Diocese of Charlotte in opposition to Vatican II and Canon Law

 As noted here:

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

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

____________________________________________

My commentary

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bishop Michael Martin considers himself wiser than Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI

The National Catholic Register is reporting that:

"Controversy in a North Carolina diocese has broadened beyond traditional Latin Mass restrictions after it was revealed that the local bishop had also planned to ban the use of Latin, altar rails, and other traditional practices in all diocesan liturgies — a development with implications far beyond the Tar Heel State.

Bishop Michael Martin of Charlotte proposed the restrictions in a leaked draft of new liturgical norms, which was first made public by the blog Rorate Caeli on May 28 and confirmed by the Register. Bishop Martin wrote that the purpose of the new norms, which also included barring ad orientem worship and traditional prayers at the foot of the altar, including the St. Michael Prayer, were made with the intention of “purifying and unifying the celebration of the Mass” in the diocese. 

The bishop also wrote that the proposed norms are called for by Sacrosanctum Concilium, the Second Vatican Council’s pastoral constitution on the liturgy, a perspective that has been widely challenged in reactions to the document."

Bishop Martin is either supremely ignorant on this matter or he is a contemptible liar. Readers of this Blog know full well that I do not sugar coat the facts. This in keeping with the teaching of Saint Francis de Sales that the wolf is always called the wolf.

Now with regard to the Bishop's nonsense:

In his Apostolic Letter Ecclesia Dei, Pope John Paul II said that, "Respect must everywhere be shown for the feelings of all those who are attached to the Latin liturgical tradition...for the use of the Roman Missal according to the 1962 edition."

And, in his book "Salt of the Earth," Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger said, "I am of the opinion, to be sure, that the old rite should be granted much more generously to all those who desire it. It's impossible to see what could be dangerous or unacceptable about that. A community is calling its very being into question when it suddenly declares that what until now was its holiest and highest possession is strictly forbidden and when it makes the longing for it seem downright indecent."

To be sure, Vatican II called for an extended use of the vernacular. But nowhere did Vatican II call for the Latin language to be abolished from the liturgy. And anyone who claims otherwise is either ignorant of the facts or a liar. The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy (Sacrosanctum Concilium) No. 36 states clearly that, "Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites."

Number 54 of this same Vatican II document teaches that, "In Masses which are celebrated with the people, a suitable place may be allotted to their mother tongue. This is to apply in the first place to the readings and "the common prayer," but also, as local conditions may warrant, to those parts which pertain to the people, according to the norm laid down in Art. 36 of this Constitution.

Nevertheless steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them."

This is the teaching of Vatican II and the mind of the Church on the use of Latin and the attitude Catholics should have toward those who are attached to the Latin liturgical tradition.

Perhaps instead of appealing to some vague bullshit "spirit of Vatican II," Bishop Martin should sit down and actually READ the Conciliar documents.

Is that really too much to ask? If the Bishop cannot do his one job, perhaps it's time for him to step down.

A prophecy being fulfilled before our very eyes

 Time and again, motivated by a spirit of evil, Francis has attacked the universal language of the Church.   

As noted here:

Francis lamented on the feast of Epiphany about those whose religion he said was self-referential and encased in a “suit of armour”, “Have we been stuck all too long, nestled inside a conventional, external and formal religiosity that no longer warms our hearts and changes our lives?”

And, “Do our words and our liturgies ignite in people's hearts a desire to move towards God, or are they a 'dead language' that speaks only of itself and to itself?”

Talking about his self-referential Synod on Synods, he said that the task is “to journey together, to listen to one another, so that the Spirit can suggest to us new ways and paths to bring the Gospel to hearts of those who indifferent, distant, and without hope.”

_______________________________________

Have you ever encountered a priest, Bishop or layman who impugned the Latin Mass? Is such an attitude even Catholic? In a word, no. In his Apostolic Letter Ecclesia Dei, Pope John Paul II said that, "Respect must everywhere be shown for the feelings of all those who are attached to the Latin liturgical tradition...for the use of the Roman Missal according to the 1962 edition."

And, in his book "Salt of the Earth," Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger said, "I am of the opinion, to be sure, that the old rite should be granted much more generously to all those who desire it. It's impossible to see what could be dangerous or unacceptable about that. A community is calling its very being into question when it suddenly declares that what until now was its holiest and highest possession is strictly forbidden and when it makes the longing for it seem downright indecent."

To be sure, Vatican II called for an extended use of the vernacular. But nowhere did Vatican II call for the Latin language to be abolished from the liturgy. And anyone who claims otherwise is either ignorant of the facts or a liar. The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy (Sacrosanctum Concilium) No. 36 states clearly that, "Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites."

Number 54 of this same Vatican II document teaches that, "In Masses which are celebrated with the people, a suitable place may be allotted to their mother tongue. This is to apply in the first place to the readings and "the common prayer," but also, as local conditions may warrant, to those parts which pertain to the people, according to the norm laid down in Art. 36 of this Constitution.

Nevertheless steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them."

This is the teaching of Vatican II and the mind of the Church on the use of Latin and the attitude Catholics should have toward those who are attached to the Latin liturgical tradition.

A prophecy given by Pope Pius XII is being fulfilled before our very eyes.  The Reign of Antichrist approaches. 

The Biden Administration wants to treat some parents as domestic terrorists

 

Parents expressing concerns over mask mandates or critical race theory are being labeled as "domestic terrorists" who pose a threat to public school teachers and administrators as well as school board members.   See here.

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

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

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

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

Nearly half of all Americans believe liberal media outlets manufacture fake news to discredit President Trump

The Washington Times is reporting that:

"Nearly half of all Americans believe media outlets fabricate negative stories about President Trump, according to a new survey.

Forty-four percent of respondents in the 2017 Poynter Media Trust Survey say the media invent 'fake news' to make the president look bad."

Vatican II, in its Decree on the Means of Social Communication (Inter Mirifica) had this to say:

"A special responsibility for the proper use of the means of social communication rests on journalists, writers, actors, designers, producers, exhibitors, distributors, operators, sellers, critics - all those, in a word, who are involved in the making and transmission of communications in any way whatever. It is clear that a very great responsibility rests on all of these people in today's world: they have power to direct mankind along a good path or an evil path by the information they impart and the pressure they exert.

It will be for them to regulate economic, political and artistic values in a way that will not conflict with the common good. To achieve this result more surely, they will do well to form professional organizations capable of imposing on their members-if necessary by a formal pledge to observe a moral code-a respect for the moral law in the problems they encounter and in their activities."

Most of the so-called "mainstream media" is informed by a radical leftist ideology.  Those who produce these media are more often than not guided not by objectivity but by a desire to manipulate public opinion through propaganda, which degrades both propagandist and the intended audience.

Related reading here.

"I vow to change nothing of the received Tradition..."

Pope St. Agatho (678-681)

Papal Coronation Oath, to be taken by all Roman pontiffs, showing that no
Roman pontiff has the authority to contradict the Deposit of Faith, or to
change or innovate upon what has been handed by to him by Sacred Tradition
and his predecessors:

        "I vow to change nothing of the received Tradition, and nothing
thereof I have found before me guarded by my God-pleasing predecessors,
to encroach upon, to alter, or to permit any innovation therein;

        "To the contrary:  with glowing affection as her truly faithful
student and successor, to safeguard reverently the passed-on good, with my
whole strength and utmost effort;

        "To cleanse all that is in contradiction to the canonical order,
should such appear;

        "To guard the Holy Canons and Decrees of our Popes as if they were
the Divine ordinances of Heaven, because I am conscious of Thee, whose place
I take through the Grace of God, whose Vicarship I possess with Thy support,
being subject to the severest accounting before Thy Divine Tribunal over all
that I shall confess;

        "I swear to God Almighty and the Savior Jesus Christ that I will
keep whatever has been revealed through Christ and His Successors and
whatever the first councils and my predecessors have defined and
declared.

        "I will keep without sacrifice to itself the discipline
and the rite of the Church.  I will put outside the Church whoever
dares to go against this oath, may it be somebody else or I.

        "If I should undertake to act in anything of contrary sense, or
should permit that it will be executed, Thou willst not be merciful to me on
the dreadful Day of Divine Justice.

     "Accordingly, without exclusion, We subject to severest
excommunication anyone -- be it ourselves or be it another -- who would dare
to undertake anything new in contradiction to this constituted evangelic
Tradition and the purity of the Orthodox Faith and the Christian Religion,
or
would seek to change anything by his opposing efforts, or would agree with
those who undertake such a blasphemous venture."  (Liber Diurnus Romanorum
Pontificum, Patrologia Latina
1005, S. 54)

Dei verbum, No. 10:

Sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, committed to the Church. Holding fast to this deposit the entire holy people united with their shepherds remain always steadfast in the teaching of the Apostles, in the common life, in the breaking of the bread and in prayers (see Acts 2, 42, Greek text), so that holding to, practicing and professing the heritage of the faith, it becomes on the part of the bishops and faithful a single common effort.

But 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.

Concerns regarding Francis, see here.

Confusion from Francis, see here.

Francis and contraception...

Voice of the Family reports:

"The circumstances surrounding the resignation of the Grand Master of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, and the appointment of a “papal delegate” to assist in the “renewal” of the order, raises further questions about the extent to which Pope Francis assents to the teaching of the Catholic Church on questions of sexual ethics. In this article we will revisit previous concerns regarding Pope Francis’s position on contraception, in the light of recent events.

At the heart of the crisis in the Order of Malta is the distribution of contraceptives and abortifacient drugs, over a number of years, by Malteser International (MI), the humanitarian arm of the order. Edward Pentin has provided details of MI’s programmes in his comprehensive article on the subject. An investigation by the Lepanto Institute provides further information about MI’s work promoting  condoms and abortifacient drugs worldwide. Amongst their findings the following facts stand out:

MI distributed 52, 190 condoms in Burma (Myanmar) in 2005 and 59,675 in 2006.
A World Health Organisation report from 2006, entitled Reproductive Health Stakeholder Analysis in Myanmar 2006 includes “family planning” among MI’s “areas of expertise”, “contraception” amongst its “activities” and “birth spacing” amongst its “future plans”. The report also reveals that MI provided oral contraceptives to 2,500 women in one Burmese township.
In 2007 MI received a four year grant of $1.7 million from the Three Disease Fund, for whom they distributed over 300,000 condoms in Burma.
In 2012 MI entered a partnership with Save the Children to carry out a joint project, for which they received $2.1 million from the Global Fund, to distribute yet more condoms in Burma during the period from 2013-2016.
Malteser International was headed throughout this period by Albrecht Freiherr von Boeselager. An internal investigation by the Order of Malta found that von Boeselager was ultimately responsible for the programmes that involved the distribution of condoms and abortifacient drugs.  His role at MI was one of the major factors that resulted in his dismissal from the role of Grand Chancellor by the Grand Master, Fra Matthew Festing, on 6 December 2016, after he twice refused to resign. Von Boeselager appealed to the Vatican. A commission was appointed to investigate his dismissal. Edward Pentin has provided extensive, and disturbing information, about the make-up of this commission, which seems to have consisted largely of von Boeselager’s friends and associates. The Sovereign Military Order of Malta, which is a sovereign entity, refused to accept the legitimacy of this interference into their internal affairs.

On 24 January 2017 Fra Matthew Festing was asked to resign by Pope Francis and acceded to this request. The following day Pietro Cardinal Parolin, Vatican Secretary of State, stated that Pope Francis was declaring null and void all Fra Festing’s acts since 6 December, thus nullifying the dismissal of von Boeselager. Fra Festing’s resignation was accepted by the Sovereign Council of the Order of Malta on 28 January and it was announced that von Boeselager was restored to his position as Grand Chancellor of the order.

In short, Pope Francis has restored to office a man ultimately responsible for the distribution of condoms and abortifacient drugs, while removing from the office the man who tried to ensure that Malteser International remained faithful to Catholic teaching."

Readers of this Blog know that The Guardian reported last year that, "In a departure from...Catholic teaching, Pope Francis suggests women exposed to the Zika virus could use artificial contraception.."

The article continued:

"Speaking to reporters on the papal plane as he returned to Rome after a visit to Mexico, Francis obliquely suggested that artificial contraception could be used in extreme situations to avoid pregnancy.

Unlike abortion, 'avoiding pregnancy is not an absolute evil' and in certain circumstances it maybe 'the lesser evil.'"

In the words of Fr. Hardon, "The grave sinfulness of contraception is taught infallibly by the Church's ordinary universal teaching authority [Magisterium]."

It is important for Catholics to understand [and to acknowledge] that the Magisterium can and does teach infallibly on matters of faith and morals in the ordinary day-to-day execution of its pastoral mission provided that some very specific conditions are fulfilled. The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church [Lumen Gentium] of the Second Vatican Council clearly described these conditions:

"Although the Bishops, taken individually, do not enjoy the privilege of infallibility, they do, however, proclaim the doctrine of Christ infallibly on the following conditions: namely, when, even though dispersed throughout the entire world but preserving for all that amongst themselves and with Peter's successor the bond of communion, in their authoritative teaching concerning matters of faith or morals, they are in agreement that a particular teaching is to be held definitively and absolutely." (LG, No. 25).

And what the Fathers of Vatican II add to this passage is also of critical importance:

"This is still more clearly the case when, assembled in an ecumenical council, they are, for the universal Church, teachers of and judges in matters of faith and morals, whose judgments must be adhered to with the loyal and obedient assent of faith."

And what do the Vatican II Fathers have to say about artificial contraception? In Gaudium et Spes, No. 51, we read:

"...when there is question of harmonizing conjugal love with the responsible transmission of life, the moral aspects of any procedure does not depend solely on sincere intentions or on an evaluation of motives, but must be determined by objective standards. These, based on the nature of the human person and his acts, preserve the full sense of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love. Such a goal cannot be achieved unless the virtue of conjugal chastity is sincerely practiced. Relying on these principles, sons of the Church may not undertake methods of birth control which are found blameworthy by the teaching authority of the Church in its unfolding of the divine law. "

Pope Francis has directly contradicted the infallible teaching of Pope Paul VI in his Encyclical Letter Humanae Vitae, No. 14:

"Similarly excluded is every action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible.

To justify conjugal acts made intentionally infecund, one cannot invoke as valid reasons the lesser evil, or the fact that such acts would constitute a whole together with the fecund acts already performed or to follow later, and hence would share in one and the same moral goodness. In truth, if it is sometimes licit to tolerate a lesser evil in order to avoid a greater evil or to promote a greater good, it is not licit, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil so that good may follow therefrom; that is, to make into the object of a positive act of the will something which is intrinsically disorder, and hence unworthy of the human person, even when the intention is to safeguard or promote individual, family or social well-being. Consequently it is an error to think that a conjugal act which is deliberately made infecund and so is intrinsically dishonest could be made honest and right by the ensemble of a fecund conjugal life."

The Vatican has become infested with the demonic.  Don Bosco's prophecy is being fulfilled before our very eyes.

Vatican II and Judge David Bunning's decision to jail Kim Davis

DECLARATION ON RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
DIGNITATIS HUMANAE
ON THE RIGHT OF THE PERSON AND OF COMMUNITIES
TO SOCIAL AND CIVIL FREEDOM IN MATTERS RELIGIOUS
PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS
POPE PAUL VI
ON DECEMBER 7, 1965


"A sense of the dignity of the human person has been impressing itself more and more deeply on the consciousness of contemporary man, and the demand is increasingly made that men should act on their own judgment, enjoying and making use of a responsible freedom, not driven by coercion but motivated by a sense of duty. The demand is likewise made that constitutional limits should be set to the powers of government, in order that there may be no encroachment on the rightful freedom of the person and of associations. This demand for freedom in human society chiefly regards the quest for the values proper to the human spirit. It regards, in the first place, the free exercise of religion in society. This Vatican Council takes careful note of these desires in the minds of men. It proposes to declare them to be greatly in accord with truth and justice. To this end, it searches into the sacred tradition and doctrine of the Church-the treasury out of which the Church continually brings forth new things that are in harmony with the things that are old.

First, the council professes its belief that God Himself has made known to mankind the way in which men are to serve Him, and thus be saved in Christ and come to blessedness. We believe that this one true religion subsists in the Catholic and Apostolic Church, to which the Lord Jesus committed the duty of spreading it abroad among all men. Thus He spoke to the Apostles: "Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have enjoined upon you" (Matt. 28: 19-20). On their part, all men are bound to seek the truth, especially in what concerns God and His Church, and to embrace the truth they come to know, and to hold fast to it.

This Vatican Council likewise professes its belief that it is upon the human conscience that these obligations fall and exert their binding force. The truth cannot impose itself except by virtue of its own truth, as it makes its entrance into the mind at once quietly and with power.

Religious freedom, in turn, which men demand as necessary to fulfill their duty to worship God, has to do with immunity from coercion in civil society. Therefore it leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ.

Over and above all this, the council intends to develop the doctrine of recent popes on the inviolable rights of the human person and the constitutional order of society.

This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.

The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself. This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right." (Nos. 1, 2).

Take action.  Sign the petition here.

Father Joseph Krupp on the role of Francis: Please pass the Kool-Aid

Father Joseph Krupp*, as noted here, does not always understand the pope, but he said he never questions his wisdom.

"If or when he says something that shakes what I am comfortable with, I believe it is my job to assume that I am wrong and take it to prayer," said Krupp of Manitou Beach...I believe it is his job to make me uncomfortable and get me to 'expand my tent pegs.’”

Father Krupp's comments are merely the tip of a very troubling iceberg.  There is a push to indoctrinate Catholics to accept the notion that the Pope's role is that of a cult leader: Whatever he says or does shouldn't even be questioned.  Therefore, if Francis assures us that homosexual "marriage" is compatible with God's Holy Word and Sacred Tradition, we should assume that we are wrong, take the matter to prayer, and give thanks that we have a Pontiff who is "expanding our tent pegs."

That this load of bovine scatology comes from a self-identified "traditional priest" is nothing less than amazing.  I am reminded of those public service ads exhorting teens to just say no to crack.

We have a Deposit of Faith which has been revealed by God and entrusted to a Custodian established by God Himself and endowed with infallible protection against change or error. As Dei Verbum, No. 10 of Vatican II states:

"..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.

It is clear, therefore, that sacred tradition, Sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God's most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls."

Understand?  This is the clear and unambiguous teaching of the Church. The Pope is not above the Word of God. It is his vocation to serve this Word, teaching ONLY WHAT HAS BEEN HANDED ON AND GUARDING THIS SACRED DEPOSIT FAITHFULLY.

The October Synod is almost upon us.  Last year, Francis asserted that the Church had one year to "mature." One can only shudder at what he meant by such an asinine comment.

Irregardless of what he meant, Father Krupp's position is untenable.  Hold to Tradition.  Persevere in the Faith of our Fathers.  Pray as never before.  For the Devil has entered the Church and is being assisted by ecclesiastical masonry with the goal of pulling down the Church from within.

* Traditional priest?  See here.

Pope Francis, isn't concern for the protection of nature incompatible with the justification of homosexual acts?

Pope Francis, in Laudato Si, insists that, “Since everything is interrelated, concern for the protection of nature is also incompatible with the justification of abortion.” And “How can we genuinely teach the importance of concern for other vulnerable beings, however troublesome or inconvenient they may be, if we fail to protect a human embryo, even when its presence is uncomfortable and creates difficulties?” See here.

And what of the homosexual question? Isn't it also true that concern for the protection of nature is incompatible with the justification of homosexual acts?

Today so many, even within the Church, seek to justify homosexual acts.  But, as the Roman barrister and statesman Cicero reminded us, "right is based, not upon men’s opinions, but upon Nature. This fact will immediately be plain if you once get a clear conception of man’s fellowship and union with his fellow-men. For no single thing is so like another, so exactly its counterpart, as all of us are to one another…And so, however we may define man, a single definition will apply to all.” [Laws I x 28-30]

Cicero goes on later to draw two conclusions of critical importance, namely that laws exist for the common good, and laws that deny fundamental human rights are not valid laws at all: “It is agreed, of course, that laws were invented for the safety of citizens, the preservation of States, and the tranquillity and happiness of human life, and that those who first put statutes of this kind in force convinced their people that it was their intention to write down and put into effect such rules as, once accepted and adopted, would make possible for them an honourable and happy life; and when such rules were drawn up and put in force, it is clear that men called them ‘laws’. It may thus be clear that in the very definition of the term ‘law’ there inheres the idea and principle of choosing what is just and true.”

Vatican II stressed that the moral goodness of the acts proper to conjugal life, ordered according to true human dignity, "does take only the good intentions and the evaluation of motives into account; objective criteria must be used, criteria drawn from the nature of the human person and of his acts, criteria which respect the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love" (Gaudium et spes, n. 51).

This teaching is emphasized in the Declaration Persona humana: "The use of the sexual function has its true meaning and moral rectitude only in true marriage" (n. 5).

Homosexuality is objectively incapable of achieving "the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation". In this regard the above-mentioned Declaration Persona humana says: "According to the objective moral order [Natural Law], homosexual relations are acts which lack an essential and indispensable finality" (n. 8).

May we not say that concern for the protection of nature is incompatible with the justification of homosexual acts?

Of course. So why doesn't Pope Francis say this in his Encyclical?

Related reading here.

Sofia Vergara admits that the traditional family is needed

Sofia Vergara of "Modern Family" fame, recently shared her parenting philosophy, insisting that, "A child needs a mother and a loving relationship with parents...A kid needs parents. I wouldn’t want to bring kids to the world where it’s already against them. It would be so selfish." See here.

Witness the irony here.  An actress who stars in a television series which has favorably portrayed a same-sex couple "marrying" on network TV publically acknowledges, during a candid interview, that a child needs two parents-  a mother and a father.

Vatican II's Declaration on Christian Education (Gravissimum Educationis) teaches us that: "Since parents have given children their life, they are bound by the most serious obligation to educate their offspring and therefore must be recognized as the primary and principal educators. This role in education is so important that only with difficulty can it be supplied where it is lacking. Parents are the ones who must create a family atmosphere animated by love and respect for God and man, in which the well-rounded personal and social education of children is fostered. Hence the family is the first school of the social virtues that every society needs. It is particularly in the Christian family, enriched by the grace and office of the sacrament of matrimony, that children should be taught from their early years to have a knowledge of God according to the faith received in Baptism, to worship Him, and to love their neighbor. Here, too, they find their first experience of a wholesome human society and of the Church. Finally, it is through the family that they are gradually led to a companionship with their fellowmen and with the people of God. Let parents, then, recognize the inestimable importance a truly Christian family has for the life and progress of God's own people." (No. 3).

There is an old proverb which says, "The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world." And there is much truth to that axiom. This is precisely why adoptions by same-sex "couples" are so alarming. If the hand that rocks the cradle belongs to an individual with a warped personality whose sexual orientation is "intrinsically disordered" (CCC, 2357), then, as Fr. Vincent P. Miceli has noted, "the world will not be ruled but ruined."

Do we really believe what Vatican II teaches? Do we really believe that "the family is the first school of the social virtues that every society needs"? Or are we willing to abandon innocent children to the corrosive atmosphere and negative influence of a psychopathology? Do we really believe that, as Vatican II teaches, it is "particularly in the Christian family, enriched by the grace and office of the sacrament of matrimony, that children should be taught from their early years to have a knowledge of God according to the faith received in Baptism, to worship Him, and to love their neighbor"?

Are we prepared to deny innocent children their fundamental right to experience both a "wholesome human society" as well as the domestic church within a normal family with a mother and a father? Or will we sacrifice these innocent children to the perverse influence of crippled personalities who lack the grace which comes from the sacrament of marriage and which enables parents to fulfill their very great responsibility?

Only time will tell.

Sentinel & Enterprise: Will Pope Francis be another John Paul XXIII?

You have to hand it to Charles St. Amand, the editor of the Sentinel & Enterprise, a local newspaper serving the Leominster-Fitchburg area as well as seven other cities and towns.  The man is most consistent.  When it comes to articles and editorials which touch upon the Catholic Church in particular and Catholicism in general,  Mr. St. Amand never troubles himself with getting the facts straight.  See here for example.

Take yesterday's editorial entitled, "Francis: Whose shoes will he fill?"  We read: "With the election of a new pope, Catholics around the world must be wondering what the latest successor to St. Peter has in mind for the Mother Church...He has shown himself to be socially conservative in Argentina by his stance against gay marriage and his backing of the traditional role of women in the Church, but he has also scolded some of his priests there for their refusal to baptize children born out of wedlock."

Actually, the terms "liberal" and "conservative" should never be applied to the Church.  As Dr. Dietrich von Hildebrand explains, "These terms, facilely applied to many natural realms, can be extremely misleading when applied to the Church.  It is of the very nature of Catholic Christian faith to adhere to an unchanging divine revelation, to acknowledge that there is something in the Church that is above the ups and downs of cultures and the rhythm of history.  Divine revelation and the Mystical Body of Christ differ completely from all natural entities.  To be conservative, to be a traditionalist, is in this case an essential element of the response due to the unique phenomenon of the Church.  Even a man in no way conservative in temperament and in many other respects progressive must be conservative in his relation to the infallible magisterium of the Church, if he is to remain an orthodox Catholic.  One can be progressive and simultaneously a Catholic, but one cannot be a progressive in one's Catholic faith.  The idea of a 'progressive Catholic' in this sense is an oxymoron, a contradictio in adjecto...With the labels conservative and progressive they [the intellectually dishonest with an anti-Catholic agenda] are in fact requiring the faithful to choose between opposition to any renewal, opposition even to the elimination of things that have crept into the Church because of human frailty (e.g., legalism, abstractionism, external pressure in questions of conscience, grave abuses of authority in monasteries) and a change, a 'progress' in the Catholic faith which can only mean its abandonment.  These are false alternatives.  For there is a third choice, which welcomes the official decisions of the Vatican Council (Vatican II) but at the same time emphatically rejects the secularizing interpretations given them by many so-called progressive theologians and laymen.  This thirs choice is based on unshakable faith in Christ and in the infallible magisterium of His Holy Church.  It takes it for granted that there is no room for change in the divinely revealed doctrine of the Church." (Trojan Horse in the City of God, pp. 10-11).

So it's not a question of Pope Francis being "conservative" or "progressive."  The Holy Father opposes so-called same-sex "marriage" and the ordination of women to the priesthood because divinely revealed doctrine cannot change. 

The Sentinel & Enterprise editorial refers to Pope Francis' predecessor on the Chair of Peter, the same Pontiff who called for Vatican II, as "Pope John Paul XXIII": "Will he [Pope Francis] maintain his life of simplicity and pursuit of social justice, or will he be the next John Paul XXIII?"  Obviously, the writer of this confused editorial was thinking of Pope John XXIII who was elected Pontiff on October 28, 1958 and installed on November 4th of that same year.  Pope John reigned as Vicar of Christ until June 3, 1963.

This is the sort of coverage of Catholicism that Catholics have come to expect from the Sentinel & Enterprise.  But they deserve better.

Related reading here.

Bishop Gerhard Mueller and infallibly proposed teachings

We definitely live in dark times.  Increasingly, Catholic dogma is coming under attack even within the Church.  Just recently, Bill Tammeus, a Presbyterian elder and former columnist for The Kansas City Star, writng for the National Catholic Reporter online, complained that, "Ultimately, truth in Christianity is not a doctrine, not a dogma, not a creed, not a papal bull, not what's said in a sermon, not even the words in the Bible.  Rather, truth in Christianity is a person, Christ Jesus."

Yes, it is true that faith is primarily in God and not in a set of truths.  But because the Lord Jesus reveals truths about Himself and his plan for us, one cannot believe in Him without also accepting with faith every one of the truths which He reveals.  Vatican I definitively teaches that, "By divine and Catholic faith everything must be believed that is contained in the written word of God or in tradition, and that is proposed by the Church as a divinely revealed object of belief either in a solemn decree or in her ordinary, universal teaching" (DS 3011/1792).

To this formulation of Vatican I, Canon Law adds: "It is manifested by the common adherence of the Christian faithful under the leadership of the sacred magisterium; therefore, all are bound to avoid any doctrines whatever which are contrary to these truths." (Canon 750).

In its Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith provides us with a helpful commentary on the nature of the "religious submission of soul" or of "will and mind" which the Fathers of Vatican II said is to be given by the faithful, including theologians, to authoritative but noninfallibly proposed magisterial teachings (see Lumen Gentium, No. 25). 

This Instruction clearly distinguishes between questions that theologiand may raise about such teachings (see Nos. 24-31) and dissent from such teachings (Nos. 32-41).  The Instruction tells us that questioning can be compatible with the "religious submission" required, but the document also firmly repudiates dissent from these teachings as incompatible with this "religious submission" and irreconcilable with the theologian's vocation which is always to be at the Church's service.  Dissent from infallibly proposed teachings is a fortiori excluded.

In my last post, I noted how the new Prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has denied the dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary and the Real Presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ in the Sacrament of the Altar in his theological writings.  Does Bishop Gerhard Mueller stand by his writings?  If so, he is dissenting from Catholic dogma, from infallibly proposed teachings.

Our strange time.

As Catholics, we are called upon to imitate Mary's "virginally integral" faith, hope and charity

Faith is God’s gift to created persons who are entirely dependent on Him. The proper response to this gift is reverent obedience. Christian faith is characterized by a humble and reverent submission to what God has revealed. Vatican II’s Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation (Dei Verbum) has this to say: “’The obedience of faith’ (Rm 16:26; cf. Rm 1:5; 2 Cor 10: 5-6) ‘is to be given to God who reveals, an obedience by which man commits his whole self freely to God, offering the full submission of intellect and will to God who reveals,’ and freely assenting to the truth revealed by him. To make this act of faith, the grace of God and the interior help of the Holy Spirit must precede and assist, moving the heart and turning it to God, opening the eyes of the mind and giving ‘joy and ease to everyone in assenting to the truth and believing it.’” (Dei Verbum, No. 5).


For many if not most Catholics today, obedience to revealed truth seems difficult if not impossible. The idea of submitting one’s mind and will to another authority is viewed as repugnant. And this largely because, as Dr. Dietrich von Hildebrand reminds us, “The egocentric sovereignty that modern man arrogates to himself bans everything that has the character of coming from above, of imposing bonds upon us, and of calling for an adequate response. Modern man also shuns all the factors in life which are gifts, which he cannot grant to himself: they remind him of his dependence upon something greater than himself and above himself. Thus truth in its implacable sovereignty – absolute truth that judges our reason instead of being judged by it – is denied.” (The New Tower of Babel: Modern Man’s Flight from God, p. 19).

This is most unfortunate for St. Thomas Aquinas reminds us that, after the virtue of religion, obedience is the most perfect of all the moral virtues. And this because the virtue of obedience unites us more closely to God than any of the other virtues, insofar as it detaches us from our own will. For the main obstacle to union with God is self-will.

Obedience unites us to God and enables us to share habitually in His life. Obedience subordinates our will directly to the will of God and, as a consequence, all of our other faculties since these are subordinated to our will.

When we offer our wills as a sacrifice to God through obedience, we enter into communion with God, since we no longer have any other will but God's will. Only then can we make the words of Jesus in His agony our own words: "Not my will, but thine be done." This conformity of our will to the Divine will becomes one with charity. As St. Thomas reminds us, love effects primarily a union of wills.

This is the teaching of St. John, the beloved Apostle. After teaching us that he who claims to love God and keeps not His commandments is a liar, the Apostle declares: "But he that keepeth his word, in him in very deed the charity of God is perfected; and by this we know that we are in him" (1 John 2:5). This is the teaching of Jesus Himself, Who tells us that to keep His commandments is to love Him: "If you love me, keep my commandments" (John 14:15).

True obedience is, in reality, a genuine act of love. And this genuine love, this genuine conformity to the Divine will, purifies us from sin. Moreover, this conformity to the Divine will is what works out our reformation. It is, after all, the disordered love of pleasure - to which we yield through either weakness or malice - which has deformed us.

Happily, as we strive to be perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect (Matthew 5: 48), we have a most perfect model of faith, hope and charity in the Blessed Virgin Mary. Mary is all holy. Her earthly life was characterized by perfect harmony with the person and redeeming work of her Son. Pope John Paul II reminded us that, “The Council urged the faithful to look to Mary so that they may imitate her ‘virginally integral’ faith, hope and charity. To preserve the integrity of faith is a demanding task for the Church, which is called to constant vigilance even at the cost of sacrifice and struggle. The Church’s faith is not only threatened by those who reject the Gospel message, but especially by those who, in accepting only part of the revealed truth, refuse to share fully in the entire patrimony of the faith of Christ’s bride. Unfortunately, this temptation, which we find from the Church’s beginning, continues to be present in her life, urging her to accept revelation only in part, or to give the Word of God a limited, personal interpretation in conformity with the prevailing mentality and individual desires. Having fully adhered to the Word of the Lord, Mary represents for the Church an unsurpassable model of ‘virginally integral’ faith, for with docility and perseverance she accepts the revealed truth whole and entire…” (General Audience of August 20, 1997).

Mary accepted revealed truth whole and entire. She fully adhered in obedience to the Word of God. Shall we do any less?

Our Lady of La Salette, submission and Vatican II

166 years ago, Our Lady came to La Salette France and gave Maximin Giraud and Melanie Calvat a message for the world.  A message which is just as timely now as it was then.  And perhaps more so.  Our Lady's message began with these words: "If my people will not submit, I shall be forced to let fall the arm of my Son.  It is so strong, so heavy, that I can no longer withhold it.."

We live in an age where words like "fidelity" and "submission" have taken on a negative connotation, a world where "the word fidelity seems to have lost all meaning, to have dropped out of human usage. The fickleness of man and woman, their changeableness is the virtue of the age. One must not be too rigid, too dogmatic, too steadfast; maturity indicates the ability to change, even to call back one's promises and vows made to God" (Fr. Vincent Miceli, Permanent Consecration: Anchor of Religious Community).


And yet, we are all - each and every one of us - warned to, "..submit yourselves to God. Resist the Devil, and he will flee from you." (James 4: 7). This submission to God, and to the Church He founded, is intimately connected with defeating the Devil in our lives. Without such submission, we place ourselves in peril.

Vatican II, in its Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium) No. 25, says that: "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."

I receive comments at this Blog from time to time accusing me of being "too narrow" because I insist upon promoting this religious submission of mind and will to the teaching Church.  A few have asserted that the idea of submission cannot be reconciled with the teaching of Vatican II.  How they come to this conclusion after a read of Lumen Gentium 25 is beyond me.  But Gaudium et Spes also emphasizes that, "God's Word...taught us that the new command of love was the basic law of human perfection and hence of the world's transformation...Appointed Lord by his resurrection and given plenary power in heaven and on earth, Christ is now at work in human hearts through the energy of his Spirit...He animates, purifies, and strengthens those noble longings by which the human family strives to make its life more human and to render the whole earth submissive to this goal..." (No. 38).

Many within the Church have succumbed to pride and so the very idea of submission is anathema to them.  But throughout the New Testament, the notion of subjection, of submission, reveals itself: "He put all things beneath his feet and gave him as head over all things to the Church" (Ephesians 1: 22); "He will change our lowly body to conform with his glorified body by the power that enables him also to bring all things into subjection to himself" (Philippians 3: 21); "You crowned him with glory and honor, subjecting all things under his feet.  In subjecting all things to him, God left nothing unsubjected.  At present we do not see all things thus subject, but we do see Jesus crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death..." (Hebrews 2: 8-9); and "[Jesus] has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers subject to him" (1 Peter 3: 22).

St. Paul, in the second chapter to the Philippians, reminds us of the example provided by the Lord Jesus of submission - even to the point of death:

"Christ Jesus...though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God something to be grasped at.  Rather, he emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness, and found human in form, he humbled himself, and became obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.  Because of this, God highly exalted him and gave him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bend, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." (Philippians 2: 6-11).

This is what Our Lady called us to at La Salette: submission to God.  It is a message which Pope John Paul II said is "forever timely in a world caught in the scourges of war, hunger, and many other ordeals that are the signs of the times, and often the consequences of the sins of the world...May she lead to her Son all the nations of the earth."

And she will.  For the Cure of Ars himself prophesied that "One day Our Lady of La Salette will lead the world."

The Diocese of Worcester promotes angry dissident Joyce Rupp

In a previous post, I noted how The Catholic Free Press is once again promoting Sister Joyce Rupp, a dissident religious who rails against the hierarchical Church while promoting New Age spirituality.  Many parishes throughout the Worcester Diocese are also promoting the upcoming day-long retreat with this angry, dissenting religious.  The retreat, which is to be held on September 29th at St. Anne's Parish hall in Shrewsbury, is being sponsored by the "Commission for Women," and has as its theme: "The Gift of Self - Compassion."

Sister Rupp, the self proclaimed spiritual midwife, claims to have learnt a lot from Eagle Crux a native American spiritualist and feels that she resonates with mystical islamic sufism. She tells us that everything is made of stardust including ourselves and that stones have as much right to be here as we have, in fact more so because they have been here longer. Her books include how to draw sacred mandela dancing circles and even have the rites for the blessing of the sexual organs! On Ireland she says that the Irish love of learning was first fostered by the wise druids and in the same article goes on to extoll New-Ageism as valuable and that some in the church are envious of it because it draws people toward spiritual growth.

In her book entitled "Cosmic Dance," this lost soul gleefully described a gathering of lesbians which she attended: "Different from me , thousands of them. Holding hands, kissing, arms around each other, stretching me beyond the safe world of heterosexuality. A gathering of lesbians challenging me to enter a world I never visit."

Is this why she is so welcome in the Worcester Diocese?  Because she advocates New Age occultism and stretching "beyond the safe world of heterosexuality"?

Back in 2004, while accepting the "U.S. Catholic Award," the angry feminist lapsed into a hate-filled rant against the Church and her hierarchy while promoting the concept of Yin and Yang and complaining that women are abused wihtin the Catholic Church. Rupp asserted that, "Many women in the Roman Catholic Church are in immense pain because of how women are treated by this church, particularly by the hierarchy and other ordained clergy. I once told the late Bishop Kenneth Untener that I felt like I had 'just one little toe in the church.' He responded with a twinkle in his eye: 'Keep it there.' I have, but I also understand the throng of women who have left the church because of such things as the continued arrogant use of exclusive language and the constant refusal to recognize the fullness of their gifts in church ministry."

Rupp may have kept her little toe in the Church.  But in her heart and mind, she has left the Church.  She speaks often about "compassion," but her words and actions have betrayed the fact that she has not persevered in charity.  And as Lumen Gentium of the Second Vatican Council reminded us, "He is not saved..who, though part of the body of the Church, does not persevere in charity.  He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but, as it were, only in a 'bodily' manner and not 'in his heart.'  All of the Church's children should remember that their exalted status is to be attributed not to their own merits but to the special grace of Christ.  If they fail, moreover, to respond to that grace in thought, word and deed, not only shall they not be saved but they will be the more severely judged." (Lumen Gentium, No. 14).

Can a person honestly be said to be "persevering in charity" within the Church if they attack the Lord Jesus by attacking His Pastors?  Of course not.  And we shouldn't lie by suggesting otherwise.

During her hate speech against the Church founded by Christ, Rupp insisted that, "Women suffer a lot because of the church" and asserted that, "..it's not just the ordination issue that drives women away...Women are not cows to be herded back into pens; they are not hens to be shooed away from the altar. It's this attitude of sneering domination and the obvious lack of respect for their individual worth that causes such immense angst in Catholic women today. I am very disappointed with the recent church document on women. I am saddened because it blames feminists for 'the lethal effects in the structure of the family.' Once again women are being blamed for society's failures. I am offended by the way this document pushes the power issue off onto women when the official church has, time and again, used power abusively to silence those longing for dialogue and has threatened into conformity those who dare to question doctrinal ultimatums.

Obviously someone forgot to inform Rupp 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." (Dei Verbum, No. 10 of the Second Vatican Council). 

Rupp, flying into an uncontrolled temper tantrum because women cannot be ordained to the priesthood, complained that, "Power rightly exercised can be healthy and helpful. Rome agrees, but only so long as this power is in the hands of men. When women begin to assert their rights* and seek to have their God-given potential and gifts fully acknowledged and accepted for service in the church, they are not only denied this right but are written off as adversaries, reactionaries, and power-seekers."

So much for persevering in charity.  By venting such hatred against the Church, Rupp has shown her contempt for Christ.  For the Pastors of the Church rule in His name and by His authority.  If you want to read more of Rupp's hate speech against the Mystical Body of Christ, it may be found here.

Bishop Robert McManus asked Anna Maria College - and rightfully so - to disinvite Victoria Kennedy, an atheistic humanist, from speaking at its Commencement this year.  One has to wonder why one dissident isn't welcome while another is.  Is it simply because one is a Catholic religious?  Dissent is dissent Your Excellency, whether one wears a religious habit (or in Rupp's case, I'm sure, a small pin to denote that she's a "Catholic" religious) or a business suit.

Bishop McManus, do you really think Joyce Rupp is the best person to be giving a presentation on compassion to the faithful of this diocese?  Does her dissent trouble you at all?  Her New Age spirituality?

* Ordination to the priesthood is not a "right," even for men.  No one can take by force what God is not calling him to.  Hence the need for a discernment period for men considering the priesthood and the Church's ratification of the vocation.

Melinda Gates: I'm rich so listen to me!

"The most important men in town would come to fawn on me!

They would ask me to advise them,
Like a Solomon the Wise.
"If you please, Reb Tevye..."
"Pardon me, Reb Tevye..."
Posing problems that would cross a rabbi's eyes!
And it won't make one bit of difference if i answer right or wrong.
When you're rich, they think you really know!"

C-FAM is reporting that Melinda Gates, co-chair of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and a Catholic, is telling governments to dismiss the controversial link between contraception and population control and explicitly rejects Catholic social teaching along the way...Speaking at a TedxChange conference in Berlin, Germany, Gates argued that contraception has been mistakenly associated with population control, abortion, forced sterilization, and mortal sin and insisted they are 'side issues.'"  See here.

The Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World (Gaudium et Spes), No. 51, says that, "..God, the Lord of life, has conferred on men the surpassing ministry of safeguarding life in a manner which is worthy of man.  Therefore, from the moment of its conception life must be guarded with the greatest care, while abortion and infanticide are unspeakable crimes."  Abortion is not a "side issue."  It is an unspeakable crime.

The same document teaches that, "...sons of the Church may not undertake methods of birth control which are found blameworthy by the teaching authority of the Church in its unfolding of the divine law." (No. 51).

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, citing Humanae Vitae, the Encyclical Letter of Pope Paul VI, teaches that, "...'every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible' is intrinsically evil.." (2370).

But Melinda Gates believes that she knows better than the Pastors of the Church.  Pope John Paul II, in his Encyclical Letter Veritatis Splendor (The Splendor of Truth) teaches that the Church's more-than-human authority "is apparent from the living Tradition" and then confirms this by citing a key passage from Dei Verbum, Vatican II's Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, which reminds us that, "the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether in its written form or in that of Tradition, has been entrusted only to those charged with the Church's living Magisterium, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ" (Veritatis Splendor, No. 27, with internal citation from Dei Verbum, No. 10).

Faith demands a renunciation of the sinful self.  Pride must give way in every Catholic's life to humility, which is but a readiness to accept everything good as God's gift and to than Him for it (see Aquinas, S.t., 2-2, q. 161, aa.2-3).  When we allow ourselves to succumb to pride, humility is viewed as a threat to the self.  As a result, sinners who lack faith and believers whose faith has been weakened through habit to sinning will be the more tempted to reject faith in order to avoid self-renunciation - the renunciation of their sinful selves (John 3: 16-21).

Melinda Gates is chained by abundance.  Her material wealth has contributed to a pathological pride.  And this pride has led her to embrace self-assertion.  Dr. Germain Grisez explains that, "Removed from its evangelical context, the Christian insight into each individual's worth is perverted to rationalize sin.  Thus, post-Christian humankind is susceptible to a distinctive moral pathology: egoistic individualism, which exalts the well-being and satisfaction of individuals above every community, even the family.  When colored by this pathology, pride is not expressed exclusively by the quest for positions of social superiority; also, and even more arrogantly, it is seen in every individual's effort to be his or her own sovereign.  Thus, the contemporary attachment to liberty to do as one pleases: 'No one can tell me what to do.'  This attitude leads to rejection of authority generally as well as an unwillingness to accept any social responsibility toward people for whom one has no personal feelings.  Other people are to be ignored except to the extent that they are relevant to one's own purposes or can be made so.  Then they are to be dominated and manipulated, so that at least they will allow one to gain one's ends and at best will serve one's purposes."


The real tragedy is that many will no doubt be confused or led astray by Melinda Gates because, as Topol expressed in song, "When you're rich, they think you really know!"

Jeannine Gramick and associate adhere to an erroneous interpretation of the sensus fidelium

In an article for The Washington Post entitled "A Catholic case for same-sex marriage," Jeannine Gramick and Francis DeBernardo write, "As Catholics who are involved in lesbian and gay ministry and outreach, we are aware that many people, some of them Catholics, believe that Catholics cannot faithfully disobey the public policies of the church’s hierarchy. But this is not the case. The Catholic Church is not a democracy, but neither is it a dictatorship. Ideally, our bishops should strive to proclaim the sensus fidelium , the faith as it is understood by the whole church. At the moment, however, the bishops and the majority of the church are at odds. A survey published in September by the Public Religion Research Institute found that 52 percent of Catholics support marriage equality and 69 percent support civil unions..." (See full article here).

As Wikipedia relates, "After a review of her [Jeannine Gramick's] public activities on behalf of the Church that concluded in a finding of grave doctrinal error, the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) declared in 1999 that she should no longer be engaged in pastoral work with lesbian and gay persons. In 2000, her congregation, in an attempt to thwart further conflict with the Vatican, commanded her not to speak publicly about homosexuality. She responded by saying, "I choose not to collaborate in my own oppression by restricting a basic human right [to speak]. To me this is a matter of conscience."

So intelligent Catholics will take anything Gramick has to say cum grano salis.  What is most interesting is that Gramick, who could never be accused of being a scholar, first acknowledges that, "The Catholic Church is not a democracy" and then proceeds to assure us that, "a survey published..by the Public Religion Research Institute found that 52 percent of Catholics support marriage equality and 69 percent support civil unions."

What difference do these statistics make if the Catholic Church is not a democracy [and it is not]?  Gramick wants us to believe that the "sensus fidelium," "the faith as it is understood by the whole church," is calling for acceptance of homosexual unions.  But Gramick's understanding of the sensus fidelium is about as cogent as her understanding of Catholic moral teaching.

What does the Church mean by the sensus fidelium? We [those of us who are still sane] find an excellent explanation from the pen of Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J. In The Catholic Catechism - A Contemporary Catechism of the Teachings of the Catholic Church. Fr. Hardon explains that: "Those who believe, and insofar as they believe, are one community not only or mainly because they subjectively believe but because what they believe is objectively true, indeed is the Truth that became man and dwelled among us. Against this background, it is easier to see what universal agreement among the faithful must mean. They are faithful insofar as they are agreed on the truth, where the source of their agreement is not a semantic use of the name 'Christian' or 'Catholic,' but the deeply interior adherence to what God has revealed.

Consequently, whether they realize it or not, all who agree on the revealed truth, under the guidance of the sacred magisterium, belong to the faithful. Their agreement on the truth and allegiance to the magisterium gives them universality, i.e., spiritual unity. The truth interiorly possessed gives them consensus, and not the other way around, as though their consensus on some doctrine made it true." (pp. 226-227).

There are those within the Church, like the imbecilic Gramick, who would appeal to the sensus fidelium in an attempt to justify dissent. Their argument is that if a significant portion of those who identify themselves as Catholics hold or adhere to a dissenting opinion, the Holy Father and Bishops should submit their minds and wills to that group's opinion. In other words, such people would have us believe that the sensus fidelium is something independent of the Magisterium.  This is simply a back-door approach toward making the Church a democracy.

Such an attitude is in direct opposition to the teaching of Vatican II:

"The entire body of the faithful, anointed as they are by the Holy One (cf. Jn 2:20, 27), cannot err in matters of belief. They manifest this special property by means of the whole people's supernatural discernment in matters of faith when 'from the bishops down to the last of the lay faithful' they show universal agreement in matters of faith and morals. That discernment in matters of faith is aroused and sustained by the Spirit of truth. It is exercised under the guidance of the sacred teaching authority, in faithful and respectful obedience to which the People of God accepts that which is not just the word of men but truly the Word of God (cf. 1 Thes. 2:13). Through it, the People of God adheres unwaveringly to the faith given once and for all to the saints (cf. Jude 3), penetrates it more deeply with right thinking, and applies it more fully in its life." (Lumen Gentium, No. 12; citing St. Augustine, De Praed. Sanct. 14, 27:PL 44, 980).

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in its Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian, had this to say: "Although theological faith as such then cannot err, the believer can still have erroneous opinions since all his thoughts do not spring from faith. Not all the ideas which circulate among the People of God are compatible with the faith. This is all the more so given that people can be swayed by a public opinion influenced by modern communications media" (No. 35).

Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria for 45 years, opposed emperors and a world in love with heresy by patiently presenting and defending the truth of Christ's divinity.  Such was his fortitude in opposing the multitudes who preached heresy that he was exiled five times and suffered intense persecution.  But because he remained faithful to Revelation, against what Jeannine Gramick would incorrectly term the "sensus fidelium," history has crowned him Athanasius Victor contra mundum: Athanasius Conqueror of the world of heretics.

No, Jeannine Gramick and associate fail to make a Catholic case for same-sex "marriage."  But they do make a strong case for the idea that some Catholics should be fitted for a straight-jacket.

"Value comes not from what a person 'has'...as much as from what a person 'is'"

In his Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Christifideles Laici, No. 37, Pope John Paul II reminded us that, "To rediscover and make others rediscover the inviolable dignity of every human person makes up an essential task, in a certain sense, the central and unifying task of the service which the Church, and the lay faithful in her, are called to render to the human family. Among all other earthly beings, only a man or a woman is a 'person', a conscious and free being and, precisely for this reason, the 'center and summit' of all that exists on the earth.

The dignity of the person is the most precious possession of an individual. As a result, the value of one person transcends all the material world. The words of Jesus, 'For what does it profit a man, to gain the whole world and to forfeit his life?' (Mk 8:36) contain an enlightening and stirring statement about the individual: value comes not from what a person 'has' even if the person possessed the whole world!-as much as from what a person 'is': the goods of the world do not count as much as the good of the person, the good which is the person individually.

The dignity of the person is manifested in all its radiance when the person's origin and destiny are considered: created by God in his image and likeness as well as redeemed by the most precious blood of Christ, the person is called to be a 'child in the Son' and a living temple of the Spirit, destined for the eternal life of blessed communion with God. For this reason every violation of the personal dignity of the human being cries out in vengeance to God and is an offence against the Creator of the individual.

In virtue of a personal dignity the human being is always a value as an individual, and as such demands being considered and treated as a person and never, on the contrary, considered and treated as an object to be used, or as a means, or as a thing.

The dignity of the person constitutes the foundation of the equality of all people among themselves. As a result all forms of discrimination are totally unacceptable, especially those forms which unfortunately continue to divide and degrade the human family, from those based on race or economics to those social and cultural, from political to geographic, etc. Each discrimination constitutes an absolutely intolerable injustice, not so much for the tensions and the conflicts that can be generated in the social sphere, as much as for the dishonour inflicted on the dignity of the person: not only to the dignity of the individual who is the victim of the injustice, but still more to the one who commits the injustice."

Vatican II, in its Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity (Apostolicam Actuositatem), has this to say: "The laity derive the right and duty to the apostolate from their union with Christ the head; incorporated into Christ's Mystical Body through Baptism and strengthened by the power of the Holy Spirit through Confirmation, they are assigned to the apostolate by the Lord himself." (No. 3).  And in No. 4, this same document explains that, "This plan for the spiritual life of the laity should take its particular character from their married or family state or their single or widowed state.."

What is the point I'm trying to make?  That single people, like those whose vocation is to marriage, are also called to the apostolate.  But one wouldn't know this when one examines the way in which single people are often treated in the Church.  Father Pat Umberger has noted that, "Being single. For some of us it is the way we live our Vocation. For others it is a temporary state. For some it brings much joy. For others sadness and a feeling of incompleteness. Not all single folks are called to a Vocation of priesthood or consecrated life. Single people come in all age ranges, from the 20's through old age. Single people have needs and goals. We don't always fit into the society we live in. Sometimes there is a perception that we cannot be happy or fulfilled while we are single. We can buy into that perception. The Church can be quite helpful to us. Sometimes it can hinder us as well.  It is true that much is said about married life, children, teenagers and other groups within the Church, but not much about single people. The Church can unconsciously discriminate against single people by sponsoring mostly "couples only" events, inviting "families" to bring up the gifts, or seeing singles as the pool from which to draw helpers to complete tasks nobody else wants to do."

I have personally experienced this through the years.  Only recently I joined another parish, immediately registered, and noted both on the registration form and to the parish secretary, that I would like to volunteer at the parish.  I never did hear from anyone.  This is not the first time I have experienced such animus. Single people are often viewed as being somehow "inadequate," even within the Church.  We are often seen as being somehow peculiar because we live celibate lives and concern ourselves primarily with building up the Kingdom of God here on earth. We are often excluded and written off at the parish level as if the Lord Jesus couldn't possibly find any use for us. This attitude is far from Catholic.  Pope Benedict XVI said recently that, "The Lord has a plan for each of us; he calls each one of us by name. Our task is to learn how to listen, to perceive his call, to be courageous and faithful in following him and, when all is said and done, to be found trustworthy servants who have used well the gifts given us."

And if we are discouraged from participating in the life of the Church by those entrusted with leadership positions in the Church; if we are discriminated against because we do not measure up to their idea of "value," those who excluded us will have to render an account to the Lord Jesus and to explain why they scattered when they should have been gathering.

Will they be accounted as profitable servants?

Why do so many Catholics no longer believe in Our Lord's True Presence in the Most Holy Eucharist?

Many Catholics, as this article explains, no longer believe in Our Lord's True Presence in the Most Holy Eucharist.  Why is this?  Largely because of false interpretations of Vatican II which encouraged the erroneous idea that devotion to Our Lady was "a thing of the past."  Theological opinions which sought to downplay the importance of such devotion.

This eclipse was foretold in Sacred Scripture.  We read in Revelation 12: 13-17:

"When the dragon saw that he had been cast down to the earth, he pursued the woman who had given birth to the boy.  But the woman was given the wings of a gigantic eagle so that she could fly off to her place in the desert, where, far from the serpent, she could be taken care of for a year and for two and a half years more.  The serpent, however, spewed a torrent of water out of his mouth to search out the woman and sweep her away.  The earth then came to the woman's rescue by opening its mouth and swallowing the flood which the dragon spewed out of his mouth.  Enraged at her escape, the dragon went off to make war on the rest of her offspring, on those who keep God's commandments and give witness to Jesus.."

What else is this "torrent of water" from the serpent's mouth but false opinions which have sought to sweep away devotion to the Mother of God?  Our Lady made this clear when she told Father Gobbi, on June 14, 1980 - the feast of the Immaculate Heart of Mary - "What is this flood of water if not the ensemble of these new theological theories, by which an attempt is being made to bring your heavenly Mother down from that place where the Most Holy Trinity has put her?  Thus it has been possible to obscure me in the souls, in the life and in the piety of many of my children, even to the point of denying some of those privileges with which I have been adorned by the Lord."

You might ask: What does this have to do with belief in Our Lord's True Presence in the Most Holy Eucharist?  Father Andre Richard, writing in the January 31, 1985 edition of the Wanderer newspaper, explains: "The eviction of the Mother has cast a shadow on the holy humanity of Jesus, upon the truth of the Incarnation of the Word of God, upon the Real Presence in the Host.."  The Devil, knowing the consequences of false theological theories which seek to undermine devotion to Our Lady and to deny her privileges, has cast doubts upon the Immaculate Conception, the perpetual virginity and the divine and spiritual maternity of Mary.

St. Louis de Montfort, in his classic treatise True Devotion to Mary, reminds us that: "Our Lady's charity towards her faithful servants goes further. She provides them with everything they need for body and soul. We have just seen that she gives them double garments. She also nourishes them with the most delicious food from the banquet table of God. She gives them the Son she has borne, the Bread of Life, to be their food. "Dear children," she says in the words of divine Wisdom, "take your fill of my fruits," that is to say, of the Fruit of Life, Jesus, "whom I brought into the world for you." "Come," she repeats in another passage, "eat the bread which is Jesus. Drink the wine of his love which I have mixed" for you with the milk of my breasts.

As Mary is the treasurer and dispenser of the gifts and graces of the Most High God, she reserves a choice portion, indeed the choicest portion, to nourish and sustain her children and servants. They grow strong on the Bread of Life; they are made joyful with the wine that brings forth virgins. They are carried at her breast. They bear with ease the yoke of Christ scarcely feeling its weight because of the oil of devotion with which she has softened its wood." (True Devotion to Mary, 208).

Jesus is the fruit of His Mother's womb.  The enemies of Mary are the enemies of Jesus.  And the enemies of Jesus are the enemies of the Father.  Again, St. Louis de Montfort emphasizes the necessity of devotion to the Mother of God as he writes of her role in the Incarnation: "God the Father gave his only Son to the world only through Mary. Whatever desires the patriarchs may have cherished, whatever entreaties the prophets and saints of the Old Law may have had for 4,000 years to obtain that treasure, it was Mary alone who merited it and found grace before God by the power of her prayers and the perfection of her virtues. "The world being unworthy," said Saint Augustine, "to receive the Son of God directly from the hands of the Father, he gave his Son to Mary for the world to receive him from her."



The Son of God became man for our salvation but only in Mary and through Mary.

God the Holy Spirit formed Jesus Christ in Mary but only after having asked her consent through one of the chief ministers of his court.

God the Father imparted to Mary his fruitfulness as far as a mere creature was capable of receiving it, to enable her to bring forth his Son and all the members of his mystical body.

God the Son came into her virginal womb as a new Adam into his earthly paradise, to take his delight there and produce hidden wonders of grace. God-made-man found freedom in imprisoning himself in her womb. He displayed power in allowing himself to be borne by this young maiden. He found his glory and that of his Father in hiding his splendours from all creatures here below and revealing them only to Mary. He glorified his independence and his majesty in depending upon this lovable virgin in his conception, his birth, his presentation in the temple, and in the thirty years of his hidden life. Even at his death she had to be present so that he might be united with her in one sacrifice and be immolated with her consent to the eternal Father, just as formerly Isaac was offered in sacrifice by Abraham when he accepted the will of God. It was Mary who nursed him, fed him, cared for him, reared him, and sacrificed him for us.

The Holy Spirit could not leave such wonderful and inconceivable dependence of God unmentioned in the Gospel, though he concealed almost all the wonderful things that Wisdom Incarnate did during his hidden life in order to bring home to us its infinite value and glory. Jesus gave more glory to God his Father by submitting to his Mother for thirty years than he would have given him had he converted the whole world by working the greatest miracles. How highly then do we glorify God when to please him we submit ourselves to Mary, taking Jesus as our sole model." (True Devotion to Mary, Nos. 16-18).

Do we wish to see Eucharistic Adoration thrive once again in all of our parishes?  Ad Jesus per Mariam! - To Jesus through Mary!  Let this be our battle cry.