for the National Catholic Reporter online, complains, "There is a long list of Catholic moral theologians whose works on sexual ethics in a similar vein have been condemned or censured by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in the course of the last 40 years. Pope John Paul II wrote his 1993 encyclical, Vertiatis splendor, because of the discrepancy between the official teaching of the church on moral matters and the teaching of some moral theologians even in seminaries. According to the pope, the church is 'facing what is certainly a genuine crisis, which is no longer a matter of limited and occasional dissent, but of an overall and systematic calling into question of traditional moral doctrine.' All have to recognize there is such a real crisis in the church today. But the crisis is not just a crisis in moral theology; it involves a crisis in the church as a whole and in our very understanding of the Catholic church.."

Curran then argues that, "..the danger for authority in the Church is to claim too great a certitude for its teaching and proposals.."  See here.

It is most ironic that Curran chose to cite a passage from Pope John Paul II's Encyclical Letter Veritatis Splendor (The Splendor of Truth).  This because Pope John Paul II reminds his readers toward the conclusion of the first chapter of this Encyclical that the Church has been entrusted with a more-than-human authority.  John Paul says that this more-than-human authority "is apparent from the living tradition."  Then he confirms this by citing a key passage from Dei Verbum, the Second Vatican Council's Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, which says 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.  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.." (No. 10).

The Church has a more-than-human authority.  She has a divine commission to teach and guard what has been handed on, what has been received through Revelation.  And she accomplishes this task with "the help of the Holy Spirit."  So when Curran objects that, "the primary authority in the Church is the Holy Spirit, who speaks in very diverse ways," he is not being honest.  Jesus has invested in the Magisterium of His Church, the Holy Father and the Bishops united with him, the more-than-human authority to speak in His name on everything which pertains to faith and morals (Matthew 16: 17-19).  And this task of interpreting the word of God is carried out with the assistance of the Holy Spirit.  Yes the Holy Spirit speaks in very diverse ways.  But the task of authentically interpreting the word of God is not carried out in diverse ways.  It is carried out exclusively by the Church's teaching office.

Curran has his own crisis to deal with.  Influenced by our secular culture and its rejection of anything which has the character of coming from above, he has succumbed to a skepticism of authority.  In a Keynote Address entitled Good Shepherd: Living Christ's Own Pastoral Authority, which was delivered at the 10th Annual Symposium on the Spirituality and Identity of the Diocesan Priest on March 18, 2011, Bishop Samuel J. Aquila had some important things to say about the role of Bishops. His Excellency noted that:



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Take note of Bishop Aquila's warning to his brothers in the Episcopate: "If we do not exercise that authority [which Jesus has entrusted to the Church's Pastors], are hesitant to exercise it, or doubt it, then it only leads to the father of lies* taking hold of the minds and hearts of the faithful and their continuing to act in the ways of man and not the ways of God."

This is precisely what Curran wants.  He wants the Church's Pastors to doubt the authority and the teaching entrusted to them..  This is why he insists that "the danger for authority in the Church is to claim too great a certitude for its teaching."

Is Charles Curran serving Christ or the father of lies?

* John 8: 44.

Cardinal O'Malley, let's give more than just lip service to the importance of Holy Mass

In a November 20 pastoral letter on the importance of Sunday Mass, Cardinal Sean O'Malley urged people not to take the Mass for granted or to allow it to become a mere routine.  Excellent advice indeed.  But we must give more than lip service to the importance of the Holy Mass and the reverence with which we ought to assist at Holy Mass.  The Council of Trent, in its Decree Concerning the Celebration of Mass (Sess. xxii) had this to say: "If we must needs confess that no other work can be performed by the Faithful so holy and divine as this tremendous mystery...it is also sufficiently clear that all industry and diligence is to be applied to this end, that it be performed with the greatest possible inward cleanness and purity of heart and outward show of devotion and piety."

But this past summer the Archdiocese of Boston displayed a rather disturbing attitude toward the Holy Mass by allowing it to be used by those who engage in radical homosexual agitprop to advance the "gay agenda."  See here.  For too many Catholics today, the Holy Mass has become merely a "celebration of community" - a celebration of themselves.  Such people forget that it is the "mystery of Christ that the Church proclaims and celebrates in her liturgy so that the faithful may live from it and bear witness to it in the world: For it is in the liturgy, especially in the divine sacrifice of the Eucharist, that 'the work of our redemption is accomplished,' and it is through the liturgy especially that the faithful are enabled to express in their lives and manifest to others the mystery of Christ and the real nature of the true Church." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1068).

In his book Ceremonies of the Modern Roman Rite, Msgr. Peter J. Elliott notes that, "All worship ought to be centered on God.  Therefore, ceremonial must lead people to God, helping them to become those who worship Him 'in spirit and in truth' (John 4: 23, 24).  Ceremonial is a means, not an end in itself.  But, as an outward form, it is normally inseparable from the content of the sacraments.  In movements, gestures, sacred actions and signs, the religious language of the body must 'speak' reverently to God and of God, and thus give glory to Him...

Reverence in every gesture expresses the faith that is within us.  It proceeds from 'wonder and awe.'  Therefore reverence on the part of the celebrant should communicate to worshippers a sense of the sacred.  Through reverence we affirm that here in this place we are in the presence of God; that here we are involved in the supreme human act for which each of us was created - giving glory to our Creator and Redeemer; that here, as living cells in the Body of Christ, we are a 'holy people.'...By reverence we give glory to God and in turn share in His grace and glory." (p. 2).

It is no secret today that the enemies of the Church want to destroy belief in the divinity of Christ. For, as Fr. Vincent Miceli, S.J., explained, "Once the liturgy is humanized, Christ the Center and Object of it becomes the humanist par excellence, the liberator, the revolutionary, the Marxist ushering in the millenium; he ceases to be the Divine Redeemer. We must be alerted to those who plan, by convincing us to abandon our sacred forms, at length to seduce us into denying our Christian faith altogether. The Church is attacked by these Sons of Satan, in and outside her fold, because she is a living form, the sacrament - sign and instrument - of communion with God and of unity among all men; because she is the visible body of Religion. Hence these shrewd masters of sedition know that when her sacred forms go, religion will also go. Violate the lex orandi and you must inevitably destroy the lex credendi. That is why they rail against so many devotions as superstitions, why they propose so many alterations and changes, a tactic cleverly calculated to shake the foundations of faith...."


The Devil hates the Eucharist and never ceases to attack Our Eucharistic Lord. He uses variations on gnosticism, symbolism and modernism to attack the authentic teaching of the Magisterium on the Holy Eucharist. As the spiritual war continues to escalate all around us, Satan's attacks against the Eucharist will multiply. There will even be physical manifestations of this hatred. These attacks will intensify and reach a crescendo with the Man of Sin. St. Alphonsus de Liguori, Doctor of the Church, explains that: "The devil has always managed to get rid of the Mass by means of the heretics, making them precursors of the Antichrist who, above all else, will manage to abolish, and in fact will succeed in abolishing, as a punishment for the sins of men, the Holy Sacrifice of the altar, precisely as Daniel had predicted." ("Le Messa e l'Officio Strapazzati" in Opere Ascetiche).

Archbishop Timothy Dolan: Scandal of abuse "nothing less than hideous..nauseating"

And I would add: largely the fruit of Marxist philosophy.  For Marx combined the dialectical method of Hegel with the evolutionary materialism of Feuerbach to create what he referred to as the scientific explanation of reality.  Fr. Vincent Miceli explains:

"Marx accepted Hegel's postulate that at the heart of reality works the principle of contradiction.  But, unlike Hegel, he claimed that the sole reality working itself into full self-consciousness is matter, not idea.  According to this scientific method there is only one reality - matter - evolving in a dialectic of metaphysical hostility, the blind forces of which develop into plant, animal and man.  Through a pepetual conflict of these forces and by a law of inexorable necessity man himself evolves from economic, political exploitative communities into the masses, the dictatorship of the proletariat, the Marxist state and achieves his final synthesis in the classless society...

In maintaining that matter is blind and exists alone with evolutionary forces, that society is merely a higher, more complicated form of matter, formed ineluctably by the necessary laws of nature, Marxism degrades the intrinsic sociality of man.  It reduces man to being a mere external accretion added to matter by the determinism of the historical process.  Thus atheistic, anticreationistic, Marxism denies God as a transcendent, eternal body and soul.  It rejects the survival of the soul after death and the hope of eternal life.  Thus the whole world of spirits is swept away by its radical materialism."

What does this have to do with morality?

It was Engels who said that, "The old metaphysics ..accepted things as finished objects...this dialectical philosophy dissolves all conceptions of final, absolute truth and of absolute states of humanity corresponding to it.  For it [dialectical philosophy] nothing is final, absolute, sacred.  It reveals the transitory character of everything and in everything: nothing can endure before it except the uninterrupted process of becoming and of passing away, of endless ascendency from the lower to the higher.  And dialectical philosophy is nothing more than the mere reflection of this process in the thinking brain."

Marxist ethics, therefore, is a moral relativism.  It holds that nothing is final, absolute or sacred.  It holds that man himself is in a state of constant flux and therefore ethical values must also be in constant flux.  Which is why Lenin wrote, "In what sense do we repudiate ethics or morality?  In the sense that they were preached by the bourgeoisie, who declared that ethics were God's commandments.  We, of course, say that we do not believe in God...We repudiate all morality that is taken outside of human, class concepts...We say that our morality is entirely subordinated to the interests of the class struggle of the proletariat."

This Marxist ethics has infected certain segments of the Church.