Another open letter to Bishop Robert J. McManus

False irenicism?

The following is my response to a homily given by Rev. Andre Dargis at Our Lady of the Holy Rosary Parish in Gardner, Massachusetts. Fr. Dargis' homily was broadcast from WGAW radio.


January 27, 2008

The Most Rev. Robert J. McManus
Bishop of Worcester
49 Elm Street
Worcester, Ma 01609

Your Excellency,

The Second Vatican Council, in its Decree on Ecumenism No. 3, teaches us that, "...some and even very many of the significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church itself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church: the written word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, and visible elements too. All of these, which come from Christ and lead back to Christ, belong by right to the one Church of Christ.

The brethren divided from us also use many liturgical actions of the Christian religion. These most certainly can truly engender a life of grace in ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or Community. These liturgical actions must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation.

It follows that the separated Churches and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.

Nevertheless, our separated brethren, whether considered as individuals or as Communities and Churches, are not blessed with that unity which Jesus Christ wished to bestow on all those who through Him were born again into one body, and with Him quickened to newness of life-that unity which the Holy Scriptures and the ancient Tradition of the Church proclaim. For it is only through Christ's Catholic Church, which is "the all-embracing means of salvation," that they can benefit fully from the means of salvation. We believe that Our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, in order to establish the one Body of Christ on earth to which all should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the people of God." (UR, No. 3).

This Magisterial teaching regarding Catholic principles on ecumenism is apparently not understood by Rev. Andre Dargis, the Pastor of Holy Rosary Parish in Gardner. Commenting on today’s Second Reading (1 Corinthians 1: 10-13, 17), which reads:

"I urge you, brothers and sisters, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree in what you say, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and in the same purpose. For it has been reported to me about you, my brothers and sisters,by Chloe’s people, that there are rivalries among you. I mean that each of you is saying, "I belong to Paul," or "I belong to Apollos," or "I belong to Cephas," or "I belong to Christ." Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with the wisdom of human eloquence, so that the cross of Christ might not be emptied of its meaning," Rev. Dargis suggested that no one man or one church has all the answers and that we are no different from the people St. Paul was addressing at Corinth when we say, "I follow the Pope" while still others say, "I follow Martin Luther."

What Fr. Dargis failed to mention in his homily is that St. Paul was addressing those who were creating divisions within the Church founded by Jesus Christ. He also failed to address the Magisterial teaching that, "Christ bestowed unity on his Church from the beginning. This unity, we believe, subsists in the Catholic Church as something she can never lose, and we hope that it will continue to increase until the end of time..." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 820) and that, "...we must realize ‘that this holy objective - the reconciliation of all Christians in the unity of the one and only Church of Christ - transcends human powers and gifts.’" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 822, citing UR, No. 24).

Pope John Paul II, in his Encyclical Letter Ut Unum Sint, said that: "Taking up an idea expressed by Pope John XXIII at the opening of the Council, the Decree on Ecumenism mentions the way of formulating doctrine as one of the elements of a continuing reform. Here it is not a question of altering the deposit of faith, changing the meaning of dogmas, eliminating essential words from them, accommodating truth to the preferences of a particular age, or suppressing certain articles of the Creed under the false pretext that they are no longer understood today. The unity willed by God can be attained only by the adherence of all to the content of revealed faith in its entirety. In matters of faith, compromise is in contradiction with God, who is Truth. In the Body of Christ, ‘the way, and the truth, and the life’ (Jn 14:6), who could consider legitimate a reconciliation brought about at the expense of the truth? The Council’s Declaration on Religious Freedom Dignitatis Humanae attributes to human dignity the quest for truth, ‘especially in what concerns God and his Church,’ and adherence to truth’s demands. A ‘being together’ which betrayed the truth would thus be opposed both to the nature of God, who offers his communion, and to the need for truth found in the depths of every human heart." (UUS, No. 18).

Your Excellency, the Council’s Decree on Ecumenism rejects as "foreign to the spirit of ecumenism" anything that would compromise the integrity of Catholic doctrine or obscure its meaning, teaching that: "The way and method in which the Catholic faith is expressed should never become an obstacle to dialogue with our brethren. It is, of course, essential that the doctrine should be clearly presented in its entirety. Nothing is so foreign to the spirit of ecumenism as a false irenicism, in which the purity of Catholic doctrine suffers loss and its genuine and certain meaning is clouded." (UR, No. 11).

It is my hope that Your Excellency will remind Fr. Dargis of these truths. In the words of Dr. Dietrich Von Hildebrand, "False irenicism is motivated by a misconceived charity at the service of a meaningless unity. It places unity above truth. Having severed the essential link between charity and defense of the truth, irenicism is more concerned with reaching a unity with all men than with leading them to Christ and His eternal truth. It ignores the fact that real unity can be reached only in truth. Our Lord’s prayer ‘that they may be one’ implies being one in Him and must not be separated from His words in John: ‘And other sheep I have that are not of this fold. Them also I must bring and they shall hear my voice. And there shall be one fold and one shepherd.’" (Dr. Dietrich Von Hildebrand, citing John 10:16).

Asking Your Excellency’s Blessing,
I am, Yours Respectfully
Paul Anthony Melanson

cc: Rev. Andre Dargis

Cardinal at pro-life Mass: Roe v. Wade "will not stand."

"...by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, in communion with the Bishops-who on various occasions have condemned abortion and who in the aforementioned consultation, albeit dispersed throughout the world, have shown unanimous agreement concerning this doctrine-I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written Word of God, is transmitted by the Church's Tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.

No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the Law of God which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church." (Evangelium Vitae, No. 62).

"Radical individualism is the only explanation for the Supreme Court's creation, out of thin air, of a general and undefined right of privacy. The Court used the invented right, allegedly to protect the sanctity of the marital bedroom, to strike down a dormant Connecticut statute prohibiting the use of contraceptives. But marital privacy was shortly transformed into individual autonomy when the Court invalidated a Massachusetts law restricting access to contraceptives by single persons. That in turn led to Roe v. Wade and the right to abortion. Whatever one's feelings about abortion, the decision has no constitutional reasoning. Roe is nothing more than the decision of a Court majority to enlist on one side of the culture war." - Robert H. Bork.

And this is precisely why Roe will not stand. Roe is a judicial fabrication. The Court said that the "right to privacy," wherever it may be found in the Constitution (an admission that this "right" has no "constitutional reasoning" as Robert Bork put it), is nevertheless broad enough to encompass abortion.

God preserve us from such nonsense.

Comment left by Mr. John Ansley...

Dr. Warren Carroll, a Catholic historian, was asked:

"What was the rationale the Church used for including the term "perfidious Jews" in the Good Friday Liturgy? My dictionary defines this term to be "of deliberate breach of faith or trust."

To which he responded:

"The word 'perfidious' in the old Good Friday liturgy referred to the rejection of God's Son the Messiah by the Jews who called for his crucifixion. He had given them proofs of who He was, but they closed their eyes and ears to them. Though it may be counter-productive to make this point in today's age, this willful blindness to the truth is spectacularly evidenced by the Sanhedrin when they received the report of Jesus' Resurrection from the Roman guards at His tomb. There were 16 guards on duty, only 600 yards from Pilate's government house and residence; they were certainly not all asleep, for sleeping on watch by a Roman soldier was punishable by death. If the Sanhedrin believed their report, they knew a miracle had happened. If they disbelieved it, why did they not denounce them to Pilate and have the apostles arrested for stealing Jesus' body, either with the complicity of the guards or because of their negligence? But the Sanhedrin did neither, instead bribing the guards to say that Jesus' disciples had stolen His body while they slept, and promising to protect them from Pilate. They must have known or at least guessed the truth, and yet refused to believe. In any case, the expression 'perfidious' cannot logically apply to Jews apart from the circumstances of the crucifixion..."

Therefore, it is ridiculous for some (like the anti-Catholic propagandists at the Cohen Center), to view or interpret this as an "anti-Semitic" liturgy.

Talk about taking something out of context!

Exactly John. Well said. But expect these confused souls to suggest otherwise. After all, they can't let the truth get in the way of their agenda.

This is what happens when a document is taken out of context

The students who were protesting the Holy Father's visit owe him an apology. But don't hold your breath:


"The rector of Rome's Sapienza University announced that he will re-invite Benedict XVI to visit the institution.Renato Guarini affirmed this after the inauguration ceremony today that was supposed to have included a lecture given by the Pope. The Vatican announced Tuesday that the visit would be postponed, due to what the Pope's secretary of state called a lack of the "prerequisites for a dignified and tranquil welcome."

A small protest that eventually reached the point of several students occupying the rector's offices motivated the Holy See to cancel the visit. The protestors called the Pope 'hostile' to science and took issue with a 1990 speech by then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger on the Galileo case.

The 1990 speech in its entirety showed the protestors to have taken Cardinal Ratzinger's words out of context."

No doubt, liberals with an anti-Catholic agenda will also take the following out of context:
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0800325.htm

But the fact that the Holy Father is changing this prayer of the Latin Mass so as to make it less offensive to the Jewish People in no way constitutes an admission of anti-Semitism. Nor does it have anything to do with Church teaching.

* Update: http://www.thestar.com/printArticle/295577

Homosexual activists seek to censor Catholic magazine

The intolerance of tolerance. Can't you just feel the love for "diversity"? Shame on this magazine for insisting that while homosexual persons should be respected and treated with compassion, homosexual acts are sinful. I mean, how dare they express their Catholic Faith in public.

Paul.

Who is Mr. Peter Majoy and what is his agenda?

In an article which may be found here: www.keeneequinox.com/news/2007/12/06/News/Town-Residents.Express.Concern.About.Catholic.Group-3137245.shtml, and entitled "Town Residents express concern about Catholic group," we read that Peter Majoy is "a Buddhist and member of the Richmond Planning Board" who is "currently teaching a Holocaust course at Camp Takodah in Richmond, to improve the town's image with Tom White, educational outreach coordinator for the Cohen Center for Holocaust Studies at KSC."

Now, we have seen how Mr. Tom White has attempted to defend the anti-Catholic remark made by Mr. Henry Knight [ the Director of the Cohen Center] at this Blog. We have also seen Mr. White suggest that, "..any interpretation of his Papacy [Pius XII's] are at best, ongoing, as the Vatican has only recently totally opened their archives on this subject." And we have exposed this assertion as a lie.

As I mentioned in a previous post here at La Salette Journey:

Mr. Peter Majoy has left a comment at the Cohen Center Blog which is critical of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights: 'Dear Readers,Reference to The Catholic League has been made in the context of claims that anti-catholic bigotry has been practiced by the Cohen Center, SBCWatch, and certain individuals. Please go to the following web site to read information about The Catholic League: http://www.talk2action.org/story/2006/6/4/104521/2225

Thanks.

Pete Majoy'

Source: http://keeneweb.org/cohencenter

The link provided by Mr. Peter Majoy takes one to a website belonging to a group calling itself Talk to Action. This organization has a statement of purpose:

"Statement of Purpose

Talk to Action is a platform for reporting on, learning about, and analyzing and discussing the religious right -- and what to do about it. There is an editorial framework for this site than that is different than you will find on other major blog sites, so please read this carefully: We are pro-religious equality and pro-separation of church and state. We are prochoice, and we support gay and lesbian civil rights -- including marriage equality. Therefore, debates about the validity of abortion and gay rights are off topic."

Now we can see what is driving Mr. Majoy, an individual closely associated with the Cohen Center for Holocaust Studies at Keene State College. It also helps to explain the organization's use of the word "homophobia." Apparently the Cohen Center is using the Holocaust to advance a political agenda which is at odds with Catholic moral teaching. Why else would Mr. Majoy recommend a link to an organization promoting abortion, homosexuality and even same-sex "marriage"? - http://lasalettejourney.blogspot.com/2007/12/todays-first-reading-at-holy-mass-is.html

It is most interesting that Mr. Majoy is described as a Buddhist. Why do I say this? Because, in the words of Dr. David Carlin:

"Secularists are hostile toward religion in general and toward Christianity in particular. They regard Christianity as both intellectually foolish and morally wicked. Their special hostility toward Christianity, however, isn't based on a belief that Christianity is worse than other major religions; all of them are seen by secularists as bad. But Christianity just happens to be the dominant religion in Western history generally and American history in particular; even today it's the dominant religion in America, a very powerful force. And so, to secularists, who feel called to fight against the evils of religion, Christianity is the obvious and most important enemy...

Secularists considerably tone down their opposition to religion, however, when it comes to certain special cases. Many make something of an exception for Buddhism, which they regard as having considerable merit. But the Buddhism they have in mind isn't Buddhism as actually practiced by ordinary people in East Asia. Rather, they have in mind Buddhism as it originally came from the hands of Gautama himself, or more exactly what they have in mind is original Buddhism as represented by present-day Western proponents of Buddhism. And this kind of Buddhism is more a philosophy than a religion; indeed, it's a philosophy one of whose aims is to undermine popular religion. It's represented as a non-theistic or atheistic religion - just the kind of 'religion' that might prove popular with the kind of people who are on the lookout for 'spirituality' but don't like religion or belief in God." (Can a Catholic be a Democrat: How the party I loved became the enemy of my religion," Sophia Institute Press, pp. 152, 153).

There is cause for real concern here. Although Mr. Majoy has denied that he's anti-Catholic at The Keene Sentinel Talkback thread entitled "Richmond: A Town Divided," he has attempted to defend anti-Catholic sentiments expressed at the SBC Watch Blog in the form of a quote attributed to Thomas Jefferson which was posted by another supporter of the Cohen Center. Additionally, Mr. Majoy [as noted above] left a comment at the Cohen Center's Blog which was obviously intended to undermine the credibility of The Catholic League.

What is the real purpose of the Holocaust course being taught by Mr. Majoy? And why is it that Mr. Majoy has recommended a website which is secularist in nature and which portrays opposition to abortion and homosexuality in political terms: as the result of the "religious right"?

I'll ask the question again: Is the Cohen Center for Holocaust Studies at Keene State College politicizing the Holocaust to promote a liberal, secularist agenda? And isn't it interesting that while a woman named Terri O'Rorke wrote me several emails a couple of months ago indicating that Mr. Majoy wanted me to speak at this "Holocaust course," the invitation was apparently withdrawn when I went on record as defending the Church and Pius XII?

Dialogue? Invitation to discussion? Don't you believe it.

* Note: At The Keene Sentinel Talkback, a Blog sponsored by that newspaper, Mr. Pete Majoy has asserted that he never rescinded his invitation for me to speak at his "Holocaust Course" which is held at Camp Takodah in Richmond. I have offered (to anyone who is interested - and this apparently does not include the purveyors of anti-Catholicism who frequent that Blog) a copy of an email which shows that I accepted Mr. Majoy's invitation and that I was looking forward to hearing from him.

Some relevant reading: John 8. And especially verse 44.

"Only the Church...."

In recent years, the media have accused the Catholic Church of either helping the Nazis or being silent during the Holocaust. As an example, the January 26, 1998 issue of Time magazine on page 20 claims that the Catholic Church apologized for "collaborating with the Nazis during World War II." Even the new Holocaust Museum in New York unjustly criticized Pope Pius XII for being silent during World War II. The Church has recently spoken on this topic.

The Israeli consul, Pinchas E. Lapide, in his book, Three Popes and the Jews (New York: Hawthorn Books, Inc., 1967) critically examines Pope Pius XII. According to his research, the Catholic Church under Pius XII was instrumental in saving 860,000 Jews from Nazi death camps (p. 214). Could Pius have saved more lives by speaking out more forcefully? According to Lapide, the concentration camp prisoners did not want Pius to speak out openly (p. 247).

As one jurist from the Nuremberg Trials said on WNBC in New York (Feb. 28, 1964), "Any words of Pius XII, directed against a madman like Hitler, would have brought on an even worse catastrophe... [and] accelerated the massacre of Jews and priests." (Ibid.) Yet Pius was not totally silent either. Lapide notes a book by the Jewish historian, Jenoe Levai, entitled, The Church Did Not Keep Silent (p. 256). He admits that everyone, including himself, could have done more. If we condemn Pius, then justice would demand condemning everyone else. He concludes by quoting from the Talmud that "whosoever preserves one life, it is accounted to him by Scripture as if he had preserved a whole world." With this he claims that Pius XII deserves a memorial forest of 860,000 trees in the Judean hills (pp. 268-9). It should be noted that six million Jews and three million Catholics were killed in the Holocaust.

We must remember that the Holocaust was also anti-Christian. After Hitler revealed his true intentions, the Catholic Church opposed him. Even the famous Albert Einstein testified to that. According to the December 23, 1940 issue of Time magazine on page 38, Einstein said:Being a lover of freedom, when the revolution came in Germany, I looked to the universities to defend it, knowing that they had always boasted of their devotion to the cause of truth; but, no, the universities immediately were silenced. Then I looked to the great editors of the newspapers whose flaming editorials in days gone by had proclaimed their love of freedom; but they, like the universities, were silenced in a few short weeks...Only the Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler's campaign for suppressing truth. I never had any special interest in the Church before, but now I feel a great affection and admiration because the Church alone has had the courage and persistence to stand for intellectual truth and moral freedom. I am forced thus to confess that what I once despised I now praise unreservedly.

In another, similar statement, Einstein referred explicitly to the Catholic Church (Lapide, p. 251). This is an extraordinary testimony by an agnostic German scientist of Jewish heritage. Even though there were traitors in her ranks, the Church still opposed the Nazi movement.
The December 23, 1940 issue of Time magazine contains an interesting article about Christians living in Germany, both Catholic and Protestant, who opposed and suffered under the Nazis. On page 38, it claims that by late 1940 over 200,000 Christians were prisoners in Nazi concentration camps, with some estimates as high as 800,000. On page 40, it reports on the Archbishop of Munich, Michael Cardinal von Faulhaber, who led the Catholic opposition in Germany against the Nazis. In an Advent 1933 sermon, he preached: "Let us not forget that we were saved not by German blood but by the blood of Christ!" in response to Nazi racism. In 1934 the Cardinal "narrowly missed a Nazi bullet", while in 1938 a Nazi mob broke the windows in his residence. Even though he was over seventy and in poor health, he still led the Catholic German resistance against Hitler.

Not trusting the new regime, the Vatican signed a Concordat with the Reich on July 20, 1933 in an attempt to protect the Church's rights in Germany. But the Nazis quickly violated its articles. In Lent 1937 Pope Pius XI issued the encyclical "Mit brennender Sorge" (With burning sorrow) with the help of German bishops and Cardinal Pacelli (later Pope Pius XII). It was smuggled into Germany and read in all German Catholic churches at the same hour on Palm Sunday 1937. It did not explicitly mention Hitler or Nazism, but it firmly condemned the Nazi doctrines. On September 20, 1938, Pius XI told German pilgrims that no Christian can take part in anti-Semitism, since spiritually all Christians are Semites.

The recent slander against the Church and Pope Pius XII can be traced back to 1963 with Rolf Hochhuth's play, "The Deputy." In this play Hochhuth criticized Pius for being silent and portrayed his silence as cold indifference. Even though fiction, people took it as fact.
Pope Pius XII was a diplomat and not a radical preacher. He knew that he first needed to preserve Vatican neutrality so that Vatican City could be a refuge for war victims. The International Red Cross also remained neutral. Secondly, he knew how powerless he was against Hitler. Mussolini could quickly shut off electrical power to Vatican Radio during his broadcast (Lapide, p. 256). Finally the Nazis did not tolerate any protest and responded severely. As an example, the Catholic Archbishop of Utrecht in July 1942 protested in a pastoral letter against the Jewish persecutions in Holland. Immediately the Nazis rounded up as many Jews and Catholic non-Aryans as possible and deported them to death camps, including Blessed Edith Stein (Lapide, p. 246).

Pius knew that every time he spoke out against Hitler, the Nazis could retaliate against the prisoners. His best attack against the Nazis was quiet diplomacy and behind-the-scenes action. According to The 1996 Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia (V8.01) under Pius XII, "Wishing to preserve Vatican neutrality, fearing reprisals, and realizing his impotence to stop the Holocaust, Pius nonetheless acted on an individual basis to save many Jews and others with church ransoms, documents, and asylum."

The charity and work of Pope Pius XII during World War II so impressed the Chief Rabbi of Rome, Israel Zolli, that in 1944 he was open to the grace of God which led him into the Catholic faith. As his baptismal name, he took the same one Pius had, Eugenio, as his own. Later Israel Eugenio Zolli wrote a book entitled, Why I Became a Catholic.

But Pope Pius XII was not completely silent either, especially in his Christmas messages. His 1941 and 1942 Christmas messages were both translated and published in The New York Times (Dec. 25, 1941, p. 20 & Dec. 25, 1942, p. 10). To prevent retaliation, he did not refer to Nazism by name, but people of that era still understood him, including the Nazis.

According to The New York Times editorial on December 25, 1941 (Late Day edition, p. 24): The voice of Pius XII is a lonely voice in the silence and darkness enveloping Europe this Christmas... he is about the only ruler left on the Continent of Europe who dares to raise his voice at all... the Pope put himself squarely against Hitlerism... he left no doubt that the Nazi aims are also irreconcilable with his own conception of a Christian peace.

Also The New York Times editorial on December 25, 1942 (Late Day edition, p. 16) states: This Christmas more than ever he is a lonely voice crying out of the silence of a continent... Pope Pius expresses as passionately as any leader on our side the war aims of the struggle for freedom when he says that those who aim at building a new world must fight for free choice of government and religious order. They must refuse that the state should make of individuals a herd of whom the state disposes as if they were lifeless things. Both editorials recognize and highly praise Pius' words against Hitler and totalitarianism.

Now there were traitors in the Church who were Nazis or helped Hitler. There were Catholics who committed sins of bigotry. There were also Catholics, who, out of fear or indifference, sinned through silence. The Church is full of sinners for whom Christ died. We killed Jesus with our sins (Is. 53: 5-6). But Pope Pius XII and many Catholics did not remain "silent." Could 860,000 Jewish lives be saved by "silent" indifference? In our own day, there are people who claim to be Catholic but promote and participate in abortion, assisted-suicide and artificial birth control. In the next century, will the world also falsely accuse the Church and the Pope for being silent during the "culture of death" holocaust?

Source: http://users.binary.net/polycarp/piusxii.html

Albert Einstein, an agnostic, spoke clearly: "The Church alone has had the courage." And: "Only the Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler's campaign for suppressing truth." The New York Times spoke clearly: "The voice of Pius XII is a lonely voice in the silence and darkness enveloping Europe."

Those who have slandered Christ's Church and Christ's Vicar will one day be required by the Lord Jesus to account for their actions. Let's pray for them.

More testimonies defend Pope Pius XII

Pius XII, Mit Brennender Sorge, July 28, 1938 (excerpts):








"Whoever exalts race, or the people, or the State, or a particular form of State, or the depositories of power, or any other fundamental value of the worldly community...whoever raises these notions above their standard value and divinizes them to an idolatrous level, distorts and perverts an order of the world planned and created by God."


"None but superficial minds could stumble into concepts of a national God, of a national religion; or attempt to lock within the frontiers of a single people, within the narrow limits of a single race, God, the Creator of the universe, King and Legislator of all nations, before whose immensity they are 'as a drop in a bucket' (Isaiah 11:15)."


"The fool who has said in his heart, 'There is no God' (Psalm 13:1), goes straight to moral corruption, and the number of these fools who today are out to sever morality from religion is legion."


"The human race, the entire human race, is but a single and universal race of men. There is no room for special races. We may therefore ask ourselves why Italy should have felt a disgraceful need to imitate Germany."

___________________________________________________

"It is not correct to suppose that deported Jews are sent for labor service; the truth is that they are being annihilated." - Pope Pius XII, Second protest to the Slovak government upon learning that 52,000 Slovak Jews were marked for deportation to "labor camps" in Poland, March 14, 1942.

"He who makes a distinction between Jews and other men is unfaithful to God and is in conflict with God's commands." - Pope Pius XII, Broadcast of Vatican Radio to the people of France, June 1943.

"Tell your bosses, the Pope is not afraid of concentration camps." - Pope Pius XII, to a deputy of S.S. Lieutenant Colonel Herbert Kappler, chief of Gestapo forces in Nazi-occupied Rome, 1943.

..it is unfair to blame the Catholic Church

"I completely understand your point (and agree with it) that this [the Holocaust] wasn't the Church at all, but was demented individuals, who may have had a background in Catholicism... it is unfair to blame the Catholic Church for members who go astray.."

- David Kochman, Board member
Cohen Center for Holocaust Studies at Keene State College

It is unfair to blame the Catholic Church for members who go astray. Well said. Unfortunately, this is precisely what the Cohen Center for Holocaust Studies at Keene State College has been doing. Read here: http://lasalettejourney.blogspot.com/2007/12/call-for-apology.html

And while Mr. Tom White (a staff member of the Center) has argued that, "any interpretation of his Papacy [Pius XII's] are at best, ongoing, as the Vatican has only recently totally opened their archives on this subject," (a lie which has been refuted at this Blog), the Reich Central Security Office had no doubts about this great Pontiff. They considered him "the mouthpiece of the Jewish war criminals."

Following Pope Pius XII's sermon at Christmas, 1942, the Reich Central Security Office prepared a detailed analysis of the Pope's address for Reinhard Heydrich which was submitted on January 22, 1943:

"In a manner never known before, the Pope has repudiated the National Socialist New European Order. His radio allocution was a masterpiece of clerical falsification of the National Socialist Weltanschauung. It is true, the Pope does not refer to the National Socialists in Germany by name, but his speech is one long attack on everything we stand for....God, he says, regards all peoples and races as worthy of the same consideration. Here he is clearly speaking on behalf of the Jews...That this speech is directed exclusively against the New Order in Europe as seen in National Socialism is clear in the Papal statement that mankind owes a debt to 'all who during the war have lost their Fatherland and who, although personally blameless have, simply on account of their nationality and origin, been killed or reduced to utter destitution.' Here he is virtually accusing the German people of injustice towards the Jews, and makes himself the mouthpiece of the Jewish war criminals."

It's not the record of Pope Pius XII which is in question. It's the credibility of the Cohen Center which is in question.

The Good Samaritan: Jewish Praise for Pope Pius XII

"..any interpretation of his Papacy [Pius XII's] are at best, ongoing, as the Vatican has only recently totally opened their archives on this subject." - Mr. Tom White of the Cohen Center for Holocaust Studies at Keene State College.


In a response posted here: http://lasalettejourney.blogspot.com/2007/12/call-for-apology.html, I cited a link from the Catholic League which exposed this assertion as false. The link may be found here: http://www.catholicleague.org/pius.php?id=6

Paul.

The Cohen Center for Holocaust Studies....more controversy

A board member of the Cohen Center for Holocaust Studies at Keene State College has written an email to Ms. Marie Tremblay (who has contributed to FaithfulVoice.com) and has admitted that the Holocaust may not be attributed to Catholic teaching. However, in his email, this board member asserts that, "..many of the worst perpetrators of the Holocaust were Catholics from Germany and Italy...including Adolph Hitler."

But was Hitler really a Catholic? We read here: http://www.ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=32525 that Hitler desired "to trample the Catholic Church 'as one does a frog.'" Additionally, on September 9, 1943, Hitler said, "I'll go into the Vatican when I like. Do you think the Vatican worries me? We'll grab it. Yes, the whole diplomatic bunch is in there. I couldn't care less. That bunch in there, we'll drag them out, the whole swinish pack of them. What does it matter? We can apologize afterwards, that's nothing to worry about."

Contrary to what some may believe, the Nazis and the Italian Fascists knew that the Catholic Church and Popes Pius XI and Pius XII were their enemies. For example, Benito Mussolini told his foreign minister Count Ciano (on August 8, 1938): "I do not underestimate [Pius XI's] strength, but he must not underestimate mine either....A sign from me would be enough to unleash all the anti-clericalism of the Italian people who already find it hard enough to swallow a Jewish God." And Roberto Farinacci, the editor of Italy's official Fascist newspaper, Regime Fascista, wrote the following in October of 1942: "The Church's obstruction of the practical solution of the Jewish problem constitutes a crime against the New Europe."

In 1998, Cornell University released documents from the Nuremberg Trials which revealed that Hitler planned to end Christianity at the end of World War II: http://library.lawschool.cornell.edu/WhatWeHave/SpecialCollections/Donovan/index.cfm). Furthermore, General William Donovan, a senior member of the U.S. prosecution team at Nuremberg, as part of his work documenting Nazi war crimes, compiled copious amounts of documentation which show that the Nazis planned to systematically destroy Christianity: http://org.law.rutgers.edu/publications/law-religion/articles/RJLR_3_1_2.pdf)

There can be little doubt that the Cohen Center for Holocaust Studies at Keene State College is staffed by individuals who suffer from an anti-Catholic bias. Let's continue to pray that the Center will issue an apology for the anti-Catholic remark issued by Mr. Henry Knight [the Director of the Cohen Center] which was posted at the Cohen Center Blog.

Our Lady never experienced concupiscence

The Blessed Virgin Mary never experienced concupiscence. Concupiscence is defined as the inclination to sin arising from the disobedience of Adam and Eve. Although concupiscence is not evil per se, it does lead to sin when its impulses are not checked (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 376, 400, 405, 2514-2527).

The Council of Trent said that concupiscence flows from Original Sin and leads to sin. But Our Lady, having been immaculately conceived, was preserved from sin from the first moment of her existence because of the foreseen merits of her divine Son. It follows that since Our Lady did not have Original Sin, she also did not have the consequence of it, namely, concupiscence or evil desire.

As Rev. Alban Butler explains:


So great are the advantages we reap from the incarnation of the Son of God that to contemplate it, and to thank and praise him for the same, ought to be the primary object of all our devotions and the employment of our whole lives. In the feast of the Conception of the Immaculate Virgin Mother of God we celebrate the joyful dawning of that bright day of mercy, the first appearance which that most glorious of all pure creatures made in the world, with those first seeds of grace which produced the most admirable fruit in her soul. Her conception was itself a glorious mystery, a great grace, and the first effect of her predestination.

Her Divine Son, the eternal God, in the first moment of her being, considered the sublime dignity to which he had decreed to raise her, and remembered that august, dear, sacred, and venerable name of his mother, which she was one day to bear; and he beheld her with a complacency, and distinguished her in a manner, suitable to so near a relation she was to bear. He called her not his servant in whom he gloried, as he did Israel, but his mother, whom for the sake of his own glory he decreed exceedingly to exalt in grace and glory. From that instant the eternal Word of God, which was to take flesh of her, looked upon it as particularly incumbent on him, in the view of his future incarnation, to sanctify this virgin, to enrich her with his choicest gifts, and to heap upon her the most singular favours with a profusion worthy his omnipotence.

From that very moment he prepared her to be his most holy tabernacle. When Almighty God commanded a temple to be built to his honour in Jerusalem, what preparations did he not ordain! What purity did he not require in the things that belonged to that work, even in the persons and materials that were employed in it! David, though a great saint, was excepted against by God, because he had been stained with blood spilt in just wars. Again, what purifications, consecrations, rites, and ceremonies did he not order to sanctify all the parts of the building! This for a material temple, in which the ark was to be placed, and men were to offer their homages and sacrifices to his adorable Majesty. What, then, did he not do for Mary in spiritually decking her, whose chaste womb was to be his living tabernacle, from whose pure flesh he was to derive his own most holy body, and of whom he would himself be born!

The first condition in the spiritual embellishing of a soul is perfect purity, or cleanness from whatever can be a blot or stain in her. A skilful statuary is careful, in the first place, that there be no irregularity or deformity in the piece which he is going to carve. Almighty God therefore was pleased to preserve this holy Virgin from contracting any stain of sin, whether original or actual. Without the privilege of an extraordinary grace, the greatest saints daily fall into venial sins of surprise and inadvertence, through a neglect of a universal watchfulness over all the secret motions of their hearts in the course of action. But Mary was distinguished by this rare privilege, and by the succour of an extraordinary grace was so strengthened that her interior beauty was never sullied with the least spot, and charity or the divine love never suffered the least remission or abatement in her soul; but from the moment in which she attained the use of reason, increased, and she continually pressed forward with fresh ardour towards the attainment of higher perfection in virtue and holiness.

Her exemption from original sin was yet a more extraordinary privilege of grace. It is an undoubted truth that she was sanctified and freed from original sin before she was born, and that she was brought into this world in a state of perfect sanctity. It is defined as an article of faith that in her very conception she was immaculate. It is needless here to produce the passages of holy scripture usually alleged by theologians, and other proofs by which this doctrine is confirmed. It is founded in the clear testimonies of the most illustrious among the fathers, in the decrees of several particular councils, and the suffrages of most learned and eminent masters of the theological schools. The very respect which we owe to the Mother of God, and the honour which is due to her divine Son, incline us to believe this privilege most suitable to her state of spotless sanctity.

St. Austin thought this reason sufficient for exempting her, whenever mention is made of sin. "Out of reverence," says he, "and for the honour which is due to her Son, I will have no question put about her when we speak of any sin." Christ was no less her Redeemer, Reconciler, and most perfect Saviour and Benefactor, by preserving her from this stain, than he would have been by cleansing her from it: as by descending from Adam she was liable to this debt, and would have contracted the contagion had she not been preserved from it through the grace and merits of her Son.

To understand how great a grace and how singular a prerogative this total exemption from all sin was in Mary, we may take a survey of the havoc that monster made amongst men from the beginning of the world, excepting Mary The most holy amongst the saints all received their existence in sin; they were all obliged to say with St. Paul, "We were the children of wrath, even as the rest." The fall of our first father Adam involved ill mankind in guilt and misery. From that time, for the space of four thousand years, sin reigned without control On every side. By its dire effects the greatest part of the world was plunged into the most frightful state of spiritual darkness and blindness. Even the sons of light were born under its slavery; Abraham, Moses, Elias; Jeremy' Job, and all the other saints confessed with David, "Behold, I was conceived in iniquities, and in sin my mother conceived me." Sin was become a universal leprosy, a contagion which no one could escape; an evil common to all mankind, and infecting every particular individual that descended from Adam. It was communicated with the flesh and blood which men received from their parents, and from their first father Adam. Every child contracted this infection with the first principle of life. Mary, by a singular privilege, was exempted from it, and entered a world of sin spotless and holy.

The grace which exempted Mary from original sin preserved her also from the sting of concupiscence, or inordinate love of creatures, and tendency to evil. The first sin of Adam brought on us a deluge of evils, and by the two wounds of ignorance and concupiscence which it has left in us its malignity has spread its influence over all the powers of our souls. Through it our understanding is liable to be deceived and to be led away with errors; our will is abandoned to the assaults of the basest passions: our senses are become inlets of dangerous suggestions: we are subjected to spiritual weakness, inconstancy, and vanity, and are tyrannized over by inordinate appetites. Hence proceeds in us a difficulty in doing good, a repugnance to our duties, a proneness to evil, the poisoned charm of vice, and the intestine war of the flesh against the spirit. All this we experience and groan under; yet under the weight of such miseries, by a much greater evil, we are blind, proud, and insensible. We court our dangers, indulge and fortify our enemies, and caress and adore those idols which we are bound to destroy. To procure for ourselves some part in the blessing which Mary enjoyed in the empire over our passions, we must cheek them, restrain our senses, and die to ourselves. We must never cease sighing to God, to implore his aid against this domestic enemy, and never enter into any truce with him. "Have mercy on me, O Lord, for I am weak; heal me, O Lord, for my bones are troubled."

If our weakness and dangers call for our tears' we have still much greater reason to weep for our guilt and repeated transgressions. Whereas grace in Mary triumphed even over original sin; we, on the contrary, even after baptism and penance, by which we were cleansed from sin, return to it again, increase our hereditary weakness and miseries; and, what is of all things most grievous, infinitely aggravate out guilt by daily offences. "Who will give water to my head, and a fountain of tears to my eyes?" O, Mother of Mercy, let your happy privilege, your exemption from all sin and concupiscence, inspire you with pity for our miseries: and by your spotless purity and abundant graces obtain for us strength against all our dangers; the deliverance from all our miseries, and the most powerful remedies of divine grace.

Mary, in her conception, was not only free from stain, but moreover was adorned with the most precious graces, so as to appear beautiful and glorious in the eyes of God. And the grace she then received was the seed of the great virtues which she exercised, and the higher graces to which, by the improvement of her first stock, she was afterwards raised, during the whole course of her mortal life. By the first graces she was free from all inclination to accursed pride and from all inordinate self-love, and remained always perfectly empty of herself. This disposition she expressed when honoured with the highest graces and exalted to the most sublime and wonderful spiritual dignity; under which, sinking lower in her own abyss of weakness and nothingness, she sincerely and purely gave all glory to him. She confessed aloud that he chose her not for any merit, or anything he saw in her, but because he would signalize his omnipotence by choosing the weakest and meanest instrument, and because he saw in her the nothingness in which he most fitly exerted and manifested his infinite power and greatness. By a lurking pride we obstruct the designs of the divine mercy in our favour. The vessel of our heart cannot receive the plentiful effusion of divine grace so long as it is filled with the poison of self-love. The more perfectly it is cleansed and empty, the more is it fitted to receive. As the prophet called for vessels that were empty, that they might be filled with miraculous oil; so must we present to God hearts that are perfectly empty, when we pray that he replenish them with his grace. The exercise of humility, meekness, patience, resignation, obedience, self-denial, rigorous self-examination, compunction, and penance begin the work: but prayer and divine love perfect the cleansing of the fountain from which they spring. Thus are we to attain that purity of heart and affections by which we shall bear some degree of resemblance to the holy Mother of God. This grace we ought earnestly to beg of God, through her intercession, and particularly to commend to him, through her, the preservation of the holy virtue of purity.

The Immaculate Conception of the holy Mother of God was not only in itself a great and glorious mystery, but likewise joyful to mankind. Certain glimmerings of the benefit of our Redemption had gone before from the fall of Adam in several revelations, types, and figures; in which the distant prospect of this wonderful mercy filled the patriarchs and other saints of the old law with comfort and holy joy. But the conception of Mary displayed the first rays of its approaching light, and may be said to have been its rising morning, or the dawning of its day. In this mystery she appeared pure and glorious, shining among the daughters of Adam as a " lily among thorns." To her from the moment of her conception God said, "Thou art all beautiful, my love, and there is no spot in thee." She was the "enclosed garden," which the serpent could never enter; and the "sealed fountain," which he never defiled.

She was the throne and the tabernacle of the true Solomon, and the ark of the testament to contain, not corruptible manna, but the Author of the incorruptible life of our souls. Saluting her with these epithets, in exultation and praise, let us sing with the church, "This is the Conception of the glorious Virgin Mary, of the seed of Abraham, sprung from the tribe of Juda, illustrious of the house of David, whose life, by its brightness, illustrates all churches."

Source: http://www.ewtn.com/library/MARY/IMCONBVM.HTM

An open letter to Bishop Robert J. McManus

- "At the side of Jesus, see Mary his Mother, who was never stained with any sin, original or actual, yet whose pure and loving heart was pierced through."

- St. Louis Marie Grignon de Montfort

I have written His Excellency, The Most Rev. Robert J. McManus, to address my concerns regarding a homily given by the pastor of a Catholic parish located within his Diocese. Here is that letter:

December 26, 2007

The Most Rev. Robert J. McManus
Bishop of Worcester
49 Elm Street
Worcester, Ma 01609


Your Excellency,


It is with a heavy heart that I write to you to express my concerns regarding a homily given by Rev. ----- during Holy Mass on Christmas Day at ------ Parish in ------.
During his homily, Fr. ----- described Our Lady as having entertained sinful thoughts. Specifically, he implied that she would have harbored resentment against St. Joseph (for having thought that she had been unfaithful to him) and for the conditions which she had to endure both on the road to - and while giving birth at - Bethlehem.

In his declaration of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception given on December 8, 1854, Blessed Pius IX of happy memory stated clearly that, "..the Blessed Virgin Mary was preserved, in the first instant of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of God omnipotent and because of the merits of Jesus Christ the Savior of the human race, free from all stain of Original Sin."

Our Lady was conceived in the state of perfect justice, free from Original Sin and its consequences, in virtue of the redemption achieved by Christ on the Cross. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 492, teaches that, "The ‘splendor of an entirely unique holiness’ by which Mary is ‘enriched from the first instant of her conception’ comes wholly from Christ: she is ‘redeemed, in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son.’ The Father blessed Mary more than any other created person ‘in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places’ and chose her ‘in Christ before the foundations of the world, to be holy and blameless before Him in love.’" (CCC, 492, citing Lumen Gentium, Nos 53, 56; Ephesians 1: 3-4).

The Catechism assures us that: "It is in the Church, in communion with all the baptized, that the Christian fulfills his vocation. From the Church he receives the Word of God containing the teachings of ‘the law of Christ.’ From the Church he receives the grace of the sacraments that sustains him on the ‘way.’ From the Church he learns the example of holiness and recognizes its model and source in the all-holy Virgin Mary." (CCC, No. 2030).

Our Lady is not only the model of holiness but she is Mediatrix of all Graces. Pope Benedict XIV taught that, "Our Lady is like a celestial stream through which the flow of all graces and gifts reach the soul of all wretched mortals." (Op. Omnia, v.16, ed., Prati, 1846, p. 428). And Pope Pius XII, speaking of Our Lady, said that, "She teaches us all virtues; she gives us her Son and with Him all the help we need, for ‘God wished us to have everything through Mary.’" (Mediator Dei, 1947).

Rather than encouraging the faithful under his care to strive toward greater holiness while using Our Lady as a model of something far better to reach for, it would seem that Fr. ----- would prefer to drag Our Lady down to the level of the ordinary "wretched mortal" (to borrow Pope Benedict XIV’s phrase) in an attempt to convince us that we are really not that wretched after all.

Fr. -----'s homily was both morally offensive and grossly inappropriate. Especially considering the fact that it was delivered on Christmas Day. Not that his comments would have been edifying on any other day. One has to wonder if Fr. ----- has an adequate understanding of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. It would appear that such is not the case. Either that, or knowing that ---- radio out of ------- is broadcasting the Mass, perhaps Fr. ----- is more concerned with his image and appealing to a mass audience which can be hostile toward devotion to Mary than he is with offering authentic Catholic teaching.

At any rate, I believe this situation should be addressed Your Excellency. The faithful have a right to receive Catholic doctrine in its purity and integrity (Veritatis Splendor, No. 113).

Asking Your Excellency’s Blessing,
I am, Yours Respectfully

Paul Anthony Melanson

Our Lady: Model of Holiness

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 2030, teaches us that: "It is in the Church, in communion with all the baptized, that the Christian fulfills his vocation. From the Church he receives the Word of God containing the teachings of 'the law of Christ.' From the Church he receives the grace of the sacraments that sustains him on the 'way.' From the Church he learns the example of holiness and recognizes its model and source in the all-holy Virgin Mary..."


This morning, at Christmas Mass, the pastor of my parish described Our Lady as having entertained sinful thoughts. Specifically, he implied that she would have harbored resentment against St. Joseph (for having thought that she had been unfaithful to him) and for the conditions which she had to endure while giving birth in Bethlehem. This priest asked the married women in the parish if they wouldn't hold a grudge against their husband if he accused them of having been unfaithful. What this priest fails to understand, however, is that Our Lady was conceived without any stain of Original Sin and, as a result, never committed any sin during her lifetime. Again the Catechism:


After his fall, man was not abandoned by God. On the contrary, God calls him and in a mysterious way heralds the coming victory over evil and his restoration from his fall. This passage in Genesis is called the Protoevangelium ("first gospel"): the first announcement of the Messiah and Redeemer, of a battle between the serpent and the Woman, and of the final victory of a descendant of hers.

The Christian tradition sees in this passage an announcement of the "New Adam" who, because he "became obedient unto death, even death on a cross", makes amends superabundantly for the disobedience, of Adam. Furthermore many Fathers and Doctors of the Church have seen the woman announced in the Protoevangelium as Mary, the mother of Christ, the "new Eve". Mary benefited first of all and uniquely from Christ's victory over sin: she was preserved from all stain of original sin and by a special grace of God committed no sin of any kind during her whole earthly life.

But why did God not prevent the first man from sinning? St. Leo the Great responds, "Christ's inexpressible grace gave us blessings better than those the demon's envy had taken away." And St. Thomas Aquinas wrote, "There is nothing to prevent human nature's being raised up to something greater, even after sin; God permits evil in order to draw forth some greater good. Thus St. Paul says, 'Where sin increased, grace abounded all the more'; and the Exsultet sings, 'O happy fault,. . . which gained for us so great a Redeemer!'" (CCC, 410-412).

It may be difficult for this priest to understand the fact that Our Lady never even entertained sinful thoughts or held grudges. But it is nevertheless true. Let's all pray for this priest: that he will come to see Our Lady as a model of holiness and will come to understand and acknowledge the fact that the Immaculata never entertained sinful thoughts.

From the La Salette Journey Archives...

"In the words of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, "Conversion is accomplished in daily life by gestures of reconciliation, concern for the poor, the exercise and defense of justice and right, by the admission of faults to one's brethren, fraternal correction, revision of life, examination of conscience, spiritual direction, acceptance of suffering, endurance of persecution for the sake of righteousness. Taking up one's cross each day and following Jesus is the surest way of penance." (1435).

In other words, our transformation in Christ, our daily conversion, is made manifest by such gestures of reconciliation by which we demonstrate our commitment toward the theological virtue of charity "by which we love God above all things for his own sake, and our neighbor as ourselves for the love of God" (CCC, 1822). "

Read the rest by clicking on this Blog post title.

A point not understood by the Cohen Center for Holocaust Studies

Catholics offended by the anti-Catholic comment made by Mr. Henry F. Knight which was posted at the Blog for the Cohen Center for Holocaust Studies at Keene State College are still awaiting an apology. Mr. Knight has referred to, "traditional forms of anti-Semitism in Church teachings or its liturgies."

By clicking on the link above, you will be taken to yet another article which refutes this spurious claim.

The Cohen Center should promptly apologize for Mr. Knight's anti-Catholic remark. Failure to do so will only serve to diminish the credibility of the Center. A credibility which has already been tarnished.

As part of a comment left at The Keene Sentinel Blog thread entitled "Richmond: A Town Divided?", a Catholic layman named Dale who is a regular reader of this Blog wrote, "If Keene State College isn't anti-Catholic, why has the student newspaper, The Equinox, published an article titled "Town residents express concern about Catholic group"? The article may be found here: www.keeneequinox.com/news/2007/12/06/News/Town-Residents.Express.Concern.About.Catholic.Group-3137245.shtml

The Diocese has stated quite clearly that the SBC has "no affiliation" with either the Diocese or the Roman Catholic Church. So why is that publication attempting to convince students that the SBC (which is anti-Semitic) is "Catholic." Clearly, this is an attempt to portray Catholicism as being somehow "anti-Semitic." And such an approach is truly reprehensible besides being dishonest."

Not a bad question.

Abortion may never be considered a "right."

In his Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae, Nos. 68-73, Pope John Paul II reminded us that:

"One of the specific characteristics of present-day attacks on human life-as has already been said several times-consists in the trend to demand a legal justification for them, as if they were rights which the State, at least under certain conditions, must acknowledge as belonging to citizens. Consequently, there is a tendency to claim that it should be possible to exercise these rights with the safe and free assistance of doctors and medical personnel.

It is often claimed that the life of an unborn child or a seriously disabled person is only a relative good: according to a proportionalist approach, or one of sheer calculation, this good should be compared with and balanced against other goods. It is even maintained that only someone present and personally involved in a concrete situation can correctly judge the goods at stake: consequently, only that person would be able to decide on the morality of his choice. The State therefore, in the interest of civil coexistence and social harmony, should respect this choice, even to the point of permitting abortion and euthanasia.

At other times, it is claimed that civil law cannot demand that all citizens should live according to moral standards higher than what all citizens themselves acknowledge and share. Hence the law should always express the opinion and will of the majority of citizens and recognize that they have, at least in certain extreme cases, the right even to abortion and euthanasia.

Moreover the prohibition and the punishment of abortion and euthanasia in these cases would inevitably lead-so it is said-to an increase of illegal practices: and these would not be subject to necessary control by society and would be carried out in a medically unsafe way. The question is also raised whether supporting a law which in practice cannot be enforced would not ultimately undermine the authority of all laws.

Finally, the more radical views go so far as to maintain that in a modern and pluralistic society people should be allowed complete freedom to dispose of their own lives as well as of the lives of the unborn: it is asserted that it is not the task of the law to choose between different moral opinions, and still less can the law claim to impose one particular opinion to the detriment of others.

In any case, in the democratic culture of our time it is commonly held that the legal system of any society should limit itself to taking account of and accepting the convictions of the majority. It should therefore be based solely upon what the majority itself considers moral and actually practises. Furthermore, if it is believed that an objective truth shared by all is de facto unattainable, then respect for the freedom of the citizens-who in a democratic system are considered the true rulers-would require that on the legislative level the autonomy of individual consciences be acknowledged. Consequently, when establishing those norms which are absolutely necessary for social coexistence, the only determining factor should be the will of the majority, whatever this may be. Hence every politician, in his or her activity, should clearly separate the realm of private conscience from that of public conduct.

As a result we have what appear to be two diametrically opposed tendencies. On the one hand, individuals claim for themselves in the moral sphere the most complete freedom of choice and demand that the State should not adopt or impose any ethical position but limit itself to guaranteeing maximum space for the freedom of each individual, with the sole limitation of not infringing on the freedom and rights of any other citizen. On the other hand, it is held that, in the exercise of public and professional duties, respect for other people's freedom of choice requires that each one should set aside his or her own convictions in order to satisfy every demand of the citizens which is recognized and guaranteed by law; in carrying out one's duties the only moral criterion should be what is laid down by the law itself. Individual responsibility is thus turned over to the civil law, with a renouncing of personal conscience, at least in the public sphere.

At the basis of all these tendencies lies the ethical relativism which characterizes much of present-day culture. There are those who consider such relativism an essential condition of democracy, inasmuch as it alone is held to guarantee tolerance, mutual respect between people and acceptance of the decisions of the majority, whereas moral norms considered to be objective and binding are held to lead to authoritarianism and intolerance.

But it is precisely the issue of respect for life which shows what misunderstandings and contradictions, accompanied by terrible practical consequences, are concealed in this position.
It is true that history has known cases where crimes have been committed in the name of "truth". But equally grave crimes and radical denials of freedom have also been committed and are still being committed in the name of "ethical relativism". When a parliamentary or social majority decrees that it is legal, at least under certain conditions, to kill unborn human life, is it not really making a "tyrannical" decision with regard to the weakest and most defenceless of human beings? Everyone's conscience rightly rejects those crimes against humanity of which our century has had such sad experience. But would these crimes cease to be crimes if, instead of being committed by unscrupulous tyrants, they were legitimated by popular consensus?

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

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

Some might think that even this function, in the absence of anything better, should be valued for the sake of peace in society. While one acknowledges some element of truth in this point of view, it is easy to see that without an objective moral grounding not even democracy is capable of ensuring a stable peace, especially since peace which is not built upon the values of the dignity of every individual and of solidarity between all people frequently proves to be illusory.

Even in participatory systems of government, the regulation of interests often occurs to the advantage of the most powerful, since they are the ones most capable of manoeuvering not only the levers of power but also of shaping the formation of consensus. In such a situation, democracy easily becomes an empty word.

It is therefore urgently necessary, for the future of society and the development of a sound democracy, to rediscover those essential and innate human and moral values which flow from the very truth of the human being and express and safeguard the dignity of the person: values which no individual, no majority and no State can ever create, modify or destroy, but must only acknowledge, respect and promote.

Consequently there is a need to recover the basic elements of a vision of the relationship between civil law and moral law, which are put forward by the Church, but which are also part of the patrimony of the great juridical traditions of humanity.

Certainly the purpose of civil law is different and more limited in scope than that of the moral law. But "in no sphere of life can the civil law take the place of conscience or dictate norms concerning things which are outside its competence", which is that of ensuring the common good of people through the recognition and defence of their fundamental rights, and the promotion of peace and of public morality. The real purpose of civil law is to guarantee an ordered social coexistence in true justice, so that all may "lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way" (1 Tim 2:2). Precisely for this reason, civil law must ensure that all members of society enjoy respect for certain fundamental rights which innately belong to the person, rights which every positive law must recognize and guarantee. First and fundamental among these is the inviolable right to life of every innocent human being. While public authority can sometimes choose not to put a stop to something which-were it prohibited- would cause more serious harm, it can never presume to legitimize as a right of individuals-even if they are the majority of the members of society-an offence against other persons caused by the disregard of so fundamental a right as the right to life.

The legal toleration of abortion or of euthanasia can in no way claim to be based on respect for the conscience of others, precisely because society has the right and the duty to protect itself against the abuses which can occur in the name of conscience and under the pretext of freedom.

In the Encyclical Pacem in Terris, John XXIII pointed out that "it is generally accepted today that the common good is best safeguarded when personal rights and duties are guaranteed. The chief concern of civil authorities must therefore be to ensure that these rights are recognized, respected, co-ordinated, defended and promoted, and that each individual is enabled to perform his duties more easily. For to safeguard the inviolable rights of the human person, and to facilitate the performance of his duties, is the principal duty of every public authority'. Thus any government which refused to recognize human rights or acted in violation of them, would not only fail in its duty; its decrees would be wholly lacking in binding force".

The doctrine on the necessary conformity of civil law with the moral law is in continuity with the whole tradition of the Church. This is clear once more from John XXIII's Encyclical: "Authority is a postulate of the moral order and derives from God. Consequently, laws and decrees enacted in contravention of the moral order, and hence of the divine will, can have no binding force in conscience...; indeed, the passing of such laws undermines the very nature of authority and results in shameful abuse". This is the clear teaching of Saint Thomas Aquinas, who writes that "human law is law inasmuch as it is in conformity with right reason and thus derives from the eternal law. But when a law is contrary to reason, it is called an unjust law; but in this case it ceases to be a law and becomes instead an act of violence". And again: "Every law made by man can be called a law insofar as it derives from the natural law. But if it is somehow opposed to the natural law, then it is not really a law but rather a corruption of the law".

Now the first and most immediate application of this teaching concerns a human law which disregards the fundamental right and source of all other rights which is the right to life, a right belonging to every individual. Consequently, laws which legitimize the direct killing of innocent human beings through abortion or euthanasia are in complete opposition to the inviolable right to life proper to every individual; they thus deny the equality of everyone before the law. It might be objected that such is not the case in euthanasia, when it is requested with full awareness by the person involved. But any State which made such a request legitimate and authorized it to be carried out would be legalizing a case of suicide-murder, contrary to the fundamental principles of absolute respect for life and of the protection of every innocent life.

In this way the State contributes to lessening respect for life and opens the door to ways of acting which are destructive of trust in relations between people. Laws which authorize and promote abortion and euthanasia are therefore radically opposed not only to the good of the individual but also to the common good; as such they are completely lacking in authentic juridical validity. Disregard for the right to life, precisely because it leads to the killing of the person whom society exists to serve, is what most directly conflicts with the possibility of achieving the common good. Consequently, a civil law authorizing abortion or euthanasia ceases by that very fact to be a true, morally binding civil law.

Abortion and euthanasia are thus crimes which no human law can claim to legitimize. There is no obligation in conscience to obey such laws; instead there is a grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. From the very beginnings of the Church, the apostolic preaching reminded Christians of their duty to obey legitimately constituted public authorities (cf. Rom 13:1-7; 1 Pet 2:13-14), but at the same time it firmly warned that "we must obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29)."

There are those who, having embraced a concentration-camp mentality, believe that there is such a thing as a life not worthy to be lived. Such people deny the equality of everyone before the law. It is ironic how some individuals can condemn one Holocaust while referring to another Holocaust - the Holocaust of innocent unborn children - as a "right":http://sbcwatch.blogspot.com/2007/12/to-readers.html

By clicking on the title of this Blog post, you will be taken to a photo gallery maintained by the Priests for Life website. As you review these heart-wrenching photographs of the murdered bodies of innocent children, ask yourself if those who propagandize for so-called "abortion rights" while condemning the Holocaust which took place during the Second World War are really interested in defending the common good and have a respect for human life or if they're only politicizing the Holocaust to further their own political agenda.

A return to tradition....

Anti-Catholicism in the United States

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Catholicism_in_the_United_States

"John Highham described anti-Catholic bigotry as "the most luxuriant, tenacious tradition of paranoiac agitation in American history".

Bigotry against the Roman Catholic Church and its followers, which was prominent in the United Kingdom from the seventeenth century onwards, was exported to the United States.

Two types of anti-Catholic rhetoric existed in colonial society. The first, derived from the heritage of the Protestant Reformation and the religious wars of the sixteenth century, consisted of the "Anti-Christ" and the "Whore of Babylon" variety and dominated anti-Catholic thought until the late seventeenth century. The second was a more secular variety which focused on the supposed intrigue of the Roman Catholics intent on extending medieval despotism worldwide.

Harvard professor and historian Arthur M. Schlesinger, Sr. characterized prejudice against the Catholics as "the deepest bias in the history of the American people" and Yale professor Peter Viereck once commented that "Catholic baiting is the anti-Semitism of the liberals"....

Anti-Catholic animus in the United States reached a peak in the nineteenth century when the Protestant population became alarmed by the influx of Roman Catholic immigrants. The resulting "nativist" movement, which achieved prominence in the 1840s, was whipped into a frenzy of anti-Catholicism that led to mob violence, the burning of Roman Catholic property, and the killing of Roman Catholics.

This violence was fed by claims that Catholics were destroying the culture of the United States. Irish Catholic immigrants were blamed for raising the taxes of the country as well as spreading violence and disease. The nativist movement found expression in a national political movement called the Know-Nothing Party of the 1850s, which (unsuccessfully) ran former president Millard Fillmore as its presidential candidate in 1856. Similar sentiment was also manifested in the Ku Klux Klan. The case of the murder of Father James Coyle, although also motivated by ethnic bigotry, was a prime example of anti-Catholic violence in the US.

In 1834, lurid tales of sexual slavery and infanticide in convents prompted the burning of an Ursuline convent in Charlestown, Mass., setting off nearly two decades of violence against Catholics. The resulting anti-Catholic riots (which included the burning of churches), were largely centered in the major urban centers of the country and led to the creation of the nativist Know-Nothing Party in 1854, whose platform included a straightforward condemnation of the Catholic Church.

By 1850 Catholics had become the country’s largest single religious denomination. And between 1860 and 1890 the population of Catholics in the United States tripled through immigration; by the end of the decade it would reach seven million. This influx, largely Irish and Italian, which would eventually bring increased political power for the Catholic Church and a greater cultural presence, led at the same time to a growing fear of the Catholic "menace." The American Protective Association, for example, formed in Iowa in 1887, sponsored popular countrywide tours of supposed ex-priests and "escaped" nuns, who concocted horrific tales of mistreatment and abuse.

As the nineteenth century wore on animosity waned, Protestant Americans realized that Roman Catholics were not trying to seize control of the government. Nonetheless, fears continued into the twentieth century that there was too much "Catholic influence" on the government, and presidents who met with the pope were criticized.....

By the beginning of the 20th century, approximately one-sixth of the population of the United States was Catholic. Nevertheless, the powerful influence of groups like the Ku Klux Klan and other nativist organizations were typical of still-potent anti-Catholic sentiments.
During the 20th century, suspicion of the political aims and agenda of the Roman Catholic Church have been revived several times.

In 1928 the presidential candidacy of Al Smith was greeted with a fresh wave of anti-Catholic hysteria that contributed to his defeat. (It was widely rumored at the time that with the election of Mr. Smith the pope would take up residence in the White House and Protestants would find themselves stripped of their citizenship.)

In 1949, Paul Blanshard's book American Freedom and Catholic Power portrayed the Roman Catholic Church as an anti-democratic force hostile to freedom of speech and religion, eager to impose itself on the United States by boycott and subterfuge

As Charles R. Morris noted in his recent book American Catholic, the real mainstreaming of the church did not occur until the 1950’s and 1960’s, when educated Catholics—sons and daughters of immigrants—were finally assimilated into the larger culture. Even so, John F. Kennedy was confronted during his 1960 presidential campaign with old anti-Catholic biases. He eventually felt compelled to address explicitly concerns of his supposed "allegiance" to the Pope. Many Protestant leaders, such as Norman Vincent Peale, publicly opposed the candidacy because of Kennedy’s religion. And after the election, survey research by political scientists found that Kennedy had indeed lost votes because of his religion.

Although most historians have argued that Kennedy's election eliminated anti-Catholic bias as a major factor in American life, it should be noted that, while several Catholics have been nominated for President, no Catholic has been elected President of the United States since Kennedy in 1960.

Twenty-first century
Philip Jenkins, an Episcopalian historian, in The New Anti-Catholicism: The Last Acceptable Prejudice (Oxford University Press 2005 ISBN 0-19-515480-0) maintains that some people who otherwise avoid offending members of racial, religious, ethnic or gender groups have no reservations about venting their hatred of Catholics." (Source: Wikipedia; cited above).

The Violence of Love

I will not tire of declaring that if we really want an effective end to violence we must remove the violence that lies at the root of all violence: structural violence, social injustice, exclusion of citizens from the management of the country, repression. All this is what constitutes the primal cause, from which the rest flows naturally.

I'm deeply impressed by that moment when Christ stands alone before the world figured in Pilate. The truth is left alone, his own followers have been afraid. Truth is fearfully daring, and only heroes can follow the truth. So much so that Peter, who has said he will die if need be, flees like a coward and Christ stands alone.

Let's not be afraid to be left alone if it's for the sake of the truth. Let's be afraid to be demagogs, coveting the people's sham flattery. If we don't tell them the truth, we commit the worst sin: betraying the truth and betraying the people. Christ would rather be left alone, but able to say before the world figured in Pilate: Everyone who hears my voice belongs to the truth.

Would that the many bloodstained hands in our land were lifted up to the Lord with horror of their stain to pray that he might cleanse them. But let those who, thanks to God, have clean hands -- the children, the sick, the suffering -- lift up their innocent and suffering hands to the Lord like the people of Israel in Egypt. The Lord will have pity and will say, as he did to Moses in Egypt, "I have heard my people's cry of wailing. It is the prayer that God cannot fail to hear.
The church is calling to sanity, to understanding, to love. It does not believe in violent solutions. The church believes in only one violence, that of Christ, who was nailed to the cross. That is how today's gospel reading shows him, taking upon himself all the violence of hatred and misunderstanding, so that we humans might forgive one another, love one another, feel ourselves brothers and sisters.

We have never preached violence, except the violence of love, which left Christ nailed to a cross, the violence that we must each do to ourselves, to overcome our selfishness and such cruel inequalities among us. The violence we preach is not the violence of the sword, the violence of hatred. It is the violence of love, of brotherhood, the violence that wills to beat weapons into sickles for work.

Who knows if the one whose hands are bloodied with Father Grande's murder, or the one who shot Father Navarro, if those who have killed, who have tortured, who have done so much evil, are listening to me? Listen, there in your criminal hideout, perhaps already repentant, you too are called to forgiveness.

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

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

- Archbishop Oscar Romero, the martyred Archbishop of San Salvador.