Latin Mass Returning

Case for the Latin Mass

DIETRICH VON HILDEBRAND
Dietrich von Hildebrand, was one of the world's most eminent Christian philosophers. A professor at Fordham University, Pope Pius XII called him "the 20th Century Doctor of the Church." He is the author of many books, including Transformation in Christ and Liturgy and Personality.

[Reprinted from the October 1966 issue of TRIUMPH]

THE ARGUMENTS for the New Liturgy have been neatly packaged, and may now be learned by rote. The new form of the Mass is designed to engage the celebrant and the faithful in a communal activity. In the past the faithful attended mass in personal isolation, each worshipper making his private devotions, or at best following the proceedings in his missal. Today the faithful can grasp the social character of the celebration; they are learning to appreciate it as a community meal. Formerly, the priest mumbled in a dead language, which created a barrier between priest and people. Now everyone speaks in English, which tends to unite priest and people with one another. In the past the priest said mass with his back to the people, which created the mood of an esoteric rite. Today, because the priest faces the people, the mass is a more fraternal occasion. In the past the priest intoned strange medieval chants. Today the entire assembly sings songs with easy tunes and familiar lyrics, and is even experimenting with folk music. The case for the new mass, then, comes down to this: it is making the faithful more at home in the house of God.

Moreover, these innovations are said to have the sanction of Authority: they are represented as an obedient response to the spirit of the Second Vatican Council. This is said notwithstanding that the Council's Constitution on the Liturgy goes no further than to permit the vernacular mass in cases where the local bishop believes it desirable; the Constitution plainly insists on the retention of the Latin mass, and emphatically approves the Gregorian chant. But the liturgical "progressives" are not impressed by the difference between permitting and commanding. Nor do they hesitate to authorize changes, such as standing to receive Holy Communion, which the Constitution does not mention at all. The progressives argue that these liberties may be taken because the Constitution is, after all, only the first step in an evolutionary process. And they seem to be having their way. It is difficult to find a Latin mass anywhere today, and in the United States they are practically non-existent. Even the conventual mass in monasteries is said in the vernacular, and the glorious Gregorian is replaced by insignificant melodies.

MY CONCERN is not with the legal status of the changes. And I emphatically do not wish to be understood as regretting that the Constitution has permitted the vernacular to complement the Latin. What I deplore is that the new mass is replacing the Latin Mass, that the old liturgy is being recklessly scrapped, and denied to most of the People of God.

I should like to put to those who are fostering this development several questions: Does the new mass, more than the old, bestir the human spirit -- does it evoke a sense of eternity? Does it help raise our hearts from the concerns of everyday life -- from the purely natural aspects of the world-to Christ? Does it increase reverence, an appreciation of the sacred?

Of course these questions are rhetorical, and self-answering. I raise them because I think that all thoughtful Christians will want to weigh their importance before coming to a conclusion about the merits of the new liturgy. What is the role of reverence in a truly Christian life, and above all in a truly Christian worship of God?

Reverence gives being the opportunity to speak to us: The ultimate grandeur of man is to be capax Dei. Reverence is of capital importance to all the fundamental domains of man's life. It can be rightly called "the mother of all virtues," for it is the basic attitude that all virtues presuppose. The most elementary gesture of reverence is a response to being itself. It distinguishes the autonomous majesty of being from mere illusion or fiction; it is a recognition of the inner consistency and positiveness of being-of its independence of our arbitrary moods. Reverence gives being the opportunity to unfold itself, to, as it were, speak to us; to fecundate our minds. Therefore reverence is indispensable to any adequate knowledge of being. The depth and plenitude of being, and above all its mysteries, will never be revealed to any but the reverent mind. Remember that reverence is a constitutive element of the capacity to "wonder," which Plato and Aristotle claimed to be the indispensable condition for philosophy. Indeed, irreverence is a chief source of philosophical error. But if reverence is the necessary basis for all reliable knowledge of being, it is, beyond that, indispensable for grasping and assessing the values grounded in being. Only the reverent man who is ready to admit the existence of something greater than himself, who is willing to be silent and let the object speak to him- who opens himself-is capable of entering the sublime world of values. Moreover, once a gradation of values has been recognized, a new kind of reverence is in order-a reverence that responds not only to the majesty of being as such, but to the specific value of a specific being and to its rank in the hierarchy of values. And this new reverence permits the discovery of still other values.

Man reflects his essentially receptive character as a created person solely in the reverent attitude; the ultimate grandeur of man is to be capax Dei. Man has the capacity, in other words, to grasp something greater than himself, to be affected and fecundated by it, to abandon himself to it for its own sake - in a pure response to its value. This ability to transcend himself distinguishes man from a plant or an animal; these latter strive only to unfold their own entelechy. Now: it is only the reverent man who can consciously transcend himself and thus conform to his fundamental human condition and to his metaphysical situation.
Do we better meet Christ by soaring up to Him, or by dragging Him down into our workaday world?

The irreverent man by contrast, approaches being either in an attitude of arrogant superiority or of tactless, smug familiarity. In either case he is crippled; he is the man who comes so near a tree or building he can no longer see it. Instead of remaining at the proper spiritual distance, and maintaining a reverent silence so that being may speak its word, he obtrudes himself and thereby, in effect, silences being. In no domain is reverence more important than religion. As we have seen, it profoundly affects the relation of man to God. But beyond that it pervades the entire religion, especially the worship of God. There is an intimate link between reverence and sacredness: reverence permits us to experience the sacred, to rise above the profane; irreverence blinds us to the entire world of the sacred. Reverence, including awe-indeed, fear and trembling-is the specific response to the sacred.

Rudolf Otto has clearly elaborated the point in his famous study, The Idea of the Holy. Kierkegaard also calls attention to the essential role of reverence in the religious act, in the encounter with God. And did not the Jews tremble in deep awe when the priest brought the sacrifice into the rancta sanctorum? Was Isaiah not struck with godly fear when he saw Yahweh in the temple and exclaimed, "Woe is me, I am doomed! For I am a man of unclean lips . . . yet my eyes have seen the King?" Do not the words of St. Peter after the miraculous catch of fish, "Depart from me, 0 Lord, because I am a sinner," testify that when the reality of God breaks in upon us we are struck with fear and reverence? Cardinal Newman has shown in a stunning sermon that the man who does not fear and revere has not known the reality of God.

When St. Bonaventure writes in Itinerium Mentis ad Deum that only a man of desire (such as Daniel) can understand God, he means that a certain attitude of soul must be achieved in order to understand the world of God, into which He wants to lead us.

This counsel is especially applicable to the Church's liturgy. The sursum corda-the lifting up of our hearts-is the first requirement for real participation in the mass. Nothing could better obstruct the confrontation of man with God than the notion that we "go unto the altar of God" as we would go to a pleasant, relaxing social gathering. This is why the Latin mass with Gregorian chant, which raises us up to a sacred atmosphere, is vastly superior to a vernacular mass with popular songs, which leaves us in a profane, merely natural atmosphere.

The basic error of most of the innovations is to imagine that the new liturgy brings the holy sacrifice of the mass nearer to the faithful, that shorn of its old rituals the mass now enters into the substance of our lives. For the question is whether we better meet Christ in the mass by soaring up to Him, or by dragging Him down into our own pedestrian, workaday world. The innovators would replace holy intimacy with Christ by an unbecoming familiarity. The new liturgy actually threatens to frustrate the confrontation with Christ, for it discourages reverence in the face of mystery, precludes awe, and all but extinguishes a sense of sacredness. What really matters, surely, is not whether the faithful feel at home at mass, but whether they are drawn out of their ordinary lives into the world of Christ-whether their attitude is the response of ultimate reverence: whether they are imbued with the reality of Christ.

THOSE WHO RHAPSODIZE on the new liturgy make much of the point that over the years the mass had lost its communal character and had become an occasion for individualistic worship. The new vernacular mass, they insist, restores the sense of community by replacing private de- votions with community participation. Yet they forget that there are different levels and kinds of communion with other persons. The level and nature of a community experience is determined by the theme of the communion, the name or cause in which men are gathered. The higher the good which the theme represents, and which binds men together, the more sublime and deeper is the communion. The ethos and nature of a community experience in the case of a great national emergency is obviously radically different from the community experience of a cocktail party. And of course the most striking differences in communities will be found between the community whose theme is supernatural and the one whose theme is merely natural. The actualization of men's souls who are truly touched by Christ is the basis of a unique community, a sacred communion, one whose quality is incomparably more sublime than that of any natural community. The authentic we communion of the faithful, which the liturgy of Holy Thursday expresses so well in the words congregavit nos in unum Christi amor, is only possible as a fruit of the I-Thou communion with Christ Himself. Only a direct relation to the God-Man can actualize this sacred union among the faithful.

The depersonalizing "we experience" is a perverse theory of community.
The communion in Christ has nothing of the self-assertion found in natural communities. It breathes of the Redemption. It liberates men from all self-centeredness. Yet such a communion emphatically does not depersonalize the individual; far from dissolving the person into the cosmic, pantheistic swoon so often commended to us these days, it actualizes the person's true self in a unique way. In the community of Christ the conflict between person and community that is present in all natural communities cannot exist. So this sacred community experience is really at war with the depersonalizing 'we-experience" found in mass assemblies and popular gatherings which tend to absorb and evaporate the individual. This communion in Christ that was so fully alive in the early Christian centuries, that all the saints entered into, that found a matchless expression in the liturgy now under attack-this communion has never regarded the individual person as a mere segment of the community, or as an instrument to serve it. In this connection it is worth noting that totalitarian ideology is not alone in sacrificing the individual to the collective; some of Teilhard de Chardin's cosmic ideas, for instance, imply the same collectivistic sacrifice. Teilhard subordinates the individual and his sanctification to the supposed development of humanity. At a time when this perverse theory of community is embraced even by many Catholics, there are plainly urgent reasons for vigorously insisting on the sacred character of the true communion in Christ. I submit that the new liturgy must be judged by this test: Does it contribute to the authentic sacred community? Granted that it strives for a community character; but is this the character desired? Is it a communion grounded in recollection, contemplation and reverence? Which of the two -- the new mass, or the Latin mass with the Gregorian chant evokes these attitudes of soul more effectively, and thus permits the deeper and truer communion? Is it not plain that frequently the community character of the new mass is purely profane, that, as with other social gatherings, its blend of casual relaxation and bustling activity precludes a reverent, contemplative confrontation with Christ and with the ineffable mystery of the Eucharist?

OF COURSE OUR EPOCH is pervaded by a spirit of irreverence. It is seen in a distorted notion of freedom that demands rights while refusing obligations, that exalts self-indulgence, that counsels "let yourself go." The habitare secuni of St. Gregory's Dialogues-the dwelling in the presence of God-which presupposes reverence, is considered today to be unnatural, pompous, or servile. But is not the new liturgy a compromise with this modern spirit? Whence comes the disparagement of kneeling? Why should the Eucharist be received standing? Is not kneeling, in our culture, the classic expression of adoring reverence? The argument that at a meal we should stand rather than kneel is hardly convincing. For one thing, this is not the natural posture for eating: we sit, and in Christ's time one lay down. But more important, it is a specifically irreverent conception of the Eucharist to stress its character as a meal at the cost of its unique character as a holy mystery. Stressing the meal at the expense of the sacrament surely betrays a tendency to obscure the sacredness of the sacrifice. This tendency is apparently traceable to the unfortunate belief that religious life will become more vivid, more existential, if it is immersed in our everyday life. But this is to run the danger of absorbing the religious in the mundane, of effacing the difference between the supernatural and the natural. I fear that it represents an unconscious intrusion of the naturalistic spirit, of the spirit more fully expressed in Teilhard de Chardin's immanentism.

Again, why has the genuflection at the words et incarnatus est in the Credo been abolished? Was this not a noble and beautiful expression of adoring reverence while professing the searing mystery of the Incarnation? Whatever the intention of the innovators, they have certainly created the danger, if only psychological, of diminishing the faithful's awareness and awe of the mystery. There is yet another reason for hesitating to make changes in the liturgythat are not strictly necessary. Frivolous or arbitrary changes are apt to erode a special type of reverence: pie tas. The Latin word, like the German Pietaet, has no English equivalent, but may be understood as comprising respect for tradition; honoring what has been handed down to us by former generations; fidelity to our ancestors and their works. Note that pietas is a derivative type of reverence, and so should not be confused with primary reverence, which we have described as a response to the very mystery of being, and ultimately a response to God. It follows that if the content of a given tradition does not correspond to the object of the primary reverence, it does not deserve the derivative reverence. Thus if a tradition embodies evil elements, such as the sacrifice of human beings in the cult of the Aztecs, then those elements should not be regarded with pietas. But that is not the Christian case. Those who idolize our epoch, who thrill at what is modern simply because it is modern, who believe that in our day man has finally "come of age," lack pietas. The pride of these "temporal nationalists" is not only irreverent, it is incompatible with real faith. A Catholic should regard his liturgy. with pietas. He should revere, and therefore fear to abandon the prayers and postures and music that have been approved by so many saints throughout the Christian era and delivered to us as a precious heritage. To go no further: the illusion that we can replace the Gregorian chant, with its inspired hymns and rhythms, by equally fine, if not better, music betrays a ridiculous self-assurance and lack of self-knowledge. Let us not forget that throughout Christianity's history. silence and solitude, contemplation and recollection, have been considered necessary to achieve a real confrontation with God. This is not only the counsel of the Christian tradition, which should be respected out of pietas; it is rooted in human nature. Recollection is the necessary basis for true communion in much the same way as contemplation provides the necessary basis for true action in the vineyard of the Lord. A superficial type of communion -the jovial comradeship of a social affair -- draws us out onto the periphery. A truly Christian communion draws us into the spiritual deeps.

The path to a true Christian communion: Reverence . . Recollection . . Contemplation
Of course we should deplore excessively individualistic and sentimental devotionalism, and acknowledge that many Catholics have practiced it. But the antidote is not a community experience as such-any more than the cure for pseudo-contemplation is activity as such. The antidote is to encourage true reverence, an attitude of authentic recollection and contemplative devotion to Christ. Out of this attitude alone can a true communion in Christ take place. The fundamental laws of the religious life that govern the imitation of Christ, the transformation in Christ, do not change according to the moods and habits of the historical moment. The difference between a superficial community experience and a profound community experience is always the same. Recollection and contemplative adoration of Christ-which only reverence makes possible-will be the necessary basis for a true communion with others in Christ in every era of human history.

As the apostasy spreads.....

The Mystery of Iniquity

On September 18, 1988, Our Lady revealed to Fr. Stefano Gobbi that, "there will come to completion that fullness of time beginning with La Salette all the way to my most recent and present apparitions; the purification will come to its culmination; there will come to completion the time of the great tribulation, foretold in Holy Scripture, before the Second Coming of Christ; the mystery of iniquity, prepared for by the ever-increasing spread of apostasy, will become manifest; all the secrets which I have revealed to some of my children will come to pass and all the events which have been foretold will take place."

The Papal Preacher has already noted that Antichrist may already be among us:

http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=103757 and there are growing signs of open confrontation between the forces of Antichrist both outside and within the Church (ecclesiastical masonry) and the Catholic Church united with Rome - with the Holy Father and the Magisterium:http://dtf-jayg.blogspot.com/2007/02/friend-of-court.html. Sean Cardinal O'Malley has expressed his concerns over the increasing persecution of Christians in Canada:

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/mar/07030606.html.

And yet, many Catholics (and other Christians) are either blind as to what is occurring or refuse to see. On December 31, 1983, Our Lady told Fr. Gobbi that: "The signs the Lord sends are neither understood nor accepted; the dangers pointed out by 'my Pope' who courageously and anxiously is predicting the storm awaiting you, are not believed. The messages which I give, through simple and little souls chosen by me in every part of the world, are not taken into consideration. The appearances which I am still making, often in faraway and dangerous places, are ignored. And yet you are only inches from your ruin. When all will be shouting for peace, a new World War could suddenly fall upon you, spreading death and destruction everywhere."

Many reject the messages of Our Lady because they consider themselves "too sophisticated." Such souls have succumbed to the myth of "modern man," of "scientific man." For these individuals, Antichrist is a myth, a fairy-tale. They purposely ignore the fact that the rise of Antichrist is foretold in Sacred Scripture and was believed by all the Fathers of the Church.

It was Saint Augustine who said, "Daniel prophesies of the Last Judgment in such a way as to indicate that Antichrist shall first come, and to carry on his description to the eternal reign of the saints....But he who reads this passage, even half asleep, cannot fail to see that the kingdom of Antichrist shall fiercely, though for a short time, assail the Church before the last judgment of God shall introduce the eternal reign of saints. For it is patent from the context that the time, times, and half a time, means a year, and two years, and half a year, that is to say, three years and a half."

As the persecution intensifies, it is important to remember that while Satan is the Prince of this world and hates and seeks to destroy all that is of God, and will unleash a persecution through Antichrist which will be total, his time is short. Even now he awaits the heel which will crush his head. Even now he trembles in fear as the triumph of the Immaculata draws near. For Our Lady of Fatima has said it: "In the end, my Immaculate Heart will triumph."

Amen.

Exciting book offer from Spirit Daily....

His Power Is Among Us is a wonderful book which I read years ago. Great reading for Lent.

And in England....

Cardinal O'Malley cites religious persecution in Canada

God has established only one enmity....

"God has established only one enmity - but it is an irreconcilable one which will last and even go on increasing to the end of time. That enmity is between Mary, his worthy Mother, and the devil, between the children and the servants of the Blessed Virgin and the children and followers of Lucifer...

The children of Belial, the slaves of Satan, the friends of the world - for they are all one and the same - have always persecuted and will persecute more than ever in the future those who belong to the Blessed Virgin, just as Cain of old persecuted his brother Abel, and Esau his brother Jacob. These are the types of the wicked and of the just. But the humble Mary will always triumph over Satan, the proud one, and so great will be her victory that she will crush his head, the very seat of his pride. She will always unmask his serpent's cunning and expose his wicked plots. She will scatter to the winds his devilish plans and to the end of time will keep her faithful servants safe from his cruel claws...Mary's power over the evil spirits will especially shine forth in the latter times, when Satan will lie in wait for her heel, that is, for her humble servants and her poor children whom she will rouse to fight against him. In the eyes of the world they will be little and poor and, like the heel, lowly in the eyes of all, down-trodden and crushed as is the heel by the other parts of the body. But in compensation for this they will be rich in God's graces, which will be abundantly bestowed on them by Mary. They will be great and exalted before God in holiness. They will be superior to all creatures by their great zeal and so strongly will they be supported by divine assistance that, in union with Mary, they will crush the head of Satan with their heel, that is, their humility, and bring victory to Jesus Christ."

- St. Louis Marie Grignon de Montfort, True Devotion to Mary.

Signs of the Times

Our Lady of La Salette, pray for us.

Questions or comments?

cleghornboy@juno.com

Persecution Watch

Signs

Nuclear option?

http://www.raidersnewsnetwork.com/full.php?news=3270

In his Encyclical Letter Redemptor Hominis, Pope John Paul II provides us with an excellent definition of Christianity:

Man cannot live without love. He remains a being that is incomprehensible for himself, his life is senseless, if love is not revealed to him, if he does not encounter love, if he does not experience it and make it his own, if he does not participate intimately in it. This, as has already been said, is why Christ the Redeemer "fully reveals man to himself". If we may use the expression, this is the human dimension of the mystery of the Redemption. In this dimension man finds again the greatness, dignity and value that belong to his humanity. In the mystery of the Redemption man becomes newly "expressed" and, in a way, is newly created. He is newly created! "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." The man who wishes to understand himself thoroughly-and not just in accordance with immediate, partial, often superficial, and even illusory standards and measures of his being-he must with his unrest, uncertainty and even his weakness and sinfulness, with his life and death, draw near to Christ. He must, so to speak, enter into him with all his own self, he must "appropriate" and assimilate the whole of the reality of the Incarnation and Redemption in order to find himself. If this profound process takes place within him, he then bears fruit not only of adoration of God but also of deep wonder at himself. How precious must man be in the eyes of the Creator, if he "gained so great a Redeemer," and if God "gave his only Son "in order that man "should not perish but have eternal life."

In reality, the name for that deep amazement at man's worth and dignity is the Gospel, that is to say: the Good News. It is also called Christianity. This amazement determines the Church's mission in the world and, perhaps even more so,"in the modern world". This amazement, which is also a conviction and a certitude-at its deepest root it is the certainty of faith, but in a hidden and mysterious way it vivifies every aspect of authentic humanism-is closely connected with Christ. It also fixes Christ's place-so to speak, his particular right of citizenship-in the history of man and mankind. Unceasingly contemplating the whole of Christ's mystery, the Church knows with all the certainty of faith that the Redemption that took place through the Cross has definitively restored his dignity to man and given back meaning to his life in the world, a meaning that was lost to a considerable extent because of sin. And for that reason, the Redemption was accomplished in the paschal mystery, leading through the Cross and death to Resurrection." (RH, No. 10).

We are created in the image and likeness of God and have been endowed by nature with the capacities to reason and make free choices. And our dignity as persons is rooted in our relationship to God. Again, in the words of John Paul II: "The dignity of the person is manifested in all its radiance when the person's origin and destiny are considered: created by God in his image and likeness as well as redeemed by the most precious blood of Christ, the person is called to be a 'child in the Son' and a living temple of the Spirit, destined for the eternal life of blessed communion with God....In virtue of his personal dignity the human being is always a value in himself and for himself, and as such demands being considered and treated as a person and never as an object to be used, or as a means, or as a thing." (Christifideles laici, No. 37).

This phrase "child in the Son" points to Christianity's special basis for affirming the dignity of every human being. A dignity which St. Paul explains in Galatians 3: 26, 28: "In Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith....There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male or female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus."

Every human person is created in the image and likeness of God and as such is endowed with dignity. But this dignity also implies a responsibility: to seek religious truth, embrace it once it is found, and to live in accord with it - see Dignitatis humanae, No. 2 and Catechism of the Catholic Church, Nos. 2104-2109.

God loves each and every human person unconditionally. But being loved by God is not enough to be in friendship with Him because friendship is mutual love. Therefore, our first and greatest responsibility is to love God (see Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1822).

We will never fully appreciate God's love for us. It is an inexhaustible mystery. However, the choice is ours as to how to respond to that love. St. Louis de Montfort explains in his work Love of Eternal Wisdom:

"..in order to draw closer to men and give them a more convincing proof of his love, eternal Wisdom went so far as to become man, even to become a little child, to embrace poverty and to die upon a cross for them. How many times while here on earth could he be heard pleading, "Come to me, come to me, all of you. Do not be afraid, it is I. Why are you afraid? I am just like you; I love you. Are you afraid because you are sinners? But they are the very ones I am looking for; I am the friend of sinners. If it is because you have strayed from the fold through your own fault, then I am the good shepherd. If it is because you are weighted down with sin, covered with grime and utterly dejected, then that is just why you should come to me for I will unburden you, purify you and console you."

Eternal Wisdom, on the one hand, wished to prove his love for man by dying in his place in order to save him, but on the other hand, he could not bear the thought of leaving him. So he devised a marvellous way of dying and living at the same time, and of abiding with man until the end of time. So, in order fully to satisfy his love, he instituted the sacrament of Holy Eucharist and went to the extent of changing and overturning nature itself. He does not conceal himself under a sparkling diamond or some other precious stone, because he does not want to abide with man in an ostentatious manner. But he hides himself under the appearance of a small piece of bread - man's ordinary nourishment - so that when received he might enter the heart of man and there take his delight. Ardenter amantium hoc est - Those who love ardently act in this way. "O eternal Wisdom," says a saint, "O God who is truly lavish with himself in his desire to be with man."

[ The ingratitude of those who refuse]

How ungrateful and insensitive we would be if we were not moved by the earnest desire of eternal Wisdom, his eagerness to seek us out and the proofs he gives us of his friendship! How cruel we would be, what punishment would we not deserve even in this world, if, instead of listening to him, we turn a deaf ear; if, instead of loving him, we spurn and offend him. The Holy Spirit tells us, "Those who neglected to acquire Wisdom not only inherited ignorance of what is good, but they actually left in the world a memorial of their folly in that their sins could not go unnoticed" (Wisd. 10:8). Those who during their lifetime do not strive to acquire Wisdom suffer a triple misfortune. They fall (a) into ignorance and blindness, (b) into folly, (c) into sin and scandal. But how unhappy they will be at the door of death when, despite themselves, they hear Wisdom reproach them, "I called you and you did not answer (Prov. 1:24). All the day long I held out my hands to you and you spurned me. Sitting at your door, I waited for you but you did not come to me. Now it is my turn to deride you (Prov. 1:26). No longer do I have ears to hear you weeping, eyes to see your tears, a heart to be moved by your sobs, or hands to help you." How great will be their misery in hell! Read what the Holy Spirit himself has to say about the miseries, the wailings, the regrets and the despair of the fools in hell who, all too late, realise their folly and misfortune in rejecting the eternal Wisdom of God. "They are now beginning to speak sensibly - but they are in hell" (Wisd. 5:14). (LEW, Nos 70-72).

Papal Preacher: Antichrist may already be among us

In his classic work entitled "Trojan Horse in the City of God," Dr. Dietrich von Hildebrand (whom Pope Pius XII referred to as the 20th Century Doctor of the Church) had this to say:


"Because an antipathy to the condemnation of secular 'orthodoxies' and religious deviations characterizes the mentality of our time, it is necessary to emphasize that the call of the hour, the opportunity presented to the apostolate of the Church in a particular moment in history, implies not only the exploitation of the positive elements of an epoch, but also the unequivocal condemnation of the errors and evil trends. Condemnation and the unmasking of errors is widely seen today as something hostile to love. No longer understood is the basic principle enunciated by St. Augustine - interficere errorem, diligere errantem (kill the error, love the one who errs).

It is assumed that these two actions contradict one another, when in fact love necessarily requires the killing of error....it is precisely the Church's ultimate love for all human beings that calls for the condemnation of error and..these condemnations are an essential response to the call of he hour." (Trojan Horse in the City of God, p. 78, Sophia Institute Press).

The reign of Antichrist is almost upon us. Those who insist upon killing error (while loving the one in error) will no longer be tolerated by a Dictatorship of Relativism which seeks to pave the way for the Man of Sin and to enslave all in an ideology rooted in Hell.

Another Sad Legacy

Manchester NH Diocese Under Fire....Yet Again

The sad legacy continues.

Close your spiritual fort.....

Paving the way for Antichrist

Hollywood film director James Cameron, of Titanic fame, (who is alleged by some to be a high-ranking freemason) has a new project. Now he's out to convince the world that Jesus did not rise from the dead: http://time-blog.com/middle_east/2007/02/jesus_tales_from_the_crypt.html

Many prophetic events are converging. There is now an all-out war against Christianity and in particular the Catholic Church.

Watch and pray.

Paul.

Some background on director James Cameron's occult society: http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/amorc.html

Persecution Watch: Parental Rights Under Assault in Massachusetts

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

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

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

Paul


Additional reading: http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54420

http://www.massresistance.org/docs/parker_lawsuit/order_motion_to_dismiss_022307.pdf

http://www.spiritdaily.com/whiffpersecution.htm

Support this Catholic priest in his efforts

Fr. Joseph M. Cooper, a priest of the Diocese of Manchester, New Hampshire, is working to bring the old rite back to the diocese. I would urge Catholics in and around the Diocese to contact him at: (603) 669-3100 ext. 165, and to voice their support of this important endeavour.

Fr. Cooper may also be contacted at: jcooper@rcbm.org

Pope John Paul II, in his Apostolic Letter Ecclesia Dei, given Motu Proprio, had this to say regarding the old rite:

"..respect must everywhere be shown for the feelings of all those who are attached to the Latin liturgical tradition, by a wide and generous application of the directives already issued some time ago by the Apostolic See for the use of the Roman Missal according to the typical edition of 1962."

Our Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI had this to say some years back in the book Salt of the Earth (which is published by Ignatius Press):

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

Vatican II said that:

"Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites" (Sacrosanctum Concilium -Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy - No. 36).

Bringing the old rite back to the Diocese would only serve to foster both healing and renewal and would have the effect of bringing many Catholics back to the sacraments. The Latin Mass movement is primarily a youth movement. For years I attended the Latin Mass at both St. Benedict Abbey and St. Ann House in Still River, Massachusetts. And I have seldom witnessed more reverence for the liturgy.

Let us all pray for Fr. Cooper. That his efforts will be blessed with success and that he will be filled with every good thing he needs to accomplish God's Holy Will.

Paul.

An encouraging word from Francis Cardinal Stafford

"priests should embrace and encourage the laity.."

- His Eminence, Francis Cardinal Stafford

Holy Father: Confront evil with fasting

Mark 9: 28, 29.

Fr. Lawrence G. Lovasik and false pretense

In his excellent book entitled, "The Hidden Power of Kindness," in a chapter entitled "Dedicate yourself to truth," Fr. Lawrence G. Lovasik explains that:

"False pretense is a form of lying. You are guilty of this fault if you make yourself out to be something you are not in order to impress others, to appear important, and to be admired. This is a form of vanity. You either exaggerate your standing or accomplishments or make up facts about yourself that will impress others....You practice religious hypocrisy when you pretend to be a very pious and sincere Catholic, yet privately embrace some form of moral evil like adultery, birth control, or corruption in business or politics...

You practice social hypocrisy when you worm your way into the confidence of another, act as if you are solely concerned with giving sympathy and advice, draw out secrets of a personal nature, and then use the information to hurt the one whose confidence you have gained; or when you petend to be unselfishly interested in advancing some good cause - charity, religion, or public welfare - but you have the intention of using the cause, and others who are working for it, to your own advantage....

You practice professional hypocrisy when, in public office or business, you speak against some evil and in reality practice it yourself, or when you complain of losing money while you yourself are making an unjust profit..." (The Hidden Power of Kindness, pp. 138-139).

Paul.

Test everything

In 1 Thessalonians 5: 19-21, the Holy Spirit teaches us through St. Paul: "Do not stifle the Spirit. Do not despise prophecies. Test everything; retain what is good."

In these latter days, there are many false prophets masquerading as disciples of the Lord Jesus. How may we determine what is true and what is false? There must be a way to discern and promote the good and to determine what is false and what should be ignored. Thankfully, there is.

"Ubi Ecclesia, ibi Sanctus Spiritus!" "Where the Church is, there is the Holy Spirit!" Vatican II, speaking of the charismatic gifts, has said that they, "must be accepted with gratefulness and consolation.." However, at the same time, the Council also taught that, "Judgment as to their genuineness and their correct use lies with those who lead the Church and those whose special task is not to extinguish the spirit but to examine everything and keep that which is good." (Lumen Gentium, No. 2).

This is the mind of the Church: that genuine charismatic gifts are to be thankfully welcomed and it is the Church's role to evaluate their genuineness. A charismatic gift in the Church does not discover any new Gospel. In the words of the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

"Throughout the ages, there have been so-called 'private' revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ's definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church." (No. 67).

All apparitions, private revelations and prophetical utterances must meet this first test of authenticity: conformity with the teachings of the Catholic Faith as interpreted by the Magisterium.

Getting back to false prophets. A woman from Massachusetts (who shall remain nameless) has created two "Catholic" blogs and on these blogs has informed her readers of how she experienced a "Eucharistic miracle." At the same time, this confused woman has said that she finds many of the Magisterium's documents to be "legalistic" and has associated herself with a couple of other bloggers who have promoted Centering Prayer and other New Age/Occult forms of spirituality.

These are red flags. And what they suggest is troubling. False prophets abound in these troubled times. These false prophets claim to have wisdom and to have experienced God's "wonderful love." This as they contradict the teachings of the Church or deride Magisterial documents as "legalistic."

This is not the work of the Holy Spirit. This is the work of the Devil who often comes disguised as an angel of light. "Ubi Ecclesia, ibi Sanctus Spiritus!" - "Where the Church is, there is the Holy Spirit!" No authentic disciple of the Lord Jesus will ever oppose the Magisterium of Christ's Church, deride its official documents, or promote (or associate with those who do promote) New Age Occultism.

Paul.

Fr. Basil Pennington and Centering Prayer

Fr. Anthony Kazarnowicz, a good friend of mine who was an Associate Pastor of Our Lady of Czestochowa Parish in Worcester, Massachusetts and now serves as a U.S. Army Chaplain, once wrote to thank me for a letter to the Editor which I had written to The Catholic Free Press expressing my concerns over the column of Fr. Basil Pennington of St. Joseph's Abbey in Spencer, Massachusetts.

It was Fr. Kazarnowicz's belief (and mine) that while Fr. Pennington's column represented somewhat of an improvement over that of dissident moral theologian Rev. Richard P. McBrien, still, there was much room for concern.

The link above will take you to an excellent article detailing the problem with Fr. Pennington's "Centering Prayer."

Paul.

Judging which is acceptable

There are some - even many Catholics, poorly instructed in their faith, who believe that all judging is wrong. These Catholics apparently believe that love of enemies means condoning vice and sin. In the words of Dr. Germain Grisez, one of the finest moral theologians of our time, "It might seem to follow that love must accept everyone, even enemies, just as they are, and to affirm them even in the error or sin which is present in them. But the law of love does not require indiscriminate affirmation of everything about other persons (see Saint Thomas Aquinas, S.t., 2-2, q.34, a.3). One's love must be like Jesus'. He loves sinners and brings them into communion with himself in order to overcome their error and sin. When the scribes and pharisees bring a woman caught in adultery to Jesus, he not only saves her from being stoned to death but warns her not to sin again (see John 8:3-11). In a true sense, Jesus is not judgmental, he sets aside the legalistic mentality, readily forgives sinners, does not condemn the world, and points out that those who refuse to acknowledge their sinfulness are self-condemned by the truth they violate (see John 3:16-21). But he realistically recognizes sinners as sinners and never accepts error as truth...

Similarly, if Christians' love of neighbor is genuine, it not only permits but REQUIRES THEM both to 'hold fast to what is good' and to 'hate what is evil' (Romans 12:9)."And again, according to Dr. Grisez, "Vatican II neatly formulates the 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' (Gaudium et Spes, No. 28). This norm, however, does not preclude JUDGMENTS necessary for determining that one should try to dissuade others from committing sins or to encourage them to repent if they have sinned."

Very often, the poorly instructed Catholic will be heard to remark "I don't like the word 'judge,' or to those of us who defend the Church's authentic Magisterial teaching while exposing error they will say: "You're judging."What if we are? Judging isn't always sinful. It is only sinful when we judge another's interior dispositions, when we judge their soul. But we are entirely free to judge words, ideas and actions which fail to hold up when placed in the Lumen Christi (Light of Christ).

Sacred Scripture (which these confused souls obviously don't spend much time with) makes this abundantly clear: "should you not judge those inside the Church"? (1 Corinthians 5:12), and again: "the saints will judge the world and angels" (1 Corinthians 6:2-3), and again: "the spiritual man judges all things" (1 Corinthians 2:15), and again: "Let prophets speak and the others judge" (1 Corinthians 14:29).

Not all judging is sinful. This is just common sense. Our legal system is structured in such a way that when a person commits a crime, he or she is tried before a judge and sentenced (judged) if found guilty. Likewise, it is our right (and duty) to judge words, ideas and actions which are not in conformity with the Gospels or which fail to conform to the Magisterial teaching of Christ's Church and to expose these as fallacious and/or sinful. In so doing, we are not rendering a judgment against a person. We are following the teaching of the great Saint Augustine (Bishop, Father and Doctor of the Church), who said: "Interficere errorem, diligere errantem" - kill the error, love the one who errs. This killing of what is sinful or erroneous is necessary if our charity - our love of neighbor - is to be genuine. Otherwise, our love is counterfeit. It is a fraud.

Paul Anthony Melanson

Wisdom of the world

"The wisdom of the world is that of which it is said, 'I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, i.e. those whom the world calls wise.' 'The wisdom of the flesh is an enemy of God,' and does not come from above. It is earthly, devilish and carnal.

This worldly wisdom consists in an exact conformity to the maxims and fashions of the world; a continual inclination towards greatness and esteem; and a subtle and endless pursuit of pleasure and self-interest, not in an uncouth and blatant way by scandalous sin, but in an astute, discreet, and deceitful way. Otherwise the world would no longer label it wisdom but pure licentiousness.

In the opinion of the world, a wise man is one with a keen eye to business; who knows how to turn everything to his personal profit without appearing to do so. He excels in the art of duplicity and well-concealed fraud without arousing suspicion. He thinks one thing and says or does another. Nothing concerning the graces and manners of the world is unknown to him. He accomodates himself to everyone to suit his own end, completely ignoring the honor and interests of God. He manages to make a secret but fatal reconciliation of truth and falsehood, of the gospel and the world, of virtue and sin, of Christ and Belial. He wishes to be considered an honest man but not a devout man, and most readily scorns, distorts and condemns devotions he does not personally approve of. In short, a man is worldly-wise who, following solely the lead of his senses and human-reasoning, poses as a good Christian and a man of integrity, but makes little effort to please God or atone by penance for the sins he has committed against him.

The worldly man bases his conduct on personal honor, on 'What will people say?', on convention, on high living, on self-interest, on ceremonious manners, and on witty conversation. These seven principles are irreproachable supports on which, he believes, he can safely depend to enjoy a peaceful life.

The world will canonize him for such virtues as courage, finesse, tactfulness, shrewdness, gallantry, politeness and good humor. It stigmatizes as serious offenses, insensitiveness, stupidity, poverty, boorishness and bigotry.

He obeys as faithfully as he can the commandments which the world gives him:

You shall be well acquainted with the world.
You shall be respectable.
You shall be successful in business.
You shall hold on to whatever is yours.
You shall rise above your background.
You shall make friends for yourself.
You shall frequent fashionable society.
You shall seek the good life.
You shall not be a kill-joy.
You shall not be singular, uncouth or over-pious.

Never has the world been so corrupt as it is now, for never has it been so cunning, so wise in its own way, and so crafty. It cleverly makes use of the truth to foster untruth, virtue to justify vice, and the very maxims of Jesus Christ to endorse its own, so that even those who are wisest in the sight of God are often deceived.

Infinite is the number of these men, wise in the sight of the world but foolish in the eyes of God.


- St. Louis de Montfort, Love of Eternal Wisdom

Fr. Salvany, Deacon Tom and an Authentic Charity

In his classic work Liberalism is a Sin," Fr. Felix Sarda Y Salvany writes:


"Charity is a supernatural virtue which induces us to love God above all things and our neighbors as ourselves for the love of God. Thus after God, we ought to love our neighbor as ourselves, and this not in any way, but for the love of God and in obedience to His law. And now what is to love? Amare est velle bonum, replies the philosopher: "To love is to wish good to him whom we love." To whom does charity command us to wish good? To our neighbor, that is to say, not to this or that man only but to everyone. What is that good which true love wishes? First of all supernatural good; then goods of the natural order, which are not incompatible with it. All this is included in the phrase "for the love of God."

It follows, therefore, that we can love our neighbor, when displeasing him, when opposing him, when causing him some material injury and even, on certain occasions, when depriving him of life. All is reduced to this in short: Whether in the instance where we displease, oppose or humiliate him, it is or is not for his own good, or for the good of someone whose rights are superior to his, or simply for the greater service of God.

If it is shown, that in displeasing or offending our neighbor, we act for his good, it is evident that we love him even when opposing or crossing him. The physician cauterizing his patient or cutting off his gangrened limb may none the less love him. When we correct the wicked by restraining or by punishing them none the less do we love them. This is charity and perfect charity. It is often necessary to displease or offend one person, not for his own good, but to deliver another from the evil he is inflicting. It is then an obligation of charity to repel the unjust violence of the aggressor; one may inflict as much injury on the aggressor as is necessary for the defense. Such would be the case should one see a highwayman attacking a traveler. In this instance, to kill, wound, or at least take such measures as to render the aggressor impotent, would be an act of true charity.

The good of all good is the divine good, just as God is for all men the neighbor of all neighbors. In consequence the love due to a man inasmuch as he is our neighbor ought always to be subordinated to that which is due to our common Lord. For His love and in His service we must not hesitate to offend men. The degree of our offense towards men can only be measured by the degree of our obligation to him. Charity is primarily the love of God, secondarily the love of our neighbor for God's sake. To sacrifice the first is to abandon the latter. Therefore to offend our neighbor for the love of God is a true act of charity. Not to offend our neighbor for the love of God is a sin.

Modern Liberalism reverses this order. It imposes a false notion of charity; our neighbor first, and, if at all, God afterwards."

A false notion of charity puts neighbor before God, if God is recognized at all. It is such a false notion of charity which motivated certain Church leaders to reprimand Deacon Tom McDonnell for a homily in which he took pro-abortion politician Representative Brian Higgins to task for his support of the culture of death.

How else can we explain the rush to reprimand this heroic Deacon? Concern for rubrics? As one reader of this blog commented:

"Why is it that almost no one in this country is ever concerned about the "rubrics" of the Mass (tolerating every sort of liturgical abuse and aberration) but is suddenly so concerned about the rubrics when deacon McDonnell names names in a homily? Such an attitude seems almost perverse to me. Is this simply an effort to muzzle courageous pro-life witness?"

An excellent question. More importantly, as I have already noted, Blessed Cardinal Clemens von Galen used his pulpit to name Hitler and other Nazi officials who were violating the common good. And no one ever reprimanded him for "rudeness" or not following the rubrics of the Mass.

Fr. Salvany was a prophet of sorts. A very long time ago he warned us about a false notion of charity which inverts the order of authentic charity and places more importance on love of neighbor than on love of God. That so many Catholics have been influenced by this false notion of charity goes without saying. This even though the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches clearly in No. 1822 that:

"Charity is the theological virtue by which we love God above all things for his own sake, and our neighbor as ourselves for the love of God."

Bishop Kmiec and others who have rushed to reprimand Deacon Tom McDonnell have forgotten this. They have placed more importance on the respect of men (and especially those considered by the world to be important men) than they have on loving God (and His Commandments) above all things.

Small wonder then that the Church in the United States has suffered so much.

Paul.

Nec laudibus nec timore

More on Blessed Cardinal Galen...

Charity or rudeness?

In his Introduction to the Devout Life St. Francis de Sales, Doctor of the Church, writes:

"If the declared enemies of God and of the Church ought to be blamed and censured with all possible vigor, charity obliges us to cry wolf when the wolf slips into the midst of the flock and in every way and place we may meet him."

Deacon Tom McDonnell understands this. Read here:http://lasalettejourney.blogspot.com/2007/02/as-i-have-already-mentioned-in-previous.html

Meanwhile, in a posting here: http://dealwhudson.typepad.com/deal_w_hudson/2007/01/a_clarification.html, Deal Hudson suggests that Deacon Tom "went overboard." Mr. Hudson also writes, "My thought on this homily is that normally the homilist should not mention any sinner by name. I am not sure what the rubrics of the Mass would say on the subject, but he may deserve a reprimand for that."

But then says that: "However, things are not normal when a sinner is not only publicly open in his contempt for essential Church teachings, those on which all Catholics must agree in full in order to preserve their communion with the Church, but also enacts laws which over-turn Church teachings."

Exactly Mr. Hudson. These are not normal times. Times were not normal when Blessed Cardinal Clemens August von Galen used his pulpit to criticize Hitler and other Nazi officials by name. Was Blessed Cardinal Clemens August von Galen going "overboard" as well? You cannot have it both ways. To suggest that Deacon Tom was being "rude" is to suggest that Blessed Cardinal Clemens August von Galen was also being "rude."

Rubrics of the Mass? Are you kidding me? When we place more importance on such technicalities than on God's Eternal Law (which forbids killing the innocent - read Exodus Chapter 20 - God's fifth Commandment handed down to Moses), we have a serious problem.

Such a pharisaical approach to a matter of critical importance to the common good is, well, idiotic.

Paul Anthony Melanson

The Warning at Akita

On April 22, 1984, the Most Reverend John Shojiro Ito, the Bishop of Niigata in Japan, issued a pastoral letter in which he declared the events at Akita to be supernatural. And it was at Akita that Our Lady said to Sister Agnes Sasagawa:


"As I told you, if men do not repent and better themselves, the Father will inflict a terrible punishment on all humanity. It will be a punishment greater than the deluge, such as one will never have seen before. Fire will fall from the sky and will wipe out a great part of humanity, the good as well as the bad, sparing neither priests nor faithful. The survivors will find themselves so desolate that they will envy the dead. The only arms that will remain for you will be the rosary and Sign left by My Son. Each day recite the prayers of the rosary. With the rosary, pray for the Pope, the Bishops, and the priests.

The work of the devil will infiltrate even the Church in such a way that one will see Cardinals opposing Cardinals, Bishops against other Bishops. The priests who venerate Me will be scorned and opposed by their confreres...churches and altars sacked, the Church will be full of those who accept compromises and the demon will press many priests and consecrated souls to leave the service of the Lord. The demon will be especially implacable against souls consecrated to God. The thought of the loss of so many souls is the cause of my sadness. If sins increase in number and gravity, there will be no longer pardon for them."

One by one, these prophecies have been fulfilled. We have witnessed the work of the devil infiltrating the Church and Cardinals and Bishops opposing one another. We have witnessed priests who venerate Our Lady being scorned and opposed. We have witnessed churches and altars sacked as parish after parish has been closed. And we have witnessed the sexual abuse of children by priests and consecrated souls who have been pressed by the demon to leave the service of the Lord and a spirit of compromise which has swept over the Church.

On November 5, 1977, Our Lady spoke to Fr. Gobbi in a locution saying:

"Do not stop to consider the ever thickening darkness, the sin which has been set up as the norm of human action, the suffering which is mounting to its peak and the chastisement which this humanity is preparing with its own hands."

Our Lady did not want us to become discouraged by the sin and darkness which is all about us.

But she wants us to acknowledge the reality of sin and to recognize its consequences. Pope John Paul II often spoke of "a loss of the sense of sin." The people of former times were more honest than the people of our present day and didn't blame society, genetics, or a multitude of other factors for their sins. Today, there is a widespread denial of the existence of sin and moral laws (even the Natural Law) and this angers God. This because it makes God appear as the Creator of evil, and this blasphemy (not to mention pride and hypocrisy) on the part of His creature man will have its consequences.

It is necessary now, while it is still "today," to preach about the reality of sin and the need for repentance. Time is running short. Will we embrace the Mercy of God? Or will we continue to embrace a culture of death and immorality, a culture which denies the reality of sin while murdering innocent children in the womb and advancing homosexual "marriage."

As a Diocese withers and decays.....

Senator Barack Obama and abortion...

As I have already mentioned in a previous post at this Blog, Fr. Thomas Williams, Dean of theology at Rome’s Regina Apostolorum University, has said that: "pastoral prudence and charity would suggest that a preacher refrain from making references to specific persons, regardless of whether the individual is present or not" and that, "Historically, the pulpit has often been effectively used to reprimand the common vices of the congregation, but it is an inappropriate venue for correcting the specific errors of an individual.."

Now, I have already shown how Blessed Clemens August von Galen, a Cardinal who opposed the Nazi regime during the Second World War, used his pulpit to criticize Hitler and the cruelty of the Nazis. Perhaps it is time to examine Fr. Williams argument against using the pulpit to correct the specific errors of an individual in the light of the Magisterial teaching of the Church.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 2489, teaches that, "Charity and respect for the truth should dictate the response to every request for information or communication. The good and safety of others, respect for privacy, and the common good are sufficient reasons for being silent about what ought not be known or for making use of a discreet language. The duty to avoid scandal often commands strict discretion. No one is bound to reveal the truth to someone who does not have the right to know it."

In other words, it would be an offense against truth and charity if a priest were to use his pulpit to publically castigate an individual for personal sins or errors. Again the Catechism:
"The secret of the sacrament of reconciliation is sacred, and cannot be violated under any pretext. ‘The sacramental seal is inviolable; therefore it is a crime for a confessor in any way to betray a penitent by word or in any other manner or for any reason.’" (No. 2490, citing Canon 983 of the Code of Canon Law).

Indeed, as the Catechism makes clear, "Everyone should observe an appropriate reserve concerning persons’ private lives" (No. 2492) and: "The right to the communication of the truth is not unconditional. Everyone must conform his life to the Gospel precept of fraternal love. This requires us in concrete situations to judge whether or not it is appropriate to reveal the truth to someone who asks for it" (No. 2488).

Indeed, there are times in which "prudence and charity would suggest that a preacher refrain from making references to specific persons.." But there are also times in which it is entirely appropriate to use the pulpit for correcting the specific errors of an individual. In the words of Blaise Pascal, "It is as much a crime to disturb the peace when truth prevails as it is a crime to keep the peace when truth is violated. There is therefore a time in which peace is justified and another time when it is not justifiable. For it is written that there is a time for peace and a time for war and it is the law of truth that distinguishes the two. But at no time is there a time for truth and a time for error, for it is written that God’s truth shall abide forever. That is why Christ has said that He has come to bring peace and at the same time that He has come to bring the sword. But He does not say that He has come to bring both the truth and the falsehood."

Was it appropriate for Deacon Tom McDonnell to use his pulpit to correct the errors of U.S. Representative Brian Higgins? In a word, yes. This because Representative Higgins’ support of abortion and related legislation represents a public, open and declared opposition to the teaching of the Catholic Church on the sanctity of every human life. We are not dealing here with private sins or errors which may not be addressed from a pulpit. For that would be inappropriate. But we are dealing here with a direct and public challenge to the teaching of Jesus Christ as made known by His Church:

"..God, the Lord of life, has conferred on men the surpassing ministry of safeguarding life in a manner which is worthy of man. Therefore, from the moment of its conception life must be guarded with the greatest care, while abortion and infanticide are unspeakable crimes." (Vatican II, Gaudium et Spes, No. 51).

"Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed ether as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law..." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 2271).

In the same way that Blessed Cardinal Clemens August von Galen used his pulpit to refer to Hitler and other specific persons who were part of the Nazi regime and to correct their errors (for the sake of the common good), Deacon Tom McDonnell has used his pulpit to refer to a specific person, a politician who undermines the common good through his open and declared support of the culture of death in direct opposition to the teaching of Christ’s Church.

What tremendous courage! What charity!

God love you Deacon Tom.

Paul Anthony Melanson

In an article published in the February 11, 2007 edition of the National Catholic Register and entitled "Homilist Names Names," Mr. David Freddoso quotes Legionary Father Thomas Williams, Dean of Theology at Rome's Regina Apostolorum University, as having said that, "Historically, the pulpit has often been effectively used to reprimand the common vices of the congregation, but it is an inappropriate venue for correcting the specific errors of an individual...Pastoral prudence and charity would suggest that a preacher refrain from making references to specific persons, regardless of whether the individual is present or not."

Fr. Williams made these comments in response to Deacon Tom McDonnell's homily given on January 21st of this year in which he took U.S. Representative Brian Higgins to task for his recent vote in favor of federal funding for research that destroys human embryos.

What of Fr. Williams assertion that the pulpit is "an inappropriate venue for correcting the specific errors of an individual....whether the individual is present or not"? If this is the case, how do we explain the actions of His Eminence Cardinal Clemens August von Galen, Bishop of Munster, during the Second World War? As this statement from the ADL makes clear: http://www.adl.org/PresRele/VaticanJewish_96/4616_96.htm:

"Cardinal Clemens August von Galen was Bishop of Munster during the Nazi regime and used his pulpit to criticize Hitler and the cruelty of the Nazis."

Now, I'm not attempting to make a strict comparison between Hitler and Representative Brian Higgins. But the point I'm trying to make is that the pulpit has been seen in the past as an appropriate venue for "correcting the specific errors of an individual." Therefore, Fr. Williams is simply wrong. And while Representative Higgins cannot be compared to Adolph Hitler in the strictest sense, still, both have been on record as supporting a culture of death. Hitler had an extermination plan (a "Final Solution") for killing Jews and Representative Higgins, as this article makes clear: http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/jan/07012502.html:

"..was endorsed in 2006 by the National Abortion Rights Action League and Planned Parenthood for his support of abortion and related legislation."

And the extermination of innocent unborn children is, to an authentic Catholic, another holocaust.

Fr. Williams may believe that the pulpit is "an inappropriate venue for correcting the specific errors of an individual," but His Eminence Cardinal Galen did not share this view. And a statement issued by the Foreign Office [Great Britain] referred to this courageous Cardinal as "the most outstanding personality among the clergy in the British zone."

Fr. Williams (like so many other priests, religious and lay people who have succumbed to what Fr. Vincent P. Miceli referred to as the "Cult of Softness") may believe that "pastoral prudence and charity would suggest that a preacher refrain from making references to specific persons, regardless of whether the individual is present or not." But thank God for the witness of His Eminence Cardinal Clemens August von Galen, who stood publically opposed to the Nazi regime and wasn't afraid to "name names." His was an authentic charity as defined by the Catechism (No. 1822).

Today, Cardinal Galen is now known as "Blessed," having been beatified at St. Peter's Basilica on October 9, 2005.

Say what you will Fr. Williams. I'll stick with the actions of a beatified Cardinal, a Prince of the Church who possessed the Holy Spirit's gift of Fortitude. For although I have no doubt that you are a wise and holy priest and a very educated man, still, the Church has not called you Blessed.


God love you all,
Paul Anthony Melanson

"Jesus came down with the twelve and stood on a stretch of level ground with a great crowd of his disciples and a large number of the people from all Judea and Jerusalem and the coastal region of Tyre and Sidon. And raising his eyes toward his disciples he said:“Blessed are you who are poor, for the kingdom of God is yours. Blessed are you who are now hungry, for you will be satisfied. Blessed are you who are now weeping, for you will laugh. Blessed are you when people hate you, and when they exclude and insult you, and denounce your name as evil on account of the Son of Man. Rejoice and leap for joy on that day! Behold, your reward will be great in heaven. For their ancestors treated the prophets in the same way. But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation. Woe to you who are filled now, for you will be hungry. Woe to you who laugh now, for you will grieve and weep. Woe to you when all speak well of you, for their ancestors treated the false prophets in this way.” (Luke 6: 17, 20-26).

This is precisely what we see today. Catholics loyal to the Holy Father and the Magisterium are routinely insulted, excluded from participation in parish life, and spoken evil of. By contrast, Catholics who are willing to compromise with the world and sinful structures are often welcomed with open arms.

It has always been thus. And always will be. Jesus says in John 15: 18-21:


"If the world hates you, realize that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, the world would love its own; but because you do not belong to the world, and I have chosen you out of the world, the world hates you. Remember the word I spoke to you, 'No slave is greater than his master.' If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they kept my word, they will also keep yours. And they will do all these things to you on account of my name, because they do not know the one who sent me."

The world embraces its own just as Jesus knows who belongs to Him and embraces such a person. The two are ever in conflict. It has always been thus. And always will be.

Paul.

Excellent spiritual advice from Mr. Michael Brown...

Lawrence v. Texas: Liberty becomes license

When moral liberty is detached from the Natural Law and the Eternal Divine Law, it soon degenerates into license. It was Pope Leo XIII, in his Encyclical Letter Libertas Humana, who reminded us that:

"Liberty, the highest of natural endowments, being the portion only of intellectual or rational natures, confers on man this dignity - that he is 'in the hand of his counsel' and has power over his actions. But the manner in which such dignity is exercised is of the greatest moment, inasmuch as on the use that is made of liberty the highest good and the greatest evil alike depend. Man, indeed, is free to obey his reason, to seek moral good, and to strive unswervingly after his last end. Yet he is free also to turn aside to all other things; and, in pursuing the empty substance of good, to disturb rightful order and to fall headlong into the destruction which he has voluntarily chosen...Therefore, the nature of human liberty, however it be considered, whether in individuals or in society, whether in those who command or in those who obey, supposes the necessity of obedience to some supreme and eternal law, which is no other than the authority of God, commanding good and forbidding evil. And, so far from this most just authority of God over men diminishing, or even destroying their liberty, it protects and perfects it, for the real perfection of all creatures is found in the prosecution and attainment of their respective ends, but the supreme end to which human liberty must aspire is God."

In Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court allows so broad an interpretation of liberty, that virtually all state laws proscribing evils such as adultery, bigamy, incest, prostitution, sadomasochism, bestiality and pedophilia are now at risk: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas#Broader_implications

An act is immoral if it violates Natural Law or Divine Law. The Supreme Court has imposed a perverse notion of "liberty" which favors unnatural vice over virtue. In Lawrence v Texas, the Court violated its responsibility to uphold a most fundamental principle of the Natural Law. Namely, to do good and avoid evil. As a consequence, homosexuality - and other sexual abnormalities which undermine the family and therefore the common good - will now be constitutionally protected expressions of "liberty."

This is a real moral tragedy and one which will soon lead to intense persecution of Christians (and other people of good will) who oppose violations of both the Natural Law and the Divine Law (see:http://dtf-jayg.blogspot.com/2007/02/whos-persecuting-whom.html ).

When the European Parliament passed a special resolution encouraging the nations of Europe to approve homosexual "marriage," Pope John Paul II responded in protest:

"What is not morally acceptable, however, is the legalization of homosexual acts. To show understanding towards the person who sins, towards the person who is not in the process of freeing himself from this tendency, does not at all mean to diminish the demands of the moral norm (cf. Veritatis Splendor, No. 95)....

But we must say that what was intended with the European Parliament's resolution was the legitimization of a moral disorder. Parliament improperly conferred an institutional value to a conduct that is deviant and not in accordance with God's plan...

Forgetting the words of Christ 'The truth shall set you free' (John 8:32), an attempt was made to show the people of our continent a moral evil, a deviance, a certain slavery, as a form of liberation, falsifying the very essence of the family." (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/angelus/1994/documents/hf_jp-ii_ang_19940220_it.html ).

As the persecution of Christians intensifies, and as our society collapses in on itself under the weight of institutionalized deviance, the words of the prophet Isaiah will echo in our hearts and minds:


"Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil;
Who put darkness for light,
and light for darkness....
Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes,
And prudent in their own sight!"
Isaiah 5:2-21

New Age Infiltration: Reiki

Natural Law: The obligatory point of reference for civil law

In his Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life), Pope John Paul II emphasized a point of critical importance for our times. He wrote, "Democracy cannot be idolized to the point of making it a substitute for morality or a panacea for immorality. Fundamentally, democracy is a 'system' and as such is a means and not an end. Its 'moral' value is not automatic, but depends on conformity to the moral law to which it, like every other form of human behavior, must e subject: in other words, its morality depends on the morality of the ends which it pursues and of the means which it employs. If today we see an almost universal consensus with regard to the value of democracy, this is to be considered a positive 'sign of the times,' as the Church's Magisterium has frequently noted. But the value of democracy stands or falls with the values which it embodies and promotes. Of course, values such as the dignity of every human person, respect for inviolable and inalienable human rights, and the adoption of the 'common good' as the end and criterion regulating political life are certainly fundamental and not to be ignored.

The basis of these values cannot be provisional and changeable 'majority' opinions, but only the acknowledgement of an objective moral law which, as the 'natural law' written in the human heart, is the obligatory point of reference for civil law itself. If, as a result of a tragic obscuring of the collective conscience, an attitude of skepticism were to succeed in bringing into question even the fundamental principles of the moral law, the democratic system itself would be shaken in its foundations and would be reduced to a mere mechanism for regulating different and opposing interests on a purely empirical basis." (EV, 70).

This point is not understood by professor Robert Frakes of the History Department at Clarion University. In an article entitled, "Why the Romans Are Important in the Debate About Gay Marriage," professor Frakes writes:



"Continuing legislative measures attempting to ban gay marriage show that this issue, so critical in our last national election, remains a controversial topic. Since many of our political institutions are derived from ancient Roman precedents, a quick look at Roman laws regarding homosexuality serves to illustrate what may be driving some of the current controversy surrounding gay unions in the United States.

While the world of the ancient Greeks seems to have tolerated homosexuality (as seen in the poems of Sappho and the dialogues of Plato), that of the Romans was more cautious. Romans in the period of the Roman Republic and early empire tended to perceive the Greek acceptance of male homosexuality as less than male and, thus, literally unvirtuous (Vir being the Latin word for man). Indeed, a Roman term for effeminacy was “Graeculus”—“a little Greek!”

The earliest Roman law regarding homosexuality appears to have been the Lex Scantinia that was passed by the Roman assembly at some point in the Roman Republic (perhaps in the second century BC). Although the text of this law itself has not survived, later Roman jurists of the second and third century AD describe how it outlawed the homosexual rape of young male Roman citizens. Consensual male or female homosexual unions apparently were not legislated against. Although there is scholarly debate, Roman literature of the republic and early empire suggests that men who engaged in consensual liaisons were often mocked as unmanly, but consensual homosexual sex itself was not illegal.

This would change in the later Roman Empire. While the first three centuries of the empire saw no legislation as far as we can tell regarding homosexuality, aside from the continuation of the Lex Scantinia as marked by its citation by the Roman jurists, in the fourth century there would be dramatic new laws condemning male homosexuality. Most scholars interpret a convoluted law from the year 342 AD surviving in both the Theodosian Code and the Code of Justinian as a decree from the emperors Constantius II and Constans that marriage based on unnatural sex should be punished meticulously. Although Constans himself was later denounced as having male lovers, this trend of the emperors in condemning male homosexuality in laws would continue. In a law of 390, surviving in the Theodosian Code and the Lex Dei (‘Law of God’), the emperors Valentinian, Theodosius, and Arcadius ordained that any man taking the role of a woman in sex would be publicly burned to death.

These laws certainly demonstrate a change from the Roman Republic where, to be sure, homosexual rape of male citizens was condemned but consensual homosexual sex was tolerated, even if sometimes mocked. Why did this change occur? The answer is fairly straightforward and lies ultimately in the results of the actions of the famous Roman emperor Constantine. In 312, this father of the emperors Constantius II and Constans had reached out to Christianity as the basis for his authority. Throughout the next 25 years of his reign, Constantine supported Christianity and gave financial help to the Church and legal sanction to some of the bishops’ powers. As his sons came of age in an increasingly Christian society, they and many of their advisors would have grown up with Biblical strictures. Thus, the pronouncements of the Book of Leviticus (18. 22, 20. 13) against male homosexuality as an abomination punishable by death in God’s eyes would logically have influenced writers of imperial law. Such strictures were reinforced in the New Testament (Romans 1. 24-27). So, it would appear that the growing influence of the Bible in an increasingly Christian Roman empire led emperors to condemn homosexual unions.

When we look at the current attempts in the United States to ban homosexual marriage, we must clarify what the premises for such measures are. If the drive to stop homosexual marriage ultimately derives from the Hebrew Bible, and its acceptance as religious truth by Christians, would not laws banning homosexual marriage be thus derived from religion? If so, such new legislation may well be an attempt to break down the “Wall of Separation” between Church and State that Thomas Jefferson described as an integral aspect of American government." (Source: http://www.hnn.us/articles/21319.html ).

What shall we make of this? Well, professor Frakes' argument fails to take into account the fact that the Natural Law predates Christianity. For example, fifty years before the birth of Christ, the Roman barrister and statesman Cicero declared that:

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

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

Therefore, the drive to stop homosexual "marriage" is not rooted solely in "the Hebrew Bible and its acceptance as religious truth by Christians." It is also rooted in the Natural Law (which may be known through the use of reason alone and without reference to the "Hebrew Bible"), a law which, according to Cicero (and a multitude of ancient philosophers), "is based not upon men's opinions, but upon Nature." And this Natural Law teaches us what is "just and true."

Paul Anthony Melanson

Pastor who performed "gay marriages" caught in child porn bust

More troubling news from NH...

Our Sad Time...

A few years back, I wrote a calm, respectful and detailed letter to His Excellency, Bishop John McCormack, regarding the dissident nature of VOTF and imploring him to take appropriate action against this dissent group. In a letter of response, His Excellency accused me of displaying an "angry tone and tenor."

His Excellency had mistaken the firmness of my convictions as "anger." This even though I couldn't have been more respectful or calm and objective. Or perhaps he was not so much mistaken as he was determined to rebuff me with the false accusation of having displayed an "angry tone and tenor." This charge was all the more ironic since (although I have my share of faults to be sure) co-workers and friends have always told me that patience is one of my strongest qualities. Working with the developmentally-disabled for many years, I can tell you that patience is absolutely requisite...though few positions could be more rewarding.

When I politely reminded His Excellency that I was not the one overheard by reporters working for the Associated Press to be shouting at parishioners of St. Patrick's Parish in Jaffrey: http://www.bishop-accountability.org/NH-Manchester/JBMcCormack-2002-10.html , I never did receive a response.

In an article published in the October 7, 2002 edition of The Union Leader, readers were told of how Bishop McCormack got into "several heated exchanges, including one with a parishioner who accused him of ignoring letters of complaint from Jaffrey parishioners." These parishioners of St. Patrick's (many of whom are parents) were alarmed because Bishop McCormack had assigned the Rev. Roland P. Cote to their parish "after Cote admitted having a sexual relationship with a teenage boy years earlier" (The Union Leader, October 1, 2002 edition).

Bishop McCormack's legacy is a sad one. It is a legacy of dismissing the legitimate complaints of devout Catholics who were concerned about the sexual abuse of children and over the problem of dissent.

Pray for him.

Paul.

Pope Benedict XVI blasts "false compassion."

Astute readers will recognize that this has been one of the main themes of this Blog. I wonder if Pope Benedict XVI will now be accused by advocates of "The New Ecclesiology" of being "legalistic"?

Paul.

A Prayer by Michel Quoist

"I want to love, Lord,
I need to love.

All my being is desire;
My heart,
My body,
yearn in the night towards an unknown one to love.

My arms thrash about, and I can seize on no object for my love.

I am
alone and want to be two.

I speak, and no one is there to listen.

I live, and no one is there to share my life.

Why be so rich and have no one to enrich?
Where does this love come from?
Where is it going?
I want to love, Lord,
I need to love.

Here, this evening, Lord, is all my love. . . .
**********
Listen, son,
Stop,
and make, silently, a long pilgrimage to the bottom of your heart.

Walk by the side of your love so new, as one follows a brook to find
its source, and, at the very end, deep within you, in the infinite
mystery of your troubled soul, you will meet me.

For I call myself Love, son,
And from the beginning I have been nothing but Love,
And Love is in you.

It is I who made you to love,
To love eternally;
And your love will pass through another self of yours -
it is she that you seek;
Set your mind at rest; she is on your way,
on the way since the beginning,
the way of my love.

You must wait for her coming.

She is approaching.

You are approaching.

You will recognize each other,
For I've made her body for you, I've made yours for her.

I've made your heart for her, I've made hers for you.

And you seek each other, in the night,
In 'my night,' which will become Light if you trust me.

Keep yourself for her, son,
As she is keeping herself for you.

I shall keep you for one another,
And, since you hunger for love, I've put on your way all your brothers
to love.

Believe me, it's a long apprenticeship, learning to love,
And there are not several kinds of love:
Loving is always leaving oneself to go towards others. . . .
********
Lord, help me to forget myself for others, my brothers,
That in giving myself I may teach myself to love."

Michel Quoist,
France, 1954.

Defend the Faith - Worcester

JayG (Diocese of Worcester, Massachusetts - my old pieds a terre) has a wonderful Blog which tackles some of the more serious issues of our day. I recommend this Blog to those who wish to discuss - and debate - these issues. As moderator of the forum, Jay is both patient and insightful. Several of my regular readers have posted comments there. The Blog link: http://dtf-jayg.blogspot.com/

Paul.

A heroic man

Chuck Norris was the reason I started studying martial arts back in 1973. He continues to inspire me today. Not many celebrities would risk career or social status to oppose the culture of death. In fact, there are Catholics who succumb to fear of being disliked and who refuse to oppose abortion. Which is what makes the man all the more remarkable.

Mr. Norris has also used his celebrity to fight drug use and to educate women on how to defend themselves. Rather than using his celebrity for selfish ends, he uses it to advance the common good.

Sometimes good guys do wear black.

Read more from Mr. Norris at World Net Daily.

Paul.

Blessed Miguel Augustin Pro, S.J., a martyr for Christ the King, once said:


"Debemos hablar, gritar contra las injusticias, tener confianza, pero no miedo. Proclamemos los principios de la Iglesia, el reinado del amor, sin olvidar, como sucede algunas veces, el de la justicia." - "We must speak, cry out against injustice, with confidence and not with fear. We proclaim the principles of the Church, the reign of love, never forgetting that it is sometimes also a reign of justice."

Blessed Miguel Pro refused to compromise with the world and its counterfeit interpretation of love, a "love" devoid of justice and truth. And he was executed for his fidelity to the Church. Archbishop Oscar Romero had also insisted on the truth spoken in love. And he was assasinated during Holy Mass.

These two men of God spoke the truth in love. Even in a climate where the earthly powers were hostile to that truth. They spoke the truth in season and out of season. We are called to do the same. Sometimes this means confronting the status quo. Sometimes this means confronting the status quo within the Church. But our approach should never degenerate into an unholy anger. An individual left a comment at this Blog which I promptly deleted. This anonymous person compared the clergy to "whitened sepulchres." Such a comment betrays an anti-clericalism which is not welcome here.

I have always insisted that we confront those who dissent from Church teaching with the truth spoken in love (even when the truth is a hard truth). And this includes priests and religious who either dissent from Church teaching or who remain silent rather than confronting the evils of our day. But we must never engage in broad generalizations directed against the clergy (many of whom are good and faithful pastors) or religious who have consecrated their lives to God. Nor should we ever render a judgment against persons, against their interior dispositions - read Gaudium et Spes, No. 28).

Anyone who has taken the time to read my posts here knows full well that I firmly oppose such an attitude. At the same time, when an individual (be they lay person, priest or religious) dissents from Church teaching or neglects to speak out against dissent or injustice, such a person is not remaining faithful to Christ or His Church which is the Mystical Body of Christ.

Our attitude should be that of St. Paul, who exhorted us to preach the truth even when it is not welcome. Our attitude should be that of Archbishop Romero or Blessed Miguel Pro. Even if this means suffering martyrdom ourselves, which is the supreme witness of faith. But in so doing, we must never forget to speak the truth in love.

Paul.

The abortion holocaust: targeting those with Down Syndrome

"..a tree is known by its fruit." (Matthew 12:33). What then shall we say about a society which kills the unborn? What did Jesus do to the fig tree which didn't bear good fruit?

Paul.

Evangelizing in love means speaking the truth

The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines sin thusly:

"Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it i failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity. It has been defined as 'an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law.'" (CCC, 1849).

How are Christians to respond to sin and sinful structures? Again, the Catechism teaches:

"The duty of Christians to take part in the life of the Church impels them to act as witnesses of the Gospel and of the obligations that flow from it. This witness is a transmission of the faith in words and deeds. Witness is an act of justice that establishes the truth or makes it known. All Christians by the example of their lives and the witness of their word, wherever they live, have an obligation to manifest the new man which they have put on in Baptism and to reveal the power of the Holy Spirit by whom they were strengthened at Confirmation." (CCC, 2472).

This duty, this obligation, of the laity to "act as witnesses of the Gospel and of the obligations that flow from it," is too often misunderstood by even those within the Church who emphasize evangelizing in love but who disassociate love from truth. This is unfortunate since an authentic evangelization is always rooted in truth. There is no genuine love in evangelization without the truth. In the words of Archbishop Oscar Romero, the martyred Archbishop of San Salvador:

"A preaching that does not point out sin is not the preaching of the gospel. A preaching that makes sinners feel good so that they become entrenched in their sinful state, betrays the gospel's call. A preaching that does not discomfit sinners but lulls them in their sin leaves Zebulun and Naphtali in the shadow of death.

A preaching that awakens, a preaching that enlightens -- as when a light turned on awakens and of course annoys a sleeper -- that is the preaching of Christ, calling, "wake up! Be converted!" this is the church's authentic preaching. Naturally, such preaching must meet conflict, must spoil what is miscalled prestige, must disturb, must be persecuted. It cannot get along with the powers of darkness and sin."

How serious is this obligation to speak the truth in love as witnesses of the Gospel? Again, Archbishop Romero:

"Not just purgatory but hell awaits those who could have done good & did not do it. It is the reverse of the Beati-tude that the Bible has for those who are saved, for the saints,"who could have done wrong & did not." Of those who are condemned it will be said: they could have done good & did not."

I remember some years back, at a spiritual conference which featured Catholic mystic Eileen George of Meet the Father Ministry (an apostolate which is approved by the Diocese of Worcester, Massachusetts), how Mrs. George publically rebuked (in a strong but loving way) two homosexual men who were in attendance. She told them (without ever having met these men before) that the Lord Jesus had revealed to her that they were living in a homosexual relationship and that He was very sad. She told these two men that they needed to repent and leave that sin behind.

Just recently, a Catholic deacon challenged a pro-abortion politician on his support of abortion, the killing of innocent children in the womb. And both his pastor and his Bishop publically apologized for his homily which embarassed this politician. But which is worse, a moments embarassment or an eternity in hell for supporting the murder of unborn children?

Eileen George, a mystic well-known and loved throughout the world, a woman with tremendous spiritual gifts, knows the answer to this question. Which is why she publically reproved those two men who had been engaging in homosexual acts. She spoke the truth in love.

Are we prepared to do the same? Or will we fear the opinion of men more than the judgment of God?

The choice is ours: serve the Lord Jesus by speaking the truth in love (in season and out of season as St. Paul says - whether the truth is popular or not) or capitulate to political correctness while succumbing to fear of being disliked.

Paul Anthony Melanson

In his Encyclical Letter Veritatis Splendor (The Splendor of Truth), Pope John Paul II reminds us that:


"Only God can answer the question about the good, because he is the Good. But God has already given an answer to this question: he did so by creating man and ordering him with wisdom and love to his final end, through the law which is inscribed in his heart (cf. Rom 2:15), the "natural law". The latter "is nothing other than the light of understanding infused in us by God, whereby we understand what must be done and what must be avoided. God gave this light and this law to man at creation". He also did so in the history of Israel, particularly in the "ten words", the commandments of Sinai, whereby he brought into existence the people of the Covenant (cf. Ex 24) and called them to be his "own possession among all peoples", "a holy nation" (Ex 19:5-6), which would radiate his holiness to all peoples (cf. Wis 18:4; Ez 20:41).

The gift of the Decalogue was a promise and sign of the New Covenant, in which the law would be written in a new and definitive way upon the human heart (cf. Jer 31:31-34), replacing the law of sin which had disfigured that heart (cf. Jer 17:1). In those days, "a new heart" would be given, for in it would dwell "a new spirit", the Spirit of God (cf. Ez 36:24-28).

Consequently, after making the important clarification: "There is only one who is good", Jesus tells the young man: "If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments" (Mt 19:17). In this way, a close connection is made between eternal life and obedience to God's commandments: God's commandments show man the path of life and they lead to it. From the very lips of Jesus, the new Moses, man is once again given the commandments of the Decalogue. Jesus himself definitively confirms them and proposes them to us as the way and condition of salvation. The commandments are linked to a promise. In the Old Covenant the object of the promise was the possession of a land where the people would be able to live in freedom and in accordance with righteousness (cf. Dt 6:20-25).

In the New Covenant the object of the promise is the "Kingdom of Heaven", as Jesus declares at the beginning of the "Sermon on the Mount" — a sermon which contains the fullest and most complete formulation of the New Law (cf. Mt 5-7), clearly linked to the Decalogue entrusted by God to Moses on Mount Sinai. This same reality of the Kingdom is referred to in the expression "eternal life", which is a participation in the very life of God. It is attained in its perfection only after death, but in faith it is even now a light of truth, a source of meaning for life, an inchoate share in the full following of Christ. Indeed, Jesus says to his disciples after speaking to the rich young man: "Every one who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name's sake, will receive a hundredfold and inherit eternal life" (Mt 19:29).

Jesus' answer is not enough for the young man, who continues by asking the Teacher about the commandments which must be kept: "He said to him, 'Which ones?' " (Mt 19:18). He asks what he must do in life in order to show that he acknowledges God's holiness. After directing the young man's gaze towards God, Jesus reminds him of the commandments of the Decalogue regarding one's neighbour: "Jesus said: 'You shall not murder; You shall not commit adultery; You shall not bear false witness; Honour your father and mother; also, You shall love your neighbour as yourself' " (Mt 19:18-19).

From the context of the conversation, and especially from a comparison of Matthew's text with the parallel passages in Mark and Luke, it is clear that Jesus does not intend to list each and every one of the commandments required in order to "enter into life", but rather wishes to draw the young man's attention to the "centrality" of the Decalogue with regard to every other precept, inasmuch as it is the interpretation of what the words "I am the Lord your God" mean for man. Nevertheless we cannot fail to notice which commandments of the Law the Lord recalls to the young man. They are some of the commandments belonging to the so-called "second tablet" of the Decalogue, the summary (cf. Rom 13: 8-10) and foundation of which is the commandment of love of neighbour: "You shall love your neighbour as yourself" (Mt 19:19; cf. Mk 12:31). In this commandment we find a precise expression of the singular dignity of the human person, "the only creature that God has wanted for its own sake".

The different commandments of the Decalogue are really only so many reflections of the one commandment about the good of the person, at the level of the many different goods which characterize his identity as a spiritual and bodily being in relationship with God, with his neighbour and with the material world. As we read in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, "the Ten Commandments are part of God's Revelation. At the same time, they teach us man's true humanity. They shed light on the essential duties, and so indirectly on the fundamental rights, inherent in the nature of the human person".

The commandments of which Jesus reminds the young man are meant to safeguard the good of the person, the image of God, by protecting his goods. "You shall not murder; You shall not commit adultery; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness" are moral rules formulated in terms of prohibitions. These negative precepts express with particular force the ever urgent need to protect human life, the communion of persons in marriage, private property, truthfulness and people's good name.

The commandments thus represent the basic condition for love of neighbour; at the same time they are the proof of that love. They are the first necessary step on the journey towards freedom, its starting-point. "The beginning of freedom", Saint Augustine writes, "is to be free from crimes... such as murder, adultery, fornication, theft, fraud, sacrilege and so forth. When once one is without these crimes (and every Christian should be without them), one begins to lift up one's head towards freedom. But this is only the beginning of freedom, not perfect freedom...".

This certainly does not mean that Christ wishes to put the love of neighbour higher than, or even to set it apart from, the love of God. This is evident from his conversation with the teacher of the Law, who asked him a question very much like the one asked by the young man. Jesus refers him to the two commandments of love of God and love of neighbour (cf. Lk 10:25-27), and reminds him that only by observing them will he have eternal life: "Do this, and you will live" (Lk 10:28). Nonetheless it is significant that it is precisely the second of these commandments which arouses the curiosity of the teacher of the Law, who asks him: "And who is my neighbour?" (Lk 10:29). The Teacher replies with the parable of the Good Samaritan, which is critical for fully understanding the commandment of love of neighbour (cf. Lk 10:30-37).

These two commandments, on which "depend all the Law and the Prophets" (Mt 22:40), are profoundly connected and mutually related. Their inseparable unity is attested to by Christ in his words and by his very life: his mission culminates in the Cross of our Redemption (cf. Jn 3:14-15), the sign of his indivisible love for the Father and for humanity (cf. Jn 13:1).

Both the Old and the New Testaments explicitly affirm that without love of neighbour, made concrete in keeping the commandments, genuine love for God is not possible. Saint John makes the point with extraordinary forcefulness: "If anyone says, 'I love God', and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen" (Jn 4:20). The Evangelist echoes the moral preaching of Christ, expressed in a wonderful and unambiguous way in the parable of the Good Samaritan (cf. Lk 10:30-37) and in his words about the final judgment (cf. Mt 25:31-46). (VS, Nos 12-14).

Too many forget that while God loves us even when we sin (He loves even the damned - they would cease to exist if He did not), being loved by God is not enough to be in friendship with Him, because friendship is mutual love. If we all truly understood this, we would exhort others - as Jesus did - to accept God's mercy, repent of their sins, and abide in love. Furthermore, we would all warn others - as Jesus did - that hell awaits those who do not abide in love.

Recall the teaching of Vatican II (specifically Lumen Gentium, No. 14):


"They are fully incorporated in the society of the Church who, possessing the Spirit of Christ accept her entire system and all the means of salvation given to her, and are united with her as part of her visible bodily structure and through her with Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. The bonds which bind men to the Church in a visible way are profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical government and communion. He is not saved, however, who, though part of the body of the Church, does not persevere in charity. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but, as it were, only in a "bodily" manner and not "in his heart." All the Church's children should remember that their exalted status is to be attributed not to their own merits but to the special grace of Christ. If they fail moreover to respond to that grace in thought, word and deed, not only shall they not be saved but they will be the more severely judged."

"If you keep my commandments, you will remain in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commandments and remain in his love." (John 15:10).

This is a conditional statement folks. If we are engaging in adultery or homosexual acts, practicing contraception or having abortions, are we keeping His commandments? Will God be mocked? He who can neither deceive nor be deceived? Do we think to ourselves, "As long as God loves me I can continue to do these things because God is love and mercy? Do we say to others, "God and religion are about love, your opposition to my homosexual acts or my adultery is unloving?"

Do we honestly believe that we can remain in Jesus' love without keeping His commandments? If so, we make Jesus a liar and His word, His Love, His life is not in us. Spiritually, we are dead.

Paul Anthony Melanson