The Wanderer on Saul Alinsky

Below is an article from The Wanderer on Saul Alinsky and the influence he has had on the Campaign for Human Development in the United States:


A Commentary on Catholic Campaign for Human Development Funding of the Industrial Areas Foundation
Prepared for the Catholic Bishops of the United States by the Wanderer Forum Foundation
I. Introduction:
This commentary is submitted to the Catholic Bishops of the United States as a response to recently proposed changes in the Catholic Campaign for Human Development (CCHD) guidelines. The Wanderer Forum Foundation is encouraged by these reform efforts and thanks the United States Catholic Bishops for their work to more accurately shape the guidelines into greater conformity with Church teaching.
However, the Wanderer Forum Foundation is aware that guidelines alone, without adequate information about potential CHD grantees, will be insufficient to make informed decisions about the capacity of given organizations to respect Catholic moral and social justice principles. This commentary is offered in an attempt to provide some of that information.
It is essential to note the limited purpose and scope of this commentary:
1. This commentary is intended for the use of the Catholic Bishops of the United States in their consideration of the issues discussed. In view of the objections raised by the CCHD over the Wanderer Forum Foundation's having made the 1997 CHD Commentary available to the public, the Wanderer Forum Foundation will not make the 1998 IAF Commentary public until January 1999. We hope this will allow adequate time for in-depth perusal of the Commentary by the bishops and will permit a serious exchange between the CCHD committee and the Foundation.
2. This commentary endeavors only to set forth facts. Supporting documentation can be made available to any bishop who so requests it. The commentary does not call into question the good faith or integrity of anyone involved with the CHD. Nor does it assert that any recipient of CHD funds has engaged in any misrepresentation or intentional misuse of funds in any way contrary to the stated purpose of CHD. This commentary does not assert that any persons or organizations involved in these matters have engaged in conduct that is illegal in any way.
3. This commentary is entirely directed to issues of prudence and judgment rather than legality and good faith. The discussion herein is intended merely to raise legitimate questions about specific CHD funding.
4. The scope of commentary is limited to examination of one CHD grant recipient, the Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF).
II. Reasons for selecting the Industrial Areas Foundation for this Commentary:
1. The IAF receives the largest percentage of CHD grants of any CHD grantee. During the funding period of 1992-1997, CHD has awarded significant grants to the IAF. The IAF has received approximately 15% of the national CHD annual budget between 1992-1997. This represents approximately $6,466,500 during this funding period.
2. The CHD is historically related to the IAF. The consistently high proportion of CHD grants to the IAF are in themselves a reason to study IAF activities. Its historical relationship to the CHD is another: "There was no formal link between the Campaign for Human Development and the Industrial Areas Foundation [at the CHD's inception]; but the philosophy behind the newly established CHD had been influenced by key Catholic leaders who in turn had been influenced by Alinsky and the IAF. In fact, funding from the CHD over the years has often gone to broad based community organizations established with the support of the IAF. During his visit to Britain in 1990, Rev. Al LoPinto, then director of the Campaign for Human Development, explained that the Campaign had no formal commitment to the IAF and broad based community organising; however, they found the approach to be effective and the IAF organisers to be very professional."
III. Founding of the Industrial Areas Foundation:
1. The IAF was founded by organizer Saul Alinsky. Saul Alinsky wrote two books outlining his organizational principles and strategies: Reveille for Radicals and Rules for Radicals.
· Rules for Radicals opens with a quote about Lucifer, written by Saul Alinsky: "Lest we forget at least an over-the shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins-or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom - Lucifer."
· In Rules for Radicals, Alinsky says: "Here I propose to present an arrangement of certain facts and general concepts of change, a step toward a science of revolution." He builds on the tactical principles of Machiavelli: "The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away."
· Rules for Radicals is concerned with the acquisition of power: "My aim here is to suggest how to organize for power: how to get it and how to use it." This is not to be done through assistance to the poor, nor even by organizing the poor to demand assistance: "…[E]ven if all the low-income parts of our population were organized…it would not be powerful enough to get significant, basic, needed changes."
Alinsky advises the organizer to target the middle class, rather than the poor: "Organization for action will now and in the decade ahead center upon America's white middle class. That is where the power is." Alinsky is interested in the middle class solely for its usefulness: "Our rebels have contemptuously rejected the values and way of life of the middle class. They have stigmatized it as materialistic, decadent, bourgeois, degenerate, imperialistic, war-mongering, brutalized and corrupt. They are right; but we must begin from where we are if we are to build power for change, and the power and the people are in the middle class majority."
To accomplish this, Alinsky writes that the organizer must "begin to dissect and examine that way of life [the middle class lifestyle]…He will know that 'square' is no longer to be dismissed as such - instead his own approach must be 'square' enough to get the action started."
· Rules for Radicals defends belief that the end justifies the means: "To say that corrupt means corrupt the ends," writes Alinsky, "is to believe in the immaculate conception of ends and principles….the practical revolutionary will understand…[that]in action, one does not always enjoy the luxury of a decision that is consistent both with one's individual conscience and the good of mankind."
Altogether, Alinsky provides eleven rules of the ethics of means and ends. They are morally relativistic:
- "The practical revolutionary will understand Goethe's 'conscience is the virtue of observers and not of agents of action;' in action, one does not always enjoy the luxury of a decision that is consistent both with one's individual conscience and the good of mankind."
- "The second rule of the ethics of means and ends is that the judgment of the ethics of means is dependent on the political position of those sitting in judgment." Alinsky elaborates his meaning on this point, saying that if you were a member of the underground Resistance, "…then you adopted the means of assassination, terror, property destruction, the bombing of tunnels and trains, kidnapping, and the willingness to sacrifice of innocent hostages to the end of defeating the Nazis. Those who opposed the Nazi conquerors regarded the Resistance as a secret army of selfless, patriotic idealists….To the occupation authorities, however, these people were lawless terrorists, murderers, saboteurs, assassins, who believed the ends justified the means, and were utterly unethical…" Rules for Radicals is therefore concerned with how to win. "…[I]n such a conflict, neither protagonist is concerned with any value except victory."
- "The third rule of the ethics of means and ends is that in war the end justifies almost any means.
- "There can be no such thing as a successful traitor, for if one succeeds, he becomes a founding father."
· Rules for Radicals teaches the organizer that he must give a moral appearance (as opposed to behaving morally): "All effective action requires the passport of morality."
The tenth rule of the ethics of means and ends states "that you do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments. ....Moral rationalization is indispensable at all times of action whether to justify the selection or the use of ends or means."
· Rules for Radicals provides the organizer with a tactical style for community organization that assumes an adversarial relationship between groups of people in which one either dominates or is dominated.
- "The first rule of power tactics is: power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have."
- "Wherever possible go outside the experience of the enemy. Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat."
- "Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules. You can kill them with this. They can no more obey their own rules than the "Christian church can live up to Christianity."
- "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also, it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage."
- "The threat is generally more terrifying than the thing itself."
- "In a fight almost anything goes. It almost reaches the point where you stop to apologize if a chance blow lands above the belt."
- "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."
- "One of the criteria for picking the target is the target's vulnerability....the other important point in the choosing of a target is that it must be a personification, not something general and abstract.."
- "The enemy properly goaded and guided in his reaction will be your major strength."
· Saul Alinsky urged the active and deliberate "consciousness-raising" of people through the technique of "popular education." Popular education is a method by which an organizer leads people to a class-based interpretation of their grievances, and to accept the organizer's systemic solutions to address those grievances. "Through the People's Organization these groups [of citizens] discover that what they considered primarily their individual problem is also the problem of others, and furthermore the only hope for solving an issue of such titanic proportions is by pooling all their efforts and strengths. That appreciation and conclusion is an educational process."
· Rules for Radicals stresses organizational power-collecting: "The ego of the organizer is stronger and more monumental than the ego of the leader. The leader is driven by the desire for power, while the organizer is driven by the desire to create. The organizer is in a true sense reaching for the highest level for which a man can reach - to create, to be a "great creator, 'to play God.'"
2. The IAF has not repudiated Saul Alinsky's organizing tactics. The Alinskyian roots of the modern-day IAF are openly acknowledged by the organization. In 1996, when the IAF was organizing a local in Chicago, reporters wrote: "CMS [Chicago Metropolitan Sponsors] has hired IAF to do its organizing, a coup for Monsignor John Egan, a longtime Alinsky supporter, IAF board member, and activist on Chicago urban issues."
The Illinois Welfare News, announcing the October 19, 1997 founding convention of the fledgling Chicago Metropolitan Sponsors, wrote: "The staff of Saul Alinsky's Industrial Areas Foundation assisted in laying the groundwork for the new organization over the past two years in neighborhood meetings in church halls and high school gymnasiums throughout the area."
Alinsky's principles are still very much in force in the contemporary IAF: "All participants in the Industrial Areas Foundation national training programs are given a reprint of a 1933 article by John H. Randall, Jr. titled 'The Importance of Being Unprincipled'...The thesis is that because politics is nothing but the 'practical method of compromise,' only two kinds of people can afford the luxury of acting on principle...everyone else who wants to be effective in politics has to learn to be "unprincipled" enough to compromise in order to see their principles succeed."
This idea has been echoed by Ernesto Cortes, Southwest Regional Director of the IAF: "One of the worst things you can be is overly principled. Everybody has got to compromise, adapt, change. So one of the hard things we've always had to learn in the world as it is, is that there are no permanent enemies and no permanent allies."
This is not to imply that the contemporary IAF has changed nothing that Alinsky put into place. One significant change is that the present-day IAF has abandoned Alinsky's original vision of self-determination of people through local control and replaced it with an nationally networked organization. "After Alinsky died in 1972, the foundation's leadership passed to Edward T. Chambers, who believed it was necessary to create a formal national network of community organizations with stronger links between the groups."
Conclusion regarding the IAF's relationship to Alinsky's organizational philosophy: The principles of Saul Alinsky's organizing are inherently unethical and render any organization so grounded unfit for receipt of Catholic charitable money. As the IAF proceeds upon the principles of Saul Alinsky, the IAF should no longer receive CHD grants.
IV. Structural Organization of the Industrial Areas Foundation:
1. The IAF is an organization of over 50 local affiliates around the United States, with several affiliates in Great Britain and one in South Africa. Membership in IAF local affiliates is by institution, rather than by individual. Those institutions are most commonly religious congregations, but may include unions locals, schools, and health care centers.
2. Organizing by institution, rather than by individual, has a number of practical advantages. One advantage is that it gives the appearance of greater political strength or support than the local organization may actually possess. Newspaper accounts of local IAF action, for example, frequently report the local IAF constituency in the hundreds of thousands, when in point of fact only a small fraction of that number are actively involved in IAF-related activities.
Religious institutions, such as churches, are the backbone of the IAF. Churches have a pre-existing structure, access to money, and an immediate moral credibility. The IAF handbook states: "...one of the largest reservoirs of untapped power is the institution of the parish and congregation. Religious institutions form the center of the organization. They have the people, the values, and the money."
3. Every individual belonging to each institutional member of an IAF affiliate is counted as a member of the affiliate. While only institutions join the IAF affiliate, each member of the institution is considered a member of the IAF affiliate. The half-century IAF commemorative publication, Organizing for Change, states, for example: "There are now twenty-eight IAF organizations nationwide, located in New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Texas, Tennessee, Arizona, and California, representing more than 1.5 million families."
Another example comes from an IAF concept paper produced in 1994: "IAF now provides leadership training for over 30 organizations representing nearly 1,000 institutions and over one million families."
A third example comes from a newspaper article about the three California IAF affiliates in the Los Angeles area: "Mobilizing hundreds of highly disciplined demonstrators in their current campaign, the unique alliance claims a constituency of 200,000, a figure derived from the registration of 74 member chapters."
A fourth example is taken from an 1987 master's thesis about an IAF local in the Brownsville, Texas area. The author quotes a statement from the Concerned Citizens for Church and State, an organization: "…[W]e are opposed to the Church involvement in politics through social welfare, high pressure, special interest groups that do not represent the total memberships they claim."
4. Some parishioners find themselves members of an IAF affiliate against their wills. As institutional membership in an IAF affiliate is rarely a unanimous decision on the part of every parishioner, some parishes have experienced friction among parishioners who oppose being considered IAF members.
In 1982, nine hundred and eighteen parishioners of St. Matthew's Catholic Church in El Paso signed a petition asking to be withdrawn from affiliation with the IAF local, EPISO. They were supported by the full parish council. The pastor, however, persisted in maintaining parish membership in EPISO and disbanded the parish council.
In 1987, Maryann Eklund provided a profile of a Protestant and Catholic coalition in the Brownsville, Texas area that opposed membership the IAF affiliate: "Concerned Citizens are active church members who serve on parish councils, church committees and governing boards. Many are active not only at the local level, but also at the state and national levels….These individuals are the pillars of the community.... Concerned Citizens are quite vocal about not wanting religious or the church involved in politics or secular activities."
Eight years later, parishioners at St. Charles Borromeo Catholic Church in Albuquerque, which is an institutional member of IAF local Albuquerque Interfaith, expressed their opposition to IAF membership. "I believe there's something wrong with politics being an essential part of our congregation's affiliation," one parishioner stated.
Institutional-based organizing has clear advantages for the organizers. However, it is unjust to any individual within member institutions to be forced into affiliation with the IAF (or any other institutional-based organization) if it is against his will - or without his knowledge.
5. The IAF is not grassroots. IAF local affiliates are created as the result of careful planning. For example, IAF organizer Arnold Graf was reported as saying: "Generally, our hope is that by 1996 we would be in twice the strategically located states as we are now and that would give us the capacity to develop either the regional or national base to look at national politics. If we were in the right fifteen or sixteen states, we wouldn't have to be in all fifty states. That would give us enough clout to be able to affect policies, whether it was through political parties or corporations."
A second example is recorded in Eklund's 1987 thesis: "According to one journalistic report…the IAF took an 'experimental tact' [sic] in the Rio Grande Valley. Rather than insisting on a local sponsoring committee for the new organization, the Texas bishops who had been funding Cortes [then lead organizer of the San Antonio IAF local] agreed to build a statewide sponsor, Texas Interfaith, comprised of IAF affiliates in San Antonio, Fort Worth, Houston, and El Paso. This group became the sponsor and provided much of the initial money for Valley Interfaith."
A third example is given by an IAF leader: "We are not a grassroots organization. Grass roots are shallow roots. Grass roots are fragile roots. Our roots are deep roots"
Another example is recorded by writer Harry Boyte. "'We are not a grassroots organization,' thundered the Rev. Johnny Youngblood, a key leader in the organization [New York IAF local East Brooklyn Churches], at one rally. 'Grass roots are shallow roots. Grass roots are fragile roots. Our roots are deep roots.'"
6. The IAF uses the local issues of its membership as a training ground for the larger IAF agenda. Msgr. Jack Egan, a Chicago IAF leader, said in an interview: "I believe that people are first interested in issues as they relate to their own lives. Then they can move from that dimension to city-wide or statewide questions. It's a process, a widening of horizons…I believe that people can be helped to see the connections…. [U]nless the local church or community begins to educate the people of the community to the international dimension of issues, they are doing a disservice."
Ernesto Cortes, southwestern regional IAF director, writes something similar: "[The organizer's] issue gets dealt with last. If you want your issue to be dealt with first, you'll never build anything. So you lead with other people's issues, and you teach them how to act on their issues. Then you model what is to be reciprocal, you model what it is to have a long-term vision." This means that, ultimately, it is the IAF's organizational agenda - which is different from the "agenda" of its individual member organizations - that will be addressed.
Consider this description of the preparation of a "vision paper" that "150 community leaders" were drawing up San Antonio on education: "The only discordant note was quickly smothered by Cortes. A priest rose to speak in behalf of the 'school voucher issue' a means of providing public financing for struggling parochial schools - and one mother seconded his plea. [They publicly were rebuffed by Cortes.] ….Outside in the lobby later, Cortes bluntly warned the priest to back off, lest he provoke an argument that might break up the multi-denominational coalition. 'I told the monsignor it was not in his interest to push the voucher issue,' Cortes said, 'because we would have to fight him on it.' "
An Evaluation Study of Institution-Based Organizing prepared for the Discount Foundation states: "…[W]hile IAF does not present itself as a national network, its affiliates are clustered into regions, only some of which are acting at state-wide and regional levels. However, IAF did act nationally a few years ago when leaders and organizers from numerous regions met with key congressional leaders in Washington, DC. They influenced Congressional leaders to pressure the INS to speed up applications for citizenship, particularly in California."
Conclusion concerning the organizational structure of the IAF: Community organizing by religious institution, rather than by individual, is unjust and robs the dissenting individual of his dignity and right of conscience. As the IAF is an institutional-based organization, the IAF should no longer receive CHD grants.
V. The Relationship of the Industrial Areas Foundation to Call to Action:
1. History of Industrial Areas Foundation's relationship to Call to Action: In October 1976, the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, sponsored a three-day Conference in Detroit that brought together delegates from across the United States to ratify eight position papers, prepared in advance of the Conference.
Monsignor Jack Egan of Chicago, "a longtime Alinsky supporter, IAF board member, and activist on Chicago urban issues," served as co-chair of the 1976 Call to Action plenary sessions.
The "working papers" contained specific challenges to the discipline and doctrine of the Church. "…[M]ore than 2,400 delegates at the conference - people deeply involved in the life of the institutional church and appointed by their bishops - approve such progressive resolutions, ones calling for, among other things, the ordination of women and married men, female altar servers, and the right and responsibility of married couples to form their own consciences on the issue of artificial birth control."
The working paper on Neighborhood recommended (and it was approved by the Call to Action delegates) that every parish support a "competent," ecumenical neighborhood action group, with diocesan resources used to train organizational "leaders" for their use. The IAF had also been involved the year before in a pre-Detroit "hearing" on the topic of Nationhood. The Nationhood working papers proposed that the Church establish priorities for public policy, define major election issues, educate the laity on the moral dimensions of public issues, and implement these goals ecumenically - in conjunction with other churches and civic groups.
The following twenty years have seen implementation of these Call to Action recommendations by means of church-supported IAF local affiliates.
2. Present relationship of the Industrial Areas Foundation to Call to Action:
A. The IAF continues to be associated with the Call to Action movement.
· Msgr. Jack Egan, long-time IAF promoter, has maintained close and supportive ties to Call to Action. "Long before Call to Action became an organization some bishops banned, it was actually an event organized by the bishops.... Locally [in the Chicago area] that discernment led to the formation of a national church reform movement with the same name [CTA]....Now, as the 20th anniversary of that historic meeting approaches, nearly 100 Catholics gathered on Sept. 15th at Rosary College in River Forest to hear the recollections of two of Chicago's most prominent Catholics who attended the Detroit meeting, Msgr. John Egan and Patty Crowley."
Msgr. Egan was quoted as reminiscing: "But why did more than 2,400 delegates at the [1976] conference.... people deeply involved with the life of the institutional church and appointed by their bishops.... approve such progressive resolutions, ones calling for, among other things, the ordination of women and married men, female altar servers, and the right and responsibility of married couples to form their own consciences on the issue of artificial birth control?....[Because] they had a chance to talk about that issue in terms of personal experience, and they found that people listened, were touched and in many cases changed their minds"
Msgr. Egan has also been credited for providing the motivating force behind the organization of Chicago's IAF local, United Power for Action and Justice. "...Jack Egan initiated this organizing process with religious and union leaders under the name Chicago Metropolitan Sponsors (the name was changed to UPAJ at the 10/19/97 inaugural assembly). Key support came from Bishop Brazier and Cardinal Bernardin. Contributions came to $2.6 million of which $1 million was provided by the Archdiocese of Chicago."
· The 1996 Call to Action calendar lists Ernesto Cortes, Southwest Regional Director of the IAF, as a guest speaker for a Wisconsin workshop.
B. A number of IAF member institutions are also Call to Action members:
· Our Lady Queen of Angels Communities, a member of the Texas IAF Valley Interfaith, is listed as a Call to Action participating community. The 1996 listing includes a description of Our Lady Queen of Angels Communities: "We…are actively involved in working to change our social reality through Valley Interfaith of the Industrial Areas Foundation."
· The Southwest Austin Christian Community of St. Ignatius Martyr Church is listed as a Call to Action participating community
. The Southwest Austin Christian Community, through St. Ignatius Martyr Church, is a member of Austin Interfaith.
· The Center for Action and Contemplation in Albuquerque, New Mexico is listed as a Call to Action participating community. It is a member of the IAF local, Albuquerque Interfaith.
· St. Odilia Catholic Church in Tucson, Arizona is an institutional member of IAF local affiliate PIMA County Interfaith. In March 1998, St. Odilia hosted a Future of Priestly Ministry Dialogue, a joint project of Call to Action and FutureChurch.
· Holy Family in Inverness, Illinois is a member of the IAF local affiliate, United Power for Action and Justice. The pastor of Holy Family, Reverend Patrick Brennan, is a popular Call to Action speaker.
C. The IAF has used its power to involve itself in the internal life of the Church:
· Peter Skerry reports that the IAF was involved in the election of a Texas bishop: "Fundamental to the success of COPS [San Antonio IAF local] has been the support of Archbishop Flores, himself the beneficiary of a COPS letterwriting campaign when the hierarchy was considering his appointment."
· The IAF in New Mexico has become involved in the Archdiocesan RENEW program. Organizer Tim McCluskey of the IAF local Albuquerque Interfaith held a Leadership Development Workshop at Our Lady of Guadalupe Church on June 15, 1996. There he was recorded, saying: "…[I]f you give me 50 names of other people in this congregation who you think I should talk to…I'll go talk to them in that period of time, and see what kind of story we're getting: how do we feed that into the RENEW."
It has also been reported that Albuquerque Interfaith organizers have offered to train the pastoral council members of other Albuquerque parishes. This is a potential mixing of the internal life of the parish with the community organizers' methodologies, ideologies, and secular agenda.
Conclusion concerning the relationship of the CHD to Call to Action: Many points in the Call to Action agenda contradict Catholic teaching. The long-standing, pervasive, and compatible relationship between the IAF and Call to Action creates an example of material cooperation between a CHD-funded organization and an organization which is not in accord with Catholic teaching. Continued funding the IAF, therefore, violates the 1998 Draft of Moral Guidelines for Funding by the Catholic Campaign for Human Development which states that "CCHD funds will not be used to support any project which is sponsored or promoted by an organization whose primary or substantial thrust is contrary to Catholic teaching, even if the project itself is in accord with Catholic teaching."
VI. Nation-wide Activities of the IAF: The IAF has a number of activities that it is pursuing on a nation-wide basis, but two are of immediate concern: those in the areas of education reform and welfare.
1. The IAF is promoting systemic change in education: The 1997 Wanderer Forum Foundation Commentary on the Campaign for Human Development established that the IAF is pursuing a national agenda of education restructuring through its local affiliates. Documentation in that commentary showed that the IAF is laboring to create public consensus for a national system of education. The commentary also demonstrated that the national educational system being implemented by the IAF goes well beyond provision of academic training, including health care and social services.
A. The term "systemic change" is used frequently in documents by or about the IAF in regard to the IAF's intentions for public education. A job description for the IAF local affiliate South Bronx Churches, for example, states that the organizer is "to build a city-wide network of parents to deal with systemic as well as local issues in NYC public schools…"
B. The systemic change sought by the IAF replaces parental control over a child's education and local school board determination over its schools with an "IAF model for education reform." An IAF concept paper states: "The entire community must be meaningfully involved in the public education system and held accountable for its results."
C. The systemic change sought by the IAF imposes its educational philosophy on parents and students: "Through these [IAF training] sessions, parents and community members gain an understanding of where they 'fit' within the system."
D. The systemic change sought by the IAF alters not only the traditional relationship of parent to child, but of state to student.
· This systemic change alters traditional parental prerogatives: "Schools must be prepared to teach parents how to play a supportive role. In some cases this might mean making provision for parenting education," states one IAF paper on education.
· This systemic change alters the traditional relationship of the state to the student. The above mentioned IAF paper on education describes the comprehensive nature of the IAF model for education reform: "Increasingly, schools will find it important to employ social workers who can coordinate necessary services and to intervene on behalf of a child in need. Healthcare and dental services could be offered on-site. Schools will need to help working families make provision for after-school childcare, and day care for pre-schoolers."
Conclusion concerning the national activities of the IAF in educational restructuring: Catholic teaching has consistently affirmed the parental right and obligation "to make absolutely sure that the education of their children remain under their own control in keeping with their Christian duty." Further, the IAF model of education reform creates excessive intervention by the state into the personal lives of its citizens. This, too, is contrary to Catholic teaching. CCHD grants to IAF projects in education, therefore, are funding projects that do not conform to Catholic teaching.
2. The Industrial Areas Foundation is promoting systemic change in welfare reform: The 1997 Wanderer Forum Foundation Commentary on the Campaign for Human Development established that the IAF promotes welfare reform that tends to focus on the preservation and increase of federal welfare funding. It promotes the passage of federal funds into the hands of "mediating institutions" such as the parish church. Distribution of these funds then becomes the responsibility of the IAF-organized "mediating institution," such as the parish church, to distribute this federal money. The commentary described one such federally-funded program, an IAF-developed job-training project that is designed to be run out of the churches and is under consideration as a model for national replication.
Conclusion concerning the national activities of the IAF in welfare reform: While there is no question that the Church has a mission to social action, which is realized in both Her enunciation of the principles of social justice and in Her active benevolences, "it is not the role of Pastors of the Church to intervene directly in the political structuring and organization of social life." By extension, it seems inappropriate to engage the parish in activity that intervenes directly in the organizing of social life. This misuse of the parish undermines its primary works, which are to live its liturgical life and to practice the charity of the Lord. CCHD grants to IAF projects in welfare reform, therefore, are funding projects that do not conform to Catholic teaching.
VII. The CHD-funded IAF Engages in Partisan Political Activities: The 1997 Wander Forum Foundation Commentary on the Campaign for Human Development established that the IAF interfered in the Orange County, California elections of 1996, supported a pro-abortion candidate, and was implicated in the voter registration of a significant number non-citizens. This political activity is found in many IAF locals:
1. Arnold Graf, an IAF organizer, stated: "In places like San Antonio and Baltimore, we are as close to being a political party as anybody is. We go around organizing people, getting them to agree on an agenda, registering them to vote, interviewing candidates on whether the support our agenda. We're not a political party, but that's what political parties do."
2. Attorney Daniel J. Rylander has written the Pima county supervisor about the Arizona IAF local, Pima County Interfaith Council (PCIC): "…[T]he PCIC Articles of Incorporation as amended clearly indicate that PCIC is a Political Action Committee. The PCIC 1998 calendar indicates that from April to November of 1998, the members are to 'take charge of the 1998 elections.' These activities clearly disqualify them from public funding or even participating in a publicly funded program…..the mission of PCIC is, quite simply, the collection and exercise of political power and influence."
3. Omaha Internal Revenue Service agent, Carl R. Patterson, who specializes in tax-exempt organizations, has questioned the contributions of time and money to the Nebraska IAF local Omaha Together One Community (OTOC). "Some Omaha churches could lose their exemption from federal income taxes because of their participation on Omaha Together One Community, an Internal Revenue Service agent says….Patterson said that some church donations to OTOC, which range from $300 to $5000 this year,are large enough to question. And he said that money is not the only issue. An IRS investigation would also consider the other ways churches support OTOC, he said. 'We'd look at the number of notices in the church bulletin, the fliers, the free use of church meeting rooms, office space, equipment and supplies,' Patterson said. 'We'd look at the value of the time and the services of the pastors, too.'"
4. An Evaluation Study of Institution-Based Organizing prepared for the Discount Foundation provides several examples of partisan IAF political activity:
· "One of IAF's priorities and directions in the Northeast and mid-Atlantic regions includes developing new constituencies such as voters, through launching a regional voter mobilization strategy. Other targeted constituencies include parents, workers, and immigrants. One strategy behind this expansion is to engage larger numbers of people from diverse constituencies beyond congregations, and build sufficient power to impact more issues at a systemic level."
· "EHPC [NY IAF local, East Harlem Partnership for Change] used a local state assembly election to unseat a political family dynasty…EHPC turned out nearly 4,000 voters in the election…. According to New York Daily News reporter Jim Dwyer, the Del Toro campaign credentialed EHPC as a power player in East Harlem."
· "BUILD [Baltimore IAF local] leveraged competition between Baltimore City Council President and the Mayor in a hotly contested mayoral race…."
· The evaluation asks what the strengths and future potential of institution-based organizing are and answers that question. "Utilizing electoral processes to leverage issue wins: The ability to utilize the electoral process to leverage issues is also a strength and bodes well for future impact, as indicated in the section on altering power relations."
Conclusion concerning IAF efforts to promote a partisan political agenda: The Evaluation Study of Institution-Based Organizing prepared for the Discount Foundation makes this point: "The organizational culture harnesses and leverages congregations' social capital for social change. By fusing faith and politics, and acting on progressive issues, they build an organizational culture that engenders long-term involvement of leaders in a religious context."[emphasis added] The use of churches by outside organizations, such as the IAF, to promote their own "progressive issues" is inimical to the dignity of the individual within the church who opposes that progressive agenda, and is inimical to his rights of conscience.
VIII. The Industrial Areas Foundation Introduces Theological Distortions to Catholic Parishes.
1. Alinskyian organizing, like liberation theology, rejects objective or fixed truth. Charles Curran writes: "There are many similarities between Alinsky's community organization approach and liberation theology….An important similarity concerns the basic understanding of sociology and epistemology. Liberation theology rightly reacts against a value-free sociology with its claim of arriving at totally objective truth and it's emphasis on quantitative analysis. A value-free approach by its very nature tends to identify with and reinforce the status quo. Knowledge is not as objective and independent of human involvement as a classical understanding once thought. The sociology of knowledge reminds us that all knowledge is situated and subject to prejudice. One must approach existing realities and thought patterns with ideological suspicion….There is no dispassionate objectivity. Rationalization is an important human reality with which any organizer must come to grips."
2. Alinskyian organizing, like liberation theology, is grounded on a Marxist class analysis. "The option for the poor has become very central in both the praxis and theory of liberation theology. This same option for the poor, especially understood in terms of the powerless, characterizes the Alinsky method of organization. Alinsky definitely sides with the powerless - the have-nots - in their struggle."
3. Alinskyian organizing, like liberation theology, uses the technique of "popular education" (conscientization) to change values. Curran writes: Liberation theology gives great importance to Paulo Friar's pedagogy of the oppressed. In the process called 'conscientization,' through an unalienating and liberating cultural action, the oppressed person perceives and modifies one's relationship to the world….Although Alinsky does not use the word 'conscientization,' there is no doubt that such a process is the cornerstone of his method….The people must learn that through their power they can bring about change. Raising consciousness is a part of Alinsky's overarching commitment to popular education."
4. The technique of "popular education" (conscientization" or values clarification) change the values of its target and replace them with the values of the organizer. A New Republic article states: "…[The] IAF seeks to teach groups like Mexican/Americans of San Antonio to build on and then transcend natural ties of family and ethnicity" Another writer says: "Cortes [head organizer for IAF, SW region] knew that Mexican parents willingly sacrificed for their children - and often for their church. By talking about family values, could you motivate and organize people to act politically in their own genuine self-interest?...the new organization had to reach into the heart...The idea of protecting and enhancing families might make that possible."
The implication of these passages is that the religious and family values of Catholics are used to spark a conversation between them and the IAF. The IAF then uses the relationship built from those values to introduce another set of values - those of the IAF. Harry Boyte writes: "In St. Timothy's Church [in San Antonio], for instance, new catechisms connected biblical and Mexican historical and cultural themes with the current issues COPS [the IAF local] was working on….From such experiences, the [the IAF] developed an ongoing process of community and parish renewal."
5. Alinskyian organizing encourages small base communities. Harold McDougall writes about the Baltimore IAF, BUILD (Baltimoreans United in Leadership Development). Participating pastors in the Baltimore IAF , he reports, are networked together in a "peer group, sharing experiences….They are trying to raise consensus-oriented decision-making models for BUILD as a whole on the foundation of their peer relationships. Some are beginning to see the need to share power within their own churches…"
McDougall also describes the small base communities which, at the time of his writing (1993 and earlier), BUILD was planning. "…[T]hey will also need something more: participation in small, intimate 'base communities,' peer groups of a dozen or two dozen people which can evaluate the day's struggles….This kind of personal, intimate contact with trusted others is a necessary building block for Harry Boyte's 'third way' of citizen engagement….Families are not large or diverse enough to perform such a function. Churches are too large. The contact must take place in a new, smaller form of association in some ways similar to the social units liberation theologians in Latin America have called comunidades eclesiales de base, which translates as 'ecclesiastical base communities,' or simply 'Christian base communities.'"
Integral to these small communities would be prayer and Bible study, in which the scripture "text" is "discussed in the 'context' of community." The BUILD small faith communities would engage in facilitated discussions "of what community is for, the people involved, and what obstacles to community they think exist, always using the text of the Bible as a central resonating point for the discussion."
IAF groups in Texas also use the model of the South American base communities. In the Diocese of Brownsville there are 500 small faith communities operating both in the IAF network and in the Call to Action network.
Conclusion concerning theological distortions introduced by the IAF into the Catholic Church: The relationship between the IAF and certain factions within the United States Catholic Church goes beyond CCHD funding of individual projects. Withdrawal of CCHD funding of the IAF would help rectify the damage done by the theological distortions introduced by the IAF into various Catholic communities by clearly marking the IAF's theology as different from Catholic theology, and therefore inappropriate for such funding.
IX. The Catholic Bishops of the United States Ought to Reconsider Their Funding of the Industrial Areas Foundation through Catholic Campaign for Human Development Grants.
This commentary does not oppose CCHD funding of genuine, grassroots community organizations, run and supported by individual members of a parish or diocese and grounded on the principles of Catholic Action. There is potential value and virtue in the collective voice. However, when the CCHD funds Alinsky-style, church-based community organizations as in the best interest of the poor and supports organizations which advance agendas inimical to Catholic social justice principles, it divests the poor of their right to an authentic voice. This process tends to treat the poor as exploited units of human capital, rather than as human beings created in the dignity of God's image.
Nor is there any basis for the CCHD to imply by its actions that there are no alternative organizations that it can fund to promote valuable institutional change, uninfluenced by a politicized agenda. There is no necessity for CCHD funds to go to organizations which contribute to or participate in any way - either directly or indirectly - in the political support of abortion or the complicitous support of contraception. There is no necessity for the CCHD to fund the Industrial Areas Foundation. There are other organizations of the poor, that are self-determined and supportive of life, which would welcome and benefit from CCHD assistance. Those alternative, grassroots community organizations do not merely serve their constituency but rather they are their constituency. They do not use community organizing to further an additional agenda.
It would be reasonable for the bishops to consider the immediate cessation of all CHD funding to the Industrial Areas Foundation:
1. The IAF proceeds upon the principles of Saul Alinsky, which are inherently unethical and render any organization so grounded unfit for receipt of Catholic charitable money. As the IAF proceeds upon the principles of Saul Alinsky, the IAF should no longer receive CCHD grants.
2. The IAF is an institutional-based organization. Community organizing by religious institution, rather than by individual, is unjust and robs the dissenting individual of his dignity and right of conscience. As the IAF is an institutional-based organization, the IAF should no longer receive CCHD grants.
3. The IAF has a long-standing relationship with the dissident organization Call to Action. Many points in the Call to Action agenda contradict Catholic teaching. This pervasive and compatible relationship between the IAF and Call to Action creates an example of material cooperation between a CCHD-funded organization and an organization which is not in accord with Catholic teaching. Continued funding of the IAF, therefore, violates the 1998 Draft of Moral Guidelines for Funding by the Catholic Campaign for Human Development which states that "CCHD funds will not be used to support any project which is sponsored or promoted by an organization whose primary or substantial thrust is contrary to Catholic teaching, even if the project itself is in accord with Catholic teaching." Therefore, the IAF should no longer receive CCHD grants.
4. IAF activities in the area of education reform contradict Catholic teaching. IAF activities in the area of welfare reform also contradict Catholic teaching and subvert the work of its member parishes. Again, continued funding of the IAF violates the 1998 Draft of Moral Guidelines for Funding by the Catholic Campaign for Human Development which states that "CCHD funds will be used to support only projects that conform to Catholic teaching." Therefore, the IAF should no longer receive CCHD grants.
5. The IAF is engaged in partisan political activities. The use of churches by outside organizations, such as the IAF, to promote their own "progressive issues" is inimical to the dignity of the individual within the church who opposes that progressive agenda, and is inimical to his rights of conscience. Therefore, continued CCHD funding to the IAF is inappropriate.
6. The IAF has introduced theological distortions into a number of Catholic communities. Cessation of CCHD grants to the IAF would clarify that the IAF's theology is different from Catholic theology, is inappropriate for promulgation in Catholic communities, and disqualifies the IAF for such funding.
X. Conclusion: This commentary is offered for the consideration of the bishops in a spirit of objective inquiry. As noted in Section I above, it is not intended to disparage any person or group or to question the good faith or legality of any positions taken by any persons or groups involved in these matters. Rather, we respectfully submit this Commentary to assist the bishops in their deliberations about the future funding and activities of the CCHD.
A bound copy of this text, with footnotes, can be obtained from the Wanderer Forum Foundation, Forum Focus, P.O. Box 542, Hudson, WI 54016-0542 or telephone 651-276-1429. Please send $5.00 to cover postage. A year subscribtion to the Forum Focus Quarterly is $10.00 and can be obtained from the same address.

Interesting Blog

For those interested in an excellent Blog written by a Spanish priest, please visit: http://carolmckinley.blogspot.com/

There you will find more information.

Paul


Para esos interesados en un Blog excelente escrito por un sacerdote espanol, visite por pavor: http://carolmckinley.blogspot.com/

Alli usted encontrara mas informacion.

Pablo

Another link...

Readers having difficulty when clicking on the link provided below may also find the article on Francis Cardinal George and homosexuals in the seminary at: http://www.spiritdaily.com

Paul

Francis Cardinal George and homosexuals in the seminary

For almost 15 years, I have been saying that homosexual men do not belong in a seminary and that such persons should not be ordained. In fact, in a piece written for The Wanderer some four years ago and entitled "A possibility wrought with dire implications," I wrote: "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."

I was ridiculed for saying this. In fact, I have been referred to as "mentally ill" and as being somehow "unstable" for saying this. Now Francis Cardinal George is saying that homosexual men do not belong in the seminary, see this article: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0506170149jun17,1,3686079,story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed&ctrack=2&cset=true

I wonder if His Eminence will be referred to as "mentally ill" or "unstable" for asserting what I have been saying for so very many years? I wonder if he will receive death threats as I have? I wonder if he will receive a warning from a police department (as I have) informing him that someone has threatened to shoot him with a high-powered rifle?

I commend His Eminence Francis Cardinal George for confirming what I have been saying for so long now. And I commend my good friends at www.faithfulvoice.com for reprinting the piece which I had written for The Wanderer several years back. The Holy Spirit gives His gift of Fortitude to those who ask for it.

Until next time,
God love you all
Paul Anthony Melanson

Interficere errorem, diligere errantem

This basic principle, taught by St. Augustine in his classic work entitled "The City of God" (Book 14, ch.6), translates thusly into English: "kill the error, love the one who errs." Unfortunately, there are many Catholics today who believe that one cannot accomplish both of these actions at the same time. Such people fail to understand that love actually requires the killing of error.

Why do these individuals remain silent when faced with the grave evils of our day? And why are they critical of those Catholics who actually do condemn these evils? The answer is simple, they wrongly interpret Sacred Scripture as teaching that it is never permissible to judge. Yes, our Lord tells us, "Judge not, that you may not be judged. For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged: and with what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again" (Matthew 7: 1-2).

And we also read in James 4: 12-13, "There is one lawgiver and judge, that is able to destroy and to deliver. But who art thou that judgest thy neighbour?"

Vatican II, specifically Gaudium et Spes, No. 28, also reminds us of this prohibition against judging others: "God alone is the judge and searcher of hearts; for that reason he forbids us to make judgments about the internal guilt of anyone." But this norm does not preclude us from rendering judgments on words, ideas and actions. On the contrary, the words of the great St. Augustine (Bishop of Hippo and Father and Doctor of the Church) "kill the error, love the one who errs," says it all.

We have a responsibility as Catholics to admonish others at times. And this responsibility is grounded in love of neighbor. When we truly love our neighbor, we will for them to abide in God's love and not to be separated from His love by sin. Recall the Church's definition of charity as expressed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 1822. The responsibility we have as Catholics to admonish others at times and to engage in fraternal correction is clearly taught in Sacred Scripture: Luke 17:3, 1 Corinthians 6: 1-6, Galatians 6:1, 1 Thessalonians 5: 14, 2 Thessalonians 3: 14-15, James 5: 19-20.

There are two different meanings to the word "judge" in Sacred Scripture then. God alone may judge a person's interior dispositions. God alone may judge a person's soul. Scripture is clear on this. However, the same Scripture is clear when it teaches us that we may judge actions, words and ideas which fail to live up to Gospel demands. Recall what the Holy Spirit tells us through St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 5: 12, "..Do not you judge them that are within?"

It is possible to judge that what others are doing (or saying) is wrong and to accomplish this without judging the person's internal guilt. While killing the error, we continue to love the one who errs. And our love is shown by the very fact that we admonish the person because we don't want them to be separated from God's love by sin.

Until next time,
God love you
Paul Anthony Melanson

Mr. Russell Pond: Pro-Life Champion

It takes real moral courage to oppose what Pope John Paul II coined the "culture of death." We already know God's judgment on the abomination of abortion. From Mt. Sinai, the Lord God thundered amidst the smoke and fire and commanded, "Thou shalt not kill" (Exodus 20:13). And this same Almighty God warned the Chosen People through His servant Moses: "I call heaven and earth to witness against you. I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. Choose life that you and your descendants may live by loving the Lord...If, however, you turn away your hearts and will not listen, but are led astray and adore other gods, I tell you now you will certainly perish" (Deuteronomy 29:15-29).

These words of Almighty God were spoken to a people who would fall into idolatry and who would sacrifice their innocent children to the idol Moloch. In our own time, children are sacrificed in abortion mills to the idols of Libido, Materialism and Convenience. Thanks be to God, there are prophets among us who possess the Holy Spirit's gift of Fortitude and who courageously remind us all that abortion is an abomination which cries to Heaven for vengeance and that those who perform abortions, those who cooperate in carrying them out, and those who, while being in positions of authority, fail to oppose this satanic plague, will all be held accountable to the Eternal Lawgiver.

This last group, politicians who say that they are "personally opposed" to the killing of unborn children but who also insist that they must follow the law that legalizes them, are modern-day imitators of Pontius Pilate. In the same way that Pilate declared Jesus innocent and washed his hands of His condemnation and then proceeded to order His crucifixion as though He was a convicted criminal, so to these modern-day Pilates attempt to wash their hands of the blood of the unborn through their specious reasoning. The poet Dante expressed his contempt for individuals who engage in this sort of dishonesty in his Inferno: "The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, having the power and responsibility to oppose evil, did nothing to extinguish it."

But back to prophets. One such prophet, a humble and unpretentious man from Nashua, New Hampshire, goes by the name of Russell Pond. Mr. Pond is a member of the New Hampshire Pro-Life Council and produces both a newsletter and regular e-mail updates regarding pro-life issues both in the Granite State and throughout the country. Although he wouldn't consider himself a prophet, that's precisely what he is. And on the Day of Judgment, this humble soul will be embraced by the Lord Jesus Who will say to him: "Well done good and faithful servant, come into the Mansion I have prepared for you."

God bless you Mr. Pond.

For those who would like to contact Mr. Pond, he may be reached via e-mail at: melkite4@pngusa.net


Until next time,
God love you all
Paul Anthony Melanson

Representative Maurice Pilotte: Quo Vadis?

State Representative Maurice Pilotte of Manchester (Ward 9, District 16), according to an article at the Faithfulvoice website, has twice voted for SB 30, the so-called 'Emergency Contraception" Bill. Mr. Pilotte, a Catholic who was heavily involved at St. Therese's Parish in Manchester, New Hampshire before that parish closed (one of its pastors was the Rev. Gerald F. Chalifour, a priest who abused children) was also a supporter of Senator Joseph Lieberman in his presidential bid. And, as any faithful Catholic knows, Senator Lieberman's pro-abortion stance may hardly be reconciled with Catholic teaching on the grave evil of abortion.

I knew the Pilotte family throughout the 1980's. I never would have guessed that Maurice Pilotte would support the culture of death and legislation which undermines parental rights. And so I ask, Mr. Pilotte: Quo vadis?

Paul

New Hampshire's War on parental rights

Dear Friends,


Rev. Marc Montminy, the pastor of Sainte Marie's Parish in Manchester, New Hampshire, spoke to parishioners regarding a bill which was passed by the NH House on May 25th by a vote of 195-169. This bill would allow over-the-counter dispensing of "emergency contraception" (also known as the morning-after pill) and which is a high dosage of the birth control pill, to underage females without parental notification.

Fr. Montminy is also distributing a flyer at weekend Masses which explains to parishioners that the morning-after pill "..is recommended to be used after sexual intercourse, over a period of 72 hours, to achieve the goal of preventing (or ending) pregnancy depending on the stage of the woman's menstrual cycle. There are three different ways birth control pills are currently being promoted for this use: progesterone alone, estrogen alone, or both of these artificial steroids together. These are the same steroids found in the typical birth control pill."

In the words of this flyer, while "schools cannot dispense an aspirin without parental consent" the Governor of New Hampshire "is ready to sign a bill allowing underage children easy access to an abortive drug without parental notification."

Rev. Montminy has called upon his parishioners to take action and to contact Governor John Lynch. This because he takes his responsibility as a pastor seriously. I would invite readers of this website to also respond to Fr. Montminy's call to action by contacting Governor John Lynch at his office: (603) 271-2121.

Vatican II teaches us that, in raising children, the responsibility of parents is primary: "Since parents have given life to their children, they have a very grave duty to educate them, and so are to be recognized as their primary and principal educators" (GE, No. 3). And Pope John Paul II, explaining the conciliar teaching more fully in Familiaris consortio, No. 36, says that: "The right and duty of parents to give education is essential, since it is connected with the transmission of human life; it is original and primary with regard to the educational role of others, on account of the uniqueness of of the loving relationship between parents and children; and it is irreplaceable and inalienable, and therefore incapable of being entirely delegated to others or usurped by others."

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

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

Should Governor Lynch sign the bill already passed by the New Hampshire House, in effect he will be saying that "The child is the mere creature of the state" and that the rights of parents, recognized by Holy Mother Church and the United States Supreme Court, are of no consequence.

Let's take up Fr. Montminy's call and protest this arrogance and usurpation of parental rights.

Paul Anthony Melanson

Notice

I will be away until Sunday as I visit with friends. Any thoughts or comments may be addressed to: frappe19751975@yahoo.com

I would encourage readers of this blog to visit: www.faithfulvoice.com and to read the many important articles there. While there, please read the article on the Little Black Book written by a friend of mine.

God love you,
Paul

Who interprets the Word of God?

For the Catholic, this question has been answered already. Vatican II teaches us clearly that, "..the task of authentically interpreting the Word of God, whether written or handed on (Tradition), 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" (Dei Verbum, No. 10).

There is no way around this. And when we consider that this same "living teaching office of the Church" has said definitively that "The Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women" and that "this judgment is to be held definitively by all the faithful," there can be no further question regarding this matter if one is authentically Catholic.

You see, in order to be a Catholic, one must satisfy himself or herself that the answers to all questions pertaining to faith or morals are contained in a Depositum Fidei (Deposit of Faith) which has been revealed by God and entrusted to a Custodian (the Magisterium) and endowed with infallible protection against any change or error.

The only reason for believing any of it is God's solemn promise that it is all infallibly true. Therefore, it is all or none. When a Catholic doubts to the point of real disbelief, or dissents outright from just one item that God has placed in this Deposit of Faith, he or she is saying that the basis - or reason - for his/her faith is his or her own private judgment rather than that of the infallible teaching authority established by God and which alone (as Vatican II states clearly) has the "task of authentically interpreting the Word of God, whether written or handed on."

Do we accept the teaching of Vatican II or do we reject this clear and unambiguous teaching? Are we Catholic or no?

Paul Anthony Melanson

More on the ordination of women...

An argument has been advanced by an individual who frequents the Holy Cross Cardinal Newman Society website in favor of ordaining women to the ministerial priesthood. This argument comes as a response to my article on the question as well as my invitation to respond to the points which I addressed. I want to thank this person for articulating his (or her) thoughts on the subject and I would like to address what I see as the major points of the argument advanced.

First of all, this writer says that, "The undeniable reality of Christ's manhood seems to indicate that God favored a masculine form. However, this is based on a particular assumption on the importance of sex and gender."

This argument is flawed. Why? Because when we compare the priesthood of Christ with the ancient priesthoods we discover some profound truths concerning God's salvific plan for mankind. Adam, priest by primacy of creation, is the figure of Christ who is to come and become priest by incarnation and re-creation. Through Adam, the first priest, sin entered the world and death passed upon all men. All ancient priests offered victims for their own sins and the sins of the people. These priests were distinct from the victims they sacrificed. But the new Adam, Christ the Son of Man, as a priest is sinless; holiness itself is His essence. In His priesthood alone the priest and the victim are identified.

Christ, the high priest, offers Himself in sacrifice to His Father to redeem all men from their own sins. The new head of the human family, this unique priest, in a sense, becomes sin itself, destroying thus iniquity in Himself upon the Cross. In dying as personified sin, so to speak, Christ restores to man that superabundance of grace which achieves man's justification in renewed sonship and friendship with God. In the economy of salvation the first Adam and priest, as head of the human family, destroyed divine life in the souls of his children. His priestly sacrifices were incapable of restoring this life; they had to be superseded by the priesthood of Christ.

The Holy Trinity, beholding fallen Adam, again decreed: "It is not good for man to be alone. Indeed this time it is tragic for him if he remains isolated from us, fallen, supernaturally dead, the slave of Satan destined for hell. Let us make man a new New Son, a new loving companion, a new head and Savior." So the Son of God volunteered to become the Son of Man. He took a body from a woman (Gal 4:4), Mary, so as to redeem the human family of which He was now the new Head.

And so, it is incorrect to assert, as the individual at the HCCNS website does, that: "Christ's sex played only a minor role in his ministry compared to his Semitism.." The original Adam came directly from the hand of God through creation, while Eve, created for love of him, came directly from the body of Adam. The new Adam Christ reversed the process. He came by the power of God alone from the body of Mary Immaculate. He came for the love of Mary and of all men. The first priest depended for his existence on the love of God alone. The perfect priest Christ depended not only on the love of God but also on the love, humility and obedience of the new Eve Mary for His existence as Man, Priest and Divine Savior. In the economy of divine mercy Christ, the new Head of man and always Head of all creation, restored divine life to His brethren through the death He offered once for all on the Cross and the life He now lives forever unto God. By means of a woman, a priest and man destroyed divine life in men. By means of another woman, a priest and the Son of Man restored this life to men. The priesthood, therefore, from the beginning was irrevocably affixed to man who, as son of God, had been officially called from the beginning to give glory to the Holy Trinity through creation, incarnation and re-creation. The holiness the first Adam failed to preserve for his children through a priesthood of obedience, just such a holiness, raised to divine perfection, was won for all men by the natural Son of God made Man through a priesthood of obedience unto death, even death upon a Cross.

Secondly, the individual posting at the HCCNS website asserts that, in the early Church, "Women were deacons" and had "many different roles as spiritual leaders." This argument is flawed because the terms diakonos, diakonein, and and diakonia were applied to very different sorts of functions and activities. Both the servants at the wedding feast in Cana and Christ Himself, the apostles as well as their coworkers and the Christians who performed any sort of ancillary services whatsoever in the community all were called "servants" (diakonos) on account of their service, without this being understood, of course, as the designation for an office or ministry within the one Sacrament of Holy Orders.

The institutionalization of charitable services performed by widows in the Christian community, of the assistance rendered by women during baptismal ceremonies, and of liturgical functions in a convent of consecrated virgins is apparent from the beginning of the third century in the ecclesiastical neologism: diaconissa/diacona. For Koine Greek, unlike Latin, could not construct the female form of "servant" by a change of ending, but could only indicate it with the feminine article (cf. Rom 16:1). Aside from that, we also encounter the title diaconissa (and similarly, presbyterissa and episcopissa) as a designation for the wives of deacons - for example, in papal instructions or conciliar canons that admonish higher clerics to practice celibacy, in the sense of continence.

Although there are records of the liturgical installation of deaconesses dating back to the fourth century, one must not overlook the fact that the selfsame authors who testify to this practice also make clear that the consecration of deaconesses was not the ordination of women to the diaconal ministry; on the contrary, it was a question of a different ecclesiastical office. To te early Church, it was clear that without prejudice to the various degrees of bishop, presbyter and deacon, which assumed a definitive form in the transition to the postapostolic age, these ministres owe their existence to the historical initiative of the apostles and to the special presence of the Holy Spirit in the foundational phase of the Church; whereas the latter, so-called nonsacramental consecrations were introduced by ecclesiastical authorities and thus are not matters of divine law but only of Church law.

Lastly, our friend at the HCCNS forum writes that, "It does not seem that appealing to Tradition can prove that God did not intend women to become priests in the future or even the present."

This betrays an inadequate understanding of what Tradition really is. The word "tradition" is derived from the Latin tradere - "to hand on." Tradition is literally a "handing on, a passing down of God's revealed word. The Second Vatican Council, referring specifically to how Christian tradition was handed on, says that: "It was done by the apostles who handed on, by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received - whether from the lips of Christ, from His way of life and His works, or whether they had learned it by the prompting of the Holy Spirit" (Dei Verbum, II, 7).

Fr. John Hardon, in his excellent work entitled "The Catholic Catechism - A Contemporary Catechism of the Teachings of the Catholic Church," explains that: "..the Church is no mere custodian of the Gospel. No doubt, her divinely appointed function is periodically to determine in precise and even technical language what God has revealed, and what his revelation means. But the word of God is also a living voice, ever active and 'alive within the Church.' Let us remember that the same Christ who revealed himself to the Church as Truth is also the Life who animates the Church he founded and the Way who leads to his heavenly Father" (p. 43).

It is this same Christ who leads our Church today. Christ is Truth. The Church is His Mystical Body. To assert that Christ would lead us into error (through His Church, the Church He continues to animate) is to attack His very Person.

God love you all,
Until next time
Paul Anthony Melanson

Faith, Science and the origin of life

An individual who posts at the Holy Cross Cardinal Newman Society website recently made this claim: "Religion is based on faith. Science is based on facts. For example, religion tells us that God snapped his fingers and man sprang into existence. Science tells us otherwise. If you make your decisions based on faith, you can believe religion. If you make them based on facts, you have to believe science."

For the moment, let's ignore the fact that a growing number of highly respected scientists have some serious problems with "evolution" as it is understood by many today - in the classical Darwinian sense. This individual's assertion that science is "based on facts" is problematic from the standpoint of natural philosophy.

What this individual is saying is that he rejects the whole concept of a Creator and thereby proposes that chance is the fundamental explanation of things such as the existence of life in the universe. But immediately we run into a problem. For those who propose chance as the fundamental explanation of things intend that we understand chance as a first cause - as the event that precipitates all subsequent events.

Why is this a problem? It is a problem because proposing chance as a first cause is like proposing a child as the explanation for its parents. It is simply impossible, given what a child is and given what parents are, that a child should be the explanation for its parents. You cannot propose Q as the cause of P when the very meaning of Q is that it is utterly dependent upon P and simply would not be Q were it not for P.

Confused? Let me try another way of explaining this. To propose chance as an initial cause is to place impossible demands upon it, requiring it to deliver what, of its very nature, it does not have the capacity to deliver. A chance event cannot be an originating event because it can exist in the first place only if there are other, non-chance events which precede it. Those confused souls who insist upon giving an originating role to chance simply do not understand what chance is.

By definition, chance is an irregularity, a departure from the norm. And you cannot have an irregularity if there is no regularity by which it can be identified. You cannot have a departure from the norm until there is first a norm to be departed from.

Therefore, those who propose chance as a first cause are not being honest.


God love you all,
Until next time
Paul Anthony Melanson

An important petition

Please take the time to visit: http://www.spiritdaily.com and fill out the petition to the Holy Father for the Beatification of Pope Pius XII. This great Pope is much maligned by some in the media who attempt to portray him as having been "Hitler's Pope" or who accuse him of having been "silent" during the Nazi regime's satanic attempt to exterminate the Jewish people. This lie has been exposed by many important scholars and is contradicted by the facts of history. For example, The New York Times, which has been slandering this great Pontiff in recent years, ran an editorial back in 1941 which called him a "lone voice" speaking out against Hitler, his regime, and the persecution of the Jewish people.

My father met with Pope Pius XII back in March of 1958 and the experience left an indelible mark on him. He was struck by the heroic sanctity of this truly great wartime Pope and by his loving example. When my father died (in September of 2000 - the great Jubilee year), he left me a Rosary blessed by Pope Pius XII. And our family has a papal blessing from this Pope who, I am convinced, will be raised to the altars of Holy Mother Church someday.

Not soon enough as far as I am convinced.

Paul Anthony Melanson

The development of doctrine

Once again, an individual agitating for women's ordination at the Holy Cross Cardinal Newman Society website, has posed a challenge. He writes, "The Church, as an institution, moves slowly toward any change, probably as it should in most instances....By suggesting that women could be priests, one is not suggesting that Jesus got it wrong; rather, it is suggesting that Jesus and the Holy Spirit may have thought it was not the right time to have women priests, but that we've now advanced to the point where we can handle it."

The problem with this line of thinking is that while doctrine does indeed develop, it does not do so in the same way as knowledge in other fields. Divine Revelation and faith are unique. They do not originate in human observation and reasoning, and their truth transcends the cultural forms in which it was first expressed.

The linguistic expressions used by the Church in her dogmatic formulations do not exhaustively encapsulate the revealed truth. Therefore, while individuals on their own authority may not set aside the language the Church uses, the Church from time to time improves on such language. And such improvements can even become necessary to defend the faith against errors and to expound it in fresh social and cultural contexts.

And, to be sure, Christians today are in a position to articulate revealed truths in ways which were not available to the Apostles and this because the Church not only faithfully safeguards and hands on all that God revealed, but infallibly interprets it. So, as Vatican I and Vatican II teach, the Church grows in her understanding of the realities and words which have been handed down (see DS 3020/1800; Dei Verbum, No. 8).

But the Church may not contradict the truth which she has received from God. So, as Vatican I definitively teaches, the Church's dogmatic formulae should never be taken in a meaning different from the one the Church understood and understands in using them (see DS 3043/1818; Gaudium et Spes, No. 62). It follows therefore that legitimate and necessary development and reformulation of doctrine can never call into question anything which Catholics as a whole once have held with faith.

For a further explanation of the criteria of authentic development of doctrine, I would point readers of this blog to a work written by John Henry Newman (for whom the website mentioned above is named) and entitled "An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine" and published by Westminster, Md Christian Classics, 1968.

And what of this individual's assertion that "we've now advanced to the point where we can handle it" (meaning women priests)? Is this not the conceit of Famulus Wagner in Faust, who exclaimed joyfully "how marvelously far we have come"? This is not the attitude of Pope John XXIII, who said that the Church must leave her mark on every epoch and every land - and not vice versa. This is the perverse interpretation of Aggiornamento, an interpretation which means that the Church must be reformed in order to do justice to the "great progress" of our times, and to speak the "right language" to modern man, who has "come of age."

There are Bishops, priests and laymen who, blinded and overrun by various heresies, want to swim with the times and who fear the judgment of the world more than they fear God. For such people, all the current and modern tendencies and developments (in science, medicine etc) are progress and each and every change demanded by "progressives" who wish to build a church in their own image and likeness also constitutes "progress." These confused souls have forgotten (or choose to ignore) that truth is essentially unchangeable.

Lastly, the individual agitating for women priests at the Holy Cross Cardinal Newman Society website told another visitor to that forum that, "I don't think that you can say that no women are called to be priests because you don't know what the Holy Spirit is calling them to do." This is an obvious falsehood. We know that the Holy Spirit is not calling women to the Priesthood because the Magisterium, led by that same Holy Spirit, says that they are not.

But notice that whereas this individual asserts that the other visitor to the HCCNS forum doesn't know what the Holy Spirit is saying to women (a patent falsehood since the Magisterium speaks the truth in that same Spirit), he nevertheless feels confident in suggesting that both Jesus and the Holy Spirit "may have thought" that 33 AD "was not the right time" for women's ordination but that now (because Catholics are supposedly more "advanced") these two Divine Persons may now feel the time is right since we're at the "point where we can handle it."

God preserve us from such nonsense.


Until next time,
God love you all
Paul Anthony Melanson

Fulton John Sheen and Dogma

Way back in the 1970's, I purchased an excellent book written by my hero and good friend Fulton J. Sheen entitled "The Electronic Christian" and published by the Macmillan Publishing Company. In this important book (indeed every book written By Sheen could be labelled as important), the saintly Archbishop who thoroughly intrigued his audience throughout the 1950's as "Uncle Fultie" - a Catholic counterpart if you will to Milton Berle's "Uncle Miltie," explains the importance and indeed the necessity of a religion with Dogma. Here is his essay:


The modern man must decide for himself whether he is going to have a religion with thought or a religion without it. He already knows that thoughtless policies lead to the ruin of society, and he may begin to suspect that thoughtless religion ends in confusion worse confounded.

The problem is simple. The modern man has two maps before him: one the map of sentimental religion, the other the map of dogmatic religion. The first is very simple. It has been constructed only in the last few years by a topographer who has just gone into the business of map making and is extremely adverse to explicit directions. He believes that each man should find his own way and not have his liberty taken away by dogmatic directions. The other map is much more complicated and full of dogmatic detail. It has been made by topographers who have been over every inch of the road for centuries and know each detour and each pitfall. It has explicit directions and dogmas such as, 'Do not take this road - it is swampy,' or 'Follow this road; although rough and rocky at first, it leads to a smooth road on a mountaintop.'

The simple map is very easy to read, but those who are guided by it are generally lost in a swamp of mushy sentimentalism. The other map takes a little more scrutiny, but it is simpler in the end, for it takes you up through the rocky road of the world's scorn to the everlasting hills where is seated the original Map Maker, the only One who ever has associated rest with learning: 'Learn of Me...and you shall find rest for your souls.'

Every new coherent doctrine and dogma add to the pabulum for thought; it is an extra bit of garden upon which we can intellectually browse; it is new food into which we can put our teeth and thence absorb nourishment; it is the discovery of a new intellectual planet that adds fullness and spaciousness to our mental world. And simply because it is solid and weighty, because it is dogmatic and not gaseous and foggy like a sentiment, it is intellectually invigorating, for it is with weights that the best drill is done, and not with feathers.

It is the very nature of a man to generate children of his brain in the shape of thoughts, and as he piles up thought on thought, truth on truth, doctrine on doctrine, conviction on conviction, and dogma on dogma, a very coherent and orderly fashion, so as to produce a system complex as a body and yet one and harmonious, the more and more human he becomes. When, however, in response to false cries for progress, he lops off dogmas, breaks with the memory of his forefathers, denies intellectual parentage, pleads for a religion without dogmas, substitutes mistiness for mystery, mistakes sentiment for sediment, he is sinking back slowly, surely, and inevitably into the senselessness of stones and into the irresponsible unconsciousness of weeds. Grass is broad-minded. Cabbages have heads - but no dogmas. (pp. 74-74).

God love you Fulton J. Sheen....I couldn't have said it better.

Paul Anthony Melanson

A Troubling Advertisement at the Union Leader's Website

It has come to my attention that the Manchester Union Leader's website is running an advertisement for an organization calling itself "7 lies.org." When one visits the Union Leader's website and clicks on the opinion link: http://www.theunionleader.com/opinion.html one may find the advertisement for this organization. Upon clicking on the ad link, one is taken to the following website: http://www.tannah.net/religion/churchhistory02.htm

There, one is invited to participate in an online course which will explain "How genuine spirituality gave way to rigid dogma" and the "fine line that separates the two." Readers are then told that "Spirituality can be the most empowering, most liberating, most life-giving force in all the world...or it can be a tool for greed, manipulation and control. And its been exactly that for millions of people over the centuries."

For those who choose to take the "course," Perry Marshall will explain "key milestones in Church history" and will "dissect the most common lies" and "illuminate the fault line that separates genuine spirituality from empty religious dogma."

Empty religious dogma? As Catholics, we understand that Dogmas are those Church doctrines which the Church proposes for belief as formally revealed by God. And nothing revealed by God may be said to be "empty."

I would encourage faithful Catholics to register their complaint with the Union Leader by visiting the link I have provided and clicking on the "contact us" link.


God love you all,
Paul Anthony Melanson

A brief explanation....

For those who would say that I am being "uncharitable" in referring to those who clamor for women's ordination as being "mental and moral midgets," I would remind you that such people are really asserting that they are wiser than the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity, the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth. Such people are also arguing that Our Lord, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, chose only men as priests because of cultural conditioning or that He committed an injustice for the sake of cultural expediency. This is nothing short of blasphemy.

In the words of the Rev. Dr. E.L. Mascall, "If the supporters of women priests are right, then Our Lord in instituting an exclusively male apostolate, was doing something which has deprived half the members of the Church from their legitimate rights for nearly 2,000 years. And it would be difficult in that case to feel very confident of either his moral or his intellectual integrity. And then it is difficult to see why we should attribute any authority to Him at all."

Again, who do we say Jesus is? Is He the Incarnate Word, the Eternal Logos, the Son of God - Second Person of the Blessed Trinity? Or is He simply a man who promoted erroneous ideas; ideas which have deprived women of their legitimate rights?

Paul

More zeal than knowledge

In his own day, the great philosopher Socrates warned seekers of truth to beware of those who possess "more zeal than knowledge." In our own time, an age which is marked by irrational pride and a tendency to reject anything which has the character of coming from above, there are individuals and groups who simply refuse to embrace episteme (knowledge) and who consequently fall into the idolatry of doxa (opinion).

For example, some years ago, certain women groups gave warning that they would not be argued out of becoming priests: "We reject out of hand any arguments or efforts on theological or historical grounds" (Sexuality, Theology, Priesthood, A Scholarly symposium on the ordination of women to the priesthood. Published by Concerned Fellow Episcopalians. San Gabriel, California, p.3).

This statement was the result of a Task Force chosen to study the status of women in a diocese in Pennsylvania. And one can find this same attitude at the Holy Cross Cardinal Newman Society website. There, several individuals have challenged the Church's clear and constant teaching for some 2,000 years that women are not called to the ministerial priesthood.

Now, agitating or screaming for change is not a Christian lifestyle. And the intelligent Catholic will answer the specious "theological" arguments which are founded on propaganda and slogans and which are appealing to those who find it too much of a mental effort to engage in any real thought. It is necessary that the intelligent Catholic should respond to the arguments of the uncritical and intellectually impoverished mind of the confused person who believes himself or herself to be wiser than the Holy Spirit who guides Holy Mother Church. It was St. Peter who exhorted Christians "to be always ready to give a reason for the faith that is in you."

Thankfully, there are serious and intelligent Catholics who are responding to this challenge. These defenders of the Faith understand that St. Peter's challenge imposes a duty, a responsibility, to correct the flawed thinking of mental and moral midgets who believe that polls, vote-taking, and lazy propaganda emanating from the mass-media or various other sources, can change salvation facts already decided by Almighty God. Polls may be interesting to look at, but such statistics have absolutely no theological decisional value whatsoever. The only real benefit such polls have for Catholics is to demonstrate the extent of the profound disorder in faith among Catholics (or other Christians) in a certain geographical area.

To date, not one of the agitators for women's ordination at the Holy Cross Cardinal Newman Society website has accepted my challenge to provide a sound theological argument from sacramental theology as to why women should be ordained to the ministerial priesthood. Again, as Socrates reminded us so long ago, beware of those who have "more zeal than knowledge."

Amen.


Until next time,
God love you
Paul Anthony Melanson

Pope John Paul II on formation of conscience

In his encyclical letter Veritatis Splendor, Pope John Paul II tells us that, "Christians have a great help for the formation of conscience in the Church and her Magisterium. As the Council affirms: 'In forming their consciences the Christian faithful must give careful attention to the sacred and certain teaching of the Church. Forthe Catholic Church is by the will of Christ the teacher of truth. Her charge is to announce and teach authentically that truth which is Christ, and at the same time with her authority to declare and confirm the principles of the moral order which derive from human nature itself.' (DH, 14). It follows that the authority of the Church, when she pronounces on moral questions, in no way undermines the freedom of conscience of Christians. This is so not only because freedom of conscience is never freedom 'from' the truth but always and only freedom 'in' the truth, but also because the Magisterium does not bring to the Christian conscience truths which are extraneous to it; rather it brings to light the truths which it ought already to possess, developing them from the starting point of the primordial act of faith." (No. 64.2).

Paul

The difference between a certain and a correct conscience

There is a difference in meaning between a certain and a correct conscience. The term "correct" describes the objective truth of the person's judgment, that in fact his conscience represents the real state of things. The term "certain" describes the subjective state of the person judging, how firmly he holds to his assent and how thoroughly he has excluded fear of the opposite. The kind of certitude which is meant here is a subjective certitude, which may easily exist along with objective error. It follows then that we have two possibilities here:

1. A certain and correct conscience.

2. A certain but erroneous conscience.


Now, a certain and correct conscience offers no difficulty and our obligation is therefore clear. A certain and correct conscience is merely the moral law promulgated to the individual and applied to to his own individual act. But the moral law must always be obeyed. Consequently, a certain and correct conscience must be obeyed. And what degree of certitude is required? It is sufficient that the individual's conscience be prudentially certain. Prudential certitude is not absolute but relative. As such, it excludes all prudent fear that the opposite may be true, but does not rule out imprudent fears which are based upon bare possibilities. The reasons are convincing enough to satisfy a normally prudent man in an important matter and this results in that individual feeling safe in practice while there is a theoretical chance of his being incorrect. In such a case, the individual has taken every reasonable precaution but he cannot guarantee against rare contingencies and "freaks of nature."

In moral matters, a complete mathematical certitude is not to be expected. This because when there is question of action, of something to be done in the here and now, but which also involves future consequences (some of which are dependent upon the wills of other individuals), the absolute possibility of error cannot be entirely excluded. However, it can be so reduced that no prudent man, one who is free of neurotic whimsies, would be deterred from acting through fear of it. Therefore, prudential certitude, since it excludes all reasonable fear of error, is much more than high probability, which fails to exclude such reasonable fear.

What happens when an individual is in possession of an erroneous conscience? That depends. If the error is vincible, it must be corrected. In such a case, the person knows that he may be wrong, is able to correct the possible error, and is obliged to do so before acting. A vincibly erroneous conscience cannot be a certain conscience. This is easily demonstrated. For example, an individual may have a merely probable opinion which he neglects to verify, (through laziness or fear of discovering that he is in fact in error), although he is able to do so. Or perhaps he may have judged certainly and yet erroneously at one point, but now begins to doubt whether or not his judgment was in fact correct. For as long as this individual did not realize his error, his conscience was invincibly erroneous; the error becomes vincible at the precise moment that the individual is no longer subjectively certain and has begun to doubt. Anyone who has read Dr. Scott Hahn's personal conversion story will recall that, when he realized the truth of Catholic teaching and that the Catholic Church was in fact the Church founded by Christ, he knew he had a responsibility to enter that Church. I would also refer readers to Lumen Gentium, No. 14 which deals with this subject.

If an error is invincible, there appears to be a dilemma. On the one hand, it doesn't seem right that a person should be obliged to follow an erroneous judgment; on the other, the individual is not aware of being in error and has no means of correcting it. But this dilemma is solved by recalling that conscience is a subjective guide to conduct, that invincible error and ignorance are unavoidable, that any wrong which occurs is not done voluntarily and therefore may not be charged to the agent. An individual acting with an invincibly erroneous conscience may in fact do something that is objectively wrong. However, since he does not recognize it as such it is not subjectively wrong. Such a person is thereby free of guilt by the invincible ignorance which is bound up in his error.

Conclusion: The will depends on the intellect to present the good to it. The will-act is good so long as it tends to the good presented by the intellect. It is bad or deficient if it tends to what the intellect judges evil. Invincible error in the intellect does not change the goodness or badness of the will-act, in which morality essentially consists. If an individual is firmly convinced that his or her action is right, that person is obeying the moral law to the degree that he or she can. If that same individual is firmly convinced that his or her action is wrong, that person is disobeying the moral law in intention, even though the act may not be objectively wrong.

I would recommend a thorough read of what the Catechism of the Catholic Church has to say with regard to forming a correct conscience.


God love you all,
Until next time
Paul Anthony Melanson

Article on Bishop Fulton John Sheen

Article on Bishop Fulton John Sheen at: http://www.saintritachildren.com


Paul Anthony Melanson

New Website

Dear Friends,


As many of you already know, I haven't been writing articles for this website for over a month now. I have been very busy with several writing projects and will be writing a "Theological Reflections" column for http://www.saintritachildren.com I will be writing pieces for this website as well now that I have finished with the projects in question.

I encourage you to visit this new website and to e-mail me with any thoughts you might have.

Thank you and God love you,

Paul Anthony Melanson
cleghornboy@juno.com

Is God male?

Mary Daly, a radical feminist theologian, asserted in 1974 (in what is a now-famous slogan used by her disciples) that "Since God is male, the male is God." As with most slogans, this one was crafted to elicit an emotional response from women in the Church who believed themselves to be an "oppressed" class simply because Christ has not called them to the priesthood. And, like most slogans, it was long on emotional appeal while being short on substance.

References to God as Father may be traced well back into the Old Testament. For example, in Deuteronomy 32:6, Moses uses a rhetorical question to teach that God is Father to the Children of Israel: "Is not he your Father who created you, who made you and established you?" And in Isaiah 63:16, the prophet directly addresses and professes God in just those terms: "For you are our Father....You, O Lord, are our Father."

But, within the biblical framework, such passages cannot be taken to mean that God is to be considered male, or biologically masculine, or that He is to be identified in any way biologically. We see the proof of this in Sacred Scripture, in numerous passages which must have escaped Mary Daly as she penned her emotional, but theologically unastute slogan. For example, in Numbers 23:19, we read that: "God is not a man" and again in 1 Samuel 15:29, we read that: "the glory of Israel...is not a man." Furthermore, in Hosea 11:9, God speaks directly to the prophet saying that: "I am God, and not man." And one of the most dramatic repudiations of any identification of God as a male (or as a female for that matter) may be found in Moses's "last address" to the Children of Israel, where he reiterates the prohibition of every form of idolatry, including the perverse religious conceptions of God as either male or female: "Since you saw no form when the Lord spoke to you at Horeb out of the fire, take care and watch yourselves closely, so that you do not act corruptly by making an idol for yourselves, in the form of any figure - the likeness of male or female...." (Deuteronomy 4:15-16).

Radical feminists reject God's revelation in Sacred Scripture as "sexist" and "patriarchal" because their understanding of God's Word has been distorted by their own ideology. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which Pope John Paul II has referred to as a "sure norm" in his Apostolic Constitution Fidei Depositum, teaches quite clearly that: "In no way is God in man's image. He is neither man nor woman. God is pure spirit in which there is no place for the differences between the sexes. But the respective 'perfections' of men and women reflect something of the infinite perfection of God: those of a mother and those of a father and husband" (CCC, 370).

However, that being said, God has revealed Himself as "Father" and this too is the teaching of the Catechism of the Catholic Church: "Many religions invoke God as 'Father.' The deity is often considered the 'father of gods and of men.' In Israel, God is called 'Father' inasmuch as he is Creator of the world. Even more, God is Father because of the covenant and the gift of the law to Israel, 'his firstborn son.' God is also called Father of the king of Israel. Most especially he is 'the Father of the poor,' of the orphaned and the widowed, who are under his loving protection."

And again, "By calling God 'Father,' the language of faith indicates two main things: that God is the first origin of everything and transcendent authority; and that he is at the same time goodness and loving care for all his children....We ought....to recall that God transcends the human distinction between the sexes. He is neither man nor woman: he is God." (CCC, 239).

And yet again: "Jesus revealed that God is Father in an unheard of sense: he is Father not only in being Creator; he is eternally Father in relation to his only Son, who is eternally Son only in relation to his Father." (CCC, 240).

Many religious sisters, and most especially those agitating for the ordination of women to the ministerial priesthood, accuse both the Church and Sacred Scripture of being "sexist" and "patriarchal" without any having any real basis for such ridiculous claims. Such malcontents have already left the Church in heart and mind. But what is the spirit which stirs this radical feminist animus against Holy Mother Church? Hasn't the Holy Spirit already provided us with an answer? We read that, "If you have bitter jealousy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast and be false to the truth. This wisdom is not such as comes down from above, but is earthy, unspiritual, devilish...But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason." (James 3:14-17).

When radical feminists (and their male cooperators) argue that God is addressed in the Old Testament as "Father" rather than "Mother" because of a merely "patriarchal" projection onto the ultimate reality, they are really asserting that the Old Testament is pagan. Faithful Catholics know better. And they know as well that while God has been revealed as Father, he also has many attributes of a mother.

Is there sexism in our society? Of course. Are there individuals within the Church who are sexist? Of course. Is the Church or Sacred Scripture sexist or patriarchal? I have just demonstrated that such is not the case.

Ironically, many radical feminists are sexist themselves. They fail to see that by attempting to impose a "Mother" deity, they are guilty of the very thing which they accuse the Church and Sacred Scripture of.

God love you,
Paul Anthony Melanson

Why women cannot symbolically represent Christ the Bridegroom

An individual who posts at the Holy Cross College Cardinal Newman Society website has asked me a series of questions and I shall endeavour to answer these four questions here in the order in which they were asked.

The first question is: "Why is it that a woman cannot symbolically represent Christ the Bridegroom?"

The reason is that "God became man" and took on human nature in the masculine mode. The Word reveals itself in the flesh of Christ Jesus as the "only Son of the Father" (John 1:14, 18, 41, 49), who by virtue of giving His flesh for the life of the world (John 6:51) is the Bridegroom of the Bride (John 3:29), namely, the Church.

In John's Gospel, the line of communication is clearly set up as follows: Jesus Christ (1:18), being the incarnate Word (1:1, 14) is the only-begotten Son of the Father (1:14) and the Bridegroom of the Church (3:29; Rev. 19:7; 21:2; - see also: Mt. 9:15; 2 Cor. 11:2; Eph. 5:21-32).

The masculinity of Jesus is part of the Logos' self-expression in the flesh and forms the basis for the original relation of Christ to the Church and for His sacramental union with her as His Body and His Bride.

Through the natural symbolism of the sexes, God communicates the reality of His free, historical, and corporeal presence in the world. By assuming humanity in the mode of masculinity, the Logos communicates Himself in His dealings with the new People of God in that fundamental personal relationship that has its foundation in masculinity. Thus, the Dogmatic Constitution the Church of Vatican II can say: "Christ loves the Church as his bride, having been established as the model of a man loving his wife as his own body (Eph. 5:25-28); the Church, in her turn, is subject to her head (Eph. 5: 23-24), 'Because in him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily' (Col. 3:29)." (Lumen Gentium, No. 7).

Now, the priest takes the part of Christ, lending Him his voice and gestures. St. Thomas Aquinas, Doctor of the Church, expresses this concept with precision: "The priest enacts the image of Christ, in whose person and by whose power he pronounces the words of consecration" (Summa Theologica, III, q. 83, a.1, ad 3-um).

Therefore, the priest is truly a "sign" in the sacramental sense of the word. This is why St. Bonaventure says: "The person ordained is a sign of Christ the mediator" - "persona quae ordinatur significat Christum mediatorem." It is a principle of sacramental theology that "sacramental signs represent what they signify by a natural resemblance" (In IV Sent., Dist. 25, q. 2, a.2, q.1, ad 4-um: signa sacramentalia ex naturali similitudine repraesentent.).

In other words, there is a need for that "natural resemblance" between Christ and the person who is His sign. In the words of St. Thomas Aquinas, "Since a sacrament is a sign, what is done in the sacrament requires not only the reality but also a sign of the reality" (Ibid. In corp. quaestiunculae: Quia cum sacramentum sit signum, in eis quae in sacramento aguntur requiritur non solum res, sed significatio rei.).

And as the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith states quite clearly in its document "On the Question of the Admission of Women to the Ministerial Priesthood": "It would not accord with 'natural resemblance,' with that obvious 'meaningfulness,' if the memorial of the Supper were to be carried out by a woman; for it is not just the recitation involving the gestures and words of Christ, but an action, and the sign is efficacious because Christ is present in the minister who consecrates the Eucharist, as is taught by the Second Vatican Council, following the Encyclical Mediator Dei."

Because of a secularized understanding of reality, not to mention a reductive and functionalist view of man, there are some who still think that it is their job to demand the application of societal standards and values within the Church such as democratic procedures, equal opportunities for advancement in all capacities and offices etc. For such people, the Sacrament of Holy Orders, which has been instituted by Christ Jesus Himself - Who is incapable of error or of deceiving or being deceived - is little more than a Baroque, or antiquarian form of appointment to a position of leadership, like that of a bank president, party chief or television station manager. These people view the priesthood in terms of self-fulfillment and "power" rather than from the sacramental point of view.

The second question posed: "Wouldn't you regard a class of people with no access to authority as second-class citizens?"

Archbishop Oscar Romero answered this line of thinking before he was killed by an assasins bullet: "Authority in the Church is not command, but service." This is the Church's authentic understanding of authority within the Church. Jesus Himself tells us that He came not to e served, but to serve and to give His life as a ransom for many. Besides, many women exercise prominent positions within the Church and have been entrusted with much authority. And they are doing a remarkable job. But Christ has not called them to the priesthood just as He has not called most men to the priesthood. The priesthood, for reasons stated above, may never be viewed as a "right." Strictly speaking, we possess only contingent rights (those afforded us by God) and not intrinsic rights. Only God possesses intrinsic rights. Therefore, we are bound to avoid anything which opposes His Holy Will.

The third question posed: "How would you differentiate between a dissenter and someone who is not convinced of the inerrancy of a particular Church teaching?"

My opinion in this matter (and anything else touching on faith or morals) is not really relevant. However, the Church teaches, in its 1990 Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian, that the nature of "religious submission of soul" or of "will and mind" that 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) is clear.

This Instruction clearly distinguishes between questions that theologians may raise about such teachings (nn. 24-31) and dissent from such teachings (nn. 32-41). It judges that questioning can be compatible with the "religious submission" required, but it firmly and unequivocally repudiates dissent from these teachings as incompatible with this "religious submission" and irreconcilable with the vocation of the theologian. Dissent from infallibly proposed magisterial teachings is a fortiori excluded.

The fourth and last question: "..do you see a problem with putting one's faith blindly in an institution ? And if so, how would one avoid doing this?"

I will answer this question with a question of my own: Is the Church merely an "institution" for you dear friend or is it something more? For those of us who are Catholic, the Church is the Mystical Body of Christ (see Pope Pius XII's Encyclical Mystici Corporis). We believe that Jesus is the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity and that, being the very essence of truth and integrity (in fact, Jesus IS Truth: John 14:6), that He is incapable of error and "can neither deceive nor be deceived."

We also believe, as told in Sacred Scripture, that after His Ascension into Heaven, He solemnly promised that He would send His Church "another Paraclete...the spirit of truth," to dwell with it forever (John 14: 16-17). And that He inspired the Apostle Paul (for whom I was named) to describe His Church as "the pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:15).

My dear friend, now that I have patiently answered all your questions I have a few of my own. Firstly, what is your argument - from the standpoint of sacramental theology - for believing that women should be ordained to the ministerial priesthood or that they are unjustly discriminated against because Christ has not called them to the same? Secondly, How is it possible for the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity to be guilty of error?

God love you, I wait with much anticipation for your response.

Paul Anthony Melanson

Gossip and slander

Dr. Germain Grisez, one of the most respected moral theologians in the United States, explains that: "It is a normal and valuable exercise of community for members of a group to exchange information about the personal doings and concerns of other members just insofar as doing so arises from love and contributes to cooperation and help for those in need. When it does not arise from love and merely serves curiosity, however, it is gossip: idle talk which treats those discussed as objects of astonishment, amusement, and so forth. Gossip is sinful, for it is idle talk, not directed toward building up community."

And with regards to slander, or calumny, he has this to say: "Detraction (also called 'defamation') is any act of communication that wrongfully sullies an individual's or group's reputation. It takes two forms: lying and communicating truths which should not be communicated. The former is called 'calumny'; the latter is simply called 'detraction.' Because of the good at stake and the violation of justice and love involved, all detraction, even that involving no lie, is of itself grave matter, although it admits of parvity of matter."

Do we engage in calumny or detraction? Do we listen to it willingly? If so, we should have recourse to the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

God love you,
Paul Anthony Melanson