"If acts are intrinsically evil, particular circumstances can diminish their evil but cannot remove it." Does Pope Francis accept this truth?

The Holy Spirit assures us, through the Apostle St. Paul, that Christ is the head of the body which is the Church, while we are the members that suffer together and rejoice together: "If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honoured, all rejoice together." (1 Corinthians 12: 26).

Which makes it all the more disturbing that Pope Francis, before his election to the Chair of Peter, asserted that private homosexual unions do not affect third parties or society in general.  The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains that, "..In the sanctorum communio, 'None of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself.'  'If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together.  Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it.'  'Charity does not insist on its own way.'  In this solidarity with all men, living or dead, which is founded on the communion of saints, the least of our acts done in charity redounds to the profit of all.  Every sin harms this communion." (CCC, 953).

Paragraph 817 of the Catechism assures us that "ruptures that wound the unity of Christ's Body...do not occur without human sin."  And "private" homosexual unions do not affect third parties?  God preserve us from such nonsense!

Granted that when an evil act, such as a homosexual act, is done in public, the resulting scandal compounds its intrinsic evil.  But an intrinsically evil act does not become good or neutral simply because it is performed in private.  The evil nature of the act remains unchanged.  Pope John Paul II, in his Encyclical Letter Veritatis Splendor, explains that, "If acts are intrinsically evil, a good intention or particular circumstances can diminish their evil, but they cannot remove it.  They remain 'irremediably' evil acts per se and in themselves they are not capable of being ordered to God and to the good of the person." (No. 81).

Pope John Paul II insists that, "No damage must be done to the harmony between faith and life: the unity of the Church is damaged not only by Christians who reject or distort the truths of faith but also by those who disregard the moral obligations to which they are called by the Gospel (cf. 1 Cor 5: 9-13).  The Apostles decisively rejected any separation between the commitment of the heart and the actions which express or prove it (cf. 1 John 2: 3-6).  And ever since Apostolic times the Church's Pastors have unambiguously condemned the behavior of those who fostered division by their teaching or by their actions." (Veritatis Splendor, No. 26).

Read More

Stacy Trasancos and the sign of the cross...

Stacy Trasancos rightly observes that, "The sign of the cross is the sacramental seal that marks the forehead of those who belong to Christ" while noting that the early Church Fathers "knew the seal brings protection against demons." ("The gift of the 'sphragis,'" The Catholic Free Press, June 14, 2013 edition).

It is true that the sign of the cross "strengthens us in temptations and difficulties" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2157).  But this sacramental does not automatically bring protection against demons as some sort of ersatz magical wand against the diabolical.

Sacramentals are sacred signs, whether objects such as scapulars or medals or holy water, or actions such as the sign of the cross, whose effects are obtained by the prayer of the Church (Canon 1166).  Unlike the sacraments, which were instituted by Christ and which effect grace by virtue of themselves, sacramentals are instituted by the Church and impart grace according to the disposition of the recipients and the intercession of the Church.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches us that, "Sacramentals do not confer the grace of the Holy Spirit in the way that the sacraments do, but by the Church's prayer, they prepare us to receive grace and dispose us to cooperate with it.  'For well-disposed members of the faithful, the liturgy of the sacraments and sacramentals sanctifies almost every event of their lives with the divine grace which flows from the Paschal mystery of the Passion, Death, and Resurrection of Christ.  From this source all sacraments and sacramentals draw their power..'" (CCC, 1670, citing Sacrosanctum concilium, No. 61).

As Christians we are more than conquerors through the shed Blood of Jesus Christ (Romans 8: 37-39).  The Lord Jesus gives His people who are faithful to Him (are well-disposed) the power and authority over demonic forces.  But if one is not living an authentically Catholic life - avoiding mortal sin while making use of the sacraments of the Church (including the sacrament of reconciliation), daily prayer and Scripture reading, one can make the sign of the cross and it surely will not serve as a seal which brings protection against demons.

I knew a woman who made frequent use of the sign of the cross while serving as an Extraordinary Minister of the Eucharist at Saint Joseph's Parish in Gardner, Massachusetts.  Unfortunately, this woman also promoted abortion and pro-abortion politicians such as John Olver while engaging in sexual intercourse outside of marriage and making no secret of it.

Sacramentals are most helpful to us in the spiritual life if we are living an authentically Catholic life and are well-disposed to receiving grace from Christ and His Church.  Otherwise, we use them in vain.

Read More

The New York Times gets it wrong again

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read More

Lesbian demands that her children's Catholic school remove Catechism quote on homosexuality

Ann Michelle Tesluk, a lesbian whose children attend a Catholic school, is demanding that the school, which is located in Peterborough, Ontario, remove a Catechism quote from a pamphlet because it refers to the homosexual inclination as "objectively disordered."  See here.

I wrote a series of posts after the Archdiocese of Boston announced a new policy which says that Catholic schools can partner with homosexual parents.  I reminded His Eminence Sean Cardinal O'Malley that, in its Declaration on Christian Education (Gravissimum Educationis), No. 3, the Vatican II Fathers explained that parents "must be recognized as the primary and principal educators" of their children and that, "This role in education is so important that only with difficulty can it be supplied where it is lacking. Parents are the ones who must create a family atmosphere animated by love and respect for God and man, in which the well-rounded personal and social education of children is fostered."

And I added, "But parents who are living in a same-sex relationship cannot create that 'family atmosphere animated by love and respect for God and man' in which 'the well-rounded personal and social education of children is fostered.' The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in its document entitled Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons, has said that adoption of children by homosexuals 'would actually mean doing violence to these children,' and that their situation of dependence would place them 'in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development.' (No. 7).

And then I wrote:  "Can Catholic schools partner with homosexual or lesbian parents? In a word, no. Archbishop Charles Chaput has already addressed this fact in a statement issued earlier this year. The Catholic school must strive to ensure that the environment in which a child lives as he or she is being formed as a human being corresponds to the end of Catholic education. And what is that end? Vatican II teaches clearly that, "A Christian education...has as its principal purpose this goal: that the baptized, while they are gradually introduced to the knowledge of the mystery of salvation, become ever more aware of the gift of faith they have received, and that they learn in addition how to worship God the Father in spirit and truth (cf. Jn 4:23) especially in liturgical action, and be conformed in their personal lives according to the new man created in justice and holiness of truth (Eph 4:22-24); also that they develop into perfect manhood, to the mature measure of the fullness of Christ (cf. Eph 4:13).."

How important is it that a Catholic school strive to ensure that a child's environment corresponds to the end of a Catholic education? Pope Pius XI provides us with an answer, "In order to obtain perfect education, it is of the utmost importance to see that all those conditions which surround the child during the period of his formation, in other words that the combination of circumstances which we call environment, correspond exactly to the end proposed." (Encyclical Letter Divini Illius Magistri, No. 70).

Pope Pius XI continues, "The first natural and necessary element in this environment, as regards education, is the family, and this precisely because so ordained by the Creator Himself. Accordingly that education, as a rule, will be more effective and lasting which is received in a well-ordered and well-disciplined Christian family; and more efficacious in proportion to the clear and constant good example set, first by parents, and then by other members of the household." (No. 71). The full Encyclical may be found here.

Same-sex parents are not equipped to provide that "well-ordered and well-disciplined Christian family" necessary for the effective reception of Christian education. Not to mention the conditions required for the normal development of the child. See here for example.

In one post from January of 2011, I addressed Cardinal O'Malley writing, "Our Lord Jesus spoke in the sixth chapter of Matthew, verse 24: 'No one can serve two masters; for he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.' Now, mammon can represent either money or any other created thing which stands in the way of a total commitment to the Lord Jesus....My question: By allowing children of homosexual households into Catholic schools, are you not thereby inviting violence and disorder? After all, how can these children be expected to serve two masters? Will they not come to hate the one and love the other? Will they not be devoted to one while despising the other? Either these children will come to fully embrace Catholic teaching and thereby be set in opposition to their parents illicit sexual behavior, or [and this is the far more likely scenario given that children tend to love their parents or guardians], they will come to despise the Church while condoning intrinsically disordered behavior which have they grown accustom to being exposed to."

No man can serve two masters.  He will hate the one and love the other.  He will be devoted to the one and despise the other.  Violence and disorder have been introduced into those Catholic schools and school districts which believe they can partner with homosexual parents.  Just as I warned.

But then, my patron Saint - for whom I was named - said it best under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit some 2,000 years ago: "Do not be yoked with those who are different, with unbelievers.  For what partnership do rightousness and lawlessness have? Or what fellowship does light have with darkness.  What accord has Christ with Belial?  Or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever?" (2 Corinthians 6: 14, 15).

God's Holy Word assures us that rightousness cannot partner with lawlessness.  And homosexual parents who are not committed toward living chaste lives or who reject the teaching of the Lord Jesus through His Church are not committed to righteousness but rather lawlessness.

Read More

Steve Jobs on dogma...

Our Lady told Father Gobbi on July 4, 1986 that, "In the darkness which has come down upon the world and is spreading throughout the Church, how many minds are becoming obscured by errors and dried up by the ever widening spread of doubts; how many intellects are being contaminated with error which leads many to become lost and to stray from the way of the true faith....If you look to my Immaculate Heart and allow yourselves to be penetrated by the ray of my light, your minds will obtain the gift of divine wisdom and will be drawn by the beauty of the truth which Jesus has revealed to you."

I am struck by how many people - Catholics included - are eulogizing Steve Jobs at the moment.  Many revere the inventor and innovator as some sort of "Tech God."  There are endless testimonials for this man.  Many of my friends on Facebook have been singing his praises.

I don't pretend to know everything about Steve Jobs.  And I have no interest in speaking ill of him.  But there is something which concerns me about his thought.  And it is this: Mr. Jobs has been widely quoted as having said: "Your time is limited, so don’t waste it living someone else’s life. Don’t be trapped by dogma – which is living with the results of other people’s thinking. Don’t let the noise of other’s opinions drown out your own inner voice. And most important, have the courage to follow your heart and intuition. They somehow already know what you truly want to become. Everything else is secondary."  See here. These words have received much play in the liberal mainstream media. 


Now here we encounter a problem.  If Mr. Jobs had simply said, "Don't be trapped by other people's ideology," or "Think outside the box," or "Don't let others define who you are or what your goals are," I wouln't be concerned.  But he specifically used the word "dogma," which primarily refers to religious doctrine. 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 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).

How critical is dogma to one's faith life? Again the Catechism explains, "There is an organic connection between our spiritual life and the dogmas. Dogmas are lights along the path of faith; they illuminate it and make it secure. Conversely, if our life is upright, our intellect and heart will be open to welcome the light shed by the dogmas of faith." (CCC, 89).

There are many voices out there which seek to paint the Church as "rigid," "reactionary," "tradition-bound," "out-of-date," and "archaic" because she refuses to abandon divine Revelation in order to accommodate "modern man."  But the words of the Catechism are our sure guide: "if our life is upright, our intellect and heart will be open to welcome the light shed by the dogmas of faith."  And if our lives are not upright...

Read More

Is it the position of the El Paso Texas Diocese that Pope Pius X's Catechism and the Catechism of the Catholic Church are wrong in calling sodomy a sin that cries to God for vengeance?

Rev. Michael Rodriguez, pastor of Saint Juan Bautista Church in Central El Paso, has written a series of advertisements published in four parts by the El Paso Times.  These advertisements, entitled "The truth about homosexuality," denounce homosexuality and any encouragement of homosexuality.  Sounds like something any serious Catholic would fall behind right?  Unfortunately, the Diocese of El Paso insists that the advertisements do not represent the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church and that, "These paid advertisements are the personal views and opinions of Father Michael Rodriguez."  Readers of this Blog will recall that the Bishop of El Paso, Armando Ochoa, referred to Catholic teaching regarding same-sex "marriage" as "mere opinion."

In his 1910 Catechism, Pope Saint Pius X tells us that sodomy ranks second in gravity to voluntary homicide among the sins that "cry out to God for vengeance."  According to this Catechism, crafted by one of the greatest Popes of the modern era - the Pope of the Eucharist, raised to the altars of the Church - "These sins are said to cry out to God because the Holy Spirit says so and because their iniquity is so grave and manifest that it provokes God to punish with more severe chastisements."

But officials of the El Paso Diocese apparently believe that the Holy Spirit is wrong and that Pope Pius X's Catechism is mistaken.  If this is the case, then the diocese must also reject this authoritative teaching of the Catechism of the Catholic Church promulgated by His Holiness Pope John Paul II: "The catechetical tradition also recalls that there are 'sins that cry to heaven': the blood of Abel, the sin of the Sodomites, the cry of the people oppressed in Egypt, the cry of the foreigner, the widow, and the orphan, injustice to the wage earner.'" (CCC, 1867).

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in its document entitled Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons, insisted that:

"If it is true that all Catholics are obliged to oppose the legalization of homosexual unions, Catholic politicians are obliged to do so in a particular way, in keeping with their responsibility as politicians....The Catholic lawmaker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against it.  To vote in favor of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral." (No. 10).  The CDF also emphasizes in this important document that, "The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behavior or to considerations of homosexual unions." (No. 11).

It would appear that the Diocese of El Paso needs to be investigated by Rome.

Read More

"This is one truth that is necessary to recall often in these times.."

We know from Sacred Scripture that God desires all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth (1 Timothy 2:4).  But this does not mean that all men will be saved.  Only that God desires it.  Cardinal Luciani, who would become Pope John Paul I, spoke these words after visiting with Sister Lucia of the Fatima apparitions: "Hell exists, and we could fall into it. At Fatima, Our Lady taught us this prayer: “O my Jesus, forgive us, deliver us from the fire of hell, lead all souls to Heaven, especially those who are most in need.” There are important things in this world, but there is nothing more important than to merit Heaven by living well. It is not only Fatima that says so, but the Gospel: “What does it profit a man to gain the whole world and lose his own soul?” (Matthew 16:26)


Our priests are not, for the most part, speaking on Hell.  And this because many of them have lost their faith.  Some refuse to speak on Hell because they know full well that their actions merit such a punishment.  But the teaching of the Church is clear: "We cannot be united with God unless we freely choose to love him.  But we cannot love God if we sin gravely against him, against our neighbor or against ourselves: 'He who does not love remains in death.  Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.'  Our Lord warns us that we shall be separated from him if we fail to meet the serious needs of the poor and the little ones who are his brethren.  To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God's merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice.  This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called 'hell.'" (CCC, 1033).

Our Lady told Saint Jacinta, "The sins which lead the most souls to hell are sins of the flesh."  And Blessed Lucia once said, "Do not be surprised that I speak to you so much about hell.  This is one truth that is necessary to recall often in these times, because we forget that souls are falling into hell in droves."  If this truth is so necessary as Blessed Lucia said (and it is) all the more reason for our priests to speak on hell.  But there is only silence.

On July 13, 1917, Our Lady appeared to the three children at Fatima and Lucia described the event:

"She opened Her hands once more, as She had done the two previous months. The rays appeared to penetrate the earth, and we saw, as it were, a vast sea of fire. Plunged in this fire, we saw the demons and the souls. The latter were like transparent burning embers, all blackened or burnished bronze, having human forms. They were floating about in that conflagration, now raised into the air by the flames which issued from within themselves, together with great clouds of smoke. Now they fell back on every side like sparks in huge fires, without weight or equilibrium, amid shrieks and groans of pain and despair, which horrified us and made us tremble with fright (it must have been this sight which caused me to cry out, as people say they heard me).


The demons were distinguished by their terrifying and repellent likeness to frightful and unknown animals, black and transparent like burning coals. That vision only lasted for a moment, thanks to our good Heavenly Mother, Who at the first apparition had promised to take us to Heaven. Without that, I think that we would have died of terror and fear.

We then looked up at Our Lady, who said to us so kindly and so sadly: 'You have seen hell where the souls of poor sinners go. To save them, God wishes to establish in the world devotion to my Immaculate Heart.'"

Those of us who oppose the homosexual agenda within the Church are falsely accused of being "uncharitable" and "unloving."  But Saint Augustine writes, "...what God by His prophet has said of the everlasting punishment of the damned shall come to pass - shall without fail come to pass - 'their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched.' In order to impress this upon us most forcibly, the Lord Jesus Himself, when ordering us to cut off our members, meaning thereby those persons whom a man loves as the most useful members of his body, says, 'It is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched; where their worm dieth not, and their fire is not quenched.'" (City of God, p. 778, Modern Library edition).

Souls go to hell because they freely choose not to love God.  Our Lord Jesus said that if we love Him we will keep His commandments (John 14:15).  There are many today who do not want to hear this message.  And so our priests refuse to speak on hell.  This silence is damnable.  Our Lady told Fr. Stefano Gobbi of the Marian Movement of Priests that, "The cause of such a vast diffusion of errors and of this great apostasy rests with unfaithful pastors. They remain silent when they should speak with courage to condemn error and to defend the truth. They do not intervene when they should be unmasking the rapacious wolves who, hidden beneath the clothing of lambs, have insinuated themselves into the flock of Christ. They are mute dogs who allow their flocks to be torn to pieces...."

Mute dogs who allow rapacious wolves to tear their flocks to pieces.  Strong words indeed.  But true.

Read More

Diabolical disorientation: World Youth Day catechism suggests endorsement of "contraceptive methods"

On June 7, 1980, Pope John Paul II addressed a group of Indonesian Bishops. The Holy Father stressed that, "In the question of the Church's teaching on the regulation of birth we are called to profess in union with the whole Church the exigent but uplifting teaching recorded in the Encyclical Humanae vitae, which my Predecessor Paul VI put forth 'by virtue of the mandate entrusted to us by Christ' (AAS 60, 1968, p.485). Particularly in this regard we must be conscious of the fact that God's wisdom supercedes human calculation and His grace is powerful in people's lives." "Contraception is to be judged objectively so illicit," said the Pope, "that it can never, for any reason be justified."

And in his Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris consortio, on the role of the family in the modern world, Pope John Paul II said that, "When couples, by means of recourse to contraception, separate these two meanings that God the Creator has inscribed in the being of man and woman and in the dynamism of their sexual communion, they act as 'arbiters' of the Divine plan and they 'manipulate' and degrade human sexuality - and with it themselves and their married partner - by altering its value of 'total' self-giving. Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality" (n.32).

On May 30, 1983, Pope John Paul II addressed the participants in the first Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Council for the Family. Among other things he discussed the need for pastoral action to be faithful to Humanae vitae and Familiaris consortio: "It is absolutely necessary that the pastoral action of Christian communities be totally faithful to the teachings of the Encyclical Humanae vitae and the Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris consortio. It would be a grave error to set up pastoral requirements in opposition to doctrinal teaching, since the very first service that the Church must perform for people is to tell them the truth of which she is neither the author nor the master." (Osservatore Romano, June 6, 1983).

Bearing all of this in mind, why would a World Youth Day catechism suggest that "contraceptive methods" are acceptable?  Sister Lucia (of the Fatima apparitions) provides us with an answer, "the Virgin knew that these times of diabolical disorientation were to come..Let people say the Rosary every day. Our Lady stated that repeatedly in all her apparitions, as if to fortify us against these times of diabolical disorientation, so that we would not allow ourselves to be deceived by false doctrines...Unfortunately, the great majority of people are ignorant in religious matters and allow themselves to be led in any direction. Hence, the great responsibility of one who has the task of leading them....A diabolical disorientation is invading the world, deceiving souls! It must be resisted." When questioned on the content of the Third Secret of Fatima, Sister Lucia replied, "It's in the Gospel and in the Apocalypse, read them." She also confided to Father Fuentes that the Mother of God made her understand that "we are in the last times of the world."

In many parts of the world, this diabolical disorientation has so darkened minds that they are no longer capable of hearing the truth.  For such confused souls, the mind of Christ - as made known through His Church's Magisterium - is just too much to bear.  Do I exaggerate?  On May 17, 2003, Francis Cardinal Arinze, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, delivered an address at Georgetown University in which he said that:

"In many parts of the world, the family is under siege.  It is opposed by an anti-life mentality as is seen in contraception, abortion, infanticide and euthanasia.  It is scorned and banalized by pornography, desecrated by fornication and adultery, mocked by homosexuality, sabotaged by irregular unions and cut in two by divorce."

A certain segment of the audience was so upset with the reference to homosexuality that they walked out.  A professor of theology stomped off the stage in anger.  Later on, a letter protesting the Cardinal's remarks (which reflected the Church's authoritative teaching in these areas) was signed by nearly 70 faculty members.

There is diabolical disorientation.  The demon is influencing many minds.  The battle is primarily in the mind.  The Father of Lies knows that lust destroys peace of mind and causes spiritual blindness.  In his treatise on morals, Saint Alphonsus de Liguori, referring to impurity, says that through this vice, "more souls plunge into Hell, and I do not hesitate to say that all reprobates are condemned because of it, or at least not without it."

What then is the goal of the World Youth Day catechism? 

Read More

Karen Armstrong and the story of Sodom and Gomorrah

Karen Armstrong, the former Catholic nun and self-proclaimed "freelance monotheist" whose agenda to break down dogma has been praised by Father Thomas Massaro of Boston College, has written that, "We also have a more complex understanding of sexuality than the biblical writers. Yet the Bible has to be read with care. The story of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19 condemns homosexual rape and the violation of the sacred rules of hospitality rather than homosexuality per se. It has nothing to say about the open, stable gay relationships that are essentially a feature of modern western society, and did not exist in their current form in the biblical world. Again, the rules against sodomy in Leviticus 18 and 20 are not legislating for ordinary human affairs. Throughout, the authors of Leviticus are chiefly concerned with temple ritual. The practices forbidden in these chapters featured prominently in the idolatrous religions of the near east, which, as we know from the Bible, the people of Israel found extremely alluring: ritual bestiality (as practised in Egypt), child sacrifice, and the cultic use of menstrual blood in sorcery. The verses against sodomy (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13) forbid temple prostitution: in the late seventh century, there had been a house of sacred male prostitutes in God's temple in Jerusalem (2 Kings 23:7) It is this kind of worship, which defiles the land, that concerns Leviticus.

In the same spirit, St Paul's condemnation of the 'unnatural practices' of the Graeco-Roman world springs from a visceral disgust with idolatry, the root cause of all the disorders in Paul's long list (Romans 1:20-31). The Bible is not a holy encyclopedia, giving clear and unequivocal information; nor is it a legal code that can be applied indiscriminately to our very different society. Lifting isolated texts out of their literary and cultural context can only distort its message. Instead, we should look at the underlying principles of biblical religion, and apply these creatively to our own situation." See here.

Ms. Armstrong's argument has been thoroughly refuted.  As this website explains:

"The rejection of homosexual behavior that is found in the Old Testament is well known. In Genesis 19, two angels in disguise visit the city of Sodom and are offered hospitality and shelter by Lot. During the night, the men of Sodom demand that Lot hand over his guests for homosexual intercourse. Lot refuses, and the angels blind the men of Sodom. Lot and his household escape, and the town is destroyed by fire "because the outcry against its people has become great before the Lord" (Gen. 19:13).


Throughout history, Jewish and Christian scholars have recognized that one of the chief sins involved in God’s destruction of Sodom was its people’s homosexual behavior. But today, certain homosexual activists promote the idea that the sin of Sodom was merely a lack of hospitality. Although inhospitality is a sin, it is clearly the homosexual behavior of the Sodomites that is singled out for special criticism in the account of their city’s destruction. We must look to Scripture’s own interpretation of the sin of Sodom.

Jude 7 records that Sodom and Gomorrah "acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lust." Ezekiel says that Sodom committed "abominable things" (Ezek. 16:50), which could refer to homosexual and heterosexual acts of sin. Lot even offered his two virgin daughters in place of his guests, but the men of Sodom rejected the offer, preferring homosexual sex over heterosexual sex (Gen. 19:8–9). Ezekiel does allude to a lack of hospitality in saying that Sodom "did not aid the poor and needy" (Ezek. 16:49). So homosexual acts and a lack of hospitality both contributed to the destruction of Sodom, with the former being the far greater sin, the "abominable thing" that set off God’s wrath.

But the Sodom incident is not the only time the Old Testament deals with homosexuality. An explicit condemnation is found in the book of Leviticus: "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. . . . If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them" (Lev. 18:22, 20:13).

Reinterpreting Scripture


To discount this, some homosexual activists have argued that moral imperatives from the Old Testament can be dismissed since there were certain ceremonial requirements at the time—such as not eating pork, or circumcising male babies—that are no longer binding.


While the Old Testament’s ceremonial requirements are no longer binding, its moral requirements are. God may issue different ceremonies for use in different times and cultures, but his moral requirements are eternal and are binding on all cultures.

Confirming this fact is the New Testament’s forceful rejection of homosexual behavior as well. In Romans 1, Paul attributes the homosexual desires of some to a refusal to acknowledge and worship God. He says, "For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct. . . . Though they know God’s decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them" (Rom. 1:26–28, 32).

Elsewhere Paul again warns that homosexual behavior is one of the sins that will deprive one of heaven: "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor. 6:9–10, NIV).

All of Scripture teaches the unacceptability of homosexual behavior. But the rejection of this behavior is not an arbitrary prohibition. It, like other moral imperatives, is rooted in natural law—the design that God has built into human nature."

Ms. Armstrong has one thing right.  The Bible does have to be read with care.  This because ignorant and unstable people [and she would certainly fall into this category] wrest (or interpret) the Scriptures unto their own destruction.  Which is why we have a Teaching Magisterium to interpret the Scriptures for us.  Vatican II, in Dei Verbum, No. 10, reminds us that, "..the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether in its written form or in that of Tradition, has been entrusted only to those charged with the Church's living Magisterium, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ.."

And what does this living Magisterium tell us about homosexual acts?  The Catechism couldn't be more clear: "Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that 'homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.'  They are contrary to the natural law.  They close the sexual act to the gift of life.  They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity.  Under no circumstances can they be approved." (2357).

Why would Father Thomas Massaro promote the work of such a person? What do you think?

Related reading here.

Read More

Father Thomas Massaro and Karen Armstrong: False prophets pointing the way to a sentimental religion

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. 74-74).

One popular speaker who is ardently promoting sentimental religion is Karen Armstrong, a confused soul who spent several years in a convent and then left her religious community and ultimately the Catholic Church*.  In my last post, I noted how Father Thomas Massaro, professor of moral theology at Boston College (God help his students), has said that "..nothing could be more important than Armstrong's agenda."  And what exactly is that agenda?  To break down dogma while advancing a false conception of compassion.

In an interview with Bill Moyers, Ms. Armstrong, the former nun who now describes herself as "a freelance monotheist," said: "I was sick of religion but when I got to understand what religion was really about, uh, not about dogmas, not about propping up the church, not about converting other people to your particular wavelength, but about getting rid of ego and approaching others in reverence, I became much happier...Compassion is not a popular virtue.  Very often when I talk to religious people, and mention how important it is that compassion is the key, that it's the sine-qua-non of religion, people look kind of balked, and stubborn sometimes, as much to say, what's the point of having religion if you can't disapprove of other people?  And sometimes we use religion just to back up these unworthy hatreds, because we're frightened too..We fear that if we're not in control, other people will cut us down to size, and so we hit out first." (See here).

You see what Ms. Armstrong is saying here?  Dogma = violence.  Compassion means getting rid of dogmas, which are merely tools to back up unworthy hatreds.  The Church defines dogmas as a way to exercise "control."  And this need arises from fear.

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).

How critical is dogma to one's faith life?  Again the Catechism explains, "There is an organic connection between our spiritual life and the dogmas.  Dogmas are lights along the path of faith; they illuminate it and make it secure.  Conversely, if our life is upright, our intellect and heart will be open to welcome the light shed by the dogmas of faith." (CCC, 89).

And as far as compassion is concerned, we must define our terms.  Because of human frailty, every sinner deserves both pity and compassion. However, vice and sin must be excluded from this compassion. This because sin can never be the proper object of compassion. (Summa Theologica, II-II, q. 30, a.1, ad 1).


It is a false compassion which supplies the sinner with the means to remain attached to sin. Such "compassion" provides an assistance (whether material or moral) which actually enables the sinner to remain firmly attached to his evil ways. By contrast, true compassion leads the sinner away from vice and back to virtue. As Thomas Aquinas explains:

"We love sinners out of charity, not so as to will what they will, or to rejoice in what gives them joy, but so as to make them will what we will, and rejoice in what rejoices us. Hence it is written: 'They shall be turned to thee, and thou shalt not be turned to them.'" (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, II-II, q. 25, a.6, ad 4, citing Jeremiah 15:19).

St. Thomas Aquinas teaches us that the sentiment of compassion only becomes a virtue when it is guided by reason, since "it is essential to human virtue that the movements of the soul should be regulated by reason." (Summa Theologica, II-II, q. 30, c.3). Without such regulation, compassion is merely a passion. A false compassion is a compassion not regulated and tempered by reason and is, therefore, a potentially dangerous inclination. This because it is subject to favoring not only that which is good but also that which is evil (Summa Theologica, II-II, q. 30, a.1, ad 3).

An authentic compassion always stems from charity. True compassion is an effect of charity (Summa Theologica, II-II, q. 30, a.3, ad 3). But it must be remembered that the object of this virtue is God, whose love extends to His creatures. (Summa Theologica, II-II, q. 25, a.3). Therefore, the virtue of compassion seeks to bring God to the one who suffers so that he may thereby participate in the infinite love of God. As St. Augustine explains:

"'Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.' Now, you love yourself suitably when you love God better than yourself. What, then, you aim at in yourself you must aim at in your neighbor, namely, that he may love God with a perfect affection." (St. Augustine, Of the Morals of the Catholic Church, No. 49,

*  "This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism(124) and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved." (Lumen Gentium, No. 14).  This is the Church's authentic understanding of the axiom "Outside the Church there is no salvation."

Read More