Father James Scahill continues to be a source of division among Catholics in Hampshire County, Massachusetts. The dissident priest, who has engaged in calumny against Pope Benedict XVI while referring to the Mystical Body of Christ as "insidiously evil," has become a source of division because he has forgotten the teaching of Vatican II on the ministry and life of priests as outlined in Presbyterorum Ordinis, No. 7: "All priests, in union with bishops, so share in one and the same priesthood and ministry of Christ that the very unity of their consecration and mission requires their hierarchical communion with the order of bishops....Priests, never losing sight of the fullness of the priesthood which the bishops enjoy, must respect in them the authority of Christ, the supreme shepherd. They must therefore stand by their bishops in sincere charity and obedience.
The faithful expect their priests to be men of faith and prayer who provide an example of charity. They want to see Christ's love incarnate in the life of a priest. And Father Scahill has failed in this regard.
Saturday, April 17, 2010
The coming civil unrest....
Our Lady to Fr. Stephano Gobbi,
November 15, 1990,
Malvern PA
"I announce to you that the hour of the great trial is on the point of arriving. The great trial has arrived for your country. How many times, as a concerned and sorrowing mother, have I endeavored to urge my children to follow the path of conversion and of return to the Lord. I have not been listened to. You have continued to walk along the way of rejection of God, and of His law of love. Sins of impurity have become ever more widespread, and immorality has spread like a sea which has submerged all things.
Homosexuality, a sin of impurity which is against nature, has been justified; recourse to the means of preventing life have become commonplace, while abortions - these killings of innocent children, that cry for vengeance before the face of God - have spread and are performed in every part of your homeland. The moment of divine justice and of great mercy has now arrived.
You will know the hour of weakness and of poverty; the hour of suffering and defeat; the purifying hour of the great chastisement. The great trial has arrived for your Church. How great is your responsibility, O Pastors of the Holy Church of God! You continue along the path of division from the Pope and of the rejection of his Magisterium; indeed, in a hidden way, there is in preparation a true schism which could soon become open and proclaimed...And then, there will remain only a small faithful remnant, over which I will keep watch in the garden of my Immaculate Heart.The great trial has arrived for all humanity. The chastisement, predicted by me at Fatima and contained in that part of the secret which has not yet been revealed, is about to take place. The great moment of divine justice and of mercy has come upon the world."
I have warned about the coming unrest and what Our Lady has foretold in numerous posts. See here, here and here for example.
November 15, 1990,
Malvern PA
"I announce to you that the hour of the great trial is on the point of arriving. The great trial has arrived for your country. How many times, as a concerned and sorrowing mother, have I endeavored to urge my children to follow the path of conversion and of return to the Lord. I have not been listened to. You have continued to walk along the way of rejection of God, and of His law of love. Sins of impurity have become ever more widespread, and immorality has spread like a sea which has submerged all things.
Homosexuality, a sin of impurity which is against nature, has been justified; recourse to the means of preventing life have become commonplace, while abortions - these killings of innocent children, that cry for vengeance before the face of God - have spread and are performed in every part of your homeland. The moment of divine justice and of great mercy has now arrived.
You will know the hour of weakness and of poverty; the hour of suffering and defeat; the purifying hour of the great chastisement. The great trial has arrived for your Church. How great is your responsibility, O Pastors of the Holy Church of God! You continue along the path of division from the Pope and of the rejection of his Magisterium; indeed, in a hidden way, there is in preparation a true schism which could soon become open and proclaimed...And then, there will remain only a small faithful remnant, over which I will keep watch in the garden of my Immaculate Heart.The great trial has arrived for all humanity. The chastisement, predicted by me at Fatima and contained in that part of the secret which has not yet been revealed, is about to take place. The great moment of divine justice and of mercy has come upon the world."
I have warned about the coming unrest and what Our Lady has foretold in numerous posts. See here, here and here for example.
Related reading here.
Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons: Cardinal Bertone correct in linking clerical sex abuse and homosexuality
Of course His Eminence was right. Dr. Timothy J. Dailey has authored a report which also shows the link between homosexuality and child abuse. Read the substance of his report here. It must also be noted that Harry Hay, the man who first organized homosexuals as a political minority, was an advocate of "pedophile rights" as well as an ardent supporter of NAMBLA - the North American Man/Boy Love Association - a group which advocates for the legalization of sex between men and boys as well as and end to all "age of consent" laws.
Sex between men and boys has long been a part of homosexual culture and history as documented by openly homosexual history professor William Armstrong Percy III in his book entitled "Pederasty and Pedagogy in Archaic Greece." See here.
Related data on the link between homosexuality and sex abuse here.
Homosexuality as psychopathology here.
Despite the demonstrated link between homosexuality and sex abuse, the Massachusetts House wants to spend millions of taxpayer dollars - in the middle of this financial meltdown - to promote homosexual programs in the schools. See here. Radical homosexual activists want access to your children. And they want you to pay for this homosexual agitprop.
Sex between men and boys has long been a part of homosexual culture and history as documented by openly homosexual history professor William Armstrong Percy III in his book entitled "Pederasty and Pedagogy in Archaic Greece." See here.
Related data on the link between homosexuality and sex abuse here.
Homosexuality as psychopathology here.
Despite the demonstrated link between homosexuality and sex abuse, the Massachusetts House wants to spend millions of taxpayer dollars - in the middle of this financial meltdown - to promote homosexual programs in the schools. See here. Radical homosexual activists want access to your children. And they want you to pay for this homosexual agitprop.
Friday, April 16, 2010
The intellectual insecurity of the atheist and where it eventually leads...
The atheist is crippled by an intellectual insecurity. He must strive continually to convince others - and even himself - that God does not exist. But he is always haunted by the fear that he has not really banished the presence or power of the Divine Other. This canker of insecurity, which gnaws at his heart unceasingly, manifests itself in the incessant need to propagandize against belief in God.
For example Richard Dawkins, an atheist who authored "The God Delusion," devotes much if not most of his time attempting to convince others that belief in God is even dangerous (see here). This charge is most ironic since, as Fr. Vincent Miceli, S.J., reminds us, "When man becomes his own absolute center, then God becomes his hell, because God sets limits to man's greatness. But once having attained autoerotic sovereignty, a monstrous metamorphosis takes place in atheist man. He begins to feed on his fellow men, for they now are his hell, threatening to rob him of his freedom. When God is rejected because he is seen as man's hell, then man, whom God loves, suffers the same fate and for the same reason. There is a frightening resemblance between the atheist humanist as a cell of society and a malignantly cancerous cell in the human body. Both cells have thrown off any service of subordination to the health of the communities in which they thrive. They act and grow according to their own uncontrolled ravenous appetites feeding parasitically on the whole organism. As runaway cells they invade and destroy every healthy cell in the body until they extinguish life and speed to completion the total disintegration of the unity of the body. Atheistic humanism is a psychic cancer. It shares two major characteristics with physical cancer. Both these human cancers arise from the arbitrary rebellion of a subordinate cell against the established social harmony of the whole. Secondly, both these cancerous rebellions are metastatic and messianic in their aggression to the death against organism and community." (The Gods of Atheism, pp. 463-464).
Gilbert Keith Chesterton reminded us that when man denies God he does not believe in nothing. Rather he will believe in anything. Moreover, he will not do nothing but as a fanatic he will do anything:
"There are men who will ruin themselves and ruin their civilization if they may ruin also this old fantastic tale. This is the last and most astounding fact about this faith; that its enemies will use any weapon against it, the sword that cuts their own fingers, and the firebrands that burn their own homes...He [the atheist fanatic who is crippled by his own insecurity] sacrifices the very existence of humanity to the non-existence of God. He offers his victims not to the altar, but merely to assert the idleness of the altar and the emptiness of the throne. He is ready to ruin even that primary ethic by which all things live, for his strange and eternal vengeance upon some one who never lived at all." (Orthodoxy, pp. 238-239).
Atheistic fanatics have a long history of unmatched violence. Today, fanatical rhetoric from atheist fanatics has resulted in actual violence against the Church as well as calls for such violence. See here.
God is not the delusion. The myth of the atheistic humanist who truly values reason is the real delusion.
For example Richard Dawkins, an atheist who authored "The God Delusion," devotes much if not most of his time attempting to convince others that belief in God is even dangerous (see here). This charge is most ironic since, as Fr. Vincent Miceli, S.J., reminds us, "When man becomes his own absolute center, then God becomes his hell, because God sets limits to man's greatness. But once having attained autoerotic sovereignty, a monstrous metamorphosis takes place in atheist man. He begins to feed on his fellow men, for they now are his hell, threatening to rob him of his freedom. When God is rejected because he is seen as man's hell, then man, whom God loves, suffers the same fate and for the same reason. There is a frightening resemblance between the atheist humanist as a cell of society and a malignantly cancerous cell in the human body. Both cells have thrown off any service of subordination to the health of the communities in which they thrive. They act and grow according to their own uncontrolled ravenous appetites feeding parasitically on the whole organism. As runaway cells they invade and destroy every healthy cell in the body until they extinguish life and speed to completion the total disintegration of the unity of the body. Atheistic humanism is a psychic cancer. It shares two major characteristics with physical cancer. Both these human cancers arise from the arbitrary rebellion of a subordinate cell against the established social harmony of the whole. Secondly, both these cancerous rebellions are metastatic and messianic in their aggression to the death against organism and community." (The Gods of Atheism, pp. 463-464).
Gilbert Keith Chesterton reminded us that when man denies God he does not believe in nothing. Rather he will believe in anything. Moreover, he will not do nothing but as a fanatic he will do anything:
"There are men who will ruin themselves and ruin their civilization if they may ruin also this old fantastic tale. This is the last and most astounding fact about this faith; that its enemies will use any weapon against it, the sword that cuts their own fingers, and the firebrands that burn their own homes...He [the atheist fanatic who is crippled by his own insecurity] sacrifices the very existence of humanity to the non-existence of God. He offers his victims not to the altar, but merely to assert the idleness of the altar and the emptiness of the throne. He is ready to ruin even that primary ethic by which all things live, for his strange and eternal vengeance upon some one who never lived at all." (Orthodoxy, pp. 238-239).
Atheistic fanatics have a long history of unmatched violence. Today, fanatical rhetoric from atheist fanatics has resulted in actual violence against the Church as well as calls for such violence. See here.
God is not the delusion. The myth of the atheistic humanist who truly values reason is the real delusion.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
German theologian Hans Kung is urging Bishops to disobey the Pope and to push for "reforms" in the Roman Catholic Church
"Take away self-will, and there will no longer be any hell." - St. Bernard.
What exactly does Mr. Kung have in mind when he exhorts Bishops to sin by disobedience and to push for "reforms" in the Roman Catholic Church? Mr. Kung would like to see, in fact he has called for, a more "democratic church." See here.
But a "democratic church" would constitute a disaster. How so? Dr. Dietrich von Hildebrand, in his essay entitled "Democratization of the Church," explains: "...here we encounter the ridiculous demand that in our democratic time the Church be made democratic in her external structure,in her Canon Law, and in her administration. One overlooks the radical difference between the holy Church and natural communities such as the state; one is hindered by secularization and this-worldliness from seeing that what is possible, and perhaps even justified and desirable in the structure and administration of the state, is impossible in the Church and would contradict her meaning and nature and thus be a catastrophic evil. The holy Church is 'authoritarian' because of her supernatural divine origin, although this term takes on here a completely new meaning, quite different from its meaning when applied to the state. The authority of the Church is sacred. All genuine authority, whether of parents or of the state, is a partial representation of God. But in the case of the Church the representation of God is not just grounded in the kind of community which the Church is; it was explicitly established by Christ, the Son of God. His words, 'You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church,' as well as the words which follow and are addressed to the Apostles, 'Whatever you will bindon earth, will be bound in heaven...,' show clearly the direct, explicit authority which God has committed to the Church, and which gives her a sacred character which no natural authority has..."
Various individuals and groups are attempting to use the recent abuse scandals within the Church as a pretext to agitate for "structural change" and "democratic reforms." These modern-day Judases have a death-wish for that sacred character which results from the explicit authority which Christ Jesus Himself committed to the Church. These are antichrists preparing the way for the Man of Sin and his kingdom of rebellion. A kingdom of self-will and self-worship.
VOTF continues its calumny against Pope Benedict XVI...
VOTF, the anti-Catholic dissent group which imparted its "Priest of Integrity" award to Father James Scahill, the out-of-control cleric who referred to Jesus as "insidiously evil," and calumniated Pope Benedict XVI on Divine Mercy Sunday, continues to calumniate the Holy Father and the Church's hierarchy. See here.
The time has come for the U.S. Bishops to denounce this organization as a body. VOTF is not a Catholic organization and the group fails to live up to the demands of the Catholic apostolate which were laid out extensively at Vatican II. For example, in its Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity (Apostolicam Actuositatem), Vatican II had this to say:
"Whether the lay apostolate is exercised by the faithful as individuals or as members of organizations, it should be incorporated into the apostolate of the whole Church according to a right system of relationships. Indeed, union with those whom the Holy Spirit has assigned to rule His Church (cf. Acts 20:28) is an essential element of the Christian apostolate. No less necessary is cooperation among various projects of the apostolate which must be suitably directed by the hierarchy.
Indeed, the spirit of unity should be promoted in order that fraternal charity may be resplendent in the whole apostolate of the Church, common goals may be attained, and destructive rivalries avoided. For this there is need for mutual esteem among all the forms of the apostolate in the Church and, with due respect for the particular character of each organization, proper coordination. This is most fitting since a particular activity in the Church requires harmony and apostolic cooperation on the part of both branches of the clergy, the Religious, and the laity." (No. 23).
VOTF has violated these principles of the Catholic apostolate. The organization actively encourages opposition to Church teaching and is now engaged in a calumny which, objectively speaking, constitutes a mortal sin since it is calculated to to serious harm to the reputations of certain members of the Church's hierarchy and most especially the Holy Father.
Canon Law defines the obligations and rights of the Christian faithful. Canon 212 states clearly that, "In accord with the knowledge, competence and preeminence which they possess, they have the right and even at times a duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church, and they have a right to make their opinion known to the other Christian faithful, with due regard for the integrity of faith and morals and reverence toward their pastors, with consideration for the common good and the dignity of persons."
VOTF has failed to show "due regard for the integrity of faith and morals" and "reverence toward their pastors." Calumny directed against the Church's Pastors does not constitute reverence. Nor has VOTF shown anything but contempt for the common good. VOTF is not sreving the good of the Church. The organization has betrayed the Church and has shown itself willing to engage in hateful calumny as it sows destructive rivalries within the Mystical Body of Christ.
Let's hope the U.S. Bishops will take action and soon.
Related reading here and here.
What did Fr. Scahill know about abuse and when?
The time has come for the U.S. Bishops to denounce this organization as a body. VOTF is not a Catholic organization and the group fails to live up to the demands of the Catholic apostolate which were laid out extensively at Vatican II. For example, in its Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity (Apostolicam Actuositatem), Vatican II had this to say:
"Whether the lay apostolate is exercised by the faithful as individuals or as members of organizations, it should be incorporated into the apostolate of the whole Church according to a right system of relationships. Indeed, union with those whom the Holy Spirit has assigned to rule His Church (cf. Acts 20:28) is an essential element of the Christian apostolate. No less necessary is cooperation among various projects of the apostolate which must be suitably directed by the hierarchy.
Indeed, the spirit of unity should be promoted in order that fraternal charity may be resplendent in the whole apostolate of the Church, common goals may be attained, and destructive rivalries avoided. For this there is need for mutual esteem among all the forms of the apostolate in the Church and, with due respect for the particular character of each organization, proper coordination. This is most fitting since a particular activity in the Church requires harmony and apostolic cooperation on the part of both branches of the clergy, the Religious, and the laity." (No. 23).
VOTF has violated these principles of the Catholic apostolate. The organization actively encourages opposition to Church teaching and is now engaged in a calumny which, objectively speaking, constitutes a mortal sin since it is calculated to to serious harm to the reputations of certain members of the Church's hierarchy and most especially the Holy Father.
Canon Law defines the obligations and rights of the Christian faithful. Canon 212 states clearly that, "In accord with the knowledge, competence and preeminence which they possess, they have the right and even at times a duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church, and they have a right to make their opinion known to the other Christian faithful, with due regard for the integrity of faith and morals and reverence toward their pastors, with consideration for the common good and the dignity of persons."
VOTF has failed to show "due regard for the integrity of faith and morals" and "reverence toward their pastors." Calumny directed against the Church's Pastors does not constitute reverence. Nor has VOTF shown anything but contempt for the common good. VOTF is not sreving the good of the Church. The organization has betrayed the Church and has shown itself willing to engage in hateful calumny as it sows destructive rivalries within the Mystical Body of Christ.
Let's hope the U.S. Bishops will take action and soon.
Related reading here and here.
What did Fr. Scahill know about abuse and when?
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Father James Scahill and what is appropriate at Holy Mass...
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in its Instruction entitled "Considerations Regarding Proposals To Give Legal Recognition To Unions Between Homosexual Persons," has this to say in nos. 2-4:
"The Church's teaching on marriage and on the complementarity of the sexes reiterates a truth that is evident to right reason and recognized as such by all the major cultures of the world. Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It was established by the Creator with its own nature, essential properties and purpose. No ideology can erase from the human spirit the certainty that marriage exists solely between a man and a woman, who by mutual personal gift, proper and exclusive to themselves, tend toward the communion of their persons. In this way, they mutually perfect each other, in order to cooperate with God in the procreation and upbringing of new human lives.
The natural truth about marriage was confirmed by the Revelation contained in the biblical accounts of creation, an expression also of the original human wisdom, in which the voice of nature itself is heard. There are three fundamental elements of the Creator's plan for marriage, as narrated in the Book of Genesis.
In the first place, man, the image of God, was created "male and female" (Gen 1:27). Men and women are equal as persons and complementary as male and female. Sexuality is something that pertains to the physical-biological realm and has also been raised to a new level — the personal level — where nature and spirit are united.
Marriage is instituted by the Creator as a form of life in which a communion of persons is realized involving the use of the sexual faculty. "That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife and they become one flesh" (Gen 2:24).
Third, God has willed to give the union of man and woman a special participation in his work of creation. Thus, he blessed the man and the woman with the words "Be fruitful and multiply" (Gen 1:28). Therefore, in the Creator's plan, sexual complementarity and fruitfulness belong to the very nature of marriage.
Furthermore, the marital union of man and woman has been elevated by Christ to the dignity of a sacrament. The Church teaches that Christian marriage is an efficacious sign of the covenant between Christ and the Church (cf. Eph 5:32). This Christian meaning of marriage, far from diminishing the profoundly human value of the marital union between man and woman, confirms and strengthens it (cf. Mt 19:3-12; Mk 10:6-9).
There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God's plan for marriage and family. Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law. Homosexual acts "close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved."
And in an Instruction entitled "Some Considerations Concerning The Response To Legislative Proposals On The Non-Discrimination Of Homosexual Persons," issued on July 22, 1992, the CDF had this to say: "'Sexual orientation' does not constitute a quality comparable to race, ethnic background, etc. in respect to non-discrimination. Unlike these, homosexual orientation is an objective disorder and evokes moral concern." (No. 10). And again: "Including 'homosexual orientation' among the considerations on the basis of which it is illegal to discriminate can easily lead to regarding homosexuality as a positive source of human rights, for example, in respect to so-called affirmative action or preferential treatment in hiring practices. This is all the more deleterious since there is no right to homosexuality which therefore should not form the basis for judicial claims. The passage from the recognition of homosexuality as a factor on which basis it is illegal to discriminate can easily lead, if not automatically, to the legislative protection and promotion of homosexuality. A person's homosexuality would be invoked in opposition to alleged discrimination, and thus the exercise of rights would be defended precisely via the affirmation of the homosexual condition instead of in terms of a violation of basic human rights." (No. 13).
And yet, Father James Scahill, VOTF's "Priest of Integrity," the same confused dissident priest who thought it was appropriate to level false accusations against the Holy Father on Divine Mercy Sunday and to call for His Holiness to "step down," didn't feel it was appropriate to oppose same-sex "marriage" during Holy Mass. Back in 2004, WWLP-TV22 reported that Fr. Scahill had chosen not to distribute or even collect petitions in opposition to same-sex "marriage" as Catholic parishes across Massachusetts were doing.
When 22News asked Fr. Scahill why he had decided against distributing or collecting the petitions upholding the Church's authoritative teaching on same-sex unions, he responded, This is a parish that is all embracing and all welcoming...to do this on a weekend to me is not appropriate and I believe the majority of people at St. Michael's would agree with me..." Let's hope not. Apparently St. Michael's is not "all welcoming" when it comes to the Church's authentic teaching on marriage.
Why am I not surprised? Time for Father Scahill to go.
"The Church's teaching on marriage and on the complementarity of the sexes reiterates a truth that is evident to right reason and recognized as such by all the major cultures of the world. Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It was established by the Creator with its own nature, essential properties and purpose. No ideology can erase from the human spirit the certainty that marriage exists solely between a man and a woman, who by mutual personal gift, proper and exclusive to themselves, tend toward the communion of their persons. In this way, they mutually perfect each other, in order to cooperate with God in the procreation and upbringing of new human lives.
The natural truth about marriage was confirmed by the Revelation contained in the biblical accounts of creation, an expression also of the original human wisdom, in which the voice of nature itself is heard. There are three fundamental elements of the Creator's plan for marriage, as narrated in the Book of Genesis.
In the first place, man, the image of God, was created "male and female" (Gen 1:27). Men and women are equal as persons and complementary as male and female. Sexuality is something that pertains to the physical-biological realm and has also been raised to a new level — the personal level — where nature and spirit are united.
Marriage is instituted by the Creator as a form of life in which a communion of persons is realized involving the use of the sexual faculty. "That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife and they become one flesh" (Gen 2:24).
Third, God has willed to give the union of man and woman a special participation in his work of creation. Thus, he blessed the man and the woman with the words "Be fruitful and multiply" (Gen 1:28). Therefore, in the Creator's plan, sexual complementarity and fruitfulness belong to the very nature of marriage.
Furthermore, the marital union of man and woman has been elevated by Christ to the dignity of a sacrament. The Church teaches that Christian marriage is an efficacious sign of the covenant between Christ and the Church (cf. Eph 5:32). This Christian meaning of marriage, far from diminishing the profoundly human value of the marital union between man and woman, confirms and strengthens it (cf. Mt 19:3-12; Mk 10:6-9).
There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God's plan for marriage and family. Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law. Homosexual acts "close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved."
And in an Instruction entitled "Some Considerations Concerning The Response To Legislative Proposals On The Non-Discrimination Of Homosexual Persons," issued on July 22, 1992, the CDF had this to say: "'Sexual orientation' does not constitute a quality comparable to race, ethnic background, etc. in respect to non-discrimination. Unlike these, homosexual orientation is an objective disorder and evokes moral concern." (No. 10). And again: "Including 'homosexual orientation' among the considerations on the basis of which it is illegal to discriminate can easily lead to regarding homosexuality as a positive source of human rights, for example, in respect to so-called affirmative action or preferential treatment in hiring practices. This is all the more deleterious since there is no right to homosexuality which therefore should not form the basis for judicial claims. The passage from the recognition of homosexuality as a factor on which basis it is illegal to discriminate can easily lead, if not automatically, to the legislative protection and promotion of homosexuality. A person's homosexuality would be invoked in opposition to alleged discrimination, and thus the exercise of rights would be defended precisely via the affirmation of the homosexual condition instead of in terms of a violation of basic human rights." (No. 13).
And yet, Father James Scahill, VOTF's "Priest of Integrity," the same confused dissident priest who thought it was appropriate to level false accusations against the Holy Father on Divine Mercy Sunday and to call for His Holiness to "step down," didn't feel it was appropriate to oppose same-sex "marriage" during Holy Mass. Back in 2004, WWLP-TV22 reported that Fr. Scahill had chosen not to distribute or even collect petitions in opposition to same-sex "marriage" as Catholic parishes across Massachusetts were doing.
When 22News asked Fr. Scahill why he had decided against distributing or collecting the petitions upholding the Church's authoritative teaching on same-sex unions, he responded, This is a parish that is all embracing and all welcoming...to do this on a weekend to me is not appropriate and I believe the majority of people at St. Michael's would agree with me..." Let's hope not. Apparently St. Michael's is not "all welcoming" when it comes to the Church's authentic teaching on marriage.
Why am I not surprised? Time for Father Scahill to go.
Father James Scahill, VOTF's "Priest of Integrity" knew about Father Lavigne and said nothing.
Update on Father James Scahill:
Voice of the Faithful (VOTF) awarded its "Priest of Integrity" award to Fr. James Scahill, who has used his pulpit to call upon Pope Benedict XVI to step down while denouncing various Church officials for the way they handled reports of abuse. Fr. Scahill knew that Father Richard Lavigne was bothering children and never said or did anything about it back in the early 1990s. See here. The question is: how much did Fr. Scahill know? Did he know children were being sexually abused? How were these children being "bothered"?
It looks like VOTF has its own definition of "integrity." More on Fr. Richard Lavigne here.
Related: What VOTF and other dissenting individuals and groups don't want you to know:
The link between homosexuality and sex abuse. Courtesy of the Catholic League.
Voice of the Faithful (VOTF) awarded its "Priest of Integrity" award to Fr. James Scahill, who has used his pulpit to call upon Pope Benedict XVI to step down while denouncing various Church officials for the way they handled reports of abuse. Fr. Scahill knew that Father Richard Lavigne was bothering children and never said or did anything about it back in the early 1990s. See here. The question is: how much did Fr. Scahill know? Did he know children were being sexually abused? How were these children being "bothered"?
It looks like VOTF has its own definition of "integrity." More on Fr. Richard Lavigne here.
Related: What VOTF and other dissenting individuals and groups don't want you to know:
The link between homosexuality and sex abuse. Courtesy of the Catholic League.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Father James Scahill denies the Catholic Church is the Church of Christ...
Father James Scahill, the dissident priest who has received high praise from the anti-Catholic dissent group Voice of the Faithful (VOTF) and has used his pulpit to level false accusations against the Holy Father, has said that the Catholic Church is "not the church of Jesus Christ" and is "insidiously evil." One cannot help but wonder why he stays then. Of course, in saying that the Catholic Church is not the Church of Jesus Christ, Father Scahill is placing himself outside of the Church's communion.
In his Encyclical Letter Satis Cognitum, Pope Leo XIII explained that "...There is clear and abundant proof in Sacred Scripture that there is one genuine Church of Jesus Christ. All agree on this and no Christian would dare deny it." And Pope Pius XII, in Mystici Corporis, teaches us that: "Our divine Redeemer also governs his mystical body in a visible and ordinary way through his vicar on earth..after he himself had ruled the 'little flock' in a visible manner during his mortal pilgrimage, when about to leave this world and return to the Father, Christ our Lord entrusted to the Prince of the Apostles the visible government of the entire community He had founded. He was all wise; and it was absolutely necessary for him to provide with a visible head the body of the Church he had founded as a human society. Nor against this may one argue that the primacy of jurisdiction established in the Church gives such a mystical body two heads. For Peter in virtue of his primacy is only Christ's vicar; so that there is only one chief head of this body, namely Christ. He never ceases personally to guide the Church by an unseen hand, though at the same time he rules it externally, visibly through him who is his representative on earth. After his glorious Ascension into heaven, this Church rests not on him alone, but on Peter, too, its visible foundation stone. That Christ and his vicar constitute only one head is the solemn teaching of Our predecessor of immortal memory, Boniface VIII, in the Apostolic Letter Unam sanctam; and his successors have never ceased to repeat the same. Therefore, those who believe that they can accept Christ as the head of the Church, without giving loyal adherence to his vicar on earth, walk the path of dangerous error. They have taken away the visible head, broken the visible bonds of unity, and they so disfigure the true concept of the mystical body of the Redeemer that it cannot be recognized or found by those who are seeking the haven of eternal salvation.."
In the same Encyclical Letter, Pope Pius XII describes the Church as a "perfect society." He writes, "..the Church, which should be considered a perfect society in its own right, is not made up of merely moral and juridical elements and principles. It is far superior to all other human societies,; it surpasses them as grace surpasses nature, as things immortal are above all those that perish.."
But Father Scahill has referred to the Mystical Body of Christ, this "perfect society," as "insidiously evil." And so, Father Scahill has called Christ insidiously evil, for the Church is His Mystical Body. Recall that when Saul was persecuting the Church, Our Lord Jesus came to him and identified Himself as "Jesus whom you are persecuting." (Acts 9: 5). Every attack on the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, is an attack on Jesus Himself.
And He has promised to repay each according to his deeds.
Related reading:
Fr. Fessio, S.J., Getting the story straight.
Monday, April 12, 2010
Father James Scahill accuses the Holy Father of being untruthful...
More hypocrisy from the liberal corner of the Catholic Church.
Fr. James Scahill, pastor of Saint Michael's Parish in East Longmeadow, Massachusetts, used his pulpit yesterday to call upon Pope Benedict XVI to step down. Father Scahill accused the Holy Father of not being truthful but failed to back up his wild accusations with anything of substance. In other words, Father Scahill is merely regurgitating what he's heard from the liberal media or other anti-Catholic sources.
Interestingly, Father Scahill has received the "priest of integrity" award from the radical dissent group "Voice of the Faithful" - VOTF, an organization which has been referred to by many Bishops as "anti-Catholic." See here. One is known by the company one keeps. But enough of Father Scahill's fantasy. His groundless accusations are a matter for the Catholic League to address.
But I am reminded of a pro-life prophet I defended some two years ago at this Blog. Remember Deacon Tom McDonnell from the Diocese of Buffalo, New York who was criticized by his own Bishop, Edward Kmiec, and many throughout the Catholic media (mostly those in liberal circles) - but sadly also Deal Hudson - for having the courage to correct the errors of U.S. Representative Brian Higgins (for his pro-abortion positions) from the pulpit? Bishop Kmiec issued a statement saying that, "The pulpit is not the appropriate place for confronting a member of the congregation..." I refuted this silly notion here.
Why are the Catholic media not saying the same thing now? If the pulpit is "not the appropriate place" for confronting a Culture of Death politician, should it be used to attack the Vicar of Christ with false accusations?
Anyone?
Related reading here.
Washington Post: Pope did not impede defrocking of priest.
Atheists plan to arrest Pope Benedict XVI in London...
The falsehoods alleging that Pope Benedict XVI engaged in attempts to cover-up the abuse of children have been thoroughly refuted and are without merit. But the attacks continue. This is a spiritual war with atheistic humanists, homosexual and abortion activists attempting to discredit the Vicar of Christ and the Catholic Church which is the Mystical Body of Christ.
Father Livio Fanzaga, in his book "Wrath of God: The Days of the Antichrist," notes that, "Benson [Robert Hugh Benson] highlights and denounces a particular historical position according to which Christianity has failed in its objectives. While the founder of Christianity preached non-violence, in the course of its history Christianity has frequently witnessed or instigated violence and war. The followers of Christ, who promised peace, promote war and violence. This is the fundamental tenet of a particular outlook on the Church which, even today, is quite commonly accepted. Similar objections are made to Christianity when justice is considered. Christianity is accused of failure to institute justice.
Benson clearly perceived the rise of this outlook, and its analysis of Christianity's history. Exponents of this position clamor for the Catholic Church to be called to a kind of Nuremberg trial. They regard the Church as the source of all the woes and horrors of the past two millennia. They hold the Churhc responsible for wars and offer the Crusades as proof of their claims. Pointing to the Inquisition, they accuse the Catholic Church of intolerance. Moreover, citing the death penalty and the persecution of heretics, they impute to the Catholic Church a lack of respect for human life and, because of its condemnation of class struggle, they blame it for the continuing presence of poverty in the world. Benson fully realized the existence of this outlook....It's objective is to bring Catholicism to account and condemn it without appeal. Such is part of the effort to eradicate Christianity and is directed against the most dangerous and best organized form of Christianity which is, of course, the Catholic Church. After two millennia, the imputation of the great pagan historian, Tacitus, is once again revived: the Christians are the enemies of the human race (Annals, XV, 44). The heart of the modern world, according to Benson, is imbued with the same belief." (pp. 137-138).
As I have said in previous posts, the new religion must destroy the Catholic Church and vices must be turned into gods in preparation for the Man of Sin. Christopher Hitchens, one of the atheists calling for Pope Benedict XVI's arrest, has asserted that, "Many of the teachings of Christianity are, as well as being incredible and mythical, immoral. I would principally wish to cite the concept of vicarious redemption, whereby one's own responsibilities can be flung onto a scapegoat and thereby taken away. In my book, I argue that I can pay your debt or even take your place in prison but I cannot absolve you of what you actually did. This exorbitant fantasy of "forgiveness" is unfortunately matched by an equally extreme admonition—which is that the refusal to accept such a sublime offer may be punishable by eternal damnation. Not even the Old Testament, which speaks hotly in recommending genocide, slavery, genital mutilation, and other horrors, stoops to mention the torture of the dead. Those who tell this evil story to small children are not damned by me, but have been damned by history and should also be condemned by those who shrink from cruelty to children (a moral essential that underlies all cultures)." (See here).
The effort to eradicate Christianity will reach its zenith when the Man of Sin appears. As Romano Guardini said in The Lord, "One day the Antichrist will come: a human being who introduces an order of things in which rebellion against God will attain its ultimate power. He will be filled with enlightenment and strength. The ultimate aim of all aims will be to prove that existence witout Christ is possible - nay rather, that Christ is the enemy of existence, which can be fully realized only when all Christian values have been destroyed. His arguments will be so impressive, supported by means of such tremendous power - violent and diplomatic, material and intellectual - that to reject them will result in almost insurmountable scandal, and everyone whose eyes are not opened by grace will be lost. Then it will be clear what the Christian essence really is: that which stems not from the world, but from the heart of God; victory of grace over the world; redemption of the world, for her true essence is not to be found in herself, but in God, from whom she has received it. When God becomes all in all, the world will finally burst into flower."
Related reading: Catechism of the Catholic Church, 675.
Father Livio Fanzaga, in his book "Wrath of God: The Days of the Antichrist," notes that, "Benson [Robert Hugh Benson] highlights and denounces a particular historical position according to which Christianity has failed in its objectives. While the founder of Christianity preached non-violence, in the course of its history Christianity has frequently witnessed or instigated violence and war. The followers of Christ, who promised peace, promote war and violence. This is the fundamental tenet of a particular outlook on the Church which, even today, is quite commonly accepted. Similar objections are made to Christianity when justice is considered. Christianity is accused of failure to institute justice.
Benson clearly perceived the rise of this outlook, and its analysis of Christianity's history. Exponents of this position clamor for the Catholic Church to be called to a kind of Nuremberg trial. They regard the Church as the source of all the woes and horrors of the past two millennia. They hold the Churhc responsible for wars and offer the Crusades as proof of their claims. Pointing to the Inquisition, they accuse the Catholic Church of intolerance. Moreover, citing the death penalty and the persecution of heretics, they impute to the Catholic Church a lack of respect for human life and, because of its condemnation of class struggle, they blame it for the continuing presence of poverty in the world. Benson fully realized the existence of this outlook....It's objective is to bring Catholicism to account and condemn it without appeal. Such is part of the effort to eradicate Christianity and is directed against the most dangerous and best organized form of Christianity which is, of course, the Catholic Church. After two millennia, the imputation of the great pagan historian, Tacitus, is once again revived: the Christians are the enemies of the human race (Annals, XV, 44). The heart of the modern world, according to Benson, is imbued with the same belief." (pp. 137-138).
As I have said in previous posts, the new religion must destroy the Catholic Church and vices must be turned into gods in preparation for the Man of Sin. Christopher Hitchens, one of the atheists calling for Pope Benedict XVI's arrest, has asserted that, "Many of the teachings of Christianity are, as well as being incredible and mythical, immoral. I would principally wish to cite the concept of vicarious redemption, whereby one's own responsibilities can be flung onto a scapegoat and thereby taken away. In my book, I argue that I can pay your debt or even take your place in prison but I cannot absolve you of what you actually did. This exorbitant fantasy of "forgiveness" is unfortunately matched by an equally extreme admonition—which is that the refusal to accept such a sublime offer may be punishable by eternal damnation. Not even the Old Testament, which speaks hotly in recommending genocide, slavery, genital mutilation, and other horrors, stoops to mention the torture of the dead. Those who tell this evil story to small children are not damned by me, but have been damned by history and should also be condemned by those who shrink from cruelty to children (a moral essential that underlies all cultures)." (See here).
The effort to eradicate Christianity will reach its zenith when the Man of Sin appears. As Romano Guardini said in The Lord, "One day the Antichrist will come: a human being who introduces an order of things in which rebellion against God will attain its ultimate power. He will be filled with enlightenment and strength. The ultimate aim of all aims will be to prove that existence witout Christ is possible - nay rather, that Christ is the enemy of existence, which can be fully realized only when all Christian values have been destroyed. His arguments will be so impressive, supported by means of such tremendous power - violent and diplomatic, material and intellectual - that to reject them will result in almost insurmountable scandal, and everyone whose eyes are not opened by grace will be lost. Then it will be clear what the Christian essence really is: that which stems not from the world, but from the heart of God; victory of grace over the world; redemption of the world, for her true essence is not to be found in herself, but in God, from whom she has received it. When God becomes all in all, the world will finally burst into flower."
Related reading: Catechism of the Catholic Church, 675.
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Homosexuality as psychopathology...
In the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith's Letter to Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons, Cardinal Ratzinger summarized the biblical teaching on homosexuality and explained why the Church's teaching on this subject follows necessarily from her teaching on the nature and purpose of sexuality:
"The Church, obedient to the Lord who founded her and gave to her the sacramental life, celebrates the divine plan of the loving and life-giving union of men and women in the Sacrament of Marriage. It is only in the marital relationship that the use of the sexual faculty can be morally good. A person engaging in homosexual behavior therefore acts immorally. To choose someone of the same sex for one's sexual activity is to annul the rich symbolism and meaning, not to mention the goals, of the Creator's sexual design. Homosexual activity is not a complementary union, able to transmit life; and so it thwarts the call to a life of that form of self-giving which the Gospel says is the essence of Christian living. This does not mean that homosexual persons are not often generous and giving of themselves; but when they engage in homosexual activity they confirm within themselves a disordered sexual inclination which is essentially self-indulgent. As in every moral disorder, homosexual activity prevents one's own fulfillment and happiness by acting contrary to the creative wisdom of God. The Church, in rejecting erroneous opinions regarding homosexuality, does not limit but rather defends personal freedom and dignity realistically and authentically understood."
Homosexual activity is both self-indulgent and narcissistic. Gianfrancesco Zuanazzi, Professor of Psychology and Psychopathology for the John Paul II Institute for Studies at the Pontifical Lateran University, explains that, "The homosexual condition is difficult, sometimes tragic, and not only because of the obstacles it can still encounter in society and the injustices of which it can be the victim, but also because of its narcissistic quality. This quality is expressed in the continual attempts at 'self-recovery' and in searching for the 'better self' or the 'missing self' in another person. The homosexual approach is really one of identification and possession. According to Miller, it is easier for two homosexuals to regard each other as narcissistic extensions of themselves than to be involved in a mutual exchange. Socarides says without hesitation that in a homosexual relationship each partner plays his role, ignoring the complementarity of a sexual union, as if the act were consummated in "splendid isolation" from the other individual, simply as a stratagem for portraying a one-sided emotional conflict. Every homosexual encounter is primarily concerned with disarming the partner by means of seduction, prayer, power, prestige, effeminacy or masculinity, in order to derive satisfaction then from the loser.
Homosexual, like heterosexual, relationships exhibit forms of uplifting tenderness or mere genital expression, but whatever the approach, it always seems that the subjects use each other to fulfil themselves and, at the same time, to defend themselves from one another in a reciprocal way. Even if at the present time, dominated by the fear of AIDS, a couple's relations are not exceptional, as a rule they are unstable, unfaithful, strewn with jealousy and bitterness, marked by possessive love and demands that will never be satisfied. Very often homosexual relationships do not bind the two parties, but reveal that typical self-isolation which is an expression of complete autoerotism. The absence of complementarity, which stems from the radical difference between masculine and feminine identification, prevents the genuine dynamic of a couple. 'There is always something false", Marcel Eck notes, "and deeply painful in these loves which cannot experience reciprocity'. The problem of being, the title of a work by Jean Cocteau, who wrote from direct experience, is precisely the problem of being together.
Hans Giese rightly stresses that the 'foreground' of the homosexual syndrome comes from 'clinging to the self'. The move towards the other is not completed, while the move towards one's own sex is shorter, less costly, simpler; but, since one fears the risk of failure, to take this step involves a new risk, that of egotism. Bergler also maintains that the dominant note is always emotional detachment from the other and the focusing of interest on mere sexual gratification. Kardiner notes that the majority of these experiences are due to casual encounters and are 'one-night stands', i.e., the essential element is the value the experience has for the imagination and not the lasting human relationship. This easily leads to the desire for arousal for its own sake, to repetition and finally to anonymity, the discovery of the other not being worth the effort. Then the body is truly reduced to something corporeal: Pier Paolo Pasolini's posthumous work Petrolio exemplifies this eventuality as amply as it does monotonously. In short, for the homosexual there is the proximate danger of failing into such anonymous, repetitive and ever more demanding sexual behaviour that it becomes a kind of addiction. But this promiscuity or 'tricking', which is so frequent in the gay world, is sometimes praised by those involved as the best of relationships." (See here).
It is noteworthy that most of the sexual abuse which has taken place within the Church (somewhere between 80 and 90 percent of reported cases) has been homosexual in nature. As indicated by the John Jay Study and others (see here). And yet, there are those within the Church who either refuse to examine this fact and its implications for the Church or who even continue to suggest that homosexual men should still be ordained or that the disordered inclination need not be considered an impediment for Holy Orders.
But this is a problem which must be dealt with across the entire Church. A homosexual priesthood has inflicted so much damage to so many young lives and to the Church as a whole. The Church is in need of cleansing. Orthodox heterosexual men are often discouraged in their vocations by dioceses which have become breeding grounds for illicit homosexual activity and hotbeds of dissent from Church teaching, especially in the area of sexual morality.
Related reading: Vatican says abuse crisis homosexual in nature.
Saturday, April 10, 2010
Washington Post: Pope did not impede defrocking of priest...
No kidding. Other MSM outlets need to apologize for their rush to judgment. Their credibility is now in crisis.
"To be persuasive we must be believable; to be believable we must be credible; credible we must be truthful."
"Just because your voice reaches halfway around the world doesn't mean you are wiser than when it reached only to the end of the bar."
- Edward R. Murrow.
"To be persuasive we must be believable; to be believable we must be credible; credible we must be truthful."
"Just because your voice reaches halfway around the world doesn't mean you are wiser than when it reached only to the end of the bar."
- Edward R. Murrow.
Getting the story straight on the "stalled pedophile case"...
Friday, April 09, 2010
Let's Get the Story Straight: Defrocking and Divorce
Fr. Joseph Fessio, S.J.
The following piece was written by Fr. Joseph Fessio, S.J., founder and editor of Ignatius Press, in response to the breaking story about a 1985 letter written by then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger to Bishop John S. Cummins of Oakland.
"The so-called "stalled pedophile case", blame for which has been laid at the feet of then-Cardinal Ratzinger, had nothing to do with pedophilia and everything to do with strengthening marriage and the priesthood.
Here's what was happening in 1981 when Bishop Cummins of Oakland first wrote the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith asking that one the priests from his diocese of Oakland, be dispensed from his promise of celibacy.
Well first, what was not happening. The letter came a week before Cardinal Ratzinger had even assumed his duties as Prefect of that congregation. This is a very important office of the Roman curia. It handles a variety of cases worldwide, mostly having to do with defending and promoting doctrinal integrity in the Church. There's a lot of work to do, and it takes time for someone to become fully engaged in its activities.
But much more pertinently here: By 1980 the effects of the sexual revolution on marriage and the priesthood had been devastating. In 1965 there had been 59 marriage annulments granted by Rome to American couples. By 2002, there were over 50,000 annulments per year in the U.S. alone. Hundreds, perhaps thousands of priests were asking for dispensation from their promise of celibacy in order to be able to marry.
The Catholic Church holds the marriage vows to be indissoluble. Even an annulment, contrary to a widespread misconception, does not dissolve those vows. It is a declaration that because of some impediment, there never was a valid marriage in the first place.
Priestly ordination is also "indissoluble", in the sense that a validly ordained priest never ceases to be a priest.
And here's the rub. It was literally scandalous in the Church that priests, who had been prepared for eight to ten years for their ordination (which would be permanent, irreversible) and their promise of celibacy (which also has the character of a solemn promise before God), were, in the 1970s, being so easily dispensed from their promise of celibacy.
Married Catholics said to themselves: If a priest, who is so well prepared for his commitment, can so easily be dispensed from it so that he can marry, why can't we be dispensed from our commitment so that we can remarry?
When John Paul II was elevated to the papacy in the Fall of 1978, he immediately changed the policy on priestly dispensations. I don't have the exact dates and numbers at hand, but I remember at the time that many of us were amazed that the hundreds of dispensations per year (and it may have been thousands) under John Paul II's predecessor, Paul VI, suddenly were reduced to almost zero. It was almost impossible to get a dispensation in 1980.
What was John Paul's intent? To restore the integrity of the priesthood and of marriage. These commitments are permanent. A priest may be removed from ministry, but he will not be given a dispensation to marry. Priests are to be made to take their commitments with utmost seriousness. They will be an example to married couples to take theirs seriously also. When a priest makes a promise of celibacy, it's forever; when a couple make vows of marriage, it's forever.
This is the decisive context of Cardinal Ratzinger's letter to Bishop Cummins. It is not a smoking gun. It did not mean that Ratzinger was not taking the priest's sins seriously. (He called the accusations "very serious" [gravis momenti].) It meant that he, following the policy of John Paul II, was taking the priesthood and its commitments very seriously.
And again, this entire affair had nothing to do with preventing further abuse by this priest. That had already been done, or should have been done, by the local bishop.
A final, minor but significant point of translation. The translation being used by the media of an important part of Ratzinger's letter is: "your Excellency must not fail to provide the petitioner with as much paternal care as possible". This has been rightly interpreted by some to mean that Ratzinger was saying that the bishop should keep a watchful eye on the priest. The original Latin makes that even clearer: "paterna...cura sequi" which means "to follow with paternal care". We get the word "persecute" from the Latin "per-sequi". "Sequi" is much stronger then "provide".
There is a completely mistaken first premise underlying all this criticism. The premise is that "defrocking" has anything to do with protecting victims and preventing further abuse.
First, the media needs to know that according to Catholic teaching, Holy Orders is a sacrament which leaves an "indelible mark"; in layman's terms, once ordained a priest, a man is always a priest. The reason the word "dispensation" is used in the correspondence is that that is what happens technically: the priest is dispensed from his obligation of celibacy. In a sense, this works in the opposite direction from protection: a restraint is being removed.
Further, as if to prove this point, the priest in question continued to abuse children after he was "defrocked" and had married. QED.
Secondly, nothing at all prevents a bishop from: removing a priest from all ministry; removing his faculties; reporting him to civil authorities. There is no need even to inform Rome about this. The only way (until 2001 or in cases of abuse of Confession) that it need get to Rome is if the priest appeals the bishop's actions.
Thirdly, why was the CDF involved anyway? That was not the congregation that handles abuse cases, except where abuse of Confession has played a role. I believe the CDF was involved in cases of dispensation from celibacy. (Though you would think that should be under the Congregation for Priests.) But, again, dispensation has nothing to do with preventing further abuse. It may appease the sense of justice on the part of victims. But at the same time, It normally takes eight to ten years to become a priest. It's not a club one joins. It is a very serious thing to dispense a priest from celibacy, and there needs to be a careful process to protect innocent priests.
Fourthly, there are definitely cased of priests who have been falsely accused. Especially the American media ought to be sensitive to the principle that a man is innocent until proven guilty. Civil law requires that to be done in a court of law. A bishop can, and in many cases, should take action against a priest before there is any canonical trial.
Finally, let's compare this to the difference between a criminal and a civil trial. Criminal trials can be expedited, but even then in all but the most grievous cases, a criminal defendant is a free man until convicted. In the case of priests, the "punishment" of removal from ministry can be applied immediately by a bishop even before there is any canonical trial, which is like a civil trial. How long do civil trials take in this country. I know of trials that have dragged out for more than seven years.
If Ratzinger took part in "stalling" a "pedophile case", the worst one can say is that he wanted care taken in a canonical trial. And, let's not forget, this wasn't "punishment" at all from the priest's point of view. He had "asked" to be dispensed."
Make no mistake about it, there is an agenda to discredit the Holy Father and the Catholic Church. This because only the Catholic Church stands in the way of the New Order.
Related reading here and here.
Good Morning America and Father Richard P. McBrien.
"When it is made publicly, a statement contrary to the truth takes on a particular gravity." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2476).
"Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury. He becomes guilty of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor...Of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2477).
Let's Get the Story Straight: Defrocking and Divorce
Fr. Joseph Fessio, S.J.
The following piece was written by Fr. Joseph Fessio, S.J., founder and editor of Ignatius Press, in response to the breaking story about a 1985 letter written by then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger to Bishop John S. Cummins of Oakland.
"The so-called "stalled pedophile case", blame for which has been laid at the feet of then-Cardinal Ratzinger, had nothing to do with pedophilia and everything to do with strengthening marriage and the priesthood.
Here's what was happening in 1981 when Bishop Cummins of Oakland first wrote the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith asking that one the priests from his diocese of Oakland, be dispensed from his promise of celibacy.
Well first, what was not happening. The letter came a week before Cardinal Ratzinger had even assumed his duties as Prefect of that congregation. This is a very important office of the Roman curia. It handles a variety of cases worldwide, mostly having to do with defending and promoting doctrinal integrity in the Church. There's a lot of work to do, and it takes time for someone to become fully engaged in its activities.
But much more pertinently here: By 1980 the effects of the sexual revolution on marriage and the priesthood had been devastating. In 1965 there had been 59 marriage annulments granted by Rome to American couples. By 2002, there were over 50,000 annulments per year in the U.S. alone. Hundreds, perhaps thousands of priests were asking for dispensation from their promise of celibacy in order to be able to marry.
The Catholic Church holds the marriage vows to be indissoluble. Even an annulment, contrary to a widespread misconception, does not dissolve those vows. It is a declaration that because of some impediment, there never was a valid marriage in the first place.
Priestly ordination is also "indissoluble", in the sense that a validly ordained priest never ceases to be a priest.
And here's the rub. It was literally scandalous in the Church that priests, who had been prepared for eight to ten years for their ordination (which would be permanent, irreversible) and their promise of celibacy (which also has the character of a solemn promise before God), were, in the 1970s, being so easily dispensed from their promise of celibacy.
Married Catholics said to themselves: If a priest, who is so well prepared for his commitment, can so easily be dispensed from it so that he can marry, why can't we be dispensed from our commitment so that we can remarry?
When John Paul II was elevated to the papacy in the Fall of 1978, he immediately changed the policy on priestly dispensations. I don't have the exact dates and numbers at hand, but I remember at the time that many of us were amazed that the hundreds of dispensations per year (and it may have been thousands) under John Paul II's predecessor, Paul VI, suddenly were reduced to almost zero. It was almost impossible to get a dispensation in 1980.
What was John Paul's intent? To restore the integrity of the priesthood and of marriage. These commitments are permanent. A priest may be removed from ministry, but he will not be given a dispensation to marry. Priests are to be made to take their commitments with utmost seriousness. They will be an example to married couples to take theirs seriously also. When a priest makes a promise of celibacy, it's forever; when a couple make vows of marriage, it's forever.
This is the decisive context of Cardinal Ratzinger's letter to Bishop Cummins. It is not a smoking gun. It did not mean that Ratzinger was not taking the priest's sins seriously. (He called the accusations "very serious" [gravis momenti].) It meant that he, following the policy of John Paul II, was taking the priesthood and its commitments very seriously.
And again, this entire affair had nothing to do with preventing further abuse by this priest. That had already been done, or should have been done, by the local bishop.
A final, minor but significant point of translation. The translation being used by the media of an important part of Ratzinger's letter is: "your Excellency must not fail to provide the petitioner with as much paternal care as possible". This has been rightly interpreted by some to mean that Ratzinger was saying that the bishop should keep a watchful eye on the priest. The original Latin makes that even clearer: "paterna...cura sequi" which means "to follow with paternal care". We get the word "persecute" from the Latin "per-sequi". "Sequi" is much stronger then "provide".
There is a completely mistaken first premise underlying all this criticism. The premise is that "defrocking" has anything to do with protecting victims and preventing further abuse.
First, the media needs to know that according to Catholic teaching, Holy Orders is a sacrament which leaves an "indelible mark"; in layman's terms, once ordained a priest, a man is always a priest. The reason the word "dispensation" is used in the correspondence is that that is what happens technically: the priest is dispensed from his obligation of celibacy. In a sense, this works in the opposite direction from protection: a restraint is being removed.
Further, as if to prove this point, the priest in question continued to abuse children after he was "defrocked" and had married. QED.
Secondly, nothing at all prevents a bishop from: removing a priest from all ministry; removing his faculties; reporting him to civil authorities. There is no need even to inform Rome about this. The only way (until 2001 or in cases of abuse of Confession) that it need get to Rome is if the priest appeals the bishop's actions.
Thirdly, why was the CDF involved anyway? That was not the congregation that handles abuse cases, except where abuse of Confession has played a role. I believe the CDF was involved in cases of dispensation from celibacy. (Though you would think that should be under the Congregation for Priests.) But, again, dispensation has nothing to do with preventing further abuse. It may appease the sense of justice on the part of victims. But at the same time, It normally takes eight to ten years to become a priest. It's not a club one joins. It is a very serious thing to dispense a priest from celibacy, and there needs to be a careful process to protect innocent priests.
Fourthly, there are definitely cased of priests who have been falsely accused. Especially the American media ought to be sensitive to the principle that a man is innocent until proven guilty. Civil law requires that to be done in a court of law. A bishop can, and in many cases, should take action against a priest before there is any canonical trial.
Finally, let's compare this to the difference between a criminal and a civil trial. Criminal trials can be expedited, but even then in all but the most grievous cases, a criminal defendant is a free man until convicted. In the case of priests, the "punishment" of removal from ministry can be applied immediately by a bishop even before there is any canonical trial, which is like a civil trial. How long do civil trials take in this country. I know of trials that have dragged out for more than seven years.
If Ratzinger took part in "stalling" a "pedophile case", the worst one can say is that he wanted care taken in a canonical trial. And, let's not forget, this wasn't "punishment" at all from the priest's point of view. He had "asked" to be dispensed."
Make no mistake about it, there is an agenda to discredit the Holy Father and the Catholic Church. This because only the Catholic Church stands in the way of the New Order.
Related reading here and here.
Good Morning America and Father Richard P. McBrien.
"When it is made publicly, a statement contrary to the truth takes on a particular gravity." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2476).
"Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury. He becomes guilty of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor...Of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2477).
Friday, April 09, 2010
A Dominican puts things in perspective...
From The Tablet:
Should I stay or should I go?
Clerical-abuse scandal
Timothy Radcliffe
As the scandal of child sexual abuse and its cover-up swirls around the Church, some Catholics are considering their options as regards their very membership of the institution. Here a former Master of the Dominicans explains why the Church is stuck with him, whatever happens
Fresh revelations of sexual abuse by priests in Germany and Italy have provoked a tide of anger and disgust. I have received emails from people all around Europe asking how can they possibly remain in the Church? I was even sent a form with which to renounce my membership of the Church. Why stay?
First of all, why go? Some people feel that they can no longer remain associated with an institution that is so corrupt and dangerous for children. The suffering of so many children is indeed horrific. They must be our first concern. Nothing that I will write is intended in any way to lessen our horror at the evil of sexual abuse. But the statistics for the US, from the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in 2004, suggest that Catholic clergy do not offend more than the married clergy of other Churches.
Some surveys even give a lower level of offence for Catholic priests. They are less likely to offend than lay school teachers, and perhaps half as likely as the general population. Celibacy does not push people to abuse children. It is simply untrue to imagine that leaving the Church for another denomination would make one’s children safer. We must face the terrible fact that the abuse of children is widespread in every part of society. To make the Church the scapegoat would be a cover-up.
But what about the cover-up within the Church? Have not our bishops been shockingly irresponsible in moving offenders around, not reporting them to the police and so perpetuating the abuse? Yes, sometimes. But the great majority of these cases go back to the 1960s and 1970s, when bishops often regarded sexual abuse as a sin rather than also a pathological condition, and when lawyers and psychologists often reassured them that it was safe to reassign priests after treatment. It is unjust to project backwards an awareness of the nature and seriousness of sexual abuse which simply did not exist then. It was only the rise of feminism in the late 1970s which, by shedding light on the violence of some men against women, alerted us to the terrible damage done to vulnerable children.
But what about the Vatican? Pope Benedict has taken a strong line in tackling this issue as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) and since becoming Pope. Now the finger is pointed at him. It appears that some cases reported to the CDF under his watch were not dealt with. Isn’t the Pope’s credibility undermined? There are demonstrators in front of St Peter’s calling for his resignation. I am morally certain that he bears no blame here.
It is generally imagined that the Vatican is a vast and efficient organisation. In fact it is tiny. The CDF only employs 45 people, dealing with doctrinal and disciplinary issues for a Church which has 1.3 billion members, 17 per cent of the world’s population, and some 400,000 priests. When I dealt with the CDF as Master of the Dominican Order, it was obvious that they were struggling to cope. Documents slipped through the cracks. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger lamented to me that the staff was simply too small for the job.
People are furious with the Vatican’s failure to open up its files and offer a clear explanation of what happened. Why is it so secretive? Angry and hurt Catholics feel a right to transparent government. I agree. But we must, in justice, understand why the Vatican is so self-protective. There were more martyrs in the twentieth century than in all the previous centuries combined. Bishops and priests, Religious and laity were assassinated in Western Europe, in Soviet countries, in Africa, Latin America and Asia.
Many Catholics still suffer imprisonment and death for their faith. Of course, the Vatican tends to stress confidentiality; this has been necessary to protect the Church from people who wish to destroy her. So it is understandable that the Vatican reacts aggressively to demands for transparency and will read legitimate requests for openness as a form of persecution. And some people in the media do, without any doubt, wish to damage the credibility of the Church.*
But we owe a debt of gratitude to the press for its insistence that the Church face its failures. If it had not been for the media, then this shameful abuse might have remained unaddressed.
Confidentiality is also a consequence of the Church’s insistence on the right of everyone accused to keep their good name until they are proved to be guilty. This is very hard for our society to understand, whose media destroy people’s reputations without a thought.
Why go? If it is to find a safer haven, a less corrupt Church, then I think that you will be disappointed. I too long for more transparent government, more open debate, but the Church’s secrecy is understandable, and sometimes necessary. To understand is not always to condone, but necessary if we are to act justly.
Why stay? I must lay my cards on the table; even if the Church were obviously worse than other Churches, I still would not go. I am not a Catholic because our Church is the best, or even because I like Catholicism. I do love much about my Church but there are aspects of it which I dislike. I am not a Catholic because of a consumer option for an ecclesiastical Waitrose rather than Tesco, but because I believe that it embodies something which is essential to the Christian witness to the Resurrection, visible unity.
When Jesus died, his community fell apart. He had been betrayed, denied, and most of his disciples fled. It was chiefly the women who accompanied him to the end. On Easter Day, he appeared to the disciples. This was more than the physical resuscitation of a dead corpse.
In him God triumphed over all that destroys community: sin, cowardice, lies, misunderstanding, suffering and death. The Resurrection was made visible to the world in the astonishing sight of a community reborn. These cowards and deniers were gathered together again. They were not a reputable bunch, and shamefaced at what they had done, but once again they were one. The unity of the Church is a sign that all the forces that fragment and scatter are defeated in Christ.
All Christians are one in the Body of Christ. I have deepest respect and affection for Christians from other Churches who nurture and inspire me. But this unity in Christ needs some visible embodiment. Christianity is not a vague spirituality but a religion of incarnation, in which the deepest truths take the physical and sometimes institutional form. Historically this unity has found its focus in Peter, the Rock in Matthew, Mark and Luke, and the shepherd of the flock in John’s gospel.
From the beginning and throughout history, Peter has often been a wobbly rock, a source of scandal, corrupt, and yet this is the one – and his successors – whose task is to hold us together so that we may witness to Christ’s defeat on Easter Day of sin’s power to divide. And so the Church is stuck with me whatever happens. We may be embarrassed to admit that we are Catholics, but Jesus kept shameful company from the beginning.
* Such as The New York Times.
Many people are using this scandal as an excuse to attack Christ's Church. There is indeed a cleansing taking place within the Church. But those who would gloat should instead be offering prayer and reparation. For "the time has come for judgment to begin with the household of God; and if it begins with us, what will be the end of those who do not obey the gospel of God? And if the righteous man is scarcely saved, where will the impious and sinner appear?" (2 Peter 4: 17, 18).
Indeed in our time impious men have condoned the worst form of child abuse: abortion, the killing of these innocents. What will be the end of those who do not obey the gospel of God? Our Lady told Sister Agnes Sasagawa on October 13, 1973, the actual anniversary of the final visions and miracle of Fatima, "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 which will remain for you will be the Rosary and the 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 into the Church in such a way that one will see cardinals opposing cardinals, and bishops against other bishops. The priests who venerate me will be scorned and opposed by their Confreres. The Church and altars will be vandalized. 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."
Judgment has begun with the household of God. Let him who has ears heed what the Spirit is saying.
Should I stay or should I go?
Clerical-abuse scandal
Timothy Radcliffe
As the scandal of child sexual abuse and its cover-up swirls around the Church, some Catholics are considering their options as regards their very membership of the institution. Here a former Master of the Dominicans explains why the Church is stuck with him, whatever happens
Fresh revelations of sexual abuse by priests in Germany and Italy have provoked a tide of anger and disgust. I have received emails from people all around Europe asking how can they possibly remain in the Church? I was even sent a form with which to renounce my membership of the Church. Why stay?
First of all, why go? Some people feel that they can no longer remain associated with an institution that is so corrupt and dangerous for children. The suffering of so many children is indeed horrific. They must be our first concern. Nothing that I will write is intended in any way to lessen our horror at the evil of sexual abuse. But the statistics for the US, from the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in 2004, suggest that Catholic clergy do not offend more than the married clergy of other Churches.
Some surveys even give a lower level of offence for Catholic priests. They are less likely to offend than lay school teachers, and perhaps half as likely as the general population. Celibacy does not push people to abuse children. It is simply untrue to imagine that leaving the Church for another denomination would make one’s children safer. We must face the terrible fact that the abuse of children is widespread in every part of society. To make the Church the scapegoat would be a cover-up.
But what about the cover-up within the Church? Have not our bishops been shockingly irresponsible in moving offenders around, not reporting them to the police and so perpetuating the abuse? Yes, sometimes. But the great majority of these cases go back to the 1960s and 1970s, when bishops often regarded sexual abuse as a sin rather than also a pathological condition, and when lawyers and psychologists often reassured them that it was safe to reassign priests after treatment. It is unjust to project backwards an awareness of the nature and seriousness of sexual abuse which simply did not exist then. It was only the rise of feminism in the late 1970s which, by shedding light on the violence of some men against women, alerted us to the terrible damage done to vulnerable children.
But what about the Vatican? Pope Benedict has taken a strong line in tackling this issue as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) and since becoming Pope. Now the finger is pointed at him. It appears that some cases reported to the CDF under his watch were not dealt with. Isn’t the Pope’s credibility undermined? There are demonstrators in front of St Peter’s calling for his resignation. I am morally certain that he bears no blame here.
It is generally imagined that the Vatican is a vast and efficient organisation. In fact it is tiny. The CDF only employs 45 people, dealing with doctrinal and disciplinary issues for a Church which has 1.3 billion members, 17 per cent of the world’s population, and some 400,000 priests. When I dealt with the CDF as Master of the Dominican Order, it was obvious that they were struggling to cope. Documents slipped through the cracks. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger lamented to me that the staff was simply too small for the job.
People are furious with the Vatican’s failure to open up its files and offer a clear explanation of what happened. Why is it so secretive? Angry and hurt Catholics feel a right to transparent government. I agree. But we must, in justice, understand why the Vatican is so self-protective. There were more martyrs in the twentieth century than in all the previous centuries combined. Bishops and priests, Religious and laity were assassinated in Western Europe, in Soviet countries, in Africa, Latin America and Asia.
Many Catholics still suffer imprisonment and death for their faith. Of course, the Vatican tends to stress confidentiality; this has been necessary to protect the Church from people who wish to destroy her. So it is understandable that the Vatican reacts aggressively to demands for transparency and will read legitimate requests for openness as a form of persecution. And some people in the media do, without any doubt, wish to damage the credibility of the Church.*
But we owe a debt of gratitude to the press for its insistence that the Church face its failures. If it had not been for the media, then this shameful abuse might have remained unaddressed.
Confidentiality is also a consequence of the Church’s insistence on the right of everyone accused to keep their good name until they are proved to be guilty. This is very hard for our society to understand, whose media destroy people’s reputations without a thought.
Why go? If it is to find a safer haven, a less corrupt Church, then I think that you will be disappointed. I too long for more transparent government, more open debate, but the Church’s secrecy is understandable, and sometimes necessary. To understand is not always to condone, but necessary if we are to act justly.
Why stay? I must lay my cards on the table; even if the Church were obviously worse than other Churches, I still would not go. I am not a Catholic because our Church is the best, or even because I like Catholicism. I do love much about my Church but there are aspects of it which I dislike. I am not a Catholic because of a consumer option for an ecclesiastical Waitrose rather than Tesco, but because I believe that it embodies something which is essential to the Christian witness to the Resurrection, visible unity.
When Jesus died, his community fell apart. He had been betrayed, denied, and most of his disciples fled. It was chiefly the women who accompanied him to the end. On Easter Day, he appeared to the disciples. This was more than the physical resuscitation of a dead corpse.
In him God triumphed over all that destroys community: sin, cowardice, lies, misunderstanding, suffering and death. The Resurrection was made visible to the world in the astonishing sight of a community reborn. These cowards and deniers were gathered together again. They were not a reputable bunch, and shamefaced at what they had done, but once again they were one. The unity of the Church is a sign that all the forces that fragment and scatter are defeated in Christ.
All Christians are one in the Body of Christ. I have deepest respect and affection for Christians from other Churches who nurture and inspire me. But this unity in Christ needs some visible embodiment. Christianity is not a vague spirituality but a religion of incarnation, in which the deepest truths take the physical and sometimes institutional form. Historically this unity has found its focus in Peter, the Rock in Matthew, Mark and Luke, and the shepherd of the flock in John’s gospel.
From the beginning and throughout history, Peter has often been a wobbly rock, a source of scandal, corrupt, and yet this is the one – and his successors – whose task is to hold us together so that we may witness to Christ’s defeat on Easter Day of sin’s power to divide. And so the Church is stuck with me whatever happens. We may be embarrassed to admit that we are Catholics, but Jesus kept shameful company from the beginning.
* Such as The New York Times.
Many people are using this scandal as an excuse to attack Christ's Church. There is indeed a cleansing taking place within the Church. But those who would gloat should instead be offering prayer and reparation. For "the time has come for judgment to begin with the household of God; and if it begins with us, what will be the end of those who do not obey the gospel of God? And if the righteous man is scarcely saved, where will the impious and sinner appear?" (2 Peter 4: 17, 18).
Indeed in our time impious men have condoned the worst form of child abuse: abortion, the killing of these innocents. What will be the end of those who do not obey the gospel of God? Our Lady told Sister Agnes Sasagawa on October 13, 1973, the actual anniversary of the final visions and miracle of Fatima, "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 which will remain for you will be the Rosary and the 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 into the Church in such a way that one will see cardinals opposing cardinals, and bishops against other bishops. The priests who venerate me will be scorned and opposed by their Confreres. The Church and altars will be vandalized. 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."
Judgment has begun with the household of God. Let him who has ears heed what the Spirit is saying.
The Homosexual Hate Movement has much in common with the Ku Klux Klan...
Historian John Higham once described anti-Catholicism as "the most luxuriant, tenacious tradition of paranoiac agitation in American history." Historian Arthur M. Schlesinger, Sr. characterized prejudice against Catholics as "the deepest bias in the history of the American people." And conservative commentator Peter Viereck has said that "Catholic baiting is the anti-Semitism of the liberals."
But nowhere is this "paranoiac agitation" and hate-filled prejudice against Catholics more deeply ingrained than in today's Homosexual Hate Movement. There are parallels between this hate movement and the Ku Klux Klan at the early part of the twentieth-century. When the Klan enjoyed a resurgence in the 1920s, anti-Catholic rhetoric intensified to such a degree that it led to violence against Catholics and the burning down of a Catholic Church. Just two weeks after the Church of the Little Flower was erected in 1925, the Klan burned a cross in front of the church. Later the church would burn down in a fire.
Today, hate-filled rhetoric is being levelled against the Catholic Church by rabidly anti-Catholic extremists and this extreme rhetoric has led to open violence against Catholics and Catholic churches (not to mention Protestant and Mormon churches). See here. One radical anti-Catholic activist has compared the Holy Father to a vampire who is nothing but a bigot (See here). One of his associates (a professor of Sociology) has written that, "The Pope and the Vatican, modern day Pharisees, and their minions, have caused untold suffering to countless numbers of people, and no decent person, no Christian, no LGBT person, has any business giving credibility to that institution by his/her presence and money." (See here). Of course, this bright light offers no evidence to support his wild and irresponsible claims against the Church. But then how can we expect such an individual to be concerned with facts in the face of such blanket condemnations of a Church comprising more than 1 billion people? The classic definition of prejudice: "Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion."
Let's all pray that such irrational hatred will not lead to more violence against Catholics and others who morally oppose homosexuality while respecting the homosexual person.
Thursday, April 08, 2010
United Nations Judge wants Pope Benedict XVI prosecuted....
United Nations Judge Geoffrey Robertson is asking the British government to detain Pope Benedict XVI during his upcoming visit there and send him to trial at the International Criminal Court (ICC) for "crimes against humanity."
Readers of this Blog will recall my previous warnings concerning the International Criminal Court. See here and here for example.
Readers of this Blog will recall my previous warnings concerning the International Criminal Court. See here and here for example.
A time of darkness, purification and renewal were prophesied by the future Pope Benedict XVI....
Such was the prophecy popularly known as "A Message for the Faithful of the Universal Church" which was given in September of 1974 and recounted by the Rev. Albert J. Hebert, S.M., in his book "Prophecies: The Chastisement and Purification." The prophecy declared:
"O Jerusalem...
My Beloved Bride -
My Holy City of Love -
What are these wounds -
Wherewith I have been wounded -
In the House of those who love Me?
I will strike My Shepherds -
And My sheep shall be dispersed -
It is I -
Fear not!
Come away, My Love, My Dove, My Beautiful One -
For now it is toward winter -
And the summer has long since passed away.
I am the good Shepherd -
I know My Sheep
I know My Lambs
And Mine know Me.
I weep for you, O Jerusalem, My Daughter -
Holy and Sanctified -
In former generations -
By My Spirit of Truth -
Whom in these days you have dared to reject -
I have loved you -
Unto the Cross -
Unto Death upon the Cross -
Behold the Wood of My Cross -
Upon which your Savior hung obedient -
To the Holy Will of His Father.
To those who have loved Me -
To those who have kept My Law -
To those who, seeing their sins,
As abominations in My Sight -
Turn back to Me
In Sincerity and Love -
To those only who obey
With profound heart and mind -
My Vicar on Earth -
Shall I give the Mark of Love.
I sign them with the Sign of Love -
Upon their foreheads
They bear the image of My Living Heart -
My Mercy is always with them -
The Angel of Fire shall not harm them -
The Angel of Death shall not lift his sword
Against them -
The Angel of Famine shall not destroy
Their fields of grain -
The Angel of Destruction
Shall pass over them -
As in the days of Moses,
So shall it be -
As in the days of Noah,
So it is now -
My Sacred Heart shall be their Refuge
In the days of Terror and Retribution -
Come to Me, My People -
Adore Me -
Love Me -
Atone for your sins -
Make reparation for the blasphemies,
The Sacrileges, the conscious neglect
Of My enduring Love -
Recognize Me
In the Holy Sacrament of My Sacred Presence -
And adore -
I am the Lord your God -
I am the King of Divine Mercy -
I am Who am.
The Year of Jubilee -
Is the last year of My Grace -
Walk in My Light -
While you have My Light -
Be reconciled and repent -
Let those who have disobeyed My Vicar
come to Rome -
Let them come to the tomb of Peter -
And be reconciled -
Let them repent of their disobedience -
And I will be close to them again.
O My Father, that they may be One again,
Even as I in You and they in Me...
Peace be with you. Amen."
My father and I used to talk much about the coming purification, the coming chastisement which will lead the entire world back to reconciliation. He believed, as do I, in the prophecy of the Cure of Ars: "One day Our Lady of La Salette will lead the world." My father went to be with the Lord Jesus in the Jubilee Year (2000) on the anniversary of Our Lady of La Salette. And so I continue to get the word out - to anyone who will listen - return to the Lord Jesus and His enduring Love!
Wednesday, April 07, 2010
An illusion which bears a striking resemblance to the puberty crisis of the adolescent...
In his work entitled "Trojan Horse in the City of God," Dr. Dietrich von Hildebrand wrote that, "Incessantly we hear today the self-satisfied slogan, 'Man has finally come of age.' Yet there are so many features of the present epoch - the dethronement of truth by historical relativism, the fetishization of science, the devastation of our lives as a result of the laboratory view, and many others - that make it more than doubtful that modern man has really and truly come of age. There is, moreover, something inherently self-deceptive in the very idea. It is a characteristic symptom of immaturity to feel oneself more mature and independent than men of previous times, to forget what one owes the past, and, in a kind of adolescent self-assertion, to refuse any assistance. One need only recall Dostoyevsky's masterly description of the puberty crisis - Kolya Krassotkin in The Brothers Karamazov, Hypolit in The Idiot, the hero of The Adolescent - to grasp the special immaturity of the man who is convinced of his superior maturity, who thinks that in him humanity has in a unique way come of age, who is dominated by one preoccupation - to show his independence. His ludicrous smallness is manifest as he looks down on everything passed on through tradition, even the most timeless values. The illusion of an historic coming of age is not the exclusive possession of our epoch. In the period of the so-called Enlightenment, man also felt themselves to have come of age and looked down on former times as periods of darkness and immaturity. This illusion is a recurring phenomenon in social history and it bears a striking resemblance to the puberty crisis in the life of the individual person. But the contemporary assertion that whereas this perennial boast was never before justified, it is now really true makes its self-serving character all the more clear.One of the many indications of the intellectual and moral immaturity of the present age is the fact that the percentage of worthless books and articles that captivate the minds of intellectuals seems greater today than in any other time in history." (pp.143-144).
This illusion of man having "come of age" is a characteristic of psychological, spiritual and intellectual immaturity. It is also at the core of atheistic humanism. For atheistic humanism advances the notion, rooted in adolescent pride and rebellion, that the human race has reached a leap of advancement, a new stage of development and enlightenment in which man must abandon any notion of divine authority and rely only upon himself to build a utopia here on earth. A utopia where there are no dogmas, no permanent truths, no objective principles or fixed concepts. In the words of Harvey Cox, "Religion is in a sense the neurosis of culture; secularization corresponds to maturation, for it signifies the emancipation of man first from religion and then from metaphysical control." (The Secular City).
This is America's brand of atheism. It is represented in mythology by Prometheus challenging the old gods and stealing fiery power from them to bring man on earth a freedom from divine authority, liberation from childish beliefs and sexual taboos so that man come of age may create for himself a temporal utopia of plenty and a society of peace. This atheism was advanced in 1933 in The New Humanist magazine in a document entitled the "Humanist Manifesto I," by a group of 34 "liberal humanists." However, forty years later The Humanist magazine published "Humanist Manifesto II." This was necessary because the foolish optimism of the "liberal humanists" regarding the natural goodness of man was utterly demolished by the sheer brutality and horror of the Second World War. Not to mention the savage and evil systems of Nazism, Fascism and Communism.
The adolescent rebellion from God which is atheistic humanism continues. It has not learned anything from the harsh realities of history. It refuses to. And this refusal will only lead to more such disasters in the future for mankind. For as George Santayana reminded us, "Those who will not learn from history are condemned to repeat it." Already we are witnessing the brutality of an atheistic humanism which declares its "love for humankind" even as it approves of the worst form of child abuse - abortion - as well as euthanasia and all varieties of sexual experimentation and immoral "lifestyles" such as fornication and homosexuality. And when those who believe in objective truth and morality object, as did those who opposed same-sex "marriage" in California, Churches were attacked and Christians and Mormons were subjected to violence and intimidation - all in the name of "love" and "freedom."
And now the atheistic humanists who promise us a utopia of "freedom" and "love" are using any and all means of hate-filled propaganda in a demonic attempt to discredit the Holy Father and the Holy Roman Catholic Church. Ye shall know a tree by its fruit.
Tuesday, April 06, 2010
Vatican says what I've been saying all along: campaign against the Church is because of her stance on abortion and homosexuality
See previous Blog posts here, here and here. It was Monsignor Schooyans, speaking about the Earth Charter and related globalism, who said, "In order to consolidate this holistic vision of globalism, certain obstacles have to be smoothed out and instruments put to work. Religions in general, and in the first place the Catholic religion, figure among the obstacles that have to be neutralized." (See here).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
