Newsweek declares: "The End of Christian America"

"Christ describes frightening scenes. The last days preceding the second coming will be marked by a final trial which will shake the faith of many believers. Jesus asks: 'But when the Son of Man comes will he find any faith on earth?' (Lk 8: 28). This is a mysterious phrase but its immediate meaning cannot be eluded. Only a 'little flock' will persevere in the faith until the end, awaiting the Lord's coming. The greater part of mankind, including many believers, will have lost the faith. In another context Jesus adds to the eclipse of faith a cooling of charity. Indeed, it is not possible to lose one without losing the other. Thus he describes the 'trials' of the end times: 'Many false prophets will arise; they will deceive many, and with the increase of lawlessness, love in most men will grow cold; but the man who stands firm to the end will be saved' (Mt 24: 11). Jesus situates the the end of the world in the context of great apostasy from the faith. The rejection of Christianity by many who had adhered to it will take place in a world where the Gospel of the Kingdom has been proclaimed to the ends of the earth (cf. Mt 24: 14). The coming of Christ as judge will take place in a context of betrayal. - Fr. Livio Fanzaga

"The Dragon is clearly Satan. Then comes the battle of Michael and his angels against the dragon, whereby the dragon is vanquished and falls. From the deep he (the dragon) calls up a terrible creature, the first apocalyptical beast...Here is the antithesis (of Christ): revelation of the Antichrist. He will be a man of stupendous talents and spiritual force, of great knowledge and might. He will also be filled with religious power. Indeed, he will even have a certain resemblance to Christ, for it will be said also of him that he is mortally wounded and yet alive, in other words, that he has sacrificed himself and vanquished, so that there will be something perversely redemptory about him that is directed against the living God and His Christ. This beast defies God, blaspheming against Him and His name. All men save those registered in the book of the Lamb submit to its power. Then a second beast arises, coming up out of the land. Outwardly, it resembles a Lamb, but it speaks like a dragon. It proclaims the Antichrist, erects his image, performs miracles, and persuades men to worship him. Perhaps we are meant to see in this beast the evil counterpart of him who proclaimed the Savior, the Precursor, John the Baptist. From all sides, from all races, this beast summons men, leading them to the Enemy of God." (Romano Guardini, The Lord, p. 510).

As a student of Catholic prophecy and as one who tries to read the signs of the times, I find it interesting to say the least that the new presidential limousine is referred to by the Secret Service as "the beast." Never before has the presidential limousine been referred to by this moniker. Why now?

Related reading here and here.

Could the president shut down the internet? WND article here.

The Newman Center at Fitchburg State College: faithful to the Church's teaching regarding homosexuality?

The Newman Center at Fitchburg State College has published a series of lectures given by Fr. Bruce Williams, O.P., at its website. One of these lectures deals specifically with the Church's teaching regarding homosexuality and same-sex "marriage." In this lecture, the full text of which may be found here, Fr. Williams presents the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church as "evolving," and adds, "Support for gay and lesbian rights legislation and (or) municipal ordinances is well within the parameters of Catholic moral teaching..."

Really? The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith would beg to differ. In its document entitled, "Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons, which was published on July 31, 2003 and signed by the Congregation's Prefect Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, the CDF explains that marriage "is not just any relationship between human beings. It was established by the Creator with its own nature, essential properties and purpose." This important document continues:

"There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God's plan for marriage and family. Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law. Homosexual acts 'close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.'" (No. 4).

Considerations refutes the objection often raised by those within the homosexual movement (or by those who are sympathetic toward its agenda) that laws permitting homosexual unions would not harm the common good since they do not impose anything:

"In this area, one needs first to reflect on the difference between homosexual behavior as a private phenomenon and the same behavior as a relationship in society, foreseen and approved by the law, to the point where it becomes one of the institutions in the legal structure. This second phenomenon is not only more serious, but also assumes a more wide-reaching and profound influence, and would result in changes to the entire organization of society, contrary to the common good. Civil laws are structuring principles of man's life in society, for good or for ill. They 'play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behavior.' Lifestyles and the underlying presuppositions these express not only externally shape the life of society, but also tend to modify the younger generation's perception and evaluation of forms of behavior. Legal recognition of homosexual unions would obscure certain basic moral values and cause a devaluation of the institution of marriage." (No. 10).

Considerations points out the grave consequences to society if homosexual unions were to be legalized:

"The inevitable consequence of legal recognition of homosexual unions would be the redefinition of marriage, which would become, in its legal status, an institution devoid of essential reference to factors linked to heterosexuality; for example, procreation and raising children. If, from the legal standpoint, marriage between a man and a woman were to be considered just one possible form of marriage, the concept of marriage would undergo a radical transformation, with grave detriment to the common good. By putting homosexual unions on a legal plane analogous to that of marriage and the family, the State acts arbitrarily and in contradiction with its duties." (No. 8). Which is precisely what I argued here.

Fr. Williams doesn't see it that way. He concludes his lecture by saying, "speaking for myself as a Catholic and as a priest who has served the church for 33 years, in my prayers I try to imagine the church some day (probably after my lifetime) having a very different impact on the social status of gay and lesbian people than the impact it has had historically and still continues to have to some degree. Instead of being an influence for social homophobia and discrimination, as has been the case, could the church not become a force for society’s affirmation and inclusion of gays and lesbians – precisely by modelling such affirmation and inclusion in its own life? In moving to this point, could the church not benefit from the example of other faith communities that have already progressed further along the way.." Like the Episcopalians maybe? Better yet, let's not travel down that particular road of infidelity and self-destruction.

It is noteworthy that Fr. Williams has served on the Advisory Board of "Other Sheep," an organization which promotes the radical homosexual agenda. Sister Jeannine Gramick has also served on this Advisory Board. See here. Remember Sister Gramick? Here's what Archbishop Charles Chaput had to say about this dissident religious and the Holy See's Notification regarding her:

July 13, 1999

"Ministry to homosexual persons is important to Catholics. It will remain so. Common sense requires, however, that people ordained or consecrated for Church service should teach what the Church teaches. Unfortunately, on issues pertaining to homosexuality, Sister Gramick and Father Nugent do not, as evidenced by the body of their work.

The Holy See's action regarding Sister Gramick and Father Nugent concludes more than 15 years of study, explanation and discussion of their views on homosexuality and the nature of their pastoral work with homosexual persons. It is guided by the Holy See's commitment to teach God's truth about the dignity of the human person, and by a respect for the rights of all involved — the rights of the everyday faithful, as well as the rights of Sister Gramick and Father Nugent."

Most Reverend Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap.
Archbishop of Denver

The full text of the Holy See's Notification may be found here.

Small wonder that Fr. Williams would view the Church's teaching on homosexuality as "evolving" and would accuse the Church of promoting "homophobia." After all, Other Sheep has the following Mission Statement:

"Other Sheep - Multicultural Ministries with Sexual Minorities is the only worldwide ecumenical Christian organization dedicated to empowering sexual minorities throughout the world with the Good News of God's unconditional love for all and salvation through God's Son, Jesus Christ. With other LGBT activists throughout the world, we recognize that ideological fundamentalism in various religions, especially Christianity, Judaism and Islam, constitutes the major obstacle to justice for our people. Consequently, within the International Lesbian and Gay Association, Other Sheep pioneered the establishment of the ILGA Working Party on Homophobia, Ideology and Religion."

Does the Newman Center at Fitchburg State College also view the Church's teaching regarding homosexual acts and same-sex "marriage" as nothing but "ideological fundamentalism"? If not, why would the Center publish a lecture which accuses the Church of "being an influence for social homophobia and discrimination"?

Where does Deacon Ben Nogueira of FSC's Newman Center (who also serves at St. Camillus de Lellis Parish in Fitchburg) stand with regard to the Church's teaching? Does he view the Magisterial teaching of Christ's Church as "ideological fundamentalism"? Does he view the Church as having been "an influence for social homophobia and discrimination"?

Is Bishop Robert McManus aware that FSC's Newman Center has published this lecture at its website?

Prime Minister Gordon Brown issues a religious call for a New World Order at St. Paul's Cathedral

Mr. Brown is urging people to unite to forge a new "global society" based upon humanitarian principles. As we move toward one world government*, the new humanitarian religion will become more and more aggressive. Catholicism, its greatest enemy, must be overcome at all cost**. To this end, ecclesiastical masonry (see here and here) has inflitrated the Church.

Through one of the characters in his book The Lord of the World, Robert Hugh Benson describes this humanitarian religion which is to overcome the Catholic Church: "Humanitarianism...is becoming an actual religion itself, though anti-supernatural. It is a Pantheism. Pantheism deifies all nature, God is the world, but naturally, man above all is God since he is the highest expression of nature. It is a religion devoid of the 'super' natural, because since God is nature itself, there is no longer a distinction between Creator and creature. The creature is God and hence arbitrator of his own destiny and establishes the moral law for himself. Nature, and man is its highest expression, has all the divine attributes. Humanitarianism is a religion devoid of the supernatural. It is developing a ritual under Freemasonry; it has a creed, 'God is man'; and the rest. It has, therefore, a real food of a sort to offer religious cravings: it idealizes, and yet makes no demands upon the spiritual faculties. Then, they have the use of all the churches except ours, and of all the Cathedrals; and they are beginning at last to encourage sentiment. Then they may display their symbols and we may not..."

The new humanitarian religion, which is anti-supernatural, must absorb Christianity as it prepares for the entrance of the Man of Sin. Catholics who maintain a devotion to the Holy Eucharist and Our Lady must be first ostracized and later eliminated as incompatible with the New Order. On March 11, 1995, Our Lady told Fr. Gobbi that, "In the Church, the great apostasy, which will spread throughout the whole world, will be brought to its completion; the schism will take place through a general alienation from the Gospel and from the true faith. There will enter into the Church the man of iniquity, who opposes himself to Christ, and who will bring into her interior the abomination of desolation, thus bringing to fulfillment the horrible sacrilege, of which the Prophet Daniel has spoken."

* Russia is calling for a "new world reserve currency" which will be necessary for this one-world government. See here. The stage is set for the entrance of the Man of Sin, the Antichrist. There are increasing calls for a watered-down ecumenical church based on humanitarian principles. Which is exactly what Prime Minister Gordon Brown is calling for. The Catholic Church will have to be dismantled. Man must be deified: "Before Christ's second coming the Church must pass through a final trial that will shake the faith of many believers. The persecution that accompanies her pilgrimage on earth will unveil the "mystery of iniquity" in the form of a religious deception offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth. The supreme religious deception is that of the Antichrist, a pseudo-messianism by which man glorifies himself in place of God and of his Messiah come in the flesh.

** Alice Bailey, who co-founded the Lucis Trust (dedicated to Lucifer, see here), had this to say about a New Age of Aquarius - which she insisted must inevitably replace the Piscean or Christian Age:

"They [New Agers who belong to the Aquarian Age] will be characterized by the freedom to think as they choose which they will allow their adherents; they will refuse to emphasize any particular teacher, Bible, or organization as the sole repository of truth, but will accord an equal recognition to all groups who seek to present knowledge of God as it can be gained through science, religion, art or philosophy...They will be inclusive, not exclusive; they will emphasize principles not personalities [such as Christ, my note], service not selfish pursuits, and by the broadness of their vision and the trueness of their perspective, they will lead humanity towards a consummation of universal recognized unity..." (Source text here).

Sign the Letter of Support for Pope Benedict XVI

For background on the controversy, read Fr. Euteneuer's excellent response here. And the Holy Father's statement on condoms here.

The conduct of the media, in particular, has been offensive. And only serves to confirm what Professor James Hitchcock, in his excellent work entitled "Catholicism and Modernity" (New York: Seabury Press, 1979, p. 86), had to say: "The media's alleged commitment to 'pluralism' is at base a kind of hoax*. The banner of pluralism is raised in order to win toleration for new ideas as yet unacceptable to the majority. Once toleration has been achieved, public opinion is systematically manipulated first to enforce a status of equality between the old and the new, then to assert the superiority of the new over the old. A final stage is often the total discrediting, even sometimes the banning, of what had previously been orthodox."


"Responsible men can become more deeply convinced of the truth of the doctrine laid down by the Church on this issue if they reflect on the consequences of methods and plans for artificial birth control. Let them first consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards. Not much experience is needed to be fully aware of human weakness and to understand that human beings—and especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation—need incentives to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law. Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection." (Pope Paul VI, Encyclical Letter Humanae Vitae, No. 17).


* See here for example.

Portuguese Bishop Ilidio Leandro gives grave scandal

The Bishop challenged Pope Benedict XVI's stance on condoms and, in so doing, has given grave scandal. As Dr. Germain Grisez explains, "Advising people whose sexual activities might transmit disease to reduce the risk by using condoms is seldom if ever a case of permissibly counseling the lesser evil. Publishing such advice or offering it indiscriminately gives scandal, for the advice encourages the choice of intercourse with a condom by some who are not already determined to engage in illicit sexual behavior or are determined only to engage in a specifically different immorality...Moreover, using condoms may not lessen the harmful effects of habitual behaviors which risk transmitting disease, for even if the risk is reduced in particular instances, in the long run it may not be less and may even be greater. Condoms fail; habitually unchaste people are not likely to have the self-discipline needed for consistency in taking precautions; and the illusion of safety negates one motive for discontinuing the dangerous behavior."

"Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. The person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor's tempter. He damages virtue and integrity; he may even draw his brother into spiritual death. Scandal is a grave offense if by deed or omission another is deliberately led into a grave offense." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 2284).

"Scandal takes on a particular gravity by reason of the authority of those who cause it or the weakness of those who are scandalized. It prompted our Lord to utter this curse: "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.' Scandal is grave when given by those who by nature or office are obliged to teach and educate others. Jesus reproaches the scribes and Pharisees on this account: he likens them to wolves in sheep's clothing." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2285).

Not only has this renegade Bishop caused grave scandal by advising others that it's permissible to use condoms to "reduce the risk" of disease, but he also gives scandal by publically opposing the Holy Father on this matter.

This Bishop should be removed from his office immediately.

Saint Benedict Center New Hampshire: Engaging in deception?

"I am not and never have been involved with SBC's 'Catholic America Tour'. That website page is misleading." -Fr. Brian Harrison, O.S., in a comment left at this Blog pertaining to a website page of the SBC cult in Richmond, New Hampshire which listed him as part of its "Catholic" America Tour.

Why would the SBC cult list Fr. Harrison as a participant in its "Catholic" America Tour? According to Fr. Harrison, he is not and never has been involved with that project. And the website page has since been removed. Was this an attempt by SBC cultists to achieve some legitimacy?* Were they intentionally engaging in deception?


* The "Saint Benedict Center" is not a Catholic organization. The following letter written by Fr. Edward Arsenault, Moderator of the Curia for the Diocese of Manchester to Mrs. Terri O'Rorke, makes that fact abundantly clear:

"I write to you in reply to your letter dated May 24, 2007. I share your concern about the ongoing controversy and difficulties with the Saint Benedict Center. As you know, the Saint Benedict Center has no permission or authority to exercise any Ministry on behalf of the Roman Catholic Church in New Hampshire. Bishop McCormack has and will continue to do all that he can to encourage people to refrain from participating in any of the spiritual exercises at the Saint Benedict Center.

For my part, I will continue to make it clear that Saint Benedict Center has no affiliation with the Roman Catholic Church in any way. Please know that I will continue to pray for you and all those who are affected by difficulties that have been created by the Saint Benedict Center."

Related reading here and here.

Louis Villarrubia, known by his followers as "Brother" Andre Marie, was questioned about the Holocaust. That interview is recounted here.

Bishops take stand against Reiki at convents and retreat centers citing "danger of malevolent forces."

Michael Brown has warned of the dangers of Reiki in the past. So have I. In fact, as I mentioned in this post written back in 2005, the La Salette Missionaries have offered Reiki at their Center for Christian Living in Attleboro.

And as this website explains, Patricia Warren, who has been voted "most recognized Reiki Master in Massachusetts," by Spirit of Change Magazine, has developed the "Touch of Compassion" - a "Christian Approach" to Hands on Healing, which she offers at Ruah Spirituality Institute, Adelynrood Conference Center, La Salette Center for Christian Living, and numerous Episcopal and Unitarian churches.

Ms. Warren apprenticed with Guru Sewak Singh Khalsa and practiced reflexology and energy massage while studying kundalini yoga, numerology, meditation and the Sikh religion. She has also studied Transcendental Meditation and hatha yoga.

The Ruah Spirituality Institute is, in reality, a New Age organization which offers Centering Prayer, Reiki, and "Eco-Spirituality." According to the Institute's website (go here), it will be offering An Evening with James Carroll, the former Catholic priest and Boston Globe columnist who has come under fire for his anti-Catholic views and his revisionist history regarding the record of Pope Pius XII. See this Catholic League article for example.

Two quotes regarding anti-Semitism...

"Mark well, we call Abraham our Patriarch, our ancestor. Anti-Semitism is irreconcilable with this lofty thought....Anti-Semitism is inadmissible; spiritually, we are all Semites."

-Pope Pius XI to Belgian Pilgrims, September 6, 1938.

"...I accept fully the teachings of Vatican Council II about the Jewish people and, with the Church, I condemn and repudiate anti-Semitism. However, since the Council did not attempt [to] define what precise views, expressions and attitudes are to count as being 'anti-Semitic,' there is clearly a certain 'grey area' there."

U.S. Marine Cpl. Mike Ouellette....Semper Fi

A 1999 graduate of Memorial High School, Mike Ouellette, 27, was killed Sunday in southern Afghanistan.

We Shall Keep the Faith

by Moina Michael,

November 1918

Oh! you who sleep in Flanders Fields,

Sleep sweet - to rise anew!

We caught the torch you threw

And holding high, we keep the Faith With All who died.

We cherish, too, the poppy red

That grows on fields where valor led;

It seems to signal to the skies

That blood of heroes never dies,

But lends a lustre to the red

Of the flower that blooms above the dead

In Flanders Fields.

And now the Torch and Poppy Red

We wear in honor of our dead.

Fear not that ye have died for naught;

We'll teach the lesson that ye wrought

In Flanders Fields.

Fr. Brian Harrison responds...

Father Brian Harrison left two comments at this Blog which I will address in this post. In his first comment, he writes, "Please allow me to respond to these attacks. I had never read till now the February 2004 article by E. Michael Jones that was quoted in 'Catalyst,' and it is certainly not true to say that I do not find his theological position, as quoted here, 'problematic.'"

Actually, my Blog post did not constitute an "attack" on Father Harrison. But since Father has portrayed himself as some sort of "authority" on E. Michael Jones and has defended him while asserting that, "Mike Jones principal 'crime' has been to publish extensive historical studies arguing that Jewish activists, intellectuals and financiers have again and again been major players in the various revolutionary movements of the last two millennia aimed at preventing, subverting and overthrowing the dominance in European civilization of Christian values and the Catholic and Orthodox Churches," it's fair to say that he apparently does not find E. Michael Jones' views to be problematic. This because Jones' views have been well-documented.

Father Harrison acknowledges this in his first comment writing, "...I have often expressed to Jones and Sungenis my concern and disapproval about certain things they have said about Jews, especially anything that tends to come across as a sweeping negative generalization about that people as a whole." And what of Jones' belief that "Jewish activists, intellectuals and financiers" have been "major players in the various revolutionary movements of the last two millennia aimed at preventing, subverting and overthrowing" Christian values and Catholic and Orthodox Churches? That sure comes across as "a sweeping negative generalization" about the Jewish people to me.

He then writes, "As regards the St. Benedict Center in New Hampshire, I had no knowledge of anything its spokespersons had ever said on Jewish issues when I spoke at their conference (on a quite different topic) back in August 2007. If indeed SBC representatives have made statements accusing 'the Jewish People' as such of 'corrupting' influences, conspiracies, or whatever, then I totally repudiate such views." But "Brother" Andre Marie of the SBC has said that the Jewish People undermine public morals and Douglas Bersaw has denied the Holocaust, referring to it as a "fraud" and the Jewish People as the "Synagogue of Satan." If Father Harrison is really opposed to such views, then why is he part of the SBC's 2009 "Catholic America Tour"? See here. And if Father is really opposed to such conspiracy theories, why has he defended the conspiracy theories of E. Michael Jones which portray "Jewish activists, intellectuals and financiers" as being behind 2,000 years of plots to overthrow the Catholic and Orthodox Churches and Christian values?

Father Harrison concludes his first comment writing, "...I accept fully the teachings of Vatican Council II about the Jewish people and, with the Church, I condemn and repudiate anti-Semitism. However, since the Council did not attempt [to] define what precise views, expressions and attitudes are to count as being 'anti-Semitic,' there is clearly a certain 'grey area' there. That should be a matter of calm and respectful debate among Catholics, not harsh mutual condemnations."

This is what Vatican II said, "...in her rejection of every persecution against any man, the Church, mindful of the patrimony she shares with the Jews and moved not by political reasons but by the Gospel's spiritual love, decries hatred, persecutions, displays of anti-Semitism, directed against Jews at any time and by anyone." (Nostra Aetate, No. 4). Anti-Semitism expresses itself in many and varied ways. For example, through denial of the Holocaust or "sweeping negative generalizations" such as those issued by SBC representatives or E. Michael Jones and Robert Sungenis.

In his second comment, Father Harrison writes, "Once again Mr. Melanson, I ask space to defend myself - this time from the grave charge of unorthodoxy that you level against me."

Apparently Father has difficulty being honest. Something he should work on this Lent. In the post he refers to, I wrote, "Followers of the late Fr. Leonard Feeney have initiated a discussion thread at the Holy Cross Cardinal Newman Society website with an article written by Fr. Brian W. Harrison, O.S., and entitled "Can an 'implicit faith' in Christ be sufficient for salvation?...The answer is: yes." I then proceeded to present the Magisterial teaching of the Church relative to the subject and added, "Theologians such as Fr. Brian Harrison are not 'pastors' within the Church. They have not been given the mission from the Lord Jesus to instruct the faithful in 'all that serves to make the People of God live their lives in holiness and increase their faith' (Dei Verbum, No. 8). This mission has been entrusted exclusively to the Magisterium of the Church.." (See here).

If Father Harrison has a problem with this statement, perhaps it is because he considers himself to be some sort of ersatz Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith? If this is the case, I submit that dishonesty isn't the only thing he should work on this Lent.

Related reading: Robert Sungenis vs. Bishop Kevin C. Rhoades: A Chronology

Additional reading: E. Michael Jones and the Jews

New Order Emerging: Preparation for the reign of Antichrist

Religious Preparation: Both Intellectual and Moral

(For the Reign of Antichrist):

"But how shall he deprive the world of Christianity and have himself adored as God? Alas, it is only too true that the minds and hearts of men are admirably disposed for revolution and consequently ready to accept and bear the cruel yoke of such a tyrant.

Revolution as the word itself implies means a subversion, but a subversion of all that is true, good, beautiful, and grand in the universe. It is the subversion of religion, representing its dogmas as myths and its moral teachings as tyranical. It is the subversion of authority. Licentiousness under the name of liberty becomes the order of the day; each one is invested with the right to govern himself.

It is the subversion of reason: and do we not find leading minds in some of the most enlightened nations denying the principle of contradiction and maintaining the absolute identity of all beings?

Revolution is therefore essentially destructive, and it becomes cosmopolitan by the action of secret societies scattered throughout the world. Is it not true to say that the 'mystery of iniquity' is prepared in secret revolutionary dens?

But it does not suffice to destroy; it is absolutely necessary to build up again. The world cannot subsist long in a vacuum. It must have a religion; it must have a philosophy; it must have an authority. Revolution will furnish all these.

Instead of the reasonable and supernatural religion of Jesus Christ, Revolution will preach Pantheism. The God-humanity will impart the theurgic spirit and thus lead men to adore the demon as the author of universal emancipation...

What frightful immorality must follow in the train of this shameless prostitution of religion! Never has the threefold concupiscence made greater ravage among mankind. And this is the religion sought and hoped for as the cherished boon of the aspirations of our modern free thinkers.

To our Christian philosophy, the honor of humanity's revolution will substitute a babel of extravagant and absurd ideas. Instead of a mild and efficient authority consecrated alike by Church and state, despotism* and anarchy will rise up and contend for the shreds of religious liberty and human policy...if the state of perversion continue for a while longer, he [Antichrist] will find the world prepared to receive and serve him." (Rev. P. Huchede, History of Antichrist, pp. 13-14, Tan Books).

Francis Cardinal George has already spoken of an emerging despotism while Cardinal Pell has warned that secularism is becoming totalitarian (see here). Meanwhile, some Catholics would have us believe that our present-day society is really no more evil than society was in days gone by (see the comments section of this post for example).

Related reading here and here.

And speaking of Father Brian Harrison....

Fr. Brian Harrison, in a letter defending Robert Sungenis and E. Michael Jones from charges of anti-Semitism (the entire text may be found here), writes: "Now, Mike Jones' principal 'crime' has been to publish extensive historical studies arguing that Jewish activists, intellectuals and financiers have again and again been major players in the various revolutionary movements of the last two millennia aimed at preventing, subverting and overthrowing the dominance in European civilization of Christian values and the Catholic and Orthodox Churches."

But while Father Harrison doesn't view E. Michael Jones' views as problematic, others would disagree. For example, the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights had this to say in the July-August 2004 edition of The Catalyst:

PLAYING FAST AND LOOSE WITH THEOLOGY

Recently, an article by E. Michael Jones in the February 2004 edition of his magazine, Culture Wars, came to our attention. What begins as a review of Roy Schoeman's book, Salvation Is From the Jews, ends up as an anti-Semitic rant playing fast and loose with Catholic theology. It should be unequivocally condemned.

The first important point to note is that there is nothing in Roy Shoeman's book that would lead one to Jones's conclusions; Schoeman is a Jewish convert to Catholicism, and his book, published by the mainstream Ignatius Press, has won praise from reliably level-headed Catholics. The problem lies with Jones, who uses his review of the book to engage in a freewheeling polemic against Jews.

At the outset, Jones's history is skewed: "The overwhelming majority of Jews didn't just ignore Christ, they actively sought his death." While it is undeniable that some Jews did seek Christ's death, declaring that an "overwhelming majority" did is just unwarranted. This, however, is not the worst of what Jones has to say.

According to Revelation 3:9, Jones says, Jews who do not accept Christ are the "synagogue of Satan." "In other words, the group which was called by God to prepare the way for the Messiah, rejected the Messiah and in doing that, became over the course of the ensuing centuries, a group that defined itself as anti-Christian." Not believing Christ was the Messiah does not entail defining oneself as anti-Christian; that assumes that Jews see so little of value in their own religion that they must define themselves against Christians. Furthermore, it paints Jews with a broad brush, ignoring regional differences as well as individual traits. That is the very definition of prejudice.

Jones goes on: "The Jews who reject Christ now prepare the way for the coming of the anti-Christ every bit as much as the faithful Jews prepared the way for the coming of the real Christ. The Jews, because of their favored position and because of their rejection of Christ, now have a special role to play in the mystery of iniquity and its history on earth." This sounds like dispensationalist theology, an umbrella term for various Protestant systems of biblical interpretation that, among other things, severely separates God's plan for the Jews from His plan for the community of believers. It posits that Jesus failed in His mission to the Jews, and the Church was formed more or less as a "Plan B." It is the basis for the Left Behind series of novels, and is anything but Catholic. Unaccountably, Jones faults the Catholic Schoeman for not mentioning any of this.

See Jones's next statement: "If salvation comes from the Jews who prepared the way for Christ and accepted him when he came, what comes from the Jews who rejected Christ? The answer is clear: what comes from this group is the opposite of salvation, namely, the work of Satan culminating in the arrival of the Antichrist." Jones's conclusion just does not follow from his premises. Again, Jones is attempting to pass off dispensationalism as Catholic doctrine. Jones has the gall to add, "The answer is not only clear; there is no other possible answer to this question."

Jones claims that through much of Christian history, "What happened was precisely the Jewish participation in iniquity which their pertinacious and ongoing rejection of Christ made a necessity." He adds that "the logic is inescapable." Clearly, logic is not Jones's strong suit. Is Jones asserting that there can be no righteous non-Christians? No, he is saying something even more ridiculous: that there is something inherent in the Jewish people that makes them unique instruments of evil. If that is not anti-Semitism, then nothing is. He even outrageously blames the Jews themselves for the Holocaust and pogroms: "Messianic politics has been a recipe for disaster… and the Nazi attempt to exterminate the Jews was a reaction to Jewish Messianism (in the form of Bolshevism) every bit as much as the Chmielnicki pogroms flowed from the excesses of the Jewish tax farmers in the Ukraine."

Jones takes on the tone of a conspiracy theorist, noting "the Jewish/Bolshevist takeover of Russia and large segments of Eastern Europe, which in turn set up the mechanism of reaction against that reign of terror, namely, National Socialism under Hitler. That in turn led to the creation of the state of Israel, and the rise to power of the Jewish media elites in the United States, which in turn led, after over 50 years of antagonizing Islam to 9/11 and the current spate of never-ending wars in the Middle East." In keeping with the dispensationalist tendency to interpret prophecy in terms of current events, Jones comments, "So it looks more and more like Armageddon every day now. The outline of human history seems to be taking on a more and more biblical configuration with each passing day…." In the context of "Paul Wolfowitz's plan to march through the middle east; George Bush's recent over the top messianic speeches in England, or Ariel Sharon showing up at the Temple Mount and inaugurating the intifada," Jones concludes, "The contemporary Synagogue of Satan, whether in America or Israel, now poses the greatest threat to world peace."

The Catholic League condemns Jones's anti-Semitism and repudiates his efforts to justify it in the name of Catholic theology. One thing is clear: there are many choice terms one can use to describe Jones's view of salvation history; "Catholic" is not one of them.

Apparently Father Harrison doesn't see it that way. For him, there is absolutely nothing problematic about arguing that "Jewish activists, intellectuals and financiers" have been plotting for 2,000 years to prevent, subvert and overthrow Christian values and the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. Small wonder he appeared recently at the Saint Benedict Center in Richmond, New Hampshire. I'm sure he found a hearty welcome there. After all, it was Louis Villarrubia ("Brother" Andre Marie) who suggested that the Jewish People undermine public morality. And it was Douglas Bersaw ("Brother" Anthony Mary) who referred to the Holocaust as a "fraud" and the Jewish People as the "Synagogue of Satan."

For more on E. Michael Jones go here. And for background on the anti-Semitism of Robert Sungenis go here.

Implicitum votum

"Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel. She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life." (Lumen Gentium, No. 16).

Followers of the late Fr. Leonard Feeney have initiated a discussion thread at the Holy Cross Cardinal Newman Society website with an article written by Fr. Brian W. Harrison, O.S., and entitled "Can an 'implicit faith' in Christ be sufficient for salvation?"*

The answer is: yes. Let's hear from Avery Cardinal Dulles on the subject: "The Magisterium of the Church has gradually clarified its position regarding the possibilities of salvific faith for the unevangelized. From patristic times until our own century the axiom 'Outside the Church no salvation' was often stated in terms that seemed to make explicitly Christian and Catholic faith an absolute condition for salvation. For example, the Council of Florence in its Decree for the Jacobites (1442) asserted: '[The Holy Roman Church] firmly believes, professes, and preaches that none of those who exist outside of the Catholic Church - not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics - can become sharers of eternal life; rather, they will go into the eternal fire 'that was prepared for the devil and his angels' [Mt 25: 41] unless, before the end of their lives, they are joined to that same Church.' (DS 1351).

This position was nuanced in the mid-nineteenth century. In an allocution given on the occasion of the definition of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin in 1854, Pope Pius IX reminded the assembled bishops of the error of thinking that Catholics 'can well hope for the eternal salvation of all those who have in no way lived in the true Church of Christ.' But then he added that God in his justice and mercy will never impute guilt to those who innocently err. We must not presume to judge the limits of invincible ignorance, 'taking into account the great variety of peoples, lands, native talents, and so many other factors.'

In an encyclical of 1863 the same pope again repudiated the extremes of rigorism and latitudinarianism. He wrote:

'It is once again necessary to recall and censure the very serious error in which some Catholics are unfortunately involved, that of believing that it is possible to attain eternal life although living in error and in a state of alienation from the true faith and from Catholic unity. This view is utterly contrary to Catholic teaching. You know also that people who are invincibly ignorant of our holy religion, provided that they sincerely keep the precepts of the natural law, who are prepared to obey God, and who live honorable and upright lives, can, by the efficacious power of the light and grace of God, attain eternal life; for God, who fully beholds, scrutinizes, and knows the minds, hearts, thoughts, and dispositions of all, in his supreme mercy will by no means permit anyone who is not guilty of voluntary fault to suffer eternal punishments.'

Under Pius XII the salvation of 'nonbelievers' was discussed in connection with the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to be saved. The encyclical Mystici corporis (1943), after declaring that the Catholic Church alone is the Mystical Body of Christ, spoke of the possibility of belonging to it not by formal membership but 'by a kind of unconscious desire and intent' (inscio quodam desiderio ac voto, DS 3821). The pope seemed to imply that this latter type of belonging, even though it did not give the full benefits of incorporation in the visible organization of the Good Shepherd, might suffice for salvation in the case of persons inculpably ignorant of the true faith.

In 1949 the Holy Office, in a letter to the Archbishop of Boston, declared that an 'implicit intent' (implicitum votum) could suffice, provided that it was accompanied by supernatural faith and perfect charity (DS 3870-72). These texts, while not dealing directly with the kind of faith required for salvation, implied that explicit faith in Christ and the Church would not be necessary in the case of the unevangelized....

As late as the mid-twentieth century Leonard Feeney , S.J., and his followers at St. Benedict Center in Cambridge, Massachusetts, proclaimed that no one could be saved without joining, or explicitly intending to join, the Roman Catholic Church. Feeney's pessimistic position was, however, rejected by the Roman Congregation of the Holy Office, which asserted, as already mentioned, that a merely implicit desire to join the Catholic Church, if accompanied by faith and informed by perfect charity, could suffice." (The Assurance of Things Hoped For: A Theology of Christian Faith, pp. 259-260, 262).

Fr. Brian W. Harrison has no authority to contradict the Teaching Magisterium of the Church. Neither do the followers of the late Fr. Leonard Feeney. As Richard B [a Catholic apologist from the Worcester Diocese] explained at the Holy Cross Cardinal Newman Society website:

"Theologians are not in any way the Teaching Magisterium. Fr. Feeney or any of his followers are in error to think that they can, in any measure, take on the charism of the Teaching Magisterium and thereby proclaim what the dogma [Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus] is all about...Only Peter, by himself alone, or with the Bishops, who are one with Peter, have the charism to proclaim the content of this dogma."

Well said Richard. This situation is very serious. Followers of the late Fr. Leonard Feeney who are defending his rejected interpretation of the dogma are continuing to sow the seeds of dissent from the Church's authentic teaching on the subject. This situation needs to be addressed in a meaningful way by Church authorities.


Related reading here and here.


* The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in its 1990 Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian, distinguishes clearly between questions which theologians may raise about authoritative but noninfallible teachings (nos. 24-31) and dissent from such teachings (nos. 32-41). The document judges that questioning can be compatible with the "religious submission" required (see Lumen Gentium, No. 25), but it firmly and unequivocally rejects dissent from such teachings as incompatible with this "religious submission" and irreconcilable with the theologian's vocation. Dissent from infallibly proposed teachings (such as the Church's understanding of the dogma "Outside the Church no salvation") is a fortiori excluded. This teaching is outlined quite clearly in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which Pope John Paul II says, "..is a statement of the Church's faith and of Catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition, and the Church's Magisterium." (Apostolic Constitution Fidei Depositum, No. 3). In this same Apostolic Constitution, Pope John Paul II states that the Catechism "..is the result of the collaboration of the whole Episcopate of the Catholic Church." (No. 2).

Theologians such as Fr. Brian Harrison are not "pastors" within the Church. They have not been given the mission from the Lord Jesus to instruct the faithful in "all that serves to make the People of God live their lives in holiness and increase their faith" (Dei Verbum, No. 8). This mission has been entrusted exclusively to the Magisterium of the Church, i.e., the Pope and those Bishops who remain united with him.

Dei Verbum of the Second Vatican Council teaches that, "the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed." (No. 10).

Signs of the times...

The 1990 prophecy (see here for full text):

"In four years there will arise a new evil the likes of which mankind has never before encountered. It will arrive almost imperceptibly, with few people noticing the depth of its evil, for it will appear to have beneficial and convenient aspects. It is an evil comparable to abortion -- that is to say, that even if evils as great and widespread as abortion were to be eliminated, this is enough of an evil that it would present mankind with an enormous challenge. This evil is being allowed as a test because of the prayers inspired by Mary to put off chastisements. How mankind responds to this new evil will determine the extent, length, and severity of the first chastisements. These chastisements will differ according to regions, and like the great evil, will not always or usually be immediately noticeable for what they are. In the period also will be a warning that involves not fire from the sky but fear of fire from the sky, and strange loud rumblings. This, according to mankind's response, will then be followed by another chastisement, or the inevitable onset of the change of era. Your era is ending. Soon the world will not be the world you know. I am not speaking of a barren world, or one depopulated, but of the end of your technological era. Many inventions of mankind will be broken down and there will be more of a peasant attitude and way of life everywhere. After this breakdown of false society will come persecution of Christians and also a new world order. The anti-christ will be on earth trying to affect the new world order. Hardly anyone will notice the extent of his influence until afterwards. He will not be of tremendous visibility until he is accomplished. That is to say, he will not rule, control, and be at all obvious to the world at the peak of his influence. He will not be unlike a figure such as Marx, except his ideas will be more immediate.

Forces promoting contraception are leading an all-out attack against the Holy Father and the Church

"Responsible men can become more deeply convinced of the truth of the doctrine laid down by the Church on this issue if they reflect on the consequences of methods and plans for artificial birth control. Let them first consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards. Not much experience is needed to be fully aware of human weakness and to understand that human beings—and especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation—need incentives to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law. Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection." (Pope Paul VI, Encyclical Letter Humanae Vitae, No. 17).


Related reading here.

Worcester Telegram & Gazette: A generous letters-to-the-editor policy?

The Worcester Telegram & Gazette runs the following notice relative to its letters-to-the-editor policy:

We publish letters expressing all shades of opinion because we feel a special obligation to allow readers to comment on our editorials and news coverage. We invite constructive criticism and welcome suggestions. The Telegram & Gazette has a generous letters-to-the-editor policy. Most letters meeting our guidelines appear in print. These guidelines are:

We welcome letters sent to the newspaper by e-mail. To be published, such letters must have as their subject, “Letter to the Editor.” Others will not be received.

Letters must be no longer than 250 words. Letters that exceed this maximum will be returned to the writer to shorten.

We do not publish second-hand material as letters: reprints and quotations, letters written for other publications, addressed to other people or "open letters." We do not print letters that have appeared in other newspapers. In most cases, we do not publish letters from outside our circulation area. We do not publish letters considered too personal to be of general public interest. That also includes routine thank-you notes to individuals or organizations. We do not publish letters written in verse or essay form.

At times, when we believe a given topic has been exhausted, we call a halt to further comments.

We do not publish letters that we believe come under libel laws. Material can be libelous if it holds a private person or organization up to hatred, contempt, suspicion of wrongdoing, scorn or ridicule. We review letters about active court cases carefully.

We do not publish hate mail or letters that are obviously offensive to good taste. We do not publish letters that are unsigned, unverifiable or unintelligible. Political endorsements and letters concerning federal, state and municipal elections and votes have specific deadlines announced in advance.

Letters must be signed with the writer's full name. Initials and nicknames are not acceptable. Writers must include a complete home address and a handwritten signature, plus a daytime telephone number for verification purposes. We limit an individual to one published letter in two months.

On school projects, we ask that the name of the instructor be included. One letter writer may be selected to represent the class and note will give the number of letters received.

These guidelines have been crafted to given a maximum number of writers the opportunity to be represented in our letters to the editor columns.

Now my good friend JayG, a Socratic gadfly from Worcester County, submitted the following as a letter to the editor of the T&G:

Some think that Love at First Sight is primarily between a man and a woman, but I’d argue that Love at First Sight actually happens primarily in a delivery room – when parents first see their newborn child.

Eighteen year old Sycloria Williams was not expecting Love at First Sight back in 2006, when she went to abort her 23-week old fetus at the Hialeah Woman’s Health Center outside Miami. But when she delivered a live baby instead of a dead one, a baby that autopsy reports say had filled her lungs with air, Williams had a change of heart. I suppose it’s fair to call a fetus that was delivered and actually breathed a baby, not a fetus, but Williams simply called her daughter Shanice.

Owner Belkis Gonzalez saw this change of heart as bad for business, so he cut Shanice’s umbilical cord without clamping it, threw her in a biohazard bag, and tossed her out. I suppose it’s fair to call this murder, but the State of Florida has opted only to call this practicing medicine without a license.

Sincerely,
Jay G

This was the editor's reply:

Date: Monday, March 16, 2009 6:18 AM
From: letters@telegram.com
To: jayg
Subject: Re: Letter to the Editor
Size: 7 KB

Sorry, the Telegram & Gazette cannot print a letter of such a personal issue.
Susan Mulrooney

The murder of a child is a personal issue? How so? Does Ms. Mulrooney honestly expect anyone to buy that load of bovine scatology? Bernard Goldberg was right, "..the majority of journalists in big newsrooms slant leftward in their personal politics, especially on issues like abortion, affirmative action, gay rights, and gun control; and so in their professional role they tend to assume those positions are reasonable and morally correct. Bias in the news stems from that.." (Arrogance, p. 4). Like JayG, I encountered this bias when I submitted an Op-Ed piece to the T&G several months ago relative to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts and its decision in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health (see here). I received no response whatsoever (even after several queries to the appropriate editor). Obviously, when it comes to issues such as abortion, homosexuality and same-sex "marriage," the Telegram & Gazette isn't really interested in a free and open exchange of ideas. There is nothing "generous" in that newspaper's letters-to-the-editor policy or its Op-Ed policy unless you march in lockstep with its liberal ideology.

Interestingly, while the Telegram & Gazette will not publish letters that it believes "come under libel laws" and states that, "Material can be libelous if it holds a private person or organization up to hatred, contempt, suspicion of wrongdoing, scorn or ridicule," it seemingly made no attempt to hold one of its own reporters (Richard Nangle) to the same professional standards as he covered the case of Catholic activist Larry Cirignano - see here.

Zeal for your house will consume me

Readings from the Third Sunday of Lent:

Reading 1Ex 20:1-17 or 20:1-3, 7-8, 12-17

In those days, God delivered all these commandments: "I, the LORD, am your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. You shall not have other gods besides me. You shall not carve idols for yourselves in the shape of anything in the sky above or on the earth below or in the waters beneath the earth; you shall not bow down before them or worship them. For I, the LORD, your God, am a jealous God, inflicting punishment for their fathers' wickedness on the children of those who hate me, down to the third and fourth generation; but bestowing mercy down to the thousandth generation on the children of those who love me and keep my commandments. "You shall not take the name of the LORD, your God, in vain.For the LORD will not leave unpunished the one who takes his name in vain. "Remember to keep holy the sabbath day. Six days you may labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD, your God. No work may be done then either by you, or your son or daughter, or your male or female slave, or your beast, or by the alien who lives with you. In six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them; but on the seventh day he rested. That is why the LORD has blessed the sabbath day and made it holy. "Honor your father and your mother, that you may have a long life in the land which the LORD, your God, is giving you. You shall not kill. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not steal. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. You shall not covet your neighbor's house.You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male or female slave, nor his ox or ass, nor anything else that belongs to him."

Responsorial PsalmPs 19:8, 9, 10, 11

R. (John 6:68c) Lord, you have the words of everlasting life.

The law of the LORD is perfect,refreshing the soul; The decree of the LORD is trustworthy,giving wisdom to the simple.

R. Lord, you have the words of everlasting life.

The precepts of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart; the command of the LORD is clear, enlightening the eye.

R. Lord, you have the words of everlasting life.

The fear of the LORD is pure, enduring forever; the ordinances of the LORD are true, all of them just.

R. Lord, you have the words of everlasting life.

They are more precious than gold, than a heap of purest gold; sweeter also than syrup or honey from the comb.

R. Lord, you have the words of everlasting life.

Reading II 1 Cor 1:22-25

Brothers and sisters: Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those who are called, Jews and Greeks alike, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.

Gospel Jn 2:13-25

Since the Passover of the Jews was near, Jesus went up to Jerusalem. He found in the temple area those who sold oxen, sheep, and doves, as well as the money changers seated there. He made a whip out of cords and drove them all out of the temple area, with the sheep and oxen, and spilled the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables, and to those who sold doves he said,"Take these out of here, and stop making my Father's house a marketplace." His disciples recalled the words of Scripture, Zeal for your house will consume me. At this the Jews answered and said to him,"What sign can you show us for doing this?" Jesus answered and said to them, "Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up." The Jews said, "This temple has been under construction for forty-six years, and you will raise it up in three days?" But he was speaking about the temple of his body. Therefore, when he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this, and they came to believe the Scripture and the word Jesus had spoken. While he was in Jerusalem for the feast of Passover, many began to believe in his name when they saw the signs he was doing.But Jesus would not trust himself to them because he knew them all, and did not need anyone to testify about human nature.He himself understood it well."

The Lord God has commanded us, "You shall not kill." There are nine words in Hebrew for taking a life (I have addressed this in a previous post). The word used in Exodus 20: 13 for "Thou shalt not kill" is ratsach, a strong verb used to indicate an intentional and unjustified act of murder. And yet, the murder of innocent unborn children continues. The Gospel reading tells us that after Jesus cleansed the Temple, the Apostles remembered the words of Scripture, "Zeal for your house will consume me."

Zeal for your house will consume me. Let's reflect very carefully on these words as we ponder the Word of God in 1 Corinthians 3: 16-17: "Do you not know that you are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy that person; for the temple of God, which you are, is holy."

Zeal for your house will consume me. The blood of the innocents cries out to the Living God as surely as it did when Cain murdered his brother Abel. If our society does not repent of its crimes, if it does not turn away from murdering the innocent and destroying God's Temple, then Jesus will fashion "another whip."

Revelation 18:10

For many years I have been warning that our economy is soon to collapse. A terrible economic chastisement is coming upon us. Our Lady has repeatedly warned us (see here), but we have been too proud to listen. We have accumulated for ourselves false teachers who ensure us that a loving and merciful God would never chastise His people. How quickly we forget that the ancient world was destroyed by the flood and that the five cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed by fire.

The handwriting continues to progress on the wall of the secular world (see here). Our Lady does not want us to become fearful or discouraged at the sin and darkness which continues to spread: "Do not stop to consider the ever thickening darkness, the sin which has been set up as the norm of human action, the suffering which is mounting to its peak and the chastisement which this humanity is preparing with its own hands." (November 5, 1977, locution to Fr. Gobbi of the Marian Movement of Priests). But neither does she want us to be blind to the reality of our present situation.


Related reading here.

Cardinal Pell: Secularism is getting totalitarian...

Cardinal George Pell of Australia has correctly noted that, "Some secularists seem to like one way streets..Their intolerance of Christianity seeks to drive it out not only from the public square, but even from the provision of education, health care and welfare services to the wider community. Tolerance has come to mean different things for different groups." His Eminence has also said that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights correctly articulates the proper relationship between the individual, the family and the association and the state.

This was precisely the point I was making in my response to the persecution of Father Alphonse de Valk at the hands of the Canadian Human Rights Commission which may be found here.

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

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

Survey: New Hampshire residents losing their religion

"Sixty-two percent of New Hampshire adults identified themselves as Christians last year, the American Religious Identification Survey for 2008 reported. This is a 23 percent decline from 1990, when 85 percent of adults called themselves Roman Catholics, mainline Protestants and other Christians...Northern New England now surpasses the Pacific Northwest as the most irreligious region of the country, according to the survey...The survey, released on Monday, reports 29 percent of New Hampshire adults say they have no religion." (For full article, click on title of this post).

This fact imposes a burden on those of us who claim to be disciples of Christ. The Council Fathers tell us that, "..the laity are called in a special way to make the Church present and operative in those places and circumstances where only through them can it become the salt of the earth. Thus every layman, in virtue of the very gifts bestowed upon him, is at the same time a witness and a living instrument of the mission of the Church itself, 'according to the measure of Christ's bestowal...For all their works, prayers, and apostolic endeavors, their ordinary married and family life, their daily occupations, their physical and mental relaxation, if carried out in the Spirit, and even the hardships of life, if patiently borne - all these become 'spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ' (1 Pt 2:5). Together with the offering of the Lord's Body, they are most fittingly offered in the celebration of the Eucharist. Thus, as those everywhere who adore in holy activity, the laity consecrate the world itself to God." (Lumen Gentium, Nos. 33, 34 of the Second Vatican Council).

What are we waiting for? Haven't we been told that the Lord Himself will demand an account of the talents He has given us (Mt 25: 14-30). Do we really want to be among those who are relegated to the "darkness outside" because we succumbed to fear or apathy? Blessed Josemaria Escriva de Balaguer was right when he said, "There is but one fatal illness, one deadly mistake you can make: to settle for defeat, not to know how to fight with the spirit of a child of God. If this personal effort is lacking the soul becomes paralyzed and languishes alone, and is incapable of bearing fruit. Such cowardice on man's part puts pressure on Our Lord to utter those words addressed to him by the paralytic at the pool of Bethsaida, hominem non habeo! - I have no man to help me. What a pity if Jesus does not find in you the man or the woman he expects."

A 7 year-old girl named Heather McNamara has shown great courage and determination not to settle for defeat. Surely we can follow her example and show courage in the spiritual realm? Blessed Miguel Pro, S.J., did. His crime? Celebrating the Holy Mass. His punishment? Execution. The above photograph shows Blessed Pro just moments before he was gunned down. He extended his arms and proclaimed, Viva Christo Rey! - Long live Christ the King!

His love overcame his fear. He did not settle for defeat. He conquered his executioners with faith. hope and love. In the eyes of the world, he suffered defeat. But where is he now? And where are his executioners? Who really won the victory? You know the answer.