For the power to tax is the power to destroy

In his Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus, Pope John Paul II warned us that, "....totalitarianism arises out of a denial of truth in the objective sense. If there is no transcendent truth, in obedience to which man achieves his full identity, then there is no sure principle for guaranteeing just relations between people. Their self-interest as a class, group or nation would inevitably set them in opposition to one another. If one does not acknowledge transcendent truth, then the force of power takes over, and each person tends to make full use of the means at his disposal in order to impose his own interests or his own opinion, with no regard for the rights of others. People are then respected only to the extent that they can be exploited for selfish ends. Thus, the root of modern totalitarianism is to be found in the denial of the transcendent dignity of the human person who, as the visible image of the invisible God, is therefore by his very nature the subject of rights which no one may violate — no individual, group, class, nation or State. Not even the majority of a social body may violate these rights, by going against the minority, by isolating, oppressing, or exploiting it, or by attempting to annihilate it.." (No. 44).


We ignore this truth at our own peril. So many are asleep as this country races toward tyranny. The ObamaCare mandate has been upheld and the socialist agenda to use the power of government to control the health decisions of Americans gains momentum.  But this is only the beginning of the socialist power grab.  Their ultimate goal is to place the power of government over the rights of citizens.

Stefano Gennarini, J.D., writing for Turtle Bay and Beyond, puts things in perspective nicely: "When you voted for this sleek, well spoken and sophisticated politician four years ago you may have never suspected it, or perhaps you knew it all along: he is an old fashioned believer in the absolute state.


What the health care law has really brought home is how un-american Obama is. Here we have a president who wants to force people to buy health insurance. It is hard to believe we have been even speaking about this for the past three years! Obama has no qualms about forcing people to buy health insurance, telling us that it is perfectly within the government’s prerogative to do something like that.

Now, that sounds like a French monarch in pre-revolutionary France ordering his subjects to kneel, Napoleon Bonaparte re-writing the laws of half of Europe, or even more recently, a Communist party telling people what they can and cannot do.

Indeed, here in America we believe in government by, from, and for the people, not the other way around. The Constitution of the United States, the first Constitution, and the model for all subsequent ones, sets up a government of limited, enumerated powers. This is a peculiarly and exclusively American novelty. And we have always understood this to mean, that there are certain things that the government cannot do, like telling religious employers to pay for abortions, or forcing people to buy health insurance, stop smoking and drinking sugary drinks.

Obama instead, seems to believe in a government philosophy that is totalitarian, like those of Europe. All these things would be possible in Europe, where the government is seen as the absolute embodiment of sovereignty, just like a king was perceived as the embodiment of the will of God. But not in America, that is until Obama became King… I mean, President.

Many of us hoped Roberts would be the one to lead the charge against such a notion of absolute government. Thankfully, our chief justice has delivered us from the power to regulate commerce, which had oppressed us so for the last three quarters of a century. For the power to regulate commerce was indeed oppressive, seeing as it was used to regulate commerce between states in harmful substances like marijuana, and home grown cereals and grains. No longer shall these abuses continue because we now know that 'economic inactivity' cannot be regulated under the commerce clause of the Constitution.

After all, we have a written Constitution, and our government is one of enumerated powers. Enumerated powers indeed, except for those that are in fact unlimited. For example, the power to tax.

For the power to tax is the power to destroy, and destroy us it will. Soon there will be taxes for all those of us who do not brush our teeth five times a day, don’t exercise regularly, smoke real tobacco as opposed to strawberry flavored electric cigarettes, drink sugary drinks etc. After all, these acts or omissions will affect our health, and ultimately also affect the price of the premiums that our fellow Americans are forced to pay. The only caveat is that, when Congress will enact these new taxes, they will have originated in the Senate, they will be called penalties, the anti-injunction act will not apply, and the President will have vigorously denied that they are a tax on national TV.

But of one thing we should all be glad, the Supreme Court’s institutional integrity is preserved for generations to come. In fifty years time, Americans and the world will be able to look back on these past twenty years of Supreme Court history as the period of the Catholic US Supreme Court. 'That' they will say, 'was the Court that established definitively that abortion is a woman’s right, and upheld the Health Care Law that threatened to put Catholic hospitals, schools, and tens of thousands of Catholic charities out of business out of judicial integrity and deference.' Never mind all the new Constitutional problems for the Supreme Court to resolve in the future because of the Court’s Catholic schizophrenia."


John Marshall, in a Supreme Court opinion denying the right of the State of Maryland to impose a tax on the Bank of the United States (McCulloch v. Maryland, 1819), stressed firmly, "That the power to tax involves the power to destroy; that the power to destroy may defeat and render useless the power to create...are propositions not to be denied." 

For the power to tax is the power to destroy.  This is the socialist agenda.  To destroy America financially, to cripple her, in the hope that many will say, along with Dr. Henry Spaak, former Secretary General of NATO, "What we want is a man of sufficient stature to hold the alliances of all people and to lift us out of the economic morass into which we are sinking. Send us such a man, and be he god or devil, we will receive him."

Read More

As the U.S. Air Force Academy embraces witchcraft and grows hostile toward Christianity, fires threaten the institution

As this article notes, "Dozens of House lawmakers accused the U.S. Air Force this week of being 'hostile towards religion.'"  But those lawmakers are mistaken.  It's not religion in general which the Air Force is becoming hostile toward.  It is Christianity.

Jean Bodin, in his work "De la Demonomanie des Sorciers," writes, "Sorcier est celuy qui par moyens Diaboliques sciemment s'efforce de paruenir a quel que chose" - A sorcerer is one who by commerce with the Devil has a full intention of attaining his own ends." The Air Force Academy, while growing ever more hostile toward Christianity and the Word of God,  has decided to open a chapel for such servants of the Devil. See here.


What does the Catechism of the Catholic Church have to say about such activity? Paragraph 2117 explains that, "All practices of magic or sorcery, by which one attempts to tame occult powers, so as to place them at one's service and have a supernatural power over others - even if this were for the sake of restoring their health - are gravely contrary to the virtue of religion. These practices are even more to be condemned when accompanied by the intention of harming someone, or when they have recourse to the intervention of demons. Wearing charms is also reprehensible. Spiritism often implies divination or magical practices; the Church for her part warns the faithful against it. Recourse to so-called traditional cures does not justify either the invocation of evil powers or the exploitation of another's credulity."

In 1974, the American Council of Witches issued the "Principles of Wiccan Belief." No. 10 states: "Our only animosity towards Christianity, or toward any other religion or philosophy of life, is to the extent that its institutions have claimed to be 'the only way,' and have sought to deny freedom to others and to suppress other ways of religious practice and belief."

So Wicca acknowledges an "animosity" toward Christianity which teaches that salvation is in Jesus alone (Acts 4:12). The question presents itself: what does this animosity consist of?

In an article published in Polish in Panorama and written by Dr. J. Coleman, an Intelligence officer, Dr. Coleman is quoted as having said that, "The One-World Government is going to consist of hereditary oligarchs who will divide the power between themselves. There is going to be only one legal religion and only one state church. Only Satanism and Luciferism will be the legal religious subjects in state schools. No other schools (private, Catholic, etc.) will be allowed. All present Christian education systems are going to be destroyed (and the fact is — they are destroyed in the most part) from inside, and become extinct. Satanism is already considered to be a 'true and legal religion'. In fact, on some U.S. military bases, they already celebrate black masses and worship Satan."

And as the Air Force Academy embraces Witchcraft, wildfires threaten the institution.
What do you think?  Is God pleased?

Read More

Jan, a parishioner at St. Joseph's Parish in Fitchburg: If you don't care for the falsification of Catholic Liturgy, don't come

In my last post, I noted how Saint Joseph's Parish in Fitchburg omitted the Nicene Creed at Holy Mass and that, because I took exception to this, a parishioner left a comment at this Blog calling me an idiot.  Now another parishioner named Jan (who some have indicated is most likely the parish secretary Janice Potter), left a comment here  saying, "What a wonderful church. I love it here. If you have a problem with it, which you obviously do as you seem to slam it every chance you get, then don't come."

In other words, if I believe that the priests who celebrate Mass at Saint Joseph's should not omit the Creed, that's my problem and I am the one who should solve the problem by leaving.

In other words, Jan is implying that that the priest has a right to alter the liturgy at will and to omit the Creed [or anything else he desires] and if I don't like it, I am the problem.

The Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum stresses that, "Whenever an abuse is committed in the celebration of the sacred Liturgy, it is to be seen as a real falsification of Catholic Liturgy. St Thomas wrote, 'the vice of falsehood is perpetrated by anyone who offers worship to God on behalf of the Church in a manner contrary to that which is established by the Church with divine authority, and to which the Church is accustomed.'" (RS, 169).


The same document tells us that, "In order that a remedy may be applied to such abuses, 'there is a pressing need for the biblical and liturgical formation of the people of God, both pastors and faithful,' so that the Church’s faith and discipline concerning the sacred Liturgy may be accurately presented and understood. Where abuses persist, however, proceedings should be undertaken for safeguarding the spiritual patrimony and rights of the Church in accordance with the law, employing all legitimate means." (RS, 170).

An excellent article over at EWTN tells us that:


"When the justice of obedience to ecclesiastical law is not rendered and thus the proper Order of the Mass is violated, there can be no real unity in the parish and thus no peace. As a result, the Catholic unity of communion with the bishop and with and through the bishop with Peter is disturbed. Hierarchical Communion is one of the three marks of unity to be found in the Church, the others being unity of faith and unity in the discipline of the Sacraments. Liturgical disobedience uniquely disturbs all three! This is not surprising since the Eucharist is the principal source and sign of the unity of the Church. By its very nature, it MUST be either a sign of unity or a sign of disunity.


Of course, many other evils enter in by liturgical disobedience, including the serious injustice of depriving the faithful of licit, and in some cases valid, sacraments, something to which as Catholics they have a right.

Canon 214 The Christian faithful have the right to worship God according to the prescriptions of their own rite approved by the legitimate pastors of the Church, and to follow their own form of spiritual life consonant with the teaching of the Church.

When these evils occur they have the right, and even the responsibility, to make their voices heard.


Canon 212

1. The Christian faithful, conscious of their own responsibility, are bound by Christian obedience to follow what the sacred pastors, as representatives of Christ, declare as teachers of the faith or determine as leaders of the Church.

2. The Christian faithful are free to make known their needs, especially spiritual ones, and their desires to the pastors of the Church.

3. In accord with the knowledge, competence and preeminence which they possess, they have the right and even at times a duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church, and they have a right to make their opinion known to the other Christian faithful, with due regard for the integrity of faith and morals and reverence toward their pastors, and with consideration of the common good and dignity of persons.

Bishop Robert McManus needs to look into this situation.  Liturgical abuses are very serious.  The solution is not for faithful Catholics to be told to "move on."  The solution is for the priests at Saint Joseph's Parish to return to fidelity, to cease abusing the liturgy and disrupting the Church's unity.

Read More

Parishioner from St. Joseph's Parish in Fitchburg: "You're an idiot."

In a previous post, I noted that the Creed is often omitted during Holy Mass in certain parishes throughout the Worcester Diocese.  One of these parishes where the Creed was recently omitted is Saint Joseph's Parish in Fitchburg, Massachusetts.

Evidently my post struck a nerve.  I received a couple of hateful comments, one of them calling me an idiot and suggesting that the celebrant that day, Father Richard Trainor, simply forgot to include the Creed.  The problem with this theory is that Father Trainor concelebrated the Mass with a visiting La Salette priest that day and there were two deacons also present - Deacon Jim Couture and retired Deacon Bob Leger.  Surely with two priests and two deacons present, somebody could have remembered the Creed.

There is a point when the lying and the excuses have to stop.  We are told in Ephesians that, "Speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into Him who is the head, into Christ....Therefore, putting away falsehood, let everyone speak the truth with his neighbor, for we are members one of another." (Eph 4: 15, 25).

The anonymous person who called me an idiot then asserted that I am "unmanly" because I didn't approach Father Trainor with my concerns.  Two things: First, Father Trainor should understand his role in the liturgy without my holding his hand.  Secondly, when I approached the pastoral leaders at Saint Joseph's in the past with suggestions, I was treated with outright hatred and hostility.  I was also excluded from participation in the life of the parish.  I really do not care to subject myself to more of their abuse.

But here's the thing folks.  Sacrosanctum Concilium of the Second Vatican Council states clearly in No. 22 that:

"1. Regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See and, as laws may determine, on the bishop.


2. In virtue of power conceded by the law, the regulation of the liturgy within certain defined limits belongs also to various kinds of competent territorial bodies of bishops legitimately established.

3. Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority."

Canon 846 of the Code of Canon Law states clearly that:

"The liturgical books, approved by the competent authority, are to be faithfully followed in the celebration of the sacraments.  Accordingly, no one may on a personal initiative add to or omit or alter anything in those books."
And I'm an idiot for expecting the two priests and the two deacons present to abide by the Church's teaching and Canon Law?

Read More

Father Jerome Murphy-OConnor has a common sense breakdown....let's hope it's brief

Father Jerome Murphy-OConnor, a renowned expert on the New Testament, has what some are referring to as "a bold view of what happened in the Garden of Gethsemane."  I would call it something else entirely: asinine.  Demonic even.  How about blasphemous?

In an article for the Catholic Herald which may be found here, Fr. OConnor is quoted as having said that Jesus suffered a "nervous breakdown" and adds, "When realizing the imminence of His own demise, Jesus was deeply distraught and troubled, out of control."  A nervous breakdown, otherwise referred to as a "mental breakdown," is statically defined as "a specific acute time-limited reactive disorder."  See here.

Jesus out of control?  Jesus so distraught that he momentarily suffered from a reactive disorder?

Anyone even remotely familiar with the New Testament knows full well that Jesus was subject to emotions.  We know that He wept when His friend Lazarus died.  We know that He experienced various emotions.  We read for example, "He began to grow sorrowful and be sad" (Mt 26: 37); that He "began to fear and be heavy" (Mk 14: 33); that He "looked round about on them with anger" (Mk 3: 5) and that He said, "I am glad for your sake" (Jn 11: 15).  But Jesus was also free from concupiscence.  As a result, His emotions could not be directed to a sinful object nor could they arise within Him without His consent.  Jesus emotions were always completely under the control of His will and could never obscure or dominate His mind in any way.

Father Kenneth Baker, S.J., notes how, "In this regard there is a significant difference between His emotions and ours.  For, our emotions arise spontaneously, often against our will, and sometimes totally dominate our power of reason.  Thus, they can lead us into sin.  Not so with Jesus.  Jesus was capable of suffering and experienced emotions, but everything was under the control of His will which was totally obedient to His Father." (Fundamentals of Catholicism, Vol. II, p. 269).

This is the teaching of Saint Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologiae:

"Since the soul gives form to the body soul and body share the same existence, and when the body is upset by physical suffering the soul existing in the body is also indirectly affected.  So because Christ's body could suffer and die, his soul too was affected by suffering.  The soul is also affected, in a different sense, by activities it exercises by itself, or that belong more to it than the body.  Knowledge and sensation are sometimes called affections of the soul, but the description applies most properly to emotions of the sense-appetite, which Christ possessed along with everything else natural to men.  But whereas in us emotions often bear on unlawful objects, frequently anticipate the judgment of reason, and sometimes draw reason after them, in Christ they were always under reason's control."

And so, Father Murphy-OConnor is simply wrong.  Jesus suffered no mental breakdown.  He was never, even for the slightest moment, "out of control."

Would that we could say the same about Father.

Read More

It's time for Deborah Dwork, Clark University's historical revisionist in residence, to apologize

In several past Blog posts I've documented how Deborah Dwork, Director of Clark University's Strassler Center for Holocaust & Genocide Studies, has engaged in anti-Catholic historical revisionism, falsely accusing Pope Pius XII of happy memory as having "failed Europe's Jews miserably, unconscionably."  See here for example.

Now, Zenit is reporting that:

After six years of untiring research that has uncovered 76,000 pages of original material, plus multiple eyewitness accounts and testimonies from prominent international scholars, Gary Krupp is confident the besmirching of Pope Pius XII's reputation is coming to an end.


"We're definitely winning, absolutely no question," Krupp tells me on a visit to Rome this week. "Every time we do more research, we find a diamond. It's incredible, but there's nothing on the other side because there's no documented foundation for any of their accusations."

Krupp, the founder of the Pave The Way Foundation, a not-for-profit organization dedicated to bridging the gap between world religions, is well known for being one of the most passionate defenders of Pius XII's reputation for heroism in his relations with the Jewish people.

As a Jew from New York who grew up, like many others of his generation, with an indoctrinated hatred of the wartime Pope for his alleged anti-Semitism and unwillingness to help Jews during the Holocaust, his anger at realizing this was all a lie, and his willingness to reveal the truth, is both heartfelt and compelling.

Now he and his team of researchers have uncovered more documented evidence that Pave the Way believes should act as incontrovertible proof to any serious historian that Pius XII did all he could to protect and defend Jews before, during and after the Second World War. All the documentation can be viewed on the organization's Web site: www.ptwf.org

Some of these documents show that Pius XII favored the creation of a Jewish state as far back as 1917. In further recent discoveries, Pave the Way has come across a letter written by Cardinal Pacelli in 1939 in which he attempted to obtain visas for 200,000 Jews who remained in Germany after Kristallnacht.

"He wasn't able to obtain the visas, but he tried," says Krupp. "The point is, he didn't do it from the safety of Washington DC or London. He did it while surrounded by hostile forces, and infiltrated by spies, and yet he still managed to save more Jews than all the other world leaders combined."

Further letters reveal how, through his nephew Carlo Pacelli, Pius XII helped prevent the arrest of Roman Jews in 1943, giving an estimated 12,000 of them the chance to seek refuge in Church monasteries, convents, and the homes of Italian Catholics. "All these archival records show how he personally helped save Jewish people," says Krupp, adding emphatically in his broad New York accent: "Anti-Semites don't do that!"

Other ground-breaking discoveries show how the Pope was not just a target for assassination by Hitler (Pave the Way has a copy of a letter Pius wrote to cardinals expecting to be killed and giving them instructions to form a government in exile), but that he and his secretary were also named in a German report as co-conspirators in the Valkyre assassination attempt on the Fuhrer in July 1944.

Pave the Way has combed through copies of the New York Times and Palestine Post from 1939 to 1958 to find any evidence of animosity toward the Jews. "There's not one negative article. Not one," Krupp says, adding that a French friend of theirs also went through French Communist and Socialist papers from that time, and similarly came up with nothing negative.

Krupp points out a "fantastic letter" from the American ambassador to Germany, reporting on 3rd March 1939 on the new Pope's election on 2nd March. The ambassador recalls in the letter meeting Cardinal Pacelli in 1937, and wanting to visit the Sistine Chapel, but he wasn't able to as the Cardinal had kept him in his office for three solid hours, talking about National Socialism and Hitler. "In the letter it says: "While his views against Hitler were well known to me, I had no idea of the extremity of his views,'" Krupp recounts.

Like many, Krupp is convinced the smearing of Pius's reputation was due to an elaborate misinformation campaign by the Soviets and, in particular, the film "The Deputy," which was widely performed after the Pontiff's death. The play, which spread what's become known as the "Black Legend" of Pius XII, is still being performed today, currently in Munich and even in an American university – something that greatly irritates Krupp given the dean of the university is allowing it on grounds of "academic freedom."

What makes him so unstinting in his desire to uncover the truth is his firm belief that history must be accurate. "People die with history," Krupp says, "so it's absolutely essential people realize that history is a sacred thing – you must get it right because people kill one another on perceived history." He says anti-Pius historians are "historical revisionists," and makes no apology for calling them "liars" instead of scholars.

He is particularly indignant with Rome's Jewish community and those who persistently propagate the Black Legend in the face of the contrary evidence. "All of Rome's Jewish community despises Pius XII, when a few short few years ago they erected a monument in his honor because he saved all of their lives," says Krupp (the monument, erected in 1946, is no longer there). "You have air in your lungs today because he saved your lives," he says in pointed words directed at them, "and yet you despise him? This is a sin. This is a Jewish sin." Krupp frequently stresses that one of the worst character flaws a Jew can have is ingratitude, and notes that the Hebrew word for Jew is actually based on the word gratitude.

He believes if any of the community were willing to look at the documents, they would change their minds. "Anyone who refuses to look at documents and the proof is a fool," he says. "This is especially obnoxious to me, as this community is alive because of his actions, very provably alive – everyone from the era said so," Krupps argues.

He also says he has come to discover the enemies of Pope Pius XII tend to be "ultra-left wing Jews and Catholics" with an agenda to destroy the Pope's reputation because he "typified the conservative, traditional Church."

But what about the regular accusations one hears made against Pius? Krupp bats away each of them away with ease.

On why Pius didn't lay down his life as a martyr: "Why didn't General Patten do the same thing? Why didn't Roosevelt do the same thing? Don't forget the Vatican is two entities, head of the Catholic Church and also a government. It would be the worst thing one can do, especially when he could do the good that he did alive. Being dead would be no good at all."

On the claim no Nazis were excommunicated: "They were -- I love this one. The German bishops said anyone who joined the 'Hitler Party,' who wore the uniform or flew the flag were excommunicated and a priest couldn't attend their funeral if any of them died."

On the accusation that Pius XII helped Nazi war criminals flee to South America after the war: "No, it was exactly the opposite according to Bishop Hudal himself [Hudal was a Nazi collaborator in Rome]; just read his [Hudal's] autobiography."

On the claim that Pius authorized forced baptisms of Jewish infants: "Nonsense. In fact he forbade it. There were some … You had some overzealous nuns and others who did this, but he forbade it. He forbade it because he had a great love and respect for Judaism, starting from his childhood. His closest friend was a Jewish orthodox boy, Guido Mendes."

Krupp recognizes "Nostra Aetate," the Second Vatican Council declaration considered by many to have transformed Jewish-Catholic relations, as "one of the most important events in Jewish-Christian relations." It's arguable whether his invaluable efforts to clear Pius XII's name would have taken place had it not been for that document, but Krupp began working on the Pius issue after receiving a papal knighthood, seeing it would "open things up to do wonderful things between Jews and Catholics."

I'm interested to know if he himself ever considered becoming a Catholic? "No, never," he says. "If someone gave me a million dollars, I wouldn't. This is the way I am supposed to be. I'm doing what I'm supposed to do as a Jew not as a Catholic."

He says he has a "huge love and respect for the Church" because he "looks at the bottom line" and sees there's "no greater provider in the world for health care, education or charity." Indeed, he was delighted and honored to be invited this year to receive an honorary doctorate and deliver the commencement address at St. Thomas Aquinas College, Orangeburg, New York.

"I feel my brothers and sisters are in the Church, but I would never consider converting," he says. "I'm very proud to be Jewish, and I think this is the path God meant for me to take."


The time has come for Deborah Dwork to issue an apology for her anti-Catholic historical revisionism.  Her failure to do so will reflect poorly on an institution which is already suspect because of its Christianophobia and commitment to radical homosexual agitprop.  See here and here.

Read More

The evil spirits were particularly enraged by the blessed medal of Saint Benedict

As this website explains:


St. Benedict was the father of Western Monasticism. He was born in Nursia, Italy, in 480. Beginning in 520, he founded twelve monasteries in the region of Subiaco. The foundation at Monte Cassino (529) became the cradle of his Order. His twin sister was St. Scholastica. Benedict died march 21, 542.


St. Benedict had a profound veneration for the Holy Cross and for our Saviour Crucified. In virtue of the Sign of the Cross he wrought many miracles and exercised great power over the spirits of darkness.

In consequence of the great veneration in which St. Benedict was held from the early middle ages, it followed that a medal was struck.

His medal has exceptional powers against the demons of Hell.

The Medal of Saint Benedict is one of the Sacramentals of the Church. The value and power of the Medal must be ascribed to the merits of Christ Crucified, to the efficacious prayers of St. Benedict, to the blessing of the Church, and specially to the faith and holy disposition of the person using the Medal.


Description


The front of the medal shows St. Benedict holding a cross in one hand and the book of his Rule in the other. Flanking him on each side are the words: Crux S. Patris Benedicti (The Cross of the Holy Father Benedict).

Below his feet are these words: Ex S M Casino MDCCCLXXX (From the Holy Mount of Cassino, 1880). On that date , Monte Cassino was given the exclusive right to produce this medal.

Inscribed in the circle surrounding Benedict are the words: Ejus in obitu nostro presentia muniamur (May his presence protect us in the hour of death).

The other side of the medal is where the real exorcistic force reveals itself. In the center is the Cross. Benedict loved the Cross and used it to drive away demons.

The vertical beam of the Cross has five letters: C.S.S.M.L., meaning Crux Sacra Sit Mihi Lux (May the holy Cross be for me a light).

The horizontal beam of the Cross also has five letters: N.D.S.M.D., meaning Non Draco Sit Mihi Dux (Let not the dragon be my guide).

The four large letters at the angles of the Cross: C S P B stand for Crux Sancti Patris Benedicti (The Cross of the Holy Father Benedict).

Encircling the Cross in a circle around the right margin are these letters: V.R.S.N.S.M.V., meaning Vade retro Satana; nunquam suade mihi vana (Begone Satan! Suggest not to me thy vain things).

Around the left margin of the circle are these letters: S.M.Q.L.I.V.B., meaning Sunt mala quae libas; ipse venena bibas (The drink you offer is evil; drink that poison yourself).

At the top of the circle is the word PAX (Peace).

Use

No special way of carrying or applying the Medal is prescribed. It may be worn around the neck, attached to the scapular or the Rosary or simply carried in one's pocket.

Often it is placed in the fields, the foundations of buildings or attached to automobiles to call down God's blessing and the protection of St. Benedict. No particular prayer is prescribed, as the devout wearing itself is a continual silent prayer."

What is not very well known is that St. Benedict had to wrestle regularly against the principalities and powers of this world.  The holy and heroic Saint was confronted by extraordinary manifestations of evil spirits who resisted the building of his monastery on the crest of Monte Cassino.  The reason for these unusual confrontations?  Monte Cassino had been a place where Satanism was practiced.  Evil spirits would appear in visible form to the saintly monk (as they would to St. Padre Pio in his day) and would instigate accidents and strange occurrences.  On more than one occasion, St. Benedict found it necessary to exorcize some of his monks.

It is not known for certain when the medal of Saint Benedict originated.  However in 1647, during a trial for witchcraft at Natternberg, near the abbey of Metten in Bavaria, the accused women testified that they had no power over the abbey.  A later investigation revealed that a number of painted crosses surrounded by the letters described above were all over the walls of this abbey.

So powerful is the Saint Benedict medal (worn with faith in Christ and His Church and not superstitiously), that the evil spirits cannot bear to be around it.  For example, Father Montague Summers relates how, "In the case of the possessed boys of Illfurt (Alsace) they exhibited the utmost horror and dread of a Medal of St. Benedict."  He says that two of the five sons of Joseph Burner and Anna Maria, his wife, "were seized with a mysterious illness which would not yield to the ordinary remedies....a number of..doctors were..consulted [and] declared themselves unable to diagnose such extraordinary symptoms...the two boys displayed most abnormal phenomena.  Whilst lying on their backs they spun suddenly round like whirling tops with the utmost rapidity.  Convulsions seized them, twisting and distorting every limb with unparalleled mobility, or again their bodies would for hours together become absolutely rigid and motionless so that no joint could be bent, whilst they lay motionless as stocks or stones...Their voices were, however, not their normal tones nor even those of children at all, but the strong, harsh, hoarse articulation of rough and savage men.  For hours together they would blaspheme in the foulest terms, cursing and swearing, and bawling out such hideous obscenities that the neighbors took flight in sheer terror at the horrible scenes...They seemed particularly enraged by the blessed medal of Saint Benedict and pictures of Our Lady of Perpetual Succour."

I have had the Saint Benedict Medal Crucifix for years.  And there have been many times when I was wearing it that I have experienced strange manifestations of evil.  For example once, when I was leaving Buckley's Religious Goods store in Leominster, Massachusetts (at their old location),  a man walked out of the woods and in front of my automobile and stopped.  He was screaming and uttering unintelligible words.  His eyes actually appeared to be red.  On another occasion, while refuting the errors of a group of individuals who were disparaging devotion to Our Lady (at a Catholic parish dedicated to Our Lady of the Rosary!) in Gardner, Massachusetts - during a Bible study - the lights began to flicker on and off and the Bible study leader, who was wearing dark sunglasses at night in the Church basement, stared at me for some ten minutes with a look which I have never forgotten.  It was a look of pure hatred and malice.

We live in times which are growing ever darker as men abandon faith in God and His Church.  Arm yourselves: Frequent Holy Mass often, adore the Holy Eucharist, confess your sins regularly (I recommend at least once a month), and make use of the Church's sacramentals.  Among these the most highly indulgenced medal: the Saint Benedict Medal.

Read More

As Catholics, we are called upon to imitate Mary's "virginally integral" faith, hope and charity

Faith is God’s gift to created persons who are entirely dependent on Him. The proper response to this gift is reverent obedience. Christian faith is characterized by a humble and reverent submission to what God has revealed. Vatican II’s Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation (Dei Verbum) has this to say: “’The obedience of faith’ (Rm 16:26; cf. Rm 1:5; 2 Cor 10: 5-6) ‘is to be given to God who reveals, an obedience by which man commits his whole self freely to God, offering the full submission of intellect and will to God who reveals,’ and freely assenting to the truth revealed by him. To make this act of faith, the grace of God and the interior help of the Holy Spirit must precede and assist, moving the heart and turning it to God, opening the eyes of the mind and giving ‘joy and ease to everyone in assenting to the truth and believing it.’” (Dei Verbum, No. 5).


For many if not most Catholics today, obedience to revealed truth seems difficult if not impossible. The idea of submitting one’s mind and will to another authority is viewed as repugnant. And this largely because, as Dr. Dietrich von Hildebrand reminds us, “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. Thus truth in its implacable sovereignty – absolute truth that judges our reason instead of being judged by it – is denied.” (The New Tower of Babel: Modern Man’s Flight from God, p. 19).

This is most unfortunate for St. Thomas Aquinas reminds us that, after the virtue of religion, obedience is the most perfect of all the moral virtues. And this because the virtue of obedience unites us more closely to God than any of the other virtues, insofar as it detaches us from our own will. For the main obstacle to union with God is self-will.

Obedience unites us to God and enables us to share habitually in His life. Obedience subordinates our will directly to the will of God and, as a consequence, all of our other faculties since these are subordinated to our will.

When we offer our wills as a sacrifice to God through obedience, we enter into communion with God, since we no longer have any other will but God's will. Only then can we make the words of Jesus in His agony our own words: "Not my will, but thine be done." This conformity of our will to the Divine will becomes one with charity. As St. Thomas reminds us, love effects primarily a union of wills.

This is the teaching of St. John, the beloved Apostle. After teaching us that he who claims to love God and keeps not His commandments is a liar, the Apostle declares: "But he that keepeth his word, in him in very deed the charity of God is perfected; and by this we know that we are in him" (1 John 2:5). This is the teaching of Jesus Himself, Who tells us that to keep His commandments is to love Him: "If you love me, keep my commandments" (John 14:15).

True obedience is, in reality, a genuine act of love. And this genuine love, this genuine conformity to the Divine will, purifies us from sin. Moreover, this conformity to the Divine will is what works out our reformation. It is, after all, the disordered love of pleasure - to which we yield through either weakness or malice - which has deformed us.

Happily, as we strive to be perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect (Matthew 5: 48), we have a most perfect model of faith, hope and charity in the Blessed Virgin Mary. Mary is all holy. Her earthly life was characterized by perfect harmony with the person and redeeming work of her Son. Pope John Paul II reminded us that, “The Council urged the faithful to look to Mary so that they may imitate her ‘virginally integral’ faith, hope and charity. To preserve the integrity of faith is a demanding task for the Church, which is called to constant vigilance even at the cost of sacrifice and struggle. The Church’s faith is not only threatened by those who reject the Gospel message, but especially by those who, in accepting only part of the revealed truth, refuse to share fully in the entire patrimony of the faith of Christ’s bride. Unfortunately, this temptation, which we find from the Church’s beginning, continues to be present in her life, urging her to accept revelation only in part, or to give the Word of God a limited, personal interpretation in conformity with the prevailing mentality and individual desires. Having fully adhered to the Word of the Lord, Mary represents for the Church an unsurpassable model of ‘virginally integral’ faith, for with docility and perseverance she accepts the revealed truth whole and entire…” (General Audience of August 20, 1997).

Mary accepted revealed truth whole and entire. She fully adhered in obedience to the Word of God. Shall we do any less?

Read More

George Soros-funded groups advancing a corroding and ambiguous pluralism to destroy the Catholic Church

By now you may have heard about the group Faith in Public Life, which is funded by one-time Nazi collaborator and atheist billionaire George Soros, and its plan to wage war against the Catholic Church and her Bishops.  Another Soros-funded group, Sojourners, which is headed up by Jim Wallis, promotes the New Age Globalist Earth Charter which seeks to replace the Ten Commandments and dismantle the Roman Catholic Church.

Sojourners has an article at its website written by Christian Piatt.  In this article, Piatt writes, "A recent poll found that, despite the teachings and public positions of church leaders, a majority of Catholics not only support contraception, but also support Obama’s mandate to require employers to pay for it. Then there’s the troublemaking American nuns, getting into hot water with the male Catholic gentry for not toeing the ideological church line, particularly with regard to matters of sex and sexuality.


So if over half of the faithful openly differ with the Church, and if the hands and feet of the missional arm of the church vocally oppose the Vatican, what’s the point of the institutional doctrine to begin with?

When it comes down to it, what seems to me to be at the heart of such traditions is not so much faithfulness, but rather control. If your inclusion in a system is contingent on you conforming to the beliefs of the leadership, then that institution has the power either to coerce you into compliance or to exile you for disobedience...From what I can tell, Jesus never made his disciples sign a statement of faith." (See here).

No, Jesus never made His disciples sign a statement of faith.  But He did say to His disciples, the Shepherds of His Church, "He who hears you, hears Me.  He who rejects you, rejects Me.  And he who rejects Me, rejects Him who sent Me." (Luke 10: 16).  He also said, "If anyone does not receive you or listen to what you have to say, leave that house or town, and once outside it shake its dust from your feet.  I assure you, it will go easier for that region of Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than it will for that town." (Matthew 10: 14-15).  If Jesus did not expect people to conform to His teaching, which is zealously guarded and interpreted by the living teaching authority which He established, why did He say that those who refused to listen and conform to that teaching would fare worse than Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment?

And why did Saint Paul write, "I am amazed that you are so soon deserting him who called you in accord with his gracious design in Christ and are going over to another gospel.  But there is no other.  Some who wish to alter the gospel of Christ must have confused you.  For even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel not in accord with the one we delivered to you, let a curse be upon him!" (Galatians 1: 8).

And why did the Apostle John write, "Anyone who is so 'progressive' that he does not remain rooted in the teaching of Christ does not possess God...If anyone comes to you who does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house; do not even greet him, for whoever greets him shares in the evil he does." (2 John 9-11).

While it is true that a legitimate pluralism exists within the Church, one which, for example, includes diverse rites and spiritualities as well as theologies which reflect the one faith, a pluralism which leaves room for diverse world views, is dangerous because it can occasion relativism. In the Church, such a pluralism has no place. As Pope John XXIII taught, “..there is no other truth than the one truth she [the Church] treasures…there can be no ‘truths’ in contradiction of it.” (Ad Petri Cathedram, AAS 51 (1959) 513, PE, 263.70). The Synod of Bishops, Second Extraordinary Assembly, recognized this truth when it said that, “The pluralism of fundamentally opposed positions” does not build up the Church but “instead leads to dissolution, destruction and the loss of identity.” (Synod of Bishops, Second Extraordinary Assembly, 1985, Final “Relatio”, 2.C.2, EV 9 (1983-1985) 1764-65, OR, 16 Dec. 1985, 7.).

And that is exactly what Sojourners wants: the dissolution and destruction of the Catholic Church which would result from a loss of identity.  A false and corroding pluralism has already found its way into the Church. In his wonderful book entitled “A Crisis of Truth: The Attack on Faith, Morality, and Mission in the Catholic Church,” Ralph Martin explains that, “Pastoral leaders today often fail to exercise their responsibility effectively because they have inadequate models for leadership and employ inadequate criteria to judge their own work and the work of others.

Pastoral passivity is often justified as an appropriate posture for leaders of a ‘pluralist’ Church. Indeed, pluralism in the Church can be a very good thing. The life of the Church is enriched by a certain kind of diversity in cultural expression, pastoral approach, and even theological and philosophical expression of the faith. Yet pluralism is legitimate only if it involves diverse expressions of the one faith as definitively interpreted by the teaching authority of the Church over the centuries.

Today, calls for ‘pluralism’ are often pleas to abandon the one faith. Many of those who work for the ‘pluralistic’ Church of the future, in contrast to the ‘monolithic’ Church of the past, are actually working for the destruction of the Church and any meaningful measure of unity of faith. Pope Paul VI called this kind of indiscriminate pluralism, the kind that lacks any clear criteria, ‘corroding and ambiguous.’ It is indeed at work in the Church today.

Often an uncritical pluralism is combined with a conception of the pastoral leader as someone who is a ‘unifier.’ Of course, those responsible for families, parishes, and other segments of God’s people need to work to unify their people. But they should not achieve unity at just any price. The unity appropriate to God’s people is a unity based on a common adherence to Christian truth and the person of Christ. Saying ‘yes’ to the teaching of the Church in areas of faith and morals is to say ‘no’ to those who undermine and challenge them. Unity is based on truth. Yet many pastoral leaders today are presiding over a ‘unity’ which contains contradictory elements, a ‘unity’ which includes both acceptance and rejection of Christ, His Word, and the teaching of the Church. To tolerate the corruption of Christian truth in the name of unity or pluralism is to make a mockery of the genuine function and role of pastoral authority. It is, in fact, to preside over that corroding of Christian faith which Paul VI warned about.

Sometimes such corroding pluralism is tolerated because of a muddled or vague understanding of the wheat and the tares parable and other scripture passages that talk of problems within the Church. In this connection it is frequently said that: ‘The Catholic Church is a church of sinners, a broad church that includes everybody; it is not a sect.’ Besides often incorporating an imprecise and often incoherent use of the sociological categories of ‘church’ and ‘sect,’ such formulations are, more seriously, based on a misinterpretation of such scripture passages. The point of such passages is often to describe actual or future situations that can never be remedied simply by human effort, but can ultimately only be fully resolved by an action of God himself. The point of such passages though is not to counsel the advocacy of a lukewarm, passive, indifferent vision of Church life, in which the corruption of Christian truth and God’s people is benignly presided over.

Such false applications of the parable have been common previously in Church history to justify a distorted approach to Church life, and St. Augustine addressed this situation squarely:

‘In answer to these persons I would say, first of all, that in reading the testimonies of Sacred Scripture which indicate that there is presently, or foretell that there will be in the future, a mingling of good and evil persons in the Church, anyone who understands these testimonies in such a way that he supposes the diligence and severity of discipline ought to be relaxed altogether and be omitted is not taught by those same writings but is deceived by his own conjecture. The fact that Moses, the servant of God, bore most patiently that mixture of good and evil among the chosen people did not prevent him from punishing many, even with the sword….In our times, when the sword has ceased to be visible in the discipline of the Church, what must be done is pointed out by degradations and excommunications.’” (A Crisis of Truth, citing St. Augustine, “Faith and Works,” 1737a).

The Council of Trent teaches definitively that the Gospel is the source of all saving truth and authentic moral teaching. As Catholics we are not called to “remain silent” about the Gospel in the name of “pluralism.” We are called, as Dei Verbum of the Second Vatican Council reminds us, “..to hold fast to the traditions” which we “have learned either by word of mouth or by letter (cf. 2 Thes 2:15), and to fight in defense of the faith handed on once and for all (cf. Jude 1:3)…” (Dei Verbum, No. 8).

Read More

Pope Benedict XVI: Sexual abuse of children remains a mystery

In a recorded message to mark the end of the Eucharistic Congress in Dublin, Ireland, Pope Benedict XVI said that some members of the religious orders in Ireland had "abused people and undermined the credibility of the Church's message."  Reflecting upon the sins committed by priests and consecrated religious, the Holy Father asked, "How are we to explain the fact that people who regularly received the Lord's Body and confessed their sins in the Sacrament of Penance have offended in this way?...It remains a mystery."  See here.

It is a mystery and at the same time it isn't.


The sexual abuse crisis which exploded throughout the Catholic Church in Ireland [and elsewhere] has its origin in a Culture of Dissent. For, as Father Vincent Miceli has reminded us, "falsity is the heart of immorality." Betrayal arises in man's heart and is soon manifested in his actions which often culminate in criminal violence. But, as Fr. Miceli lamented, "while we are all aware of the tremendous role of violence in the unfolding history of human events...what is not realized is that the apparent arbitrariness of and haphazardness of violence can be and ought to be seriously and precisely analyzed from the philosophical and theological point of view." (Essay entitled "The Taproot of Violence").

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Holy Father knows this. In fact, the Visitation Report into the Church in Ireland, which he ordered, the full text of which may be found here, says "It must be stressed that dissent from the fundamental teachings of the Church is not the authentic path towards renewal."

The Holy Father is, of course, absolutely correct in saying that such evil is still a mystery, what St. Paul referred to as the "mystery of iniquity."  But at the same time it may be said with absolute certainty that falsity is the heart of immorality.  That a culture of dissent - betrayal in man's heart - soon found its culmination in criminal violence.

Related reading here.

Read More

Father Joseph Jurgelonis, Sister Joyce Rupp and God's Will

As I mentioned in a previous post, back in 2004, while accepting the "U.S. Catholic Award," angry feminist and New Age advocate Sister Joyce Rupp lapsed into a hate-filled rant against the Church and her hierarchy while promoting the concept of Yin and Yang and complaining that women are abused within the Catholic Church because they cannot be ordained to the priesthood.

 Rupp asserted that, "Many women in the Roman Catholic Church are in immense pain because of how women are treated by this church, particularly by the hierarchy and other ordained clergy. I once told the late Bishop Kenneth Untener that I felt like I had 'just one little toe in the church.' He responded with a twinkle in his eye: 'Keep it there.' I have, but I also understand the throng of women who have left the church because of such things as the continued arrogant use of exclusive language and the constant refusal to recognize the fullness of their gifts in church ministry."


Rupp may have kept her little toe in the Church. But in her heart and mind, she has left the Church. She speaks often about "compassion," but her words and actions have betrayed the fact that she has not persevered in charity. And as Lumen Gentium of the Second Vatican Council reminded us, "He is not saved..who, though part of the body of the Church, does not persevere in charity. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but, as it were, only in a 'bodily' manner and not 'in his heart.' All of the Church's children should remember that their exalted status is to be attributed not to their own merits but to the special grace of Christ. If they fail, moreover, to respond to that grace in thought, word and deed, not only shall they not be saved but they will be the more severely judged." (Lumen Gentium, No. 14).

Can a person honestly be said to be "persevering in charity" within the Church if they attack the Lord Jesus by attacking His faithful Pastors? Of course not. And we shouldn't lie by suggesting otherwise.

During her hate speech against the Church founded by Christ, Rupp insisted that, "Women suffer a lot because of the church" and asserted that, "..it's not just the ordination issue that drives women away...Women are not cows to be herded back into pens; they are not hens to be shooed away from the altar. It's this attitude of sneering domination and the obvious lack of respect for their individual worth that causes such immense angst in Catholic women today. I am very disappointed with the recent church document on women. I am saddened because it blames feminists for 'the lethal effects in the structure of the family.' Once again women are being blamed for society's failures. I am offended by the way this document pushes the power issue off onto women when the official church has, time and again, used power abusively to silence those longing for dialogue and has threatened into conformity those who dare to question doctrinal ultimatums.

Obviously someone forgot to inform Rupp that, "..the task of authentically interpreting the Word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church." (Dei Verbum, No. 10 of the Second Vatican Council).

Even though Sister Rupp has engaged in dissent from the Church's authoritative teaching for many years while promoting New Age concepts, many parishes across the Worcester Diocese continue to promote her upcoming  day-long retreat at St. Anne's Parish Hall in Shrewsbury.  One such parish is Holy Cross in Templeton.  This morning the "pastor," Father Joseph Jurgelonis, included in his Mass intentions the following: that all Catholics grow in unity in accord with God's Will.  This as he promotes Sister Rupp's day-long retreat in the parish bulletin and with a flyer on the bulletin board.


How is such unity to be achieved by promoting dissent or those who engage in such dissent? It should come as no surprise to any of us (unless of course you're a priest of the Worcester Diocese), that dissent within the Church leads to polarization and undermines truth which is the principle of the Church’s communion. In its Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian, No. 40, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith said that, “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.”

The warning of Pope Paul VI, given during his Homily at Holy Thursday Mass on April 3, 1969, has been largely ignored: "There is talk of renewal in the doctrine and in the conscience of the Church of God; but how can the living and true Church be authentic and persistent if the complex structure that forms it and defines it a spiritual and social 'mystical body', is today so often and so gravely corroded by dissent and challenge and by forgetfulness of its hierarchical structure, and is countered in its divine and indispensable constituent charism, its pastoral authority? How can it claim to be a Church, that is a united people, even though locally broken up and historically and legitimately diversified, when a practically schismatic ferment is dividing it, subdividing it and breaking it into groups which are more than anything else zealous for arbitrary and fundamentally egoistical autonomy, masked by Christian pluralism or liberty of conscience?"

Hypocrisy is pretending to be good or virtuous in order to get something we want or to advance our own personal agenda.  It includes deception and the willingness to manipulate others.  Cicero says that, "No type of injustice is more glaring than that of the hypocrite who, in the very instant of being most false, makes the pretense of appearing virtuous." (On Moral Obligation, Bk. 1, ch. 13).

Any priest who preaches on the importance of unity, charity and communion while promoting Sister Joyce Rupp, knowing about her New Age beliefs and her dissent from Church teaching, is engaging in hypocrisy.  Father Jurgelonis was notified several weeks ago about Joyce Rupp's troubling views.  And he has chosen to promote her anyway.

This represents a real tragedy.  Especially considering today's reading from 2 Corinthians 5: 6-10:

"Therefore, we continue to be confident.  We know that while we dwell in the body we are away from the Lord.  We walk by faith, not by sight.  I repeat, we are full of confidence and would much rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord.  This being so, we make it our aim to please him whether we are with him or away from him.  The lives of all of us are to be revealed before the tribunal of Christ so that each one may receive his recompense, good or bad, according to his life in the body."

Do we honestly believe that we please the Lord Jesus by railing against His Church?  Our Lord told His Disciples (the Pastors of the Church): "He who hears you, hears Me."  Can we honestly say that Sister Joyce Rupp, who ridicules the Church's authoritative teaching and her living teaching authority, is pleasing to the Lord?  If not, how can we promote her or her works?  Do we wish to share in the recompense which she will receive for her disobedience?

Read More

Pro-life Catholic school bus firebombed

It really comes as no surprise that supporters of demonic abortion would resort to firebombing a pro-life Catholic school bus.  Fr. Vincent Miceli has said that, "...violence entered creation from the rebellion of Lucifer. This rebellion arose from the heart of pride. But the sin of pride is the offspring of the vice known as hatred of truth. Hatred of truth is the result of the creature's attempt to rearrange God's hierarchy of beings and values into an order which the creature prefers to the plan of God. This attempt immediately produces the violence of disorder, the chaos of falsity and immorality. For hatred of truth is really hatred of God who creates all things wisely and governs them lovingly. Lucifer, the Morning Star, was instantly deformed into the Prince of Darkness because he attempted to live a lie. He wanted to dethrone God and become God himself..."


We live in an environment where there is a "violence of disorder" because we have abandoned truth. And hatred of truth leads to violence. It is the very root of violence. Jesus said to the Pharisees, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I proceeded and came forth from God; I came not of my own account, but he sent me. Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies. But, because I tell the truth, you do not believe me." (John 8: 42-45).

It is rejection of truth which leads to violence. And so we read in verse 59 of the same Chapter, "So they took up stones to throw at him; but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple." If there is exaggerated rhetoric and violence across our society, it is because many have rejected God's created order. But there is a consequence to this rejection of truth. As Dorothy Sayers reminded us, if we will not have Christ, we will have chaos.

Read More

Thanks to Lawrence v. Texas, bestiality will soon be justified

I've been warning for years that the acceptance of sodomy would lead inevitably to the acceptance of bestiality as well. For example, back in December of 2010, I noted that according to Venerable Bartholomew Holzhauser, just prior to the Reign of Antichrist, "...there will be laxity in divine and human precepts. Discipline will suffer. The Holy Canons will be completely disregarded, and the clergy will not respect the law of the Church. Everyone will be carried away and led to believe and to do what he fancies, according to the manner of the flesh. They will ridicule Christian simplicity ; they will call it folly and nonsense, but they will have the highest regard for advanced knowledge...As a result no principle at all- however holy, authentic, ancient, and certain it may be, will remain free of censure, criticism, false interpretations, modifications, and delimitation by man.


These are evil times a century full of dangers and calamities. Heresy is everywhere, and the followers of heresy are in power, almost everywhere. Bishops, prelates, and priests say that they are doing their duty, that they are vigilant and that they live as befits their state of life. In like manner therefore they all seek excuses. But God will permit a great evil against His Church; Heretics and tyrants will come suddenly and unexpectedly; they will break into the Church while Bishops prelates and priests are asleep. They will enter Italy and lay Rome waste; they will burn down the churches and destroy everything."

And I asserted that:

The Reign of Antichrist will witness a celebration of sin and perversion the likes of which few can imagine. Pleasure is the new principle par excellence. If pleasure can justify homosexual behavior (and increasingly that is what our sin-sick society is saying), then other deviant forms of sexual activity which are viewed as pleasurable by some will also be logically justified. This will include pedophilia, pederasty, ephebophilia, gerontophilia, necrophilia, sadism, masochism and bestiality."

Cody Beck, who is sexually attracted to dogs and horses, complains that being a "zoophile" in modern American society is "like being gay in the 1950s.  You feel like you have to hide, that if you say it out loud, people will look at you like a freak."

Beck believes that he and other members of this minority sexual orientation  can, and should, follow in the footsteps of the homosexual movement.  He hopes that this minority group can begin appealing to the "open-minded" for acceptance.  See here.  The push for societal acceptance of bestiality will undoubtedly intensify.  Some have already tested the waters as it were. 

Back in the 1970s, the Archdiocese of Boston knew that one of its priests, Fr. Paul Shanley, spoke in favor of sex between men and boys at a 1979 meeting which led to the founding of NAMBLA, a national group advocating the practice.  The Archdiocese was also informed (in 1977),  that during a meeting about homosexuality, Shanley said that he could "think of no sexual act that causes psychic damage - 'not even incest or bestiality.'" See here.

It is only a matter of time before all state laws banning evils such as adultery, prostitution, incest, bigamy, sadomasochism, pedophilia and bestiality are struck down.  Why?  Because in Lawrence v. Texas, the United States Supreme Court created the legal framework for the complete and utter destruction of those legal constructs of every state which safeguard public morality.  Lawrence v. Texas essentially said that there is no morality and that "liberty presumes an autonomy of self."

By contrast, Pope Leo XIII, in his Encyclical Letter Libertas Humana, said that:

"Liberty, the highest of natural endowments, being the portion only of intellectual or rational natures, confers on man this dignity - that he is 'in the hand of his counsel' [see Ecclus 15: 14] and has power over his actions.  But the manner in which such dignity is exercised is of the greatest moment, inasmuch as on the use that is made of liberty the highest good and the greatest evil alike depend.  Man, indeed, is free to obey his reason, to seek moral good, and to strive unswervingly after his last end.  Yet he is free also to turn aside to all other things; and, in pursuing the empty semblance of good, to disturb rightful order and to fall headlong into the destruction which he has voluntarily chosen...

Therefore, the nature of human liberty, however it be considered, whether in individuals or in society, whether in those who command or in those who obey, supposes the necessity of obedience to some supreme and eternal law, which is no other than the authority of God, commanding good and forbidding evil.  And, so far from this most just authority of God over men diminishing, or even destroying their liberty, it protects and perfects it, for the real perfection of all creatures is found in the prosecution and attainment of their respective ends, but the supreme end to which human liberty must aspire is God."

Read More

Do those who produce The Catholic Free Press really understand the gravity of child sexual abuse?

Just how serious is the sin of scandal when committed by a priest? St. Alphonsus De Liguori, a Doctor of the Church and a moral theologian, explains that, "The Lord ordained in Leviticus that for the sin of a single priest a calf should be offered, as well as for the sins of the entire people. From this Innocent III concludes that the sin of a priest is as grievous as the sins of the whole people. The reason is, says the Pontiff, that by his sin the priest leads the entire people into sin ('Unde conjicitur quod peccatum Sacerdotis totius multitudinis peccato coaequatur, quia Sacerdos in suo peccato totam fecit delinquere multitudinem' - In Consecr. Pont. s. I.)

And, long before, the Lord himself said the same: 'If the priest that is anointed shall sin, he maketh the people to offend.' Hence, St. Augustine, addressing priests, says, 'Do not close heaven: but this you do if you give to others a bad example to lead a wicked life.' Our Lord said one day to St. Bridget, that when sinners see the bad example of the priest, they are encouraged to commit sin, and even begin to glory in the vices of which they were before ashamed. Hence our Lord added that worse maledictions shall fall on the priest than on others, because by his sinful life he brings himself and others to perdition.'...says St. John Chrysostom, the life of the priest is the root from which the people, who are the branches, receive nutriment.

St. Ambrose also says that priests are the head from which virtue flows to the members, that is, to seculars. The whole head is sick, says the Prophet Isaias;...from the sole of the foot unto the top of the head there is no soundness therein. St. Isidore explains this passage in the following words: 'This languishing head is the priest that commits sin, and that communicates his sin to the whole body.' St. Leo weeps over this evil, saying, 'How can health be found in the body if the head be not sound?' Who, says St. Bernard, shall seek in a sink the limpid water of the spring? Shall I, adds the saint, seek counsel from the man that knows not how to give counsel to himself? Speaking of the bad example of princes, Plutarch says, that it poisons not a single cup, but the public fountain; and thus, because all draw from the fountain, all are poisoned. This may be said with greater truth of the bad example of priests; hence Eugene III has said that bad Superiors are the principal causes of the sins of inferiors...St. Bernardine of Sienna writes that many, seeing the bad example of the scandalous ecclesiastic, begin even to waver in faith, and thus abandon themselves to vice, despising the sacraments, hell, and heaven." (St. Alphonsus De Liguori, Dignity and Duties of the Priest, pp. 142-144, 149).


In recent posts, I have examined how Father Jonathan Joseph Slavinskas has had nothing but praise for the late Father Joseph Coonan, whose ministry was tarred with scandal.  Specifically, Father Slavinskas said that Fr. Coonan was a "great influence" who helped "nourish" his vocation.  This praise for a priest credibly accused of abusing children was published in The "Catholic" Free Press.  See my posts here and here.

What does this suggest about the Worcester Diocese and most especially its official newspaper?  Is there really an appreciation at the diocesan level as to the seriousness of child abuse?  Such would not appear to be the case.

Meanwhile, another of Fr. Slavinskas' sisters has left comments at this Blog singing the praises of Fr. Joseph Coonan, even though the Worcester Diocese removed him from ministry years ago because the accusations against him were found to be credible.  Beth Slavinskas left three comments.  In these comments, she asserts that, "Father Coonan was a great priest who revitalized a lot of youths faith in the Catholic Church."  And she adds, "I am saying that Fr. Coonan's time at Saint John's was positive."

Positive?  For whom?  As Dr. Germain Grisez reminds us, "In a loose sense, scandal refers to bad publicity; in the strict sense, it refers to leading others into sin (see CCC, 2284-2287).  Jesus warns: 'If any of you put a stumbling block before one of these little ones who believe in me, it would be better for you if a great millstone were hung around your neck and you were thrown into the sea' (Mk 9: 42; Mt 18: 6; Lk 17: 1-2). Since clerical sexual abuse not only injures its victims as sexual abuse always does but poses a threat and obstacle to their and others' faith, the Church is injured far more by its scandalousness in this strict sense than she is by bad publicity about it."


What do you think: Do those who produce the "Catholic" Free Press really understand the gravity of child sexual abuse?  If so, why would they publish comments praising a disgraced priest who was removed from ministry because the accusations that he abused children were found to be credible?  The photo below is that of Fr. Jonathan Joseph Slavinskas.

Read More

Bill Tammeus and the National "Catholic" Reporter: Dogma stands in the way of our relationship with Christ Jesus

There is an all out assault on dogma in our modern world.  And I've been documenting that fact at this Blog for years.  Bill Tammeus, a Presbyterian elder and former columnist for The Kansas City Star, isn't too crazy about dogma either.  Writing for the National Catholic Reporter online, Mr. Tammeus complains, "Ultimately, truth in Christianity is not a doctrine, not a dogma, not a creed, not a papal bull, not what's said in a sermon, not even the words in the Bible.  Rather, truth in Christianity is a person, Christ Jesus...We prefer to nail down our truths, to measure our reality in meters and pounds, light years and ohms.  But when we do that, we miss the scenery and the breath-taking cosmos found along the path of those meters and light years, the complexity of life that makes up those pounds, the power and light resulting from those ohms.  In Christian terms, we miss the living Lord."

What of this?  Does dogma really stand in the way of our relationship with Christ Jesus?  Do we really "miss the scenery" in our spiritual journey when we embrace dogmas?  The Catechism of the Catholic Church tells us that, "The Church's Magisterium exercises the authority it holds from Christ to the fullest extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes, in a form obliging the Christian people to an irrevocable adherence of faith, truths contained in divine Revelation or also when it proposes, in a definitive way, truths having a necessary connection with these." (CCC, 88).


In his book entitled The Electronic Christian, Archbishop Fulton John Sheen so eloquently warned that, "The modern man must decide for himself whether he is going to have a religion with thought or a religion without it. He already knows that thoughtless policies lead to the ruin of society, and he may begin to suspect that thoughtless religion ends in confusion worse confounded.


The problem is simple. The modern man has two maps before him: one the map of sentimental religion, the other the map of dogmatic religion. The first is very simple. It has been constructed only in the last few years by a topographer who has just gone into the business of map making and is extremely adverse to explicit directions. He believes that each man should find his own way and not have his liberty taken away by dogmatic directions. The other map is much more complicated and full of dogmatic detail. It has been made by topographers who have been over every inch of the road for centuries and know each detour and each pitfall. It has explicit directions and dogmas such as, 'Do not take this road - it is swampy,' or 'Follow this road; although rough and rocky at first, it leads to a smooth road on a mountaintop.'

The simple map is very easy to read, but those who are guided by it are generally lost in a swamp of mushy sentimentalism. The other map takes a little more scrutiny, but it is simpler in the end, for it takes you up through the rocky road of the world's scorn to the everlasting hills where is seated the original Map Maker, the only One who ever has associated rest with learning: 'Learn of Me...and you shall find rest for your souls.'

Every new coherent doctrine and dogma add to the pabulum for thought; it is an extra bit of garden upon which we can intellectually browse; it is new food into which we can put our teeth and thence absorb nourishment; it is the discovery of a new intellectual planet that adds fullness and spaciousness to our mental world. And simply because it is solid and weighty, because it is dogmatic and not gaseous and foggy like a sentiment, it is intellectually invigorating, for it is with weights that the best drill is done, and not with feathers.

It is the very nature of a man to generate children of his brain in the shape of thoughts, and as he piles up thought on thought, truth on truth, doctrine on doctrine, conviction on conviction, and dogma on dogma, a very coherent and orderly fashion, so as to produce a system complex as a body and yet one and harmonious, the more and more human he becomes. When, however, in response to false cries for progress, he lops off dogmas, breaks with the memory of his forefathers, denies intellectual parentage, pleads for a religion without dogmas, substitutes mistiness for mystery, mistakes sentiment for sediment, he is sinking back slowly, surely, and inevitably into the senselessness of stones and into the irresponsible unconsciousness of weeds. Grass is broad-minded. Cabbages have heads - but no dogmas." (pp. 74-75).

The dogma is the drama as Dorothy Sayers reminded us.  We have two roads before us: Creed or Chaos.  And I think we all know which road the National Catholic Reporter and the LCWR have chosen.

Read More

Pope Leo XIII and Cardinal Stefan Wyszynski warned of false brethren

Rita Biesemans, in a comment left at my last post dealing with masonic infiltration of the Catholic Church, had this to say: "When I was in 2nd year High School Latin-Greek Humanities in a nun-run boarding school in the 1950's, we had the 'Spekpater' (the "Bacon Priest") preaching during one of our yearly retreat weeks. One day he told us : 'For know that there are priests being trained and formed at the KRIM (Russia) to infiltrate the Church, to spread false teachings in order to corrupt and ruin the Church.' This made such an impact and impression on my soul that I will never forget it."

Anatoliy Golitsyn, the former KGB officer and counterintelligence agent, in his book entitled "The Perestroika Deception," warned that: "They [the Soviets] intend...to induce the Americans to adopt their own 'restructuring' and convergence of the Soviet and American systems using to this end the fear of nuclear conflict...Convergence will be accompanied by blood baths and political re-education camps in Western Europe and the United States. The Soviet Strategists are counting on an economic depression in the United States and intend to introduce their reformed model of socialism with a human face as an alternative to the American system during the depression." (Anatoliy Golitsyn, The Perestroika Deception, 1990).


Golitsyn defected to the West and spent many years attempting to warn the West of long-range Soviet plans.  In 1954, H. Rowan Gaither, who served as President of the Ford Foundation, told Norman Dodd of the Congressional Reese Commission that, "...all of us here at the policy-making level have had experience with directives...from the White House....The substance of them is that we shall use our grant-making power so as to alter our life in the United States that we can be comfortably merged with the Soviet Union."

Now, some of you might be thinking: What is the connection?  There is a fundamental opposition of Communist principles to those of Freemasonry.  The Freemason believes in man but the Communist believes only in the Party, in the State.

Not so according to the Vatican.  Pope Leo XIII, in his Encyclical Letter Humanum Genus, teaches that:

"In the sphere of politics, the Naturalists lay down that all men have the same rights and that all are equal and alike in every respect; that everyone is by nature free and independent; that no one has the right to exercise authority over another; that it is an act of violence to demand of men obedience to any authority not emanating from themselves.  All power is, therefore, in the free people.  Those who exercise authority do so either by the mandate or permission of the people, so that, when the popular will changes, rulers of State may lawfully be deposed even against their will.  The source of all rights and civic duties is held to reside either in the multitude or in the ruling power of the State, provided that it has been constituted according to the new principles.  They hold also that the State should not acknowledge God and that, out of the various forms of religion, there is no reason why one should be preferred to another.  According to them, all should be on the same level. [This is why the Creed will eventually have to go, see my last post]."

Pope Leo XIII continues:

"Now, that these views are held by the Freemasons also, and that they want to set up States constituted according to this ideal, is too well known to be in need of proof.   For a long time they have been openly striving with all their strength and with all the resources at their command to bring this about.  They thus prepare the way for those numerous and more reckless spirits who, in their mad desire to arrive at equality and common ownership of goods, are ready to hurl society into an even worse condition, by the destruction of all distinctions of rank and property....In thi mad and wicked design, the implacable hatred and thirst for vengeance with which Satan is animated against Our Lord Jesus Christ becomes almost visible to our bodily eyes."

Later on, in the same Encyclical Letter, Pope Leo XIII adds:

"From the anti-social character of the errors we have mentioned, it is clear that the greatest dangers are to be feared for States.  For once the fear of God and the reverence due to His laws have been taken away, the authority of rulers treated with contempt, free reign and approval given to sedition, popular passions recklessly fanned, and all restraining influences eliminated except the fear of punishment, then there will necessarily follow a revolutionary upheaval and a period of wholesale destruction of existing institutions...A complete change and upheaval of this kind is being carefully prepared by numerous associations of Communists and Socialists, in fact, it is their openly avowed aim; and Freemasonry is not only not opposed to their plans, but looks upon them with the greatest favour, as its leading principles are identical with theirs.  If the Freemasons do not immediately and everywhere proceed to realise the ultimate conclusions contained in these principles, this is not because they are restrained by the discipline of the organization or by lack of determination, but partly on account of the power and virtue of that divine religion which cannot be crushed out of existence, and partly because the more balanced part of mankind are unwilling to sink into slavery under the domination of secret societies, and offer vigorous resistance to their insane endeavours."

This is why ecclesiastical masonry has infiltrated the Church.  The Church cannot be destroyed from without.  External persecution only serves to make her stronger.  The blood of martyrs is the seed of the Church as Tertullian reminded us.  Ecclesiastical masonry is Freemasonry which has infiltrated the Church with the goal of subverting her from within by questioning all traditional doctrines and remaking the Church into the image and likeness of man.

It was Cardinal Stefan Wyszynski who warned, back in June of 1963, that "It is not the Communists whom we fear.  What fills us with anguish is the spectacle of false brethren."  Here the great Cardinal was warning of those modern-day Judases who, instead of openly attacking the Church, seek to infiltrate and penetrate her in order to introduce and impose humanitarian, naturalistic and anti-traditional ideas.

Read More