Johann Hari provides more evidence of his fanaticism

Protect the Pope is reporting that:

"Johann Hari, militant atheist and gay activist, writes in The Independent, that Catholics who celebrate the Pope’s visit in a week’s time will be ‘understood as endorsing his crimes and his cruelties.’ He concludes that the faith of such Catholics ‘distorts’ their ‘ moral faculties’.

Hari writes: ‘If you turn out to celebrate him, you will be understood as endorsing his crimes and his cruelties. If your faith pulls you towards him rather than his victims, shouldn’t that make you think again about your faith? Doesn’t it suggest that faith in fact distorts your moral faculties?’

In the rest of the piece in The Independent he churns up the usual lies and distortions about Pope Benedict’s handling of child abuse cases. He then makes the disgusting comment that Pope Benedict has ‘facilitated the rape of your children’

He goes on to make the outrageous claim that Jesus demands that Catholics not support the Holy Father’s visit.

‘You have a choice during this state visit: stand with Ratzinger, or stand with his Catholic victims. Which side, do you think, would be chosen by the Nazarene carpenter you find on your crucifixes? I suspect he would want Ratzinger to be greeted with an empty, repulsed silence, broken only by cries for justice – and the low approaching wail of a police siren.’

Protect the Pope comment: As if we needed more evidence, so amply provided by Terry Sanderson, this lurid, outrageous piece by Johann Hari proves that those protesting the Pope’s visit are ANTI- CATHOLIC. He mendaciously and wickedly portrays Pope Benedict as a facilitator of child abuse and then claims that if Catholics celebrate the Papal visit that they do not support the victims of child abuse. Here before our very eyes, Protest the Pope is revealed as Protest the Catholics."

Mr. Hari's anti-Catholic rant may be found here.

Mr. Hari has a history of engaging in falsehood against the Church. At this point he has forfeited what little credibility he may once have enjoyed. Make no mistake, Johann Hari is not a journalist interested in reporting facts. He is an anti-Catholic propagandist.

Why the liberal mainstream media have more respect for Islam than Catholicism

David Quinn, writing for The Independent, notes how, "Criticisms of Catholicism, no matter how extreme, are now treated as mainstream and acceptable, but criticisms of Islam are seen as indications of bigotry."

This is all the more strange since, as Hilaire Belloc wrote in The Great Heresies, "Mohammedanism...began as a heresy, not as a new religion. It was not a pagan contrast with the Church; it was not an alien enemy. It was a perversion of Christian doctrine. It vitality and endurance soon gave it the appearance of a new religion, but those who were contemporary with its rise saw it for what it was not a denial, but an adaptation and a misuse, of the Christian thing. It differed from most (not from all) heresies in this, that it did not arise within the bounds of the Christian Church. The chief heresiarch, Mohammed himself, was not, like most heresiarchs, a man of Catholic birth and doctrine to begin with. He sprang from pagans. But that which he taught was in the main Catholic doctrine, oversimplified. It was the great Catholic world on the frontiers of which he lived, whose influence was all around him and whose territories he had known by travel_which inspired his convictions. He came of, and mixed with, the degraded idolaters of the Arabian wilderness, the conquest of which had never seemed worth the Romans' while.

He took over very few of those old pagan ideas which might have been native to him from his descent. On the contrary, he preached and insisted upon a whole group of ideas which were peculiar to the Catholic Church and distinguished it from the paganism which it had conquered in the Greek and Roman civilization. Thus the very foundation of his teaching was that prime Catholic doctrine, the unity and omnipotence of God. The attributes of God he also took over in the main from Catholic doctrine: the personal nature, the all-goodness, the timelessness, the providence of God, His creative power as the origin of all things, and His sustenance of
all things by His power alone. The world of good spirits and angels and of evil spirits in rebellion against God was a part of the teaching, with a chief evil spirit, such as Christendom had recognized. Mohammed preached with insistence that prime Catholic doctrine, on the human side the immortality of the soul and its responsibility for actions in this life, coupled with the consequent doctrine of punishment and reward after death.

If anyone sets down those points that orthodox Catholicism has in common with Mohammedanism, and those points only, one might imagine if one went no further that there should have been no cause of quarrel. Mohammed would almost seem in this aspect to be a sort of missionary, preaching and spreading by the energy of his character the chief and fundamental
doctrines of the Catholic Church among those who had hitherto been degraded pagans of the Desert. He gave to Our Lord the highest reverence, and to Our Lady also, for that matter. On the day of judgment (another Catholic idea which he taught) it was Our Lord, according to Mohammed, who would be the judge of mankind, not he, Mohammed. The Mother of Christ, Our Lady, "the Lady Miriam" was ever for him the first of womankind. His followers even got from the early fathers some vague hint of her Immaculate Conception.

But the central point where this new heresy struck home with a mortal blow against Catholic tradition was a full denial of the Incarnation. Mohammed did not merely take the first steps toward that denial, as the Arians and their followers had done; he advanced a clear affirmation, full and complete, against the whole doctrine of an incarnate God. He taught that Our Lord was the greatest of all the prophets, but still only a prophet: a man like other men. He eliminated the Trinity altogether.

With that denial of the Incarnation went the whole sacramental structure. He refused to know anything of the Eucharist, with its Real Presence; he stopped the sacrifice of the Mass, and therefore the institution of a special priesthood. In other words, he, like so many
other lesser heresiarchs, founded his heresy on simplification.

Catholic doctrine was true (he seemed to say), but it had become encumbered with false accretions; it had become complicated by needless man-made additions, including the idea that its founder was Divine, and the growth of a parasitical caste of priests who battened on a late, imagined, system of Sacraments which they alone could administer. All those corrupt accretions must be swept away.

There is thus a very great deal in common between the enthusiasm with which Mohammed's teaching attacked the priesthood, the Mass and the sacraments, and the enthusiasm with which Calvinism, the central motive force of the Reformation, did the same. As we all know, the new teaching relaxed the marriage laws but in practice this did not affect the mass of
his followers who still remained monogamous. It made divorce as easy as possible, for the sacramental idea of marriage disappeared. It insisted upon the equality of men, and it necessarily had that further factor in which it resembled Calvinism the sense of predestination, the sense of fate; of what the followers of John Knox were always calling 'the
immutable decrees of God.' Mohammed's teaching never developed among the mass of his
followers, or in his own mind, a detailed theology. He was content to accept all that appealed to him in the Catholic scheme and to reject all that seemed to him, and to so many others of his time, too complicated or mysterious to be true."

Islam is useful to those who wish to promote a humanitarian religion in which Christ is regarded merely as a man. The Incarnation must be rejected, the God-Man must be replaced by the man-God. As Archbishop Fulton Sheen warned:

"A common spirit will eventually bind all atheists together to produce the man-god, as there is a common spirit which unites those who live by Christ....The mere denial of God is not emptiness and a negation but the affirmation of man as God. It does not take a gift of prophecy to see that humanity is presently polarizing and that all men are beginning to fall into the ranks of accepting either the man-god or the God-Man." Much of the liberal mainstream media has a real hatred for the Catholic Church and Christianity in general. They view Christianity as no longer fit for "modern man," as a religion which must be purged of its dogmas and made to fit with a new order.

The Holy Spirit teaches us through the Apostle John that, "This is how you can know the Spirit of God: every spirit that acknowledges Jesus Christ come in the flesh belongs to God, and every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus does not belong to God. This is the spirit of the Antichrist that, as you heard, is to come, but in fact is already in the world." (1 John 4: 2-3).

Vatican II, in its Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions (Nostra Aetate) stated clearly that, "The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in himself, merciful and all-powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth....Since in the course of centuries not a few quarrels and hostilities have arisen between Christians and Moslems, this sacred synod urges all to forget the past and to work sincerely for mutual understanding and to preserve as well as to promote together for the benefit of all mankind social justice and moral welfare, as well a peace and freedom." (Nos 2-3).

The Church has shown herself willing to work with Moslems to promote peace. But increasingly people are coming to understand that the notion of a peaceful Islam is a chimera.

Related reading here.

Veiled threat from Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf?

Additional reading here.

Pope Benedict XVI: We need conversion rather than structural change

And this is precisely what I said in a previous post with regard to VOTF's demand for "structural change":


What must change: the structure of the Church or that of the human heart?

In its document on change entitled "Discerning the Spirit: A Guide for Renewing and Restructuring the Church," Voice of the Faithful (VOTF), an organization established in the wake of the clerical abuse scandal, provides us with a glimpse of its loss of the sense of truth and of the sense of the Church.

In a desperate attempt to convince the faithful that the structure of the Church must change and become more democratic, this VOTF guide quotes the following passage from the Vatican II document Lumen Gentium: "Thus every layman, by virtue of the very gifts bestowed on him, is at the same time a witness and a living instrument of the mission of the Church herself." (LG, No. 33).

But the lay involvement referred to in this passage is a far different thing from the "democratic" Church envisaged by members of the flagging dissent group. If we read just a little further into the same Vatican II document, we are told that: "The laity should promptly accept in Christian obedience what is decided by the pastors who, as teachers and rulers of the Church, represent Christ." (LG, No. 37). Why doesn't the VOTF "guide" quote from that passage?

While it is true that some practices in the Church are similar to those of a representative democracy, for example, Bishops who are united with the Pope share authority with him, and their leadership is collegial (LG, No. 22), and the lay faithful have a right to make their needs and desires known while appropriately expressing their opinions (LG, No. 37), still, authority in the Church has a different foundation from authority in a representative democracy. Not to mention a different function. Leaders in a representative democracy govern in the name of the people. But within the Church, pastors govern in the name of the Lord Jesus. By appointment, mission and commission, Jesus has provided for the continuation of His royal office. The hierarchy of jurisdiction, therefore, is a divine institution (LG, No. 18). This hierarchy constitutes the external framework of that organism in which Jesus Himself lives and of which He is both the juridic and mystic Head, namely, His Mystical Body the Church.

Members of the primitive Church understood this as do faithful Catholics today. They knew that the Apostles had received from Jesus their power to teach, rule and sanctify. They understood that even Jesus’ teaching is not His own and that the Spirit does not speak on his own (Jn 7:16; 16:13). In short, they understood that everything comes from the Father (Jas 1:17-18).

Sadly, there are those who still insist that the structure of the Church must change. Father William J. Byron, SJ is one such individual. In an column written for the Catholic News Service and published in the October 26th edition of The Catholic Free Press, Fr. Byron refers to VOTF as "a reform movement." And speaking of the "structural change" which this dissent group calls for, he writes, "...faithful Catholic people want to have a voice in the selection of their parish priests and local bishops...It is worth noting that structural change never happens suddenly, but structural adjustments are happening all the time. Enlightened criticism from Voice of the Faithful will bring about structural adjustments, which eventually will lead to noticeable change. For this to happen, however, the movement needs staying power..."

VOTF is a reform movement which offers enlightened criticism? Far from it. Any authentic reform movement in the Church has its foundation in Magisterial truth and understands that it is not the Church which must change but the human heart. Writing to the Ephesians, St. Paul said, "Put off the old man who is corrupted according to the desire of error, and be renewed in the spirit of your mind: and put on the new man, who according to God is created in justice and holiness of truth" (Eph. 4:22-24).

And as Dr. Von Hildebrand explains, "These words of St. Paul are inscribed above the gate through which all must pass who want to reach the goal set us by God. They implicitly contain the quintessence of the process which baptized man must undergo before he attains the unfolding of the new supernatural life received in Baptism." (Transformation in Christ, p.3). Dr. Von Hildebrand goes on to explain in this work of critical importance that there is a certain type of man, "who, while not lacking a certain elan, refuses to take account of his limitations and is thus driven to magnify his stature artificially." He continues: "Suppose he is present at some discussion of spiritually relevant topics: he will take part in the debate as though he were fully equipped to do so; he will claim impressions as deep as the others; he will not yield to any other man as regards intellectual proficiency or even religious stature. Thus he works himself up, as it were, to a level which he has not reached in reality - and which he may not even be able to reach, so far as it is a matter of natural capacities. He is not without zeal; but that zeal is nourished at heart by pride. He misjudges the limitations of the natural talents which God has lent him, and consequently lapses into pretense. He is fond of speaking of things which far transcend the limits of his understanding; he behaves as though a mere mental or verbal reference to such subjects (however poorly implemented with actual knowledge and penetration) would by itself amount to their intellectual possession. This cramped attitude of sham spirituality is mostly underlain by an inferiority complex, or by a kind of infantile unconsciousness. Stupidity in its really oppressive form is traceable to this pretension to appear something different from what one is in fact, and by no means to a mere deficiency of intellectual gifts." (Transformation in Christ, pp.23-24).

Why am I relating all of this? Because, Dr. Von Hildebrand teaches us that such false self-appraisals actually hinder our readiness to change or to "put on the new man" as St. Paul instructs us to do. And what Dr. Von Hildebrand refers to as a "cramped attitude of sham spirituality" is part and parcel of the VOTF movement. Members of VOTF have their own thoughts as to what must change. But this is because they fail to listen to the Word of God as given to us by the Apostle to the Gentiles. Insisting that it is not they who must "put on the new man" in Christ Jesus but that it is the Church which must change, these intellectually and spiritually cramped characters evaluate the abuse crisis within the Church and issue an arrogant vestra culpa (your fault) while refusing to issue a humble mea culpa (my fault). These sophomoric souls, anxious to assign blame to the Church for the sins of some of Her members, forget the words of the great Cardinal Journet: "All contradictions are eliminated as soon as we understand that the members of the Church do indeed sin, but they do so by their betraying the Church. The Church is thus not without sinners, but She is without sin. The Church as person is responsible for penance. She is not responsible for sins...The members of the Church themselves - laity, clerics, priests, bishops, and Popes - who disobey the Church are responsible for their sins, but the Church as person is not responsible...It is forgotten that the Church as person is the Bride of Christ, 'Whom He has purchased with His own Blood' (Acts 20:28)."

VOTF members will no doubt continue to live in denial while loudly proclaiming the need for "structural change" within the Church even while remaining unsure as to what this actually means. This is why their movement is destined to fail. But there is another and no less important reason for their movement's decay. And it is this: most Catholics in this country understand what they themselves do not: namely, that the Church founded by Jesus Christ the Incarnate Word is a perfect society which is immutable. They know and understand this because such is the teaching of the Church. It was Pope Pius XII, in his encyclical letter Mystici Corporis, who taught that:"..The Church, which should be considered a perfect society in its own right, is not made up of merely moral and juridical elements and principles. It is far superior to all other human societies; it surpasses them as grace surpasses nature, as things immortal are above all those that perish...The juridical principles, on which also the Church rests and is established, derive from the divine constitution given it by Christ.."

Such authentic Catholics accept the teaching of Vatican I that, "...the pastors and the faithful of whatever rite and dignity, both as separate individuals and all together, are bound by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, not only in things which pertain to faith and morals, but also in those which pertain to the discipline and government of the Church which is spread over the whole world, so that the Church of Christ, protected not only by the Roman Pontiff, but by the unity of communion as well as of the profession of the same faith is one flock under the one highest shepherd. This is the doctrine of Catholic truth from which no one can deviate and keep his faith and salvation." (Dogmatic Constitution I on the Church of Christ, Session IV).

VOTF rejects this clear and unambiguous teaching of Holy Mother Church. This is why the movement is held in "low esteem" by most Catholics in this country and beyond. With all due respect for Fr. Byron, it is not the structure of the Church which must change. It is the structure of the human heart which must change. Until our hearts are conformed to that of the Sacred Heart of our Lord Jesus Christ, our criticism will never be constructive or enlightened. It will only be bitter.

Let us all pray: Sacred Heart of Jesus, make my heart like unto Thine. Amen.

Where was the outrage?

By now you've all heard about Pastor Terry Jones, head of the Dove World Outreach Center in Gainesville, Florida, who plans to burn copies of the Koran on September 11th. No decent person would agree with Pastor Jones' plan. It is morally offensive. And there has been outrage across the globe. Various world leaders have been highly critical of the pastor.

But what concerns me is that when Islamic extremists treat the Bible (or Christians) with contempt, we do not hear anything approaching the same level of condemnation from world leaders. Back in 2007, Islamic extremists stormed the Latin Church and the adjacent Rosary Sisters School in Gaza City. These gunmen used rocket-propelled grenades to blow through the doors of the Church and school before burning bibles and destroying every cross they could get their hands on. Father Manuel Mussalam told the Associated Press that these Muslims ransacked, burned and looted both the school and the convent.

Where was the outrage? How many of you have even heard of this incident? Anyone?

When Muslim students in Melbourne Australia urinated on bibles and burned them (what would this suggest they were being taught about the Bible), the story was barely reported by the press. As Patrick Buchanan notes, "..Islam, the faith of one in five people on earth, does not mean freedom. It means 'submission' - to the will of Allah. In the Islamic world, there is no freedom to preach and proselytize for faiths such as Christianity...The secular Western idea - that all religions should be treated equally and permitted to convert non-believers - is punishable heresy in the Islamic world. Can not we Americans, who once called ourselves a Christian country, understand that?" (Day of Reckoning, p. 76).

It would seem not.

Inside Moloch's Temple...

Matthew Archbold writes, "Two abortionists in Maryland (Dr. Steven Brigham and Dr. Nicola Riley) were ordered to stop practicing abortions in Maryland after a woman was severely injured. Subsequently, police raided the clinic searching for medical records and to their horror they discovered dozens of unborn babies stored in a freezer."

It was Father Thomas Euteneuer who correctly observed that, "Abortion is blood sacrifice of innocent blood to the devil. The clinics are like temples, the doctors are like priests, the medical table is like their altar. It’s a ritualized sacrifice. They have a dogma called choice, a hierarchy called Planned Parenthood, and guardian angels in the form of police guards that will arrest you if you try to stop them."

In the New Order, man has no special value. Human beings will be subject to the tyranny of technological impersonalism in the service of devils. Many have grown weary because they have lost their faith. And barbarism will follow. As men move away from the Church and her sacraments, the world continues to degenerate into madness, or as Fr. Miceli put it: "..a weird brew of sex, flowers, drugs, incense, tear gas, acid rock, rhetoric, bombs and blood. Enter the Antichrist, ruler of the Moloch World?"

Cardinal Sean O'Malley on why the priesthood is so important...

In his Post-synodal Apostolic Exhortation Pastores gregis, No. 28, Pope John Paul II, recalling the Rite of Ordination of a Bishop and most especially the imposition of the Book of the Gospels on the head of the Bishop-elect during the Prayer of Consecration, has this to say, "This gesture indicates, on the one hand, that the Word embraces and watches over the Bishop's ministry and, on the other, that the Bishop's life is to be completely submitted to the Word of God in his daily commitment of preaching the Gospel in all patience and sound doctrine (cf. 2 Timothy 4)."

Being "completely submitted" to the Word of God, whether Sacred Scripture or Tradition, the Bishop must be firmly committed to sound preaching and to the right of the faithful to Catholic doctrine in its purity and integrity.

When a Bishop fails to uphold this right of the faithful to sound doctrine, he is responsible for what amounts to an act of violence against the faithful. Which is what we are witnessing in the Boston Archdiocese.

At his Blog, His Eminence Sean Cardinal O'Malley writes, "I am so grateful for priestly vocation. It is not something we deserve or merit, it is something that God in His goodness calls us to do. It calls us to be part of something bigger than ourselves. It is not our priesthood, it is the ministry of Jesus Christ. In the Church, the priesthood is so important because we are a Eucharistic people. It is through the priesthood that Christ has chosen to give us the sacraments."

A word of congratulation is in order. As well as a word of thanks to His Eminence for responding to God's call to serve the Church. Indeed, His Eminence is correct in saying that the priesthood calls men to be part of "something bigger" than themselves. That something is the Word of God, which the priest is called to proclaim with fidelity to those who are entrusted with its true interpretation (Dei Verbum, No. 10). In other words, the Church's Magisterium. "The task of priests," as Vatican II teaches in Presbyterorum Ordinis, No. 4, "is not to teach their own wisdom but God's Word."

This task belongs to the priest no less than his task of offering the Eucharistic Sacrifice. It is significant, for me, that Cardinal O'Malley neglects this point in his summary of why the priesthood is important. Because both tasks are inseparably linked. Origen wrote, "You know, you who are accustomed to assist at the divine mysteries, with what religious care, when you receive the Lord's body, you watch to see that not the smallest particle may fall...You would feel guilty, and rightly so, if that were to happen by your neglect. Then,...how should it be a less grave fault to neglect the word of God than to neglect his body?" (In Exod., hom. 13.3).

The task of safeguarding the Word of God is very important. And when dissent arises in the Church, "the Church's Pastors have the duty to act in conformity with their apostolic mission" and to insist "that the right of the faithful to receive Catholic doctrine in its purity and integrity must always be respected." (Pope John Paul II, Veritatis Splendor, No. 113). Knowing this, one must ask: Your Eminence, why have you not addressed dissent within the Archdiocese of Boston?

Related reading: Catholic bloggers faithful to the Magisterium seen as the threat.

World Youth Conference 2010: Corrupting the young and experimenting with immortal souls

“They promise..freedom, but they themselves are slaves of corruption…” (2 Peter 2:19).


Satan does not want us to live in peace and harmony. His intention is to make a physical and spiritual wreckage of all God’s creation. To this end he enlists men in that attempt by their lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes and pride of life. He is especially anxious to seduce the young and to corrupt them so thoroughly that they come to resemble more and more the devils they then follow.

The Catholic Church teaches that, “Educating children for chastity strives to achieve three objectives: (a) to maintain in the family a positive atmosphere of love, virtue, and respect for the gifts of God, in particular the gift of life; (b) to help children to understand the value of sexuality and chastity in stages, sustaining their growth through enlightening word, example, and prayer; (c) to help them understand and discover their own vocation to marriage or to consecrated virginity for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven in harmony with and respecting their attitudes and inclinations and the gifts of the Spirit.” (The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality (Guidelines for Education Within the Family), issued by the Pontifical Council for the Family, No. 3).

This requires self-control, which is why chastity is so important: “One cannot give what one does not possess. If the person is not master of self – through the virtues and, in a concrete way, through chastity – he or she lacks that self-possession which makes self-giving possible. Chastity is the spiritual power which frees love from selfishness and aggression.” (The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality, No. 16).

Satan knows this. And so he wages a battle against chastity through sex-education which radically separates sex from the very idea of the covenanted love of man and woman, a sex education and propaganda which the group POPE (Parents for Orthodoxy in Parochial Education) referred to as, “the spiritual, emotional rape of our children through various and devious methods of mind manipulation” (“Do Sex-Education Programs Corrupt Youth? The Wanderer, April 17, 1969).

Just as Pope John Paul II created a World Youth Day to instill Gospel values in our young people, the Evil One has enlisted men to create a World Youth Conference in which Gospel values are subverted. As Terrence McKeegan, J.D., is reporting, “Last week at the World Youth Conference, organized primarily by the Mexican government and the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), the main event for most of [the] estimated 5,000 ‘participants’ was the Interactive Global Forum, a massive expo with hundreds of booths and exhibits. A tour of the booths revealed what passes for ‘age-appropriate’ sexual education in some UN circles. Because the venue for the World Youth Conference had considerably more exhibit space than most UN conferences, it was a unique opportunity for organizations focusing on youth to put their best face forward. In the expo hall, there were dozens of booths with pornographic or sexually explicit materials or presentations.

At the International Planned Parenthood Federation (the largest provider of abortion services in the world) booth, their table featured the sexually explicit brochure: "Healthy, Happy, and Hot", which garnered headlines last March due to its distribution at a Girl Scouts side event at the UN Commission on the Status of Women.
At a booth by an organization named “RECREA,” there was a table with a bowl of condoms and a wooden phallus. The walls of the exhibit booth were covered with pornographic and sexually suggestive photos. Nearby there were two glass cases featuring rubber models of male and female genitalia, as well as a bright assortment of condoms.



At the Fundacion Collectivo de Mujeres Jovenes booth,which was staffed by two middle-aged men, the presentation largely consisted of a collection of thong underwear hung up around the booth, as well as a “snakes and ladders” floor game with puffy dice." (Full article here).

Did you catch the name of that "game"? Who is the serpent?

Our Lady told Father Gobbi on June 30, 1994: "Take by the hand those children who have been set on the road to precocious experiences of evil. Support the youth who have been ensnared and seduced by false values which have been proposed to them and who are succumbing under the weight of sins, of impurity and of drugs....Thus you become instruments of salvation for all, in these last times, when everything which I foretold to you must be accomplished. In this way, by means of you, my Immaculate Heart will, in the end, triumph."

Will we respond to Our Lady's call?

Related: A sign photographed in Boston. Our sad time.

The root of our identity crisis...

Archbishop Fulton Sheen, in his essay entitled "The sense of sin," writes, "It may be interesting to inquire at this point why the modern world has lost its sense of sin. It should be immediately evident that it is the obvious consequence of the loss of the value of man. Under traditional Christianity, a man was a theological creature, an adopted son of God and a member of the Mystical Body of Christ; in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries man became a philosophical thing bound to God by some vague ties of creaturehood. But man today is only a biological phenomenon with no other destiny than that of the worm he crushes under his heel. Once one loses hold on the primary dogma that man has a moral end, and that his actions, thoughts, and words in this life are all registered in the Book of Life, and therefore will one day determine his eternal destiny, sin becomes meaningless. The modern mind has forgotten the dogma of man, and hence cannot avoid forgetting the morals of man, for one is the corrollary of the other. Deny that God is interested in the behavior of men and you immediately create a society in which man is uninterested in the behavior of his fellow man."

Bearing this in mind, read what Joe Sacerdo and his team of Catholic bloggers have to say about the dismantling of Catholic identity at Caritas Christi in the Boston Archdiocese.

Stephen Hawking advances abiogenesis in a desperate attempt to uphold failed evolutionary theories

Stephen Hawking is at it again. Not long ago he warned us about "aliens" from outer space potentially being a threat on our horizon. At this point, any sane person would have written off this confused soul. What may once have been a great mind has apparently degenerated into madness.

Mr. Hawking is at it again. While he has no difficulty believing in the existence of intelligent alien beings, the idea of a Creator-God is just too much for him. In his new book entitled "The Grand Design," Mr. Hawking writes, "..the universe can and will create itself from nothing...Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist..It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.."

While Mr. Hawking is waiting for the Mother-Ship to beam him up, let's examine what Dr. Gerald L. Schroeder has to say about the subject. In his book entitled "Genesis and the Big Bang: The Discovery of Harmony Between Modern Science and the Bible," he writes, "In 1936, Alexander Ivanovich Oparin, a Russian biochemist, published a book titled 'The Origin of Life.' In it, he described the conditions likely to have existed on the primitive earth and the random chemical and physical processes possible in such an environment. These processes, he asserted, inevitably led to life. Seventeen years later, Stanley Miller used almost these same conditions in his experiment to produce amino acids. Oparin speculated and Miller proved that lightning and other sources of energy naturally present on Earth could convert inorganic molecules into several of the compounds present in life.

But how was nature to get these individual molecules organized into the complex array found even in the simplest forms of life? In theory, the needed sequence that would carry the basic molecules through the complex path ending in a true protein could occur step-by-step in chance reactions over long periods of time. The difficulty with such a slow and random process is that just as there is a given probability of forming an intermediate product in this chain of products leading to life, there is also a probability of its spontaneous dissolution.

At each step as we go from simple to more complex compounds, we are in a sense swimming upstream in the flow of entropy. The result is that the likelihood of the disintegration of a newly formed organic compound is much greater than the likelihood of its formation.

If destruction predominates over formation, how is it that living organisms regularly produce complex compounds and do so in copious amounts? Life does it by working in the highly protected environment within its cells, by using catalysts that have the ability to select and concentrate the needed chemicals and to increase rates and extents of reactions, and by expending considerable energy to accomplish the tasks. The protected environment needed by life is found within life itself.

From the simplest to the highest forms of life, if the cellular system fails, the organism dies. Its subsequent rapid decay is clear evidence for the chemical instability of the compounds from which life is composed. The catalysts of living organisms, called enzymes, are themselves proteins produced by already-living cells. A reaction that may take seconds within an enzyme-driven, temperature-controlled 98 degrees Farenheit system of an animal might take years or longer in an uncatalyzed system. Neither enzyme nor protective cell wall were available to the molecules that preceded life. As we experience it, life is required to produce life." (pp. 109-110).

So what's behind Mr. Hawking's fantasy? Dr. Dietrich von Hildebrand said it best: "The egocentric sovereignty that modern man arrogates to himself bans everything that has the character of coming from above, of imposing bonds upon us, and of calling for an adequate response. Modern man also shuns all the factors in life which are gifts, which he cannot grant to himself: they remind him of his dependence upon something greater than himself and above himself..."

It has been said that there is a fine line between genius and madness. I think Stephen Hawking has crossed that line.

Related reading: The intellectual insecurity of the atheist and where it eventually leads.

A Sign of Contradiction...

It was Archbishop Fulton John Sheen who once said, "The acceptance of the fullness of Truth will have the unfortunate quality of making you hated by the world. Forget for a moment the history of Christianity, and the fact that Christ existed. Suppose there appeared in this world today a man who claimed to be Divine Truth; and who did not say, 'I will teach you Truth,' but 'I am the Truth.' Suppose he gave evidence by his works of the truth of his statement. Knowing ourselves as we do, with our tendency to relativism, to indifference, and to the fusing of right and wrong, how do you suppose we would react to that Divine Truth? With hatred, with obloquy, with defiance; with charges of intolerance, narrow-mindedness, bigotry, and crucifixion. That is what happened to Christ. That is what our Lord said would happen to those who accept His Truth." We have only to meditate upon the Fifteenth Chapter of the Gospel of John, verses 18-19 to see the truth of Archbishop Sheen's statement.

Readers of this Blog know that I'm not a partisan. I'm on the side of truth. Which is why I have worked to expose error wherever it may be found, whether in those circles which pretend to be "traditional" or in those which advance what is considered a "liberal" agenda. And so, I have been condemned, attacked, villified and even threatened by those who consider themselves to be "conservative" and by those who consider themselves to be "liberal." But this comes as no surprise since we are all called to be a sign of contradiction.

The Archdiocese of Boston has failed to appreciate this fact. Which is why they view bloggers who are faithful to the Magisterium, even while being critical of certain elements in the archdiocese, as "causing harm to the community." The Boston Globe cannot appreciate recent events. In a recent article, the newspaper said that:

"The blogs are a departure from the usual attacks against the Church because they offer a conservative critique of the local hierarchy. The archdiocese is more accustomed to fielding complaints from those pushing for a liberalization if Church teachings.."

But there is a profound difference between fraternal correction and an "atack." A point which those who publish The Boston Globe do not fully appreciate. My good friend Alice von Hildebrand, in an essay entitled "The secular war on the supernatural," gets to the root of the problem. She writes, "Now let us abolish the terms 'conservative' or 'liberal,' the terms 'left' and 'right' which are secularistic. I suggest that we say from now on 'those who have kept the sense of the supernatural and those who have lost it.' That is the great divide, that is the essence...Do you look at the Church and her teaching, whether dogmatic or moral, with a supernatural eye, or do you look at it with secular lenses? That is the divide. Left and right confuses the issue.." (See here for more).

Do we have a truly Catholic intellect? Do we see what the Church sees? It was Frank Sheed who reminded us that, "we must..see what the Church sees. This means that when we look upon the Universe we see the same Universe that the Church sees; and the enormous advantage of this is that the Universe the Church sees is the real Universe, because She is the Church of God. Seeing what She sees means seeing what is there. And just as loving what is good is sanctity, or the health of the will, so seeing what is there is sanity, or the health of the intellect." (Theology and Sanity, p. 4).

If the Archdiocese of Boston views Catholic bloggers faithful to the Magisterium (who see what the Church sees) as "harming the community" with their posts, what would that suggest about the sanity of the Boston Archdiocese?

In any event, the retreat from truth is a preparation for the Reign of Antichrist.

"..remaining in the teaching of the Apostles is indispensable.."

Dissent from the Church's teaching is an attack on truth which is the principle of the Church's communion and common life. Which is why the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in its Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian, No. 40, has this to say:

"The Church 'is like a sacrament, a sign and instrument, that is, of communion with God and of unity among all men' (LG, 1). Consequently, to pursue concord and communion is to enhance the force of her witness and credibility. To succumb to the temptation of dissent, on the other hand, is to allow the 'leaven of infidelity to the Holy Spirit' to start to work."

Pope John Paul II, in his Encyclical Letter Veritatis Splendor, No. 113, says that, "Dissent, in the form of carefully orchestrated protests and polemics carried on in the media, is opposed to ecclesial communion and to a correct understanding of the hierarchical constitution of the People of God. Opposition to the teaching of the Church's Pastors cannot be seen as a legitimate expression either of Christian freedom or of the diversity of the Spirit's gifts. When this happens, the Church's Pastors have the duty to act in conformity with their apostolic mission, insisting that the right of the faithful to receive Catholic doctrine in its purity and integrity must always be respected."

The Church is a communion of persons with the Living God, brought about by the Lord Jesus in the Holy Spirit. And, as Pope John Paul II teaches in Christifideles Laici, No. 64, "..an awareness of a commonly shared Christian dignity, an ecclesial consciousness brings a sense of belonging to the mystery of the Church as Communion. This is a basic and undeniable aspect of the life and mission of the Church. For one and all, the earnest prayer of Jesus at the Last Supper, 'That all may be one' (Jn 17: 21), ought to become daily a required and undeniable program of life and action." When we understand what is meant by the Church's communion, the words of Pope Benedict XVI make perfect sense: "..In order to remain in unity with the crucified and risen Lord, the practical sign of juridical unity, 'remaining in the teaching of the apostles' is indispensable." (Pilgrim Fellowship of Faith: The Church as Communion, p. 69, Ignatius Press).

As Dr. Dietrich von Hildebrand explains, "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.’"

The Archdiocese of Boston has forgotten this truth. And as a result, the local Church finds itself polarized.


Related reading here.

President Obama and the basic incapacity to listen...

It comes as no surprise that President Obama admits to ignoring the Restoring Honor rally (which he refers to as the "Beck Rally." See here. When the President and other liberals aren't dismissing their opponents as being "bigots", they simply ignore them. This is the characteristic sign of irreverence.

Dr. Dietrich von Hildebrand defines irreverence as, "the basic incapacity to listen..the attitude that already knows everything before being has the opportunity to inform us. Irreverence is the impertinent, arrogant attitude that makes our minds deaf and blind to reality - the more so, the deeper and more sublime the object.." (The Charitable Anathema, p. 112).

Irreverence is not the proper response to value. But what more can one expect from an egocentric opportunist who poses as a statesman? President Obama is not at all interested in meeting the demands of truth or in acknowledging those valid points raised by political opponents. Which is why he dismisses the Restoring Honor rally by implying that "a certain portion of the country" has been stirred up by Mr. Beck - the implication being that those in attendance cannot think for themselves.

As time marches on, it is becoming increasingly clear to the American people that President Obama, the "Yes we can" President, is nothing more than an intellectual fraud. Especially since he now admits he is powerless to fix the economy.

He has proven himself to be most competent in one area: taking vacations. One should stick to what one is good at I suppose.

What is it about the Beck rally that has people like Jim Wallis and Al Sharpton so upset?

The Restoring Honor Rally:

Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin addressed several hundred thousand people on the National Mall and called on the nation to recommit itself to traditional values. And this message has some people up in arms. Al Sharpton accused Beck of trying to hijack King's message. Which is all the more strange since Dr. King's niece, Alveda King, also addressed the rally with a plea for prayer "in the public squares of America and in our schools." Sharpton also issued what appeared to be a veiled threat saying, "You don't know who you're messing with."

Jim Wallis, in an email to his Sojourners supporters, wrote:

"Last spring Fox News commentator Glenn Beck told Christians to leave churches that promoted social justice. To do so, Christians would have to walk out on Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.’s 'I Have a Dream' speech too. Dr. King was a social justice Christian, the kind of Christian Mr. Beck constantly derides.

Tomorrow marks the 47th anniversary of Dr. King’s “I Have A Dream” speech. And, if you’re in Washington, D.C., you’ll see Glenn Beck standing on the historic location of King’s speech – only Mr. Beck will be leading his 'Restoring Honor' rally.

I want to challenge Christians to understand the true significance of King’s speech – for our work on social justice, for racial reconciliation, and for the health of the American church."

What can we make of Jim Wallis' assertion that Dr. King was "the kind of Christian Mr. Beck constantly derides." Yes, it's true that Dr. King, a Baptist Minister, was "a social justice Christian." But social justice had a different meaning for Dr. King than it does for Jim Wallis. As Louie Verrechio has noted, "Social justice lies in the fullness of morality as defined by God, not as calculated by majority rule. It is a function of grace, not government." Dr. King understood that. Jim Wallis does not.

Alarmed at the prospect of conservatives calling upon this nation to recommit itself to traditional moral values, many have lost sight of Dr. King's message. Writing for the Associated Press, Philip Elliott and Nafeesa Syeed said that, "Conservative commentator Glenn Beck and tea party champion Sarah Palin appealed Saturday to a vast, predominantly white crowd on the National Mall to help restore traditional American values and honor Martin Luther King's message. Civil rights leaders who accused the group of hijacking King's legacy held their own rally and march."

Does it honestly matter that the crowd was "predominantly white"? Dr. King, in his I Have a Dream speech given on the National Mall on August 28, 1963, said that, "The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to a distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny. They have come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom. We cannot walk alone....I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.."

If King's message has been hijacked, it has been hijacked by those who have lost sight of the true meaning of social justice and by those who still judge people on the basis of skin color rather than the content of their character.

Archdiocese of Boston: Caritas Christi and Cerberus Capital

As I noted in a previous post, "It is only through fidelity to its proper mission that a Catholic hospital or health care system maintains its identity. Let us heed the U.S. Bishops:

'On the one hand, new partnerships can be viewed as opportunities for Catholic health care institutions and services to witness to their religious and ethical commitments and so influence the healing profession. For example, new partnerships can help to implement the Church's social teaching. New partnerships can be opportunities to realign the local delivery system in order to provide a continuum of health care to the community; they can witness to a responsible stewardship of limited health care resources; and they can be opportunities to provide to poor and vulnerable persons a more equitable access to basic care.

On the other hand, new partnerships can pose serious challenges to the viability of the identity of Catholic health care institutions and services, and their ability to implement these Directives in a consistent way, especially when partnerships are formed with those who do not share Catholic moral principles. The risk of scandal cannot be underestimated when partnerships are not built upon common values and moral principles. Partnership opportunities for some Catholic health care providers may even threaten the continued existence of other Catholic institutions and services, particularly when partnerships are driven by financial considerations alone. Because of the potential dangers involved in the new partnerships that are emerging, an increased collaboration among Catholic-sponsored health care institutions is essential and should be sought before other forms of partnerships.' (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services)."

Most of you are well-aware of the ongoing controversy surrounding the sale of Caritas Christi in the Archdiocese of Boston. As the good folks over at Boston Catholic Insider have noted, Father Bryan Hehir made a "rather emphatic statement" in the October 27th, 2007 edition of The Boston Globe. Father Hehir said, "The idea that the archdiocese would sell Caritas to a for-profit system - it's not going to happen..the position of the archdiocese is that we do not intend to sell either the Caritas system as a whole or any of its parts to a for-profit entity.' BCI then explains how, "Two years later, in November 2009, after Caritas had new management and had just announced turning a $30 million profit, the CEO of Caritas met with Cerberus Capital to set in
motion the deal to sell Caritas and make it for-profit.." (See here).

Cerberus Capital has a reputation which is, to say the very least, rather disturbing. As Mark Ames writes, "Cerberus Capital, one of Wall Street's most notoriously leveraged buyout firms (or 'private equity firms' in PC speak), recently made a $1.8 billion killing on its human plasma investment, a company called Talecris. Talecris was purchased for a mere $82.5 million just four years earlier, meaning Cerberus made 23 times its investment on human plasma. This was accomplished by the most savage, heartless means possible: by paying peanuts to impoverished human plasma donors, who increasingly come from Mexican border towns to blood-pumping stations set up on the American side, jacking up the price of plasma restricting supply (a lawsuit filed by the Federal Trade Commission accused Cerberus Plasma Holdings of 'operating as an oligopoly'), and then selling the refined products to the most desperately ill patients suffering from hemophilia, severe burns, multiple sclerosis and autoimmune deficiencies.." ("Cerberus Capital: Literally Blood-Sucking the Poor to Make Their Billions," Full article here).


Cardinal Sean O'Malley notes on his Blog how, "This past Thursday was Mother Teresa's 100th birthday. In 1995, we were honored to have her visit us in Massachusetts. So many people here got to meet her personally. These encounters were a special encouragement to all of us to be better Catholics and to be better witnesses of the Gospel and servants of the poor."

I wonder if Mother Teresa would view the practices of Cerberus Capital as consistent with being "better witnesses of the Gospel and servants of the poor"?

Related reading here.

Archdiocese of Boston: Catholic Bloggers faithful to the Magisterium causing harm to the community?

"Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil, who change darkness into light, and light into darkness, who change bitter into sweet, and sweet into bitter! Woe to those who are wise in their own sight, and prudent in their own esteem!" (Isaiah 5: 20, 21).


On November 12, 1988, Our Lady told Father Stefano Gobbi of the Marian Movement of Priests that, "My Adversary often wounds you, making use of good persons and persons whom you have also helped in many ways. Sometimes he makes use of your very own confreres. The times which I have foretold to you have come, when those priests who venerate me, listen to me and follow me are being derided, scorned and opposed by other priests, who are nonetheless sons of my maternal predilection....Prepare yourselves to experience the indescribable suffering of being abandoned by the most trustworthy, mocked by confreres, set aside by superiors, opposed by friends, persecuted by those who have accepted a compromise with the world and who have associated themselves with the secret cohort of Masonry. Do not allow yourselves to be seized with discouragement. These are the times for courage and witness. Your voice must proclaim, in an ever more powerful manner, the word of the Gospel and all the truths of the Catholic faith. You must unmask every error whatsoever, overcome subtle snares, reject every compromise with the spirit of the world and give to all an example of your fidelity to Christ and to His Church...Do not allow yourselves to be seized with fear. The time of your immolation has now come. You will be persecuted. It will even be that those who oppose you, who calumniate you, who despise you, who push you aside and who persecute you will believe that they are doing something pleasing to the Heavenly Father and even to me, your immaculate Mother."

Indeed, Catholic bloggers faithful to the Church's Magisterium now find themselves being calumniated. Mark Leccese, a journalism professor at Emerson College, is referring to such bloggers as "dissidents." In a recent article entitled "An unbalanced story on the Archdiocese of Boston and its dissidents," Mr. Emerson wrote, "..there..exists a sizeable and vocal number of Catholics in Boston and around the world who argue more theologically conservative positions than the Cardinal or the Pope.."

This is simply an embroidered way of suggesting that bloggers who have been exposing error within the Archdiocese of Boston believe themselves to be "more Catholic than the Pope." This is a falsehood. Which is why Mr. Leccese cannot cite one example of where bloggers have advanced "more theologically conservative positions than the Pope." One has only to visit the Blog Bryan Hehir Exposed and to actually read some of the excellent posts to see that each and every post is backed up with the Magisterial teaching of Christ's Church. And readers of this Blog know that I only advance the Church's teaching.

The Archdiocese of Boston has also engaged in dishonesty. Responding to bloggers who have raised a multitude of legitimate and very serious concerns, including the promotion of dissent from Church teaching and various scandals such as the Kennedy funeral and an event honoring Mayor Thomas Menino, who is also pro-abortion and supportive of same-sex "marriage," the Archdiocese said in a statement that, "Cardinal O'Malley and his staff are dedicated to building unity in Christ and Christian community within the Archdiocese. Toward that end, we have reached out to bloggers on numerous occasions to ask them to enter into a professional and Christ-centered conversation with us. We are concerned about the harm caused to individuals and to the community by anonymous and unfounded claims on blogs."

Readers of this blog know full well that when Archdiocesan officials were asked - repeatedly - to cite just one example of a post which is "inaccurate" they lapsed into silence. Harm to individuals and the community? Such harm is a result of dissent from Church teaching, not the defense of the same. It is most significant that Bishop Rene Henry Gracida has been posting articles from Catholic bloggers exposing the leaven of infidelity within the Boston Archdiocese at his wonderful Blog in a series entitled "The Boston Virus."

Does the Archdiocese of Boston consider His Excellency to be advancing "unfounded claims" as well? Would Mr. Leccese consider Bishop Gracida to be a "dissident" as well? And how can the Archdiocese honestly claim to be dedicated to "building unity in Christ" when it is really advancing a false irenicism?

God preserve us from such nonsense!

And so while Mayor Thomas Menino, who supports abortion and same-sex "marriage" has been honored by the Archdiocese of Boston, while Father Bryan Hehir has "respect" for the Democratic National Committee (which also advances these evils), Catholic bloggers who promote and defend the Magisterial teaching of the Church are accused of harming individuals and the community.

Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil.

Related reading: A Catholic priest from the Boston Archdiocese who has ridiculed Cardinal Bertone while opposing clerical celibacy. The Archdiocese of Boston has never accused him of harming community.

The Archdiocese of Boston is way too cozy with the Party of Death

There can be little doubt that the Archdiocese of Boston has a cozy relationship with the Democratic Party. Many would argue that the relationship is too cozy. In an editorial for LifeSiteNews.com entitled "The Kennedy Funeral - A Golden Opportunity or Capitulation for the Catholic Church," John-Henry Westen wrote: "Saturday's grandiose Catholic funeral for Senator Ted Kennedy has the potential to be a scandal that will make Notre Dame's Obama Day a walk in the park. With all four living former Presidents in attendance and an address from President Barack Obama, the funeral is set to be a royal crowning, right inside a Catholic Church, of a man who betrayed the most fundamental moral teachings of the faith.

What example will this give to Catholics and the rest of the world looking in? It will surely belie the Catholic teachings on the sanctity of life and sexuality. 'Surely,' they will say, 'if one of the most vociferous proponents of abortion and homosexuality in politics is so feted in the Church, the Church cannot possibly regard abortion as murder.' Would anyone so honor one who so advocated what the church officially considers an 'unspeakable crime'?"

We all know what happened. Senator Kennedy was feted by archdiocesan officials as "our brother and friend." Responding to this horrendous scandal, I wrote that, "I have nothing but love and respect for His Eminence, but it would appear that he does not deplore error and falsehood as much as he deplores disunity." See here. And because he does not deplore error as he should, because he has not offered the strong leadership which the Catholic faithful deserve, many Catholics have never considered that there is an incompatibility between their political affiliation and their religious identity. As Dr. David Carlin has said, "..when clerical leadership is weak or foolish, we can't be surprised when the quality of lay Catholicism sinks." (Can a Catholic Be a Democrat? How the Party I Loved Became the Enemy of My Religion," p. 106).

Joe Sacerdo has reported on the close relationship which Fr. J. Bryan Hehir of the Boston Archdiocese has with the DNC. He writes, "Fr. Hehir's comment on a panel that he respects the Democratic National Committee (which vehemently opposes the Catholic Church on key issues like abortion and gay marriage) validates the questions about Fr. Hehir we have been raising for some time." (See here).

How does one reconcile one's Roman Catholic faith with membership in [or identification with] the Democratic Party? Again, Dr. Carlin explains, "Another method Catholics use to validate their membership in the Democratic Party, despite the party's anti-Christian moral agenda, goes like this: they concede that abortion, for example, is morally wrong and that it's tragically wrong for the Democratic Party to support it; but then they talk about the need for 'balance' and the importance of not taking a single-issue approach to politics. 'The Democrats,' they say, 'might be wrong on a few issues, such as abortion and same-sex marriage - but they're right about so many other important issues: race, poverty, peace, education, health care, the environment, and so on. In politics we have to weigh in the balance the evil and the good...This superficially persuasive line of reasoning could have been used to support the Nazis in the 1930s. A pro-Nazi Catholic could say, 'Oh yes, it's too bad - this policy of the Fuehrer toward the Jews. We deplore the firing of Jewish professors, we deplore the Nuremberg laws, we deplore Kristellnacht. But anti-Semitism, while a great evil, isn't the only evil. Far from it. We have to balance the evil done by the National Socialists against the good they've accomplished. Hitler has revived the economy, has restored law and order, has built autobahns and Volkswagens, has won the respect and salutary fear of the international community, has once again made it possible for Germans, who had been so humiliated for so long a time, to lift up their heads and be proud of their nation. Hitler isn't perfect - no politician ever will be. The question is, 'Are the Nazis on the whole producing more good than evil? Are they better than the available alternatives - namely, socialists and communists? The answer to this question is, without doubt, yes.'

Somebody might object that my analogy exaggerates the evil of abortion, which surely isn't comparable to anti-Semitism even in its pre-genocidal stage. Yes 'somebody' might say this, but Catholics who understand the moral teaching of their own religion can't very well say it. To them, the forty million and more abortion-homicides that have taken place in the United States since the 1973 Roe decision are clearly a greater moral evil than Hitler's pre-genocide anti-Semitism of the 1930s and even, it can be argued, no less evil than the six million homicides that made up the Holocaust. Some people will scoff at this comparison, but that's simply an indication that they reject the Catholic teaching that abortion is homicide.." (Can a Catholic Be a Democrat?, pp. 119, 123-124).

Pope Benedict XVI has spoken clearly enough. And he has condemned "gay marriage" and abortion as "among the most insidious and dangerous challenges" to society. The Democratic Party advances both. It's difficult then for any faithful Catholic to understand how one of Cardinal O'Malley's top aides can have "respect" for the Democratic National Committee.

Related reading here and here.

Archdiocese of Boston "Social Justice Conference" to feature backer of pro-abortion politician

"It's a madhouse!...a madhouse!"

Joe Sacerdo of Bryan Hehir Exposed writes, "When the archdiocese says they have 'reached out to bloggers on numerous occasions to ask them to enter into a professional and Christ-centered conversation with us' we assume that probably is referring at least to this blog, perhaps others. There are two problems with their statement. First, their latest announcement about speakers for their upcoming Social Justice Conference further proves they don’t care the least about doing something about the problems we have raised. (Remember, the objective of meeting with us from their perspective was '…to have a frank conversation about what is the best way to serve Christ and His Church, and to give you a broader frame of reference for future blog entries.' (Nothing about acting on the issues we have raised–just lecturing us on how to blog in a friendlier, less critical way).

Secondly, the reference to 'unfounded claims' sounds strikingly similar to their comments to us about posts considered 'untrue' or 'inaccurate.' We asked several times in good faith for specific examples so we could correct them and never got a response.

Anyway, welcome to Fr. Bryan Hehir’s Social Justice Conference #3, “Charity and Justice in our Daily Lives.” taking place Saturday, October 9, 2010.

Join parishes from around the Archdiocese of Boston to learn more about Catholic Social Teaching, celebrate the work for justice already going on, and find out concrete ways to connect faith with action in the service of justice. Featuring:

Keynote Address by Fr. J. Bryan Hehir, Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Services for the Archdiocese of Boston

Introduction to Catholic Social Teaching by Fr. Thomas Massaro, SJ, Professor of Moral Theology, Boston College

Fr. Massaro, of course was one of 26 signatories to a letter supporting the nomination of pro-abortion Gov. Kathleen Sebelius as Secretary of Health and Human Services. Just Google on “Fr. Thomas Massaro abortion” and here’s a sampling of what you get.

Catholic Professors Criticized for Supporting Pro-Abortion Sebelius for Health Post

'The pro-abortion group Catholics United has started an organization to defend President Barack Obama’s pro-abortion health selection and has been criticized for spreading misinformation about Sebelius’ record. Now, the Cardinal Newman Society is concerned that half of the 26 Catholic activists, scholars and theologians who signed the CU statement are professors employed by Catholic universities.

These professors are giving comfort and aid to those whose stated goals are to advance policies directly opposed to Catholic teachings on life issues,” CNS president Patrick Reilly told LifeNews.com. Kathleen Sebelius vetoed pro-life legislation on four separate occasions as governor of Kansas,” Reilly said. “After she vetoed the pro-life Comprehensive Abortion Reform Act in April 2008, Bishop Joseph Naumann [said she should stop receiving communion.]'" (For Joe's entire post, go here).

Now, Father Massaro is the same person who, arguing against the war in Iraq, said that:

"We're putting soldiers in combat positions where they're afraid for their lives on a minute-to-minute basis. They're suspicious of every Iraqi they see because they could be suicide bombers...These young soldiers begin to see human life as cheap...Young people come home from the war and not respecting the dignity of human life is a great concern for theologians and ethicists." (See here).

Yes, clearly American soldiers coming home is our real problem*. Not moral theologians and ethicists who back pro-abortion politicians. As a veteran, I find Fr. Massaro's attitude troubling. The combat soldier, more than most, detests violence because he has faced it head on and lived with it up close. He has done his duty. But it is something which stays with him for the rest of his life. If anything, the horrible experience of war gives him a renewed appreciation for the sanctity of life. Which is apparently more than we can say for some of our theologians and ethicists.

*"The right conscience of the Catholic theologian presumes not only faith in the Word of God whose riches he must explore, but also love for the Church from whom he receives his mission, and respect for her divinely assisted Magisterium. Setting up a supreme magisterium of conscience in opposition to the magisterium of the Church means adopting a principle of free examination incompatible with the economy of Revelation and its transmission in the Church and thus also with a correct understanding of theology and the role of the theologian. The propositions of faith are not the product of mere individual research and free criticism of the Word of God but constitute an ecclesial heritage. If there occur a separation from the Bishops who watch over and keep the apostolic tradition alive, it is the bond with Christ which is irreparably compromised." (See here).

Related reading: The Church's understanding of social justice.

Archdiocese of Boston: Boston Catholic Insider Blog blocked because it is "a distraction."

The Catechism of the Catholic Church tells us that, "..a distraction reveals to us what we are attached to." (2729). Not all distractions are bad. Some are even holy. As Raissa Maritain, writing about Saint Thomas Aquinas, notes:


"When he wept and prayed in this way, or when he was trying to find the answer to a difficult question, very often he did not hear nor feel what was going on about him. So one day, when he was at the table of the King Saint Louis, the two saints seated side by side, Brother Thomas, forgetful of the circumstances and the place, rapped loudly on the table and cried out: 'So much for the heresy of the Manicheans!' 'Master,' said the Prior who accompanied him, 'be careful, you are at the table of the King of France.' And saying this, he pulled at his cloak to bring him out of this state of holy distraction." (See here).

In the Gospel of Luke, Chapter 10 verses 38-42, we read:

"As they continued their journey he entered a village where a woman whose name was Martha welcomed him. She had a sister named Mary [who] sat beside the Lord at his feet listening to him speak. Martha, burdened with much serving, came to him and said, 'Lord, do you not care that my sister has left me by myself to do the serving? Tell her to help me.' The Lord said to her in reply, 'Martha, Martha, you are anxious and worried about many things. There is need of only one thing. Mary has chosen the better part and it will not be taken from her.'"

A distraction reveals to us what we are attached to. By the grace of God, there are still people who are attached to truth. Like Mary who sat at the very feet of Truth, they are attracted by the beauty of truth and by its sheer power.

And it will not be taken from them.

Protest the Pope Supporters Express Their Desire to Commit Violence Against Pope Benedict XVI

Deacon Nick Donnelly has a post detailing how Protest the Pope supporters have expressed their desire to engage in violence against the Vicar of Christ, Pope Benedict XVI.


As I said in a previous post, "John Henry Cardinal Newman, who was truly a prophet, warned more than a hundred years ago of the desolation which we are experiencing today: "Surely there is at this day a confederacy of evil, marshalling its hosts from all parts of the world, organizing itself, taking its measures, enclosing the Church of Christ in a net, and preparing the way for a general apostasy from it..."

It is no secret today that the enemies of the Church want to destroy belief in the divinity of Christ. For, as Fr. Vincent Miceli, S.J., explained, "Once the liturgy is humanized, Christ the Center and Object of it becomes the humanist par excellence, the liberator, the revolutionary, the Marxist ushering in the millenium; he ceases to be the Divine Redeemer. We must be alerted to those who plan, by convincing us to abandon our sacred forms, at length to seduce us into denying our Christian faith altogether. The Church is attacked by these Sons of Satan, in and outside her fold, because she is a living form, the sacrament - sign and instrument - of communion with God and of unity among all men; because she is the visible body of Religion. Hence these shrewd masters of sedition know that when her sacred forms go, religion will also go. Violate the lex orandi and you must inevitably destroy the lex credendi. That is why they rail against so many devotions as superstitions, why they propose so many alterations and changes, a tactic cleverly calculated to shake the foundations of faith...."

We are approaching the day prophesied by Romano Guardini in The Lord, "One day the Antichrist will come: a human being who introduces an order of things in which rebellion against God will attain its ultimate power. He will be filled with enlightenment and strength. The ultimate aim of all aims will be to prove that existence without Christ is possible - nay rather, that Christ is the enemy of existence, which can be fully realized only when all Christian values have been destroyed.." (p. 513).

Inflated in their rebellion against the God-Man, the Sons of Satan, those committed toward the atheistic program of attacking the Church from without and undermining it from within in preparation for the Man-God, will continue to intensify their persecution of craftiness and subversion until it reaches its culmination in an explosion of hate-filled rage which will bear much blood and death. Father Livio Fanzaga, writing about the Antichrist, says that, "Catholicism alone will resist him. How then do we destroy this superstition which alone obstructs the world's self-revelation? How do we destroy this superstition which divides mankind and which prevents man from being truly brotherly and free? The true Antichrist is revealed in the replies to these questions. Here is perceived his profound being as the man of iniquity. He will not tolerate the idea of men who adore any god other than himself. His intolerance obliges him to make an exception to his pacifism and his philosophy of non-violence. He is the greatest pacifist in the history of the human race, but because peace and justice really reign on earth he will make an exception to kill and destroy the great superstition of Catholicism, once and for all time..." (Wrath of God: The Days of the Antichrist, p. 124).

I've warned time and again of the intellectual insecurity of the atheist and where it eventually leads.

"Whatever the motives for atheist bloodthirstiness, the indisputable fact is that all the religions of the world put together have in 2,000 years not managed to kill as many people as have been killed in the name of atheism in the past few decades.

It's time to abandon the mindlessly repeated mantra that religious belief has been the greatest source of human conflict and violence. Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history.” (Dinesh D'Souza, "Atheism, Not Religion is the Real Force Behind the Mass Murders of History," The Christian Science Monitor, November 21, 2006; See here).

The Archdiocese of Boston has a skewed set of priorities

Deal Hudson notes here how the Archdiocese of Boston has blocked access to the Boston Catholic Insider Blog. He writes, "The controversy leading to this action by the Boston Archdiocese was precipitated by the troubling issues surrounding the proposed sale of Caritas Christi Healthcare, owned by the Archdiocese, to Cerebus Capital. Having watched this story develop for quite a while, and having kept abreast of the ongoing narrative, I agree with those blogging at bostoncatholicinsider.com that the sale is rife with conflict of interest issues. This attempt of the Boston Archdiocese to act in loco parentis towards its employees not only looks silly but also demonstrates an ignorance of how the internet works. Whoever made the decision to block the 'offending' web site will have a hard time blocking all the Catholic web sites containing links to information about the sale of Caritas Christi.."

We can tell much about an individual or a group of individuals [including a Catholic diocese] by examining their priorities. Bearing this in mind, let us consider the fact that the Archdiocese of Boston becomes agitated when the laity engage in constructive criticism, and will take great pains to silence such criticism [to the point of blocking access to a Blog which engages in such fraternal correction], but takes no action whatsoever to block access to a Blog written by one of its own dissenting priests.

Father Emile "Mike" Boutin argued at his Blog that priests should not be celibate and ridiculed Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, a Prince of the Church, for his views. And access to his Blog was not blocked. The confused priest admitted knowing of child abuse committed by his "mentor" and of remaining silent and not revealing his name. And access to his Blog was not blocked. He argued against priests wearing the Roman collar, and access to his Blog was not blocked.

One might think that officials of the Boston Archdiocese would be more concerned with Father Boutin's troubling views than with constructive criticism offered by the Boston Catholic Insider Blog. But one would be wrong.

And this reveals much about the Boston Archdiocese and where its heading.

Why aren't officials of the Boston Archdiocese concerned over this?