Elizabeth Scalia believes that Pope Benedict XVI is wrong about homosexuality being incompatible with the priesthood

Pope Benedict XVI has stated it clearly: homosexuality is incompatible with the priesthood.  But Elizabeth Scalia, a writer/blogger for First Things and The Anchoress on Patheos, disagrees.  In a blog post which may be found here, Ms. Scalia cites Joshua Gonnerman, "If Christians have any interest in reaching out to the gay community, if we have any hope to speak a message which can touch their hearts as well, we absolutely must be willing to live as their family. Behind his blundering obscenity, behind his facile attempts to explain Scripture away, behind the blatant hypocrisy of his behavior toward those who disagree with him, what Dan Savage means to tell us is, 'The church has far too often, and for the most wrong-headed reasons, failed to be family to gay people." And then she writes:

I completely agree. And I really believe that the way to begin to do that is for our bishops and the curia to stop turning a blind eye to a simple truth, that numbered among our priests are faithful, celibate, joyful priests who are homosexual. As I wrote [previously]...

I wonder if [the Church's] bishops and religious leaders will, for example, have to acknowledge with loving support the numerous celibate homosexual priests who, throughout history and still today, serve her faithfully, courageously, and with great joy. Such an acknowledgment could go a long way repairing that disconnect that keeps everyone talking about tolerance while walking away from it.

It would speak to the value of the human person as he is created; it would reinforce the church’s own teaching that the homosexual inclination is not in-and-of-itself sinful; in a sex-saturated culture where 'gay' has become in some minds synonymous with 'promiscuous' [gee, I wonder where that notion came from?] and both heterosexual and homosexual couples see no particular value in chastity, it would present the radical counter-narrative.

Most importantly, such an acknowledgment would be call of olly-olly-oxen free for the church herself. Battered by the revelations of the past decade, poorly served by past psychological studies suggesting that child abusers could be 'cured' and therefore distrustful of more recent findings that homosexuals are no more inclined to pedophilia than heterosexuals*, the church has reflexively pulled the curtains over a number of her priests, and in doing so, she has hidden the idea of  'acceptable otherness' from a flock that is sorely in need to see some of it.

I love our priests, and honor them, but it’s hard to argue that an unfaithful straight priest is better than a faithful gay one. I would rather see a homosexually-inclined happy, celibate priest be able to live in honesty about who he is, than learn about a hetero priest living a lie. A faithful priest is a faithful priest. A happy, joy-filled priest serves the body of Christ in a powerful way.

Allow me to anticipate the argument that the priesthood cannot be open to people the Eastern religions call 'imbalanced' and our church calls 'disordered.' Find me a priest who doesn’t have some sort of disorder, whether it’s an eating disorder, or an attention-seeking disorder, or a disorder of social ineptness, a hearing disorder, or even a learning disorder. Our priests are human, imperfect, faulty and sometimes broken, just like the rest of us.."


What Ms. Scalia refuses to acknowledge is that before entering into any state of life, a divine vocation is necessary. This because without such a vocation, it is difficult if not impossible to fulfil the obligations which pertain to that state and to obtain salvation. This is particularly true for the ministerial priesthood or any other ecclesiastical state. After all, it was Our Lord Who said: "He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up another way, the same is a thief and a robber" (John 10:1).


Consequently, the man who takes holy orders without a call from God is convicted of theft in taking by force a dignity which God has not called him to and does not desire to bestow upon him. This is the teaching of Saint Paul: "Neither doth any man take the honor to himself, but he that is called by God, as Aaron was. So Christ also did not glorify Himself that He might be made a high priest; but he that said unto Him: Thou art My Son; this day I have begotten Thee." (Hebrews 5:4,5).

It matters not then how learned or prudent or holy a man may be. No man may place himself into the holy sanctuary unless he is first called and introduced to the same by Almighty God. Jesus Our Lord was certainly the most learned and holy among all men, full of grace and truth (John 1:14), the Son of Man in Whom were (and are) hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge (Colossians 2:3). And yet, Jesus required a divine call to assume the dignity of the priesthood. This is the teaching of the Council of Trent; that the Church regards the man who assumes the priesthood without a vocation not as a minister but as a robber: "Decernit sancta Synodus eos qui ea (ministeria) propria temeritate sibi sumunt, omnes, non Ecclesiae ministros, sed fures et latrones per ostium non ingressos habendos esse" (Session 23, cap. 4).

Those who seize the priesthood without a vocation may labor and toil exhaustively. But their labors will profit them very little before God. In fact, the very works which would be considered of much merit when performed by others will deserve chastisement for such souls. Because such men are not in conformity with the divine will, not having a vocation to the state of life which they have usurped, the Lord Jesus will not accept their toils: "I have no pleasure in you, saith the Lord of hosts, and I will not receive a gift of your hand" (Malachi 1:10).

Not only will God refuse the gifts of their hand, He will punish the works of the minister who has entered the sanctuary without being called; without a vocation: "What stranger soever cometh to it (the Tabernacle) shall be slain." (Numbers 1:51). Bearing all of this in mind, please read the following which first appeared in The Wanderer [I submitted it back in 2001] and may be found at the Faithfulvoice.com website:


"On October 1, 1986, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith published an instruction entitled, Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on Pastoral Service for Homosexual Persons, signed by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger and approved by Pope John Paul II. In this Instruction, Cardinal Ratzinger writes, 'It is necessary to point out that the particular inclination of a homosexual person, though not a sin in itself, nevertheless constitutes a more or less strong tendency to an intrinsically evil behavior from the moral standpoint. For this reason, the very inclination should be considered as objectively disordered.' (No. 3).


This would appear to be especially significant since Canon 1040 of the Code of Canon Law states that: 'Persons who are affected by a perpetual impediment, which is called an irregularity, or a simple impediment, are prevented from receiving orders.' Now, irregularities arise either from defect (ex defectu) or from crime (ex delicto). It seems clear to me that a homosexual inclination, which Cardinal Ratzinger has referred to as 'objectively disordered,' constitutes an irregularity ex defectu.

In fact, when asked by a Bishop if it is licit to confer priestly ordination to men with manifest homosexual tendencies, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments replied with a letter signed by Jorge Cardinal Medina Estevez which stated that, 'Ordination to the diaconate and the priesthood of homosexual men or men with homosexual tendencies is absolutely inadvisable and imprudent and, from the pastoral point of view, very risky. A homosexual person, or one with a homosexual tendency is not, therefore, fit to receive the sacrament of Holy Orders.'"

Ms. Scalia should exercise some humility and submit her mind and will to the teaching authority of the Church.  I recommend that she reflect very carefully on what Lumen Gentium No. 25 of the Second Vatican Council has to say in this regard.


*  See here.

The Socialist plan to disarm America

"Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely." - Lord Acton.

I do not usually re-post entire articles from other Blogs.  But here I make an exception.  For two reasons: First, the piece is excellent.  Second, it is a subject of critical importance for the American people.  Our Founding Fathers understood the weakness of human nature and the tendency of power to corrupt those who wield it.  Consequently, they wanted to preserve the ability of the citizenry to defend themselves against tyranny, even those tyrants who are homegrown.

In The Federalist, James Madison argued that if the federal government were to act in a way that violated the rights of Americans, any federal army would be "opposed by a militia amounting to near half a million citizens with arms in their hands." (No. 46).  There are those who understand this full well and who want to disarm America to render her vulnerable to Globalists working to establish a Socialist World Order.

The article is entitled, "Globalist Plan to Disarm America," and is written by Bernadine Smith.  Here it is in its entirety:

"If someday your children or grandchildren ask you how Liberty died in America and what happened that caused the demise of the Nation, read this and you will be able to answer them.

If they ask you why the Citizens have been disarmed, you’ll know. If you want to know why, go to your local library, no matter where you live in the United States. Tell the librarian to show you where the ‘United States Code books’ are shelved. There are 25 books in the set. They are reddish-brown in color. They are printed by the Government Printing Office in Washington, DC. These hard-covered books are printed every 8-10 years. They are updated with annual soft-back supplements each year until a new hard cover issue comes out. At the present time, the 1988 hardbacks are on library shelves.

OPEN VOLUME 9. The page numbers are in the center near the middle binding. The section numbers are along the edges.

TURN TO PAGE 651. Here you will find Public Law 87-297 which calls for the United States to eliminate its armed forces. This law was signed for the United States in 1961. John F. Kennedy signed it and every president since has worked to enact its provisions. The government knows you will not approve which is why they want to take away your firearms.

(This is Title 22 USC section 2551)

TURN TO PAGE 652. Here you will find the definition of what the government means by “disarmament.” The disarmament calls for the elimination of our armed forces. It also calls for the elimination of weapons of all kinds.

(This is Title 22 USC 2552 (a).

TURN TO PAGE 654. Here you will find it stated as item (a) “control, reduction and elimination of armed forces…” and as Item (d)” …Elimination of armed forces….” What you need to know is that your armed forces are being eliminated and relinquished from national control which, in turn, wipes out our sovereignty as a nation. In two stages, we will have no more army, no more navy, no more air force. In the third stage, we shall have a “zero” military. Before Stage I closes, all citizen owned guns are to be banned.

(This is Title 22 USC Section 2571 (a).

Public Law 87-297 is further explained in the State Department Document called Publication 7277. Your librarian can also furnish you a copy. Also ask the librarian to get you a copy of “The Blue Print for the Peace Race.” It is a 35-page booklet printed by the United States Arms Control and Disarmament Agency as Publication No. 4 – General Series 3 – Released May of 1962. Publication No. 4 is the unabridged version of State Department Document 7277.

Both of these booklets explain how our military is to be reduced to 2.1 million men. China and the Soviets are to be reduced to that level also. At this point, we are at Stage I at which time we are to transfer (on a permanent basis) one-half of our armed forces to be merged with the Russian and Chinese armies. In Stage II, the remaining one-half of our armed forces is then turned over to this same Security Council of the United Nations. The person in charge of the merged armies must, by agreement, always be a Russian. The world’s smaller nations turn 100% of their armies over to the same under-secretary of the Security, Council in Stage II. President George Bush and Admiral Wm. J. Crowe [have referred] to this process as being “in transition.”

TURN TO PAGE 655. On this page in Volume 9 of the United States Code, read “Policy Formation.” The directives there (written in 1963 to pacify objectors) are supposedly to restrain anyone from disarmament, reducing or limiting our armaments, or taking guns away from the people unless it is pursuant to the treaty-making power of the president, or if it is authorized by further legislation by the Congress. (This is title 22, Section 2573.)

Every couple of years the House of Representatives votes to appropriate funds for this on-going program. Since P.L. 87-297 was first passed into law in 961, there have been 18 updates to it – all bad – with no deletions of these issues I lay before you now. The Congress knows that the plan includes the policing of the United States by foreign troops. (The world army they are forming in Europe.) The Congress is allowing our military bases to be closed down, except for those that will be used by the world army. You will find that plan in Publication 7277 and in “The Blueprint for the Peace Race.”

If the president and Congress can promote a “Constitutional Convention” you will find yourself with two new constitutions (communist in structure) which in one states in Article VIII, Section 12: “No person shall bear arms or possess lethal weapons except the police and members of the armed forces….”

The Congress has praised these documents and is on record in Senate hearings seeking ways to install these constitutions. Ask your librarian for “Revision of the United Nations Charter – Hearings Before a Subcommittee (Foreign Relations) Feb. 2-20, 1950 U.S.Government Printing Office.” Nothing has changed since. They are still viable. The ultimate goal to be reached in Stage III of the disarmament process is to “proceed to a point where no state [nation] would have the military power to challenge the progressively strengthened U.N. Peace Force….”

Anyone who doubts the truthfulness of what has been presented here is free to go to the library and go through the steps which have been outlined above. While you are at it, look up Public Law 101-216.



State Department Publication 7277 is available at:
http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/guns/dos7277.htm


Related reading here.

President Obama, dictatorship and control

In my last post, I compared President Obama's new executive order with the Third Reich's "Decree for the Protection of the German People."  Every dictatorship, or every country en route toward dictatorship, justifies its lust for power and control by asserting that such power grabs are for the "good of the people" or "public safety in times of crisis" or for reasons of "national security."  But all of the bovine scatology in the world cannot conceal the fact that control is the driving force behind dictatorship.

In an article for the Canada Free Press entitled "Obama's obsession with control," Doug Hagmann and Joseph Hagmann write:

In the event you missed the Friday news dump, Barack Hussein Obama issued yet another executive order. Titled “Assignment of National Security and Emergency Preparedness Communications Functions,” it may be read in its entirety on the White House website here. At first blush, it appears that the order modernizes previous communications functionality, particularly as it relates to the continuity of governmental communication during wartime or national crisis as defined by Obama.


The text of the order itself consists of 2,205 words and seven-(7) sections and multiple subsections. The policy statement (section one) seems innocuous and actually beneficial to the continuity of communications within the U.S., until one begins to dissect the order and consider it in context with other Obama issued directives. Extensive analysis of this order, in tandem with other recent Obama orders and signed legislation, suggests a disconcerting pattern of potential overreach by Obama into the area of normal and customary commercial communication systems.

Based on our analysis of this order, it would appear that the implementation of emergency communications by Obama, using all forms of wired and wireless communication systems, is redirected through the Executive branch and could expand such takeover abilities beyond the limits of an actual act of war, national emergency, or other event impacting the national security of the U.S. The order also mandates that the Department of Homeland Security develops and submits such a plan to Obama within sixty-(60) days of this order (section 5.2(h)).

Additionally, Obama’s order completely revokes Executive Order 12472 of April 3, 1984, as amended, which established and defined the National Communication System (NCS). The purpose of the NCS is to “assist the President” in matters of emergency communications in war-time emergencies, and during “those crises or emergencies in which the exercise of the President’s war power functions is not required or permitted by law.” By the stroke of his pen, such distinctions are removed.

Security or control?

After reviewing this order, one is forced to wonder whether the actual function of this order is to assure continuity of communications during an actual emergency, or if this order is designed to expand the control of all communications by implementing measures that redefine crises and emergencies. In the context of the most recent orders implemented by the stroke of his pen, it would appear that Obama is more concerned with command and control than ensuring continuity of communications during times of actual national emergencies."

Total control of the means of communication is necessary for a dictatorship, or emerging dictatorship, so that through mass communication the individual may be propagandized and molded into conditioned responses.  It is necessary to destroy the individual's ability to figure things out for himself.  And as this ability atrophies, the individual is inundated with entertainments [think of Juvenal and his comment about bread and circuses] which prevent him from reflecting on the fact that his authorities are deceitful and manipulative.

The dictatorship wants, the dictatorship needs, to reduce the individual to being an apathetic machine devoid of independent, critical thought.  The individual is subjected to a process of "massification" until he or she is completely dependent upon the State.  It was Hitler's boast that: "..sixty thousand men have outwardly become almost a unit, that actually these men are uniform not only in ideas, but that even the facial expression is almost the same.  Look at these laughing eyes, this fanatical enthusiasm, and you will discover how a hundred thousand men in a movement become a single type."

If you believe that Americans are "too intelligent" and too "fiercely independent" to succumb to intellectual and emotional subjection through the use of mass communication, rallies, emotional oratory and slogans, consider how a man of no particular intelligence or experience seduced so many into believing that he would effect positive change in the United States.  Has Barack Obama delivered?  And how often do you come across people whose views are merely a regurgitation of what they read in their local newspaper or hear from the mainstream media?

Once the individual has succumbed to totalitarian ideology, the critical faculty is suspended.  And it is difficult, if not impossible, for the brainwashed individual to revert to his former self.  Collective totalitarian thinking [which again is the goal of every dictatorship] may be compared with schizophrenia.  In both, says Joost Meerloo in The Rape of the Mind, there is, "a loss of an independent, verifiable reality, with a consequent relapse into a more primitive state of awareness."  In both, thought and action are arrested at the infantile level of development.

Such a person is easy to control and manipulate. 

And that's exactly what Barack Obama is about: control.

New Obama Executive Order seeks "control" over communications during "crisis."

The White House


Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release July 06, 2012 Executive Order -- Assignment of National Security and Emergency Preparedness Communications Functions

EXECUTIVE ORDER


ASSIGNMENT OF NATIONAL SECURITY AND

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS COMMUNICATIONS FUNCTIONS


By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Policy. The Federal Government must have the ability to communicate at all times and under all circumstances to carry out its most critical and time sensitive missions. Survivable, resilient, enduring, and effective communications, both domestic and international, are essential to enable the executive branch to communicate within itself and with: the legislative and judicial branches; State, local, territorial, and tribal governments; private sector entities; and the public, allies, and other nations. Such communications must be possible under all circumstances to ensure national security, effectively manage emergencies, and improve national resilience. The views of all levels of government, the private and nonprofit sectors, and the public must inform the development of national security and emergency preparedness (NS/EP) communications policies, programs, and capabilities.

Sec. 2. Executive Office Responsibilities.

Sec. 2.1. Policy coordination, guidance, dispute resolution, and periodic in-progress reviews for the functions described and assigned herein shall be provided through the interagency process established in Presidential Policy Directive-1 of February 13, 2009 (Organization of the National Security Council System) (PPD-1).

Sec. 2.2. The Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) shall: (a) issue an annual memorandum to the NS/EP Communications Executive Committee (established in section 3 of this order) highlighting national priorities for Executive Committee analyses, studies, research, and development regarding NS/EP communications;

(b) advise the President on the prioritization of radio spectrum and wired communications that support NS/EP functions; and

(c) have access to all appropriate information related to the test, exercise, evaluation, and readiness of the capabilities of all existing and planned NS/EP communications systems, networks, and facilities to meet all executive branch NS/EP requirements.

Sec. 2.3. The Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism and the Director of OSTP shall make recommendations to the President, informed by the interagency policy process established in PPD-1, with respect to the exercise of authorities assigned to the President under section 706 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (47 U.S.C. 606). The Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism and the Director of OSTP shall also jointly monitor the exercise of these authorities, in the event of any delegation, through the process established in PPD-1 or as the President otherwise may direct.

Sec. 3. The NS/EP Communications Executive Committee.

Sec. 3.1. There is established an NS/EP Communications Executive Committee (Executive Committee) to serve as a forum to address NS/EP communications matters.

Sec. 3.2. The Executive Committee shall be composed of Assistant Secretary-level or equivalent representatives designated by the heads of the Departments of State, Defense, Justice, Commerce, and Homeland Security, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), the General Services Administration, and the Federal Communications Commission, as well as such additional agencies as the Executive Committee may designate. The designees of the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of Defense shall serve as Co-Chairs of the Executive Committee.

Sec. 3.3. The responsibilities of the Executive Committee shall be to: (a) advise and make policy recommendations to the President, through the PPD-1 process, on enhancing the survivability, resilience, and future architecture of NS/EP communications, including what should constitute NS/EP communications requirements;

(b) develop a long-term strategic vision for NS/EP communications and propose funding requirements and plans to the President and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), through the PPD-1 process, for NS/EP communications initiatives that benefit multiple agencies or other Federal entities;

(c) coordinate the planning for, and provision of, NS/EP communications for the Federal Government under all hazards;

(d) promote the incorporation of the optimal combination of hardness, redundancy, mobility, connectivity, interoperability, restorability, and security to obtain, to the maximum extent practicable, the survivability of NS/EP communications under all circumstances;

(e) recommend to the President, through the PPD-1 process, the regimes to test, exercise, and evaluate the capabilities of existing and planned communications systems, networks, or facilities to meet all executive branch NS/EP communications requirements, including any recommended remedial actions;

(f) provide quarterly updates to the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism and the Director of OSTP, through the Co-Chairs, on the status of Executive Committee activities and develop an annual NS/EP communications strategic agenda utilizing the PPD-1 process;

(g) enable industry input with respect to the responsibilities established in this section; and

(h) develop, approve, and maintain a charter for the Executive Committee.

Sec. 4. Executive Committee Joint Program Office.

Sec. 4.1. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall establish an Executive Committee Joint Program Office (JPO) to provide full-time, expert, and administrative support for the Executive Committee's performance of its responsibilities under section 3.3 of this order. Staff of the JPO shall include detailees, as needed and appropriate, from agencies represented on the Executive Committee. The Department of Homeland Security shall provide resources to support the JPO. The JPO shall be responsive to the guidance of the Executive Committee.

Sec. 4.2. The responsibilities of the JPO shall include: coordination of programs that support NS/EP missions, priorities, goals, and policy; and, when directed by the Executive Committee, the convening of governmental and nongovernmental groups (consistent with the Federal Advisory Committees Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.)), coordination of activities, and development of policies for senior official review and approval.

Sec. 5. Specific Department and Agency Responsibilities.

Sec. 5.1. The Secretary of Defense shall: (a) oversee the development, testing, implementation, and sustainment of NS/EP communications that are directly responsive to the national security needs of the President, Vice President, and senior national leadership, including: communications with or among the President, Vice President, White House staff, heads of state and government, and Nuclear Command and Control leadership; Continuity of Government communications; and communications among the executive, judicial, and legislative branches to support Enduring Constitutional Government;

(b) incorporate, integrate, and ensure interoperability and the optimal combination of hardness, redundancy, mobility, connectivity, interoperability, restorability, and security to obtain, to the maximum extent practicable, the survivability of NS/EP communications defined in section 5.1(a) of this order under all circumstances, including conditions of crisis or emergency;

(c) provide to the Executive Committee the technical support necessary to develop and maintain plans adequate to provide for the security and protection of NS/EP communications; and

(d) provide, operate, and maintain communication services and facilities adequate to execute responsibilities consistent with Executive Order 12333 of December 4, 1981, as amended.

Sec. 5.2. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall: (a) oversee the development, testing, implementation, and sustainment of NS/EP communications, including: communications that support Continuity of Government; Federal, State, local, territorial, and tribal emergency preparedness and response communications; non-military executive branch communications systems; critical infrastructure protection networks; and non-military communications networks, particularly with respect to prioritization and restoration;

(b) incorporate, integrate, and ensure interoperability and the necessary combination of hardness, redundancy, mobility, connectivity, interoperability, restorability, and security to obtain, to the maximum extent practicable, the survivability of NS/EP communications defined in section 5.2(a) of this order under all circumstances, including conditions of crisis or emergency;

(c) provide to the Executive Committee the technical support necessary to develop and maintain plans adequate to provide for the security and protection of NS/EP communications;

(d) receive, integrate, and disseminate NS/EP communications information to the Federal Government and State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, as appropriate, to establish situational awareness, priority setting recommendations, and a common operating picture for NS/EP communications information;

(e) satisfy priority communications requirements through the use of commercial, Government, and privately owned communications resources, when appropriate;

(f) maintain a joint industry-Government center that is capable of assisting in the initiation, coordination, restoration, and reconstitution of NS/EP communications services or facilities under all conditions of emerging threats, crisis, or emergency;

(g) serve as the Federal lead for the prioritized restoration of communications infrastructure and coordinate the prioritization and restoration of communications, including resolution of any conflicts in or among priorities, in coordination with the Secretary of Defense when activities referenced in section 5.1(a) of this order are impacted, consistent with the National Response Framework. If conflicts in or among priorities cannot be resolved between the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security, they shall be referred for resolution in accordance with section 2.1 of this order; and

(h) within 60 days of the date of this order, in consultation with the Executive Committee where appropriate, develop and submit to the President, through the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, a detailed plan that describes the Department of Homeland

Security's organization and management structure for its NS/EP communications functions, including the Government Emergency Telecommunications Service, Wireless Priority Service, Telecommunications Service Priority program, Next Generation Network Priority program, the Executive Committee JPO, and relevant supporting entities.

Sec. 5.3. The Secretary of Commerce shall: (a) provide advice and guidance to the Executive Committee on the use of technical standards and metrics to support execution of NS/EP communications;

(b) identify for the Executive Committee requirements for additional technical standards and metrics to enhance NS/EP communications;

(c) engage with relevant standards development organizations to develop appropriate technical standards and metrics to enhance NS/EP communications;

(d) develop plans and procedures concerning radio spectrum allocations, assignments, and priorities for use by agencies and executive offices;

(e) develop, maintain, and publish policies, plans, and procedures for the management and use of radio frequency assignments, including the authority to amend, modify, or revoke such assignments, in those parts of the electromagnetic spectrum assigned to the Federal Government; and

(f) administer a system of radio spectrum priorities for those spectrum-dependent telecommunications resources belonging to and operated by the Federal Government and certify or approve such radio spectrum priorities, including the resolution of conflicts in or among such radio spectrum priorities during a crisis or emergency.

Sec. 5.4. The Administrator of General Services shall provide and maintain a common Federal acquisition approach that allows for the efficient centralized purchasing of equipment and services that meet NS/EP communications requirements. Nothing in this section shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect the procurement authorities granted by law to an agency or the head thereof.

Sec. 5.5. With respect to the Intelligence Community, the DNI, after consultation with the heads of affected agencies, may issue such policy directives and guidance as the DNI deems necessary to implement this order. Procedures or other guidance issued by the heads of elements of the Intelligence Community shall be in accordance with such policy directives or guidelines issued by the DNI.

Sec. 5.6. The Federal Communications Commission performs such functions as are required by law, including: (a) with respect to all entities licensed or regulated by the Federal Communications Commission: the extension, discontinuance, or reduction of common carrier facilities or services; the control of common carrier rates, charges, practices, and classifications; the construction, authorization, activation, deactivation, or closing of radio stations, services, and facilities; the assignment of radio frequencies to Federal Communications Commission licensees; the investigation of violations of pertinent law; and the assessment of communications service provider emergency needs and resources; and

(b) supporting the continuous operation and restoration of critical communications systems and services by assisting the Secretary of Homeland Security with infrastructure damage assessment and restoration, and by providing the Secretary of Homeland Security with information collected by the Federal Communications Commission on communications infrastructure, service outages, and restoration, as appropriate.

Sec. 6. General Agency Responsibilities. All agencies, to the extent consistent with law, shall: (a) determine the scope of their NS/EP communications requirements, and provide information regarding such requirements to the Executive Committee;

(b) prepare policies, plans, and procedures concerning communications facilities, services, or equipment under their management or operational control to maximize their capability to respond to the NS/EP needs of the Federal Government;

(c) propose initiatives, where possible, that may benefit multiple agencies or other Federal entities;

(d) administer programs that support broad NS/EP communications goals and policies;

(e) submit reports annually, or as otherwise requested, to the Executive Committee, regarding agency NS/EP communications activities;

(f) devise internal acquisition strategies in support of the centralized acquisition approach provided by the General Services Administration pursuant to section 5.4 of this order; and

(g) provide the Secretary of Homeland Security with timely reporting on NS/EP communications status to inform the common operating picture required under 6 U.S.C. 321(d).

Sec. 7. General Provisions. (a) For the purposes of this order, the word "agency" shall have the meaning set forth in section 6.1(b) of Executive Order 13526 of December 29, 2009.

(b) Executive Order 12472 of April 3, 1984, as amended, is hereby revoked.

(c) Executive Order 12382 of September 13, 1982, as amended, is further amended by striking the following language from section 2(e): "in his capacity as Executive Agent for the National Communications System".

(d) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to an agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the OMB relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(e) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(f) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

BARACK OBAMA

See here.

With the new face of National Socialism, Barack Obama issues an Executive Order.  As this website explains, "On February 27, 1933, the German parliament [Reichstag] building burned down due to arson.  The government falsely portrayed the fire as part of a Communist effort to overthrow the state.  Using Adolf Hitler's constitutional powers, Hitler's cabinet issued a Decree for the Protection of the German People People on February 4, 1933. This decree placed constraints on the press and authorized the police to ban political meetings and marches.”



"Order of the Reich President for the Protection of People and State



On the basis of Article 48 paragraph 2 of the Constitution of the German Reich, the following is ordered in defense against Communist state-endangering acts of violence:



§ 1. Articles 114, 115, 117, 118, 123, 124 and 153 of the Constitution of the German Reich are suspended until further notice. It is therefore permissible to restrict the rights of personal freedom < habeas corpus >, freedom of opinion, including the freedom of the press, the freedom to organize and assemble, the privacy of postal, telegraphic and telephonic communications, and warrants for house searches, orders for confiscations as well as restrictions on property, are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed.

The United States is racing toward dictatorship.  Any “crisis,” perhaps man-made, will be used as an excuse to grab total control over communications.  What are you prepared to do?

Archbishop Chaput and the U.S. Bishops are challenging us: How shall we respond?

In a homily delivered at the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception that brought the U.S. bishops' "fortnight for freedom" to a close, Philadelphia Archbishop Charles Chaput stressed that defending religious liberty is part of the bigger struggle to "convert our own hearts" and to "live for God completely."  See here.

This struggle to convert our own hearts and to live for God completely encompasses a battle against Satan and his demonic forces.  Satan does not want the follower of Jesus to live in peace and harmony.  He wants to seduce the followers of the Lord away from God.  How easy it is to lose sight of this reality.  Just recently, I noted how the Profession of Faith, the Nicene Creed, was omitted during Holy Mass at Saint Joseph's Parish in Fitchburg.  A parishioner named Jan left a comment at this Blog telling me that if I have a problem with such liturgical abuse, I shouldn't attend Mass there.  I was told that Jan is most likely the parish secretary at Saint Joseph's, the same woman with an internet profile photograph depicting herself in a state of undress and sporting devil's horns.  See photo.  Readers of this Blog know that Saint Joseph's Parish has had its share of difficulties.  Last year, one of the priests attached to the parish, Father Lowe Dongor, was found to have been downloading child pornography and fled the country to avoid prosecution.

This is the same parish which excluded me from participating in ministry because of my orthodoxy.

In order to live our lives completely for God, we have to struggle against the principalities and powers of this world.  So many Catholics today refuse to acknowledge this truth.  For such people, belief in evil spirits is a matter of "superstition."  Pope Paul VI, in a general audience on November 15, 1972, refuted this notion saying, "What are the Church's greatest needs at the present time?  Don't be surprised at our answer and don't write it off as simplistic or even superstitious: one of the Church's greatest needs is to be defended against the evil which we call the Devil...Evil is not merely an absence of something but an active force, a living, spiritual being that is perverted and that perverts others....It is a departure from the picture provided by biblical and Church teaching to refuse to acknowledge the Devil's existence...or to explain the Devil as a pseudoreality, a conceptual, fanciful, personification of the unknown causes of our misfortunes...St. Paul calls him the 'god of this world,' and warns us of the struggle we Christians must carry on in the dark, not only against one Devil, but against a frightening multiplicity of them.."

Our spiritual struggle, then, is against a host of evil spirits.  And these evil spirits are extremely cunning.  Although they are fallen angels, they are still far more intelligent than us because of their angelic natures.  Pope Paul VI, during the same audience, stressed that the Devil, "..undermines man's moral equilibrium with his sophistry.  He is the malign, clever seducer who knows how to make his way into us through the senses, the imagination and the libido, through utopian logic, or through disordered social contacts in the give and take of our social activities, so that he can bring in us deviations that are all the more harmful because they seem to conform to our physical or mental make-up, or to our profound, instinctive aspirations....The matter of the Devil and of the influence he can exert on individuals as well as on communities, entire societies or events, is a very important chapter of Catholic doctrine which should be studied again, although it is given little attention today.."

Forty years later, we can still say the same.  Little if any attention is paid to this critical aspect of Catholic doctrine.  Mostly, I think, because we believe (in our arrogance) that we can solve all problems and difficulties ourselves.  We forget Jesus' warning that some spirits can only be driven out through much prayer and fasting.

Jesus gives us power and authority over demonic forces.  The demons were subject to the seventy disciples (Luke 10: 17-20).  They were subject to Saint Paul and the first Christians.  And they are subject to us as present-day followers of the Lord Jesus.  But in order to use this power over the evil spirits, those of us who profess to be Christian must grow and develop in our spiritual lives.  This means that we must strive to "live for God completely" as Archbishop Chaput reminded us.  We must attend Holy Mass faithfully (and reverently), pray daily - the Rosary is a spiritual weapon which Satan fears, and spend time with Sacred Scripture - God's Holy Word.

As Christians, we are MORE THAN CONQUERORS through the shed Blood of Jesus Christ (Romans 8: 37-39).  Let's live our lives accordingly.  This means listening to the Magisterium of the Church with docility and submitting our minds and wills to that teaching authority which has been established by Jesus Himself.  Without such obedience, how can we expect the evil spirits to obey our command - in the name of Jesus - to depart?  Disobedience and sin will not drive out the demons.  Only a life of faith lived in humility, taking the Virgin Mother of God as our model.

What are we waiting for? And whom shall we take as our model: Our Lady and the Saints who lived for God completely or the devils who reject God's saving plan?

The answer to that question will determine whether we re-evangelize our culture or come to resemble the demons whose doctrines we follow.

Episcopal "Bishop" V. Gene Robinson: Let the demon of chaos reign in the churches

It was St. Peter Damian, a Doctor of the Church, who explained that the vice of sodomy "surpasses the enormity of all others," because, "Without fail, it brings death to the body and destruction to the soul. It pollutes the flesh, extinguishes the light of the mind, expels the Holy Spirit from the temple of the human heart, and gives entrance to the devil, the stimulator of lust: It leads to error, totally removes truth from the deluded mind . . . It opens up Hell and closes the gates of Paradise . . . It is this vice that violates temperance, slays modesty, strangles chastity, and slaughters virginity . . . It defiles all things, sullies all things, pollutes all things . . . " (The Book of Gomorrah).


Homosexual acts expel the Holy Spirit and give entrance to the Devil. This according to a Doctor of the Church.  Striking evidence of this truth may be found in the words of Episcopal "Bishop" V. Gene Robinson, the same confused sodomite who told a Catholic man that the Vatican's decision to bar homosexuals from seminaries constituted an "act of violence" against gay folk.  Speaking at a dinner hosted by More Light Presbyterians, a pro-homosexual activist group of the Presbyterian Church (USA), Mr. Robinson, referring to the work of radical homosexual activism, said, "This is hard work, but we can do it because it is worthy work and it is Godly work."
 
As this article notes, "The Presbyterian Church (USA), the country’s largest Presbyterian group with 1.95 million members, is holding its 220th General Assembly in the David L. Lawrence Convention Center, Downtown, through Saturday. Various proposals concerning gay marriage could lead to contentious debate within the Louisville-based Protestant denomination. Those proposals include calls to confirm the church’s traditional definition of marriage as between a man and a woman, calls to change the definition to being between 'two people,' and a request that the General Assembly, the church’s ruling body, deem it acceptable for Presbyterian ministers to conduct same-sex marriage ceremonies in states where such unions are legal."
 
Robinson, in a rant which may only be described as demonic, asserted that, "We will live to see the day that the church of Jesus Christ, in whatever form it is, will repent from what it has done to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people the way it has repented for slavery."  And, referring to the turmoil and divisiveness which is ripping apart the Episcopal and Presbyterian churches as "holy chaos," Robinson insisted that this confusion represents "a step forward" from the certainty that most Christians felt when it came to what God and churches thought of homosexuals.

This is the "gospel" of Nietzsche.  Indeed he was its prophet.  For he saw and foretold the coming of the "new" immorality which would usher in the Beast.  "The time has come," he wrote, "to oppose morality with immorality, to call what priests call good, evil and what they call evil, good.  The time has come for the transvaluation of all values." (Thus Spake Zarathustra, p. 144).  This prophet of unbridled hedonism and revolution boasted that the adherents of revolution and radical thought, "would come into power without the truth....The magic that fights for us is the magic of extremism." (Karl Jaspers quoting Nietzsche in his Nietzsche and Christianity).

This then is the revolution proposed by V. Gene Robinson and the radical homosexual activists within the churches.  It is a movement of revolution aimed at sowing confusion and discord.  It represents for minds darkened by sin "a step forward" from the certitude of God's Holy Word and the Church's Tradition. 

It is a movement hell-bent on advancing the doctrines of demons.

German magazine Titanic attacks Pope Benedict XVI

The German magazine Titanic, founded in 1979 by former contributors and editors of Pardon, a satirical monthly, after they had a series of conflicts with their publisher, is mocking Pope Benedict XVI and holding the Holy Father up to contempt by depicting him as a senile and incontinent person.  See here.

In our modern, paganistic world, the authority of the Holy Father is often challenged, openly defied and even rejected.  The early Christians understood Peter's divinely appointed role.  They understood that the Lord Jesus appointed Peter to be the guardian and teacher of the Church.  They loved him, honored him and obeyed him.

It is the vocation of the Holy Father to proclaim the truth even though it may result in virulent attacks and contempt rather than respect.  But it must be understood that disobedience and insults against Christ's Vicar are, in reality, attacks against the loving Heart of Christ.

What do you suppose will be the reward for those who insult and attack the loving and Sacred Heart of Christ?  Every attack against the Vicar of Christ represents an attack on Jesus Christ which begs for chastisement.

And so let's pray:

Lord Jesus, shelter our Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, under the protection of Your Sacred Heart.  Be his light, his strength and his consolation.

V.  Let us pray for our Pontiff

R.  The Lord presreve and give him life, and make him to be blessed upon the earth, and deliver him not up to the will of his enemies.

Amen.

Professor Massimo Introvigne: U.S. may be on path toward anti-Christian violence

Professor Massimo Introvigne, Chairman of the newly created Observatory on Religious Liberty, a joint-creation of the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the City of Rome, the purpose of which is to monitor religious freedom around the world, has expressed his concern that the United States is on the path to anti-Christian violence.

As reported by the Catholic News Agency here, "The inaugural meeting was held at Rome’s Foreign Press Association June 28. It heard Archbishop William E. Lori of Baltimore make the case that religious liberty in the United States is currently imperiled by the prevailing culture as well as by legislation such as the recent Department of Health & Human Services mandate.


Introvigne stressed that he did not want to create a 'false impression' that he was equating 'the bloody persecution of Christians' as presently occurs in some African and Asian countries with 'discriminatory legislation in the United States or Europe.'

However, the 57-year-old sociologist suggested that there was a 'three stage process' which could lead to anti-Christian violence in the West if action to protect religious liberty was not taken.

'It starts with intolerance which is a cultural phenomenon,' he explained 'and then if intolerance becomes so widespread and popular, some politicians will act upon it and introduce discriminatory legislation.'

It is in this 'climate of discrimination,' he said, that people can decide to take the law into their own hands and use violence to further suppress Christianity."

This isn't news to readers of this Blog.  For many years I have been issuing the same warning.  As I noted here:

Professor James Hitchcock, in his excellent work entitled 'Catholicism and Modernity' (New York:Seabury Press, 1979, p. 86), explains the role of the media in this entire process: "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."


This is the path Barack Obama and his secular socialist machine have put us on.  And the HHS Mandate is merely the beginning of a process which will lead to oppression and physical violence.  It was Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas who warned of the way in which oppression can subtly arise in our midst: "As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression.  In both instances, there's a twilight where everything remains seemingly unchanged, and it is in such twilight that we must be aware of change in the air, however slight, lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness."

Bishop Gerhard Mueller and infallibly proposed teachings

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

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

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

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

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

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

Our strange time.

Bishop Gerhard Mueller, the CDF's new Prefect, and the pillars of the Faith

It was Father Vincent Miceli who warned that, "Once the liturgy is humanized, Christ the Center and Object of it becomes the humanist par excellence, the liberator, the revolutionary, the Marxist ushering in the millenium; he ceases to be the Divine Redeemer.  We must be alerted to those who plan, by convincing us to abandon our sacred forms, at length to seduce us into denying our Christian faith altogether.  The Church is attacked by these Sons of Satan, in and outside her fold, because she is a living form, the sacrament - sign and instrument - of communion with God and of unity among all men; because she is the visible body of Religion.  Hence these shrewd masters of sedition know that when her sacred forms go, religion will also go.  Violate the lex orandi and you must inevitably destroy the lex credendi.  That is why they rail against so many devotions as superstitions, why they propose so many alterations and changes, a tactic cleverly calculated to shake the foundations of faith.."

The Devil hates the Eucharist and Our Lady [recall how these two pillars played an important part in Don Bosco's prophetic dream as they stabilized the Church represented by a ship with Peter at the head] and never ceases to attack them.  He uses variations on gnosticism, symbolism and modernism to attack the authentic teaching of the Magisterium on the Holy Eucharist.  As the spiritual war continues to escalate all around us, the Devil's attacks against the Eucharist will multiply.  These attacks will intensify and reach a crescendo with the Man of Sin.  Do you doubt this?  Saint Alphonsus de Liguori, Doctor of the Church, has already warned us that:

"The devil has always managed to get rid of the Mass by means of the heretics, making them precursors of the Antichrist who, above all else, will manage to abolish, and in fact will succeed in abolishing, as a punishment for the sins of men, the Holy Sacrifice of the altar, precisely as Daniel had predicted." ("Le Messa e l'Officio Strapazzati" in Opere Ascetiche).

Pope Benedict XVI has just named Bishop Gerhard Ludwig Mueller, who was a student of Father Gustavo Gutierrez (credited with founding Liberation Theology), to head the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.  As this Blog post notes, Bishop Mueller has expressed some rather odd ideas regarding the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary and the Real Presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ - Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity - in the Holy Eucharist:

"On the Perpetual Virginity of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary:


In his 900-page work "Katholische Dogmatik. Für Studium und Praxis der Theologie" (Freiburg. 5th Edition, 2003), Müller denies the dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary claiming that the doctrine is "not so much concerned with specific physiological proprieties in the natural process of birth (such as the birth canal not having been opened, the hymen not being broken, or the absence of birth pangs), but with the healing and saving influence of the grace of the Savior on human nature."


On the Real Presence of the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of the Lord in the transubstantiated Eucharistic species:

In 2002, bishop Müller published the book "Die Messe - Quelle des christlichen Lebens" (St. Ulrich Verlag, Augsburg). In this book, he speaks of the Sacrament of the Altar and warns against using the terms "body and blood" in this context. These terms would cause "misunderstandings", "when flesh and blood are considered to mean the physical and biological components of the human Jesus. Neither is it simply the transfigured body of the resurrected Lord that is being designated."

Bishop Müller continues: "In reality, the body and blood of Christ do not mean the material components of the human person of Jesus during his lifetime or in his transfigured corporality. Here, body and blood mean the presence of Christ in the signs of the medium of bread and wine."

Holy Communion transmits according to Müller a "community with Jesus Christ, mediated by eating and drinking the bread and the wine. Even in the merely personal human sphere, something like a letter may represent the friendship between people and, that is to say, show and embody the sympathy of the sender for the receiver." Bread and wine thus only become "symbols of his salvific presence".


That is how Mgr Müller explains a "change of being" in the Eucharistic gifts:

"The essential definition of bread and wine has to be conceived in an anthropological way. The natural essence of these offerings [bread and wine] as the fruit of the earth and the work of human hands, as the unity of natural and cultural products consists in clarifying the nourishment and sustenance of man and the communion of the people in the sign of a common meal [...]. This natural essence of bread and wine is transfigured by God in the sense that the essence of bread and wine is made to consist exclusively in showing and realizing the salvific communion with God."

Strange days.  Dark days.  The smoke of Satan has darkened many minds.

In his Encyclical Letter Mysterium Fidei, Pope Paul VI warned us that, "..among those who deal with this Most Holy Mystery [transubstantiation] in written or spoken word, there are some who, with reference either to Masses which are celebrated in private, or to the dogma of transubstantiation, or to devotion to the Eucharist, spread abroad such opinions as disturb the faithful and fill their minds with no little confusion about matters of faith, as if every one were permitted to consign to oblivion doctrine already defined by the Church, or to interpret it in such a way as to weaken the genuine meaning of the words or the approved import of the concepts involved." (No. 10).

Pope Paul VI goes on to warn in this important Encyclical that, "it is not allowable...to discuss the mystery of transubstantiation without mentioning the marvelous changing of the whole substance of the bread into the Body and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood of Christ as stated by the Council of Trent, so that it consists in 'transignification' or 'transfinalization.' as they put it."

In No. 46 of Mysterium Fidei, the Pope explains:

"After transubstantiation has taken place, the species of bread and wine undoubtedly take on a new meaning and a new finality, for they no longer remain ordinary bread and ordinary drink, but become the sign of something sacred, and the sign of a spiritual food.  However, the reason they take on a new significance and this new finality is simply because they contain a new 'reality' which we may justly term ontological."

This is the teaching of the Council of Trent regarding Eucharistic dogma: "In the first place the holy Synod teaches...that in the precious Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, after the consecration of the bread and wine, Our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and true man, is truly, really and substantially contained under the species of those sensible things."

This is the Church's authoritative teaching.  And, as Pope Paul VI said, no one is free to "consign to oblivion" this defined doctrine or to weaken the Church's teaching or the concepts involved.

Pray and watch.  For a diabolical disorientation is clouding minds.  The smoke of Satan continues to wreak havoc.

The Worcester Diocese should have held onto this faithful priest

Some years ago, a faithful and dedicated priest decided to leave the Diocese of Worcester and become a Chaplain for the United States Army.  During a conversation back in 2000, this priest-friend told me that he had had enough of the nonsense within the diocese.  This was after he presided over a graveside service for my father.

This same faithful priest has a letter in this week's "Catholic" [when they feel like it] Free Press.  As usual, it is an excellent letter.  But then, this priest reads the life of Jesus Christ.  The letter is entitled  "Choose life and love, not moral decay."  Fr. Anthony Kazarnowicz writes:


"According to a survey (CFP, June 1), 83% of Catholics consider it 'morally acceptable' to use contraceptives to prevent pregnancy, 'despite church teachings to the contrary.'  The Church teaches that God designed sex for bonding between a husband and wife and for procreation.  In deciding for ourselves that it is 'morally acceptable' to unnaturally close sex to life, we have made ourselves (not God, or those whom Jesus placed in authority over us) the final arbiters of what is good and evil.  It's Satan's temptation to Adam and Eve all over again.

Next, we judged it 'morally acceptable' to separate sex from marriage.  So now, we have rampant sexual promiscuity, cohabitation before marriage and women treated as sex objects.  A pleasure-seeking 'Me Generation' was born.  Dads had live-in girlfriends; moms, live-in boyfriends.

With this denial of moral wrongdoing came the corresponding denial of sin and even a loss of a sense of sin.  Sacramental confessions dwindled.  However, divorces rose to 50% for first marriages, 65% for second marriages and higher for third marriages.

According to the survey, 53% of Catholics favor same-sex 'marriage.'  Heterosexuals who have lifeless sex are not likely to condemn lifeless homosexual sex.  Though homosexual sex is indeed unnatural, there is something even more unnatural - mothers killing their own babies by abortion - 'morally acceptable' to 35% of Catholics.

Before contraception, families were large.  But, children knew right from wrong, were disciplined, respected authority and learned sacrifice.  Families prayed together.  Confessions thrived; divorces were rare.  Most couples waited until marriage before having sex.  Parents accepted children as God's gift. Womanhood and motherhood were cherished.  Vocations to the priesthood and religious life flourished.

Contrasted are a culture of moral decay after contraception and a culture of life and love before contraception.  I pray all Catholics choose life and love."

Sadly, the Worcester Diocese has not always opted for a culture of life and love.  Back in March, I examined an article published in the dissent-friendly diocesan newspaper and written by Father John Catoir, a cleric who also has difficulty telling the truth.  This article was entitled "Birth Control Revisited."  And it was Father Catoir's assertion, while promoting a subjectivist conscience, that the Church's teaching regarding artificial contraception is "beyond the strength" of many Catholics. 

So much for the Worcester Diocese choosing a culture of life and love.

In a talk entitled "Legalism, Moral Truth and Pastoral Practice" given at a 1990 symposium in Philadelphia, Dr. Germain Grisez explained to those present that, "Theologians and pastors who dissent from received Catholic teaching think they are rejecting legalism because they set aside what they think are mere rules in favor of what they feel are more reasonable standards. Their views are thoroughly imbued with legalism, however. For dissenters think of valid moral norms as rules formulated to protect relevant values. Some even make their legalism explicit by denying that there is any necessary connection between moral goodness (which they restrict to the transcendental level of a love with no specific content) and right action (which they isolate at the categorical level of inner-worldly behavior). But whether their legalism is explicit or not, all the dissenters hold that specific moral norms admit exceptions whenever, all things considered, making an exception seems the best - or least bad - thing to do. Most dissenters also think that specific moral norms that were valid in times past can be inappropriate today, and so they regard the Church’s contested moral teachings as outdated rules that the Church should change."


Dr. Grisez reminded his listeners at the Philadelphia symposium, "During the twentieth century, pastoral treatment of repetitious sins through weakness - especially masturbation, homosexual behavior, premarital sex play and contraception within marriage - grew increasingly mild. Pastors correctly recognized that weakness and immaturity can lessen such sins’ malice. Thinking legalistically, they did not pay enough attention to the sins’ inherent badness and harmfulness, and they developed the idea that people can freely choose to do something that they regard as a grave matter without committing a mortal sin. This idea presupposes that in making choices people are not responsible precisely for choosing what they choose. That presupposition makes sense within a legalistic framework, because lawgivers can take into account mitigating factors and limit legal culpability. But it makes no sense for morality correctly understood, because moral responsibility in itself is not something attached to moral acts but simply is moral agents’ self-determination in making free choices.

Repetitious sinners through weakness also were handicapped by their own legalism. Not seeing the inherent badness of their sins, they felt that they were only violating inscrutable rules. When temptation grew strong, they had little motive to resist, especially because they could easily go to confession and have the violation fixed. Beginning on Saturday they were holy; by Friday they were again sinners. This cyclic sanctity robbed many people’s lives of Christian dynamism and contributed to the dry rot in the Church that became manifest in the 1960s, when the waves of sexual permissiveness battered her."


Dr. Grisez went on to explain that, "Pastors free of legalism will teach the faithful how sin makes moral requirements seem to be alien impositions, help them see through this illusion, and encourage them to look forward to and experience the freedom of God’s children, who rejoice in the fruit of the Spirit and no longer experience the constraint of law..They will explain that while one sometimes must choose contrary to positive laws and cannot always meet their requirements, one always can choose in truth and abide in love. They will acknowledge the paradox of freedom - that we seem unable to resist freely choosing to sin - the paradox that Saint Paul neatly formulates: ‘I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate’ (Romans 7:15). But they also will proclaim the liberating power of grace, and help the faithful learn by experience that when one comes to understand the inherent evil of sin and intrinsic beauty of goodness, enjoys the support of a community of faith whose members bear one another’s burdens, begs God for His help, and confidently expects it, then the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead raises him from his sins, and he discovers that with the Spirit’s grace one can consistently resist sin and choose life."

We would have more vocations to the priesthood in the Worcester Diocese if young men witnessed fidelity to the magisterial teaching of the Church from pastors [not to mention the diocesan newspaper] and if orthodox candidates were not excluded because of their commitment to the Church's authentic teaching, especially in the area of sexual morality.

I should know.  I'm one of the excluded.

For the power to tax is the power to destroy

In his Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus, Pope John Paul II warned us that, "....totalitarianism arises out of a denial of truth in the objective sense. If there is no transcendent truth, in obedience to which man achieves his full identity, then there is no sure principle for guaranteeing just relations between people. Their self-interest as a class, group or nation would inevitably set them in opposition to one another. If one does not acknowledge transcendent truth, then the force of power takes over, and each person tends to make full use of the means at his disposal in order to impose his own interests or his own opinion, with no regard for the rights of others. People are then respected only to the extent that they can be exploited for selfish ends. Thus, the root of modern totalitarianism is to be found in the denial of the transcendent dignity of the human person who, as the visible image of the invisible God, is therefore by his very nature the subject of rights which no one may violate — no individual, group, class, nation or State. Not even the majority of a social body may violate these rights, by going against the minority, by isolating, oppressing, or exploiting it, or by attempting to annihilate it.." (No. 44).


We ignore this truth at our own peril. So many are asleep as this country races toward tyranny. The ObamaCare mandate has been upheld and the socialist agenda to use the power of government to control the health decisions of Americans gains momentum.  But this is only the beginning of the socialist power grab.  Their ultimate goal is to place the power of government over the rights of citizens.

Stefano Gennarini, J.D., writing for Turtle Bay and Beyond, puts things in perspective nicely: "When you voted for this sleek, well spoken and sophisticated politician four years ago you may have never suspected it, or perhaps you knew it all along: he is an old fashioned believer in the absolute state.


What the health care law has really brought home is how un-american Obama is. Here we have a president who wants to force people to buy health insurance. It is hard to believe we have been even speaking about this for the past three years! Obama has no qualms about forcing people to buy health insurance, telling us that it is perfectly within the government’s prerogative to do something like that.

Now, that sounds like a French monarch in pre-revolutionary France ordering his subjects to kneel, Napoleon Bonaparte re-writing the laws of half of Europe, or even more recently, a Communist party telling people what they can and cannot do.

Indeed, here in America we believe in government by, from, and for the people, not the other way around. The Constitution of the United States, the first Constitution, and the model for all subsequent ones, sets up a government of limited, enumerated powers. This is a peculiarly and exclusively American novelty. And we have always understood this to mean, that there are certain things that the government cannot do, like telling religious employers to pay for abortions, or forcing people to buy health insurance, stop smoking and drinking sugary drinks.

Obama instead, seems to believe in a government philosophy that is totalitarian, like those of Europe. All these things would be possible in Europe, where the government is seen as the absolute embodiment of sovereignty, just like a king was perceived as the embodiment of the will of God. But not in America, that is until Obama became King… I mean, President.

Many of us hoped Roberts would be the one to lead the charge against such a notion of absolute government. Thankfully, our chief justice has delivered us from the power to regulate commerce, which had oppressed us so for the last three quarters of a century. For the power to regulate commerce was indeed oppressive, seeing as it was used to regulate commerce between states in harmful substances like marijuana, and home grown cereals and grains. No longer shall these abuses continue because we now know that 'economic inactivity' cannot be regulated under the commerce clause of the Constitution.

After all, we have a written Constitution, and our government is one of enumerated powers. Enumerated powers indeed, except for those that are in fact unlimited. For example, the power to tax.

For the power to tax is the power to destroy, and destroy us it will. Soon there will be taxes for all those of us who do not brush our teeth five times a day, don’t exercise regularly, smoke real tobacco as opposed to strawberry flavored electric cigarettes, drink sugary drinks etc. After all, these acts or omissions will affect our health, and ultimately also affect the price of the premiums that our fellow Americans are forced to pay. The only caveat is that, when Congress will enact these new taxes, they will have originated in the Senate, they will be called penalties, the anti-injunction act will not apply, and the President will have vigorously denied that they are a tax on national TV.

But of one thing we should all be glad, the Supreme Court’s institutional integrity is preserved for generations to come. In fifty years time, Americans and the world will be able to look back on these past twenty years of Supreme Court history as the period of the Catholic US Supreme Court. 'That' they will say, 'was the Court that established definitively that abortion is a woman’s right, and upheld the Health Care Law that threatened to put Catholic hospitals, schools, and tens of thousands of Catholic charities out of business out of judicial integrity and deference.' Never mind all the new Constitutional problems for the Supreme Court to resolve in the future because of the Court’s Catholic schizophrenia."


John Marshall, in a Supreme Court opinion denying the right of the State of Maryland to impose a tax on the Bank of the United States (McCulloch v. Maryland, 1819), stressed firmly, "That the power to tax involves the power to destroy; that the power to destroy may defeat and render useless the power to create...are propositions not to be denied." 

For the power to tax is the power to destroy.  This is the socialist agenda.  To destroy America financially, to cripple her, in the hope that many will say, along with Dr. Henry Spaak, former Secretary General of NATO, "What we want is a man of sufficient stature to hold the alliances of all people and to lift us out of the economic morass into which we are sinking. Send us such a man, and be he god or devil, we will receive him."

As the U.S. Air Force Academy embraces witchcraft and grows hostile toward Christianity, fires threaten the institution

As this article notes, "Dozens of House lawmakers accused the U.S. Air Force this week of being 'hostile towards religion.'"  But those lawmakers are mistaken.  It's not religion in general which the Air Force is becoming hostile toward.  It is Christianity.

Jean Bodin, in his work "De la Demonomanie des Sorciers," writes, "Sorcier est celuy qui par moyens Diaboliques sciemment s'efforce de paruenir a quel que chose" - A sorcerer is one who by commerce with the Devil has a full intention of attaining his own ends." The Air Force Academy, while growing ever more hostile toward Christianity and the Word of God,  has decided to open a chapel for such servants of the Devil. See here.


What does the Catechism of the Catholic Church have to say about such activity? Paragraph 2117 explains that, "All practices of magic or sorcery, by which one attempts to tame occult powers, so as to place them at one's service and have a supernatural power over others - even if this were for the sake of restoring their health - are gravely contrary to the virtue of religion. These practices are even more to be condemned when accompanied by the intention of harming someone, or when they have recourse to the intervention of demons. Wearing charms is also reprehensible. Spiritism often implies divination or magical practices; the Church for her part warns the faithful against it. Recourse to so-called traditional cures does not justify either the invocation of evil powers or the exploitation of another's credulity."

In 1974, the American Council of Witches issued the "Principles of Wiccan Belief." No. 10 states: "Our only animosity towards Christianity, or toward any other religion or philosophy of life, is to the extent that its institutions have claimed to be 'the only way,' and have sought to deny freedom to others and to suppress other ways of religious practice and belief."

So Wicca acknowledges an "animosity" toward Christianity which teaches that salvation is in Jesus alone (Acts 4:12). The question presents itself: what does this animosity consist of?

In an article published in Polish in Panorama and written by Dr. J. Coleman, an Intelligence officer, Dr. Coleman is quoted as having said that, "The One-World Government is going to consist of hereditary oligarchs who will divide the power between themselves. There is going to be only one legal religion and only one state church. Only Satanism and Luciferism will be the legal religious subjects in state schools. No other schools (private, Catholic, etc.) will be allowed. All present Christian education systems are going to be destroyed (and the fact is — they are destroyed in the most part) from inside, and become extinct. Satanism is already considered to be a 'true and legal religion'. In fact, on some U.S. military bases, they already celebrate black masses and worship Satan."

And as the Air Force Academy embraces Witchcraft, wildfires threaten the institution.
What do you think?  Is God pleased?

Jan, a parishioner at St. Joseph's Parish in Fitchburg: If you don't care for the falsification of Catholic Liturgy, don't come

In my last post, I noted how Saint Joseph's Parish in Fitchburg omitted the Nicene Creed at Holy Mass and that, because I took exception to this, a parishioner left a comment at this Blog calling me an idiot.  Now another parishioner named Jan (who some have indicated is most likely the parish secretary Janice Potter), left a comment here  saying, "What a wonderful church. I love it here. If you have a problem with it, which you obviously do as you seem to slam it every chance you get, then don't come."

In other words, if I believe that the priests who celebrate Mass at Saint Joseph's should not omit the Creed, that's my problem and I am the one who should solve the problem by leaving.

In other words, Jan is implying that that the priest has a right to alter the liturgy at will and to omit the Creed [or anything else he desires] and if I don't like it, I am the problem.

The Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum stresses that, "Whenever an abuse is committed in the celebration of the sacred Liturgy, it is to be seen as a real falsification of Catholic Liturgy. St Thomas wrote, 'the vice of falsehood is perpetrated by anyone who offers worship to God on behalf of the Church in a manner contrary to that which is established by the Church with divine authority, and to which the Church is accustomed.'" (RS, 169).


The same document tells us that, "In order that a remedy may be applied to such abuses, 'there is a pressing need for the biblical and liturgical formation of the people of God, both pastors and faithful,' so that the Church’s faith and discipline concerning the sacred Liturgy may be accurately presented and understood. Where abuses persist, however, proceedings should be undertaken for safeguarding the spiritual patrimony and rights of the Church in accordance with the law, employing all legitimate means." (RS, 170).

An excellent article over at EWTN tells us that:


"When the justice of obedience to ecclesiastical law is not rendered and thus the proper Order of the Mass is violated, there can be no real unity in the parish and thus no peace. As a result, the Catholic unity of communion with the bishop and with and through the bishop with Peter is disturbed. Hierarchical Communion is one of the three marks of unity to be found in the Church, the others being unity of faith and unity in the discipline of the Sacraments. Liturgical disobedience uniquely disturbs all three! This is not surprising since the Eucharist is the principal source and sign of the unity of the Church. By its very nature, it MUST be either a sign of unity or a sign of disunity.


Of course, many other evils enter in by liturgical disobedience, including the serious injustice of depriving the faithful of licit, and in some cases valid, sacraments, something to which as Catholics they have a right.

Canon 214 The Christian faithful have the right to worship God according to the prescriptions of their own rite approved by the legitimate pastors of the Church, and to follow their own form of spiritual life consonant with the teaching of the Church.

When these evils occur they have the right, and even the responsibility, to make their voices heard.


Canon 212

1. The Christian faithful, conscious of their own responsibility, are bound by Christian obedience to follow what the sacred pastors, as representatives of Christ, declare as teachers of the faith or determine as leaders of the Church.

2. The Christian faithful are free to make known their needs, especially spiritual ones, and their desires to the pastors of the Church.

3. In accord with the knowledge, competence and preeminence which they possess, they have the right and even at times a duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church, and they have a right to make their opinion known to the other Christian faithful, with due regard for the integrity of faith and morals and reverence toward their pastors, and with consideration of the common good and dignity of persons.

Bishop Robert McManus needs to look into this situation.  Liturgical abuses are very serious.  The solution is not for faithful Catholics to be told to "move on."  The solution is for the priests at Saint Joseph's Parish to return to fidelity, to cease abusing the liturgy and disrupting the Church's unity.