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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

Read More

Why should those who produce The Catholic Free Press be surprised that government is now mandating contraception?

In an editorial entitled, "Stop the erosion of religious liberty," The Catholic Free Press, official newspaper of the Diocese of Worcester, Massachusetts, laments that, "The Obama administration has embarked on a systematic effort to erode religious liberty to the point of non-existence by attempting to restrict it solely to freedom of worship.  Through administrative policies and mandates, religious liberty and freedom of conscience in the United States is under attack, as witnessed by the most recent 'accommodation.'..The Obama administration has been chipping away at the right of religious institutions to abide by their beliefs when those beliefs oppose the secularist agenda, particularly in the arena of morality.  This was clearly evident in the decision not to renew a federal grant by the Department of Health and Human Services to the bishops'  Migration and Refugee Services for its human trafficking program because it would not provide the full range of reproductive services, including abortion and contraception, to human trafficking victims and unaccompanied refugee minors...President Obama made the decision to impose the Department of Health and Human Services' Interim Final Rules on Preventive Services, requiring all private health plans, including those of Catholic hospitals, charities and schools, to provide coverage of prescription contraceptives, including abortion-inducing drugs, and sterilization for women.  The so-called "religious employer" exemption that was put forth with these rules is so narrowly defined that it is meaningless.  Unless a religious institution employs and serves only individuals of the same religious tradition, it does not qualify for the exemption.  Therefore, Catholic hospitals and schools who serve people of all faiths, precisely because of their Catholic mission, do not qualify for the exemption.  The recent 'accommodation' offered in response to the outcry that resulted from this mandate, which was unquestionably a direct assault on the Roman Catholic Church's religious liberty, does not lessen the concerns initially raised...We cannot lose sight of the fact that the 'accommodation' does not alter the Obama administration's mandate promoting contraception, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs as a matter of government policy.  It is particularly troubling that the attitude toward human life identifies pregnancy as a disease, posing a threat to one's health.."

How did we get to where we are in the United States?  In the words of Archbishop Charles Chaput, spoken in 2009, "40 years of American Catholic complacency and poor formation are bearing exactly the fruit we should have expected...We can't talk about following St. Paul and converting our culture until we sober up and get honest about what we've allowed ourselves to become. We need to stop lying to each other..."


Once a people appeal to conscience in order to condone sin, it is only a matter of time before such sin is openly mandated.  Long before contraception was being mandated by the government, there were those in the Church - including throughout the Diocese of Worcester - who were unleashing the leaven of infidelity by neglecting to preach against sin or by appealing to a dissenting notion of the primacy of conscience.

Richard Blanchard was documenting this infidelity (within the Worcester Diocese) at the same time I was writing against it in the pages of The Catholic Free Press more than twenty years ago.  For example, in his newsletter "Just The Facts," No. 6, (1993), Richard noted how a Couple-to-Couple team was teaching CCD students preparing for Confirmation in Leominster, Massachusetts (St. Leo's Parish) that, "If your conscience convinces you that birth control is right, even if the Church says its wrong, you can practice birth control and not be sinning."  And then Richard explains: "This has been taught for over 20 years and still is being taught in this diocese [Worcester].  The basis for this teaching is dissent and a dissenting concept of the primacy of conscience which is nothing less than situation ethics."

In the same newsletter, Richard Blanchard noted that, "During the episcopate of Timothy J. Harrington...dissent and disobedience has flourished and taken deep roots....in September of 1984 Sister Anna Kane was appointed Vicar of Religious and Director of the then Office of Women, at the same time she became a member of Bishop Harrington's administrative cabinet.  She became very militant against Humanae Vitae.  Under the administration of Fr. Piermarini, (now Msgr), the religious education department employed Dr. Vincent Forde, Bernard Cooke and Alice Laffey as instructors of the Education in Ministry Program, also known as the Master Catechist Program which has for its goal, master certification for CCD teaching.  All [of these instructors] openly strong advocates against the teaching on birth control in Humanae Vitae."

Within the pages of The Catholic Free Press, Humanae Vitae was openly mocked.  For example, in his "Essay in Theology" column entitled "Humanae Vitae; a troubling silence (CFP, August 13, 1993), dissident priest Father Richard P. McBrien referred to the Church as "a dysfunctional family" because it will not change its teaching on the sinfullness of artificial contraception to appease those who just cannot or will not accept it.


As a result of 40 years of poor catechesis - or none at all - and outright complacency throughout the Catholic Church in America,  too many people today (including sadly, many Catholics) have come to view conscience as a sort of fortress built so as to shelter them from the exacting demands of truth. In the words of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, "In the Psalms we meet from time to time the prayer that God should free man from his hidden sins. The Psalmist sees as his greatest danger the fact that he no longer recognizes them as sins and thus falls into them in apparently good conscience. Not being able to have a guilty conscience is a sickness...And thus one cannot aprove the maxim that everyone may always do what his conscience allows him to do: In that case the person without a conscience would be permitted to do anything. In truth it is his fault that his conscience is so broken that he no longer sees what he as a man should see. In other words, included in the concept of conscience is an obligation, namely, the obligation to care for it, to form it and educate it. Conscience has a right to respect and obedience in the measure in which the person himself respects it and gives it the care which its dignity deserves. The right of conscience is the obligation of the formation of conscience. Just as we try to develop our use of language and we try to rule our use of rules, so must we also seek the true measure of conscience so that finally the inner word of conscience can arrive at its validity.

For us this means that the Church's magisterium bears the responsibility for correct formation. It makes an appeal, one can say, to the inner vibrations its word causes in the process of the maturing of conscience. It is thus an oversimplification to put a statement of the magisterium in opposition to conscience. In such a case I must ask myself much more. What is it in me that contradicts this word of the magisterium? Is it perhaps only my comfort? My obstinacy? Or is it an estrangement through some way of life that allows me something which the magisterium forbids and that appears to me to be better motivated or more suitable simply because society considers it reasonable? It is only in the context of this kind of struggle that the conscience can be trained, and the magisterium has the right to expect that the conscience will be open to it in a manner befitting the seriousness of the matter. If I believe that the Church has its origins in the Lord, then the teaching office in the Church has a right to expect that it, as it authentically develops, will be accepted as a priority factor in the formation of conscience." (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Keynote Address of the Fourth Bishops' Workshop of the National Catholic Bioethics Center, on "Moral Theology Today: Certitudes and Doubts," February 1984).

In the same address, Cardinal Ratzinger explains that, "Conscience is understood by many as a sort of deification of subjectivity, a rock of bronze on which even the magisterium is shattered....Conscience appears finally as subjectivity raised to the ultimate standard."

And subjectivity raised to the ultimate standard gives rise to dictatorship. For, as Pope John Paul II reminded us in Centesimus Annus, "Authentic democracy is possible only in a State ruled by law, and on the basis of a correct conception of the human person. It requires that the necessary conditions be present for the advancement both of the individual through education and formation in true ideals, and of the 'subjectivity' of society through the creation of structures of participation and shared responsibility. Nowadays there is a tendency to claim that agnosticism and sceptical relativism are the philosophy and the basic attitude which correspond to democratic forms of political life. Those who are convinced that they know the truth and firmly adhere to it are considered unreliable from a democratic point of view, since they do not accept that truth is determined by the majority, or that it is subject to variation according to different political trends. It must be observed in this regard that if there is no ultimate truth to guide and direct political activity, then ideas and convictions can easily be manipulated for reasons of power. As history demonstrates, a democracy without values easily turns into open or thinly disguised totalitarianism."

Why should those who produce The Catholic Free Press be surprised that government is now mandating contraception?  The Church in the United States is only reaping what it has sown.

Read More

Those who are critical of Rick Santorum for speaking of Satan are thereby critical of Christian doctrine...

We can expect presidential candidate Rick Santorum to continue to come under heavy fire for warning that, "Satan has his sights on the United States of America" and that  he is "attacking the great institutions of America, using those great vices of pride, vanity, and sensuality as the root to attack all of the strong plants that has so deeply rooted in the American tradition."

We read here that, "The former senator from Pennsylvania warned in 2008 how politics and government are falling to Satan. 'This is a spiritual war. And the Father of Lies has his sights on what you would think the Father of Lies would have his sights on: a good, decent, powerful, influential country - the United States of America. If you were Satan, who would you attack in this day and age? He attacks all of us and he attacks all of our institutions.' Santorum made the provocative comments to students at Ave Maria University in Florida."

We are experiencing various signs of demonic activity throughout our troubled culture and even many of our shepherds have not taken this seriously. Demonic abortion continues to be practiced even while our society rushes to embrace a culture of sodomy and same-sex "marriage." Many individuals, including some Catholic priests, have abandoned themselves to sexual perversions, violence, and drug use.

Our culture has been so secularized that any mention of the supernatural realm is greeted either with complete indifference or with ridicule.


The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in its document entitled "Les formes de la superstition," helped the faithful better understand the Church's teaching regarding demonic spirits. The document said that, "It would be a fatal mistake to act as if history were already finished and redemption had achieved all its effects, so that it were no longer necessary to to engage in the struggle [against the Devil and demons] of which the New Testament and the masters of the spiritual life speak...To maintain today, therefore, that Jesus' words about Satan express only a teaching borrowed from his culture and are unimportant for the faith of other believers is evidently to show little understanding either of the Master's character or of his age. If Jesus used this kind of language and, above all, if he translated it into practice during his ministry, it was because it expressed a doctrine that was to some extent essential to the idea and reality of the salvation that he was bringing....Satan whom Jesus attacked with his exorcisms and confronted in the wilderness and in his passion, cannot simply be a product of the human ability to tell stories and personify ideas nor a stray survival of a primitive culture and its language...Satan's action on man is admittedly interior but it is impossible to regard him as therefore simply a personification of sin and temptation....It was for all these reasons that the Fathers of the Church were convinced from Scripture that Satan and the demons are the enemies of man's redemption, and they did not fail to remind the faithful of their existence and action..."

Pope Paul VI, in a general audience on November 15, 1972, asked, "What are the Church's greatest needs at the present time?" and provided an answer: "Don't be surprised at our answer and don't write it off as simplistic or even superstitious: one of the Church's greatest needs is to be defended against the evil which we call the Devil...Evil is not merely an absence of something but an active force, a living, spiritual being that is perverted and that perverts others....It is a departure from the picture provided by biblical and Church teaching to refuse to acknowledge the Devil's existence...or to explain the Devil as a pseudoreality, a conceptual, fanciful, personification of the unknown causes of our misfortunes....St. Paul calls him the 'god of this world,' and warns us of the struggle we Christians must carry on in the dark, not only against one Devil, but against a frightening multiplicity of them..."

Back in 2010, Archbishop Charles Chaput gave a keynote address to the Emmanuel Community of Rome's conference on "Priests and Laity in the Mission."  During this address, His Excellency elaborated on a major theme of his talk - the reality of Satan and the importance of "spiritual combat," saying that, "I think we live in disappointing times, in times of confusion, and in some ways that is the result of our failure to understand that we have an enemy in the Devil, but also we have enemies in the world around us."


Then His Excellency pointed to a "great talk" from an American Protestant pastor he once heard which was entitled "We preach as though we don't have enemies," and reflected that this sentiment "is true in the United States..." adding, "I think it's important to understand that we are in a battle, we really do live in a time of spiritual combat and I think we've lost that sense of the Church," Archbishop Chaput stated.

Archbishop Chaput continued with a comparison of the temptation we face to be like "everyone else" like the Israelites from the Old Testament wishing for a king like the other nations. They wanted a king ... they got Saul and he was a good man, and then he became a politician and he lost his faith. We're just like that...In America, we don't want to be different than our Protestant brothers and sisters, or the secular forces around us. And, I think that's the great danger of our time, we don't love God enough and we don't enter into combat with the enemy enough and we need to recommit ourselves to doing that," he urged.

Those who criticize Rick Santorum for addressing the reality of Satan and the spiritual combat which we find ourselves in are not just criticizing Mr. Santorum.  They are ridiculing the teaching of Jesus and His Apostles (and most notably St. Paul).  They are ridiculing the Church Fathers, the Popes and the Saints who taught on the reality of Satan.  They are ridiculing more than 2,000 years of Church tradition.

How is that for going "well over the line"?

Read More

Clark University in Worcester: Those who oppose homosexuality on moral grounds akin to rapists and those who sexually assault others?

In a previous post I noted how Cardinal Raymond Burke told the Catholic News Agency that he can envision a time when the Catholic Church in the United States "even by announcing her own teaching" will be accused of "engaging in illegal activity, for instance, in its teaching on human sexuality."

Those who are promoting the homosexual agenda are using time-proven tactics which have been employed by secular humanists for some time now. In the words of Ralph Martin, "First, a plea is issued for a dominantly Christian society to 'tolerate' what appears to be a deviant behavior. Then pressure is applied to place the deviant behavior on an equal footing with traditional Christian values. Secular humanists argue that a pluralist society cannot do otherwise. They then try to make the deviant behavior seem normal and behavior governed by Christian values seem abnormal - a threat to a pluralist society. The last step is often to use the legal system to protect immorality and to undermine what Christians have always considered righteous behavior." (A Crisis of Truth, pp. 101-102).


Professor James Hitchcock, in his excellent work entitled Catholicism and Modernity (New York: Seabury Press, 1979, p. 86), explains the role of the media in this entire process: "The media's alleged commitment to 'pluralism' is at base a kind of hoax. The banner of pluralism is raised in order to win toleration for new ideas as yet unacceptable to the majority. Once toleration has been achieved, public opinion is systematically manipulated first to enforce a status of equality between the old and the new, then to assert the superiority of the new over the old. A final stage is often the total discrediting, even sometimes the banning, of what had previously been orthodox."

Dr. Jeff Mirus gets it. He writes, "The writing is on the wall. Gay marriage is the lie that will create the next Gulag. Indeed, gay marriage is the perfect totalitarian wedge, not least in a country like the United States.." (See full article here).  There is reason for concerm.  In the comments section of a previous thread, I wrote:

"Clark University's definition of 'heterosexism' is nothing less than an assault on Catholic moral teaching. The university, in its definition of the term, asserts that, 'At its core, heterosexism assumes that heterosexual relationships represent the norm and are, therefore, implicitly superior to gay, lesbian, transsexual or bisexual relationships. Out of heterosexism stems homophobia which is the fear and/or hatred of gays, lesbians, transsexuals and bisexuals because of their sexual orientations..'


The Catholic Church does not fear homosexual persons nor does she have a hatred for such persons. On the contrary, the Church teaches rather emphatically that homosexual persons, '..must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided..' (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2358).

The key phrase here is 'unjust discrimination.' Not all discrimination is unjust. As the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith makes clear, 'no ideology can erase from the human spirit the certainty that marriage exists solely between a man and a woman.' (Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons, No. 2).

The CDF document continues: 'There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way analogous to God's plan for marriage and family. Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law. Homosexual acts '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.' (ibid, No. 4).

Obviously this teaching is not accepted by everyone. But the suggestion that this teaching is unjustly discriminatory and that it leads to 'hatred' and 'fear' toward homosexual persons is both mean-spirited and, in itself, evidence of discrimination. In this case, Christianophobia."

And then a reader named Wendy left a comment asking, "..why does the Dean of Students place the definition of 'heterosexism' alongside other terms such as 'rape' and 'sexual assault' while indicating that they are 'related terms'? http://www.clarku.edu/offices/dos/survivorguide/definition.cfm

A good question.  Do administrators at Clark University view moral opposition toward homosexuality as something akin to criminal activity?  If not, why does the institution label such opposition "heterosexism" and lump it with the crimes of rape and sexual assault?

Read More

Father John Unni urges those in attendance at St. Cecilia's "Welcoming Mass" to shed the burden of shame

In a statement issued yesterday by the Catholic Action League, we read:

"The Catholic Action League of Massachusetts today criticized the Archdiocese of Boston for allowing the so-called 'welcoming Mass' for lesbian, homosexual, bisexual and transgendered persons to go forward at Saint Cecilia's Church in Boston's Back Bay. The mass had been originally scheduled to celebrate Gay Pride month in Boston. Following protests by faithful Catholics, the event was rescheduled and re-themed.


The Catholic Action League called the decision to allow the mass 'a cowardly betrayal of trust resulting in the spiritual abandonment of Saint Cecilia's Parish to moral error and mortal sin.'

Catholic Action League Executive Director C. J. Doyle stated: 'The Church is a hospital for sinners, not a museum for saints. Everyone is welcome, and everyone deserves to hear the full truth of the Church's teachings. Sadly, that was not the case at this morning's liturgy at Saint Cecilia's.

Today's liturgy was a scandal and a surrender, where the homosexual identity was affirmed, and where Catholic moral prohibitions against homosexual behavior were ignored. Those prohibitions are explicit, longstanding, and severe. Instead of calling his congregation to repentance, interior conversion, and the personal pursuit of holiness, the homilist, Father John Unni, attempted to anesthetize the consciences of his listeners by urging them to shed the burden of shame.

The salvation of souls demands that Catholic priests and prelates demonstrate the courage to tell homosexuals that their participation in the sin of impurity against nature deprives them of sanctifying grace and imperils their immortal souls. At Saint Cecilia's, however, today's message was the spiritual equivalent of 'Don't worry, be happy.' The Archdiocese of Boston has, once again, failed to protect the moral and spiritual welfare of its members.'"

Should a Catholic priest be urging others to "shed the burden of shame"?  In his book entitled, "True to Our Feelings," Robert Solomon writes, "Aristotle calls shame [in his Nicomachean Ethics] a 'quasi-virtue' because to act wrongly and not be ashamed is much worse than to act wrongly and be ashamed because one has done wrong." (p. 96). 

Thomas Aquinas follows Aristotle in viewing shame as a "quasi-virtue" and asserts, in his Summa Theologica, that shame, being praiseworthy, is either itself a virtue or contributes to virtue.  He says that shame is a recoiling from that which is dishonorable and disgraceful, and since lack of moderation is the most dishonorable and disgraceful thing there is, shame contributes more to moderation than to any other virtue.  He says that shame is not so much an essential component of moderation as it is a preparation for it, laying its foundation by instilling in persons the horror of that which brings dishonor and disgrace.

Which is why Father Unni's exhortation to "shed the burden of shame" is so very troubling.  One who is shameless fears neither God nor man.  For such a person, that which is shameful becomes something to boast in.  But we already have St. Paul's warning: "For many, as I have often told you and now tell you even in tears, conduct themselves as enemies of the cross of Christ.  Their end is destruction.  Their God is their stomach; their glory is in their 'shame.'  Their minds are occupied with earthly things." (Philippians 3: 18, 19).

Is this really what Father Unni wants for his people?  For them to glory in their shame?  To fear neither God nor man? 

Will this teaching lead others to embrace holiness of life or will it encourage them to embrace self-will while rejecting the salutary fear of God*?


*  "The fear of the Lord is a fountain of life, to decline from the ruin of death." (Proverbs 14: 27).

*  "Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all defilement of the flesh and of the spirit, perfecting sanctification in the fear of God." (2 Corinthians 7:1).

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

I've been warning about this for some time: Now Vatican warns of intensifying persecution against those who oppose homosexuality

As I've warned so many times before, "..the same radical homosexual activists who continually cry for more 'tolerance' are anything but tolerant. This is a spiritual war. The homosexual movement is not a civil rights movement. It is an attempt at moral revolution. An attempt to change people's view of homosexuality.


Writing in the Chicago Free Press, even homosexual activist Paul Varnell admitted this. He wrote, 'The fundamental controverted issue about homosexuality is not discrimination, hate crimes or domestic partnerships, but the morality of homosexuality. Even if gays obtain non-discrimination laws, hate crimes law and domestic partnership benefits, those can do little to counter the underlying moral condemnation which will continue to fester beneath the law and generate hostility, fuel hate crimes, support conversion therapies, encourage gay youth suicide and inhibit the full social acceptance that is our goal. On the other hand, if we convince people that homosexuality is fully moral, then all their inclination to discriminate, engage in gay-bashing or oppose gay marriage disappears. Gay youths and adults could readily accept themselves. So the gay movement, whether we acknowledge it or not, is not a civil rights movement, not even a sexual liberation movement, but a moral revolution aimed at changing people's view of homosexuality.' (Paul Varnell, "Defending Our Morality," Chicago Free Press, Aug 16, 2000, See here).

Radical homosexual activists will not rest until they obtain societal acceptance of homosexuality.  This is a spiritual war.  Those who refuse to embrace homosexuality, lesbianism, bisexuality and transgenderism will not be tolerated.

Read More

Peekaboo civility and a definition of what is "rational" from the White House

It was just over a week ago that President Obama and the White House were calling for a return to civility and calm rhetoric in American public discourse.  Now the White House is calling the mental health of those who don't believe Barack Obama was born in Hawaii into question, suggesting that such people are irrational.  White House press secretary Robert Gibbs, during Monday's White House briefing, said, "I think rational people have - have long ago, many when they first saw and heard the president, come to the conclusion of his citizenship."  See here.

But as Dr. Kreeft has reminded us, "Usually, people seem to choose what to believe not by looking at the evidence but by looking at ideological labels, especially 'liberal' or 'conservative,' or by asking which group of people they want to be associated with, or by vague feelings and associations evoked by an idea within their consciousness, rather than by looking at the idea itself and the reality it points to outside their consciousness."  Isn't this exactly what Mr. Gibbs is suggesting happened?  He suggests that many people, "when they first saw and heard the president," came to "the conclusion of his citizenship."

Well gosh darn, that's a really rational approach.  I saw and heard Barack Obama speak and came to the conclusion that he was a U.S. citizen.  And this even though his birth certificate cannot be produced.

Not only does civility come and go at the White House, so does rational thought.

Read More