The Diocese of Worcester has tried dissent...it's time to try true devotion to Mary

Father Gabriel of St. Mary Magdalen, O.C.D., in his classic work devoted to the interior life entitled Divine Intimacy, explains that, "Devotion to Our Lady of Mount Carmel indicates a strong call to the interior life, which, in a very special way, is Mary's life.  The Blessed Virgin wants us to resemble her in heart and mind much more than in externals.  If we penetrate into Mary's soul, we see that grace produced in her a very rich interior life: a life of recollection, prayer, uninterrupted giving of herself to God, and of constant contact and intimate union with Him.  Mary's soul is a sanctuary reserved for God alone where no creature has ever left an imprint; here reign love and zeal for the glory of God and the salvation of men.  Those who wish to live truly devoted to Our Lady of Mount Carmel, must follow Mary into the depths of the interior life...Every interior soul, even if living amid the tumult of the world, must strive to reach this peace, this interior silence, which alone makes continual contact with God possible.  It is our passions and attachments that make noise within us, that disturb our peace of mind and interrupt our intimate converse with God.  Only the soul that is wholly detached and in complete control of its passions can, like Mary, be a solitary, silent 'garden' where God will find His delights.  This is the grace we ask of Our Lady today when we choose her to be the Queen and mistress of our interior life." (Divine Intimacy, pp. 1147-1148).

When a soul is occupied with inordinate attachments to self or creatures or the vain and passing things of this world, it is unable to love God with all its strength and finds itself divided between God and self, between God and creatures, between God and the transitory things of this dying world.  But we are commanded, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with all thy strength and with all thy mind." (Luke 10: 27).

It is these inordinate attachments to self or creatures which lead to dissent and ultimately polarization within the Church.  The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in its Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian, tells us that, "The Church 'is like a sacrament, a sign and instrument, that is, of communion with God and of unity among all men' (Lumen Gentium, 1).  Consequently, to pursue concord and communion is to enhance the force of her witness and credibility.  To succumb to the temptation of dissent, on the other hand, is to allow the 'leaven of infidelity to the Holy Spirit' to start to work." (No. 40).

This leaven of infidelity has, for many years now, crippled the Diocese of Worcester.  The dissent which has been embraced within this local Church has led to polaraization.  Why?  Because faithful Catholics who do not [and indeed cannot] accept the dissenting view are duty bound to resist it for the sake of the Church's authentic peace, a peace which Pope John XXIII said, "is not completely untroubled and serene; it is active, not calm and motionless.  In short, this is a peace that is ever at war.  It wars with every sort of error, including that which falsely wears the face of truth; it struggles against the enticements of vice, against those enemies of the soul, of whatever description, who can weaken, blemish, or destroy our innocence or Catholic faith." (Ad Petri cathedram).

There has been much dissent and subsequent polarization within the Diocese of Worcester because the leadership (and here we are being most generous in our terms) of the local Church has failed to inspire the faithful (and its own priests first and foremost) to strip themselves of all that is not of God.  While St. John of the Cross assures us that, "The soul has only one will, and if it occupies itself or encumbers itself with anything, it will not remain free, solitary, and pure, as is required for divine transformation," the Worcester Diocese has encouraged an atmosphere of self-will, self-assertion, self-affirmation and self-promotion.  Forgotten is the warning of the Holy Spirit that "God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble." (James 4: 6).

We (all of us) must become more Mary-like in heart and mind and not just in externals.  "In every deliberate sin," as Dr. Germain Grisez reminds us, such as dissent from Church teaching or deliberate non-assent, "freedom of self-determination is exercised contrary to what is known to be truly right and good.  In sinning, sinners tend to regard moral truths legalistically, as if they were mere rules blocking them from doing as they please.  Thus, deliberate sin seems to be self-affirming.  Affirming the self and rejecting the limits which deny some forbidden fruit, sinners try to be autonomous, as only God really can be."

Faith demands the renunciation of the sinful self which authentic devotion to Mary necessarily involves.  Pride must give way to humility.  Only then can one find the truth which sets one free (John 8: 32). 

The Worcester Diocese has tried dissent.  The faithful remain polarized.  Evangelization has suffered greatly.  Parishes are emptying. 

It's time to return to the Lord Jesus through true devotion to Mary.  Ad Jesus per Mariam!

Susan Bailey, The Catholic Free Press and historical revisionism

The Catholic Free Press is published by the Roman Catholic Bishop of Worcester, the Most Rev. Robert J. McManus.  Unfortunately, Bishop McManus doesn't seem to spend enough time (if any at all) overseeing what goes into the publication.  It is a Bishop's vocation to watch over his diocese as a spiritual father (the word Bishop comes from the Greek word episcopos meaning overseer), ensuring that anything which is opposed to faith and morals is dealt with quickly and appropriately.

Once again, because of the Bishop's failure to oversee The Catholic Free Press and its content, the publication has engaged in historical revisionism as it attempts to re-write the legacy of the Commission for Women and one of its more prominent members - Mary T. Donovan.

Writing for The Catholic Free Press, Susan Bailey attempts to sell the idea that Mary Donovan, a member and former chairperson of the "Commission for Women" of the diocese whp passed away last month, was "a wise woman born of a deep faith," a woman whose wisdom was "devoid of arrogance." (In remembrance of a pioneer, February 8, 2013 edition of The Catholic Free Press).

In reality, Mary Donovan was an angry and self-important radical feminist who believed that it was her role to "correct" the living teaching office of the Catholic Church, the Magisterium.  But then, the commission she was associated with was little more itself than an instrument of dissent and radical feminist agitprop.  And nothing has changed.  Read my previous posts on the Commission for Women and its "Gather us In Conference" which features dissident speakers who agitate for women's ordination and New Age spirituality.

Writing for The Catholic Free Press back in 1992, Ms. Donovan freely acknowledged this herself.  In an article entitled "Save the women for the Church," she wrote: "Most of us on the Commission are diehards, women who decided long ago that women should have a place in the Church and that the Church needed women...What we want is simple.  We want to be considered active participants in the worship of God.  We want to move from the passive role where men study the Word of God, interpret it and relay the message to us.  We want to share the study, to discuss, refine, enlarge, enhance, dispute interpretation if necessary, and deliver the good news with equal stature and credibility.  We know that structure that exists today has no stairway for women that go to the top floor.  We know what problems exist in renovating..." (May 22, 1992 edition of The Catholic Free Press).

In another article published in the diocesan newspaper, Ms. Donovan insisted that there are, "..women who sense the same gifts within themselves as men who feel called to the service of God." (Women walk a Tightrope, January 29, 1992 edition of The Catholic Free Press).

While Mary Donovan and her cohorts were demanding women's ordination and the right to "dispute interpretation" of the Church's teaching, the Second Vatican Council had already taught authoritatively that, "...the task of authentically interpreting the Word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ." (Dei Verbum, No. 10).

Yes indeed, Mary Donovan was so wise and devoid of arrogance that she openly rejected the teaching of Vatican II and the perennial teaching of the Catholic Church, as exemplified in the post conciliar document entitled "The Ministerial Priesthood in the Light of the Mystery of Christ" that, "..we can never ignore the fact that Christ is a man.  Therefore, unless one is to disregard the importance of this symbolism for the economy of Revelation, it must be admitted that, in actions which demand the character of ordination and in which Christ Himself, the Author of the Covenant, the Bridegroom and Head of the Church, is represented, exercising His ministry of salvation - which is in the highest degree the case of the Eucharist - His role must be taken by a man."

Susan Bailey would have us believe that Mary Donovan was a "role model" and a "woman of strong faith."  But these lies do not square with the facts.  Mary Donovan was more of a petulant child who, along with her associates in dissent at the "Commission for Women," was more concerned with pursuing her own wants and desires ("we want, we want, we want") than on fulfilling the duties of her vocation while remaining obedient to Christ Jesus Who guides us through the living teaching office of His Church.

I too pray that Mary Donovan will "rest in peace."  For she lacked peace in her lifetime here on earth.

What is the real reason for Bishop Robert McManus' decision to rescind Mr. Robert Spencer's invitation to speak?

In a statement which was published in The Catholic Free Press this week, Bishop Robert McManus explained his decision to rescind the invitation to Mr. Robert Spencer to speak at the Diocese of Worcester's Catholic Men's Conference which is to be held next month.

Bishop McManus writes, "In light of my recent decision to rescind the invitation to Mr. Robert Spencer to speak at the Catholic Men's Conference next month on the topic of Islam in its relation to Christianity, I should like to reflect briefly on the conciliar document entitled, The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium), specifically on paragraph 16 of Chapter 2 which speaks about the special relationship that Christianity has to Islam.  The paragraph states, "But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator.  In the first place among these are the Muslims who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind."

As a result of such a theologically salient statement, the Catholic Church has engaged herself in inter-religious dialogue with Muslims.  This dialogue has produced a harvest of mutual respect, understanding and cooperation throughout the world and here in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.  My decision to ask Mr. Spencer not to speak at the Men's Conference resulted from a concern voiced by members of the Islamic community in Massachusetts, a concern I came to share.  That concern was that Mr. Spencer's talk about extreme, militant Islamists and the atrocities that they have perpetrated globally might undercut the positive achievements that we Catholics have attained in our inner-religious dialogue with devout Muslims and possibly generate suspicion and even fear of people who practice piously the religion of Islam...I based my decision solely on the concern that Mr. Spencer's talk would impact negatively on the Church's increasingly constructive dialogue with Muslims." (Bishop shares concerns about conference speaker, Catholic Free Press, February 8, 2013 edition).

At first, Bishop McManus cites a document of the Second Vatican Council - Lumen Gentium - to make it appear as if there is a theological basis for rescinding Mr. Spencer's invitation to speak at the Catholic Men's Conference.  Then he later acknowledges that his decision was really entirely subjective, admitting that his decision was based "solely" on his concern that Mr. Spencer's talk would have negative consequences with regard to Catholic-Muslim inter-religious dialogue.

While it's certainly true that Vatican II insists, "The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems" and that Christians and Moslems should "forget the past and..work sincerely for mutual understanding.." (Nostra Aetate, No. 3), dialogue, if it is to be authentic, always means taking the other seriously and approaching him with reverence and love.  And this can only be accomplished by communicating with the other in truth.

In his book entitled Truth and Tolerance: Christian Belief and World Religions, Pope Benedict XVI makes a few observations which Bishop McManus would apparently find problematic.  The Holy Father writes, "To what extent the new surge forward of the Islamic world is fuelled by truly religious forces is..open to question.  In many places, as we can see, there is the danger of a pathological development of the autonomy of feeling.." (p. 104).

Which is why Mr. Spencer's talk would have been most beneficial.

On page 204 of the same book, Pope Benedict XVI writes, "...even with Islam, with all the greatness it represents, is always in danger of losing balance, letting violence have a place and letting religion slide away into mere outward observance and ritualism."

Wasn't this to be the point of Mr. Spencer's talk?  Would Bishop McManus accuse the Holy Father of undercutting the positive achievements which Catholics have attained with regard to inter-religious dialogue with Moslems?  Why is it acceptable for Pope Benedict XVI to speak of the danger of Islam "letting violence have a place" but unacceptable for Mr. Spencer to talk about "extreme, militant Islamists and the atrocities that they have perpetrated globally"?

Bishop McManus insists that Mr. Spencer's presentation would not be "suitable" for the Men's Conference because its focus 'would be on the danger of militant Islamist jihad."  But jihad is not just an aspect of "militant Islam."  Jihad is the duty to engage in holy war against unbelievers or enemies of Islam if called upon to do so.  It is one of the basic tenets and requirements of Muslim faith.  Which is why Pope Benedict XVI has warned that Islam "is always in danger of losing balance" and succumbing to violence.

There are forces in this country and around the world which want to combine Christianity and Islam into a global religion which would be called "Chrislam."  Still others seek to blend many different religions into a syncretistic one-world religion with truth being sacrificed in the name of a false irenicism.

Those who have the courage to warn others about the dangers inherent within Islam can expect to be ostracized and increasingly relegated to the margins of society.

The Antichrist will head a one-world religion.  This has been prophesied.  And it will take place.

For more on "Chrislam" go here.

Saint Martin's Parish in Otter River and "The Little Black Book"

This morning I attended Ash Wednesday Mass at Saint Martin's Parish in Otter River.  On the way out of church after Mass, I noticed that a stack of black booklets had been left on a table for parishioners to take.  The booklet is entitled "The Little Black Book: Six-minute meditations on the Sunday Gospels of Lent."  An inscription on the inside cover reads: "This book is dedicated to Bishop Ken Untener (1937-2004) who was inspired to create the Little Books.  His life and faith continue to be their driving force."

If the life and faith of the late pro-homosexual Bishop Untener continues to be the "driving force" behind the publication, then I must urge all who visit this Blog to avoid the publication entirely.  As Paul Likoudis has noted, Bishop Untener is one of several notorious pro-homosexual bishops who were appointed by Archbishop (and later Cardinal) John Dearden.

Mr. Likoudis explains that, "Gumbleton and Imesch (Bishops Thomas Gumbleton and Joseph Imesch), both of whom were ordained in 1956 for the Archdiocese of Detroit, were groomed in gangsterism by the late Cardinal Dearden, and both were pretty much running the archdiocese in Dearden's last days.  In the late '70s and early '80s, when Gumbleton was promoting Dignity (a radical pro-homosexual organization) in Detroit, Imesch and Dearden were trying to frustrate a Vatican investigation into St. John's Seminary where homosexuality was rampant, and all three were working hard to get fellow priest Ken Untener, St. John's rector, appointed as Bishop of Saginaw - even after his role in showing seminarians pornographic videos was publicly exposed." (Amchurch Comes Out: The U.S. Bishops, Pedophile Scandals and the Homosexual Agenda, p. 162).

Our sad time!

Signs.....

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


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

http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=103757

And there are growing signs of open confrontation between the forces of Antichrist both outside and within the Church (ecclesiastical masonry) and the Catholic Church united with Rome - with the Holy Father and the Magisterium:

http://dtf-jayg.blogspot.com/2007/02/friend-of-court.html.

Sean Cardinal O'Malley has expressed his concerns over the increasing persecution of Christians in Canada:


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

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

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

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

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

Related reading here.

No disorderly tendency can have a right to citizenship in a person's thoughts

In its document entitled Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons, which was published on October 1, 1986, the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith recalled the distinction between homosexual tendencies and homosexual practices: "Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder."

Many interpret the Church's teaching as meaning that a homosexual person only sins if he or she actually engages in homosexual acts.  I have received comments at this Blog suggesting that only homosexual acts are sinful.  But this is not the Church's teaching.  Although the homosexual inclination itself is not a sin, still, the homosexual person sins if he or she makes a concession to this tendency in his or her mind.

It is Catholic doctrine that any disorderly tendency, and most especially toward a vice which is contrary to nature, cannot have a right to citizenship in a person's thoughts.  Recall the teaching of Our Lord Jesus in Matthew 5: 27, 28: "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.'  But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

This is why in the Confiteor [Latin: I confess], which is part of the Penitential Rite, one asks for forgiveness for thoughts, words and deeds.

We know as well that homosexual persons also sin when their external behavior expresses a homosexual tendency.  Which is why we read in Isaiah 3:9 that, 'Their very look bears witness against them; their sin like Sodom they vaunt, They hide it not.  Woe to them!  they deal out evil to themselves."  And in Deuteronomy 22:5 we read, "A woman shall not wear an article proper to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman's dress; for anyone who does such things is an abomination to the Lord, your God."

As I said in a previous post, the Cult of Softness continues to spread.

On almsgiving and the desire to be seen by men....

The Church has always insisted on the necessity of almsgiving.  In Christian tradition, almsgiving (the word alms coming from the Greek word eleemosyne meaning mercy or pity) is a corporal work of mercy.  Throughout the Old Testament, we are admonished to provide for the needy.  For example,  in Proverbs 3:27, we read: "Whenever you possibly can, do good to those who need it."  And Proverbs 22:9 exhorts us, "Be generous and share your food with the poor.  You will be blessed for it."

The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches us that, "The interior penance of the Christian can be expressed in many and various ways.  Scripture and the Fathers insist above all on three forms, fasting, prayer, and almsgiving, which express conversion in relation to oneself, to God, and to others." (CCC, 1434).  And again, "The works of mercy are charitable actions by which we come to the aid of our neighbor in his spiritual and bodily necessities.  Instructing, advising, consoling, comforting are spiritual works of mercy, as are forgiving and bearing wrongs patiently.  The corporal works of mercy consist especially in feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, clothing the naked, visiting the sick and imprisoned, and burying the dead.  Among all these, giving alms to the poor is one of the chief witnesses to fraternal charity: it is also a work of justice pleasing to God." (CCC, 2447).

But the same authoritative Catechism warns us that, "The New Law practices the acts of religion: almsgiving, prayer and fasting, directing them to the 'Father who sees in secret,' in contrast with the desire to 'be seen by men.'  Its prayer is the Our Father." (CCC, 1969).

It is this desire "to be seen by men" which we must all be on guard against.  Our almsgiving, our prayer and our fasting should be motivated by love of God and love of neighbor (for God's sake) and not by a spirit of self-promotion.

This past Saturday, while at Holy Mass, the liturgy was interrupted by the celebrant's call for members of the congregation to bring bags of groceries up to the altar.  This unfortunate practice has no place within the liturgy and betrays that desire "to be seen by men."  In Matthew 6: 1-4, Our Lord warns, "Beware of practicing your piety before men in order to be seen by them; for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven.  Thus, when you give alms, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by men.  Truly, I say to you, they have their reward.  But when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your alms may be in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you."

Almsgiving, prayer and fasting were always the basic expressions of personal piety among the chosen people.  But Jesus insists that true piety must go beyond the mere external and should be practiced with sincerity and in privacy before God without any ostentation.

What motivates our almsgiving, prayer and fasting?  Is it love of God and neighbor or the crippling desire to impress others with how "virtuous" we are?  If the latter, then we should reflect very carefully on these words from Saint Francis of Assisi: "If you were the most handsome and the richest man in the world, and could work wonders and drive out devils, all that would be something extrinsic to you; it would not belong to you, and you could not boast of it.  But there is one thing of which we can all boast; we can boast of our humiliations and in taking up daily the holy cross of our Lord Jesus Christ."

We must - all of us - remind ourselves often that nothing in which we might take pride is really and truly our own doing.  Even our desire to do good comes from the Lord Jesus.  So then, let us not boast like the Pharisee in Luke 18:12: "I fast twice a week, I give tithes of all that I get," but rather, let us recall the words of the Holy Spirit given through Saint Paul, "For not he who commendeth himself, is approved, but he whom God commendeth" (2 Corinthians 10: 17-18).

A new form of atheism....have we succumbed to it?

"I had a little tea party this afternoon at three.
Twas very small - three guests in all - just I, myself and me.
Myself ate all the sandwiches, while I drank all the tea.
Twas also I who ate the pie, and passed the cake to me."

                                   - Author unknown.


In his January 19th audience with workers and leaders of Catholic charities and members of the Pontifical Council Cor Unum, Pope Benedict XVI warned that while there is "a growing consensus today about the inalienable dignity of the human being" and people's interdependence and responsibilities toward others, there are also many "dark spots" that are obscuring God's plan.

The Holy Father warned of a new form of atheism which views people as independent and autonomous with happiness lying solely in realizing one's own self.  Here the Pope is referring to those who are crippled by the sin of selfishness, a sin as old as humanity which has taken deep root in the heart of "modern man."  As Archbishop Fulton John Sheen reminded us, "Selfishness does not mean that there is not to be a proper love of self.  Our Blessed Lord told us: 'Love thy neighbor as thyself' (Mt 19: 19).  God made 'self' the standard by which the neighbor is to be loved.  This could not be, if love of self did not have a legitimate basis.  Selfishness, is the love of the wrong self; that is, the self that is indifferent to the feeling and the interest and the safety of others.  People are not selfish because they wish to earn enough to raise a family, but they are selfish if they consult only their own gains regardless of the losses that they may bring on others." (Essay entitled Selfishness).

The Lord Jesus has put us here on earth to serve Him and not ourselves.  Many today, and sadly even within the Church, have succumbed to a philosophy of self-indulgence which is often indicative of pride and may even represent a failure to trust in the Lord, a practical atheism which renders others invisible and irrelevant.

Damien Fisher, writing for The Gardner News, relates the story of Vietnam veteran Jesse Stallings, a soldier who became invisible and irrelevant to those around him who should have welcomed him.  Mr. Fisher writes, "Jesse Stallings served in Vietnam, and then came home to a difficult life.  His trouble coming back and becoming part of society again was partly because of the negative attitudes many had about the Vietnam War, and by extension, the men who fought it.  Mr. Stallings' troubles also stemmed from post-traumatic stress disorder, a condition not widely understood at the time, and not well-treated either...Mr. Stallings was proud to put on his uniform to march in the parade in Fitchburg, one of the first in the region to welcome Vietnam vets....But his long hair and beard did not mesh with how the other, older veterans wanted him to look.  He was sent away.  Dejected after leaving the parade ground, Mr. Stallings went home and killed himself." (MVOC opens new Winchendon campus, January 26-27 edition of The Gardner News).

Have we become so self-indulgent that others have practically become invisible to us?  We can answer this question only through honest self-examination.  Hence the need for frequent sacramental confession.  Self-deception is so very easy.  As Saint Francis de Sales noted, "Self-love is cunning; it pushes and insinuates itself into everything, while making us believe it is not there at all."

If we wish to deepen our relationship with the Lord Jesus and to be of genuine service to Him, then we must struggle against self-deception and be completely honest with ourselves, petitioning the Lord to reveal to us our hidden motives and attachments.  And then we must, with the help of His grace (without which nothing is possible), reorder our priorities.

Related meditation here.

Bishop McManus calls for prayer and fasting to instill spiritual stamina and fortitude

In an editorial published in this week's Catholic Free Press and entitled 'Proclaim the Gospel of Life," Bishop Robert J. McManus, Bishop of the Worcester [Massachusetts] Diocese, reflecting on the 40th anniversary of the infamous Roe v. Wade decision, writes, "As we reflect on this unspeakable tragedy, we recall that Jesus told us that certain evils are only overcome by prayer and fasting.  Currently we are assailed by many increasing threats in our culture, most especially in the ongoing assaults on life, marriage and religious liberty.  In light of these unprecedented attacks on these most fundamental pillars of society, the U.S. Bishops recently launched a special initiative that will continue throughout the Year of Faith.  This Call to Prayer for Life, Marriage, and Religious Liberty is something that all of us can participate in both personally and communally....I wish to personally invite everyone to take this opportunity to increase our spiritual stamina and fortitude by joining with our fellow Catholics across the country through participation in the monthly holy hours that will be offered in our parishes, saying the rosary regularly, fasting and abstaining from meat on Fridays, and other devotions and events that will take place in the diocese..."

It's real nice that Bishop McManus is finally beginning to wake up to the realities of our times by recognizing that only through prayer and fasting will certain evils be driven out since there is an element of the demonic behind them.  But before Catholics can convert the culture, they must first convert themselves.  About a month back I wrote Bishop McManus about his promotion of Servite Sister Joyce Rupp, a confused religious who promotes New Age spirituality and dissent from the authoritative teachings of the Magisterium.  Specifically, I asked His Excellency if he felt that it was truly appropriate for the Chancery to be offering her books for sale given her peculiar beliefs [such as the "godess" Sophia] and her angry, hate-filled attacks on the Church's hierarchy [see my previous posts on Joyce Rupp].  His response?  There was none.  So much for increasing spiritual stamina and fortitude.  Or perhaps His Excellency believes that it is only the laity who are in need of metanoia?

If the Bishop has no time for a Christian believer who accepts, promotes and defends the Magisterial teaching of the Church and cares little for the right of the faithful to receive Catholic teaching in its purity and integrity [Veritatis Splendor, No. 113], then it is a safe bet that his own prayer life is suffering.  It was Pope John Paul II who wrote that, "A bishop should try to ensure that as many as possible of those who, together with him, make up the local Church can come to know him personally.  He for his part will seek to be close to them, to know about their lives - what gives joy to their hearts and what saddens them.  Such mutual acquaintance cannot be built through occasional meetings: it comes from a genuine interest in what is happening in their lives regardless of age, social status, or nationality, whether they are close at hand or far away....It is very important for a bishop to have a rapport with his people and to know how to relate to them well...Interest in others begins with the bishop's prayer life: his conversations with Christ, who entrusts 'His own' to him.  Prayer prepares him for encounter with others." (Rise, Let Us Be On Our Way).

If a bishop cannot even maintain a rapport with faithful Catholics in his own diocese, then it is difficult to take him seriously when he writes, "Let us unite our hearts and minds through special acts of prayer, fasting, and sacrifice....to uphold the inherent dignity of all human life from conception to natural death."

Where was the bishop's recognition of my "inherent dignity" when I wrote him a letter detailing how one of his priests was encouraging a couple in their senior years to live together while assuring them that any sexual acts outside of marriage were not sinful at their age and mentioned my interest in pursuing a priestly vocation within the diocese?  Readers of this Blog know that this letter of mine also received no response.  And I had requested the Bishop's blessing each time I wrote him!  Dignity?

Long before Bishop McManus' call for prayer and fasting, I issued a similar call.  In fact, over the years, I have issued this call.  See here and here for example.  But along with prayer and fasting, we Catholics - all of us - must first take the plank out of our own eyes if we are to see clearly enough to take the speck out of the eyes of our fellow citizens throughout the broader culture.  And this goes for our priests and deacons and religious as well.  More so, for they should be shining examples of the faith life.  Needless to say, this sort of behavior will never convert our broken, sin-sick culture. 

As Father Vincent Miceli, S.J., reminded us some years back, "Rampant immorality is [an] obstacle opposing the work of evangelization.  Since conduct follows from convictions, once Catholics cancel their creed from their lives, their conduct inevitably becomes depraved....The decay on all sides of Christian morals makes it not only difficult to bring in those outside the Church, but even to stay in themselves and hold their fellow Catholics within the Church." (Essay entitled The Evangelization of the United States).

It is a spiritual maxim that we cannot give to others what we ourselves do not possess.  The Bishop of Worcester, and the priests who serve with him, should reflect very carefully on this truth.

"...a confederacy of evil, marshalling its hosts from all parts of the world.."

Many of the commentaries which examine the final persecution of the Church during the reign of Antichrist insist that the army of Antichrist will be composed of orientals or those people who live in that part of the world which is now Russia.  Reverend Pascal Huchede, in his History of Antichrist, explains that, "According to Saint Bellarmine, Gog will be the Antichrist himself and Magog will be his army.  Because Ezechiel always designates Gog as a leader and Magog as a region [Ezech. 38-39], Magog, it is true, is regarded as being the Sythian nation.  In Genesis [10:2] the second son of Japeth is said to have borne this name, and the country in which he settled was naturally called after him, and this country, according to Josephus, is scythia.*  In employing this term to designate the army of Antichrist, we are led to infer that the men composing it will be orientals, or what seems more plausible, that his soldiers will possess all the brutality of those barbarous people." (History of Antichrist, p. 25).

Saint Augustine, Father and Doctor of the Church, in his City of God, Book 20, explains in detail how the army of Antichrist will be made up of all depraved men scattered over the surface of the earth who have a hatred for truth: "...the binding of the devil is his being prevented from the exercise of his whole power to seduce men, either by violently forcing or fraudulently deceiving them into taking part with him...But when the short time comes he shall be loosed.  For he shall rage with the whole force of himself and his angels for three years and six months; and those with whom he makes war shall have power to withstand all his violence and stratagems..."

Saint Augustine then cites Revelation 20: 7-9 - "And when the thousand years are finished Satan shall be loosed from his prison, and shall go out to seduce the nations which are in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, and shall draw them to battle, whose number is as the sand of the sea."  And then he writes, "This, then, is his purpose in seducing them, to draw them to this battle.  For even before this he was wont to use as many and various seductions as he could contrive.  And the words, 'he shall go out' mean, he shall burst forth from lurking hatred into open persecution.  For this persecution, occurring while the final judgment is imminent, shall be the last which shall be endured by the holy Church throughout the world, the whole city of Christ being assailed by the whole city of the devil, as each exists on earth.  For these nations which he names Gog and Magog are not to be understood of some barbarous nations in some part of the world...For John marks that they are spread over the whole earth when he says, 'The nations which are in the four corners of the earth,' and he added that these are Gog and Magog.

The meaning of these names we find to be, Gog, 'a roof,' Magog, 'from a roof' - a house, as it were, and he who comes out of the house.  They are therefore the nations in which we found that the devil was shut up as in an abyss, and the devil himself coming out from them and going forth, so that they are the roof, he from the roof.  Or if we refer both words to the nations, not one to them and one to the devil, then they are both the roof, because in them the old enemy is at present shut up, and as it were roofed in; and they shall be from the roof when they break forth from concealed to open hatred." (City of God, Modern Library edition, p. 729).

Cardinal John Henry Newman was a prophet. He saw the foundations being laid for apostasy in his own time [ the Apostasy which has now arrived]. He was able to see the signs of sickness within the Body of Christ as surely as a physician today is able to detect a cancer in the human body. In a sermon dealing with the times of Antichrist delivered more than a century ago, his Eminence asked, "And is there no reason to fear that some such Apostasy is gradually preparing, gathering, hastening on in this very day? For is there not at this very time a special effort made almost all over the world, that is, every here and there, more or less, in sight or out of sight, in this or that place, but most visibly or formidably in its most civilized and powerful parts, an effort to do without religion? Is there not an opinion avowed and growing, that a nation has nothing to do with religion; that it is merely a matter for each man's own conscience,-which is all one with saying that we may let the truth fail from the earth without trying to continue it? Is there not a vigorous and united movement in all countries to cast down the Church of Christ from power and place? Is there not a feverish and ever busy endeavour to get rid of the necessity of religion in public transactions? for example, an attempt to get rid of oaths, under a pretence that they are too sacred for affairs of common life, instead of providing that they be taken more reverently and more suitably? an attempt to educate without religion,-that is, by putting all forms of religion together, which comes to the same thing? an attempt to enforce temperance, and the virtues which flow from it, without religion, by means of societies which are built on mere principles of utility? an attempt to make expedience, and not truth the end and the rule of measures of state and the enactments of law an attempt to make numbers, and not truth, the ground of maintaining, or not maintaining this or that creed, as if we had any reason whatever in Scripture for thinking that the many will be in the right, and the few in the wrong? An attempt to deprive the Bible of its one meaning to the exclusion of others, to make people think that it may have a hundred meanings all equally good, or in other words, that it has no meaning at all, is a dead letter, and may be put aside? an attempt to supersede religion altogether, as far as it is external or objective, as far as it is displayed in ordinances, or can be expressed by written words,-to confine it to our inward feelings, and thus, considering how transient, how variable, how evanescent our feelings are, an attempt in fact, to destroy religion?

Surely, there is at this day a confederacy of evil, marshalling its hosts from all parts of the world, organizing itself, taking its measures, enclosing the Church of Christ as in a net, and preparing the way for a general apostasy from it. Whether this very apostasy is to give birth to Antichrist, or whether he is still to be delayed, we cannot know; but at any rate this apostasy, and all its tokens, and instruments, are of the Evil One and saviour of death. Far be it from any of us to be of those simple ones, who are taken in that snare which is circling around us! Far be it from us to be seduced with the fair promises in which Satan is sure to hide his poison! Do you think he is so unskillful in his craft, as to ask you openly and plainly to join him in his warfare against the Truth? No; he offers you baits to tempt you. He promises you civil liberty; he promises you equality; he promises you trade and wealth; he promises you a remission of taxes; he promises you reform. This is the way in which he conceals from you the kind of work to which he is putting you; he tempts you to rail against your rulers and superiors; he does so himself, and induces you to imitate him; or he promises you illumination,-he offers you knowledge, science, philosophy, enlargement of mind. He scoffs at times gone by; he scoffs at every institution which reveres them. He prompts you what to say, and then listens to you, and praises you, and encourages you. He bids you mount aloft. He shows you how to become as gods. Then he laughs and jokes with you, and gets intimate with you; he takes your hand, and gets his fingers between yours, and grasps them, and then you are his."

Man is being conditioned to worship himself. The crisis of faith is a crisis of the supernatural. Once this crisis of faith has reached its zenith, once men have deified themselves, the one whom St. Paul calls "the man of iniquity" will reveal himself to the world. For he can only reveal himself within the context of apostasy, loss of faith - open rebellion against God. Until then he is restrained.

*  Scythia was an ancient country lying partly north and northeast of the Black Sea and partly east of the Aral Sea in what is now Russia.

Infected by a self-centered spirit and a silly parochialism, some who claim to be Catholic persecute the Children of Mary

In the latter times right up to the Reign of Antichrist, the enmity between the children of Mary and the children of the Devil will intensify. St. Louis de Montfort: "Mary must become as terrible as an army in battle array to the devil and his followers, especially in these latter times. For Satan, knowing that he has little time - even less now than ever - to destroy souls, intensifies his efforts and his onslaughts every day. He will not hesitate to stir up savage persecutions and set treacherous snares for Mary's faithful servants and children whom he finds more difficult to overcome than others.

It is chiefly in reference to these last wicked persecutions of the devil, daily increasing until the advent of the reign of anti-Christ, that we should understand that first and well-known prophecy and curse of God uttered against the serpent in the garden of paradise. It is opportune to explain it here for the glory of the Blessed Virgin, the salvation of her children and the confusion of the devil. 'I will place enmities between you and the woman, between your race and her race; she will crush your head and you will lie in wait for her heel' (Gen. 3:15).

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

Thus the most fearful enemy that God has set up against the devil is Mary, his holy Mother. From the time of the earthly paradise, although she existed then only in his mind, he gave her such a hatred for his accursed enemy, such ingenuity in exposing the wickedness of the ancient serpent and such power to defeat, overthrow and crush this proud rebel, that Satan fears her not only more than angels and men but in a certain sense more than God himself. This does not mean that the anger, hatred and power of God are not infinitely greater than the Blessed Virgin's, since her attributes are limited. It simply means that Satan, being so proud, suffers infinitely more in being vanquished and punished by a lowly and humble servant of God, for her humility humiliates him more than the power of God. Moreover, God has given Mary such great power over the evil spirits that, as they have often been forced unwillingly to admit through the lips of possessed persons, they fear one of her pleadings for a soul more than the prayers of all the saints, and one of her threats more than all their other torments." True Devotion, Nos 50 - 52).

The Spotless Virgin, the Immaculata, has a special "ingenuity" in exposing the Devil's plans and tactics. Which is why the Devil often uses others - sometimes other Catholics - to try to influence us to abandon our devotion to Mary, or at least to water it down under the pretext that it is "excessive" or "harmful to ecumenism."

The Devil knows that those consecrated to the Immaculata will be protected in a special way in this time of Apostasy. Which is why he attacks their true devotion. Again St. Louis de Montfort: "Since Mary alone has crushed all heresies, as we are told by the Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit (Office of B.V.M.), a devoted servant of hers will never fall into formal heresy or error, though critics may contest this. He may very well err materially, mistaking lies for truth or an evil spirit for a good one, but he will be less likely to do this than others. Sooner or later he will discover his error and will not go on stubbornly believing and maintaining what he mistakenly thought was the truth." (True Devotion, No. 167),

In other words, those who practice true devotion to Mary will be better disposed toward the truth and will receive special graces against error.

The Devil knows this. So he tries desperately to undermine such true devotion: "It's harmful to ecumenism," "It is excessive," "It is too pre-Vatican II," "It is Medeival." Don't you believe the lies. Consecrate yourself daily to the Immaculata. Pope John Paul II, in a General Audience of November 15, 1995, said that to honor Mary is to go to Jesus. How then can our devotion to Mary be said to be "excessive"? During the same General Audience, the Holy Father places "such as Lourdes, Fatima, Loreto, Pompei, Guadalupe and Czestochowa" [this list is not exhaustive]...are "a wonderful testimony to God's mercy, which reaches man through Mary's intercession.."

Yes the Devil knows this too well.  And so he persecutes the faithful servants of Mary (as opposed to those whose devotion to Mary is not authentic - see True Devotion to Mary, 188).  In my own parish, I cannot even participate in the Rosary without being attacked.  I am not permitted to participate in parish ministry.  I cannot even have a Mass said for my father.  St. Louis de Montfort explains, "...sinners continually hate and persecute the elect, openly and secretly.  The elect are a burden to them.  They despise them, criticize them, ridicule them, insult them,, rob them, deceive them, impoverish them, hunt them down and trample them into the dust; while they themselves are making fortunes, enjoying themselves, getting good positions for themselves, enriching themselves, rising to power and living in comfort." (True Devotion to Mary, 190).   Infected by a self-centered spirit and a silly parochialism, some within the Church would exclude those with a true marian devotion, decreeing thereby that there is not room for such within the Mystical Body of Christ.  And in so doing, they make themselves enemies of Christ Jesus Himself!

Liberal columnist Bonnie Erbe: the Christian era is crumbling and this will be liberating

In their Pastoral Letter on Freedom of Conscience and Religion, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, citing Blessed John XXIII's Encyclical Letter Pacem in Terris, No. 14, remind us that, "Every individual has the 'right to be able to worship God in accordance with the right dictates of conscience....Besides being free from external coercion, everyone must be able freely to exercise the right to choose, profess, disseminate, and practice his or her own religion in private and in public.  This includes the freedom for parents to educate their children in their religious convictions and to choose the schools which provide that formation.  Moreover, the State has the obligation to protect this right by means of a legal and administrative framework and to create a suitable environment where it can be enjoyed...Unfortunately, religious freedom is far from being effectively guaranteed everywhere.  Sometimes it is denied for religious or ideological reasons.  At other times, although it may be recognized in law, it is hindered in practice by a legal system or social order which enforces strict control, if not a monopoly, over society....

More subtle threats to religious freedom arise from the cultural predominance of radical secularism and 'a subliminal relativism that penetrates every area of life.  Sometimes this relativism becomes aggressive when it opposes those who say they know where the truth or meaning of life is to be found.' (Pope Benedict XVI, Address to Central Committee for German Catholics, Freiburg in Breisgau, September 24, 2011).

This aggressive and hate-filled secularism which Pope Benedict XVI refers to aims at forcing religious believers - and especially Catholic Christians - to keep their religious convictions to themselves while insisting that atheists, agnostics and the "non-affiliated" should not be held to the same restriction.  The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops rightly declare that such an aim amounts to nothing less than "an expression of religious intolerance."

This intolerance is embraced by liberal columnist Bonnie Erbe.  In a column entitled "Christian leaders losing power, and I'm fine with that," which was carried by the Fitchburg Sentinel & Enterprise, Ms. Erbe argues that America is morphing "from one nation under one Christian god to an amalgam nation under many gods" and that it is "liberating" to know that the non-Christian population is increasing even as the ranks of Church-going Christians decreases.

Ms. Erbe rails against the Catholic Church in particular because the U.S. Bishops have had the audacity to stand up for religious freedom against the Obama administration's contraception mandate which would violate the First Amendment guarantee of religious liberty.  She writes, "Clearly, they and other Christian church leaders still see us as one nation under one god.  But...this is changing.  Another Pew poll released two years ago on the 'millennial' generation and its relationship with faith should be even more troubling to Christian leaders.  It showed the following, quoting from the Pew website: 'Americans ages 18 to 29 are considerably less religious than older Americans.  Fewer young adults belong to any particular faith than older people do today.  They also are less likely to be affiliated than their parents' and grandparents' generations were when they were young.'

For Ms. Erbe, this is all just great news.  She writes joyfully, "One day, Christian leaders will wake up and recognize that their era is crumbling.  If that means they will have decreasing power in the political realm, it will be a blessing for all of us..."

In other words, if the rights and freedoms of Christians are to diminish as their ranks grow smaller, such will represent a blessing to those who oppose the Christian Church.  Having succumbed to the Father of Lies (John 8: 44), Ms. Erbe could not possibly understand that the growing apostasy will not represent a "blessing" for pagans, atheists, agnostics and the "non-affiliated."  On the contrary, the Holy Spirit assures us through Saint Paul that the day of the Lord will not come "unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of perdition" (2 Thessalonians 2: 3) and that, "The coming of the lawless one by the activity of Satan will be with all power and with pretended signs and wonders, and with all wicked deception for those who are to perish, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved." (2 Thessalonians 2: 9-10).

The coming of the lawless one (the Antichrist for the scripturally illiterate) will set off a sequence of events culminating in the complete destruction of those who have "refused to love the truth and so be saved."  Jesus refers to this mystery in John 5: 43.  After this destruction comes, we will have a new heavens and a new earth where nothing unclean shall enter (Revelation 21: 27).

Now that will be a blessing!

Video games promote a culture of violence but abortion doesn't?

Flipping through the news channels just the other day, I overheard a news-anchor assert that anyone who suggests there is a link between abortion and the killing spree which just took place in Newtown, Connecticut is "crazy."

Really?

This same woman, like so many others in the mainstream media who believe that their views are somehow more relevant because they reach beyond the end of a bar, declared that there is a connection between violent video games and the tragedy which occurred at Sandy Hook elementary.  In other words, killing imaginary figures in a video game is part of the problem but killing actual children in the womb has absolutely nothing to do with societal violence.

Insanity.

Pope John Paul II, in his Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae, said that, "...we are confronted by...a veritable structure of sin."  And the most significant part of this structure of sin is the abortion movement, which President Barack Obama fully supports.  John Paul continues, "This reality is characterized by the emergence of a culture which denies solidarity and in many cases takes the form of a veritable 'culture of death.'  This culture is actively fostered by powerful cultural, economic and political currents which encourage an idea of society excessively concerned with efficiency.  Looking at the situation from this point of view, it is possible to speak in a certain sense of a war of the powerful against the weak: a life which would require greater acceptance, love and care is considered useless or held to be an intolerable burden, and is therefore rejected in one way or another.  A person who, because of illness, handicap or, more simply, just by existing, compromises the well-being or life-style of those who are more favored tends to be looked upon as an enemy to be resisted or eliminated.  This conspiracy involves not only individuals in their personal, family or group relationships, but goes far beyond, to the point of damaging and distorting at the international level relations between peoples and States." (Evangelium Vitae, No. 12).

Those who, like the confused news anchor in question, dismiss the link between this "war of the powerful against the weak" and incidents of violence such as the Sandy Hook tragedy, are either living in denial or are simply stupid.  Hatred of the truth is the root of all criminal violence.  Violence entered creation with the rebellion of Lucifer.  And his rebellion arose from pride.  And pride is the offspring of the vice which is known as hatred of truth.

As Fr. Miceli reminded us, "Hatred of truth is the result of the creature's attempt to rearrange God's hierarchy of beings and values into an order which the creature prefers to the plan of God.  This attempt immediately produces the violence of disorder, the chaos of falsity and immorality.  For hatred of truth is really hatred of God who creates all things wisely and governs them lovingly." (Essay entitled The Taproot of Violence).

The President has asked what we're doing as a society to protect all children.  The answer is: nothing, as long as abortion continues in this land.  If only he could understand this.  But then, hatred of truth is at the root of all criminal violence.  And President Obama has shown his hatred for truth with his demonic support of abortion through all nine months of pregnancy.

The "Social Gospel" is more concerned about an earthly future than eternity

Standing before a statue of Mary near the Spanish Steps on the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, Pope Benedict XVI reminded his listeners that the Gospel is the good news of freedom from sin, that it is "the proclamation of the victory of grace over sin, of life over death."  Proponents of the "social gospel" have forgotten this.  The mission of the Church is not to eradicate poverty or social injustice.  As Dr. Dietrich von Hildebrand explains, while "a deep interest in the earthly welfare of our neighbor is a central duty of the Christian and an essential demand of the love of neighbor," still, "it is definitely no part of the message of Christ that there is to be no more poverty, no more war, that the earth is to become a natural paradise."

Proponents of the "social gospel" fail to understand, as Dr. Hildebrand reminds us, that "..the primary task of the Church is the proclamation of the divine Revelation, the protection of it against all heresies, the the sanctification of the soul of the individual, the securing of his eternal salvation - this is the spreading of the kingdom of God on earth, and not the attempt to build up an earthly paradise." (Essay entitled This-Worldliness).

Dr. Hildebrand explains that, "...the motive of many for eliminating poverty (which itself is not morally wicked, but only a morally relevant evil) is not rooted in the spirit of Christ or His Gospel, but in a humanitarian ideal.  The widespread tendency today to demand everything as a right and to refuse to accept any gifts is surely no manifestation of a Christian spirit.  There is in reality a clear, sharply delineated difference between justice and love.  Justice can and should be protected and demanded by state law; but love of neighbor could never be demanded by any law.  For it is a duty before God, and no state law could or should prescribe it or enforce it.  Love of neighbor presupposes the fulfillment of the claims of justice, but it goes far beyond this.  The words of the Gospel, 'if someone asks you to go one mile, go two miles with him,' clearly go far beyond the sphere of justice.  Of course, it is a pharisaical hypocrisy to the demands of justice as if one were giving alms.  But it is a terrible pride not to want to accept any alms, and to demand that which comes as a gift.  The true Christian should be happier to receive alms and to be grateful for them, than simply to receive what he has a right to.  When he receives a gift he is happy not only over the good which is the gift, but also over the goodness of the giver; and he experiences it as a great source of happiness that he can and should be grateful."

Priests and deacons who have succumbed to the distortions of the "social gospel" seldom, if ever, preach against sin or remind their listeners of the reality of Hell.  Dr. Hildebrand addresses this fact saying that, "this-worldly tendency can be detected in various pastoral letters, and above all in countless sermons.  One speaks more about the fight against poverty and for social justice and world peace - in a word, more about improving the world - than about offending God by our sins, sanctifying the individual, about heaven and hell, eternity and the hope of eternal union with God in the beatific vision.  The this-worldly tendency emphasizes the earthly future more than eternity..." (This-Worldliness).

The true Christian, in the Creed, proclaims: Et exspecto resurrectionem mortuorum, et vitam venturi saeculi - 'We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come."  But proponents of the "social gospel" have largely abandoned such a hope and prefer instead to embrace a humanitarian religion and to work for an earthly "utopia."  Robert Hugh Benson, in his classic work entitled The Lord of the World, describes this humanitarian religion:

"Humanitarianism..is becoming an actual religion itself; though anti-supernatural.  It is a pantheism.  Pantheism deifies all nature, God is the world, but naturally, man above all is God since he is the highest expression of nature.  It is a religion devoid of the 'super' natural, because since God is nature itself, there is no longer a distinction between Creator and creature.  The creature is God and hence arbitrator of his own destiny and establishes the moral law for himself....Humanitarianism is a religion devoid of the supernatural.  It is developing a ritual under Freemasonry; it has a creed, 'God is man'; and the rest.  It has, therefore, a real food of a sort to offer religious cravings: it idealizes and yet makes no demands upon the spiritual faculties..." (Introduction, p. xvii).

The Church's mission is not to solve poverty.  In fact, Jesus said that we would always have the poor with us (Mark 14: 7).  The Church's mission is the salvation of souls.  When a crowd of people went searching for Jesus and found Him on the other side of the Sea of Galilee, they said to Him, 'Rabbi, when did you come here?'  And Jesus answered them, 'Truly, truly, I say to you you seek me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves.  Do not labour for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you; for on Him has God the Father set His seal."  The crowd said to Him, "What must we do, to be doing the works of God?"  And Jesus answered them: "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him who He has sent." (John 6: 25-29).

The work of God is believing in Him whom the Father has sent.  Jesus reveals Himself as the Bread of Life.  He reveals in the synagogue who He is, where He comes from and the good things He has in store for those who believe in Him: faith, the Eucharist and eternal life.

Proponents of the 'social gospel" have forgotten that "man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God" (Matthew 4: 4).  Crippled by distorted humanitarian ideals, such confused souls forget Our Lord's injunction to "seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things (food, drink, clothing etc) shall be yours as well." (Matthew 6: 33).

Mr. President....Do you really respect human life or were your tears simply an act?

"… If we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another?…Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want. This is why the greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion." - Mother Teresa of Calcutta

It's not gun control we need Mr. President.  It's respect for the sanctity of all human life - from the first moment of conception through the final moments of natural death.  When Pope Benedict XVI attempted to discuss abortion with you just after the 2008 presidential election, you told His Holiness that you disagree with him.  What is the nature of your disagreement with the Vicar of Christ?  Where are your tears for the innocent children who are murdered in the womb and even during birth (partial-birth abortion) which is nothing less than infanticide?

Do you really respect human life or were you simply playing to the cameras to politicize this tragedy and to advance gun-control?

Mr. President?

Broader participation of the laity in the apostolic life of the Church?

In an essay entitled, “The Case for the Latin Mass,” Dr. Dietrich von Hildebrand explains that, “Those who rhapsodize on the new liturgy make much of the point that over the years the Mass had lost its communal character and had become an occasion for individualistic worship.  The new vernacular Mass, they insist, restores the sense of community by replacing private devotions with community participation.  Yet they forget that there are different levels and kinds of communion with other persons.  The level and nature of a community experience is determined by the theme of the communion, the name or cause in which men are gathered.  The higher the good which the theme represents, and which binds men together, the more sublime and deeper is the communion.  The ethos and nature of a community experience in the case of a great national emergency is obviously radically different from the community experience of a cocktail party.  And of course the most striking differences in communities will be found between the community whose theme is supernatural and the one whose theme is merely natural.  The actualization of the souls of men who are truly touched by Christ is the basis of a unique community, a sacred communion, one whose quality is incomparably more sublime than that of any natural community.  The authentic we-communion of the faithful, which the liturgy of Holy Thursday expresses so well in the words congregavit nos in unum Christi amor, is possible only as a fruit of the I-Thou communion with Christ Himself.  Only a direct relation to the God-man can actualize this sacred union among the faithful.  The communion of Christ has nothing of the self-assertion found in natural communities.  It breathes of the Redemption.  It liberates men from all self-centeredness.  Yet such a communion emphatically does not depersonalize the individual.  Far from dissolving the person into the cosmic, pantheistic swoon so often commended to us these days, it actualizes the person’s true self in a unique way.  In the community of Christ the conflict between person and community that is present in all natural communities cannot exist. 

 

So this sacred community experience is really at war with the depersonalizing ‘we-experience’ found in mass assemblies and popular gatherings which tend to absorb and evaporate the individual.  This communion in Christ that was so fully alive in the early Christian centuries, that all the saints entered into, that found a matchless expression in the liturgy now under attack - this communion has never regarded the individual person as a mere segment of the community, or as an instrument to serve it.  In this connection it is worth noting that totalitarian ideology is not alone in sacrificing the individual to the collective; some of Teilhard de Chardin’s cosmic ideas, for instance, imply the same collectivistic sacrifice.  Teilhard subordinates the individual and his sanctification to the supposed development of humanity.  At a time when this perverse theory of community is embraced even by many Catholics, there are plainly urgent reasons for vigorously insisting on the sacred character of the true communion in Christ.

 

I submit that the new liturgy must be judged by this test: Does it contribute to the authentic sacred community?  Granted that it strives for a community character; but is this the character desired?  Is it a communion grounded in recollection, contemplation and reverence? Which of the two - the new Mass, or the Latin Mass with the Gregorian chant - evokes these attitudes of soul more effectively, and thus permits the deeper and true communion?  Is it not plain that frequently the community character of the new Mass purely profane, that, as with other social gatherings, its blend of casual relaxation and bustling activity precludes a reverent, contemplative confrontation with Christ and with the ineffable mystery of the Eucharist?...our epoch is pervaded by a spirit of irreverence.  It is seen in a distorted notion of freedom that demands rights while refusing obligations, that exalts self-indulgence, that counsels ‘let yourself go.’  The habitare secum of St. Gregory’s Dialogues - the dwelling in the presence of God - which presupposes reverence, is considered today to be unnatural, pompous, or servile.

 

But is not the new liturgy a compromise with this modern spirit?  Whence comes the disparagement of kneeling?  Why should the Eucharist be received standing?  Is not kneeling, in our culture, the classic expression of adoring reverence?  The argument that at a meal we should stand rather than kneel is hardly convincing.  For one thing, this is not the natural posture for eating: we sit, and in Christ’s time some reclined.  But more important, it is a specifically irreverent conception of the Eucharist to stress its character as a meal at the cost of its unique character as a holy mystery.  Stressing the meal at the expense of the sacrament surely betrays a tendency to obscure the sacredness of the sacrifice.  This tendency is apparently traceable to the unfortunate belief that religious life will become more vivid, more existential, if it is immersed in our everyday life.  But this is to run the danger of absorbing the religious in the mundane, of effacing the difference between the supernatural and the natural.  I fear that it represents an unconscious intrusion of the naturalistic spirit, of the spirit more fully expressed in Teilhard de Chardin’s immanentism....

 

Those who idolize our epoch, who thrill at what is modern simply because it is modern, who believe that in our day man has finally ‘come of age,’ lack pietas.  The pride of these ‘temporal nationalists’ is not only irreverent, it is incompatible with real faith.  A Catholic should regard his liturgy with pietas.  He should revere, and therefore fear to abandon the prayers and postures and music that have been approved by so many saints throughout the Christian era and delivered to us a precious heritage..”

 

An article written by Marcellino D’Ambrosio for the Catholic News Service and carried on the front page of The Catholic Free Press and entitled “A ‘student’ of Vatican II,” displays such an irreverence for the Mass which made saints like Padre Pio and the Cure of Ars.  In his article, Mr. D’Ambrosio repeats the tired mantra: “Before the council, laity were passive spectators in the liturgy, often praying devotional prayers while they were ‘hearing’ Mass since the readings were in Latin...The goal of the council was to promote the conscious, active participation of the laity in the liturgy, but also to restore a much broader and richer participation of the laity in the apostolic life of the church as reflected in the Acts of the Apostles and the epistles.”

 

Such an attitude betrays a hateful irreverence toward the Mass which made such great saints as Padre Pio and the holy Cure of Ars, Saint Jean Vianney.  In “Salt of the Earth,” then Cardinal Ratzinger and now Pope Benedict XVI declared that, “A community is calling its very being into question when it suddenly declares that what until now was its holiest and highest possession is strictly forbidden and when it makes the longing for it seem downright indecent.” 

 

How much more so when that same liturgy is disparaged?

 

Mr. D’Ambrosio’s article is an exercise in chronolatry and nothing more.  Let’s examine the fruits of this attempt to “promote the conscious, active participation of the laity in the liturgy” while restoring a “much broader and richer participation of the laity in the apostolic life of the Church.”  Patrick Buchanan writes, “The 1950s were America’s Catholic moment.  The moral authority of the Pope and America’s bishops was never higher.  Long lines formed outside confessionals on Saturdays.  It was standing room only at Sunday Mass [the same Mass now disparaged by the progressives today].  Fr. Patrick Peyton’s Rosary Crusade (‘The family that prays together stays together’) drew huge crowds.  The most visible prelate was Msgr. Fulton J. Sheen, whose television ratings bested those of Milton Berle.  ‘He’s got better writers than I do,’ quipped Berle.  Notre Dame’s legendary gridiron teams had millions of ‘subway alumni.’  Four out of five Catholics cast their votes in 1960 for John F. Kennedy, who became our first Catholic president...Half a century on [since Vatican II], the disaster is manifest.  The robust and confident Church of 1958 no longer exists.  Catholic colleges and universities remain Catholic in name only.  Parochial schools are closing as rapidly as they opened in the 1950s.  The number of nuns, priests, and seminarians have fallen dramatically.  Mass attendance is a third of what it was [broader participation?].  From the former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi to vice president Joe Biden, Catholic politicians openly support abortion on demand...

 

Four decades after Vatican II, a quarter century into the pontificate of John Paul II, Kenneth C. Jones of St. Louis pulled together a slim volume of statistics demonstrating that the fears traditionalists who warned that the council was courting catastrophe had been justified.  And they exposed as naive those who insisted that the council would revitalize the faith, reconcile Catholicism with modernity, and make the Church more appealing to our secular world.  Here are Jones statistics on the decline and fall:

 

Clergy.  While the number of priests in the United States more than doubled to 58,000 between 1930 and 1965, between 1965 and 2002 that number fell to 45,000 and is on course to sink to 31,000 in 2020, when more than half of all Catholic priests will be over the age of seventy.

 

Ordinations.  In 1965, 1,575 priests were ordained.  In 2002, the figure was 450.

 

Parishes.  In 1965, only 1 percent of parishes were without a priest.  In 2002, 15 percent, or 3,000 parishes, were without priests.

 

Seminarians.  Between 1965 and 2002, the number of seminarians fell from 49,000 to 4,700, a decline of more than 90 percent.  Two-thirds of the 600 seminaries operating at the end of Vatican II have closed.

 

Nuns.  In 1965, there were 180,000 Catholic nuns.  By 2002, that number was down to 75,000 and their average age was 68.  By 2009, their numbers had fallen to 60,000, a loss of two-thirds in four and a half decades.

 

Teaching Nuns.  In 1965, there were 104,000 teaching nuns.  Today, there are 8,200.

 

Jesuits.  In 1965, 3,559 young men were studying to become Jesuit priests.  In 2,000, the figure was 389.

 

Christian Brothers.  The situation here is even more dire.  Their ranks have shrunk by two-thirds, while the number of seminarians has fallen by 99 percent.  In 1965, there were 912 seminarians in the Christian Brothers.  In 2,000, there were seven.

 

Religious Orders.  The number of young men studying to become Franciscan and Redemptorist priests fell from 3,379 in 1965 to 84 in 2000.  For many religious orders in America the end is in sight.

 

Diocesan High Schools.  Almost half of these high schools operating in the United States in 1965 had closed by 2002, and student enrollment had fallen from 700,000 to 386,000.

 

Parochial Schools.  In 1965, there were 4.5 million children in parish grammar schools.  By 2000, the number had plunged to 1.9 million.  In the first decade of this century, the number dropped again, to 1.5 million, a loss of two-thirds of Catholic parochial school enrollment since Vatican II - in a country whose population grew in that period by over 100 million.

 

In 2007, after interviewing 35,000 people for its U.S. Religious Landscape Survey, the Pew Forum confirmed what Jones had reported.  Since Vatican II, the Catholic Church in America had undergone a decline to rival what happened in some northern European countries during the Reformation.  By 2007:

 

One in three Catholics reared in the faith had left the Church.

 

One in ten American adults was a fallen-away Catholic.

 

Catholics remained 24 percent of the U.S. population only because of immigration.  Forty-six percent of all immigrants are Catholics.  As Irish, German, Italian, and Polish Catholics leave the Church or die, the pews fill up with Mexicans, Central Americans, Filipinos, and Vietnamese.  Were it not for immigrants, Catholics would have fallen from a fourth of the population to 18.4 percent, or less than one fifth...

 

Catholic losses have been ‘staggering,’ writes Fr. Joseph Sirba, ‘if one excludes immigrants and converts from the calculations, the Catholic Church has lost to other religions or to no religion at all 35.4 percent - or more than one-third - of the 64,131,750 of its native-born members....

 

The Catholics who remain in the Church are not nearly as firm in the faith or devout as their parents were.  The institutional shrinkage mirrors a spreading disbelief in doctrines that define the faith....Where a 1958 Gallup poll revealed that three of every four Catholics attended Mass on Sundays, a recent study by the University of Notre Dame found that one in four Catholics attend Sunday Mass today.”

 

Is this the “broader and richer participation of the laity in the apostolic life of the Church” which  Mr. D’Ambrosio refers to?  If so, he can keep it.

 

Buchanan continues: “Only 10 percent of lay teachers accept church teaching on contraception.  Fifty-three percent of lay teachers believe a woman can have an abortion and remain a good Catholic, even though participation in an abortion means automatic excommunication.  Sixty-five percent of lay teachers believe Catholics may divorce and remarry.  Seventy-seven percent believe one can be a good Catholic without going to Sunday Mass.  Millions of Catholic children are being taught their faith by heretics.....According to one New York Times poll, 70 percent of all Catholics 18-44 believed the Eucharist is but a ‘symbolic reminder’ of Jesus, and nearly two-thirds of all Catholics agreed.  Through the papacy of Pius XII, Catholicism remained the Church of the deeply traditionalist Council of Trent...refusing to modify its teachings to accommodate the age.  After Vatican II, the Church came out to meet the world.  The statistics give us the results of the encounter.” (Suicide of a Superpower, pp. 88-94).

 

The Mass which is popularly known as the Tridentine Mass informed the spiritual lives of so many saints.  Even while accepting its validity, can we honestly say the same about the new Mass?

 

Can we?

Photograph is of the Office Manager for Saint Joseph's Parish in Fitchburg.