Tom Horn attacks Fatima on Sid Roth's "It's Supernatural"

Tom Horn sees demons everywhere. The Assembly of God pastor and author of numerous works of anti-Catholic theology-fiction such as “The Ahriman Gate,” “Nephilim Stargates” and “As It Was in the Days of Noah,” is now accusing the Catholic Church, the Church founded by Jesus Christ, of preparing to welcome “an alien savior.” In his new book entitled ‘Exo-Vaticana: Petrus Romanus, Project L.U.C.I.F.E.R., and the Vatican’s Astonishing Plan for the Arrival of an Alien Savior,” Mr. Horn warns that “Rome is busy now hypothecating the astonishing doctrines that will facilitate the coming of a Galactic Savior.”

Horn’s thesis (and that of his co-author Cris Putnam (whom the book touts as a “respected theologian and apologist) is that the Roman Catholic Church is searching the skies for demons who will soon arrive on planet earth in the guise of aliens and will baptize these demonic entities. Additionally, these two authors claim that the Church has been preparing for an alien savior for many centuries and that the Virgin Mary who appeared at Fatima was really a demonic deception Horn and Putnam write, “Considering Constantine’s fourth-century sighting got it started, the event in Fatima, and all the sightings over the Vatican, Roman Catholicism arguably qualifies as a UFO religion.” (P. 367).

Horn’s book is chock full of such items. On page 221, he questions free will: “..the question of human autonomy in accepting God and rejecting Satan is a matter of intense intermural debate among Christians and is by no means a given.” On page 235, Horn takes exception with the Church’s understanding of Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus, asserting that the Church’s position represents “liberalized inclusivism”which is “considered heretical by Bible-believing Christians.” On pages 238 and 239, Horn suggests that the Catholic Church’s hierarchy has “been deceived by..evil supernatural intelligences.” On page 256, he asserts that the Middle Ages represented a “Dark Age” and a “Pornocracy” during which “..many in the priesthood were..involved in the occult arts and were not well trained in biblical theology.” On page 257, he accuses Albertus Magnus as having been “in league with the Devil.” On pages 259 and 260, he describes a vision which Nicholas of Cusa allegedly had and emphatically declares that this vision “went unchallenged by the Church” (Thereby displaying his ignorance regarding the Church’s teaching pertaining to private revelation - see Catechism of the Catholic Church, 67). On page 308, Horn and Putnam refer to what they see as “The absurdity of Catholic claims to an infallible teaching magisterium..” On page 270, Horn and Putnam assert that, “..the Roman Church [note how they omit the word Catholic) is forever besmirched by its capacity for murderous zeal.”

Chapter 14 of this anti-Catholic tome is entitled “Fatima: Harbinger of the Great Deception?” Horn and Putnam reject the miracle of the sun, asserting that, “..if the sun had actually moved in the described manner, the gravitational effects would have devastated the Earth.” The authors purposely ignore the fact that God created nature, that He is omnipotent, and that He can work in and through nature as He likes. The same God who parted the Red Sea and calmed the storm waters when His disciples became afraid can certainly move heavenly bodies. But in their desire to denigrate devotion to Mary (which they refer to as “Mariolatry”), Horn and Putnam insist that what the people at Fatima actually witnessed was not a miracle of the sun but an alien disc (demonic in origin) and that “entities behind the aerial phenomenon are influencing Catholic dogmas” - such as the Assumption of Mary pp. 367, 368).

Horn and Putnam assert that the miraculous apparitions of Our Lady to Bernadette Soubirous at Lourdes, France were the result of “Mariolatry,” and that the apparition was a story crafted, “..at a time when the status of the Virgin was being challenged within the Catholic Church.” (P. 368). The authors insist that, “The priest [St. Bernadette’s parish priest] spun this phantasm into evidence for Marian dogma, and the rest is history. Astonishingly, Bernadette was heralded as a mystic, canonized as a saint in 1933, and even given her own feast day on the sixteenth of April. See a pattern emerging? Like at Fatima, it always speaks through naive children...While a few credulous Portuguese children could be easily deceived by a supernatural entity, the events at Fatima had nothing to do with the biblical Mary.” (P. 368). The authors insist, however, that “Many scholars are now categorizing Fatima as a mass UFO sighting.” (P. 369).

Why are Tom Horn and Cris Putnam (not to mention Sid Roth who has promoted these two anti-Catholic bigots on his television program “It’s Supernatural”) so anxious to discredit Fatima and devotion to Our Lady in general? Because devotion to Our Lady is necessary for salvation. And because the Devil knows that the requests Our Lady made at Fatima represent the definitive solution to defeating the Devil and his agents. The Devil hates Fatima - and other approved apparition sites - for this reason. But especially Fatima. The Devil wants to discredit Fatima because he is a liar and a murderer from the beginning (see John 8: 44). The Devil knows that his time is short and that the prophetic mission of Fatima is still most relevant. This is why Pope Benedict XVI said, on May 13, 2010, that “He deceives himself who thinks the prophetic mission of Fatima is concluded.”

The Devil fears Our Lady. With each “Hail Mary,” all of Hell trembles. St. Louis de Montfort assures us of this. And so the Devil seeks (often using human agents to accomplish this goal) to draw the faithful away from Fatima and other Church approved apparitions.

It is most significant that Tom Horn reveals in his book that he had a family secret which he “could neither understand nor talk about.” The secret? His sister Vida and her daughter have had encounters with demonic spirits who he describes as “floating monstrosities” which “seemed to dematerialize like ectoplasm through a fantastic, spinning void” and which left behind the smell of sulfur and decaying flesh. (pp. 449-460). Why is this significant? Because demonic oppression can often run in families.

Tom Horn and Cris Putnam do not think much of Mary. This is why the denigrate devotion to her. But as Archbishop Fulton Sheen says in his classic work entitled ‘The World’s First Love,” “..The key to understanding Mary is this: We do not start with Mary. We start with Christ, the Son of the living God! The less we think of Him, the less we think of her; the more we think of Him, the more we think of her; the more we adore His Divinity, the more we venerate her Motherhood; the less we adore His Divinity, the less reason we have for respecting her....”

Sid Roth continues to promote Horn and Putnam’s book. He may be contacted at:

Sid Roth’s It’s Supernatural & Messianic Vision
P.O. Box 39222
Charlotte, NC 28278
704-943-6500

Archbishop assaulted by topless "gay" activists

Another example of homosexual hate, this time perpetrated against a Catholic Archbishop.  See here.

Already, so many - including many Christians -  have been seduced by the religious deception which is presented as the "new religion," the religion of the Age of Aquarius. Those who wish to destroy the Church and to prepare the way for the Man of Sin know full well that external persecution only strengthens the Church. Therefore, they strive to bring down the Church through internal betrayal and infidelity.


As I've said before, "The new humanitarian religion, which is anti-supernatural, must absorb Christianity as it prepares for the entrance of the Man of Sin. Catholics who maintain a devotion to the Holy Eucharist and Our Lady [and authentic devotion to Our Lady presupposes total obedience to the Church's Magisterium] must first be ostracized and later eliminated as incompatible with the New Order."

"Erit enim tempus, cum sanam doctrinam non sustinebunt, sed ad sua desideria coacervabunt sibi magistros, prurientes auribus. Et a veritate quidem auditum avertent, ad fabulas autem convertentur." (2 Timothy 4: 3-4).

And that time is now. New Age philosophies are spreading throughout the Church. Homosexuality and lesbianism are celebrated. Even in many Catholic parishes. Intoxicated with their own knowledge and learning, those who have succumbed to friendship with the world tell us that we must leave behind the "old complexes" and reject "backward thinking" so that we may evolve into more "civilized" beings who may then build an earthly paradise. These misguided souls are not interested in knowledge for the sake of truth, but for power and possession.

It was Dr. Dietrich von Hildebrand who warned that,"..a much worse consequence of the idol of learning is the killing of common sense, which is being undertaken on a widespread scale in grammar schools, high schools, and colleges. One forgets the great source of wisdom which lies in our immediate contact with being, and how pernicious it is to replace the resulting world view, with instruction which draws its nourishment from doubtful psychological and sociological theories, and false, flat philosophies. Every immediate, true experience in which the voice of being speaks to a person, is much more interesting than the questionable theories he has adopted concerning the world and life. Thus it is that a simple, unlettered man, when he speaks about the world and his life, is much wiser, much truer, and more genuine than all the half-educated people who simply repeat the stupid theories expounded by their professors. The statement of a simple person may be clumsily expressed; it may be incomplete, and even contain errors. But it will always have a kernel of truth, always the freshness of a genuine contact with reality, and be free from the arrogant presumption of establishing a valid theory in the sense of looking 'behind the scenes' of reality, and being able to 'explain' everything. The dangerous error of the cult of teaching and learning reaches its climax in the ambition to improve, modify, or even replace natural, immediate, organic contact with the world and life, by an artificial contact based on so-called 'scientific' theories." (The Devastated Vineyard, pp. 85-86).

We are commanded, "Do not love the world or the things of the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, sensual lust, enticement for the eyes, and a pretentious life, is not from the Father but is from the world. Yet the world and its enticement are passing away. But whoever does the will of God remains forever." (2 Timothy 2: 15-17)

The diabolical disorientation Sister Lucia of Fatima spoke of is growing day by day.  In my next post, I will be examining the writings of an anti-Catholic bigot who is attempting to paint the Fatima apparition as a demonic deception.

Bishop McManus and dialogue with Muslims

In a previous post, I refuted Bishop Robert McManus' argument for rescinding the invitation of Mr. Robert Spencer to speak at this year's Catholic Men's Conference which was held in Worcester.  Specifically, Bishop McManus asserted that his decision was based, "..solely on the concern that Mr. Spencer's talk would impact negatively on the Church's increasingly constructive dialogue with Muslims."

And now we are suffering the aftermath of a heinous terrorist attack in Boston perpetrated by Tamerlan Tsarnaev, who was radicalized by militant Islam and who possessed jihadist videos on his YouTube channel, and his younger brother Dzhokhar, who was more than likely influenced by the older brother's fanatical intolerance.

If our dialogue with Islam is as "constructive" as Bishop McManus would have us believe, why are Christians being put to death and persecuted by Muslims all around the world?  Why are Christian churches being destroyed? 

Lee Harris, in his important book entitled The Suicide of Reason: Radical Islam's Threat to the West, notes how Islam's fanatical intolerance isn't limited to the Taliban or groups which openly call for Jihad.  He writes, "Another example of the persistence of the fanatical intolerance of Muslims came to the world's attention in the same year as the cartoon riots.  A Muslim in Afghanistan had converted to Christianity - the same Afghanistan that the United States had liberated from the fanaticism of the Taliban.  But fanatical intolerance in Afghanistan clearly did not require an organization like the Taliban to keep it alive.  Here again, it sprang up quite spontaneously from the religious and learned mullahs and from the bulk of the people.  Islamic law demands that an apostate from Islam should be executed, and there were cries for blood that again took the form of riots and outrageous pronouncements from Muslim clerics, one of whom urged that the apostate be torn limb from limb by the people themselves.  Fortunately, due to pressure from the West, the man was flown out of Afghanistan to sanctuary in Italy." (p. 210).

There is a concerted effort within the Church to promote a false irenicism and some even wish to merge Christianity and Islam, which rejects the divinity of Christ.  Bishop McManus rescinded Robert Spencer's invitation to speak at the Catholic Men's Conference because he was worried Mr. Spencer's informative presentation might be offensive to Muslims in the State of Massachusetts.  I wonder how offensive he finds the Boston Marathon terrorist attack to be.

Important article written by Robert Spencer here.

B Strong or B Holy?

"For the hope of the wicked is as dust, which is blown away with the wind, and as a thin froth which is dispersed by the storm: and a smoke that is scattered abroad by the wind: and as the remembrance of a guest of one day that passeth by." (Wisdom 5:15).


By now you've all seen the horrible images of the terrorist attack upon the Boston Marathon which took place on Patriot's Day.  Innocent people were injured and even killed.  But while there is universal agreement as to the heinous nature of this terrible crime, few have reflected on the fact that God, in His permitting will, often allows such events to take place for a greater good.  For some forty years we have been fashioning a chastisement with our own hands.  Our sin-sick nation has permitted innocent children to be murdered in the womb - and even as they are being born (so-called "partial-birth abortion").  Our president supports such killing, even as he speaks of the heinous crime which was committed in Boston.

Years ago, Father Albert J. Hebert, S.M., warned that because of abortion and homosexuality and "the many other sins that abound today, personal, familial, social and political, we can expect that there will be expanding natural disasters and new man-made ones. Such things as California fires and Florida freezes will increase. Hail, rain and river floods, tornados, typhoons, todal waves and the hurricane will continue increasingly to be God's cleansing tools. volcanos will spout red lava and hot ash, mud slides and avalanches will roar down mountain sides. Acid rain, chemical pollution explosions too will take their toll...

Depressions, financial collapses, hunger marches, strikes, panics and riots, all will come as also more Ethiopias of famine and deprivation. Satanic and occult cults, conspirators and secret society members will grow more active. Walls of prisons and jails will bulge even more. False philosophies and isms of all kinds [such as Socialism, my note] will flourish....

But there is the good side also, which, of course, is mainly for repentant people and the suffering good. A message from the Guardian Angel and Protector of the United States of America to Sister M., Aug 22, 1981, gives consolation and encouragement: 'If the people of this land carry out faithfully the instructions and pleadings of the Lord Jesus and the Virgin Mother then they will be following me to the hour of peace. With this sword of the Divine white flame of Love and the lightning bolts of His Infinite Justice God will strike down His enemies and heal the repentant sinner. This nation and all who follow in the pursuit of peace will know the protection of God and the destruction of those, who fight and seek to destroy them through the evil powers of the infernal spirits of darkness and hate.'...

It is as simple as that!....This is a time for making great efforts that the Chastisement be mitigated. When the biggest catastrophes break it will be too late.  Violence is rooted in a rejection of the truth, a rejection of God's created order.  See here

.

Right now, many are exhorting us to "B Strong."  But what we need is to 'B Holy."  What's stopping us?

Obama's birth certificate is no longer necessary

We no longer need Barack Obama's birth certificate.  As this article explains.  So many have been blind to the truth because the world is ready for falsehood and the emerging Man of Sin.  Before his election to the White House, Elle Associate Publisher Samantha Fennell gushed: "Barack Obama must be elected President of the United States. It’s his worldview, his clarity of judgment, and his just plain right-mindedness that resonate with me. Figuring that my efforts were best spent raising money for the campaign, I have thrown myself into a new world—one in which fluffy chatter and frivolous praise are replaced by a get-to-the-point directness and disciple-like devotion. It’s intense and intoxicating.... I have to confess I felt a certain shame that the dress I wore—a bright-red Prada number from next season that my former boss, Carol, insisted I buy the day before—cost more than the $1,000 ticket to the event itself. ... How this paid off I’ll share in a moment...I was on my feet as Senator Obama entered the room. Fate had blessed me in this moment, as I realized that the aisle that was keeping me from my seat was created for him and his secret service escort to make their way to the stage. Within seconds, he was a few feet from me. Cameras were flashing, everyone was cheering, and I knew this was my moment. I pushed my way up to the barricade as he shook hands with as many people as time would allow. I squeezed up front, but Obama was moving quickly and just passed me by. Then, in a moment of divine intervention, he saw me, clad in my red stop-sign of a dress, back-tracked ever so slightly in his procession, grabbed my hand, and gave that brilliant smile of his. I literally said out loud to the woman next to me who witnessed my good fate, "I’ll never wash this hand again." (July 2008).

Dinesh Sharma said, "Many even see in Obama a messiah-like figure, a great soul, and some affectionately call him Mahatma Obama."  Daily Kos reported, "Does it not feel as if some special hand is guiding Obama on his journey, I mean, as he has said, the utter improbability of it all?"  Toni Morrison said, "[Obama is] creative imagination which coupled with brilliance equals wisdom...[He is] the man for this time." And Oprah Winfrey asserted that, "We're here to evolve to a higher plane...he is our evolved leader...[he] has an ear for eloquence and a Tongue dipped in the Unvarnished Truth."

The "evolved leader" is a manchurian candidate doing his part to prepare this country for the Man of Sin.  His tongue is not dipped in unvarnished truth but in falsehood.

Pope Francis' example exhorts men to holiness

For far too long, many priests have been offering not the fine wheat of sound doctrine but the chaff of theological dissent from the teaching of the Church's Magisterium. Hence we have experienced not renewal but a spiritual dry rot. Vatican II, in its' Decree on the Ministry and Life of Priests (Presbyterorum Ordinis) No. 4, had this to say: "The People of God are joined together primarily by the word of the living God. And rightfully they expect this from their priests. Since no one can be saved who does not first believe, priests, as co-workers with their bishops, have the primary duty of proclaiming the Gospel of God to all. In this way they fulfill the command of the Lord: "Going therefore into the whole world preach the Gospel to every creature" (Mk 16:15), and they establish and build up the People of God. Through the saving word the spark of faith is lit in the hearts of unbelievers, and fed in the hearts of the faithful. This is the way that the congregation of faithful is started and grows, just as the Apostle describes: "Faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ" (Rom 10:17).

To all men, therefore, priests are debtors that the truth of the Gospel which they have may be given to others. And so, whether by entering into profitable dialogue they bring people to the worship of God, whether by openly preaching they proclaim the mystery of Christ, or whether in the light of Christ they treat contemporary problems, they are relying not on their own wisdom for it is the word of Christ they teach, and it is to conversion and holiness that they exhort all men."

According to the Council, the task of priests is "not to teach their own wisdom but God's Word." And this task is of no less importance for the priest than his offering of the Eucharistic Sacrifice. Both of these are inseperably linked to each other: "The ministerial priesthood has the task not only of representing Christ - Head of the Church - before the assembly of the faithful, but also of acting in the name of the whole Church when presenting to God the prayer of the Church, and above all when offering the Eucharistic sacrifice." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 1552).

For this reason, priests have the very serious obligation to teach the faithful under their care that it is never licit to have sexual relations outside of marriage; that a Catholic cannot (having been validly married in the Church) after divorce, marry another or otherwise pretend that sexual relations with another individual are somehow "marital"; that "formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense" and that '"the Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life" (CCC, 2272); and that "every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible, is intrinsically evil.." (CCC, No. 2370, citing Humanae Vitae, No. 14).

The Church proposes these (and other teachings) as true and it does so in the name of Christ. The priest is not to question them. He is not to ignore them or neglect them out of a false sense of "compassion" or "charity." It was Pope Paul VI who said that, "To diminish in no way the saving teaching of Christ constitutes an eminent form of charity for souls." (Humanae Vitae, No. 29). Pope John Paul II reiterated these words in Familiaris Consortio, No. 33.

We are reminded in Lumen Gentium 14 of the Second Vatican Council that: "He is not saved, however, who, though part of the body of the Church, does not persevere in charity. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but, as it were, only in a "bodily" manner and not "in his heart." All the Church's children should remember that their exalted status is to be attributed not to their own merits but to the special grace of Christ. If they fail moreover to respond to that grace in thought, word and deed, not only shall they not be saved but they will be the more severely judged."

When a priest ignores or neglects his duty, his task, of serving the Word of God with fidelity, he fails to persevere in that charity described by Popes Paul VI and John Paul II as a charity which diminishes in no way the saving teaching of Christ. And he will be the more severely judged ( See Luke 12:48).

Thanks be to God, we have a Holy Father whose example is calling lapsed Catholics back into the Church.  See here.

But then it was Saint Francis, from whom our Holy Father took his name, who said, "Preach always, use words if necessary."

Pope Francis and the restoration of the moral credibility of the hierarchy and the priesthood

In an article which may be found here, Father Roger Landry of the Fall River (Massachusetts) Diocese notes, "One of the most urgent reforms facing him [Pope Francis] is the restoration of the moral credibility of the hierarchy, and especially of the priesthood...The scandals of clerical sex abuse and tales of Vatican corruption have not only severely undermined the Church’s moral authority, but given the impression that living by the Church’s teachings forms freaks and moral monsters rather than saints. In his first couple of weeks as Pope, as well as his fourteen years in Buenos Aires, Francis has been charting out the trajectory of priestly reshaping. We can focus on seven aspects of this needed renewal. The first is with regard to priestly simplicity. Diocesan priests do not take a vow of poverty, but commit themselves to a simple lifestyle. In many places, this principle is given lip service, as members of the clergy drive fancy cars, frequent the finest restaurants and live in exquisite digs. Cardinal Bergoglio’s example of living in a small apartment rather than an episcopal palace, taking public transportation rather than a car with a driver and cooking for himself cannot help but lead priests to a sincere examination about the sincerity of their own spiritual poverty."

Well said.

Jesus disciples are called to carry their cross and follow Him (Mt 16:24; Mk 8:34; Lk 9:23). Above all, Christians are called to love as Jesus does (Jn 13: 34-35). But the cross is not popular with those who are advancing the "new religion" which will serve the New Order. The cross has never been popular with those who belong to the company of the world or the Devil. Today, countless young people (and old) have given themselves over to promiscuous sexual unions. In the mad pursuit of wealth, power, fame, and various hedonistic pleasures (euphemistically referred to as "choice" or "alternative lifestyles"), many poor souls have given themselves over to the Devil. Many who call themselves "Christian" are really living pagan lives.  And their "pastors," often living disordered lives themselves, say nothing.  Many of these have succumbed to materialism and hedonism. and find themselves unable to condemn sins which they have embraced.


This is, of course, nothing new. But the sexual degeneration in so-called Christian nations today is the most abominable in history. So much so that a young girl in the Ukraine is reported to have been told by Our Lady that: "The present times are worse than at the time of Noah. Then the world was scourged by a deluge of water: now the world is going to be scourge by a deluge of fire." (First apparition to Anna at Seredne, December 20, 1954). St. Louis de Montfort explains that:

"'My dear brothers and sisters, there are two companies that appear before you each day: the followers of Christ and the followers of the world.

Our dear Saviour's company is on the right, climbing up a narrow road, made all the narrower by the world's immorality. Our Master leads the way, barefooted, crowned with thorns, covered with blood, and laden with a heavy cross. Those who follow him, though most valiant, are only a handful, either because his quiet voice is not heard amid the tumult of the world, or because people lack the courage to follow him in his poverty, sufferings, humiliations and other crosses which his servants must carry all the days of their life.

On the left hand is the company of the world or of the devil. This is far more numerous, more imposing and more illustrious, at least in appearance. Most of the fashionable people run to join it, all crowded together, although the road is wide and is continually being made wider than ever by the crowds that pour along it like a torrent. It is strewn with flowers, bordered with all kinds of amusements and attractions, and paved with gold and silver.

On the right, the little groups which follow Jesus speak about sorrow and penance, prayer and indifference to worldly things. They continually encourage one another saying, "Now is the time to suffer and to mourn, to pray and do penance, to live in retirement and poverty, to humble and mortify ourselves; for those who do not possess the spirit of Christ, which is the spirit of the cross, do not belong to him. Those who belong to Christ have crucified all self-indulgent passions and desires. We must be true images of Christ or be eternally lost."

"Have confidence," they say to each other. If God is on our side, within us and before us, who can be against us? He who is within us is stronger than the one who is in the world. The servant is not greater than his master. This slight and temporary distress we suffer will bring us a tremendous and everlasting glory. The number of those who will be saved is not as great as some people imagine. It is only the brave and the daring who take heaven by storm, where only those are crowned who strive to live according to the law of the Gospel and not according to the maxims of the world. Let us fight with all our strength, let us run with all speed, that we may attain our goal and win the crown.

Such are some of the heavenly counsels with which the Friends of the Cross inspire each other.

Those who follow the world, on the contrary, urge each other to continue in their evil ways without scruple, calling to one another day after day, "Let us eat and drink, sing and dance, and enjoy ourselves. God is good; he has not made us to damn us. He does not forbid us to amuse ourselves. We shall not be damned for so little. We are not to be scrupulous. 'No, you will not die'."

Dear brothers and sisters, remember that our loving Saviour has his eyes on you at this moment, and he says to each one of you individually, "See how almost everyone deserts me on the royal road of the Cross. Pagans in their blindness ridicule my Cross as foolishness; obstinate Jews are repelled by it as by an object of horror; heretics pull it down and break it to pieces as something contemptible.

"Even my own people - and I say this with tears in my eyes and grief in my heart - my own children whom I have brought up and instructed in my ways, my members whom I have quickened with my own Spirit, have turned their backs on me and forsaken me by becoming enemies of my Cross. 'Will you also go away?' Will you also desert me by running away from my Cross like the worldlings, who thus become so many antichrists? Will you also follow the world; despise the poverty of my Cross in order to seek after wealth; shun the sufferings of my Cross to look for enjoyment; avoid the humiliations of my Cross in order to chase after the honours of the world? 'There are many who pretend they are friends of mine and protest that they love me, but in their hearts they hate me. I have many friends of my table, but very few of my Cross.' (Imit. II, 11, 1)."

At this loving appeal of Jesus, let us rise above our human nature; let us not be seduced by our senses, as Eve was; but keep our eyes fixed on Jesus crucified, who leads us in our faith and brings it to perfection (Heb 12.2). Let us keep ourselves apart from the evil practices of the world; let us show our love for Jesus in the best way, that is, through all kinds of crosses. Reflect well on these remarkable words of our Saviour, "If anyone wants to be a follower of mine, let him renounce himself, and take up his cross and follow me" (Mt 16.24; Lk 9.23)." (St. Louis de Montfort, Letter to the Friends of the Cross, 7-12).

Are we truly friends of the Cross and therefore friends of Christ? Or is ours a counterfeit love? 

North Korea in prophecy

By now you've heard of the threats against the United States coming from North Korea.  See here.

Years ago General Douglas MacArthur warned, "...I now turn to the Korean conflict. While I was not consulted prior to the President's decision to intervene in support of the Republic of Korea, that decision from a military standpoint, proved a sound one, as we -- as I said, proved a sound one, as we hurled back the invader and decimated his forces. Our victory was complete, and our objectives within reach, when Red China intervened with numerically superior ground forces.


This created a new war and an entirely new situation, a situation not contemplated when our forces were committed against the North Korean invaders; a situation which called for new decisions in the diplomatic sphere to permit the realistic adjustment of military strategy.

Such decisions have not been forthcoming.

While no man in his right mind would advocate sending our ground forces into continental China, and such was never given a thought, the new situation did urgently demand a drastic revision of strategic planning if our political aim was to defeat this new enemy as we had defeated the old.

Apart from the military need, as I saw It, to neutralize the sanctuary protection given the enemy north of the Yalu, I felt that military necessity in the conduct of the war made necessary: first the intensification of our economic blockade against China; two the imposition of a naval blockade against the China coast; three removal of restrictions on air reconnaissance of China's coastal areas and of Manchuria; four removal of restrictions on the forces of the Republic of China on Formosa, with logistical support to contribute to their effective operations against the common enemy.

For entertaining these views, all professionally designed to support our forces committed to Korea and bring hostilities to an end with the least possible delay and at a saving of countless American and allied lives, I have been severely criticized in lay circles, principally abroad, despite my understanding that from a military standpoint the above views have been fully shared in the past by practically every military leader concerned with the Korean campaign, including our own Joint Chiefs of Staff.

I called for reinforcements but was informed that reinforcements were not available. I made clear that if not permitted to destroy the enemy built-up bases north of the Yalu, if not permitted to utilize the friendly Chinese Force of some 600,000 men on Formosa, if not permitted to blockade the China coast to prevent the Chinese Reds from getting succor from without, and if there were to be no hope of major reinforcements, the position of the command from the military standpoint forbade victory.

We could hold in Korea by constant maneuver and in an approximate area where our supply line advantages were in balance with the supply line disadvantages of the enemy, but we could hope at best for only an indecisive campaign with its terrible and constant attrition upon our forces if the enemy utilized its full military potential. I have constantly called for the new political decisions essential to a solution.

Efforts have been made to distort my position. It has been said, in effect, that I was a warmonger. Nothing could be further from the truth. I know war as few other men now living know it, and nothing to me is more revolting. I have long advocated its complete abolition, as its very destructiveness on both friend and foe has rendered it useless as a means of settling international disputes. Indeed, on the second day of September, nineteen hundred and forty-five, just following the surrender of the Japanese nation on the Battleship Missouri, I formally cautioned as follows:

Men since the beginning of time have sought peace. Various methods through the ages have been attempted to devise an international process to prevent or settle disputes between nations. From the very start workable methods were found in so far as individual citizens were concerned, but the mechanics of an instrumentality of larger international scope have never been successful. Military alliances, balances of power, Leagues of Nations, all in turn failed, leaving the only path to be by way of the crucible of war. The utter destructiveness of war now blocks out this alternative. We have had our last chance. If we will not devise some greater and more equitable system, Armageddon will be at our door. The problem basically is theological and involves a spiritual recrudescence and improvement of human character that will synchronize with our almost matchless advances in science, art, literature, and all material and cultural developments of the past 2000 years. It must be of the spirit if we are to save the flesh.

But once war is forced upon us, there is no other alternative than to apply every available means to bring it to a swift end.

War's very object is victory, not prolonged indecision. In war there is no substitute for victory.

There are some who, for varying reasons, would appease Red China. They are blind to history's clear lesson, for history teaches with unmistakable emphasis that appeasement but begets new and bloodier war. It points to no single instance where this end has justified that means, where appeasement has led to more than a sham peace." (General Douglas MacArthur, Farewell Address to Congress, April 19, 1951).

General MacArthur was warning that unless we achieved decisive victory against North Korea, we would face a "new and bloodier war" with that nation in the future. Was he wrong?

Related reading here

.

Where has a man-centered liturgy taken us?

Albert Drexel, in Ein Neuer Prophet? (Stein am Rhein: Christiana, 1971) explains that: "The modernism or neo-modernism within Christianity, and especially within the Roman Catholic Church after the Second Vatican Council, is above all characterized by a turning away from the supernatural and an exclusive predilection for this world, the Aggiornamento of Pope John XXIII interpreted one-sidedly and hence misapplied. Teilhard's ideology was was a definitive precondition for this. Inasmuch as he turned his back to the past, fused God and the supernatural with the process of a universal evolutionism, and proclaimed religion to be an active participation in a progressive development ending in Point Omega, the basis was given for a humanist cult of the secular." (p. 115).

In the New World Order, man will no longer believe in a God whom he cannot control. Man will worship himself and his new leader who will, like Hitler, be deified: the man spoken of by Saint Paul as the Man of Sin, the Son of Perdition. 

The new worship which is emerging is man-centered.  And it is reflected in various liturgical actions such as banal pop-style music "concerts" and spontaneous applause over human achievement.  Pope [Emeritus] Benedict XVI - while still Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger - wrote a book entitled "The Spirit of the Liturgy," in which he warned that, "Wherever applause breaks out in the liturgy because of some human achievement, it is a sure sign that the essence of liturgy has totally disappeared and been replaced by a kind of religious entertainment.  Such attractiveness fades quickly - it cannot compete in the market of leisure pursuits, incorporating as it increasingly does various forms of religious titillation...Liturgy can only attract people when it looks, not at itself, but at God, when it allows him to enter and act.  Then something truly unique happens, beyond competition, and people have a sense that more has taken place than a recreational activity." (The Spirit of the Liturgy, Ignatius Press, pp. 198-199).

Since Vatican II, we have entered the time of wretched idolatry prophesied by the Fathers of the Church - for they emphasized the corruption of the liturgy which would prevail just prior to Antichrist during the last days.  The Holy Mass is valid in her essence.  But years of reckless tinkering with sacred realities has produced a mediocrity-ridden liturgy, a shallow show which has distracted from the holy while driving the faithful out the doors or so weakening their faith that they find themselves paralyzed before the current zeitgeist.  Emptied churches, convents and seminaries does not a reform make.

This past Saturday, while at the Easter Vigil Mass at Our Lady Immaculate in Athol, Massachusetts, I witnessed spontaneous applause some 5 times during the liturgy.  The entire atmosphere was more akin to a circus than a solemn liturgy.  I am reminded of the words of the Psalmist:

"Why, God, have you cast us off forever? Why does your anger burn against the sheep of your pasture? Remember your people, whom you acquired of old, the tribe you redeemed as your own heritage, Mount Zion where you dwell. Direct your steps toward the utter destruction, everything the enemy laid waste in the sanctuary.Your foes roared triumphantly in the place of your assembly; they set up their own tokens of victory. They hacked away like a forester gathering boughs, swinging his ax in a thicket of trees. They smashed all its engraved work, struck it with ax and pick. They set your sanctuary on fire, profaned your name’s abode by razing it to the ground. They said in their hearts, “We will destroy them all! Burn all the assembly-places of God in the land!” Even so we have seen no signs for us, there is no prophet any more, no one among us who knows for how long. How long, O God, will the enemy jeer? Will the enemy revile your name forever? Why draw back your hand, why hold back your right hand within your bosom? Yet you, God, are my king from of old, winning victories throughout the earth. You stirred up the sea by your might; you smashed the heads of the dragons on the waters. You crushed the heads of Leviathan, gave him as food to the sharks.You opened up springs and torrents, brought dry land out of the primeval waters. Yours the day and yours the night too; you set the moon and sun in place. You fixed all the limits of the earth; summer and winter you made. Remember how the enemy has jeered, LORD, how a foolish people has reviled your name. Do not surrender to wild animals those who praise you; do not forget forever the life of your afflicted. Look to your covenant, for the recesses of the land are full of the haunts of violence. Let not the oppressed turn back in shame; may the poor and needy praise your name. Arise, God, defend your cause; remember the constant jeering of the fools. Do not forget the clamor of your foes, the unceasing uproar of your enemies." (Psalm 74).

Does Father Leo-LeBlanc consider Saint Faustina to be confused?

In a previous post, see here, I noted how Father Leo-Paul LeBlanc, the pastor of Immaculate Heart of Mary parish in Winchendon, Massachusetts, dismissed the very idea that God sends punishments (or chastisements) and that these often take the form of natural disasters or storms.  Katrina should not be interpreted as a punishment or chastisement, according to Fr. LeBlanc, because "God doesn't work that way."

A couple of ugly comments have been left at this Blog asserting that I am a "religious nut" for believing that storms and other natural disasters are often (not always, but often) sent our way as chastisement for straying from God's Commandments and precepts.  Indeed, Fr. LeBlanc asserted that such belief represents "a confused theology."

Apparently Fr. LeBlanc and others would have us believe that Saint Faustina Kowalska was also "confused" or somehow a "religious nut."  Saint Faustina, known as the 'Apostle of The Divine Mercy," is considered by theologians to be among the outstanding mystics of the Church.  In her Diary (Divine Mercy in My Soul), Saint Faustina makes it crystal clear that sometimes there is a supernatural explanation for storms and other natural disasters and that they are sometimes sent to punish.  We read in Notebook VI, paragraph 1791: "When a great storm was approaching, I began to say the chaplet.  Suddenly I heard the voice of an angel: 'I cannot approach in this storm, because the light which comes from her mouth drives back both me and the storm.'  Such was the angel's complaint to God.  I then recognized how much havoc he was to have made through this storm; but I also recognized that this prayer was pleasing to God, and that this chaplet was most powerful."

Saint Faustina tells us here that the angel of God was to have created havoc through the storm and that it was prayer (specifically the Mercy Chaplet in this case) which powerfully drove back the angel of God and the havoc he intended to bring from God.

On many occasions I have offered either a Rosary or a Mercy Chaplet - and sometimes both - to pray away a predicted storm.  Back in February, my area was supposed to be slammed by a blizzard.  I prayed a Rosary asking Saint Michael to drive this storm away from my town.  A foot of snow was predicted.  But we didn't get any.  Only some light rain.  The storm veered south and dumped almost a foot on towns such as Taunton, Massachusetts.

God created nature.  And He can certainly act in and through His creation.  Lukewarm Catholics who have largely lost their supernatural faith may have difficulty believing this. They may believe that God doesn't send punishments through His creation.  But Saint Faustina assures us that such thinking is confused.

Justice Elena Kagan: Not as clever as she thinks on same-sex "marriage"

Surpreme Court Justice Elena Kagan, responding to Charles Cooper, the lawyer defending Proposition 8, the California "gay marriage" ban, after he insisted that the primary purpose of marriage is procreation, responded sarcastically, "..if the couple - I can assure you, if both the woman and the man are over the age of 55, there are not a lot of children coming out of that marriage."  See here.

Yes, it's entirely true that people marry for a variety of motives: for love, for companionship, for money or economic considerations, for position.  And the idea of having children may be very secondary and perhaps only tolerated rather than desired, in the minds of couples marrying.  The idea of having children need not be uppermost in their minds.  But there is no doubt that within marriage, procreation is primary in nature's design.  We eat mostly for the pleasure we obtain from eating and we rarely think of its necessity for sustaining life.  Nevertheless, the latter is the primary purpose of eating.  The same is true for the sexual act.  It may be done for pleasure, but its primary purpose is to sustain the race - procreation.

Marriage must conform to the natural law which is promulgated by God and is the objective order established by Him.  The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches us that, "The 'divine and natural' law shows man the way to follow so as to practice the good and attain his end." (CCC, 1955).  And again: "The natural law, present in the heart of each man and established by reason, is universal in its precepts and its authority extends to all men.  It expresses the dignity of the person and determines the basis for his fundamental rights and duties." (CCC, 1956).

The eternal law is in God.  When applied to creatures, this eternal law is called the natural law.  In nature we see that all things are bound by constant and uniform inclinations to attain definite ends.  For example, it is natural for the sun to rise and light and heat the earth, for flowers to grow and bloom, for fish to swim and birds to fly, and for man to think thoughts and to share them with others.  In each case, these things are simply obeying the law which is stamped on their natures by their Creator.  This temporal effect of the eternal law which shows itself in creatures is what we mean by the natural law.  It is called natural law because it is grounded in nature itself and manifests itself through nature, or essence or the constitution of things.

Now, getting back to Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan.  Her response to attorney Charles Cooper was not amusing and betrays her ignorance of the natural law, which is the basis for all civil law.  The primary purpose of marriage is procreation.  Besides this primary purpose, marriage has secondary ends, the mutual material and spiritual assistance to the married parties and protection from the abuse of sex life.  But the primary purpose of marriage is essential for its validity to the extent that the right to marital commerce may never be excluded.  The marriage contract is valid even when it is certain that there is no possibility of having children (some couples are unable to have children), provided that the primary purpose of marriage, which is procreation, is not excluded.  But two people of the same sex are not able to have children.  In a homosexual union, procreation is excluded.  As we read in the Catechism, homosexual acts are, "..contrary to the natural law.  They close the sexual act to the gift of life." (CCC, 2357).

Justice Kagan's response to attorney Cooper does not invalidate his argument.  It only serves to highlight her paucity of intellect.  But then, this is the same Elena Kagan who issued a Socialist call to action to change America

and to defeat the "entrenched foe."  Presumably, this entrenched foe is the Judeo-Christian foundation upon which America was built.

The gravity of liturgical abuse and the Diocese of Worcester

Many Catholics today, priests and laity as well as consecrated religious, possess a lust for innovation which they use to assault the stability of sacred rites.  Referring to these liturgical terrorists who seek to violently replace divine forms with their own reckless innovations, John Henry Cardinal Newman warned that, "No one can really respect religion and insult its forms.  Granted that forms are not immediately from God, still long use has made them divine to us; for the spirit of religion has so penetrated and quickened them, that to destroy them is, in respect to the multitude of men, to unsettle and dislodge the religious principle itself.  In most minds usage has so identified them with the notion of religion, that one cannot be extirpated without the other.  Their faith will not bear transplanting...Precious doctrines are strung like jewels upon slender threads." (John Henry Cardinal Newman, Parochial and Plain Sermons, Vol. II, Christian Classics Inc, pp. 75-76).

Those who are bent on making their own unauthorized changes to the liturgy often fail to appreciate how such an endeavor can constitute grave sin.  I know this because some have accused me of making a mountain out of a molehill for my opposition to various liturgical abuses.  Dr. Germain Grisez explains: "There are many reasons why it is wrong for priests intentionally to make unauthorized liturgical changes.  Two are especially important.  First, such changes sometimes embody or imply deviations from Catholic faith; even when they do not, they often omit (see here for example) or obscure something of the liturgy's expression of faith.  Thus, the Church teaches: 'The law of prayer is the law of faith: the Church believes as she prays.  Liturgy is a constitutive element of the holy and living Tradition' (cf. DV 8).  For this reason no sacramental rite may be modified or manipulated at the will of the minister or the community.  Even the supreme authority in the Church may not change the liturgy arbitrarily, but only in the obedience of faith and with religious respect for the mystery of the liturgy.' (CCC, 1124-1125).

Dr. Grisez continues, "..in the Eucharist, a priest acts in the person of Christ, who joins humankind to the Father; but in making unauthorized changes, a priest obscures Jesus' action, focuses attention on himself, and becomes an obstacle to the relationship between God and His People that priests are ordained to serve...Priests are agents ordained to deliver God's gifts to His People.  If they deliver some substitute for what Jesus has entrusted to them, they interpose themselves between - and defraud - both God and His People...

There are five additional reasons why unauthorized changes should not be made in the liturgy.  First, the liturgy is the worship of the Church as a body, and those who are ordained act as Church officials in performing liturgical roles.  So, insofar as a priest makes unauthorized changes, he misrepresents as the Church's what is in fact only his or some limited group's.  Even if this misrepresentation deceives no one and is intended for some good end, it is at odds with the reverence necessary for true worship.  Second, this essential irreverence and the obvious arbitrariness of intentional unauthorized changes strongly suggest that the Eucharist is not sacred, and this suggestion tends to undermine not only faith in Jesus' bodily presence in the consecrated elements, but faith that the Eucharist is Jesus' sacrifice made present for the faithful to share in.  Third, a priest who makes intentional, unauthorized changes acts with deplorable clericalism by imposing his personal preferences on the laity and violating the rights of those who quite reasonably wish only to participate in the Church's worship.  Fourth, intentionally making unauthorized changes sets a bad example of serious disobedience to the Church's norms, and this bad example is likely to encourage some people to think and do as they please not only in liturgical and canonical matters, but in matters of faith and morals.  Fifth...unauthorized liturgical changes often become a needless, divisive issue for the faithful, thus impeding the charity that the Eucharist should express and foster."

Still think that liturgical abuse is a small matter of little significance?  If so, this reflects on your own immaturity and not the objective truth that liturgical abuse constitutes grave matter.  How grave?  Again, Dr. Grisez:

"The reasons why priests should not make unauthorized liturgical changes also make it clear..that a priest's intentionally doing so is of itself matter of grave sin.  Of course, many changes are in themselves very minor, and a few perhaps even are real improvements.  But though this kind of sin admits  parvity, such small changes also are scandalous, not only because they give the faithful a bad example of disobedience but because they contribute to a clerical culture in which liturgical abuse is widely tolerated and sometimes even expected, so that some are encouraged to engage in far graver abuses.  Now, even a sin venial in itself becomes grave scandal when one foresees that it is likely to lead others to commit grave sin; thus, the element of scandal makes grave matter of even minor liturgical abuses likely to encourage more serious abuses by other priests.  Due to widespread confusion and negligence of some bishops, many priests undoubtedly lack sufficient reflection regarding this sin."

Serious matter this.  But how many priests within our own Diocese of Worcester routinely make unauthorized liturgical changes and think nothing of it?  Only recently I had to address the fact that several area priests were omitting the Creed from the liturgy.  At one parish where I often attend Holy Mass, a woman who serves as an Office Manager for the parish called me an idiot and indicated that if I don't care for the liturgical abuses, I should stay away.

But is this really the answer?  Insulting Catholics who want to participate in a faithful liturgy? 

Liturgical abuse is most serious.  But thus far, Bishop Robert McManus has not dealt in any meaningful way with this ongoing problem.  Read Michael Poulin's comment at my post dealing with our new Pope Francis.

The New York Times gets it wrong again

Miguel Woites, a confidant of Pope Francis while he served as Archbishop of Buenos Aires, is denying that the Holy Father ever endorsed homosexual civil unions as an alternative to same-sex "marriage."  Such was the claim of The New York Times.  See here.

Even those who produce The New York Times should know better than that.  But then the newspaper hasn't exactly been a bastion of journalistic integrity.  Pope Francis would never have endorsed "gay" civil unions.  For the acceptance of such unions would essentially redefine the concept of marriage in total disregard for its true nature. If such unions are endorsed, law loses its foundation in the natural order and right reason and thus its legitimacy. As St. Augustine says: 'that which is not just seems to be no law at all' (De Lib. Arb. i,5).


The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in its document titled "Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons," had this to say: "The inevitable consequence of legal recognition of homosexual unions would be the redefinition of marriage, which would become, in its legal status, an institution devoid of essential reference to factors linked to heterosexuality; for example, procreation and raising children. If, from the legal standpoint, marriage between a man and a woman were to be considered just one possible form of marriage, the concept of marriage would undergo a radical transformation, with grave detriment to the common good. By putting homosexual unions on a legal plane analogous to to that of marriage and the family, the State acts arbitrarily and in contradiction with its duties." (No. 8).

his Encyclical Letter Libertas Humana, Pope Leo XIII explained that: "It is manifest that the eternal law of God is the sole standard and rule of human liberty, not only in each individual man, but also in the community and civil society which men constitute when united. Therefore, the true liberty of human society does not consist in every man doing what he please, for this would simply end in turmoil and confusion, and bring on the overthrow of the state; but rather in this, that through the injunctions of the civil law all may more easily conform to the prescriptions of the eternal law . . . the binding force of the human laws is in this, that they are to be regarded as applications of the eternal law, and incapable of sanctioning anything which is not contained in the eternal law, as in the principle of all law . . . where a law is enacted contrary to reason, or to the eternal law, or to some ordinance of God, obedience is unlawful, lest while obeying man we become disobedient to God."

Human laws are "incapable of sanctioning anything which is not contained in the eternal law." This is crystal clear Catholic teaching. There is no room for doubt. All other "laws" are unjust and are, therefore, not laws at all. And Catholics are not bound to obey them. In fact, Catholics have a duty to resist them. As I mentioned in a previous post, "Any law supportive of same-sex 'marriage' is no law at all. This because any law which is promulgated must correspond to the divine law. No human authority can declare what is morally evil to be morally good. Laws permitting slavery, abortion, euthanasia, divorce and "marriages" between persons of the same gender are immoral, and therefore unjust (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I-II, q. 96, a.5)."

Many homosexuals are now play-acting at getting married, much as a young boy might play at being a priest. We don't say that the child's play at being a priest really makes him a priest. Likewise, homosexuals might play at being married, but this doesn't make it so. We are sane when our minds conform to reality. I might tell people that I am Napoleon. But my saying so doesn't make me Napoleon. And if I really believe that I am Napoleon, I am not sane.

Men might actually believe that they have the right to change the definition of marriage, but this is merely symptomatic of an illusion which is rooted in pride. As such, it represents a form of insanity. Men are not free to change God's eternal law to suit their own pleasures. Recall the teaching of Pope Pius XI in his famous Encyclical "On Christian Marriage":"First of all, let this remain the unchanged and unshakable foundation: Matrimony was neither established nor restored by man but by God. It has been protected, strengthened, and elevated not by the laws of men, but by those of God, the author of human nature, and of Christ who restored that same nature. Consequently, these laws cannot be changed according to men's pleasure, nor by any agreement of the spouses themselves that is contrary to these laws. This is the teaching of Sacred Scripture (see Gen 1:27; 2:22f.; Mt 19:3ff.; Eph 5:23ff.); this is the constant, universal tradition of the Church; this is the solemn definition of the holy Council of Trent, which in the words of Sacred Scripture teaches and reasserts that the permanent and indissoluble bond of matrimony, its unity and strength, have their origin in God."

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, Nos. 1603-1605, explain marriage in the order of creation: "The intimate community of life and love which constitutes the married state has been established by the Creator and endowed by him with its own proper laws. . . . God himself is the author of marriage." The vocation to marriage is written in the very nature of man and woman as they came from the hand of the Creator. Marriage is not a purely human institution despite the many variations it may have undergone through the centuries in different cultures, social structures, and spiritual attitudes. These differences should not cause us to forget its common and permanent characteristics. Although the dignity of this institution is not transparent everywhere with the same clarity, some sense of the greatness of the matrimonial union exists in all cultures. "The well-being of the individual person and of both human and Christian society is closely bound up with the healthy state of conjugal and family life."

God who created man out of love also calls him to love the fundamental and innate vocation of every human being. For man is created in the image and likeness of God who is himself love. Since God created him man and woman, their mutual love becomes an image of the absolute and unfailing love with which God loves man. It is good, very good, in the Creator's eyes. And this love which God blesses is intended to be fruitful and to be realized in the common work of watching over creation: "And God blessed them, and God said to them: 'Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it.'"

Holy Scripture affirms that man and woman were created for one another: "It is not good that the man should be alone." The woman, "flesh of his flesh," his equal, his nearest in all things, is given to him by God as a "helpmate"; she thus represents God from whom comes our help. "Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh." The Lord himself shows that this signifies an unbreakable union of their two lives by recalling what the plan of the Creator had been "in the beginning": "So they are no longer two, but one flesh."

Again, we may choose to reject these truths. But in so doing, we lose our grip on sanity as it were. In the words of the late (great) F.J. Sheed: "..if we see anything - ourself or some other man, or the Universe as a whole or any part of it - without at the same time seeing God holding it there, then we are seeing it all wrong. If we saw a coat hanging on a wall and did not realize that it was held there by a hook, we should not be living in the real world at all, but in some fantastic world of our own in which coats defied the law of gravity and hung on walls by their own power. Similarly if we see things in existence and do not in the same act see that they are held in existence by God, then equally we are living in a fantastic world, not the real world. Seeing God everywhere and all things upheld by Him [such as marriage, my note] is not a matter of sanctity; but of plain sanity, because God is everywhere and all things are upheld by Him...To overlook God's presence is not simply to be irreligious; it is a kind of insanity, like overlooking anything else that is actually there." (Theology and Sanity, p.6).

Regarding Father Joseph Jurgelonis, liturgical and doctrinal dissent

The Code of Canon Law states clearly that, "The ordinary minister of Holy Communion is a bishop, a presbyter, or a deacon.  The extraordinary minister of Holy Communion is an acolyte or other member of the Christian faithful deputed in accord with Can. 230.3"

No lay person who distributes Holy Communion should ever be referred to as a "eucharistic minister."  But some within the Church insist upon doing so because they wish to blur the line between the ministry of the ordained and that of the non-ordained.

At Saint Martin's Parish in Otter River, the Church's teaching is plainly rejected.  The laity who give Communion are referred to as eucharistic ministers.  One of these individuals is a woman who frequently goes to the tabernacle both before and during Holy Mass.  This is most unfortunate.  The use of extraordinary ministers should be just that - extraordinary.  Moreover, the ministry should rest on a secure foundation of doctrine and spirituality.  No lay person should be going to the tabernacle.  In Appendix V of the Roman Missal, we find the rite of commissioning of an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion.  There we read, "when the priest has himself received Communion in the usual way, he gives Communion to the minister of the Eucharist.  Then he gives him/her the paten or other vessel with the hosts.  They then go to give Communion to the people."

This procedure, unlike the distorted procedure of having extraordinary ministers go to the tabernacle, is consistent at the sign level, with the theological truth that extraordinary ministers operate by way of delegation and not by right.  Monsignor Peter J. Elliott, in "Ceremonies of the Modern Roman Rite: A Manual for Clergy and All Involved in Liturgical Ministries," stresses this point.  He writes, "It seems appropriate that the celebrant then hand each of them [the extraordinary ministers] the eucharistic vessel rather than that they take it directly from the altar or from the tabernacle.  Again the ceremonial signs truthfully define their ministry as 'extraordinary' and hence dependent on the celebrant." (pp. 289-290).

But there's plenty of bad theology at Saint Martin's Parish.  There is a deacon attached to the parish who should be distributing Holy Communion and going to the tabernacle rather than the non-ordained faithful.  This same deacon, sadly, has promoted the "social gospel" and the writings of Father Andrew Greeley.  The pastor, and I use this term loosely here,  is Father Joseph Jurgelonis.  Fr. Jurgelonis has found the time to promote Sister Joyce Rupp, a New Age advocate who dissents from Church teaching and who has railed against the Vatican.  Fr. Jurgelonis even found the time to sign a letter of support for serial child abuser Father Robert E. Kelley.  What he could never find the time to do is to answer my serious and charitably expressed concerns over dissent and liturgical issues within the parish.

Although I volunteered to serve in various ministries at the parish (acolyte, lector, extraordinary minister bringing Holy Communion to the sick and homebound), no one ever got back to me.  Meanwhile the same woman who may be seen floating around the altar and going to the tabernacle serves in numerous other ministries at the parish: as a lector, leading the recitation of the Rosary and writing/producing the parish bulletin.  Why do I mention this?  Because the message it sends is clear: that orthodox Catholic laymen who follow the Magisterium and abide by authoritative liturgical rubrics are not welcome.

So much so that when I finally had enough of the nonsense at Saint Martin's, I informed Fr. Jurgelonis in a voicemail that I wanted my name removed from the parish registry.  His response?  Three guesses - That's right, none whatsoever.

Fr. Jurgelonis lacks charity.  This is shown in his disobedience to Church teaching and in his refusal to welcome those Catholics who do abide by that teaching.  If we are serious about promoting vocations to the priesthood, why are priests like Fr. Jurgelonis excluding orthodox laymen from parish ministries?

What do you think?

Sentinel & Enterprise: Will Pope Francis be another John Paul XXIII?

You have to hand it to Charles St. Amand, the editor of the Sentinel & Enterprise, a local newspaper serving the Leominster-Fitchburg area as well as seven other cities and towns.  The man is most consistent.  When it comes to articles and editorials which touch upon the Catholic Church in particular and Catholicism in general,  Mr. St. Amand never troubles himself with getting the facts straight.  See here for example.

Take yesterday's editorial entitled, "Francis: Whose shoes will he fill?"  We read: "With the election of a new pope, Catholics around the world must be wondering what the latest successor to St. Peter has in mind for the Mother Church...He has shown himself to be socially conservative in Argentina by his stance against gay marriage and his backing of the traditional role of women in the Church, but he has also scolded some of his priests there for their refusal to baptize children born out of wedlock."

Actually, the terms "liberal" and "conservative" should never be applied to the Church.  As Dr. Dietrich von Hildebrand explains, "These terms, facilely applied to many natural realms, can be extremely misleading when applied to the Church.  It is of the very nature of Catholic Christian faith to adhere to an unchanging divine revelation, to acknowledge that there is something in the Church that is above the ups and downs of cultures and the rhythm of history.  Divine revelation and the Mystical Body of Christ differ completely from all natural entities.  To be conservative, to be a traditionalist, is in this case an essential element of the response due to the unique phenomenon of the Church.  Even a man in no way conservative in temperament and in many other respects progressive must be conservative in his relation to the infallible magisterium of the Church, if he is to remain an orthodox Catholic.  One can be progressive and simultaneously a Catholic, but one cannot be a progressive in one's Catholic faith.  The idea of a 'progressive Catholic' in this sense is an oxymoron, a contradictio in adjecto...With the labels conservative and progressive they [the intellectually dishonest with an anti-Catholic agenda] are in fact requiring the faithful to choose between opposition to any renewal, opposition even to the elimination of things that have crept into the Church because of human frailty (e.g., legalism, abstractionism, external pressure in questions of conscience, grave abuses of authority in monasteries) and a change, a 'progress' in the Catholic faith which can only mean its abandonment.  These are false alternatives.  For there is a third choice, which welcomes the official decisions of the Vatican Council (Vatican II) but at the same time emphatically rejects the secularizing interpretations given them by many so-called progressive theologians and laymen.  This thirs choice is based on unshakable faith in Christ and in the infallible magisterium of His Holy Church.  It takes it for granted that there is no room for change in the divinely revealed doctrine of the Church." (Trojan Horse in the City of God, pp. 10-11).

So it's not a question of Pope Francis being "conservative" or "progressive."  The Holy Father opposes so-called same-sex "marriage" and the ordination of women to the priesthood because divinely revealed doctrine cannot change. 

The Sentinel & Enterprise editorial refers to Pope Francis' predecessor on the Chair of Peter, the same Pontiff who called for Vatican II, as "Pope John Paul XXIII": "Will he [Pope Francis] maintain his life of simplicity and pursuit of social justice, or will he be the next John Paul XXIII?"  Obviously, the writer of this confused editorial was thinking of Pope John XXIII who was elected Pontiff on October 28, 1958 and installed on November 4th of that same year.  Pope John reigned as Vicar of Christ until June 3, 1963.

This is the sort of coverage of Catholicism that Catholics have come to expect from the Sentinel & Enterprise.  But they deserve better.

Related reading here.

Praise be to Jesus Christ: We have Pope Francis

Praise be to Jesus, we have a new Pope.  And he has chosen the name Francis.  Whether he chose this name because of Francis Xavier or after St. Francis of Assisi, the choice is most significant.  For the Jesuit Order was founded by St. Ignatius of Loyola and based largely upon the revolutionary spirituality of St. Francis of Assisi.

And so, at a time when the Church finds herself in crisis (and she has weathered other storms through the centuries), and when many within the Church have shown that they prefer the darkness to the light, I offer these passages from St. Francis of Assisi, the Mirror of Christ:

"Those who do not wish 'to taste and see how sweet the Lord is' and who 'love the darkness more than the light' by refusing to obey the commandments of God are damned: of them it has been said by the mouth of the prophet, 'Cursed are those who fall from your precepts.'  But how blessed and favored are those who love the Lord and do as the Lord says in the Gospel: 'Love the Lord God with all your heart and soul and your neighbor as yourself.'....

We must hate our own body with its sin and vice, for the Lord has said in the Gospel all sins and vices 'come from the heart,' and 'we should love our enemies and do good to those who hate us.'  We must observe the precepts and counsels of our Lord Jesus Christ.  We must also deny ourselves and put our body under the yoke of discipline and holy obedience, as everyone has promised the Lord." (A Letter to All the Faithful," probably written in 1215).

Notice what St. Francis says here?  We "must" [this is the solemn obligation of everyone who professes to be Christian] put our body under the yoke of discipline and holy obedience.

In this same letter, St. Francis insists that, 'We ought not be wise and prudent 'according to the flesh,' but rather we should be simple, pure, and humble.  We should hold our bodies in low esteem for, through our fault, we are wretched, broken, like worms....All those who live in this way and persevere to the end will have the spirit of the Lord dwelling in them as in a home.  They will be sons of the Heavenly Father and the spouse, brother, and mother of our Lord Jesus Christ.."

Contrast this with the pride of life we have witnessed in many corners of the Church.  Many have preferred darkness and the "wisdom of the flesh."  Obedience to Christ who teaches us through His Church has been replaced by many with self-assertion and self-affirmation.  Such have preferred their own opinions or those of dissenting theologians, Bishops, priests and religious to the authoritative teaching of Jesus Christ, made known to us through the Magisterium.

The Lord willing, we will now have renewal.  The Lord willing, we have begun a new day.  We are a Resurrection People.  If we haven't been already, let's start acting like it!

The Diocese of Worcester's "Partners in Charity" fund

Partners in charity or partners in sin?


"If any one comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into the house or give him any greeting; for he who greets him shares his wicked work." (2 John 10, 11).

The Navarre Bible (which I highly recommend) provides some excellent commentary on this scriptural passage: "In the Middle East, hospitality and greetings were not mere marks of courtesy or good manners: they involved a real sense of solidarity and close affinity.  Hence the warning that reception of these people could imply complicity in their evil deeds and the risk of giving scandal to other members of the Church."

If reception of such people can imply complicity in their evil deeds, how much more so actually providing them with financial and other material assistance?  Such assistance regularly occurs within the Worcester, Massachusetts Diocese.  For example, although Fr. Andre Gariepy has promoted Situation Ethics, which was condemned by Pope Pius XII in 1952, the retired priest still receives assistance from the diocese's "Partners in Charity" fund (See "Retired pastors but not retired priests," The Catholic Free Press, March 8, 2013 edition, pp. 1, 7).

Situation Ethics, a moral system which rejects moral norms and considers only the circumstances (or situation) and the agent's intention when determining the morality of a human act, is a very destructive belief.  This because it leads to distrust of God.  Pope John Paul II warned in his Encyclical Letter Veritatis Splendor that, "..man is no longer convinced that only in the truth can he find salvation.  The saving power of the truth is contested, and freedom alone, uprooted from any objectivity, is left to decide by itself what is good and what is evil.  This relativism becomes, in the field of theology, a lack of trust in the wisdom of God, who guides man with the moral law.  Concrete situations are unfavorably contrasted with the precepts of the moral law, nor is it any longer maintained that, when all is said and done, the law of God is always the one true good of men." (No. 84).

And so, the Diocese of Worcester directs some of the monies from its "Partners in Charity" fund to assist a heretic - a priest who has publically rejected immutable moral norms and who has set himself against the teaching of the Church.  It apparently does not bother Bishop McManus, or anyone in a leadership position in the Worcester Diocese, that this priest has perpetrated spiritual violence against the lay faithful entrusted to his care (the people who have a right to Catholic doctrine in its purity and integrity - see Veritatis Splendor, 113), by asserting that moral norms such as, "You shall not kill" (Exodus 20: 13) or "You shall not commit adultery" (Exodus 20: 14) are only general "guidelines" and not exceptionless moral truths.

Fr. Gariepy has also promoted Marxist "Liberation Theology," which was condemned in no uncertain terms, in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith's "Instruction on Certain Aspects of the 'Theology of Liberation.'"

Fr. Gariepy has never publically recanted his views which are in opposition to the Magisterial teaching of the Church.

Another priest who receives assistance from monies collected for the "Partners in Charity" fund is Fr. Robert E. Kelley, a serial child abuser who, by his own admission, probably sexually assaulted some 200 girls.  See here for some background on this priest who served time in prison for his crimes.

Should faithful Catholics contribute to "Partners in Charity"?  Or should they ensure that their financial support to the Church is not squandered on priests who abuse the people entrusted to their care either spiritually or physically?

How do we define good stewardship?  Whatever happened to the charitable anathema?

Two priests of the Worcester Diocese: Fr. Leo-Paul LeBlanc and Fr. Andre Gariepy

On November 5, 1977, in a locution to Father Stefano Gobbi, Our Lady, referring to the purification to come (and which we're beginning to live through now), said, "Do not stop to consider the ever thickening darkness, the sin which has been set up as the norm of human action, the suffering which is mounting to its peak and the chastisement which this humanity is preparing with its own hands."

Father Leo-Paul LeBlanc, the pastor of Immaculate Heart of Mary parish in Winchendon, like many of his contemporaries within the Diocese of Worcester and beyond, disagrees with Our Lady.  In fact, in a homily given during the 9:30 a.m. Mass yesterday, Fr. LeBlanc asserted that it is a "confused theology" which advances the idea that God sends punishments (or chastisements).  God, insisted this proud cleric, "doesn't work that way."

How then does Fr. LeBlanc explain the Flood which destroyed the known world in Noah's time?  How does he explain the five cities of the plain - Sodom and Gomorrah - which were wiped out because of the grave sins [primarily homosexual acts] which were being committed there?  It was the holy angels who told Lot, "We are about to destroy this place, for the outcry reaching the Lord against those in the city is so great that he has sent us to destroy it." (Genesis 19: 13).

Only a foolish man would attempt to "correct" God's Holy Word.  And that Holy Word is most clear, for those who haven't lost their supernatural faith while succumbing to a radical secularism.  We read: "I will punish them for their sin" (Exodus 32: 34); "he does not leave the guilty unpunished" (Exodus 34: 7); "I will punish you for your sins seven times over" (Leviticus 26: 18); "I will choose their punishments" (Isaiah 66: 4); "on the wicked he will rain coals and sulphur" (Psalm 11: 6); "I will punish their sin with the rod" (Psalm 89: 32); "the wicked will not go unpunished" (Proverbs 11: 21); "God knows how to keep the unrighteous under punishment" (2 Peter 2: 9); "the Lord will punish the powers in heaven and the kings on earth" (Isaiah 24: 21); "the Lord is coming to punish the people of the earth for their sins" (Isaiah 26: 21); "the Lord will punish men for all such sins" (1 Thessalonians 4: 6).

God doesn't send punishments?  The Scriptures tells us otherwise.

Father LeBlanc implied in his homily that there is really no difference between mortal and venial sin, asserting that faithful Catholics who view AIDS as a punishment for grave or mortal sin should look at their own sins and not see the disease as resulting from sin.  In doing so, Fr. LeBlanc employed the word "gay" to refer to homosexuals or sodomites, which itself is evidence that he has succumbed - on some level - to radical homosexual agitprop.  To begin with, yes we are all sinners.  But as the Catechism of the Catholic Church makes clear: "Sins are rightly evaluated according to their gravity.  The distinction between mortal and venial sin (which apparently is lost on Fr. LeBlanc), already evident in Scripture, became part of the tradition of the Church.  It is corroborated by human experience...Mortal sin destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God's law; it turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him.  Venial sin allows charity to subsist, even though it offends or wounds it." (CCC, 1854, 1855).

Some sins are so vile that they cry to heaven for vengeance.  The Catechism lists among these "the sin of the Sodomites" (See CCC, 1867). 

Having succumbed on some level to homosexual ideology, Fr. LeBlanc rejects the idea that AIDS is a punishment for homosexual acts and a culture which has largely embraced homosexuality.  Saint Paul, however, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, says that those who exchange natural relations for unnatural receive "in their own persons the due penalty for their error." (Romans 1: 27). 

Whether Fr. LeBlanc cares to acknowledge it or not, God does send chastisements.  In fact, Scripture assures us that He chastises the son he favors.  As Father Albert J. Hebert, S.M., has explained, "The chastisement actually involves a complexity of severe trials and tribulations for the human race: natural disasters of all types like floods and tidal waves, storms, quakes, eruptions, economic disasters, famines, plagues, diseases which will include incurable ones, revolutionary activities, indiscriminate terrorist bombings, civil, racial and religious strife; wars, persecutions...Many of these sufferings will be either from nature or from one's own fellowman.  The demons will urge them on in this mutual self-destruction and there will be much destruction by the demons themselves.  A sort of petic justice and retribution!  Man, along with Satan, makes his own hell, even on earth."

And aren't we beginning to see these things take place?

Also yesterday, Fr. Andre Gariepy, a retired priest of the Worcester Diocese who currently resides in Fitchburg, celebrated Mass for Fr. Joseph Jurgelonis at Saint Martin's Parish in Otter River.  It is most unfortunate that this parish should call upon Fr. Gariepy to fill in for Fr. Jurgelonis while he is away.  For Fr. Gariepy has asserted that, "There are no absolutes, the Ten Commandments are only guidelines."

Only guidelines?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, referring to the Decalogue (The Ten Commandments - see Exodus 20), explains that, "Since they express man's fundamental duties towards God and towards his neighbor, the Ten Commandments reveal, in their primordial content, grave obligations.  They are fundamentally immutable, and they oblige always and everywhere.  No one can dispense from them.  The Ten Commandments are engraved by God in the human heart." (CCC, 2072). 

Fr. Gariepy is opposing the Magisterial teaching of the Church.

Pope John Paul II also emphasizes the immutability of the Ten Commandments while explaining that they are the path to life: "In acknowledging these commandments, Christian hearts and our pastoral charity listen to the call of the One who 'first loved us' (1 Jn 4: 19).  God asks us to be holy as he is holy (cf. Lv 19: 2), to be - in Christ - perfect as he is perfect (cf. Mt 5: 48).  The unwavering demands of that commandment are based upon God's infinitely merciful love (cf. Lk 6: 36), and the purpose of that commandment is to lead us, by the grace of Christ, on the path of that fullness of life proper to the children of God." (Veritatis Splendor, No. 115).

Advocates of the emerging New Age religion, the humanitarian religion of the Antichrist, insist that the Ten Commandments are essentially obsolete (see here) and that Christianity is a barbaric religion which is not fit for modern man.  It must, therefore, be purged of its fundamental dogmas and eventually reinterpreted.  For such people, the religion of the future must be man-centered.  Everything is relative.  Morals are not absolute.  Traditional values are outdated and meaningless and are advanced by ignorant men.  They must be discarded.  A watered-down social gospel (such as that promoted by Deacon Richard Tatro of Saint Martin's parish) is okay, but any serious talk about conversion, heaven and hell is "backward" and "obsolete."

The goal of ecclesiastical masonry: A masonic Pope who will preside over a New Church

For a long time now, modernists have dreamt of  changing the Church from within through infiltration.  The ultimate goal of Freemasonry within the Church (ecclesiastical masonry) is to obtain a Pope favorable to masonic principles, a Pope who will preside over a revolution which will permit the man of iniquity to enter the Church's interior and to conquer the saints.

This is not religious paranoia.  This is not religious fiction.  Many popes have warned (and most notably Pope Leo XIII) about the designs of Freemasonry.  It was Pope Leo XIII who warned that, "Freemasonry is the permanent personification of the Revolution; it constitutes a sort of society in reverse whose aim is to exercise an occult overlordship upon society as we know it, and whose sole raison d'etre consists in waging war against God and His Church." (Encyclical Letter On the 25th year of Our Pontificate, March 19, 1902).

Freemasons believe that the Catholic Church must fall apart and dissolve and that a secular, humanitarian religion must - and will - take its place - Freemasonry.  In his Encyclical Letter Humanum Genus, Pope Leo XIII emphasizes that the ultimate aim of Freemasonry "is to uproot completely the whole religious and political order of the world, which has been brought into existence by Christianity, and to replace it by another in harmony with their way of thinking.  This will mean that the foundation and the laws of the new structure of society will be drawn from pure Naturalism."

In a letter dated April 3, 1844, a high-ranking mason known as Nubius commented to another highly-placed mason: "Now then, in order to ensure a pope in the required proportions, we must first of all prepare a generation worthy of the kingdom of which we dream...Cast aside the old and men of a mature age, go to the youth, and if possible, even to children....It is to the youth that we must go, it is the youth that we must lead, unperceived by them, under the flag of the secret societies...Once your reputation has been established....Such reputation will give your doctrine access to the young clergy and to convents.  In a few years, this clergy will naturally have invaded all functions; they will govern, administer, judge, form the Sovereign's council, be called to choose the Pontiff who must reign; and this Pontiff, like most of his contemporaries, will be more or less imbued with Italian and humanitarian principles that we will start placing in circulation.....Let the clergy move forward under your standard always believing they are advancing under the banner of the apostolic Keys.  Cast your net like Simon Bar Jonas; spread it to the bottom of sacristies, seminaries, and convents...we promise you a catch even more miraculous than his....You will have fished a revolution dressed in the Pope's triple crown and cape, carrying the cross and the flag, a revolution that will need only a small stimulus to set fire to the four corners of the earth." (Taken from Les infiltrations maconiques dans l'Eglise, by Father Emmanuel Barbier, p. 5).

This is the plan of ecclesiastical masonry - a corrupt pope who will lead his flock into the new kingdom of sin which will be presided over by the Son of Perdition, the very person of the Antichrist.

How close are we to such an evil scheme actually being fulfilled?  Could this papal election be the one which results in a masonic pope?  Our Lady warned Father Stefano Gobbi that, "The hour of its great trial has above all come for the Church, because it will be shaken by the lack of faith, obscured by apostasy, wounded by betrayal, abandoned by its children, divided by schisms, possessed and dominated by Freemasonry, turned into fertile soil from which will spring up the wicked tree of the man of iniquity, the Antichrist, who will bring his kingdom into its interior."

Pope Benedict XVI has already warned that we are entering a profound period of testing.  Indeed we are.  Pray for the Church.  Now is the time of diabolical disorientation.