In America, there is a long history of portraying Catholic priests as predators

In an article which may be found here: http://www.crisismagazine.com/2014/pope-francis-stop-using-church-as-sexual-abuse-scapegoat, Dr. William Oddie notes that, "Pope Francis has now once again (though to judge by the so far sparse coverage, you’d think he’d never said or done anything before) expressed his abhorrence of clerical sex abuse. Previous popes—indeed most senior clergy—are normally too reticent, however, to do what he has now done as well, that is to say, he has defended the Catholic Church’s record on tackling the sexual abuse of children by priests, by declaring what is now the simple truth: that “no one else has done more” than the Church to root out pedophilia.

The Catholic Church, he said in an interview with Corriere della Sera published March 5, 'is perhaps the only public institution to have acted with transparency and responsibility. No one else has done more. Yet the Church is the only one to have been attacked. The statistics on the phenomenon of violence against children are shocking, but they also clearly show that the great majority of abuses are carried out in family or neighborhood environments.'

He’s not in fact the first pope to point out that child sex abuse is a problem for society as a whole, and not just for the Church. Pope Benedict, having acknowledged that clerical sexual abuse has 'profoundly wounded people in their childhood, damaging them for a whole lifetime,' was quoted by Dr Pravin Thevathasan, in his booklet The Catholic Church and the Sex Abuse Crisis (CTS, 2010), as saying that "'the crimes of priests, while reprehensible, should be seen in the context of the times in which these events took place.' Citing the rise of child pornography and sexual tourism, he concludes that moral standards in society at large have broken down.”

We are not the only ones, Benedict XVI was rightly saying then, and Pope Francis is in effect saying now. This does not mean that the Pope is saying that we don’t have a real problem: just one priest child abuser would be a scandal. But this is principally, tragically (and to me incomprehensibly) a major problem for society as a whole. The percentage of priests accused of this unspeakable crime is in fact lower than that of males in the population at large. It ought to be a lot lower than it is: it ought to be non-existent. But as long as the Church is singled out in the scandalous way it was recently by the UN as the major sex abuse scapegoat, so long will a profound problem for society at large not be taken seriously.

I will of course (as I know from weary experience) be intemperately attacked for this post whatever I say. All the same, let’s be rid early on of the nonsense that this Pope doesn’t take clerical sex abuse seriously. He said in the interview that the abuse cases 'are terrible because they leave very deep wounds.' Pope Francis praised his predecessor Benedict XVI—the first pope to apologize directly to abuse victims—saying he had been 'very courageous and opened up a path' to changing the Church’s attitude towards predatory priests. Francis himself has said that Catholics should feel 'shame' for such abuse. In December he created a commission to investigate sex crimes, enforce prevention and concentrate on care for victims. According to Cardinal Seán O’Malley, whose particular concern the new commission will be, the Vatican’s focus so far had been on legal procedures. The new body, he said, would represent a more pastoral approach. The cardinal said the commission would study a number of areas, including programs to educate pastoral workers in signs of abuse, psychological testing and other ways of screening candidates for the priesthood, and also, and not least, the Church’s 'cooperation with the civil authorities, the reporting of crimes.'

Whatever was the case 25 years ago (on which the UN’s intemperate attack seems largely based) the Church has learned its lessons and has acted on them, unlike many other institutions in modern society in which the same problem (with its attendant cover-ups) is still endemic. The facts are clear enough: but the media, and institutionally Left-wing organizations like the UN, refuse to acknowledge this, or even indeed that this is a problem for our whole society. This is now a long-standing problem for us. 'When,' asked the Catholic blog La Salette Journey four years ago, 'will the media acknowledge that the sexual abuse of children is not a ‘Catholic problem’?' The fact is, suggests the writer, Paul Anthony Melanson, that 'the media are not so much concerned with the welfare of children as they are with unfairly portraying the abuse of children as a ‘crisis in the Church.’

For example, the American state school system has a considerably higher rate of sexual abuse than the Catholic Church: according to a report prepared for the US Department of Education entitled Educator Sexual Misconduct: A Synthesis of Existing Literature, “9.6 percent of all students in grades 8 to 11 report … educator sexual misconduct that was unwanted.” This report was virtually ignored by the media.

Around the same time, an article by Jim Dwyer in the New York Times reported that the New York state legislature was addressing the fact that child abuse was not only a problem for the Church, but for the whole of society. Should it be possible, asked Dwyer 'to sue the city of New York for sexual abuse by public school teachers that happened decades ago? How about doctors or hospital attendants? Police officers? Welfare workers? Playground attendants? … there is little evidence to show there is more sexual abuse among Catholic priests than among clergy from other denominations, or, for that matter, among people from other walks of life.'"

It should come as no surprise that many Americans, including some of those who produce our secular media, are anxious to paint the abuse of children as a "Catholic problem" or as a "crisis in the Church."  Many of the major networks have done this.  There is a long history in the United States of anti-Catholicism.  And this includes the attempt to portray Catholics - and especially the clergy - as monsters who pose a threat toward children.

America’s founders were generally hostile to the Roman Catholic Church. Thomas Jefferson, for example, doubted that any 'priest-ridden people' could maintain a free and Democratic form of government.

Well into the 19th century, many politicians hitched their wagon to a rising tide of anti-Catholicism. While the 1830s and 1840s saw vast numbers of immigrant Catholics from Ireland and elsewhere arriving desperate and poor in U.S. cities, conspiracies involving the pope and the Catholic Church were hatched. Particularly attractive to many Americans were the kidnapping plots, which suggested that nuns and priests were out to nab Protestants and forcefully convert them. One example being the popular best-selling book "The Awful Disclosures of Maria Monk," published in 1836 — just two years after a convent near Boston was torched by a vicious anti-Catholic mob.

As First Things noted, "Books about sexual deviancy among Catholic priests and nuns were popular in the nineteenth century. Maria Monk, published her Awful Disclosures of the Hotel Dieu Convent of Montreal, or The Secrets of the Black Nunnery Revealed in 1836. Morris estimates it sold 300,000 copies before the Civil War. “It has been called the Uncle Tom’s Cabin of anti-Catholicism,” Morris writes, “or the anti-Catholic equivalent of the anti-Semitic Protocols of the Elders of Zion.”


The Protocols of the Elders of Zion , not so long ago thought to be permanently discredited, is now enjoying a resurgence of popularity, particularly in Islamic countries. Like the threatening images of the Protocols , the images of foreign, secretive, power hungry, and sexually deviant Catholic cabals go underground in some decades, only to re-emerge in others.

One hundred and twenty years later, the cartoons of reptile-human hybrids, bishops on the hunt for America’s children, have reappeared. Nast’s trope of the alien, not quite human, Catholic has come out of hibernation to be printed in newspapers and magazines all over the United States and the world."

Thomas Nast's cartoon (see above), published in the September 30, 1871 edition of Harper's Weekly, captured the attitude of so many anti-Catholic bigots of his day.  Catholic Bishops were portrayed as predatory reptiles, their mitred hats became the sinister jaws of crocodiles, attacking the children of the republic.

Is it any wonder that some Americans today, influenced by more than 200 years of rabid anti-Catholicism, are anxious to portray the sexual abuse of children as "a Catholic problem"?  The hatred may have become a bit more subtle today.  But it is still with us.

Hostility toward the Holy Mass: Preparation for the Reign of Antichrist

World Net Daily is reporting:


In what has been described as “an astonishing attack on religious freedom,” Catholics at a Navy base were banned from attending worship services because of the partial shutdown of the federal government.

In response, the Thomas More Law Center announced it has filed a lawsuit over the orders at Kings Bay Naval Submarine Base in Georgia. The legal team said a Catholic priest who serves the community on the military base “has been prohibited from even volunteering to celebrate Holy Mass without pay and was told that if he violated that order, he could be subject to arrest.” Without explanation, however, Protestant services continued.

 

“This is an astonishing attack on religious freedom by the federal government and the latest affront toward the military since the beginning of the shutdown,” said a report by the Thomas More Law Center. The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in Washington on behalf of Father Ray Leonard, a Catholic priest contracted to serve as base chaplain, and Fred Naylor, one of Leonard’s parishioners and a retired veteran with more than 22 years of service.

Leonard, a civilian serving on a contract basis, had served Tibetan populations in China for years.
“I was disallowed from performing public religious services due to the lack of religious freedom in China,” he said in an affidavit. “I never imagined that when I returned home to the United States, that I would be forbidden from practicing my religious beliefs as I am called to do and would be forbidden from helping and serving my faith community.”

Ten days ago, Leonard was ordered to stop performing all of his duties as the base’s Catholic chaplain, even as a volunteer. He was also told that he could be arrested if he violated the order. The approximately 300 Catholic families, including Naylor’s, served by Leonard at Kings Bay have been unable to attend Mass on base since the beginning of the shutdown, the legal team said.

“Additionally, Fr. Leonard was locked out of his on-base office and the chapel. Fr. Leonard was also denied access to the Holy Eucharist and other articles of his Catholic faith. The order has caused the cancellation of daily and weekend Mass, confession, marriage preparation classes and baptisms as well as prevented Fr. Leonard from providing the spiritual guidance he was called by his faith to provide.”

The legal team said the submarine base is in a remote location. It consists of roughly 16,000 acres, with 4,000 acres comprised of protected wetlands. There are approximately 10,000 total people on the base.

While there is a Catholic church located in St. Mary’s, some 16 miles away, “many of the parishioners both live and work on base and do not own a car and cannot otherwise access transportation,” the report said.

Defendants in the lawsuit are the Department of Defense, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, the Department of the Navy and the Secretary of the Department of the Navy, Ray Mabus.
For active duty service members, on-base religious services are very important due to limited transportation and minimal time off. Additionally, as service members tend to have high rates of divorce, depression and suicide, the need for readily available spiritual encouragement and guidance is critical, the legal team explained.

The Pay Our Military Act, which was enacted before the beginning of the government shutdown, provides funding for employees whose responsibilities contribute to the morale and well-being of the military. The government has been criticized for interpreting the act to not include military death benefits. Now, the Thomas More Center said, in yet another bizarre interpretation of the act, some chaplains are not considered covered by these provisions, leaving Catholic members of some military facilities without spiritual guidance.

On December 31, 1992, Our Lady told Father Gobbi of the Marian Movement of Priests:

"I have announced to you many times that the end of the times and the coming of Jesus in glory is very near. Now, I want to help you understand the signs described in the Holy Scriptures, which indicate that His glorious return is now close.

These signs are clearly indicated in the Gospels, in the letters of Saint Peter and Saint Paul, and they are becoming a reality during these years.

-The first sign is the spread of errors, which lead to the loss of faith and to apostasy.

These errors are being propagated by false teachers, by renowned theologians who are no longer teaching the truths of the Gospel, but pernicious heresies based on errors and human reasonings. It is because of the teachings of these errors that the true faith is being lost and that the great apostasy is spreading everywhere.

'See that no one deceives you. For many will attempt to deceive many people. False prophets will come and will deceive very many.' (Mt 24:4-5)

'The day of the Lord will not come unless the great apostasy comes first.' (2 Thes 2:3).
'There will be false teachers among you. These will seek to introduce disastrous heresies and will even set themselves against the Master who ransomed them. Many will listen to them and will follow their licentious ways. Through their offense the Christian faith will be reviled. In their greed, they will exploit you with fabrications.' (2 Pt 2:1-3)

-The second sign is the outbreak of wars and fratricidal struggles, which lead to the prevalence of violence and hatred and a general slackening off of charity, while natural catastrophes, like epidemics, famines, floods and earthquakes (see here), become more and more frequent.

'When you hear the report of wars, close at hand or far away, see that you are not alarmed; for these things must happen. Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in many places. All this will be only the beginning of greater sufferings to come. Evildoing will be so widespread that the love of many will grow cold. But God will save those who persevere until the end.' (Mt 24:6-8, 12-13)

-The third sign is the bloody persecution of those who remain faithful to Jesus and to His Gospel and who stand fast in the true faith. Throughout this all, the Gospel will be preached in every part of the world.
Think, beloved children, of the great persecutions to which the Church is being subjected; think of the apostolic zeal of the recent popes, above all my Pope, John-Paul II, as he brings to all the nations of the earth the announcement of the Gospel.

'They will hand you over to persecution and they will kill you. You will be hated by all because of me. And then many will abandon the faith; they will betray and hate one another. Meanwhile, the message of the kingdom of God will be preached in all the world; all nations must hear it. And then the end will come.' (Mt 24:9-10, 14)

-The fourth sign is the horrible sacrilege, perpetrated by him who sets himself against Christ, that is, the Antichrist. He will enter into the holy temple of God and will sit on his throne, and have himself adored as God.

'This one will oppose and exalt himself against everything that men adore and call God. The lawless one will come by the power of Satan, with all the force of false miracles and pretended wonders. He will make use of every kind of wicked deception, in order to work harm.' (2 Thes 2:4,9)


'One day, you will see in the holy place he who commits the horrible sacrilege. The prophet Daniel spoke of this. Let the reader seek to understand.' (Mt 24:15)

The Holy Mass is the daily sacrifice, the pure oblation which is offered to the Lord everywhere, from the rising of the sun to its going down.
The sacrifice of the Mass renews that which was accomplished by Jesus on Calvary. By accepting the protestant doctrine, people will hold that the Mass is not a sacrifice but only a sacred meal, that is to say, a remembrance of that which Jesus did at His last supper. And thus, the celebration of Holy Mass will be suppressed. In this abolition of the daily sacrifice consists the horrible sacrilege accomplished by the Antichrist.

[Saint Alphonsus Ligouri: "The devil has always managed to get rid of the Mass by means of the heretics making them the 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 predicted] -The fifth sign consists in extraordinary phenomena, which occur in the skies.

'The sun will be darkened and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from the sky; and the powers of the heavens will be shaken.' (Mt 24:29)

The miracle of the sun, which took place at Fatima during my last apparition, is intended to point out to you that you are now entering into the times when these events will take place, events which will prepare for the return of Jesus in glory."

(The miracle of the sun is also reported to have been witnessed many times at Medjugorje and Conyers, and elsewhere.)

'And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven. All the tribes of the earth will mourn, and men will see the Son of Man coming upon the clouds of heaven, with great power and splendor.' (Mt 24:30)

(The sign of the Son of Man has always been the Cross; Garabandal: 'a permanent sign'; Brother David Lopez: 'We will see in the sky one great red cross'; Fr. Anthony J. Paone, in 'My Daily Bread,' published by the Confraternity of the Precious Blood: 'The sign of the cross will appear in the sky.')

My beloved ones and children consecrated to my Immaculate Heart, I have wanted to teach you about these signs, which Jesus has pointed out to you in His Gospel, in order to prepare you for the end of the times, because they are about to take place in your days. " (To the Priests: Our Lady's Beloved Sons, pp. 750-753).

It is true that we don't know "the day or the hour." However, Our Lord tells us "Learn a lesson from the fig tree: when its branches become tender and sprout the first leaves, you know that summer is near. In the same way, when you see these things taking place, know that your liberation is near." (Matthew 24:32-33).

Let's learn the lesson of the fig tree as Jesus commands. Let's read the signs of the times while it is still day. Many have a veil over their eyes and cannot read these signs. We must pray and work to remove that veil.

Those who can still see, who still are able to read the signs of the times, will no doubt recall the hostility which Barack Obama demonstrated toward Our Lord at Georgetown University's Gaston Hall.  See here.

Tom Horn attacks Fatima on Sid Roth's "It's Supernatural"

Tom Horn sees demons everywhere. The Assembly of God pastor and author of numerous works of anti-Catholic theology-fiction such as “The Ahriman Gate,” “Nephilim Stargates” and “As It Was in the Days of Noah,” is now accusing the Catholic Church, the Church founded by Jesus Christ, of preparing to welcome “an alien savior.” In his new book entitled ‘Exo-Vaticana: Petrus Romanus, Project L.U.C.I.F.E.R., and the Vatican’s Astonishing Plan for the Arrival of an Alien Savior,” Mr. Horn warns that “Rome is busy now hypothecating the astonishing doctrines that will facilitate the coming of a Galactic Savior.”

Horn’s thesis (and that of his co-author Cris Putnam (whom the book touts as a “respected theologian and apologist) is that the Roman Catholic Church is searching the skies for demons who will soon arrive on planet earth in the guise of aliens and will baptize these demonic entities. Additionally, these two authors claim that the Church has been preparing for an alien savior for many centuries and that the Virgin Mary who appeared at Fatima was really a demonic deception Horn and Putnam write, “Considering Constantine’s fourth-century sighting got it started, the event in Fatima, and all the sightings over the Vatican, Roman Catholicism arguably qualifies as a UFO religion.” (P. 367).

Horn’s book is chock full of such items. On page 221, he questions free will: “..the question of human autonomy in accepting God and rejecting Satan is a matter of intense intermural debate among Christians and is by no means a given.” On page 235, Horn takes exception with the Church’s understanding of Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus, asserting that the Church’s position represents “liberalized inclusivism”which is “considered heretical by Bible-believing Christians.” On pages 238 and 239, Horn suggests that the Catholic Church’s hierarchy has “been deceived by..evil supernatural intelligences.” On page 256, he asserts that the Middle Ages represented a “Dark Age” and a “Pornocracy” during which “..many in the priesthood were..involved in the occult arts and were not well trained in biblical theology.” On page 257, he accuses Albertus Magnus as having been “in league with the Devil.” On pages 259 and 260, he describes a vision which Nicholas of Cusa allegedly had and emphatically declares that this vision “went unchallenged by the Church” (Thereby displaying his ignorance regarding the Church’s teaching pertaining to private revelation - see Catechism of the Catholic Church, 67). On page 308, Horn and Putnam refer to what they see as “The absurdity of Catholic claims to an infallible teaching magisterium..” On page 270, Horn and Putnam assert that, “..the Roman Church [note how they omit the word Catholic) is forever besmirched by its capacity for murderous zeal.”

Chapter 14 of this anti-Catholic tome is entitled “Fatima: Harbinger of the Great Deception?” Horn and Putnam reject the miracle of the sun, asserting that, “..if the sun had actually moved in the described manner, the gravitational effects would have devastated the Earth.” The authors purposely ignore the fact that God created nature, that He is omnipotent, and that He can work in and through nature as He likes. The same God who parted the Red Sea and calmed the storm waters when His disciples became afraid can certainly move heavenly bodies. But in their desire to denigrate devotion to Mary (which they refer to as “Mariolatry”), Horn and Putnam insist that what the people at Fatima actually witnessed was not a miracle of the sun but an alien disc (demonic in origin) and that “entities behind the aerial phenomenon are influencing Catholic dogmas” - such as the Assumption of Mary pp. 367, 368).

Horn and Putnam assert that the miraculous apparitions of Our Lady to Bernadette Soubirous at Lourdes, France were the result of “Mariolatry,” and that the apparition was a story crafted, “..at a time when the status of the Virgin was being challenged within the Catholic Church.” (P. 368). The authors insist that, “The priest [St. Bernadette’s parish priest] spun this phantasm into evidence for Marian dogma, and the rest is history. Astonishingly, Bernadette was heralded as a mystic, canonized as a saint in 1933, and even given her own feast day on the sixteenth of April. See a pattern emerging? Like at Fatima, it always speaks through naive children...While a few credulous Portuguese children could be easily deceived by a supernatural entity, the events at Fatima had nothing to do with the biblical Mary.” (P. 368). The authors insist, however, that “Many scholars are now categorizing Fatima as a mass UFO sighting.” (P. 369).

Why are Tom Horn and Cris Putnam (not to mention Sid Roth who has promoted these two anti-Catholic bigots on his television program “It’s Supernatural”) so anxious to discredit Fatima and devotion to Our Lady in general? Because devotion to Our Lady is necessary for salvation. And because the Devil knows that the requests Our Lady made at Fatima represent the definitive solution to defeating the Devil and his agents. The Devil hates Fatima - and other approved apparition sites - for this reason. But especially Fatima. The Devil wants to discredit Fatima because he is a liar and a murderer from the beginning (see John 8: 44). The Devil knows that his time is short and that the prophetic mission of Fatima is still most relevant. This is why Pope Benedict XVI said, on May 13, 2010, that “He deceives himself who thinks the prophetic mission of Fatima is concluded.”

The Devil fears Our Lady. With each “Hail Mary,” all of Hell trembles. St. Louis de Montfort assures us of this. And so the Devil seeks (often using human agents to accomplish this goal) to draw the faithful away from Fatima and other Church approved apparitions.

It is most significant that Tom Horn reveals in his book that he had a family secret which he “could neither understand nor talk about.” The secret? His sister Vida and her daughter have had encounters with demonic spirits who he describes as “floating monstrosities” which “seemed to dematerialize like ectoplasm through a fantastic, spinning void” and which left behind the smell of sulfur and decaying flesh. (pp. 449-460). Why is this significant? Because demonic oppression can often run in families.

Tom Horn and Cris Putnam do not think much of Mary. This is why the denigrate devotion to her. But as Archbishop Fulton Sheen says in his classic work entitled ‘The World’s First Love,” “..The key to understanding Mary is this: We do not start with Mary. We start with Christ, the Son of the living God! The less we think of Him, the less we think of her; the more we think of Him, the more we think of her; the more we adore His Divinity, the more we venerate her Motherhood; the less we adore His Divinity, the less reason we have for respecting her....”

Sid Roth continues to promote Horn and Putnam’s book. He may be contacted at:

Sid Roth’s It’s Supernatural & Messianic Vision
P.O. Box 39222
Charlotte, NC 28278
704-943-6500

Liberal columnist Bonnie Erbe: the Christian era is crumbling and this will be liberating

In their Pastoral Letter on Freedom of Conscience and Religion, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, citing Blessed John XXIII's Encyclical Letter Pacem in Terris, No. 14, remind us that, "Every individual has the 'right to be able to worship God in accordance with the right dictates of conscience....Besides being free from external coercion, everyone must be able freely to exercise the right to choose, profess, disseminate, and practice his or her own religion in private and in public.  This includes the freedom for parents to educate their children in their religious convictions and to choose the schools which provide that formation.  Moreover, the State has the obligation to protect this right by means of a legal and administrative framework and to create a suitable environment where it can be enjoyed...Unfortunately, religious freedom is far from being effectively guaranteed everywhere.  Sometimes it is denied for religious or ideological reasons.  At other times, although it may be recognized in law, it is hindered in practice by a legal system or social order which enforces strict control, if not a monopoly, over society....

More subtle threats to religious freedom arise from the cultural predominance of radical secularism and 'a subliminal relativism that penetrates every area of life.  Sometimes this relativism becomes aggressive when it opposes those who say they know where the truth or meaning of life is to be found.' (Pope Benedict XVI, Address to Central Committee for German Catholics, Freiburg in Breisgau, September 24, 2011).

This aggressive and hate-filled secularism which Pope Benedict XVI refers to aims at forcing religious believers - and especially Catholic Christians - to keep their religious convictions to themselves while insisting that atheists, agnostics and the "non-affiliated" should not be held to the same restriction.  The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops rightly declare that such an aim amounts to nothing less than "an expression of religious intolerance."

This intolerance is embraced by liberal columnist Bonnie Erbe.  In a column entitled "Christian leaders losing power, and I'm fine with that," which was carried by the Fitchburg Sentinel & Enterprise, Ms. Erbe argues that America is morphing "from one nation under one Christian god to an amalgam nation under many gods" and that it is "liberating" to know that the non-Christian population is increasing even as the ranks of Church-going Christians decreases.

Ms. Erbe rails against the Catholic Church in particular because the U.S. Bishops have had the audacity to stand up for religious freedom against the Obama administration's contraception mandate which would violate the First Amendment guarantee of religious liberty.  She writes, "Clearly, they and other Christian church leaders still see us as one nation under one god.  But...this is changing.  Another Pew poll released two years ago on the 'millennial' generation and its relationship with faith should be even more troubling to Christian leaders.  It showed the following, quoting from the Pew website: 'Americans ages 18 to 29 are considerably less religious than older Americans.  Fewer young adults belong to any particular faith than older people do today.  They also are less likely to be affiliated than their parents' and grandparents' generations were when they were young.'

For Ms. Erbe, this is all just great news.  She writes joyfully, "One day, Christian leaders will wake up and recognize that their era is crumbling.  If that means they will have decreasing power in the political realm, it will be a blessing for all of us..."

In other words, if the rights and freedoms of Christians are to diminish as their ranks grow smaller, such will represent a blessing to those who oppose the Christian Church.  Having succumbed to the Father of Lies (John 8: 44), Ms. Erbe could not possibly understand that the growing apostasy will not represent a "blessing" for pagans, atheists, agnostics and the "non-affiliated."  On the contrary, the Holy Spirit assures us through Saint Paul that the day of the Lord will not come "unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of perdition" (2 Thessalonians 2: 3) and that, "The coming of the lawless one by the activity of Satan will be with all power and with pretended signs and wonders, and with all wicked deception for those who are to perish, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved." (2 Thessalonians 2: 9-10).

The coming of the lawless one (the Antichrist for the scripturally illiterate) will set off a sequence of events culminating in the complete destruction of those who have "refused to love the truth and so be saved."  Jesus refers to this mystery in John 5: 43.  After this destruction comes, we will have a new heavens and a new earth where nothing unclean shall enter (Revelation 21: 27).

Now that will be a blessing!

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Denise Darrigrand, Clark University's Dean of Students: Is she Christianophobic?

In the March 8, 1955 edition of Look magazine, Rev. Carl M. Chorowsky, minister of the first Unitarian Church of Fairfield, Connecticut, explained the basic tenets of Unitarian theology. Dr. Chorowsky said that, "In general, a Unitarian is a religious person whose ethic derives primarily from that of Jesus, who believed in One God, not the Trinity...Unitarians hold that the orthodox Christian world has forsaken the real, human Jesus of the Gospel, and has substituted a Christ of dogmatism, metaphysics and pagan philosophy. Because Unitarians refuse to acknowledge Jesus as their Lord and God, they are excluded from the National Council of the Churches of Christ."

Dr. Chorowsky further explained the Unitarian attitude toward Jesus Christ in this edition of Look magazine when he said that, "Unitarians repudiate the doctrine and dogma of the Virgin Birth...Unitarians do not believe that Jesus is the Messiah, either of Jewish hope or of Christian fantasy. They do not believe He is 'God Incarnate,' or the Second Person of the Trinity, as the final arbitrator at the end of time, who shall come to judge the quick and the dead."

What is this but the spirit of Antichrist? We are warned in 1 John 4: 1-3, "Beloved, do not trust every spirit but test the spirits to see whether they belong to God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. This is how you can know the Spirit of God: every spirit that acknowledges Jesus Christ come in the flesh belongs to God, and every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus does not belong to God. This is the spirit of the Antichrist that, as you heard, is to come, but in fact is already in the world."

Unitarian Universalists have a radical and militant homosexual agenda and have ridiculed the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and Catholic Teaching on homosexuality, referring to it as "archaic" while dismissing a statement from the CDF as representing "astonishing arrogance."  See here.  Does the Dean of Students at Clark University, Denise Darrigrand, share this view?  When a reader of this Blog wrote Ms. Darrigrand an email asking, "Does Clark University approve of students organizations which engage in public ridicule of Catholics?",  Ms. Darrigrand responded, "...I've been following this for about a week now.  A lot of our students are upset about it but it doesn't seem like there's much we can do.  We're just going to ride it out."

Would Dean Darrigrand take this attitude if African-Americans were the subject of public ridicule by students at Clark University?  Homosexual persons?  Jews? or any other group?  We're just going to ride it out?  This is the response to Catholic-bashing from the Dean of Students at Clark University?  Could it be that Ms. Darrigrand has chosen to just look the other way because she identifies with the Unitarian Universalists and the radical homosexual agenda?

Dean Darrigrand's Facebook page (which I have copied should it happen to suddenly disappear or change), mentions that her interests include the Unitarian Universalist Church of Worcester and Lgbtqi Spirit of Central Massachusetts, a homosexual activism organization.  Lgbtqi stands for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, questioning, and intersex.

Is this why it is "open season" on Catholics and Catholic opposition toward homosexuality and same-sex "marriage" at Clark University?

Should Clark University be permitted to receive federal funding when this sort of anti-Catholic animus is just shrugged off?

Cardinal Francis George: LGBT Movement could morph into Ku Klux Klan

CathNewsUSA is reporting that "Cardinal Francis George, the Archbishop of Chicago, this week told a Chicago news station that he agreed with a local Roman Catholic church’s objections to the city’s recently-adjusted Gay Pride Parade route passing by its doors and warned that the parade could 'morph into the Ku Klux Klan.'


George made the comment Sunday on Fox Chicago when asked about Our Lady of Mount Carmel’s complaints that the parade passing by its Belmont Avenue location would force the church to cancel its morning mass. The church recently launched a petition urging the city to force parade organizers to adjust their plans.

'I go with the pastor,' George told Fox. 'He’s telling us that he won’t be able to have services on Sunday if that’s the case. You don’t want the gay liberation movement to morph into something like the Ku Klux Klan, demonstrating in the streets against Catholicism.'"  (See here).

Readers of this Blog know that I have already drawn comparisons between the LGBT Movement and the Ku Klux Klan.  In a post from April of 2010, I wrote: "Historian John Higham once described anti-Catholicism as 'the most luxuriant, tenacious tradition of paranoiac agitation in American history.' Historian Arthur M. Schlesinger, Sr. characterized prejudice against Catholics as 'the deepest bias in the history of the American people.' And conservative commentator Peter Viereck has said that 'Catholic baiting is the anti-Semitism of the liberals.'


But nowhere is this 'paranoiac agitation' and hate-filled prejudice against Catholics more deeply ingrained than in today's Homosexual Hate Movement. There are parallels between this hate movement and the Ku Klux Klan at the early part of the twentieth-century. When the Klan enjoyed a resurgence in the 1920s, anti-Catholic rhetoric intensified to such a degree that it led to violence against Catholics and the burning down of a Catholic Church. Just two weeks after the Church of the Little Flower was erected in 1925, the Klan burned a cross in front of the church. Later the church would burn down in a fire.

Today, hate-filled rhetoric is being levelled against the Catholic Church by rabidly anti-Catholic extremists and this extreme rhetoric has led to open violence against Catholics and Catholic churches (not to mention Protestant and Mormon churches)....One radical anti-Catholic activist has compared the Holy Father to a vampire who is nothing but a bigot (See here). One of his associates (a professor of Sociology) has written that, 'The Pope and the Vatican, modern day Pharisees, and their minions, have caused untold suffering to countless numbers of people, and no decent person, no Christian, no LGBT person, has any business giving credibility to that institution by his/her presence and money.' (See here). Of course, this bright light offers no evidence to support his wild and irresponsible claims against the Church. But then how can we expect such an individual to be concerned with facts in the face of such blanket condemnations of a Church comprised of more than 1 billion people? The classic definition of prejudice: 'Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion.'

The LGBT Movement is very much like the Klan.  It has shown that it will resort to intimidation and violence to get its way.

Is the LGBT Movement interested in dialogue?  You discern.

Another lying atheist exposed: "Catholic Internet Watch" Blog created by a virulently anti-Catholic atheist

In the comments section of my post "Persecution?  What persecution?", Mr. Michael Cole, writing about an individual who has been attacking myself and other orthodox Catholics at the Blog "Catholic" Internet Watch, writes:

"Brian Bridson is "Scout." At another Blog, this atheist from the UK writes:


Excommunication and Defection from the Catholic Church

First of all, there is a very real difference between excommunication and defection. Excommunication is an action taken by the Roman Catholic Church that comes close to fully removing you from the Church, but, in typical Catholic fashion, they leave you with the option of repenting and reclaiming your good standing with the Church. So even if you are excommunicated, you are still counted as a member of the flock.

Defection is different. Also known as Actus formalis defectionis ab Ecclesia catholica, grants the person seeking it the right to have their name removed from records of the Catholic Church and nullifies your baptismal certificate. Of course, when seeking Actus formalis defectionis ab Ecclesia catholica, it would be good to include the rationale for your defection. You will also want to know where and when you were baptized.

I first called the priest servicing the Church in which I was baptized to inform him that I would be pursuing the issue. He spoke with the bishop about it and confirmed that all I need to do is provide the priest with a letter, stating my intention to defect, with my baptismal information and reasons for defection. He will then take the letter to the Bishop of the Diocese, have it processed, and I will receive a letter in the mail confirming my defection.

Below is the text, minus personally identifiable information, that I provided to the priest stating my intention to defect (submitted Monday, March 21, 2011):

My name is Brian Bridson. I was baptized at xxxx Catholic Church, in xxxx, Ontario, during late August or early September in xxxx. Becoming Catholic, much less confession, communion and confirmation, were never decisions I made myself; I never chose to be Catholic.

Due to the fact that I never chose to be Catholic, and because I believe that not once has any evidence for the existence of any gods, much less the Christian or Catholic one, I hereby request a formal defection from the Catholic Church (Actus formalis defectionis ab Ecclesia catholica).

Please send record of my formal defection from the Catholic Church to the address below:


Brian Bridson

xxxxxxxxxx


Thank you for submitting my Actus formalis defectionis ab Ecclesia catholica.

Brian Bridson

It is short and simple, but all that was needed. Don’t forget to sign (include your signature in) your letter. I will post the letter I receive from the Church when I get it."

http://philosophershaze.com/?page_id=7


There are links to many atheist and secular humanist websites at this blog of his. And in a post on "Catholislam," one of his tags is "catholic internet watch," which, surprise - is the title of his new anti-Catholic blog.

I've copied all of this should he decide to delete the pages. More on the atheist Brian Bridson here:

http://philosophershaze.com/?page_id=127


Here's what Brian Bridson - the "grandson of three Catholic grandparents" - has to say about the Church in his post entitled "Catholislam":

The catholic church isn’t interested in educating its followers, much less encouraging them to be able to have genuine conversations with atheists and agnostics. This attitude is summed up rather nicely by Suzanne Scotconi of the archdiocese of Toronto, who said that “We rather like the weak ones.” (See this post for more information about Scotconi’s remark.) What the church really wants in a bunch of mindless sheep that are too scared to think for themselves and who are unable to have honest, genuine conversations with others who haven’t drank their kool-aid.

And what does this do? Well, with great ignorance comes great misunderstanding. These sheep, especially the good ones who have given over the entire substance of their being to this vampiric organization, become unable to enter into honest dialogues with those who have competing or greatly different outlooks on the world. And this misunderstanding, as it grows, often leads to open animosity towards these various “others”.

Don’t forget though – this is a church of understanding.

Then think about the manner in which the church treats members of the TBLGQ communities. In fact, the contempt is so great for these people that in the UN the church, via the Vatican, tried to strike down a motion that would designate them as having special status under international human rights legislation. And why would they seek to deny ensuring this discriminated group of individuals be given special status? Because their “holy book” tells them that these people are akin to evil monsters; swine even.."

Full anti-Catholic post here:

http://philosophershaze.com/?p=2125


Now, Mr. Bridson (a.k.a. "Scout") just left another post at his new Blog "Catholic" Internet Watch, in which he writes: "A commenter at Paul Anthony Melanson's gay-hating La Salette Journey blog is claiming that I am Brian Bridson. This is not true, and there are no reasonable grounds for such a suspicion outside of the frenziedly paranoid, intellectually dysfunctional little Catholic bubble inhabited by the La Salette Journey set. I left them a comment to correct the mistake, although I rather expect it to be deleted."
Now astute readers of this Blog - and this would exclude mindless atheists such as Brian Bridson - know full well that I have no hatred whatsoever for homosexual persons.  Only the sin of homosexuality.  Astute individuals will also find it interesting that Brian Bridson says that he grew up in London "during the 1980s and 1990s."  In fact he uses the exact phrase which "Scout" uses at "Catholic" Internet Watch: "Growing up in London during the 1980s and 1990s."  In a post at that Blog dated October 26, 2011, "Scout" (a.k.a. Brian Bridson) writes:

"Some complain Catholic Internet Watch is "anti-Catholic". It is not. I am the grandson of three Catholic grandparents and count Catholics amongst my friends. Real anti-Catholic prejudice is something I deplore. Growing up in London during the 1980s and 1990s, I remember the suspicion against Catholics at the time of the IRA bombing campaign.

Critics ask me, "Why focus just on Catholics?" It is true that narrow-mindedness can be found amongst the members of other belief systems. I could start a blog called "Protestant Internet Watch", "Muslim Internet Watch" or "Atheist Internet Watch" and find much of legitimate concern to blog about. If I wanted to be even-handed, I could do an "Everybody Internet Watch" and devote each week to a different misbehaving group.

The fact of the matter is, though, that my time and knowledge is limited, and as the old dictum goes, "it is best to write about what you know best". I believe I am, or hope I am, well-placed to study Catholic internet goings-on because I was immersed in that world for a while myself. But that does not make me "anti-Catholic". In fact, I admire the more beautiful aspects of Catholicism, and was at one time very personally interested in the religion on a positive level.

What eventually turned me off was the effect Catholicism has on so many of its followers. That is why Catholic Internet Watch was born. The internet is a largely anonymous forest where you can often best gauge what people are really like and what they are really thinking. It is here that I learnt about the darker side of the collective Catholic mind, and I believe it has to be exposed if people are to become aware of the problem that exists. In many ways, the Catholic leadership fails to deal with or even encourages bad thinking and bad behaviour, and this is also something that needs to be exposed." (See here).

Mr. Bridson has his own anti-Catholic agenda.  And he is obviously willing to lie and deceive to advance that agenda.  Manipulation is manipulation.  And Mr. Bridson (a.k.a. "Scout"), is a manipulator.

New Hampshire Tea Party agrees with Representative Andrew Manuse

It turns out that the New Hampshire Tea Party agrees with Representative Andrew Manuse: religion should be private, marginal and irrelevant.  It has its place in churches but should remain there.  At its website, the New Hampshire Tea Party states, "Some of us think that churches are supposed to be a connection to God and His moral authority for those who choose to be guided by this factor, and thus they should stick to the things of God which are the Ten Commandments..." (See here).

In other words, Christians should leave their beliefs in church where they belong.  But, as I said here, "The Gospel has political implications for those who follow Christ and who have a role to play in the political process."  As Christians, we believe that the responsibilities of citizenship constitute a very important part of our personal vocation.  Gaudium et Spes of the Second Vatican Council says, "May all Christians be aware of their special and personal vocation in the political community.  This vocation requires that they offer a shining example of devotion to duty and of service in promoting the common good, so that they also show by their deeds how authority can be harmonized with freedom, personal initiative with the interrelationships and bonds of the whole social body, and appropriate unity with beneficial diversity." (No. 75).

Those of us who are Christian are not second-class citizens.  But it would appear that the New Hampshire Tea Party Coalition views us as such.  We're permitted to be part of the political process as long as we do not let our Christian faith inform or shape our political values.

There has been a whole lot of anti-Catholicism erupting throughout the Granite State as of late.  We might just have the smoking gun here.

Catholic sexual abuse numbers in perspective: Are you paying attention New Hampshire?

As I said in a post last April, "The 2002 John Jay report tabulated a total of 4,392 priests and deacons in the U.S. against whom allegations of sexual abuse were considered by their dioceses to have been substantiated. Most of these were incidences of homosexual misconduct - somewhere between 80-90 percent of all cases. Dr. Thomas Plante of Stanford University and Santa Clara University has said that, "available research suggests that approximately 2 to 5% of priests have had a sexual experience with a minor" which "is lower than the general adult male population that is best estimated to be closer to 8%."


In her report prepared for the U.S. Department of Education entitled "Educator Sexual Misconduct: A Synthesis of Existing Literature," Charol Shakeshaft explains that, "This analysis indicates that 9.6 percent of all students in grades 8 to 11 report contact and/or noncontact educator sexual misconduct that was unwanted." (p. 25). And then Ms. Shakeshaft puts this percentage in a proper perspective:

"To get a sense of the extent of the number of students who have been targets of educator sexual misconduct, I applied the percent of students who report experiencing educator sexual misconduct to the population of all K-12 students. Based on the assumption that the AAUW surveys accurately represent the experiences of all K-12 students, more than 4.5 million students are subject to sexual misconduct by an employee of a school sometime between kindergarten and 12th grade. Possible limitations of the study would all suggest that the findings reported here under-estimate educator sexual misconduct in schools." (p. 26).

Full Shakeshaft report may be found here."


According to the same John Jay Report, between the years 1950 and 2002 (a period of 52 years), the total number of substantiated abuse cases across the entire United States was 4,570.

That number again: 4,570.  Now, according to the New Hampshire Governor's Commission on Domestic and Sexual Violence, in a 2006 report which may be found here, "Of the 14,000 children assessed (how many are not assessed?) for suspected child abuse each year in New Hampshire, only about 1,000..are found to have been abused or neglected...with physical and sexual abuse each claiming about 21% of victims...some victims are abused in multiple ways." (p. 25).

Let's do some math shall we?  In the sparsely populated state of New Hampshire (the population of Boston, Massachusetts and its suburbs is greater than that of the entire Granite State), there are approximately 200 children who suffer sexual abuse every year.  If we took this number and multiplied it by 52 years (the period of time covered by the John Jay Report on the Catholic Church - and bear in mind that study covered the entire United States), we would get a number of 10,400 children in New Hampshire having suffered sexual abuse.

Approximately 10,400 children over a period of 52 years.  The same period of time for which the John Jay Report said there were 4,570 cases of substantiated abuse in the Catholic Church across the entire United States.

There's something else I find interesting.  Notice the wording in the report of the New Hampshire Governor's Commission on Domestic and Sexual Violence: "Of the..children assessed for suspected child abuse each year in New Hampshire, only about 1,000...are found to have been abused or neglected."
Only?  When it comes to bashing the entire Church for the sins and crimes of a small minority of priests, do we not often hear "even one case is too many"?  And I would wholeheartedly agree with such a statement.  Even one case is too many.

Why then does this report seem to downplay the incidence of sexual abuse across New Hampshire?

A pile of Manuse: Republican Representative Andrew Manuse accuses Bishop John McCormack of breaking the law

Vatican II teaches clearly that Catholics have certain responsibilities with regard to political matters: "In loyalty to their country and in faithful fulfillment of their civic obligations, Catholics should feel themselves obliged to promote the true common good.  Thus, they should make the weight of their opinion felt, in order that civil authority may act with justice, and legislation may conform to moral precepts and the common good" (AA 14; cf. LG 36, GS 43, 75).

This teaching applies to Bishops as well of course.  As Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted explains, "Bishops and priests are not to participate in the public administration of the government. Nonetheless, they do have the right, and sometimes an obligation, to speak out on political, social, or cultural matters impacting the Church or the common good.  In his encyclical Deus Caritas Est (28), Pope Benedict XVI states: 'It is not the Church's responsibility to make this teaching prevail in political life. Rather, the Church wishes to help form consciences in political life and to stimulate greater insight into the authentic requirements of justice as well as greater readiness to act accordingly, even when this might involve conflict with situations of personal interest.' The Holy Father goes on to write (ibid): 'The Church cannot and must not take upon herself the political battle to bring about the most just society possible. She cannot and must not replace the State. Yet at the same time she cannot and must not remain on the sidelines in the fight for justice. She has to play her part through rational argument and she has to awaken the spiritual energy without which justice, which always demands sacrifice, cannot prevail and prosper.'"  (See here).

The First Amendment to the Constitution says absolutely nothing about keeping religion out of government.  As Archbishop Charles Chaput has said, "Separating Church and state does not mean separating faith and political issues. Real pluralism requires a healthy conflict of ideas. In fact, the best way to kill a democracy is for people to remove their religious and moral convictions from their political decision-making. If people really believe something, they’ll always act on it as a matter of conscience. Otherwise they’re just lying to themselves. So the idea of forcing religion out of public policy debates is not only unwise, it’s anti-democratic."  See here.

But there are some who insist that religious expression should be private, marginal and ultimately irrelevant.  For such people, religion is okay "in its place" but should be sanitized from the public square.  One such individual is Republican State Representative and Tea Party leader Andrew Manuse.  This intellectual giant, angry because Bishop John McCormack spoke at a Statehouse rally last week criticizing a state budget proposal, has said that, "There is already a federal provision that prohibits a church leader from engaging in the political process if the church has a tax-exempt status. What Bishop McCormack did was in effect breaking that law. If he wants to engage in the process, he can step down as Bishop or have his church pay taxes.." (See here).

If this is the best the GOP has to offer New Hampshire, small wonder that the party has been floundering as of late.  What is it exactly that drives such animus against religious belief and Catholicism in particular?  See here.

The ugly face of anti-Catholicism in New Hampshire

Courtesy of The Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights:

Tuesday April 5, 2011


N.H. REPUBLICANS ARE IN TROUBLE

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on the reaction he has gotten from some New Hampshire Republicans in the wake of the Catholic League protest of Rep. David Bettencourt's attack on Bishop McCormack:

Never in the nearly 18 years I have spent as president of the Catholic League have I seen more totally irresponsible statements issued by the lawmakers in any one state. While some Republicans—and all of those attacking the Catholic League are Republicans—are merely upset with our criticism of Rep. Bettencourt, two have clearly crossed the line.

Rep. Lynne Ober wrote the following to us in an e-mail: "I agree that it is certainly unfortunate that the Catholic League chooses to harbor a person who helped pedophiles continue abusing children."

Rep. Andrew Manuse wrote this missive: "I am now considering a bill to remove the Church's tax exempt status in New Hampshire, for you have clearly shown that you no longer want it."

I have a challenge for the two of them.

Why doesn't Ober take the next step by personally accusing me of harboring a person who helped pedophiles continue to abuse children? Organizations can't sue for libel, but individuals can.

Why doesn't Manuse go right ahead with his bill to remove the Church's tax-exempt status? We'd love to present his e-mail in court.

Didn't anyone ever tell these lawmakers to be careful what they put in writing? In any event, it's time these two heard from our members.

Contact Ober: skibear@cheerful.com

Contact Manuse: amanuse@gmail.com

Anti-Catholicism in Austria: Blasphemous attack on Mary

The lower Austrian main building of government (No-Landhaus) is hosting an exhibition which displays Mary, the Mother of Jesus, covered in a condom and sperm.  See here.  Please offer the following prayer of reparation:

THE PRAYER OF

REPARATION FOR BLASPHEMY
AGAINST THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY



Most glorious Virgin Mary,
Mother of God and our Mother,
turn thine eyes in pity upon us,
miserable sinners;
we are sore afflicted by the many evils that surround us in this life,
but especially do we feel our hearts break within us
upon hearing the dreadful insults and blasphemies uttered against thee,
O Virgin Immaculate.
O how these impious sayings offend the infinite Majesty of God
and of His only-begotten Son, Jesus Christ!
How they provoke His indignation
and give us cause to fear the terrible effects of His vengeance!
Would that the sacrifice of our lives
might avail to put an end to such outrages and blasphemies;
were it so, how gladly we should make it,
for we desire, O most holy Mother,
to love thee and to honor thee with all our hearts,
since this is the will of God.
And just because we love thee,
we will do all that is in our power to make thee honored and loved by all men.
In the meantime do thou,
our merciful Mother,
the supreme comforter of the afflicted,
accept this our act of reparation
which we offer thee for ourselves
and for all our families,
as well as for all who impiously blaspheme thee,
not knowing what they say.
Do thou obtain for them from Almighty God the grace of conversion,
and thus render more manifest and more glorious thy kindness,
thy power and thy great mercy.
May they join with us in proclaiming thee blessed among women,
the Immaculate Virgin and most compassionate Mother of God.


3 Hail Mary...


(Source: The Raccolta, 1950)

France: Catholic cemeteries desecrated

A report of the Gendarmerie Nationale underlines the fact that most desecrations since 2005 have been aimed at Catholic cemeteries and hallowed places.  "Desecrators usually act on the 30th of April, which is in the mean time the birthday of Hitler and of the foundation of the Church of Satan in the United States."  Full article here.

Terry Sanderson's Anti-Catholic Bigotry On Display

Mr. Terry Sanderson, a homosexual activist and columnist for the "Gay Times" who also serves as president of the National Secular Society, is upset over the Papal visit to the UK in September. Mr. Sanderson, who insists that his "Protest the Pope" movement is not anti-Catholic but merely anti-Pope , is most upset over the cost to the taxpayer. He writes, "The entourage accompanying the Pope on his September visit to the UK will be accommodated in a luxury hotel in central London - with eleven of them being funded by the taxpayer...The Pope himself will be staying at the papal nuncio's house in Wimbledon - surely a few more of his flunkies could have been accommodated there at no cost?" (See here). What Mr. Sanderson neglects to tell his readers (being the ardent propagandist that he is), is that the Catholic Churches of England, Scotland and Wales will be contributing to the non-policing costs of the visit. See here.

Yes, Mr. Sanderson is so concerned about the British taxpayer that he didn't complain once when President Obama visited the UK in March of 2009, accompanied by an entourage of 500 - including 200 secret service staff and a medical team. President Obama used a plane, a helicopter, and a limousine and was followed by a fleet of ambulances and decoy vehicles. Manholes in city roads were bolted down, bins were removed and British security snipers were placed in tall buildings. Additionally, Michelle Obama had a staff of eight including a secretary, a press officer and bodyguards. See here. How much of the taxpayers money paid for this visit?

No, that visit didn't concern Mr. Sanderson. Only the upcoming papal visit troubles him. Make no mistake about it, Terry Sanderson is an anti-Catholic bigot. Which is why he refers to those accompanying the Holy Father as "flunkies." His hatred is now on display for the entire world to see. Now it will be obvious to all thinking people what the National Secular Society stands for. Mr. Sanderson is merely its ugly face.

BBC engages in pro-homosexual agitprop and anti-Catholicism....again

As this Zenit article makes clear, "The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) is not known to be one of the Catholic Church's closest friends. Although it has a worldwide reputation for high quality programming, the vast state-funded broadcaster has often been accused of treating the Church and the Catholic faith unfairly at best, and maliciously at worst.

Many examples back up this accusation, beginning with a number programmes over the past 10 years that have been blasphemous and highly offensive to Catholics.

In 2003, the BBC broadcast -- to a large international audience -- a documentary entitled "Sex and the Holy City," which intentionally misrepresented the Church and its teaching on condoms and AIDS. Two years later, it aired 'Jerry Springer the Opera,' a blasphemous and very offensive programme that ridiculed Jesus and the faith in general. Earlier, the BBC had spent £2 million ($3.13 million) on a program called 'Popetown' -- an animated series set in the Vatican that mocked the Church and included plotlines about bestiality. Due to protests, it was banned in Britain but broadcast overseas and sold in Britain on DVD.

The BBC has also been accused of failing in other areas when it comes to Catholicism. The persecution of Catholics in the Middle East or Asia is rarely covered or warranted adequate attention; the immense good work that Catholic priests, religious and laity do around the world is generally passed over; and the Church's invaluable contribution to Western culture tends to be disparaged in favour of focusing on the sins of Church members in the past.

The BBC has also been blamed for more subtle instances of anti-Catholic bias. Discussion panels, news reports and web articles tend to focus on the sensational; they also often comprise contributions from secular figures or dissenting Catholics but hardly ever from orthodox Catholics who will properly convey the Church's teaching.

The corporation's treatment of clergy not infrequently involves interrogations by disparaging and dismissive presenters who seem to view them as guilty until proven innocent. Stephen Glover, a non-Catholic British newspaper columnist, wrote how a BBC television interviewer, quizzing English Archbishop Vincent Nichols in 2007, 'treated him like a member of some extreme sect, interrupting him continually, and sneering at him as though he were a half-wit.'

Most of this bias is attributed to a predominantly secular mindset in the corporation that embraces, or is sympathetic to, the culture of death, whether it be abortion, radical feminism, the homosexual agenda, euthanasia, or unethical science such as embryonic stem cell research. 'The BBC," Glover once wrote, "represents a materialist, mechanistic consensus which has rejected God, and deludes itself that science is capable of providing a complete explanation of existence.'

Even one of the BBC's most accomplished journalists, Andrew Marr, admitted the difficulty the corporation has in offering unbiased coverage. 'The BBC is not impartial or neutral,' he told a secret summit of BBC executives in 2006. 'It's a publicly funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people. It has a liberal bias not so much a party-political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias.'

At that same meeting, one veteran BBC executive was reported in the British press as saying there was 'widespread acknowledgement that we may have gone too far in the direction of political correctness' and that much of this mentality is 'so deeply embedded in the BBC's culture, that it is very hard to change it.' It was also reported that 'nearly everyone' at the summit agreed the Bible could be thrown into the bin on a comedy show, but not the Koran for fear of offending Muslims."

Now BBC Radio 4 has broadcast a play about John Cardinal Newman written by Stephen Wyatt and entitled "Gerontius." This play regurgitates the hateful and calumnious accusation that Cardinal Newman was a closet homosexual, an asinine notion which has already been thoroughly refuted by the Cardinal's biographer Father Ian Ker.

In 1989, two Harvard-educated homosexuals, Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, wrote a book entitled "After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear & Hatred of Gays in the 90s." This book was to be a "gay manifesto for the 1990s." In their own words, "The campaign we outline in this book, though complex, depends centrally upon a program of unabashed propaganda, firmly grounded in long established principles of psychology and advertising.' (p. XXVIII). Part of this propaganda campaign was the idea of depicting great personages from the past as having been homosexual to gain acceptance for homosexuality. The idea was that people would associate homosexuality with greatness. Which is no doubt why the historically anti-Catholic BBC would present a play portraying the great Cardinal Newman as a closeted homosexual.

If the BBC is really interested in exploring for skeletons in closets, it need look no further than to its first Director General, Mr. John Reith. Mr. Reith had pro-fascist sympathies. In fact, after the National Socialists exterminated dissidents within Germany, Reith wrote, “I really admire the way Hitler has cleaned up what looked like an incipient revolt.” Mr. Reith also had an admiration for Benito Mussolini.

When can we expect a BBC program which examines these issues?

Stuart Reid gets it wrong...

Stuart Reid over at The Catholic Herald, one of England's leading Catholic newspapers, isn't very happy with the new website founded by Deacon Nick Donnelly entitled Protect the Pope. Mr. Reid writes, "What troubles me especially is that they seem to encourage a ghetto mentality among the faithful....On their website they encourage frightened and intimidated Catholics - when was the last time you met a Catholic who was genuinely frightened and intimidated? - to register complaints about hate crimes with their local police force.." (See full article here).

I don't actually have to look very far Mr. Reid. I was personally threatened by a homosexual activist who promised to execute me with his high-powered rifle simply because I promote and defend the Church's authentic teaching regarding homosexuality which includes respect for the homosexual person. Does that work for you? One could just as easily ask how many homosexual persons have been genuinely frightened and intimidated. And yet the homosexual community continues to claim victim status as part of its propaganda campaign to advance the homosexual lifestyle. There is more than ample evidence of a mounting Christianophobia throughout the world. See here for some specific cases.

Mr. Reid would appear to defend a freedom of expression which is divorced from Catholic teaching. He writes, "The Protect the Pope website declares: 'Of course people in this country have freedom of expression, but this does not mean they have the right to create a climate of hostility and fear.' But that, of course, is precisely what it does mean, in practice..." This might indeed be the accepted notion of freedom of expression 'in practice," but Mr. Donnelly is correct, such a notion of freedom of speech is distorted. Reid continues, "It is by creating a climate of fear and hostility that press barons sell newspapers, political parties win votes and Boots the chemist sells deodorants."

But are we not called to something better Mr. Reid? Or have you bought into the secularistic-materialistic mindset to such an extent that you see no problem whatsoever with such manipulation carried out by the media? Inter Mirifica, the Decree on the Media of Social Communications of Vatican II, had this to say, "Since public opinion exercises the greatest power and authority today in every sphere of life, both private and public, every member of society must fulfill the demands of justice and charity in this area. As a result, all must strive, through these media as well, to form and spread sound public opinion." (No. 8).

The Decree continues, "The principle moral responsibility for the proper use of the media of social communication falls on newsmen, writers, actors, designers, producers, displayers, distributors, operators and sellers, as well as critic and all others who play any part in the production and transmission of mass presentations. It is quite evident what gravely important responsibilities they have in the present day when they are in a position to lead the human race to good or evil by informing or arousing mankind. Thus, they must adjust their economic, political or artistic and technical aspects so as never to oppose the common good." (No. 11).

In short, freedom implies responsibility Mr. Reid. There is an intimate relationship between freedom and truth. Thus the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches us that, "The more one does what is good, the freer one becomes. There is no true freedom except in the service of what is good and just. The choice to disobey and do evil is an abuse of freedom and leads to 'the slavery of sin." (CCC, 1733).

The choice to do evil is an abuse of freedom. Which is why Deacon Donnelly said that people have a right to freedom of expression but not a right to create a climate of hostility and fear. There can never be a right to do evil. Such a notion is an abuse of freedom.

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn so eloquently warned that: "Destructive and irresponsible freedom has been granted boundless space. Society appears to have little defense against the abyss of human decadence, such as, for example, the misuse of liberty for moral violence against young people, motion pictures full of pornography, crime and horror. This is considered to be part of freedom, and theoretically counterbalanced by the young peoples' right not to look or not to accept. Life organized legalistically has thus shown its inability to defend itself against the corrosion of evil." ("A World Split Apart," Commencement Address at Harvard University, June 8, 1978, reprinted in National Review, July 7, 1978).

Which is why we are now facing what Pope Benedict XVI has rightly termed a "Dictatorship of Relativism." It is this dictatorship of relativism which is gradually placing Catholics in a ghetto. Not the actions of devout Catholics like Deacon Donnelly who love the Vicar of Christ and the Mystical Body of Christ which is the Catholic Church.

Update on the Juda Myers fiasco on Facebook

"But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach (to you) a gospel other than the one that we preached to you, let that one be accursed! As we have said before, and now I say again, if anyone preaches to you a gospel other than the one that you received, let that one be accursed!
Am I now currying favor with human beings or God? Or am I seeking to please people? If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a slave of Christ." (Galatians 1: 8-10).

Over at Human Life International's Facebook page, a Catholic named Cynthia Labutka, who is apparently a good friend or at least an acquaintance of Juda Myers, wrote the following comment:

"We belong to Mother Church, Paul. We must always be welcoming and forgiving concerning positions others might hold about us due to a lack of knowledge of our positions and expect differences, answering them in truth and charity. As a convert, I can assure you that there will be no such denominational differences among the Elect in Heaven. Did you show charity to my sister Juda?

My response:

"Forgiving yes. But we must also defend the Mystical Body of Christ if we really love the Church. Which is exactly what the Catholic League does every day.

Charity? Charity is a supernatural virtue which induces us to love God above all things and our neighbor as ourselves for the love of God. See 1822 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

As Fr. Felix Salvany, a noted Catholic priest and philosopher has explained, "Charity is primarily the love of God, secondarily the love of our neighbor for God's sake. To sacrifice the first is to abandon the latter. Therefore to offend our neighbor for the love of God is a true act of charity. Not to offend our neighbor for the love of God is a sin.

Modern Liberalism reverses this order. It imposes a false notion of charity; our neighbor first, and, if at all, God afterwards. By its reiterated and trite accusations of intolerance, it has succeeded in disconcerting even some staunch Catholics. But our rule is too plain and to concrete to admit of misconception. It is: Sovereign Catholic inflexibility is sovereign Catholic charity. This charity is practiced in relation to our neighbor when in his own interest, he is crossed, humiliated and chastised. it is practiced in relation to a third party, when he is defended from the unjust aggression of another, as when he is protected from the contagion of error by unmasking its authors and abettors and showing them in their true light as iniquitous and pervert, by holding them up to the contempt, horror and execration of all. It is practiced in relation to God when, for His glory and in His service, it becomes necessary to silence all human considerations, to trample under foot all human respect, to sacrifice all human interests, and even life itself to attain this highest of all ends. All this is Catholic inflexibility and inflexible Catholicity in the practice of that pure love which constitutes sovereign charity. The saints are the types of this unswerving and sovereign fidelity to God, the heroes of charity and religion. Because in our times there are so few true inflexibles in the love of God, so also are there few uncompromisers in the order of charity. Liberal charity is condescending, affectionate, even tender in appearance, but at bottom it is an essential contempt for the true good of men, of the supreme interests of truth and of God. It is human self love usurping the throne of the Most High and demanding that worship which belongs to God alone."

Now my question to you: Did Juda practice charity toward God by attacking His Mystical Body? Read and meditate on Acts 9:4. Jesus asked Saul (who was persecuting the Church), "Why are you persecuting Me?"

Did Juda Practice charity toward me by attacking the Church I love without provocation? Was she welcoming?

But most importantly: Why are you so concerned with the feelings of men and so little concerned over attacks against Our Lord's Mystical Body? Are you suggesting that the good folks at the Catholic League, who defend the Church against such attacks every day, are also wrong?

Welcoming? Yes. Understanding theological differences of opinion? Yes. Tolerating attacks against the Mystical Body of Christ? Never.

You should be more concerned over the fact that Juda accused the Catholic Church of killing and greed. That you are not speaks volumes about you."

And then the following exchange took place:


Cynthia Labutka: I am critical of the MANNER in which you are defending the Church. You are looking for a fight. That is not Christian."

Myself: My manner has been appropriate Cynthia. It would seem that, based upon your friendship for Juda, you care nothing for the demands of truth.

Cynthia Labutka: Many of the radical Catholic apologist types are just too hostile. It is a turn off for many and does not advance our cause - which hopefully is the same cause for Life and Christ. Keep your eyes on the prize not on the fight.

Myself: I'm not radical Cynthia. Like the good folks at the Catholic League I love my Church. You should agree that Juda's accusing the Catholic Church of killing and greed is "radical" and "hostile." What a shame that you care more for her than Christ's Mystical Body which is the Church. Goodbye."

This is what passes for "Catholicism" for some. The Church, the Mystical Body of Christ on earth, is simply "another denomination." And anyone who defends the Church, even if they do so in a calm manner, is guilty of being "radical" and "hostile."

God preserve us from such nonsense.