Pope Francis: God will forgive atheists who obey their conscience

Pope Francis, referring to atheists who refuse to believe in God, His Commandments and His Church, recently said, "God forgives those who obey their conscience."  See here.

 Pope John Paul II, in his Encyclical Letter Veritatis Splendor, explains that: "Conscience, as the judgment of an act, is not exempt from the possibility of error. As the Council [Vatican II] puts it, 'not infrequently conscience can be mistaken as a result of invincible ignorance, although it does not on that account forfeit its dignity; but this cannot be said when a man shows little concern for seeking what is true and good, and conscience gradually becomes almost blind from being accustomed to sin.'" (Veritatis Splendor, No. 62, citing Gaudium et Spes, 16).

Pope John Paul II continues: "Conscience is not an infallible judge; it can make mistakes....Conscience, as the ultimate concrete judgment, compromises its dignity when it is culpably erroneous, that is to say, 'when man shows little concern for seeking what is true and good.." (VS, Nos. 62, 63, citing Gaudium et Spes, 16).

How then can Pope Francis issue a blanket statement declaring that God will forgive all atheists who obey their conscience?

Some years ago, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, during his Keynote Address of the Fourth Bishops' Workshop of the National Catholic Bioethics Center, on "Moral Theology Today: Certitudes and Doubts," which was delivered in February of 1984, had this to say: "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."

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."

If forgiveness will be extended to all who reject the Gospel in favor of their own erroneous conscience, how then do we explain the words of Our Lord in Matthew 10: 14: "Whoever does not receive you, nor heed your words, as you go out of that house or that city, shake the dust off your feet. Truly I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city."

Read More

James Cash Penney's legacy betrayed by corporate promoters of homosexuality who violate the Golden Rule

LifeSiteNews is reporting that J.C. Penney's is promoting sodomy.  See here.  The company is running Fathers Day ads featuring two "gay" dads.  James Cash Penney's legacy is under assault.  He most assuredly would not approve of his chain of department stores being used to advance the sodomite agenda.

J.C. Penney's father was a Baptist preacher and farmer who raised his family with strict discipline in the Christian faith.  Victor Parachin, writing for Mature Living magazine, notes how, "The influence of Penney's godly parents became evident with the growth of his business.  He described his chain as 'The Golden Rule Store,' based on the words of Jesus in Matthew 7: 12: 'Therefore, all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them.'  See here.

As Dr. Germain Grisez explains,  to apply the Golden Rule, benefits and harms must be considered.  He writes, "Since the point of applying the Golden Rule is to exclude partiality, no attempt should be made to apply it without first carefully considering the possible matters concerning which partiality could be at work.  These are different potential benefits and harms to the different persons involved.  Since one must be fair not only in what is intended and chosen but also in accepting whatever side effects are foreseen, all foreseen benefits and burdens of choosing and carrying out a possible action - or, alternatively, not choosing it, and perhaps choosing some alternative - should be considered.  It is necessary to ask:

Whom will this action benefit?  Whom will it harm?  If the act is not chosen, whom will that benefit and harm?  And, likewise, for any alternative

Considering each benefit and harm, what sort of good is at stake?  Is it a basic good of persons or an instrumental good?  How extensive and serious will each benefit and harm be?

Reflecting as a Christian, a person must bring fully into play any specifically Christian benefits and harms.  For instance, does doing or not doing an act, doing this or that, involve risk to someone's salvation?  Does it involve harming or enhancing apostolic witness?

To the extent that a point of view is determined by immorality, it is of no help in reaching moral truth to take that point of view, whether the person holding it is subjectively guilty or not.  Thus, in applying the Golden Rule, one should refuse to take into account the views of others [such as the homosexual movement, my note]insofar as these are morally unacceptable.  Of course, such a refusal may be considered unfair by those concerned.  For example, pederasts sometimes complain that a boy who refuses to accommodate them is unfair to them.  However, the boy's refusal need not be motivated by partiality, for it can be based on a prior moral consideration, the wrongness of sodomy, and an emotional detestation of it entirely in harmony with reason."

J.C. Penney's is betraying the legacy of its founder James Cash Penney, Jr by violating the Golden Rule which he cherished so dearly.  For, "There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God's plan for marriage and family.  Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law.  Homosexual acts 'close the sexual act to the gift of life.  They do not proceed fom a genuine affective and sexual complementarity.  Under no circumstances can they be approved.  Sacred Scripture condemns homosexual acts 'as a serious depravity'...This same moral judgment is found in many Christian writers of the first centuries 'and is unanimously accepted by Catholic tradition.'" ( Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, "Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons," No. 4).

What a shame that J.C. Penney's is not committed toward promoting the common good while honoring the Christian legacy of its own founder.  The corporation has decided instead to undermine the Golden Rule by assaulting others with immorality. 

A real tragedy.

 

Read More

"..I announced to you that Satan would enter in even to the summit of the Church."

The Vatican is saying that the leaks scandal is a brutal attack on the Holy Father.  See here.  We are witnessing only the beginning of the fulfillment of Our Lady's prophecy to Father Stefano Gobbi:

‎"The black beast like a leopard indicates Freemasonry; the beast with the two horns like a lamb indicates Freemasonry infiltrated into the interior of the Church, that is to say, ecclesiastical Masonry, which has spread especially among the members of the hierarchy. This Masonic infiltration..., in the interior of the Church, was already foretold to you by me at Fatima, when I announced to you that Satan would enter in even to the summit of the Church. If the task of Masonry is to lead souls to perdition, bringing them to the worship of false divinities, the task of ecclesiastical Masonry on the other hand is that of destroying Christ and his Church, building a new idol, namely a false christ and a false church." (To the Priests, Our Lady's Beloved Sons, No. 406, June 13, 1989, p. 649)

He who will come in his own name (John 5: 43) will soon reveal himself.  Please read this post which describes what Venerable Emmerich had to say about our time.

Read More

Saint Mary's High School in Kitchener: Jesus was a moronic hippy who preached inclusion

Students at Saint Mary's High School in Kitchener, Ontario just celebrated "anti-homophobia day."  According to an article in the Metro News, "The anti-homophobia day event was organized by the school's sexual minority support group known as PRISM - Pride and Respect for Individuals of a Sexual Minority."   

Officials at Saint Mary's High School have assured everyone that the event is in full accord with Catholic teaching and that the anti-homophobia day is all about following Jesus' example.  In a statement which may be found here, we are told that, "Jesus offers us the model for how we should live our lives and teaches us that being inclusive and compassionate is part of our call as Catholic Christians.  The Catholic Catechism challenges us to treat gay persons with the dignity and respect deserving of all God's people."

There you have it.  For officials at Saint Mary's High School, Jesus was nothing more than a moronic hippy who proclaimed "inclusion" and "compassion."  But is this really the Gospel? Oscar Romero, the martyred Archbishop of San Salvador, once said: "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 are secured in their sinful state, betrays the gospels call...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! That is the Church's authentic preaching."

When Jesus began His public ministry, He did so with the word "repent" (Matthew 4:17).  He said nothing about "inclusion." And He advised the woman caught in adultery to "sin no more" (John 8:11). Likewise, in the case of the man cured at the Pool of Bethesda, Jesus advised him to "sin no more lest something worse befall thee" (John 5:14).When queried on the subject of how many would be saved, Jesus replied "few" because the "gate" to Heaven is "narrow" (Matthew 7:13-14). And while no one can pinpoint the precise meaning of the word "few," still, it is sobering that Jesus chose the image of a narrow gate.

The Jesus of the Gospels (as opposed to the moronic hippy-counterfeit promoted by the intellectually-challenged sophomoric souls at Saint Mary's High School), is likened in the gospel to a stern master who has lazy servants flogged and murderous ones put to death (Matthew 21:41; Luke 12:47). And while it is true that Jesus is Mercy, He is also Justice. And for every parable illustrative of His mercy, there are three or four threatening divine retribution.

The Judgment Day is always described as a day of wrath and never as a day of rejoicing (Proverbs 11:4; Zephaniah 1:15; Sirach 5:10; Romans 2:5; Revelation 6:17). Why is this? If everyone (or even a large segment of mankind) is headed for Heaven, why does Sacred Scripture refer to the Judgment Day as a day of wrath?  If Jesus' message was one of "inclusion," why does He assure us that those who reject His teaching will find themselves punished severely and that he will ban them from the Kingdom to a Hell where "there will be wailing and grinding of teeth"? (Matthew 24: 51).

The smug, self-satisfied "we-are-all-saved-already" attitude found in so many Catholic parishes (and schools) is the result of the sin of presumption. Because many of our priests have betrayed Jesus by refusing to preach on the reality of sin and the reality of Hell, a spiritual dry-rot has infected much of the Church. This is why nearly everyone receives Holy Communion at Mass but nearly no one goes to Confession.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church has this to say about presumption: "There are two kinds of presumption. Either man presumes upon his own capacities, (hoping to be able to save himself without help from on high), or he presumes upon God's almighty power or his mercy (hoping to obtain his forgiveness without conversion and glory without merit)." (CCC, 2092).

The words of Sacred Scripture remind us that such an attitude is very, very wrong: "Of forgiveness be not overconfident, adding sin upon sin. Say not:' Great is his mercy; my many sins he will forgive.' For mercy and anger alike are with him; upon the wicked alights his wrath." (Sirach 5:5-7).

It is most significant that Saint Mary's "sexual minority support group" should emphasize homosexual pride. 
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.

Those who promote the radical homosexual agenda exhort others to "shed the burden of shame." But 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).

Parents who send their children to Saint Mary's High School in Kitchener in the hope that they will obtain a solid Catholic education are being betrayed.  Instead, they are being propagandized with a counterfeit gospel and a counterfeit "Christ."  They are being educated not for Heaven but for Hell.

Read More

We must offer women who have had an abortion hope and encouragement and avoid judging their internal guilt

It was St. Augustine, Father and Doctor of the Church, who said, "Interficere errorem, diligere errantem" - Kill the error, love the one who errs.  I have actually taken that as the motto for this Blog.  Gaudium et Spes of the Second Vatican Council put it this way: "..it is necessary to distinguish between error, which always merits repudiation, and the person in error, who never loses the dignity of being a person even when he is flawed by false or inadequate religious notions. God alone is the judge and searcher of hearts, for that reason He forbids us to make judgments about the internal guilt of anyone." (No. 28).

This teaching isn't always understood by some.  In an article on abortion which may be found at LifeSiteNews, Stacy Trasancos, who writes a column for The Catholic Free Press, writes, "It's a faulty question to ask whether or not a woman suffers mental anguish after she kills her own child.  Of course she does, a woman with her sanity and dignity intact doesn't do that in the first place....a woman  who kills her child in the womb is suffering mentally and will suffer mentally afterwards.  Something is terribly wrong in her soul and in her life." See here.

But here we encounter an immediate problem.  To say that there is something "terribly wrong" in the soul of a woman who has had an abortion and that her sanity and dignity are not intact is to make a judgment about her internal guilt and her motives.  The very thing which the teaching of the Church forbids.


Pope John Paul II, in his wonderful Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae, explains that many factors influence the decision which a woman makes when she is burdened with an untimely pregnancy.  He writes, "As well as the mother, there are often other people too who decide upon the death of the child in the womb. In the first place, the father of the child may be to blame, not only when he directly pressures the woman to have an abortion, but also when he indirectly encourages such a decision on her part by leaving her alone to face the problems of pregnancy...Nor can one overlook the pressures which sometimes come from the wider family circle and from friends. Sometimes the woman is subjected to such strong pressure that she feels psychologically forced to have an abortion: certainly in this case the moral responsibility lies particularly with those who have directly or indirectly obliged her to have an abortion. (EV, No. 59)

The Holy Father also places responsibility for the tragedy of abortion on, "doctors and nurses...when they place at the service of death skills which were acquired for promotion of life," and on "legislators who have promoted and approved abortion laws," and, "to the extent that they have a say in the matter, on the administrators of the health-care centers were abortions are performed” (EV, No. 59).

It is always a tragedy when a woman makes the decision to have an abortion.  But this decision to have an abortion is made in the context of multiple personal and societal pressures in what Pope John Paul II so aptly termed the "culture of death." Although the responsibility for the abortion decision is not entirely, nor perhaps even primarily hers, she must bear its burdensome consequences almost entirely alone for the rest of her life. So perhaps it's best to avoid questioning her sanity and dignity?

Perhaps instead, we should follow the lead of Pope John Paul II, whose pastoral outreach to women who have had an abortion is a model of tenderness and compassion [rightly understood] as well as being hopeful:

"I would like to say a special word to women who have had an abortion. The Church is aware of the many factors which may have influenced your decision, and she does not doubt that in many cases I was a painful and even shattering decision. The wound in your heart may not yet have healed. Certainly what happened was and remains terribly wrong. But do not give in to discouragement and do not lose hope. Try rather to understand what happened and face it honestly. If you have not already done so, give yourselves over with humility and trust to repentance. The Father of mercies is ready to give you his forgiveness and his peace in the Sacrament of Reconciliation." (EV, No. 99).

Notice how the Holy Father does not condone sin or error?  He rightly stresses that an abortion is, objectively speaking, a grave wrong even as he offers hope and encouragement by reminding women who have had an abortion that forgiveness and peace may be theirs in the Sacrament of Reconciliation. 

One would think that Stacy Trasancos would understand this better than most.  For she has herself admitted, at the website Catholic Online, that she got pregnant in college, has had an abortion, that she's taken drugs and worked as a stripper, that she's been divorced, and that her seven children are from three different men.

The same Good God Who forgave Stacy her sins offers His Mercy to every woman who has had an abortion.  Perhaps instead of questioning the souls of such women or their dignity and sanity, Stacy could follow Pope John Paul II's lead?  As should we all.

Kill the error, love the one who errs.  Hate the sin, love the sinner.

Read More

Tricia Wittmann-Todd would deny youth who are questioning their sexual identity an authentic understanding of joy

In Galatians 5: 22-23, the Holy Spirit tells us through Saint Paul that, "the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control."  Tricia Wittmann-Todd, Pastoral Life Coordinator at Saint Mary's Parish in the Central Area of Seattle, Washington, would deny the youth of her parish an authentic understanding of joy.

Ms. Wittmann-Todd, having succumbed to the erroneous idea that Catholic moral teaching would in some way harm the youth of her parish, has refused to circulate petitions in support of Referendum 74, the ballot measure to roll back Washington's recently passed same-sex "marriage" law.  Her reasoning?  Wittmann-Todd asserts that she is, "particularly concerned about our youth who may be questioning their own sexual identity and need our support at this time in their lives."  See here.

Ms. Wittmann-Todd is so concerned about the youth of Saint Mary's Parish that she has decided to set an example for them on how to be disobedient to the Church's Pastors.  She has also decided to deny these youth an authentic understanding as to what constitutes joy. The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches us that, "By the power of the Spirit, God's children can bear much fruit.  He who has grafted us onto the true vine will make us bear 'the fruit of the Spirit:...love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control.'  'We live by the Spirit'; the more we renounce ourselves, the more we 'walk by the Spirit.'.." (CCC, 736).  And again: "The fruits of the Spirit are perfections that the Holy Spirit forms in us as the first fruits of eternal glory.  The tradition of the Church lists twelve of them: 'Charity, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, generosity, gentleness, faithfulness, modesty, self-control, chastity.'" (CCC, 1832).

You see, we live in the Spirit when we renounce ourselves.  We are not living in the spirit if we engage in sinful behaviors such as homosexual acts.  Those who do live such a lifestyle will not have joy.  The Lord Jesus promises heavenly joy to those who suffer the consequences of following Him [and this demands picking up our cross and following Him daily] and calls for its anticipation saying, "Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven" (Matthew 5: 12).  Dr. Germain Grisez explains that, "St. Paul teaches that Christians always should call on God's help by constant prayer, rejoice in hope, be patient, and not be anxious (see Rom 12: 12; Phil 4: 4-6).  Since Christian joy presupposes hope, Jesus' and Paul's injunctions to rejoice can be fulfilled only by nurturing hope.  But hope grows in a kind of virtuous circle: joy amid suffering helps faithful Christians endure what they must, this endurance conforms their character to that of Jesus, and likeness to Jesus increases their confidence and further intensifies their hope (see Rom 5: 3-4; cf. Phil 3: 8-21)."

Dr. Grisez goes on to explain that the fear of Hell is essential for Christian hope (and remember, Christian joy presupposes hope).  He reminds us that, "..if one becomes forgetful of the possibility of hell and loses all fear of it, heaven seems a sure thing, with the bad result that it no longer is possible to have Christian hope for it or live a life shaped by that hope.  Christian hope is the intention of the kingdom as one's end, and some good can be intended as an end only if one's action is expected to help bring about that good.  Thus, someone confident of sharing in the kingdom no matter what, simply cannot intend it as an end and live for it, although such a person still may think about heaven for solace when loved ones die and during other times of suffering.  In consequence, someone who forgets the possibility of hell ignores the kingdom when deliberating and making choices.  Unable any longer to order his or her life to the kingdom, that person becomes motivated by other interests and desires, and these alien ends, pursued independently of faith and hope, make their own incompatible demands.  Thus, the life of a Christian forgetful of hell becomes indistinguishable from the life of a nonbeliever.  Consequently, while properly Christian fear depends on hope, hope also depends on fear.  And while hope for the kingdom always should dominate, fear of hell never should be entirely excluded.  Thus, meditation on the last things, which appropriately begins from Sacred Scripture, should reflect the balanced approach of the New Testament, which focuses on heaven but never entirely loses sight of hell."

Christian joy presupposes hope.  And the fear of Hell is essential for Christian hope.  How quickly some forget this.  We hear much nonsense today from those within the "homosexual community" about "the joys of gay sex."  But there is no authentic joy apart from living in obedience to God's Commandments.  Joy is a fruit of living in the Spirit, not of living in the flesh.

One would think Ms. Wittmann-Todd would want to impart this truth to the youth of St. Mary's Parish.  But apparently she would rather sow confusion in this area.  And we wonder why Our Lady weeps?

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

Who has really gone "well over the line," Rick Santorum or Barack Obama?

Former White House Press Secretary and current campaign adviser Robert Gibbs is alleging that GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum went "well over the line" when he questioned Obama's Christian values.  Gibbs told ABC's "This Week" that it's time to get rid of this mindset in our politics that, if we disagree, we have to question character and faith."  See here.

If Robert Gibbs really believes that Rick Santorum went "well over the line" by merely questioning Obama's so-called "Christian virtues," he must then concede that Barack Obama obliterated that line when he said that Christians, Jews, Muslims and others who are opposed to homosexuality on moral grounds are clinging to "worn arguments and old attitudes." See here.

Where was Mr. Gibbs when Barack Obama said, "You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them...And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them.."  If we are not supposed to question character or faith, why was Mr. Obama questioning the character and faith of average Americans who live in "a lot of small towns in the Midwest"?

I've noted before at this Blog that Barack Obama imposes a standard on others which he refuses to live up to himself.  See here.  And it would seem that Robert Gibbs would also hold others to a higher standard than he expects from his boss.  Mr. Gibbs should reflect very carefully on what the philosopher Plato had to say in Book I of his Laws (635a): "We invite you to criticize our institutions without reserve. One is not insulted by being informed of something amiss, but rather gets an opportunity for amendment, if the information is taken in good part, without resentment."

In the meantime, I would like an explanation as to how Barack Obama may be considered a Christian when he has rejected the teaching of Sacred Scripture.  I would really like to hear Mr. Gibbs' explain that one.  I just love creative fiction.

Read More

Small wonder religious liberty and the Catholic Church are under assault in the United States - look who has the President's ear

As this article notes, Valerie Jarrett, adviser to Kathleen Sebelius, played a major role in the Obama administration's decision to assault religious liberty and to cast aside the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States in an effort to compel Catholics to violate their consciences by forcing them to offer their employees health coverage that includes sterilization, abortion-inducing drugs, and contraception.  See here.

Valerie Jarrett owes much of her success to Marilyn Katz.  As this blog asks: "Who is this person to whom Jarrett is so indebted – and whom, we shall see, she calls a personal friend? Marilyn Katz provided 'security' for Students for a Democratic Society at the 1968 Democratic Convention. Undercover Chicago policeman William Frapolly told prosecutors that during the Days of Rage, Katz showed protesters a new weapon to use against the police: 'a cluster of nails that were sharpened at both ends, and they were fastened in the center.' Police later reported being hit by golf balls with nails through them, as well as excrement. Years later, Katz would insist her 'guerrilla nails' were merely 'a defensive weapon' to prevent 'possible bad behavior by the police.'"

Besides playing a leading role in the SDS rioting around the 1968 Democratic Party conference in Chicago, Katz, who was later welcomed into the Obama presidential campaign with open arms while being listed as a fundraising "bundler" on the president's website, was a prominent pro-abortion activist in the 1970s.  She is credited with planning the Reproductive Rights National Network which was founded in 1978 while serving as National Political Secretary for the socialist New American Movement in 1977.  As this website notes, "NAM's interest in education also grew out of its members' engagement with the work of Antonio Gramsci.."

Antonio Gramsci was an Italian philosopher and political theorist who was a founding member and one-time leader of the Communist Party of Italy. Gramsci proposed gradualism, infiltration and the dialectic process rather than bloody revolution, a transformational Marxism which would infiltrate a host in a subtle manner in order to defeat it from within. This tactic of infiltration was encapsulated in a speech given by Communist International General Secretary Georgi Dimitroff to the Seventh World Congress of the Comintern in 1935:


"Comrades, you remember the ancient tale of the capture of Troy. Troy was inaccessible to the armies attacking her, thanks to her impregnable walls. And the attacking army, after suffering many sacrifices, was unable to achieve victory until, with the aid of the famous Trojan horse, it managed to penetrate to the very heart of the enemy's camp."

Well folks, the enemy has penetrated the camp and is now metastacizing like a cancer.  And we are reaping its poisoned fruit.  For Antonio Gramsci, the Catholic Church was the enemy which had to be vanquished. It would appear that the Obama administration shares this view.

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

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