Bishop Robert McManus, the Diocese of Worcester, and vocations

As I noted in a previous post (see here), the Diocese of Worcester has some sort of animus against men who feel called to the priesthood but who accept, promote and defend the Church's Magisterial teaching.  There really is no denying this.  Candidates such as Jonathan Joseph Slavinskas are entirely welcome within the diocese (see here), but I am not permitted to even apply as part of a discernment process.

This is most unfortunate.  Dr. Germain Grisez explains that, "Since the ordained priesthood and diaconate provide the necessary ministries of the word and sacraments to the whole Church, every member shares a common duty to foster vocations to this service."

This duty, which pertains to all Christians, is codified in Canon Law:

"A duty rests upon the entire Christian community to foster vocations so that sufficient provision is made for the needs of the sacred ministry throughout the entire Church; Christian families, educators and in a special way priests, especially pastors, are particularly bound by this duty.  Since it is principally the concern of diocesan bishops to promote vocations, they should instruct the people entrusted to them concerning the importance of the sacred ministry and the necessity of ministers in the Church; therefore they are to encourage and support endeavors to foster vocations by means of projects especially established for that purpose." (Canon 233).

Paragraph 2 of the same Canon also states, "Moreover priests, and especially diocesan bishops, are also to be solicitous that men of a more mature age who consider themselves called to the sacred ministries are prudently assisted IN WORD AND DEED and duly prepared."

When I contacted the Worcester Diocese to express my interest in DISCERNING a priestly vocation, I received no response whatsoever.  When I wrote Bishop Robert McManus expressing my interest, again, no response.  This is promoting vocations?  This is being "solicitous" for mature vocations while assisting such in "word and deed"?

Of course not.

Every so often local parishes will offer a prayer intention for vocations.  But without any real effort to promote and foster vocations to the priesthood and religious life, such prayer intentions amount to little more than a dog and pony show.  Bishop McManus apparently has such disdain for me (pesky magisterial Catholic that I am) that when I phoned him to inform him that my "pastor" at the time (Fr. Joseph Jurgelonis) and his "pastoral staff" wouldn't schedule a Mass for my departed father, he actually laughed.

Feel the love of Christ Jesus.

Folks, if we really want to turn the tide within and outside of the Church, we will need to be more accepting of men who are orthodox in their faith and who feel called to the priesthood.  The laborers are few.  Can we afford to prohibit men faithful to the Magisterium from having a place at the table?


Related reading here.

 

 

 

Read More

The Worcester Diocese should have held onto this faithful priest

Some years ago, a faithful and dedicated priest decided to leave the Diocese of Worcester and become a Chaplain for the United States Army.  During a conversation back in 2000, this priest-friend told me that he had had enough of the nonsense within the diocese.  This was after he presided over a graveside service for my father.

This same faithful priest has a letter in this week's "Catholic" [when they feel like it] Free Press.  As usual, it is an excellent letter.  But then, this priest reads the life of Jesus Christ.  The letter is entitled  "Choose life and love, not moral decay."  Fr. Anthony Kazarnowicz writes:


"According to a survey (CFP, June 1), 83% of Catholics consider it 'morally acceptable' to use contraceptives to prevent pregnancy, 'despite church teachings to the contrary.'  The Church teaches that God designed sex for bonding between a husband and wife and for procreation.  In deciding for ourselves that it is 'morally acceptable' to unnaturally close sex to life, we have made ourselves (not God, or those whom Jesus placed in authority over us) the final arbiters of what is good and evil.  It's Satan's temptation to Adam and Eve all over again.

Next, we judged it 'morally acceptable' to separate sex from marriage.  So now, we have rampant sexual promiscuity, cohabitation before marriage and women treated as sex objects.  A pleasure-seeking 'Me Generation' was born.  Dads had live-in girlfriends; moms, live-in boyfriends.

With this denial of moral wrongdoing came the corresponding denial of sin and even a loss of a sense of sin.  Sacramental confessions dwindled.  However, divorces rose to 50% for first marriages, 65% for second marriages and higher for third marriages.

According to the survey, 53% of Catholics favor same-sex 'marriage.'  Heterosexuals who have lifeless sex are not likely to condemn lifeless homosexual sex.  Though homosexual sex is indeed unnatural, there is something even more unnatural - mothers killing their own babies by abortion - 'morally acceptable' to 35% of Catholics.

Before contraception, families were large.  But, children knew right from wrong, were disciplined, respected authority and learned sacrifice.  Families prayed together.  Confessions thrived; divorces were rare.  Most couples waited until marriage before having sex.  Parents accepted children as God's gift. Womanhood and motherhood were cherished.  Vocations to the priesthood and religious life flourished.

Contrasted are a culture of moral decay after contraception and a culture of life and love before contraception.  I pray all Catholics choose life and love."

Sadly, the Worcester Diocese has not always opted for a culture of life and love.  Back in March, I examined an article published in the dissent-friendly diocesan newspaper and written by Father John Catoir, a cleric who also has difficulty telling the truth.  This article was entitled "Birth Control Revisited."  And it was Father Catoir's assertion, while promoting a subjectivist conscience, that the Church's teaching regarding artificial contraception is "beyond the strength" of many Catholics. 

So much for the Worcester Diocese choosing a culture of life and love.

In a talk entitled "Legalism, Moral Truth and Pastoral Practice" given at a 1990 symposium in Philadelphia, Dr. Germain Grisez explained to those present that, "Theologians and pastors who dissent from received Catholic teaching think they are rejecting legalism because they set aside what they think are mere rules in favor of what they feel are more reasonable standards. Their views are thoroughly imbued with legalism, however. For dissenters think of valid moral norms as rules formulated to protect relevant values. Some even make their legalism explicit by denying that there is any necessary connection between moral goodness (which they restrict to the transcendental level of a love with no specific content) and right action (which they isolate at the categorical level of inner-worldly behavior). But whether their legalism is explicit or not, all the dissenters hold that specific moral norms admit exceptions whenever, all things considered, making an exception seems the best - or least bad - thing to do. Most dissenters also think that specific moral norms that were valid in times past can be inappropriate today, and so they regard the Church’s contested moral teachings as outdated rules that the Church should change."


Dr. Grisez reminded his listeners at the Philadelphia symposium, "During the twentieth century, pastoral treatment of repetitious sins through weakness - especially masturbation, homosexual behavior, premarital sex play and contraception within marriage - grew increasingly mild. Pastors correctly recognized that weakness and immaturity can lessen such sins’ malice. Thinking legalistically, they did not pay enough attention to the sins’ inherent badness and harmfulness, and they developed the idea that people can freely choose to do something that they regard as a grave matter without committing a mortal sin. This idea presupposes that in making choices people are not responsible precisely for choosing what they choose. That presupposition makes sense within a legalistic framework, because lawgivers can take into account mitigating factors and limit legal culpability. But it makes no sense for morality correctly understood, because moral responsibility in itself is not something attached to moral acts but simply is moral agents’ self-determination in making free choices.

Repetitious sinners through weakness also were handicapped by their own legalism. Not seeing the inherent badness of their sins, they felt that they were only violating inscrutable rules. When temptation grew strong, they had little motive to resist, especially because they could easily go to confession and have the violation fixed. Beginning on Saturday they were holy; by Friday they were again sinners. This cyclic sanctity robbed many people’s lives of Christian dynamism and contributed to the dry rot in the Church that became manifest in the 1960s, when the waves of sexual permissiveness battered her."


Dr. Grisez went on to explain that, "Pastors free of legalism will teach the faithful how sin makes moral requirements seem to be alien impositions, help them see through this illusion, and encourage them to look forward to and experience the freedom of God’s children, who rejoice in the fruit of the Spirit and no longer experience the constraint of law..They will explain that while one sometimes must choose contrary to positive laws and cannot always meet their requirements, one always can choose in truth and abide in love. They will acknowledge the paradox of freedom - that we seem unable to resist freely choosing to sin - the paradox that Saint Paul neatly formulates: ‘I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate’ (Romans 7:15). But they also will proclaim the liberating power of grace, and help the faithful learn by experience that when one comes to understand the inherent evil of sin and intrinsic beauty of goodness, enjoys the support of a community of faith whose members bear one another’s burdens, begs God for His help, and confidently expects it, then the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead raises him from his sins, and he discovers that with the Spirit’s grace one can consistently resist sin and choose life."

We would have more vocations to the priesthood in the Worcester Diocese if young men witnessed fidelity to the magisterial teaching of the Church from pastors [not to mention the diocesan newspaper] and if orthodox candidates were not excluded because of their commitment to the Church's authentic teaching, especially in the area of sexual morality.

I should know.  I'm one of the excluded.

Read More

Is it time for Margaret Russell, editor of the "Catholic" Free Press, to resign?

Vatican II, in its Decree on the Media of Social Communication (Inter Mirifica), has this to say:

"The principle moral responsibility for the proper use of the media of social communication falls on newsmen, writers, actors, designers, producers, displayers, distributors, operators and sellers, as well as critic and all others who play any part in the production and transmission of mass presentations. It is quite evident what gravely important responsibilities they have in the present day when they are in a position to lead the human race to good or to evil by informing or arousing mankind.


Thus, they must adjust their economic, political or artistic and technical aspects so as never to oppose the common good. For the purpose of better achieving this goal, they are to be commended when they join professional associations, which-even under a code, if necessary, of sound moral practice-oblige their members to show respect for morality in the duties and tasks of their craft.

They ought always to be mindful, however, that a great many of their readers and audiences are young people, who need a press and entertainment that offer them decent amusement and cultural uplift. In addition, they should see to it that communications or presentations concerning religious matters are entrusted to worthy and experienced hands and are carried out with fitting reverence.

The public authority, in these matters, is bound by special responsibilities in view of the common good, to which these media are ordered. The same authority has, in virtue of its office, the duty of protecting and safeguarding true and just freedom of information, a freedom that is totally necessary for the welfare of contemporary society, especially when it is a question of freedom of the press. It ought also to encourage spiritual values, culture and the fine arts and guarantee the rights of those who wish to use the media. Moreover, public authority has the duty of helping those projects which, though they are certainly most beneficial for young people, cannot otherwise be undertaken.

Lastly, the same public authority, which legitimately concerns itself with the health of the citizenry, is obliged, through the promulgation and careful enforcement of laws, to exercise a fitting and careful watch lest grave damage befall public morals and the welfare of society through the base use of these media. Such vigilance in no wise restricts the freedom of individuals or groups, especially where there is a lack of adequate precaution on the part of those who are professionally engaged in using these media." (Nos 11-12).

And in No. 14, we read, ".....To instill a fully Christian spirit into readers, a truly Catholic press should be set up and encouraged. Such a press-whether immediately fostered and directed by ecclesiastical authorities or by Catholic laymen-should be edited with the clear purpose of forming, supporting and advancing public opinion in accord with natural law and Catholic teaching and precepts. It should disseminate and properly explain news concerning the life of the Church. Moreover, the faithful ought to be advised of the necessity both to spread and read the Catholic press to formulate Christian judgments for themselves on all events."

A Catholic press should be edited "with the clear purpose of forming, supporting and advancing public opinion in accord with natural law and Catholic teaching and precepts."  And this so that the Church's children may be "salt and light" to give "savor to the earth and brighten the world." (No. 24).  To this end, the same paragraph insists that "those who have charge of the media" must "strive to turn them solely to the good of society whose fate depends more and more on their proper use."

But time and again, The Catholic Free Press, official newspaper of the Diocese of Worcester, Massachusetts, has failed to live up to the demands of Inter Mirifica.  The newspaper has often given a place to dissent from Catholic teaching and precepts while promoting even those who advance New Age occultism.  See here and here and here and here for a few examples.

This is most unfortunate.  And an ongoing source of scandal to the faithful who possess a right to receive Catholic doctrine in its purity and integrity (Veritatis Splendor, No. 113).  The Catholic Free Press has done violence toward the faithful, assaulting that very right time and again with dissent from revealed truth and ideologies which are hardly consistent with Catholic teaching and precepts.  In the words of one Catholic layman, left as a comment at this Blog, "Dear Paul, I have written three letters over the past two years to complain to Bishop McManus about the 'Catholic-Free' Press giving print space to dissenting Catholics. I am glad to have discovered your blog. I am also glad I am not the only one who has noticed this trend. My courageous and faithful pastor has dumped the CFP from our parish.

I urge all faithfull men of the diocese to boycott CFP and dump into the trash this newspaper until Margaret Russell resigns and an independent editorial board can be set up so that anti-Catholic dissent cannot be surreptitiously published." - Michael F. Poulin.

I have received numerous other comments echoing this concern.

Perhaps it is time for  Margaret Russell to resign.  If she finds it too difficult to live up to the guidelines established by the Church and outlined in Inter Mirifica for the establishment and maintenance of a sound Catholic press, perhaps it is time for someone more qualified to fulfill the role of editor.

Read More

Catholic Free Press columnist Stacy Trasancos: Faithful to the Magisterium?

In a previous post, I noted how Catholic Free Press columnist Stacy Trasancos implied in a Blog post that the faithful can challenge the Church's Magisterial teaching.  Mrs. Trasancos became very angry and left a comment here in which she said, "My attitude toward the Magisterial teaching of the Church is one of complete assent."  I was prepared to take her at her word even though her post seemed to imply that the faithful can indeed challenge the Magisterium.

Now I really have my doubts about Stacy Trasancos' fidelity to the Church's teaching.  In a Blog post on the subject of women's ordination, Mrs. Trasancos writes, "We know that by the end of the first century the Roman Catholic Church was established and there can be little doubt that the cultural influences of that time and place affected the doctrine [that only men are called to the ministerial priesthood].  We do also know that the Church has evolved over time and that part of theology's goal is to communicate faith to changing cultures.  For these reasons, maybe the question of women in the priesthood will remain unsettled.  There isn't any hard logic to support the idea that the concrete forms of the ecclesiastical offices cannot be changed....Whether women should or will someday be priests, isn't for this single writer to say." (See here).

The Church's doctrine was affected by cultural influences?  Really?  The Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in its Declaration on the Question of the Admission of Women to the Ministerial Priesthood (Inter Insigniores), which was approved for publication by Pope Paul VI on October 15, 1976, refutes this asinine thesis: "Jesus Christ did not call any woman to become part of the Twelve. If he acted in this way, it was not in order to conform to the customs of his time, for his attitude towards women was quite different from that of his milieu, and he deliberately and courageously broke with it.


For example, to the great astonishment of his own disciples, Jesus converses publicly with the Samaritan woman (cf. Jn 4:27); he takes no notice of the state of legal impurity of the woman who had suffered from hemorrhages (cf. Mt 9:20-22), he allows a sinful woman to approach him in the house of Simon the Pharisee (cf. Lk 7:37 ff); and by pardoning the woman taken in adultery, he means to show that one must not be more severe towards the fault of a woman than that of a man (cf. Jn 8:11). He does not hesitate to depart from the Mosaic Law in order to affirm the equality of the rights and duties of men and women with regard to the marriage bond (cf. Mk 10:2-11; Mt 19:3-9).

In his itinerant ministry Jesus was accompanied not only by the Twelve but also by a group of women: "Mary, surnamed the Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out, Joanna the wife of Herod's steward Chuza, Susanna and several others who provided for them out of their own resources" (Lk 8:2-3). Contrary to the Jewish mentality, which did not accord great value to the testimony of women, as Jewish law attests, it was nevertheless women who were the first to have the privilege of seeing the Risen Lord and it was they who were charged by Jesus to take the first paschal message to the Apostles themselves (cf. Mt 28:7-10; Lk 24:9-10; Jn 20:11-18), in order to prepare the latter to become the official witnesses to the Resurrection.

It is true that these facts do not make the matter immediately obvious. This is no surprise, for the questions that the Word of God brings before us go beyond the obvious. In order to reach the ultimate meaning of the mission of Jesus and the ultimate meaning of Scripture, a purely historical exegesis of the texts cannot suffice. But it must be recognized that we have here a number or convergent indications that make all the more remarkable the fact that Jesus did not entrust the apostolic charge to women. Even his Mother, who was so closely associated with the mystery of her Son, and whose incomparable role is emphasized by the Gospels of Luke and John, was not invested with the apostolic ministry. This fact was to lead the Fathers to present her as the example or Christ's will in this domain; as Pope Innocent III repeated later, at the beginning of the 13th century, "Although the Blessed Virgin Mary surpassed in dignity and in excellence all the Apostles, nevertheless it was not to her but to them that the Lord entrusted the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven."

III - THE PRACTICE OF THE APOSTLES

The apostolic community remained faithful to the attitude of Jesus towards women. Although Mary occupied a privileged place in the little circle of those gathered in the Upper Room after the Lord's Ascension (cf. Acts 1:14), it was not she who was called to enter the College of the Twelve at the time of the election that resulted in the choice of Matthias: those who were put forward were two disciples whom the Gospels do not even mention.

On the day of Pentecost, the Holy Spirit filled them all, men and women (cf. Acts 2:1; 1-14), yet the proclamation of the fulfillment of the prophecies in Jesus was made only by "Peter and the Eleven" (Acts 2:14).

When they and Paul went beyond the confines of the Jewish world, the preaching of the Gospel and the Christian life in the Greco-Roman civilization impelled them to break with Mosaic practices, sometimes regretfully. They could therefore have envisaged conferring ordination on women, if they had not been convinced that their duty of fidelity to the Lord on this point. In the Hellenistic world, the cult of a number of pagan divinities was entrusted to priestesses. In fact, the Greeks did not share the ideas of the Jews: although their philosophers taught the inferiority of women, historians nevertheless emphasize the existence of a certain movement for the advancement of women during the Imperial period. In fact, we know from the book of the Acts and from the Letters of Saint Paul that certain women worked with the Apostles for the Gospel (cf. Rom 16:3-12; Phil 4:3). Saint Paul lists their names with gratitude in the final salutations of the Letters. Some of them often exercised an important influence on conversions: Priscilla, Lydia and others; especially Priscilla, who took it on herself to complete the instruction of Apollos (cf. Acts 18:26); Phoebe, in the service of the Church of Cenchreae (cf. Rom 16:1). All these facts manifest within the apostolic Church a considerable evolution vis-a-vis the customs of Judaism. Nevertheless, at no time was there a question of conferring ordination on these women.

In the Pauline Letters, exegetes of authority have noted a difference between two formulas used by the Apostle: he writes indiscriminately "my fellow workers" (Rom 16:3; Phil 4:2-3) when referring to men and women helping him in his apostolate in one way or another; but he reserves the title "God's fellow workers" (1 Cor 3:9; cf. 1 Thes 3:1) to Apollos, Timothy and himself, thus designated because they are directly set apart for the apostolic ministry and the preaching of the Word of God. In spite of the so important role played by women on the day of the Resurrection, their collaboration was not extended by Saint Paul to the official and public proclamation of the message, since this proclamation belongs exclusively to the apostolic mission."

The Church is viewed by the egalitarians as archaic because it will not go against the Lord Jesus and ordain women to the ministerial priesthood. Nothing could be further from the truth. It was Pope Pius XII who recalled that, "The Church has no power over the substance of the sacraments, that is to say, over what Christ the Lord, as the sources of Revelation bear witness, determined should be maintained in the sacramental sign." (Apostolic Constitution Sacramentum Ordinis).


This is the teaching of the Council of Trent: "In the Church there has always existed this power, that in the administration of the sacraments, provided that their substance remains unaltered, she can lay down or modify what she considers more fitting either for the benefit of those who receive them or for respect towards those same sacraments, according to varying circumstances, times or places." (Council of Trent, Session 21, chap. 2: Denziger-Schonmetzer, Enchiridion Symbolorum 1728).

The practice of not ordaining women to the ministerial priesthood has a normative character. This norm is based upon the example of the Lord Jesus and has an unbroken tradition throughout the history of the Church. Which is why Pope John Paul II, in his Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, nos. 2-4, wrote: "In the Apostolic Letter Mulieris Dignitatem, I myself wrote in this regard: 'In calling only men as his Apostles, Christ acted in a completely free and sovereign manner. In doing so, he exercised the same freedom with which, in all his behavior, he emphasized the dignity and the vocation of women, without conforming to the prevailing customs and to the traditions sanctioned by the legislation of the time.'


In fact the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles attest that this call was made in accordance with God's eternal plan; Christ chose those whom he willed (cf. Mk 3:13-14; Jn 6:70), and he did so in union with the Father, "through the Holy Spirit" (Acts 1:2), after having spent the night in prayer (cf. Lk 6:12). Therefore, in granting admission to the ministerial priesthood, the Church has always acknowledged as a perennial norm her Lord's way of acting in choosing the twelve men whom he made the foundation of his Church (cf. Rv 21:14). These men did not in fact receive only a function which could thereafter be exercised by any member of the Church; rather they were specifically and intimately associated in the mission of the Incarnate Word himself (cf. Mt 10:1, 7-8; 28:16-20; Mk 3:13-16; 16:14-15). The Apostles did the same when they chose fellow workers who would succeed them in their ministry. Also included in this choice were those who, throughout the time of the Church, would carry on the Apostles' mission of representing Christ the Lord and Redeemer.

Furthermore, the fact that the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God and Mother of the Church, received neither the mission proper to the Apostles nor the ministerial priesthood clearly shows that the non-admission of women to priestly ordination cannot mean that women are of lesser dignity, nor can it be construed as discrimination against them. Rather, it is to be seen as the faithful observance of a plan to be ascribed to the wisdom of the Lord of the universe.

The presence and the role of women in the life and mission of the Church, although not linked to the ministerial priesthood, remain absolutely necessary and irreplaceable. As the Declaration Inter Insigniores points out, 'the Church desires that Christian women should become fully aware of the greatness of their mission: today their role is of capital importance both for the renewal and humanization of society and for the rediscovery by believers of the true face of the Church.'

The New Testament and the whole history of the Church give ample evidence of the presence in the Church of women, true disciples, witnesses to Christ in the family and in society, as well as in total consecration to the service of God and of the Gospel. 'By defending the dignity of women and their vocation, the Church has shown honor and gratitude for those women who-faithful to the Gospel-have shared in every age in the apostolic mission of the whole People of God. They are the holy martyrs, virgins and mothers of families, who bravely bore witness to their faith and passed on the Church's faith and tradition by bringing up their children in the spirit of the Gospel.'

Moreover, it is to the holiness of the faithful that the hierarchical structure of the Church is totally ordered. For this reason, the Declaration Inter Insigniores recalls: 'the only better gift, which can and must be desired, is love (cf. 1 Cor 12 and 13). The greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven are not the ministers but the saints.'

Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church's judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force.

Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful."

Got that?  The Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and this judgment is to be definitively held by all of the Church's faithful.  But Stacy Trasancos believes otherwise.  She insists that "maybe the question of women in the ministerial priesthood will remain unsettled."  Mrs. Trasancos believes she knows better than Christ's Vicar and treats women's ordination as something which might still be possible.  For her, there is no "hard logic" to support the idea that women cannot be ordained.

Not even the Holy Father's definitive judgment, made in virtue of his supreme teaching ministry is enough for her.

This is fidelity to the Magisterium?  God preserve us from such nonsense.  Small wonder the Catholic Free Press gave her a weekly column.  Small wonder my views are censored.  I fully adhere to, defend and propagate the teaching of the Magisterium. 

Read More

Bishop Robert McManus: Will you allow all members of the People of God to collaborate in the Church's mission or will you continue to allow Catholics faithful to the Magisterium to be treated like second-class citizens

This weekend, parish bulletins throughout the Diocese of Worcester, Massachusetts include a statement from the Most Reverend Robert McManus.  His Excellency writes, "I write to you concerning an alarming and serious matter that negatively impacts the Church in the United States directly, and that strikes at the fundamental right to religious liberty for all citizens of any faith.  The federal government, which claims to be 'of, by, and for the people,' has just dealt a severe blow to almost a quarter of those people - the Catholic population - and to the millions more who are served by the Catholic Church.  The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced last week that almost all employers, including Catholic employers, will be forced to offer their employees health care coverage that includes sterilization, abortion inducing drugs and contraception...

In so ruling, the Administration has cast aside the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, denying to Catholics and people of other faiths our Nation's first and most fundamental freedom, the free exercise of religion.  As a result, unless the rule is overturned, we Catholics will be compelled either to violate our consciences or to drop health coverage for our employees and suffer the penalties for doing so.  The Administration's sole 'concession' was to give our institutions one year to comply... 

We cannot and we will not comply with this unjust law.  People of faith cannot be made second-class citizens....Our parents and grandparents did not come to these shores to help build America's cities and towns, its infrastructure and institutions, only to have their descendants stripped of their God-given rights.  In generations past, the Church has always been able to count on the faithful to stand up and protect her sacred rights and duties.  I hope and trust that the Church can count on this generation of Catholics to do the same.  Our children and grandchildren deserve nothing less.."

Well Your Excellency, you are certainly correct in asserting that "the Church has always been able to count on the faithful to stand up and protect her sacred rights and duties."  But then, if we are to be completely honest, the faithful were always able to count on the Church's ministers in the past to provide them with solid Catholic teaching and spirituality.  But as I noted here, it was Father Vincent P. Miceli, S.J., who wrote:

"Today too many fallen stars - rebellious bishops, priests, theologians, philosophers, nuns and Catholic intellectuals - are abusing their sacerdotal powers and intellectual gifts to seduce, enslave and precipitate into hell vast numbers of wayward sheep. Out of the darkness of the pit they have loosed the forces of error, evil and scandal. The smoke streaming from the pit darkens the sun of Christ's truth and obliterates the splendour of His holiness; it infects the air with decadent, immoral odors. Everything is cast into confusion; gloom infests the world of religion and reason; grace, the life-giving oxygen of the soul and body, is strangled out of the supernatural organisms of the children of God. Moreover, the darkening sun and sky betoken the eclipse of the Teaching Authority of the Church, the lowering of men's respect and love for her, their loss of reverence for her Master and the demeaning of both Christ and His Church to the level of being mere natural, defective organs of society lusting after domination over men's souls and bodies through the accumulation of material riches and political power.." (Fr. Vincent P. Miceli, S.J., The Antichrist: Has he lauched his final campaign against the Savior?", pp. 260-261).

Just one year before his death, back in 1977, Pope Paul VI asked, "Are we close to the end?  This we will never know...We must always hold ourselves in readiness, but everything could last a very long time yet.  What strikes me, when I think of the Catholic world, is that within Catholicism, there seems sometimes to predominate a non-Catholic way of thinking, and it can happen that this non-Catholic thought within Catholicism, will tomorrow become the stronger.  But it will never represent the thought of the Church.  It is necessary that a small flock subsist, no matter how small it might be." (The Secret Paul VI, by Jean Guitton).

Your Excellency, we are living in apocalyptic times.  We cannot doubt this if we read the signs of the times. Our Holy Father has just warned that, "As we know, in vast areas of the world the Faith is in danger of being snuffed out like a flame that no longer has any sustenance. We are at a profound crisis of faith,at a loss of a religious sense that constitutes the greatest challenge for the Church of today."  (See here).

Our Holy Father also said that, 'The renewal of the faith must therefore be the priority in the undertaking of the whole Church in our times. I hope that the Year of Faith can contribute, with the cordial collaboration of all the members of the People of God, to bring God back anew to this world and to open to men an access to the faith,to a reliance on the God who loved us to the end (cf John 13,1), in Christ Jesus,crucified and risen."

But here in the Worcester Diocese, not all are welcome.  While the Diocese and its official newspaper The Catholic Free Press have given a voice to dissidents who have rebelled from the Church's authoritative teaching (see here for example), Catholics faithful to the Magisterium have often found themselves marginalized.  I cannot even volunteer at my local parish because of the animus against me.  I have submitted letters to the editor and articles to the CFP, but these were censored.  Meanwhile those who have dissented from the Church's teaching, such as Father Robert Bruso, are given a voice.  Just last week the CFP published his guest commentary.  This even though Fr. Bruso has been supportive of same-sex unions in the past.

Your Excellency, if you want the lay faithful to respond to your call to protect and defend the Church, and to insist that people of faith are not second-class citizens, the Diocese of Worcester is going to have to stop treating Catholics faithful to the Magisterium as second-class citizens.  And the Catholic Free Press is going to have to demonstrate a real commitment toward the Church's teaching while avoiding this sort of nonsense.

Read More

On rash judgment and genuflecting before the Eucharist exposed

In my last post, I noted how, "Just recently, I found it necessary to inform my parish priest that his promotion of CCHD in the parish bulletin was most unfortunate as the organization promotes abortion, homosexuality and so-called same-sex 'marriage.' Just yesterday, at Holy Mass honoring the Immaculate Conception, this same priest told the faithful present that they should not genuflect on one knee during Eucharistic Adoration and that doing so is a sign of irreverence. He asserted that Catholics must genuflect on both knees."  This information is incorrect.  The U.S. Bishops have said that genuflection before the Eucharist exposed during Adoration is on one knee.  And the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship has said the same in No. 84 of Eucharistiae Sacramentum which may be found here.

This is most unfortunate.  Not only were the faithful in attendance at Holy Mass [on a Holy Day of Obligation - the Feast of the Immaculate Conception] given information that is incorrect, but it was implied that those who follow the rubrics as set forth by the Church are not showing proper reverence for Our Eucharistic Jesus.  Now the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches us that, "To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor's thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way.." (CCC, 2478).  And this because rash judgment, as the Catechism explains, "assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor.." (CCC, 2477).

When I wrote the priest in question to inform him about the background of CCHD, I made no assumptions about his motives.  In an email dated November 13, 2011, I wrote: "Good afternoon Fr. ......, Peace of Christ! Let me begin by saying that I really enjoyed your homily this morning. It is obvious that you value truth. And this is saying something today because most people in our society are allergic to the truth. I couldn't help but notice that the parish bulletin contains a little item regarding the 'Catholic' Campaign for Human Development. Knowing your attention to detail as well as your orthodoxy (not to mention how busy you must be), I know this item just escaped your scrutiny.

The CCHD, an organization which was inspired by radical agitator Saul Alinsky, a Marxist who dedicated his Rules for Radicals to Lucifer, whom he called 'the first radical,' is an umbrella and/or a front for various groups which dissent from the Church's authentic teaching. Especially in the area of sexual morality.

According to American Life League's Michael Hichborn, "..no less than fifty organizations (one-fifth of all CCHD grantees from 2009) are, in some capacity, engaged in pro-abortion or pro-homosexual causes." See here: http://www.all.org/cchd

I have a post here reprinting an excellent article from The Wanderer on Saul Alinsky:

http://lasalettejourney.blogspot.com/2005/06/wanderer-on-saul-alinsky.html


Another relevant article on the CCHD may be found here:

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/feb/10020208.html


In other words, I gave the priest in question the benefit of the doubt.  I wrote him a personal email rather than going public on this Blog because I lacked sufficient foundation to assume moral fault.  What a shame that this priest couldn't find it in his heart to grant the same courtesy to his parishioners who actually attend Eucharistic Adoration (a very small number) and didn't do his homework before attempting to correct what he mistakenly perceived as a fault in these people.

The priest in question made no mention of his mistake in promoting CCHD.  Nor did he admit to giving his parishioners incorrect information pertaining to genuflection while in the presence of Our Eucharistic Jesus - even though I emailed him the relevant information from the U.S. Bishops and the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship.

In his classic work Transformation in Christ, Dr. Dietrich von Hildebrand explains that there is a certain kind of man who takes "pleasure in contemplating the defects of others, against which [his] own superiority stands out more glowingly."  Dr. von Hildebrand explains that for such people, "there lives an evil resentment, not against value as such, to be sure, but against the virtues of others, which they experience as a threat to their self-glory.  Although..the merely self-righteous person is by one degree less execrable than the Pharisee, his attitude is still one of the prototypes of all morally damnable conduct and it insults God.  Although Satanism as well as Pharisaism proper remain excluded, self-righteousness makes a person obdurate and void of love to the extent that it takes hold of him." (Transformation in Christ. p. 172).

Now I'm not accusing this priest of self-righteousness.  And, as you may have noticed, I am not mentioning him by name for the sake of charity.  I believe he has many good qualities and he has not been publically dissenting from the Church's teaching.  But I am alarmed that while I have given him the benefit of the doubt, he was so quick to assume as true something about lay persons which was not true: that their genuflection on one knee constituted a lack of proper reverence for Our Eucharistic Lord.

Rash judgment.

Read More

The Diocese of Bathurst, New Brunswick: Committed to challenging the faithful?

In an article entitled "Don't Devalue the Faith" from the EWTN website which may be found here, Bert Ghezzi writes, "'Envision Industrial Collapse.' So reads the bumper sticker on my godson Michael's car. I envision myself shaking him and chanting, 'Michael, if industry collapsed, you...would...have...no...car!' Currently, Michael is involved in the environmental movement. He makes time to attend lectures on eliminating noise pollution and recycling. (I wonder if I could interest him in recycling alternative rock music as Mozart. That would be a start at eliminating real noise pollution!) Michael has taken off from school to walk across Ohio, demonstrating his commitment to keeping the earth green.

Don't get me wrong. There's something very healthy about Michael's involvement. Caring for creation is good stewardship. That's not all. Michael's commitment itself is also very healthy It is an expression of the innate idealism of youth. Psychologists tell us that teens naturally want an ideal to live for. William Damon, for example, says that teens he studied were eager to serve others. They also craved challenges and responded positively to the discipline of moral principles. Like all young people, my godson is looking for something worth giving his life for. When he finds it, he will be ready to pay the price.

All that our youthful idealists need is to be pointed in the right direction. To the Lord. To the Church. If that's to happen, our kids need to hear the hard, costly Gospel. They will find the demand that they take up their cross and follow Jesus appealing. A watered-down Gospel will not attract their attention. A softened, warm-fuzzy message may even repel them.

Paul Lauer, the dynamic editor of You! magazine for Catholic teens, says parents must challenge their kids. The demands of the Gospel drew Paul himself from the false ideals of Zen and rock to Christ. 'We must challenge young people,' he says, 'to channel their abundant energy for good, for God, for the Church and the world. Young people have enough energy to climb tall mountains of faith, hope and love. If all we offer them are little molehills, they'll simply go somewhere else for their challenges-to punk rock, drugs or satanism.'

So parents must see to it that their kids hear the good news that will cost them something. How to do it is the question. Here are some suggestions.

We can hold up the example of Mary and the saints. The Church gives them to us to show us that it can be done-that ordinary humans can live the extraordinary life Christ demands.

We can encourage our teens to respond to invitations to serve others. Several pastors I know sponsor summer teen-action programs. They give the teens the opportunity to travel during the summer to serve the
poor in Appalachia. All the kids have to do is work hard all winter to earn the money to pay for their travel and housing. One experience like that can challenge and change a kid for life.

We can give our kids a specific challenge, like embracing the ideal of chastity Molly Kelly, who annually speaks to 50,000 teens about sexual morality, says that when kids hear the truth they recognize it and embrace it freely.

We must also show our kids that we are living for Christ by our example. And we must tell them about it in our own words. We must ask ourselves, 'Have I put Christ first in my life?' so that our kids will make that same choice someday And we must hold fast to our commitment even when the going gets rough."

Excellent advice no?  Now Eudist Father Donat Gionet (God love him) was trying to do just this when he courageously spoke out against abortion and homosexuality.  He was trying to inspire his listeners - both young and old - by preaching hard Gospel truths.  And he was quickly punished by the Diocese of Bathurst, New Brunswick.

Now remember what Bert Ghezzi said about teens?  "A watered-down Gospel will not attract their attention.  A softened, warm-fuzzy message may even repel them."  This applies not only to teens but to adults as well.  Wasn't that the whole point of Thomas Reese's book on the suicide of liberal Christianity?  Spiritual pablum, what I refer to as Cotton Candy Catholicism, a sacharrin spirituality without any real substance, offers the faithful no reason to get out of bed in the morning.  If sin is a thing of the past and dogma is irrelevant, what do I need the Mass for?  Why should I care to listen to anything the priest has to say?  The snooze button on the alarm clock is all the more attractive.
Fr. Gionet [who is still spiritually awake unlike many of his colleagues] gets it.  Fr. Wesley Wade, the vicar general of the Bathurst Diocese, does not.  Which is why he accused Fr. Gionet of "pastoral insensitivity."  Meanwhile, Fr. Wade has freely acknowledged that, "There's no question...there has been a decrease in church population over the years."  See here.

That trend will no doubt continue.  If Catholics want to hear a secular "gospel," they don't have to attend Mass within the Bathurst Diocese.  They have merely to turn on their television sets where that "gospel" is preached 24 hours a day. 

Read More

St. Cecilia's "Rainbow Ministry" is not faithful to the spirit and teaching of the Church

Vatican II, in its Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity (Apostolicam Actuositatem), explains that, "The hierarchy should promote the apostolate of the laity, provide it with spiritual principles and support, direct the conduct of this apostolate to the common good of the Church, and attend to the preservation of doctrine and order.

Indeed, the lay apostolate admits of different types of relationships with the hierarchy in accordance with the various forms and objects of this apostolate. For in the Church there are many apostolic undertakings which are established by the free choice of the laity and regulated by their prudent judgment. The mission of the Church can be better accomplished in certain circumstances by undertakings of this kind, and therefore they are frequently praised or recommended by the hierarchy. No project, however, may claim the name 'Catholic' unless it has obtained the consent of the lawful Church authority.

Certain forms of the apostolate of the laity are given explicit recognition by the hierarchy, though in various ways.

Because of the demands of the common good of the Church, moreover, ecclesiastical authority can select and promote in a particular way some of the apostolic associations and projects which have an immediately spiritual purpose, thereby assuming in them a special responsibility. Thus, making various dispositions of the apostolate according to circumstances, the hierarchy joins some particular form of it more closely with its own apostolic function. Yet the proper nature and distinctiveness of each apostolate must be preserved, and the laity must not be deprived of the possibility of acting on their own accord. In various Church documents this procedure of the hierarchy is called a mandate.

Finally, the hierarchy entrusts to the laity certain functions which are more closely connected with pastoral duties, such as the teaching of Christian doctrine, certain liturgical actions, and the care of souls. By virtue of this mission, the laity are fully subject to higher ecclesiastical control in the performance of this work.

As regards works and institutions in the temporal order, the role of the ecclesiastical hierarchy is to teach and authentically interpret the moral principles to be followed in temporal affairs. Furthermore, they have the right to judge, after careful consideration of all related matters and consultation with experts, whether or not such works and institutions conform to moral principles and the right to decide what is required for the protection and promotion of values of the supernatural order." (No. 24).

And in No. 25, this same document says that, "Special care should be taken to select priests who are capable of promoting particular forms of the apostolate of the laity and are properly trained. Those who are engaged in this ministry represent the hierarchy in their pastoral activity by virtue of the mission they receive from the hierarchy. Always adhering faithfully to the spirit and teaching of the Church, they should promote proper relations between laity and hierarchy."

Always adhering faithfully to the spirit and teaching of the Church, they should promote proper relations between laity and hierarchy.  Is St. Cecilia's "rainbow ministry"  faithful to this charge?  The Blog for this apostolate links directly to another Blog which states that people, "..ought to question Rome’s faulty assumptions and, indeed, Rome’s own 'objective disorders' which more often resemble a severely dysfunctional family than the Body of Christ. For centuries, Catholics were also taught to fear left-handed people as 'servants of the devil,' and the left-handed were burned at the stake along with faggots and heretics. (The word faggot, literally “burning bundle,” derives from these church burnings of gay men).  Now we know that homosexuality is no more 'disordered' or 'sinful' than left-handedness. Medical and scientific research strongly point to sexual orientation as determined at birth; that it’s nature over nurture for most people. Therefore, homosexual orientation, like left-handedness, is a Divinely created, normal variation within natural law. As such, gay people face the same moral challenges as everyone else."

This is not the teaching of the Church.  This is not the mind of Christ.  Furthermore, such an attitude is highly disrespectful of the Church's hierarchy.  This is most unfortunate.  The Catechism of the Catholic Church, citing Canon 212 of the Code of Canon Law, says that, "In accord with the knowledge, competence, and preeminence which they possess, [lay people] 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 to the integrity of faith and morals and reverence toward their pastors, and with consideration for the common good and the dignity of persons." (CCC, 907).

An apostolate which promotes homosexuality as a "Divinely created" normal variant of human sexuality is not demonstrating "due regard to the integrity of faith and morals."  An apostolate which promotes a website which refers to the Church's teaching as being imbued with "faulty assumptions" and which accuses the Teaching Church of "objective disorders" is not faithful to Catholic teaching and is not promoting proper relations between laity and hierarchy.

The "rainbow ministry" apostolate at St. Cecilia's Parish in Boston should be shut down immediately.

Read More

Cardinal Sean O'Malley: Will you exercise your pastoral authority so that the Father of Lies will not take hold of the minds and hearts of the faithful?

Three days after New York Governor Andrew Cuomo signed a bill allowing same-sex couples to marry, Archbishop Timothy Dolan reaffirmed the Catholic Church's position on marriage.  Speaking to reporters following a Mass at St. Patrick's Cathedral, His Excellency said that, "We as Catholics would oppose any attempt by anybody to redefine marriage...We just don't believe that marriage can be changed and radically altered to accommodate a particular lifestyle." See here.  Archbishop Dolan has said that same-sex "marriage" is "detrimental to the common good" and a "violation of natural law."

In its 2003 document entitled Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith refuted the notion that legalizing homosexual unions would not harm the common good:

"In this area, one needs first to reflect on the difference between homosexual behavior as a private phenomenon and the same behavior as a relationship in society, foreseen and approved by the law, to the point where it becomes one of the institutions in the legal structure.  This second phenomenon is not only more serious, but also assumes a more wide-ranging and profound influence, and would result in changes to the entire organization of society, contrary to the common good.  Civil laws are structuring principles of man's life in society, for good or ill.  They 'play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behavior.'  Lifestyles and the underlying presuppositions these express not only externally shape the life of society, but also tend to modify the younger generation's perception and evaluation of forms of behavior.  Legal recognition of homosexual unions would obscure certain basic moral values and cause a devaluation of the institution of marriage."

Considerations goes on to explain that, "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 that of marriage and the family, the State acts arbitrarily and in contradiction with its duties."

Now Cardinal Sean O'Malley has reaffirmed this teaching of the Church at his Blog.  What is not understandable, however, is his toleration of a homosexual "rainbow ministry" at St. Cecilia's Parish in Boston's Back Bay which has distorted Catholic teaching on homosexuality while promoting same-sex "marriage."

In a Keynote Address entitled Good Shepherd: Living Christ's Own Pastoral Authority*, which was delivered at the 10th Annual Symposium on the Spirituality and Identity of the Diocesan Priest on March 18, 2011, Bishop Samuel J. Aquila had some important things to say about the role of Bishops.  His Excellency noted that:

"Perhaps most difficult for us who lead in the Church today, due to the influence of the secular world with its rejection of God and the authority of God, along with a real skepticism of authority, is the exercise of the office of governance. Benedict XVI reminds us as bishops and priests again to turn to Jesus Christ to learn how to exercise this authority. No one is really able to feed Christ's flock, unless he lives in profound and true obedience to Christ and the Church, and the docility of the people towards their priests depends on the docility of the priests towards Christ; for this reason the personal and constant encounter with the Lord, profound knowledge of him and the conformation of the individual will to Christ's will is always at the root of the pastoral ministry. (General Audience, May 26, 2010).

Jesus at times was direct in calling people to conversion – to change their way of acting and thinking. This directness makes many of us uncomfortable today. We should follow his example and language, even if we do not use his precise words. His language is good to contemplate and definitely should challenge us to look at how we correct the faithful, including priests and bishops, and speak the truth especially with those who say they are with Christ and the Church but do not accept the teaching of Jesus and the Church.

One has only to read Matthew 23 to hear the forceful language Jesus uses when speaking with the Pharisees and Scribes. He refers to them as ―hypocrites, blind guides, and white washed tombs and towards the end asks them the question, ―You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell?  In our politically correct world this type of language would never be tolerated today, and yet the Gospel writers were not hesitant to pass on these exhortations of Jesus.

Furthermore, when Peter began to remonstrate with Jesus about going up to Jerusalem, he did not softly tell Peter, ―You do not understand. Rather Jesus spoke the vigorous words, ―Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me; for you are not on the side of God, but of men (Mt 16:23). Jesus speaks these words with force to the apostle he has chosen and the one whom he made first among the apostles. In love Jesus makes these direct statements to open the eyes of those whose hearts and minds are hardened. His straight talk, given in love for the person, desires the conversion and holiness of the person to the ways of God.

Jesus provides the Church and her leaders with the criteria for correcting a brother or sister. ―If your brother sins against you; go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector (Mt 18:16-17).

The steps in this passage are clear and Jesus is teaching us, but do we listen and follow his example? If this criteria had been followed with dissenting theologians, priests, religious and faithful in 1968 with the encyclical, Humanae Vitae, would we still be dealing with the problem today of those who dissent on contraception, abortion, same sex unions, euthanasia and so many other teachings of the Church?


One must honestly ask, how many times and years may a Catholic politician vote for the so called ―right to abortion, ―murder in the words of John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae (58), and still be able to receive Holy Communion? The continual reception of Holy Communion by those who so visibly contradict and promote a grave evil, even more than simply dissent, only creates grave scandal, undermines the teaching and governing authority of the Church and can be interpreted by the faithful as indifference to the teaching of Christ and the Church on the part of those who have the responsibility to govern. If we honestly pray with the Gospel we can see that hesitancy and non-accountability are not the way of Jesus Christ, but rather are a failure in the exercise of governance.


Bishops and priests, as an act of loving obedience to Christ, must return to a full exercise of the governing authority of Christ witnessed in the Gospel. If we do not exercise that authority, are hesitant to exercise it, or doubt it, then it only leads to the ―father of lies taking hold of the minds and hearts of the faithful, and their continuing to act in the ways of man and not the ways of God.

Pope Benedict XVI, in his conversation with Peter Seewald in the book Light of the World, made the following observation concerning the sexual abuse crisis among clergy, after speaking with the Archbishop of Dublin. In their conversation they spoke to a mentality prevalent after Vatican II. ―The prevailing mentality was that the Church must not be a Church of laws but, rather, a Church of love; she must not punish. Thus the awareness that punishment can be an act of love ceased to exist. This led to an odd darkening of the mind, even in very good people. Today we have to learn all over again that love for the sinner and love for the person who has been harmed are correctly balanced if I punish the sinner in the form that is possible and appropriate. In this respect there was in the past a change of mentality, in which the law and need for punishment were obscured. Ultimately this also narrowed the concept of love, which in fact is not just being nice or courteous, but is found in the truth (emphasis added). And another component of truth is that I must punish the one who has sinned against real love (Pages 25-26)."

It is time for Boston's Cardinal to exercise his pastoral authority.  If he does not, the Father of Lies will be emboldened and will continue to sow dissension and discord as minds become steeped in darkness.


*  Full Address here.

Read More

St. Cecilia's "Rainbow Ministry": Faithful to Church teaching or rejecting the teaching of the Magisterium?

We all know that the "Gay Pride" Mass is back on at St. Cecilia's Parish in Boston, re-scheduled for July 10th thanks to the Boston Archdiocese and its distorted notion of evangelization.  Now we have Joe Sacerdo reporting that, "..we have the vice chairman of the parish council encouraging youth confused about their sexuality to “come out “as gay or lesbian. No mention of turning to Jesus Christ, no mention of abstinence and chastity as the route to holiness consistent with God’s plan, no prayer advised, no spiritual counseling advised, no psychological or family counseling advised, no medical risks of unsafe sexual behavior to be concerned about. Just “come out” as gay or lesbian and you’ll get “new energy and life”! How is this leading people with same-sex attractions to a deeper relationship with Christ and a life of virtue and holiness?" (See here).


Now this is disturbing on every level.  The Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in its document Persona Humana - Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics, denounced the moral subjectivism which many theologians were defending based on a misguided pastoral approach, one which the "Rainbow Ministry" at St. Cecilia's appears to have embraced. 

Persona Humana reminds Catholics that morals are not dependent upon human whims or changing cultures but rather on the natural law.  The document teaches clearly and concisely that every sexual act outside of marriage is sinful thereby condemning pre-marital sex, cohabitation, masturbation and homosexuality (Persona Humana, 7, 9).  The document condemns the flawed conclusion that a stable homosexual relationship may be analogous to marriage or justified:

"No pastoral method can be employed which would give moral justification to these acts on the grounds that they would be consonant with the condition of such people.  For according to the objective moral order, homosexual relations are acts which lack an essential and indispensable finality." (Persona Humana, 8).  See full text of Persona Humana here.

Is this teaching accepted by St. Cecilia's "Rainbow Ministry"?  If so, as J. Sacerdo notes, why is it that there is "no mention of turning to Jesus Christ, no mention of abstinence and chastity as the route to holiness consistent ith God's plan"? Could it be that those who run the Rainbow Ministry at St. Cecilia's parish, the same people who want to give us a "Gay Pride" Mass, could care less about what the Church teaches?

John Kelly, the chair of the "Rainbow Ministry," told one Boston Globe Magazine reporter back in 1998 that "His faith has nothing to do with what the Vatican says, but only with what he experiences every Sunday at the Jesuit Urban Center."  More than 30 years ago, Mr. Kelly "turned his back on his Church" according to the Globe article.  Why?  Because, during confession, he told his parish priest that is a homosexual and the priest responded, "May almighty God have mercy on your soul."  Kelly says that he walked out of the confessional feeling "defeated and abused."

You see, because this good and faithful priest was not accepting of the homosexual "lifestyle," because he believed - as the Church teaches - that no pastoral method can justify homosexual acts, and because he had the audacity to pray that God would have mercy on John Kelly's soul, Mr. Kelly stormed out, turning his back on the Church founded by the Lord Jesus. (Full Boston Globe Magazine article here).
Later he would tell the Boston Globe reporter that he felt "abused" by the faithful priest who had the gall to challenge his sin.  A Catholic priest who would have undersood these words from Archbishop Oscar Romero, the martyred Archbishop of San Salvador, given shortly before he was gunned down: "A preaching that does not point out sin is not the preaching of the gospel. A preaching that makes sinners feel good so that they become entrenched in their sinful state, betrays the gospel's call. A preaching that does not discomfit sinners but lulls them in their sin leaves Zebulun and Naphtali in the shadow of death. A preaching that awakens, a preaching that enlightens -- as when a light turned on awakens and of course annoys a sleeper -- that is the preaching of Christ, calling, "wake up! Be converted!" this is the church's authentic preaching. Naturally, such preaching must meet conflict, must spoil what is miscalled prestige, must disturb, must be persecuted. It cannot get along with the powers of darkness and sin."


Indeed.  Which is why those of us Catholic bloggers who remain faithful to the Church's Magisterium and who oppose the false "gospel" of "Gay Pride" are accused of being "haters," and "bigots."  Meanwhile, it would appear that St. Cecilia's "Rainbow Ministry," and the Archdiocese of Boston in general, is content with leaving sinners entrenched in their sinful state.

Read More

A parishioner from St. Cecilia's Parish in Boston provides us with further evidence that Fr. Unni has not been faithful in presenting the Church's teaching relative to homosexuality

In his Encyclical Letter Deus Caritas Est (God is Love), Pope Benedict XVI writes, "It is characteristic of mature love that it calls into play all man's potentialities; it engages the whole man, so to speak. Contact with the visible manifestations of God's love can awaken within us a feeling of joy born of the experience of being loved. But this encounter also engages our will and our intellect. Acknowledgment of the living God is one path towards love, and the 'yes' of our will to his will unites our intellect, will and sentiments in the all- embracing act of love. But this process is always open-ended; love is never 'finished' and complete; throughout life, it changes and matures, and thus remains faithful to itself. Idem velle atque idem nolle —to want the same thing, and to reject the same thing—was recognized by antiquity as the authentic content of love: the one becomes similar to the other, and this leads to a community of will and thought. The love-story between God and man consists in the very fact that this communion of will increases in a communion of thought and sentiment, and thus our will and God's will increasingly coincide: God's will is no longer for me an alien will, something imposed on me from without by the commandments, but it is now my own will, based on the realization that God is in fact more deeply present to me than I am to myself. Then self- abandonment to God increases and God becomes our joy (cf. Ps 73 [72]:23-28)." (No. 17).

Jesus gave us this new Law of Love.  He said, "If you love Me, keep My commandments." (John 14:15).  And through the centuries many have demonstrated their love for Him by obeying His commands, even unto martyrdom. Others have followed Him indifferently or have turned away from Him entirely, abandoning that faith which is the pearl of great price.

Those Catholics within the Boston Archdiocese who are agitating for "gay pride" and even same-sex "marriage" have embraced a false notion of "freedom."  For such people, there can only be true freedom if they are permitted to engage in homosexual acts or marry a member of the same-sex.  And anyone who resists this immoral agenda which embraces a counterfeit notion of freedom is denounced as a "hater" and a "bigot" or as one who fosters "prejudice."

In a comment left at Bryan Hehir Exposed, a Catholic lay woman from St. Cecilia's Parish in Boston (the same parish which has promoted same-sex "marriage" and which had planned a "Gay Pride" Mass until it was cancelled by the Boston Archdiocese), wrote: "Joe Sacerdo, stop hiding behind a pseudonym and speak out at service, in front of all your fellow parishioners if this issue makes you so uncomfortable. It is evident from your posts, that you attend mass on Sundays…so go for it...Promoting bigotry, hate and injustice has NO place in the Catholic Church or anywhere, for that matter, especially not in our beautifully diverse St. Cecilia Parish. If you have such a problem with the parish, leave–It’s pretty simple. Our parish is meant to be welcoming not discriminating. I hope that God will help guide you to realize that your bigoted agenda stems from your own prejudices....Sincerely, Anne B."

If moral opposition to homosexuality and same-sex "marriage" is evidence of "bigotry, hate and injustice" in the mind of Anne B, what is this but further confirmation that Father Unni has not been faithful in presenting the Church's teaching relative to these subjects?  After all, in its 2003 document entitled Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith stated clearly that, "There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God's plan for marriage and family.  Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law...Under no circumstances can they be approved." (No. 4).

Does Anne B believe the CDF to be promoting "bigotry, hate and injustice"?  If so, was this belief instilled by Father Unni?  Was this the purpose of the "rainbow ministry" at Saint Cecilia's Parish?  Is this why Blog posts from the "rainbow ministry" were recently deleted?  I cannot help but think of Father Emile "Mike" Boutin deleting posts from his "Men in Black" Blog which were critical of Cardinal Bertone and the Church's teaching regarding homosexuality and celibacy.

What is most ironic in Anne B's accusation is that it really applies to those who refuse to accept Jesus' Commandments while insisting on the "right" to engage in homosexual acts or to marry a member of the same-sex.  Pope John Paul II explains in his Encyclical Letter Veritatis Splendor that, "Human freedom and God's law are not in opposition; on the contrary, they appeal one to the other.  The follower of Christ knows that his vocation is to freedom.  'You were called to freedom, brethren' (Gal. 5:13), proclaims the Apostle Paul with joy and pride.  But he immediately adds: 'only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love be servants of one another.'' (No. 17).  John Paul goes on to explain in No. 18 of the same encyclical that, "Those who live 'by the flesh' experience God's law as a burden, and indeed as a denial or at least a restriction of their own freedom.  On the other hand, those who are impelled by love and 'walk by the Spirit' (Gal 5:16), and who desire to serve others, find in God's Law the fundamental and necessary way in which to practice love as something freely chosen and freely lived out.  Indeed, they feel an interior urge - a genuine 'necessity' and no longer a form of coercion - not to stop at the minimum demands of the Law, but to live them in their 'fullness.'"

Because Joe Sacerdo has chosen to follow the Lord Jesus' Law of Love, because he would like to see his fellow Catholics at St. Cecilia's Parish in Boston embrace this Law of Love, he is accused of being a "hater."

Our strange time.  The photo above shows a "Gay Pride 2011" demonstrator.  What do you think: Does this person walk by the Spirit or the flesh?

Read More

Those who dissent from Church teaching place themselves in peril

It is intrinsic to the Catholic religion, that before one can become a member, he must satisfy himself that the answers to all questions of faith or morals are contained in a Deposit of Faith which has been revealed by God and entrusted to a Custodian established by God Himself and endowed with infallible protection against any change or error.  There are many who consider themselves to be "Catholic" even as they reject the Church's teaching while striving to erect a church in their own image and likeness.  One such deluded soul left a comment at this Blog accusing Catholic bloggers who are faithful to the Church's Magisterium of representing "a Puritan sect" anxious to "excommunicate" other Catholics. 

This sophomoric soul should reflect very carefully on the words of Pope Paul VI, in a discourse given to a general audience on September 1, 1971: "...He who thinks he can remain a Christian by his own efforts, deserting the institutional bonds of the visible and hierarchical Church, or who imagines he can remain faithful to the mind of Christ by fashioning for himself a Church conceived according to his own ideas, is on the wrong track, and deceives himself.  He compromises and perhaps ruptures, and makes others rupture, real communion with the People of God, losing the pledge of its promises."

The Church is a communion of persons with the Living God, brought about by the Lord Jesus in the Holy Spirit. And, as Pope John Paul II teaches in Christifideles Laici, No. 64, "..an awareness of a commonly shared Christian dignity, an ecclesial consciousness brings a sense of belonging to the mystery of the Church as Communion. This is a basic and undeniable aspect of the life and mission of the Church. For one and all, the earnest prayer of Jesus at the Last Supper, 'That all may be one' (Jn 17: 21), ought to become daily a required and undeniable program of life and action."

When we understand what is meant by the Church's communion, the words of Pope Benedict XVI make perfect sense: "..In order to remain in unity with the crucified and risen Lord, the practical sign of juridical unity, 'remaining in the teaching of the apostles' is indispensable." (Pilgrim Fellowship of Faith: The Church as Communion, p. 69, Ignatius Press).  But the false prophets of the "new morality," which is neither new nor morality, continue to insist that we are now living in a new era in which men have "come of age."  These mental and moral midgets, anxious to baptize abortion, homosexuality, contraception and a host of other evils, argue that there is now before us a new way, an easy way of following God which permits all things in the name of "love."

As these sons and daughters of Hell raise their angry voices against the Church, demanding that she "update" her teaching so that it will be more palatable for "modern man," the Church reminds us all in her authoritative voice that, "They are fully incorporated in the society of the Church who, possessing the Spirit of Christ accept her entire system and all the means of salvation given to her, and are united with her as part of her visible bodily structure and through her with Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. The bonds which bind men to the Church in a visible way are profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical government and communion. 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." (Lumen Gentium, No. 14).

Those who reject the Church's teaching remain in the Church but only in a bodily manner and not in their hearts.  They have ruptured real communion with the People of God and place themselves in danger of losing "the pledge of its promises."  This is not a "puritanical" teaching.  This is the teaching of Holy Mother Church.  This teaching represents the mind of Christ.  And those who are authentically Catholic will embrace it as such.

Read More

Marianne Duddy-Burke: Why isn't the Boston Archdiocese accusing her of causing harm to the community?

As I mentioned in a previous post, "Marianne Duddy-Burke, executive director of the homosexual Catholic-in-name-only 'DignityUSA,' praised the new policy of the Boston Archdiocese which prohibits "discrimination" against students who come from a homosexual household while stating clearly that it is her belief that, 'As long as the doctrine stands [Catholic doctrine which defines marriage as a heterosexual union and which says that homosexual acts are acts of grave depravity], it makes it really hard for the pastoral and the doctrinal aspects of our faith not to come into a clash...The people of the church are changing, and by and large very affirming of gay people, and the hierarchy and the doctrine are lagging behind.' (See here).


This is nothing less than a call for the Church to abandon its teaching that homosexual acts are intrinsically evil acts.  The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which was solemnly promulgated by Pope John Paul II in 1992, teaches that there are explicit kinds of human acts, specified by the object of moral choice, which are always morally wrong because a willingness to choose an object of this kind demonstrates a disordered will (i.e., moral evil).  The Catechism explains that, "A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together.  An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself (such as praying and fasting 'in order to be seen by men').  The object of the choice can by itself vitiate an act in its entirety.  There are some concrete acts - such as fornication - that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil." (1755). 

The same Catechism identifies various kinds of intrinsically evil acts, proscribed by absolute norms.  For example, the intentional killing of the innocent (2273), specific examples of which are infanticide (2268) abortion (2273) and mercy killing or euthanasia (2277); masturbation (2352), fornication (2353) adultery (2380-2381) and homosexual acts (2357).
If one is to be faithful to Christ and His Church, one may not assert that what the Magisterium teaches is false and that the faithful possess a right to reject its teaching and substitute it with their own opinions or those of dissenting theologians.  But this is precisely what Marianne Duddy-Burke is doing.  She is agitating for a change in the Church's teaching while suggesting that the Church needs to "catch up" with those who are "very affirming of gay people," (in other words, who condone homosexual acts). 

But the Church, while respecting the homosexual person (CCC, 2358), cannot affirm acts which are intrinsically evil.  Which is why the Catechism states clearly that, "Homosexual persons are called to chastity." (2359).  In his Encyclical Letter Veritatis Splendor, No. 113, Pope John Paul II warns that, "dissent, in the form of carefully orchestrated protests and polemics carried on in the media, is opposed to ecclesial communion and to a correct understanding of the hierarchical constitution of the People of God."  In the face of such dissent, a dissent which harms the Church's communion, Pope John Paul II insists that, "the Church's Pastors have the duty to act in conformity with their apostolic mission, insisting that the right of the faithful to receive Catholic doctrine in its purity and integrity must be preserved" (No. 113).

Has Cardinal O'Malley done this?  Has he acted in conformity with his apostolic mission to address Ms. Duddy-Burke's public dissent from the Church's teaching regarding homosexual acts?  How about Father Emile "Mike" Boutin's dissent from Church teaching?  Thus far there has been nothing from the Boston Archdiocese but silence.  But the same archdiocese managed to find the time to accuse Boston Catholic bloggers faithful to the Magisteium of harming the community of the faithful.  Pope John Paul II never said that fidelity to the Magisterium is opposed to ecclesial communion.  But rather dissent.

Why the silence from Cardinal O'Malley?  What do you think?  And more to the point: Why is it that the Church in Boston finds it so easy to partner with individuals who are engaging in intrinsically evil acts but so difficult to partner with Catholics faithful to the Magisterium?  While you wrestle with that, let me finish this post with another quotation from Marianne Duddy-Burke, taken from an article she authored for The Huffington Post:

"We will be looking for someone to fill Senator Kennedy's shoes--and no one will. But perhaps his leadership can give hope to the many Catholics who feel their values on LGBT issues do not agree with what they hear from their bishops. Ted Kennedy confirmed that progressive Catholics can live out their deep convictions and genuine faith even when these convictions differ from those of the church hierarchy."  See here.


God save the Boston Archdiocese!

Read More