Many priests today encourage (or enable) the laity to live in a state of spiritual ruin

Pope John Paul II, in his Encyclical Letter Dominum et Vivificantem, No. 46, says that: "..whoever rejects the Spirit and the Blood remains in 'dead works,' in sin. And the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit consists precisely in the radical refusal to accept this forgiveness, of which he is the intimate giver and which presupposes the genuine conversion which he brings about in the conscience. If Jesus says that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit cannot be forgiven either in this life or in the next, it is because this 'non-forgiveness' is linked, as to its cause, to 'non-repentance,' in other words to the radical refusal to be converted. This means the refusal to come to the sources of Redemption, which nevertheless remain "always" open in the economy of salvation in which the mission of the Holy Spirit is accomplished. The Spirit has infinite power to draw from these sources: "he will take what is mine," Jesus said. In this way he brings to completion in human souls the work of the Redemption accomplished by Christ, and distributes its fruits. Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, then, is the sin committed by the person who claims to have a 'right' to persist in evil-in any sin at all-and who thus rejects Redemption. One closes oneself up in sin, thus making impossible one's conversion, and consequently the remission of sins, which one considers not essential or not important for one's life. This is a state of spiritual ruin, because blasphemy against the Holy Spirit does not allow one to escape from one's self-imposed imprisonment and open oneself to the divine sources of the purification of consciences and of the remission of sins."

Many who believe themselves to be Catholic accept the distorted notion that they may do whatever they desire, satisfying their every appetite, addiction and fetish and that the Merciful God will somehow overlook their sins.  And this because their parish priest seldom speaks of sin, death, hell, purgatory or judgement.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines sin thusly:

"Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity. It has been defined as 'an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law.'" (CCC, 1849).

How are Christians to respond to sin and sinful structures? Again, the Catechism teaches:

"The duty of Christians to take part in the life of the Church impels them to act as witnesses of the Gospel and of the obligations that flow from it. This witness is a transmission of the faith in words and deeds. Witness is an act of justice that establishes the truth or makes it known. All Christians by the example of their lives and the witness of their word, wherever they live, have an obligation to manifest the new man which they have put on in Baptism and to reveal the power of the Holy Spirit by whom they were strengthened at Confirmation." (CCC, 2472).

This duty, this obligation, of the laity to "act as witnesses of the Gospel and of the obligations that flow from it," is too often misunderstood by even those within the Church who emphasize evangelizing in love but who disassociate love from truth. This is unfortunate since an authentic evangelization is always rooted in truth. There is no genuine love in evangelization without the truth. In the words of Archbishop Oscar Romero, the martyred Archbishop of San Salvador:

"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."

How serious is this obligation to speak the truth in love as witnesses of the Gospel? Again, Archbishop Romero:

"Not just purgatory but hell awaits those who could have done good & did not do it. It is the reverse of the Beati-tude that the Bible has for those who are saved, for the saints,"who could have done wrong & did not." Of those who are condemned it will be said: they could have done good & did not."

I remember some years back, at a spiritual conference which featured Catholic mystic Eileen George of Meet the Father Ministry (an apostolate which is approved by the Diocese of Worcester, Massachusetts), how Mrs. George publically rebuked (in a strong but loving way) two homosexual men who were in attendance. She told them (without ever having met these men before) that the Lord Jesus had revealed to her that they were living in a homosexual relationship and that He was very sad. She told these two men that they needed to repent and leave that sin behind.

How many priests today lack such courage to proclaim the truth in love?  At Our Lady Immaculate Parish in Athol, the "pastor" and his "pastoral team" have failed miserably in this regard and the parish is suffering as a result.  While Fr. Krzysztof Korcz has all the time in the world to jar pickles and write homilies in which he manages to say absolutely nothing for ten minutes, one never hears him mention the reality of sin, hell and judgement. 

And because the "pastoral team" at Our Lady Immaculate has lost the sense of sin, anyone who has the audacity to write or speak about sin and its disastruous effects will be shunned and ostracized.  This explains why I was blocked from leaving posts at the North Quabbin Catholic Community Facebook page and why several anonymous individuals - including one who refers to himself as "Dr. Lobotomy" - Deacon Linderman? - have left hate-filled comments accusing me of lacking charity for speaking plainly about sin.

While the parish has considered taking what it considers to be a more "tolerant" approach toward homosexual persons (see here), orthodox Catholics faithful to the Church's Magisterium (like myself) find no welcome.



The apostasy continues to spread. See here. Pickles anyone?

 

 

 

Read More

Pope Francis' example exhorts men to holiness

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks be to God, we have a Holy Father whose example is calling lapsed Catholics back into the Church.  See here.

But then it was Saint Francis, from whom our Holy Father took his name, who said, "Preach always, use words if necessary."

Read More

No disorderly tendency can have a right to citizenship in a person's thoughts

In its document entitled Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons, which was published on October 1, 1986, the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith recalled the distinction between homosexual tendencies and homosexual practices: "Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder."

Many interpret the Church's teaching as meaning that a homosexual person only sins if he or she actually engages in homosexual acts.  I have received comments at this Blog suggesting that only homosexual acts are sinful.  But this is not the Church's teaching.  Although the homosexual inclination itself is not a sin, still, the homosexual person sins if he or she makes a concession to this tendency in his or her mind.

It is Catholic doctrine that any disorderly tendency, and most especially toward a vice which is contrary to nature, cannot have a right to citizenship in a person's thoughts.  Recall the teaching of Our Lord Jesus in Matthew 5: 27, 28: "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.'  But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

This is why in the Confiteor [Latin: I confess], which is part of the Penitential Rite, one asks for forgiveness for thoughts, words and deeds.

We know as well that homosexual persons also sin when their external behavior expresses a homosexual tendency.  Which is why we read in Isaiah 3:9 that, 'Their very look bears witness against them; their sin like Sodom they vaunt, They hide it not.  Woe to them!  they deal out evil to themselves."  And in Deuteronomy 22:5 we read, "A woman shall not wear an article proper to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman's dress; for anyone who does such things is an abomination to the Lord, your God."

As I said in a previous post, the Cult of Softness continues to spread.

Read More

On almsgiving and the desire to be seen by men....

The Church has always insisted on the necessity of almsgiving.  In Christian tradition, almsgiving (the word alms coming from the Greek word eleemosyne meaning mercy or pity) is a corporal work of mercy.  Throughout the Old Testament, we are admonished to provide for the needy.  For example,  in Proverbs 3:27, we read: "Whenever you possibly can, do good to those who need it."  And Proverbs 22:9 exhorts us, "Be generous and share your food with the poor.  You will be blessed for it."

The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches us that, "The interior penance of the Christian can be expressed in many and various ways.  Scripture and the Fathers insist above all on three forms, fasting, prayer, and almsgiving, which express conversion in relation to oneself, to God, and to others." (CCC, 1434).  And again, "The works of mercy are charitable actions by which we come to the aid of our neighbor in his spiritual and bodily necessities.  Instructing, advising, consoling, comforting are spiritual works of mercy, as are forgiving and bearing wrongs patiently.  The corporal works of mercy consist especially in feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, clothing the naked, visiting the sick and imprisoned, and burying the dead.  Among all these, giving alms to the poor is one of the chief witnesses to fraternal charity: it is also a work of justice pleasing to God." (CCC, 2447).

But the same authoritative Catechism warns us that, "The New Law practices the acts of religion: almsgiving, prayer and fasting, directing them to the 'Father who sees in secret,' in contrast with the desire to 'be seen by men.'  Its prayer is the Our Father." (CCC, 1969).

It is this desire "to be seen by men" which we must all be on guard against.  Our almsgiving, our prayer and our fasting should be motivated by love of God and love of neighbor (for God's sake) and not by a spirit of self-promotion.

This past Saturday, while at Holy Mass, the liturgy was interrupted by the celebrant's call for members of the congregation to bring bags of groceries up to the altar.  This unfortunate practice has no place within the liturgy and betrays that desire "to be seen by men."  In Matthew 6: 1-4, Our Lord warns, "Beware of practicing your piety before men in order to be seen by them; for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven.  Thus, when you give alms, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by men.  Truly, I say to you, they have their reward.  But when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your alms may be in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you."

Almsgiving, prayer and fasting were always the basic expressions of personal piety among the chosen people.  But Jesus insists that true piety must go beyond the mere external and should be practiced with sincerity and in privacy before God without any ostentation.

What motivates our almsgiving, prayer and fasting?  Is it love of God and neighbor or the crippling desire to impress others with how "virtuous" we are?  If the latter, then we should reflect very carefully on these words from Saint Francis of Assisi: "If you were the most handsome and the richest man in the world, and could work wonders and drive out devils, all that would be something extrinsic to you; it would not belong to you, and you could not boast of it.  But there is one thing of which we can all boast; we can boast of our humiliations and in taking up daily the holy cross of our Lord Jesus Christ."

We must - all of us - remind ourselves often that nothing in which we might take pride is really and truly our own doing.  Even our desire to do good comes from the Lord Jesus.  So then, let us not boast like the Pharisee in Luke 18:12: "I fast twice a week, I give tithes of all that I get," but rather, let us recall the words of the Holy Spirit given through Saint Paul, "For not he who commendeth himself, is approved, but he whom God commendeth" (2 Corinthians 10: 17-18).

Read More

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read More

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

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


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

And I asserted that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read More

This year's Walter Duranty Award goes to Hilary Mantel

The sexual abuse of children is not a "Catholic problem."  It is a societal problem.  In point of fact, there has been far less less abuse within the Church than there has been across the rest of society.  See here.  Your children are much safer in the Church than they are in the public schools.

But you would never know this to listen to Hilary Mantel, the Booker Prize-winning author who was raised Roman Catholic and educated at a convent school.  According to the now enlightened Ms. Mantel, the Catholic Church "is not an institution for respectable people" because the sexual abuse scandals involving a tiny percentage of Roman Catholic priests have demonstrated the "cruelty" and "hypocrisy" of the Church. See here. In other words, because of the sinful and even criminal actions of a handful of men, in a Church comprised of more than one billion people,  everyone in the Church is deserving of condemnation: from the Holy Father down to the last little lady sitting in a pew somewhere.

And so Ms. Mantel left the Mystical Body of Christ thereby proving that she never belonged to our company anyway: "It was from our ranks that they took their leave - not that they really belonged to us; for if they had belonged to us, they would have stayed with us.  It only served to show that none of them was ours." (1 John 2: 19).

The Church is not an institution for respectable people?  But such has always been our boast: "Brothers, you are among those called.  Consider your situation.  Not many of you are wise, as men account wisdom; not many are influential; and surely not many are well-born [read "respectable"].  God chose those whom the world considers absurd to shame the wise; he singled out the weak of this world to shame the strong.  He chose the world's lowborn and despised, those who count for nothing, to reduce to nothing those who were something; so that mankind can do no boasting before God..." (1 Corinthians 1: 26-29).

A few men betrayed the Gospel and engaged in cruelty and that's your reason for leaving the Church founded by Christ?  That's your reason for leaving behind the Eucharist - the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ?  Note how Ms. Mantel has also abandoned faith in the Eucharist.

There is absolutely no doubt that the human history of the Church, like all of human history, has its dark pages. But if anyone cares to take an objective look at this history, one must quickly acknowledge that the doctrine of the Church has always implicitly condemned abuses introduced by Her members.


In the words of Dr. Dietrich Von Hildebrand, "There were sinners in the Church yesterday and there are sinners in the Church today. But the Church Herself, in her divine teaching, emerges gloriously unspotted in a history stained by human weaknesses, errors, imperfections, and sins."

In the words of the great Cardinal Journet:

"All contradictions are eliminated as soon as we understand that the members of the Church do indeed sin, but they do so by their betraying the Church. The Church is thus not without sinners, but She is without sin. The Church as person is responsible for penance. She is not responsible for sins....The members of the Church themselves - laity, clerics, priests, Bishops, and Popes - who disobey the Church are responsible for their sins, but the Church as person is not responsible...It is forgotten that the Church as person is the Bride of Christ, 'Whom He has purchased with His own blood." (Acts 20:28).

Hilary Mantel prefers the company of "respectable" society.  You know, the sort of people who sip tea as they discuss the merits of abortion and the value of sodomite unions.  The sort of people who condemn the Church they never understood even as they embrace myriad evils.  For such "enlightened" souls, abortion is not cruelty, it is simply "choice."  And the millions of murdered babies discarded in trash bags is necessary to promote the "health" of women and the progress of human society.

And so, this years Walter Duranty Award for living in denial goes to Hilary Mantel, for proving that even the most "respectable" people can live a life of dim-wittedness and hypocrisy.  Please compare Ms. Mantel's photograph with the New Oxford Review graphic (featured in one of their ads) depicting the dumbed-down liberal "Catholic."

Is it just me or is there a resemblance?
Oh boy.

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

Archaeologist: Sodom and Gomorrah "appear to have been wiped out in a "heat event"

An archaeological dig appears to have confirmed the truth of the Biblical account of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah:

"The sun was just rising over the earth as Lot arrived in Zoar; at the same time the Lord rained down sulphurous fire upon Sodom and Gomorrah.  He overthrew those cities and the whole Plain, together with the inhabitants of the cities and the produce of the soil." (Genesis 19: 23-25).

Another archaeologist, Werner Keller, in a fascinating work entitled "The Bible as History," which I first read back in 1984, writes, "The calamity which is the subject of this powerful Biblical story of divine punishment for incorrigible sin has probably in all ages made a deep impression on men's minds.  Sodom and Gomorrah have become synonymous with vice and godlessness.  When men have talked in terms of utter annihilation, again the fate of these cities has always sprung to their minds.  Their imaginations have constantly been kindled by this inexplicible and frightful disaster, as can well be seen from the many allusions to it in ancient times.  Remarkable and quite incredible things are said to have happened there by the Dead Sea, the 'Sea of Salt,' where according to the Bible the catastrophe must have happened.

During the siege of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 it is said that the Roman army commander Titus sentenced certain slaves to death.  He gave them short shrift, had them bound together by chains and thrown into the sea at the foot of the mountains of Moab.  But the condemned men did not drown.  No matter how often they were thrown into the sea they always drifted back to the shore like corks.  This inexplicable occurrence made such a deep impression upon Titus that he pardoned the unfortunate offenders.  Flavius Josephus, the Jewish historian who lived latterly in Rome, repeatedly mentions a 'Lake of Asphalt.'  Greeks lay stress on the presence of poisonous gases, which are reported as rising from all parts of this sea.  The Arabs say that in olden times no bird was able to reach the opposite side.  The creatures, as they flew across the water, would suddenly drop dead into it..." (The Bible as History, p. 87).

Related reading here.

Read More

To the President of Anna Maria College: Please learn the difference between a holy and an unholy distraction

By now you've probably heard of how Bishop Robert McManus of the Diocese of Worcester, Massachusetts, asked Anna Maria College to rescind its invitation to atheistic humanist Victoria Kennedy to speak at its 2012 Commencement.  Now the Catholic Free Press is reporting that Sister Yvette Bellerose, chairwoman of the Board of Trustees, and Jack P. Calareso, president of Anna Maria College, have asked Bishop McManus not to attend the Commencement either.  It has been asserted that the Bishop would be a distraction. 

What of it? No doubt Victoria Kennedy would have been a distraction for students who actually accept the Church's teaching.  The Catechism of the Catholic Church tells us that, "..a distraction reveals to us what we are attached to." (2729). Not all distractions are bad. Some are even holy. As Raissa Maritain, writing about Saint Thomas Aquinas, notes: "When he wept and prayed in this way, or when he was trying to find the answer to a difficult question, very often he did not hear nor feel what was going on about him. So one day, when he was at the table of the King Saint Louis, the two saints seated side by side, Brother Thomas, forgetful of the circumstances and the place, rapped loudly on the table and cried out: 'So much for the heresy of the Manicheans!' 'Master,' said the Prior who accompanied him, 'be careful, you are at the table of the King of France.' And saying this, he pulled at his cloak to bring him out of this state of holy distraction." (See here).

In the Gospel of Luke, Chapter 10 verses 38-42, we read: "As they continued their journey he entered a village where a woman whose name was Martha welcomed him. She had a sister named Mary [who] sat beside the Lord at his feet listening to him speak. Martha, burdened with much serving, came to him and said, 'Lord, do you not care that my sister has left me by myself to do the serving? Tell her to help me.' The Lord said to her in reply, 'Martha, Martha, you are anxious and worried about many things. There is need of only one thing. Mary has chosen the better part and it will not be taken from her.'"

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

Now Catholic News Service is reporting that: "Pope Benedict XVI called on America's Catholic colleges and universities to reaffirm their Catholic identity by ensuring orthodoxy in theological studies and accepting the oversight of bishops."  If officials at Anna Maria College honestly accept the oversight of Bishop McManus, wouldn't they want Bishop McManus in attendance?

The CNS article continues: "While he [Pope Benedict XVI] acknowledged recent efforts by America's Catholic institutions of higher education to 'reaffirm their distinctive identity in fidelity to their founding ideals and the church's mission,'" he also said that "much remains to be done."  And the Holy Father is quoted as having said that, "discord harms the church's witness and, as experience has shown, can easily be exploited to compromise her authority and her freedom."

The CNS article notes how, "U.S. bishops have clashed with the administrations of Catholic colleges and universities on a number of occasions in recent years, with some of the most prominent cases involving invited speakers who dissent from Catholic moral teaching.

In March, Anna Maria University in Worcester, Mass., retracted its invitation to Victoria Reggie Kennedy, widow of the late Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., to speak at the university's commencement, after Bishop Robert J. McManus objected to Victoria Kennedy's support for legalized abortion, contraception and same-sex marriage."

I don't believe for one minute that officials at Anna Maria College are really concerned about Bishop McManus being a distraction to their 2012 Commencement proceedings.  Their request that the Bishop not attend smacks of passive aggressive retaliation for his courageous decision to ask school officials to rescind Victoria Kennedy's invitation. 

The real distraction in this whole sordid affair has been the unholy distraction which was created when Anna Maria officials decided to invite an atheistic humanist to speak at the school's Commencement.

What a shame.

Read More

While in prayer today...

I was pondering the strange rumblings which are being heard around the world and in particular the United States.  In prayer this word comes to me:


"Go, my people, enter your chambers, and close the doors behind you;

Hide yourselves for a brief moment, until the wrath is past. See, the LORD goes forth from his place, to punish the wickedness of the earth’s inhabitants; The earth will reveal the blood shed upon it, and no longer conceal the slain." (Isaiah 26: 20).

The earth will soon reveal the blood of the little children slain in the womb. You hear rumbling. I tell you it is the Blood of Abel crying out to the Lord.

Hide yourselves until His wrath has past.

Read More

Victoria Kennedy supporters are angry and demand that Bishop Robert McManus explain himself to her

The Worcester Telegram & Gazette is reporting that:

"Two national religious organizations today will formally ask Bishop Robert J. McManus to reinstate Victoria Reggie Kennedy as the commencement speaker at Anna Maria College.


The small Catholic liberal arts school in Paxton withdrew its invitation last month after the bishop raised concerns with college officials about positions taken by the widow of former U.S. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy on abortion, gay marriage, contraception and other social issues of interest to the church.

The school has yet to announce a new speaker.

Representatives of Catholic Democrats are expected to deliver a petition to the chancery on Elm Street requesting the bishop to reverse his decision. The petition has about 20,000 online signatures.

The petition drive was organized by Faithful America, an online interfaith organization concerned with moral and social justice issues.

'We’re glad to receive the petition, but I can’t comment on it since I haven’t seen it,' said Raymond L. Delisle, the diocesan spokesman.

Those scheduled to deliver the petition include Steven D. Krueger, the national director of Catholic Democrats; Maureen McCullough, an Anna Maria alumnus, and George Shea of Uxbridge, who worked for Mr. Kennedy in his 1994 re-election bid.

Petition organizers charge that the bishop has associated Mrs. Kennedy with political and social organizations that promote points of view that are contrary to fundamental church teachings, but they said he has not substantiated those claims.

They said the bishop — through two intermediaries — has declined to speak to Mrs. Kennedy to explain his opposition.

Mr. Krueger said Bishop McManus’ action is just another example of a political tilt to the right by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

'This issue affects the public square beyond the Diocese of Worcester,' said Mr. Krueger. 'Basically, she’s not being allowed to speak because her last name is Kennedy.'"

Got that?  Supporters of Victoria Kennedy, angry that Bishop Robert McManus will not permit her to speak at a Catholic college, are demanding that he explain himself to Ms. Kennedy.  Now popes and bishops serve God's revealed word, which they are commissioned to hand on (see Lumen Gentium, No. 25 and Dei Verbum, No. 10).  Their teaching is not their own.  Rather it is a teaching which has been received from the Lord and which they must guard as inviolable and expound with fidelity.  A bishop answers to the Holy Father.  He answers to God.  He does not answer to politicians or certain individuals who happen to have a famous (or infamous) last name.

As the Telegram & Gazette article notes, the petition drive to reinstate Victoria Kennedy as the commencement speaker at Anna Maria College was organized by "Faithful America."  This organization, is anything but faithful.  It is rather, a liberal ultra-leftist organization which supports the radical homosexual agenda.  The organization has referred to the Family Research Council as a "hate group" because of its opposition to the homosexual agenda.  It has also worked with homosexual Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson, a rabid anti-Catholic bigot, in an effort to get MSNBC to take Family Research Council President Tony Perkins off the air.

A domain registrant search shows that the website for "Faithful America" is maintained by Rev. Jennifer Butler, the Executive Director of Faith in Public Life who has served as the Presbyterian Church (USA) Representative to the United Nations.  Rev. Butler, referring to Catholic Rick Santorum, has said that, "few politicians exhibit greater hostility toward gay and lesbian Americans."  This because he opposes same-sex "marriage."

Should the Bishop pay any attention to a petition organized by Catholophobic individuals who are bent on promoting the radical homosexual agenda and progressive policies which are not consistent with Catholic moral teaching?

Read More

Melinda Gates: I'm rich so listen to me!

"The most important men in town would come to fawn on me!

They would ask me to advise them,
Like a Solomon the Wise.
"If you please, Reb Tevye..."
"Pardon me, Reb Tevye..."
Posing problems that would cross a rabbi's eyes!
And it won't make one bit of difference if i answer right or wrong.
When you're rich, they think you really know!"

C-FAM is reporting that Melinda Gates, co-chair of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and a Catholic, is telling governments to dismiss the controversial link between contraception and population control and explicitly rejects Catholic social teaching along the way...Speaking at a TedxChange conference in Berlin, Germany, Gates argued that contraception has been mistakenly associated with population control, abortion, forced sterilization, and mortal sin and insisted they are 'side issues.'"  See here.

The Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World (Gaudium et Spes), No. 51, says that, "..God, the Lord of life, has conferred on men the surpassing ministry of safeguarding life in a manner which is worthy of man.  Therefore, from the moment of its conception life must be guarded with the greatest care, while abortion and infanticide are unspeakable crimes."  Abortion is not a "side issue."  It is an unspeakable crime.

The same document teaches that, "...sons of the Church may not undertake methods of birth control which are found blameworthy by the teaching authority of the Church in its unfolding of the divine law." (No. 51).

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, citing Humanae Vitae, the Encyclical Letter of Pope Paul VI, teaches that, "...'every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible' is intrinsically evil.." (2370).

But Melinda Gates believes that she knows better than the Pastors of the Church.  Pope John Paul II, in his Encyclical Letter Veritatis Splendor (The Splendor of Truth) teaches that the Church's more-than-human authority "is apparent from the living Tradition" and then confirms this by citing a key passage from Dei Verbum, Vatican II's Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, which reminds us that, "the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether in its written form or in that of Tradition, has been entrusted only to those charged with the Church's living Magisterium, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ" (Veritatis Splendor, No. 27, with internal citation from Dei Verbum, No. 10).

Faith demands a renunciation of the sinful self.  Pride must give way in every Catholic's life to humility, which is but a readiness to accept everything good as God's gift and to than Him for it (see Aquinas, S.t., 2-2, q. 161, aa.2-3).  When we allow ourselves to succumb to pride, humility is viewed as a threat to the self.  As a result, sinners who lack faith and believers whose faith has been weakened through habit to sinning will be the more tempted to reject faith in order to avoid self-renunciation - the renunciation of their sinful selves (John 3: 16-21).

Melinda Gates is chained by abundance.  Her material wealth has contributed to a pathological pride.  And this pride has led her to embrace self-assertion.  Dr. Germain Grisez explains that, "Removed from its evangelical context, the Christian insight into each individual's worth is perverted to rationalize sin.  Thus, post-Christian humankind is susceptible to a distinctive moral pathology: egoistic individualism, which exalts the well-being and satisfaction of individuals above every community, even the family.  When colored by this pathology, pride is not expressed exclusively by the quest for positions of social superiority; also, and even more arrogantly, it is seen in every individual's effort to be his or her own sovereign.  Thus, the contemporary attachment to liberty to do as one pleases: 'No one can tell me what to do.'  This attitude leads to rejection of authority generally as well as an unwillingness to accept any social responsibility toward people for whom one has no personal feelings.  Other people are to be ignored except to the extent that they are relevant to one's own purposes or can be made so.  Then they are to be dominated and manipulated, so that at least they will allow one to gain one's ends and at best will serve one's purposes."


The real tragedy is that many will no doubt be confused or led astray by Melinda Gates because, as Topol expressed in song, "When you're rich, they think you really know!"

Read More

Has Cardinal Christoph Schönborn lost his faith and the ability to reason?

LifeSiteNews is reporting that the Cardinal Archbishop of Vienna, Christoph Schönborn , received a letter from the Vatican demanding action, after ten months of "discussion" between the Cardinal and the dissent group calling itself the "Austrian Priests' Initiative."  The dissent group issued a manifesto last year demanding that the Church change her teachings on the ordination of women and married clergy and the reception of Communion by non-Catholics and divorced and remarried persons, and calling on their fellow clergy to disobey the Vatican.

LifeSiteNews is reporting that, "the Cardinal himself has also publicly called for the Church to acquiesce to the group's agenda" and has asserted that "the Church does need some reform."

Back in 2010, Cardinal Schönborn criticised the Church for what he characterised as its refusal to accept homosexual relations. Schönborn told the far-left UK Tablet magazine that the Church should also consider allowing divorced and remarried Catholics to receive Communion since "many people don’t even marry at all any longer" and insisted that, "We should give more consideration to the quality of homosexual relationships. A stable relationship is certainly better than if someone chooses to be promiscuous." (See here).

The doctrines which have been revealed by the Lord Jesus, either directly or through His Church, are often truths beyond the power of reason to discover or comprehend.  In such cases, supernatural aid is required to accept these truths.  This supernatural aid is called the gift of faith.  Faith is a supernatural gift of God for the acquisition of truth in the supernatural order, just as reason is a natural gift of God for the acquisition of truth in the natural order.

Now, the natural law is perceptible and knowable by all men who have reached the age of reason.  Pope John Paul II, in his Encyclical Letter Veritatis Splendor, No. 36, explains that, "Some people..disregarding the dependence of human reason on divine wisdom and the need, given the present state of fallen nature, for divine revelation as an effective means for knowing moral truths, even those of the natural order, have actually posited a complete sovereignty of reason in the domain of moral norms regarding the right ordering of life in this world.  Such norms would constitute the boundaries for a merely 'human' morality; they would be the expression of a law which has its source exclusively in human reason.  In no way could God be considered the Author of this law, except in the sense that human reason exercises its autonomy in setting down laws by virtue of a primordial and total mandate given to man by God.  These trends of thought have led to a denial, in opposition to Sacred Scripture (cf. Mt 15: 3-6) and the Church's constant teaching, of the fact that the natural moral law has God as its Author, and that man, by the use of reason, participates in the eternal law, which it is not for him to establish."
Cardinal Schönborn wants us to give "more consideration" to what he refers to as " the quality of homosexual relationships."  But the Holy Spirit, through St. Paul, explains why idolatrous peoples, such as the Romans, fall into unnatural vice.  We are told that:

"The wrath of God is indeed being revealed from heaven against every impiety and wickedness of those who suppress the truth by their wickedness.  For what can be known about God is evident to them.  Ever since the creation of the world, His invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what He has made.  As a result, they have no excuse; for although they knew God they did not accord Him glory as God or give Him thanks." (Romans 1: 18-21).

The Holy Spirit tells us through the Apostle that the failure to recognize God leads to corruption of the will and a blinded intellect which, ultimately, leads to idolatry.  And God's punishment for this vanity is to abandon such people to the vice against nature:

"Instead, they became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened.  While claiming to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for the likeness of an image of mortal man or of birds or of four-legged animals or of snakes.  Therefore, God handed them over to impurity through the lusts of their hearts for the mutual degradation of their bodies." (Romans 1: 21-24).

The Apostle, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, is most clear and unambiguous.  He describes this mutual degradation while stressing its unnatural character:

"Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another.  Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity." (Romans 1: 26-27).

As a result of these unnatural relations, such people face horible consequences:

"They are filled with every form of wickedness, evil, greed, and malice; full of envy, murder, rivalry, treachery, and spite.  They are gossips and scandal-mongers and they hate God.  They are insolent, haughty, boastful, ingenious in their wickedness, and rebellious toward their parents.  They are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless." (Romans 1: 25; 28-31).

Finally, those who succumb to this unnatural vice not only become attached to it but attempt to justify it while applauding others who have fallen into the vice: "they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them." (Romans 1: 32).
Rather than challenging sinners to conform themselves to Christ and His Church and to work, with the help of God's grace, toward reforming themselves, Cardinal Schönborn wants the Church to "reform" [and here we are not speaking of legitimate reform - a growth in holiness and truth] by changing her teaching to accommodate those who dissent from the teaching of the Lord Jesus.

Has Cardinal Schönborn lost his faith and the ability to reason?  If not, why does he then request the Church to abandon her teaching and acquiesce to the demands of a group which has embraced dissent?  Why does he speak of unnatural relations as having "quality"? 

Truly, as I have been warning for years, and as Pope Benedict XVI recently said, darkness is descending upon the world.  And many can no longer distinguish between good and evil.

Read More

Archbishop Vincent Nichols continues to tolerate dissent from Terence Weldon

Terence Weldon, the radical homosexual activist who authors the "Queering the Church" Blog and who serves as an Extraordinary Minister at the infamous Soho Masses in England - the same disturbed individual who has blasphemously suggested that Our Lord Jesus had a homosexual inclination - is once again challenging the authoritative teaching of the Catholic Church regarding the homosexual inclination.  He writes, "In the CDF Hallowe’en Letter [here he is sarcastically and irreverently refering to the October 1, 1986 document entitled "Letter on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons" published by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith], possibly the most offensive and damaging element was the labelling of the homosexual orientation as 'intrinsically disordered' – but just what does 'disordered' in fact mean? Science has shown from mental health and from animal biology that it [the homosexual inclination] is entirely natural, and not in any scientific sense disordered." (See here).

Actually science has shown exactly the opposite.  Dutch psychologist Gerard J.M. van den Aardweg, Ph.D., a specialist on homosexuality (unlike Mr. Weldon who has no expertise in this area), says that the claim that homosexuality is normal is one of those statements that are "so foolish that only intellectuals could believe them." It is like saying that anorexia nervosa is healthy. Dr. Aardweg notes that, "The term neurotic describes such relationships well. It suggests the ego-centeredness of the relationship; the attention-seeking instead of loving...Neurotic, in short, suggests all kinds of dramas and childish conflicts as well as the basic disinterestedness in the partner, notwithstanding the shallow pretensions of 'love.' Nowhere is there more self-deception in the homosexual than in his representation of himself as a lover. One partner is important to the other only insofar as he satisfies that other's needs. Real, unselfish love for a desired partner would, in fact, end up destroying homosexual 'love'!" (Dr. Gerard J.M. van den Aardweg, The Battle for Normality, Ignatius Press, 1997, pp. 62-63).

In an interview with ZENIT, which may be found here, Dale O'Leary, a writer and researcher for the Catholic Medical Association, says that the CMA has found in its research that, "..well-designed studies that compare persons with same-sex attractions with the general public have found that persons with same-sex attractions are far more likely to suffer from psychological disorders...The studies published in the Archives of General Psychiatry found that persons self-identified as homosexual in comparison to the general public had almost double the rate of suicidal ideation or attempts, substance abuse problems and psychological disorders. One of the studies found that 78.6% of the gay, lesbian or bisexual group suffered from multiple disorders...And there are other problems: Domestic violence is more common among same-sex couples. Men with same-sex attractions are more likely to become infected with a STD, including HIV, hepatitis or HPV, which can lead to cancer. Thus, several studies suggest that 50% of men who have sex with men will become HIV positive before age 50."

And what of Mr. Weldon's ridiculous claim that science has shown "from animal biology" that the homosexual inclination is not "in any scientific sense disordered"?  It is significant that Mr. Weldon doesn't produce any research to back his asinine claim.  This because there is none.  Quite the reverse is true.  In fact, Dr. Antonio Pardo, Professor of Bioethics at the University of Navarre, Spain, explains that: "Properly speaking, homosexuality does not exist among animals...For reasons of survival, the reproductive instinct among animals is always directed towards an individual of the opposite sex.  Therefore, an animal can never be homosexual as such.  Nevertheless, the interaction of other instincts (particularly dominance) can result in behavior that appears to be homosexual.  Such behavior cannot be equated with an animal homosexuality.  All it means is that animal sexual behavior encompasses aspects beyond that of reproduction." (Antonio Pardo, "Aspectos medicos de la homosexualidad," Nuestro Tiempo, Jul-Aug. 1995, pp. 82-89).

Mr. Weldon betrays his ignorance with the "if animals do it then it must be natural" argument.  Animals frequently engage in other forms of behavior such as parental killing of offspring or intra-species devouring.  Shall we then say that such behaviors would be "normal" and "healthy"?

But enough of Terence Weldon.  I'm frankly far more concerned about his Bishop - Archbishop Vincent Nichols.  The Archbishop doesn't seem concerned at all about the right of the faithful to receive Catholic doctrine in its purity and integrity (Veritatis Splendor, No. 113).  He seems oblivious to the scandal of the Soho Masses and the actions of Terence Weldon.  See here.

Read More

Pope Benedict XVI urges the people of the United States to remain sane...

On Friday, Pope Benedict XVI insisted that, "Sexual differences cannot be dismissed as irrelevant to the definition of marriage."  See here.  The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in its document entitled "Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons," had this to say: "The inevitable consequence of legal recognition of homosexual unions would be the redefinition of marriage, which would become, in its legal status, an institution devoid of essential reference to factors linked to heterosexuality; for example, procreation and raising children. If, from the legal standpoint, marriage between a man and a woman were to be considered just one possible form of marriage, the concept of marriage would undergo a radical transformation, with grave detriment to the common good. By putting homosexual unions on a legal plane analogous to to that of marriage and the family, the State acts arbitrarily and in contradiction with its duties." (No. 8).

In No. 8 of Considerations, the CDF explains that, "Differentiating between persons or refusing social recognition or benefits is unacceptable only when it is contrary to justice. The denial of the social and legal status of marriage to forms of cohabitation that are not and cannot be marital is not opposed to justice; on the contrary, justice requires it."

I have said this many times before: the retreat from truth is necessary before the reign of Antichrist. There is a preparation. Many are "intellectualizing" themselves into dissent and apostasy from the true Faith. The battlefield is in the mind. The attack is intellectual and psychological. Sin must be justified so that a new religion can turn vices into gods.

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

But this is precisely what those who promote same-sex "marriage" are doing.  They are overlooking God's presence and His Commandments.

Read More

For Heather Mallick, columnist for The Star, Catholic teaching is irrelevant and the role of men today is to keep their views to themselves

Heather Mallick, columnist for The Star, is angry.  What has her so upset?  The fact that a young man who attends a Catholic school should have the audacity to exhort young women to be modest in their attire.

Matt Gurney, writing for the National Post, said that the 17 year old Catholic student, "clearly believes that many of his female peers do not treat each other, or themselves, with due respect, and he wishes that everyone would focus more on how wonderful they are on the inside and not how attractive they can make themselves on the outside."  This is a message any sane person would stand behind.  And it is, in fact, a message which Sister Mary of the Immaculate Heart (Lucia dos Santos of the Fatima apparition), had for the young women of today: "When I think of the United States I think about this: one of the things which Our Lady especially asked for was modesty in dress.  There does not seem to be much modesty in the life of the women of your country.  But modesty would be a good sacrifice to offer Our Lady, and it would please her if the Catholics in your country would make a league for modesty in dress."

But Mallick believes she knows better.  So enraged is she that a young man should embrace Catholic teaching on modesty and the dignity of women that she lashes out with that vitriolic rage which is so characteristic of today's intellectually impoverished radical feminist.  She writes, "There’s a kind of man universally unpopular with women. He is Controlling Man. Just say 'he’s kind of controlling' to your women friends and they hiss and draw back as if they’d been sprayed with lemon juice. From whence do controlling men come? I always wondered and now I know. Paul Gomille, a 17-year-old student at Archbishop Denis O’Connor Catholic High School in Ajax, wrote a message to the girls and women at his school, a declaration that he claimed 'strikes at the very core of humanity itself, in an attempt to make a revelation of truth apparent to all of you, with awe inspiring certainty.' Really, Martin Luther could take lessons from this guy. Who taught him this nonsense?...Females from age 2 to 92 speak as one: We do not care to hear male opinions on our clothes unless it’s 'You look fabulous in that. Radiant. Wow.' When we ask you if the sweater works with the scarf, the word we want to hear is 'yes.' And then, frankly, we’ll change the sweater. If he’s a Controlling Man who says it’s too tight or uses the phrases 'no wife of mine will . . . ' we detach...Gomille may be 17 but he sounds 102 and we hear from males like him all our lives. They’re correctors, judges, buzzkills...There’s a worrying prescriptiveness in Gomille’s unasked-for definition of how his fellow students should dress. We women are half the world. In the workplace men and women stand side-by-side and are gradually learning how to accommodate each other’s differences. Keep your advice to yourself, preacher. Trust me, girls like that in a boy." (See article here).

For radical feminists like Mallick, Catholic teaching has no place in society and the only legitimate function of men today is to keep their mouths shut unless they are willing to totally agree with the women who surround them.  This is a necessary corrective since all of the world's evils originate in "male supremacy" and a "patriarchal culture."

The reality is, of course, something far different  In the words of Robert Bork, "..feminism is by far the strongest and most imperialistic [on today's college campuses], its influence suffusing the most traditional academic departments and university administrations. Feminists are revising and radicalizing textbooks and curricula in the humanities and the social sciences. They have a major say in faculty recruitment. Feminists increasingly control what is taught in high schools and elementary schools as well. Speech codes and 'sensitivity' training severely limit what can be said on campus. The feminists have not only done harm to the intellectual function of universities and schools, they have made campuses extremely unpleasant, especially for white males, who are subject to harassment and demands that they toe the feminist cultural and political line." (Slouching Toward Gomorrah).

For Mallick, Paul Gomille is attempting to be a "controlling man" because he had the sheer unmitigated gall to....offer his opinion.  And for that, this young man deserves to be silenced.  And suspended from his school.  For the role of men today is one of subservience - one of complete subjugation to women.  This is what women like, this is what they demand, from men today according to the radical feminist creed. Which is why she writes, "Keep your advice to yourself, preacher. Trust me, girls like that in a boy."

Not all girls Heather.  Only angry and bitter feminists like you who are frozen in 1960s nostalgia.  We've all heard your act.  And it didn't play well.  It's time for you to move on. 

In any case, we've heard enough from the Controlling Woman - the radical feminist.

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