"..as long as their parents support the Catholic mission of the school and do not offer a serious counter-witness to that mission in their actions."

In an editorial for Catholic Insight entitled "Those who attack the Catholic Faith cannot be part of Catholic schools," Fr. Alphonse de Valk writes, "I am writing this editorial in the third week of Advent, just after Gaudete Sunday. Gaudate is Latin for rejoice. Yes, we rejoice in the coming (advent) or Our Lord Jesus Christ and nothing can, nor should, take away the joy in the Son of God becoming “man” and thereby preparing the way for mankind’s delivery from sin and the devil. Jesus did break the bond of sin created by Adam and Eve’s fall for disobeying God. He did re-open the road to Eternal Life, which, however, we will not, and cannot, enter unless we obey his invitation to accept His commandments. ”My yoke is easy, my burden is light.” If only we believe it.

The magazine enters its 20th year of publication with this issue. From the beginning, the defence of the dignity of each human life has been our chief concern, first the assault on life itself—abortion—and its forerunner contraception—then the associated evils which were to follow—sterilization, homosexual behaviour, euthanasia (the killing of the elderly and the sick), assisted suicide, pornography.

In our first year, 1993, we exposed the false teaching of the priest/professor André Guindon at St. Paul’s Theological University in Ottawa. From then on, after contraception-abortion, Catholic Insight took the homosexual agenda as the most virulent threat to society. Why? Because unlike abortion which does not leave any survivors, only victims, those practising same-sex relations grow in number and ruthlessness as their agenda is strengthened by newly coined “rights” in law and public acceptance. Supported by the enormous popularity of modern pornography, assisted by prostitution and the elimination of old restrictions on human behaviour mostly through judicial fiats, their own insatiable immorality demands public approval for more and more deviant behaviour.

During the last ten years, Catholic Insight has traced the expansion of same-sex relationships throughout the Western hemisphere with special attention to the activity of the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the enshrinement of homosexual behaviour as a human right in Canada in 2005. Since then, we have tracked its expansion in Europe and the U.S., to the newest announcement from American President Barach Obama and his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, on December 5, 2011, to link American foreign aid to the promotion of homosexuality-based “rights” abroad. Just as every American embassy earlier had become an outpost for the promotion of abortion, so they will now become sources for bribing and bullying the whole world but especially African, Asian and South American countries dependant on aid. The great Imperialist of yore has been replaced by the Ugly American of today, interfering in the internal affairs of countries everywhere and doling out hundreds of million of dollars to corrupt their people. Kenya, the Philippines, and South America have been targeted already. Nigeria is on the list.

The mission of Catholic schools has not changed over time. The main purpose of religion, as Archbishop Charles Chaput, then of Denver, now of Philadelphia, wrote two years ago.

“[T]o form students in Catholic faith, Catholic morality and Catholic social values. … Many of our schools also accept students of other faiths and no faith, and from single parent and divorced parent families. These students are always welcome as long as their parents support the Catholic mission of the school and do not offer a serious counter-witness to that mission in their actions …

“That’s the background. Now to the human side of a painful situation. The Church never looks for reasons to turn anyone away from a Catholic education. But the Church cannot change her moral beliefs without undermining her mission and failing to serve the many families who believe in that mission …

“The Church does not claim that people with a homosexual orientation are bad, or that their children are less loved by God … But what the Church does teach is that sexual intimacy by anyone outside marriage is wrong; that marriage is a sacramental covenant; and that marriage can occur only between a man and a woman. These beliefs are central to a Catholic understanding of human nature, family and happiness, and the organization of society. The Church cannot change these teachings because … they are the teaching of Jesus Christ…” (See CI July/August 2010, p. 21)

These words are clear and concise. They apply to Canada and especially to Ontario Catholic schools. Bishops in Quebec and Newfoundland allowed state officials to pull the wool over their eyes. This must not happen in Ontario. (See article “Same-sex relations rampant in Toronto Catholic schools” in this issue, p.28.) If OECTA accepts the same-sex relationship motion in March 2012, it should have the title “Catholic” removed and its Charter as a union for Catholic teachers revoked."  See here.


Reflect very carefully on these words: "Many of our schools also accept students of other faiths and no faith, and from single parent and divorced parent families. These students are always welcome as long as their parents support the Catholic mission of the school and do not offer a serious counter-witness to that mission in their actions..."


The Archdiocese of Boston has said that it will tolerate parents who offer a serious counter-witness to the Catholic mission of the school in their actions.  Cardinal O'Malley believes that Catholic schools can partner with homosexual parents.  See here.

Which view is Catholic and which view represents compromise with the Culture of Death?

Related reading here.

Read More

An Advent Reflection: There is still no room at the inn...

There was no room in the inn


In those days a decree went out from Emperor Augustus that all the world should be registered...All went to their own towns to be registered. Joseph also went from the town of Nazareth in Galilea to Judea, to the city of David called Bethlehem, because he was descended from the house and family of david. he went to be registered with Mary, to whom he was engaged and who was expecting a child...And she gave birth to her forst-born son and wrapped him in bands of cloth, and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the inn. (Luke 2:1-7)


Archbishop Fulton John Sheen writes, "Mary is now with child, awaiting birth, and Joseph is full of expectancy as he enters the city of his own family. He searched for a place for the birth of Him to Whom heaven and earth belonged. Could it be that the Creator would not find room in His own creation?

Certainly, thought Joseph, there would be room in the village inn. There was room for the rich; there was room for those who were clothed in soft garments...But when finally the scrolls of history are completed down to the last word of time, the saddest lines of all will be: "There was no room in the inn". No room in the inn, but there was room in the stable. The inn was the gathering place of public opinion, the focal point of the world's moods, the rendezvous of the worldy, the rallying place of the popular and the successful. But there's no room for outcasts, the ignored, and the forgotten. The world might have expected the Son of God to be born in an inn; a stable would certainly be the last place in the world where one would look for Him. The lesson is: divinity is always where you least expect to find it. So the Son of God-Made-Man is invited to enter into His own world through a back door." (Bishop Sheen Catechism)

There was no room for the Incarnate Word - no room for Him Who is Truth.  In many parishes today, there is no room for truth.  And this shouldn't surprise us.  Our Lord assured us that, "They will harry you as they harried me.  They will respect your words as much as they respected mine.  All this they will do to you because of my name, for they know nothing of him who sent me." (John 15: 20-21).

Again, it was Archbishop Fulton John Sheen who once said, "The acceptance of the fullness of Truth will have the unfortunate quality of making you hated by the world. Forget for a moment the history of Christianity, and the fact that Christ existed. Suppose there appeared in this world today a man who claimed to be Divine Truth; and who did not say, 'I will teach you Truth,' but 'I am the Truth.' Suppose he gave evidence by his works of the truth of his statement. Knowing ourselves as we do, with our tendency to relativism, to indifference, and to the fusing of right and wrong, how do you suppose we would react to that Divine Truth? With hatred, with obloquy, with defiance; with charges of intolerance, narrow-mindedness, bigotry, and crucifixion. That is what happened to Christ. That is what our Lord said would happen to those who accept His Truth."



Have you ever noticed how worldly people achieve great fame and success and are entirely welcomed by others but that those who give themselves entirely to God meet with only resistance and persecution? St. Alphonsus de Liguori said that, "As soon as souls give themselves completely to God, God Himself causes or permits others to despise and persecute them." And Archbishop Oscar Romero, the martyred Archbishop of San Salvador, reminded us that: "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."

As Catholics faithful to the Lord Jesus, Who teaches us through the Magisterium of His Church, we can expect to be shunned, harried, slandered and persecuted in so many different ways by those who remain in the Church but only in a bodily manner - because they have abandoned charity:

"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." (Lumen Gentium, No. 14).

And it is impossible for a person to claim that they are persevering in charity when they refuse to remain fully incorporated in the society of the Church by remaining obedient to her hierarchical structure.  Our Lord Jesus told His Apostles, "He who hears you hears Me."  And obviously, those who refuse to hear the Church are refusing to hear the Lord Jesus.  Such people must constantly strain to convince themselves that they are in communion with the Church.  But they remain within the Church only in a bodily manner. 

The smoke of Satan has entered into Christ's Church.  Some priests and deacons are serving not the Lord Jesus but the Father of Lies.  Such have given themselves up to various lusts.  Including the lust for power - especially for power over others. Our Lady has warned of this already.  The Immaculate One told Father Gobbi: "I also foretold to you the great crisis which would take place in the Church, because of the great apostasy which has entered into her, caused by an ever wider diffusion of errors, by her interior division, by opposition to the Pope and by the rejection of his Magisterium.  This most beloved Daughter of mine must live the hours of her agony and of her sorrowful passion.  She will be abandoned by many of her children.  The impetuous wind of persecution will blow against her, and much blood will be shed, even by my beloved sons." (October 13, 1994, Anniversary of the Last Apparition at Fatima).

Our troubled world, blinded and wounded by sin, still cannot find room for Truth.  Which is why those who follow the Lord Jesus (in more than a bodily manner but with true obedience), can expect to be persecuted.  All the more so as the Man of Sin makes his approach.

Read More

President Obama, the fetus is not an inert blob but an "active and dynamic" child capable of learning and feeling. Why then do you support killing such children?

In an article for LifeSiteNews, Cathy Ruse writes, "In a recent column on CNN online, science writer Annie Murphy Paul discusses her astonishment at finding myriad studies about what babies can learn in the womb.


Once considered a mundane field for the researcher, “[n]ow the nine months of gestation are the focus of intense interest and excitement,” she writes, “pregnancy is not a nine-month wait for the big event of birth, but a crucial period unto itself.”

Researchers are learning that much of what a mother experiences in her daily life is communicated to developing child, from the air she breathes and the food and drink she consumes even to the emotions she feels. Paul likens it to “biological postcards from the world outside.”

“The fetus, we now know, is not an inert blob, but an active and dynamic creature, responding and adapting as it readies itself for life in the particular world it will soon enter.” Amen to that.

The findings won’t shock the pro-lifer, but the fact that they’re gaining attention in the scientific community and are being reported in places like CNN online should cheer the pro-life soul. “The recognition that learning actually begins before birth leads us to a striking new conception of the fetus, the pregnant woman and the relationship between them.”

Some of Paul’s conclusions, though, seem to be a stretch. “By attending to such messages,” she writes, “the fetus learns the answers to questions critical to its survival: Will it be born into a world of abundance, or scarcity? Will it be safe and protected, or will it face constant dangers and threats? Will it live a long, fruitful life, or a short, harried one?” A bit deterministic, if you ask me, but I welcome her acknowledgment of the growing child’s sentience." (See here).

Back in 2008, then candidate Barack Obama, speaking at a Chicago Church where he addressed the problem of absent black fathers, said that, "We need fathers to recognize that responsibility doesn't just end at conception."  See here.  In an ad put out by the Family Research Council, FRC President Tony Perkins responded to Obama by asking, "If, as you say, fatherhood begins at conception, when does life begin?"


An excellent point. If fatherhood begins at conception, so does human life. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot suggest that fatherhood begins at conception but human life does not. As Dr. & Mrs. J.C. Willke explain in their book "Why can't we love them both: questions and answers about abortion," "Biologic human life is defined by examining the scientific facts of human development. This is a field where there is no controversy, no disagreement. There is only one set of facts, only one embryology book is studied in medical school. The more scientific knowledge of fetal development that has been learned, the more science has confirmed that the beginning of any one human individual's life, biologically speaking, begins at the completion of the union of his father's sperm and his mother's ovum, a process called "conception," "fertilization," or "fecundation." This is so because this being, from fertilization, is alive, human, sexed, complete and growing."



In his Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae, Pope John Paul II said that: "Some people try to justify abortion by claiming that the result of conception, at least up to a certain number of days, cannot yet be considered a personal human life. But in fact, "from the time that the ovum is fertilized, a life is begun which is neither that of the father nor the mother; it is rather the life of a new human being with his own growth. It would never be made human if it were not human already. This has always been clear, and ... modern genetic science offers clear confirmation. It has demonstrated that from the first instant there is established the programme of what this living being will be: a person, this individual person with his characteristic aspects already well determined. Right from fertilization the adventure of a human life begins, and each of its capacities requires time-a rather lengthy time-to find its place and to be in a position to act". Even if the presence of a spiritual soul cannot be ascertained by empirical data, the results themselves of scientific research on the human embryo provide "a valuable indication for discerning by the use of reason a personal presence at the moment of the first appearance of a human life: how could a human individual not be a human person?" (No. 60).


During his Father's Day speech, candidate Obama slipped. Even though his record on abortion speaks for itself (he supports even partial-birth abortion, which amounts to infanticide), by telling his audience that fathers need to recognize their responsibility doesn't end at conception, he was admitting that at conception "a life is begun which is neither that of the father nor the mother" but instead "the life of a new human being with his own growth" which the father is responsible for.

And, if a father's responsibility is just beginning at conception, what of the responsibility of the State to guarantee this new human being his or her rights: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness?" (Declaration of Independence).

Scientific research has proven what pro-lifers have known all along: that the unborn child is not an inert blob of tissue "but an active and dynamic creature" capable of learning and feeling.  And Barack Obama believes that this human life, precious in God's sight, doesn't deserve to live.

The photo above shows an unborn child at 5 months.  President Obama supports abortion through all nine months of pregnancy. 

Read More

We are in a war....

In hoc signo vinces

John-Henry Westen writes, "Just last month one of the highest-ranking Cardinals in the Vatican alerted Christians that the moral struggle we are facing in the world today 'is a war.' It is 'critical at this time that Christians stand up for the natural moral law,' especially in defense of life and the family, said Cardinal Raymond Burke. We are, he said, 'well on the way' to the persecution of Christians in America.


'If Christians do not stand strong, give a strong witness and insist on what is right and good for us both as and individuals and society,' the former Archbishop of St. Louis warned, 'this secularization will in fact predominate and it will destroy us.'"

For years I have been warning that the United States is in twilight.  Pope John Paul II warned us years ago that this period of persecution was coming.  He said, "We are now facing the final confrontation between the Church and the anti-Church, of the Gospel and the anti-Gospel...It is a trial which the whole Church ...must take up." (Wall Street Journal, November 9, 1978 edition).  And it was Fulton John Sheen who said that: "We are living in the days of the Apocalypse - the last days of our era...The two great forces of the Mystical Body of Christ and the Mystical Body of Antichrist are beginning to draw up the battle lines for the catastrophic contest."

Even within the Church the smoke of Satan has entered and those who have succumbed to practical atheism turn on their fellow Catholics with hatred and enmity.  Our Lady told Father Gobbi that, "Practical atheism spreads by false ideologies, by the sects, by the errors which are spreading more and more, even within the Church...Practical atheism has spread everywhere the wound of unbridled egoism, of violence, of hatred and of impurity.  Impurity is proposed as a value and a good, and it is propagated throughout all the mass media.  Sins of impurity are presented as a way of exercising one's personal freedom, and so impure sins against nature [e.g., homosexuality], which cry for vengeance in the sight of God, become justified and exalted.  The world has now been reduced to an immense desert, completely covered with filth." (September 2, 1996).

The enmity between the Children of Mary and the Children of Belial is intensifying as St. Louis de Montfort prophesied it would:

 "Mary must become as terrible as an army in battle array to the devil and his followers, especially in these latter times. For Satan, knowing that he has little time - even less now than ever - to destroy souls, intensifies his efforts and his onslaughts every day. He will not hesitate to stir up savage persecutions and set treacherous snares for Mary's faithful servants and children whom he finds more difficult to overcome than others.


It is chiefly in reference to these last wicked persecutions of the devil, daily increasing until the advent of the reign of anti- Christ, that we should understand that first and well-known prophecy and curse of God uttered against the serpent in the garden of paradise. It is opportune to explain it here for the glory of the Blessed Virgin, the salvation of her children and the confusion of the devil. 'I will place enmities between you and the woman, between your race and her race; she will crush your head and you will lie in wait for her heel' (Gen. 3:15).

God has established only one enmity - but it is an irreconcilable one - which will last and even go on increasing to the end of time. That enmity is between Mary, his worthy Mother, and the devil, between the children and the servants of the Blessed Virgin and the children and followers of Lucifer.

Thus the most fearful enemy that God has set up against the devil is Mary, his holy Mother. From the time of the earthly paradise, although she existed then only in his mind, he gave her such a hatred for his accursed enemy, such ingenuity in exposing the wickedness of the ancient serpent and such power to defeat, overthrow and crush this proud rebel, that Satan fears her not only more than angels and men but in a certain sense more than God himself. This does not mean that the anger, hatred and power of God are not infinitely greater than the Blessed Virgin's, since her attributes are limited. It simply means that Satan, being so proud, suffers infinitely more in being vanquished and punished by a lowly and humble servant of God, for her humility humiliates him more than the power of God. Moreover, God has given Mary such great power over the evil spirits that, as they have often been forced unwillingly to admit through the lips of possessed persons, they fear one of her pleadings for a soul more than the prayers of all the saints, and one of her threats more than all their other torments.

What Lucifer lost by pride Mary won by humility. What Eve ruined and lost by disobedience Mary saved by obedience. By obeying the serpent, Eve ruined her children as well as herself and delivered them up to him. Mary by her perfect fidelity to God saved her children with herself and consecrated them to his divine majesty.

God has established not just one enmity but 'enmities', and not only between Mary and Satan but between her race and his race. That is, God has put enmities, antipathies and hatreds between the true children and servants of the Blessed Virgin and the children and slaves of the devil. They have no love and no sympathy for each other. The children of Belial, the slaves of Satan, the friends of the world, - for they are all one and the same - have always persecuted and will persecute more than ever in the future those who belong to the Blessed Virgin, just as Cain of old persecuted his brother Abel, and Esau his brother Jacob. These are the types of the wicked and of the just. But the humble Mary will always triumph over Satan, the proud one, and so great will be her victory that she will crush his head, the very seat of his pride. She will unmask his serpent's cunning and expose his wicked plots. She will scatter to the winds his devilish plans and to the end of time will keep her faithful servants safe from his cruel claws.


But Mary's power over the evil spirits will especially shine forth in the latter times, when Satan will lie in wait for her heel, that is, for her humble servants and her poor children whom she will rouse to fight against him. In the eyes of the world they will be little and poor and, like the heel, lowly in the eyes of all, down-trodden and crushed as is the heel by the other parts of the body. But in compensation for this they will be rich in God's graces, which will be abundantly bestowed on them by Mary. They will be great and exalted before God in holiness. They will be superior to all creatures by their great zeal and so strongly will they be supported by divine assistance that, in union with Mary, they will crush the head of Satan with their heel, that is, their humility, and bring victory to Jesus Christ." (True Devotion to Mary, 50-54).

We are now living these times.  At my last parish, the homilies never mentioned sin or the need for repentance.  There were no homilies condemning abortion, homosexual acts, contraception, fornication etc.  Not a word.  But there was something which absolutely angered the clerics there; something which filled them with rage: my arriving early for each Holy Mass to pray the Holy Rosary.  For I was looked upon with scorn and even attacked while praying the Holy Rosary during Christmas Mass.

At my current parish, the Deacon - who at first was friendly - now cannot even look at me.  For the same reason I suspect.  And because I warned the priest of the parish (he is not the pastor but has been named administrator instead) that he was promoting CCHD in the parish bulletin (CCHD supports groups which advance abortion and homosexuality), it is obvious that I am now persona non grata.

Now is the time for battle.  We are servants of Jesus and Mary.  Let us not be afraid as we march under the banner of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.  We will be hated and treated with scorn.  But this is because we are not friends with the world.  We refuse to compromise with the demon and so we are persecuted.

So be it!  Christus vincit, Christus regnat, Christus imperat!

Read More

Rainbow Sash Movement: Is it dialogue they want or merely surrender to their agenda?

In my last post, I noted how retired Lutheran Bishop Herbert W. Chilstrom has called on the Roman Catholic Bishops of Minnesota to jettison Catholic teaching in the name of "charity" and "dialogue" and to surrender to the radical homosexual agenda and its demands for same-sex "marriage." 

In his Encyclical Letter Ecclesiam Suam, Pope Paul VI told us that, "The Church must enter into dialogue with the world in which it lives. It has something to say, a message to give, a communication to make." (No. 65). The Holy Father goes on to say that, "Dialogue, therefore, is a recognized method of the apostolate. It is a way of making spiritual contact. It should however have the following characteristics:

1) Clarity before all else; the dialogue demands that what is said should be intelligible. We can think of it as a kind of thought transfusion. It is an invitation to the exercise and development of the highest spiritual and mental powers a man possesses. This fact alone would suffice to make such dialogue rank among the greatest manifestations of human activity and culture. In order to satisfy this first requirement, all of us who feel the spur of the apostolate should examine closely the kind of speech we use. Is it easy to understand? Can it be grasped by ordinary people? Is it current idiom?

2) Our dialogue must be accompanied by that meekness which Christ bade us learn from Himself: "Learn of me, for I am meek and humble of heart." It would indeed be a disgrace if our dialogue were marked by arrogance, the use of bared words or offensive bitterness. What gives it its authority is the fact that it affirms the truth, shares with others the gifts of charity, is itself an example of virtue, avoids peremptory language, makes no demands. It is peaceful, has no use for extreme methods, is patient under contradiction and inclines towards generosity.

3) Confidence is also necessary; confidence not only in the power of one's own words, but also in the good will of both parties to the dialogue. Hence dialogue promotes intimacy and friendship on both sides. It unites them in a mutual adherence to the Good, and thus excludes all self-seeking.

4) Finally, the prudence of a teacher who is most careful to make allowances for the psychological and moral circumstances of his hearer, particularly if he is a child, unprepared, suspicious or hostile. The person who speaks is always at pains to learn the sensitivities of his audience, and if reason demands it, he adapts himself and the manner of his presentation to the susceptibilities and the degree of intelligence of his hearers....In a dialogue conducted with this kind of foresight, truth is wedded to charity and understanding to love." (Nos. 81, 82).

As faithful Catholics, we must recognize and embrace these characteristics of authentic dialogue, even when our partners in dialogue refuse to accept these principles. For we will often encounter those who have succumbed to relativism or who do not possess a love of objective truth. For such people, the purpose of dialogue is not to attain truth but rather to achieve personal victory and to triumph at any cost.  For example, Joe Murray, Executive Director of the Rainbow Sash Movement in the United States, after hurling a litany of angry and calumnious accusations against Archbishop Timothy Dolan in particular and the Catholic Church in general, challenges the Archbishop to an open debate.  See here.

The Rainbow Sash Movement declares, "We recognize that our Executive Director’s call for such a public debate will most certainly be met with arrogance, and even dismissal. However, such a refusal will only focus the spotlight on a Catholic Archbishop who lacks the courage to stand up for what he claims to believe in and meet in a public setting for a debate on Gay Marriage. It is time to replace the feeding frenzy of homophobia with a mature exchange of ideas in the Church."


As Dr. Montague Brown explains in his wonderful book "The One-Minute Philosopher" (Sophia Institute Books): "An argument (emotional, not rational) is a disorderly confrontation based on an unwillingness to learn from one another. Desire for victory takes precedence over love of truth, with the result that agreement becomes impossible....in an argument, I simply want my position to be the right one and you to agree with me. I am, indeed, looking for agreement, but on my terms, not in terms of objective truth." (p. 33). An authentic dialogue (which such people are not really interested in) is, "..an orderly confrontation based on a mutual willingness to learn from one another. It involves the presentation of evidence by each party and then a good-faith attempt of the participants in the discussion to come to agreement...In a discussion [or dialogue], I do not primarily want to disagree: I want to know the truth.." (The One-Minute Philosopher, p. 32).

But herein lies the problem.  The radical homosexual activists of the "Rainbow Sash Movement" are not interested in objective truth or authentic dialogue.  They will not - they cannot - come to the table with good will.  And this because they care not for truth.  Only for "power" as they incorrectly perceive power.

The Rainbow Sash Movement is part of the broader Homosexual Hate Movement and has engaged in calumny against Pope Benedict XVI, accusing the Holy Father of having "a Nazi past."  At one point last year, this hate group announced its plans to violate federal law and to show contempt for the celebration of the Holy Mass across the United States on Pentecost Sunday by disrupting the Mass.  See here.

Read More

Retired Lutheran Bishop Herbert W. Chilstrom tells Minnesota Catholic Bishops they are "making a significant mistake" on same-sex "marriage."

Retired Lutheran Bishop Herbert W. Chilstrom has found it necessary to lecture the Catholic Bishops of Minnesota, assaulting them with his homosexual agitprop.  In an article which may be found here, the Lutheran propagandist for sodomy writes:

"To My Brothers – The Catholic Bishops of Minnesota:


In 1976 I was elected a Lutheran bishop in Minnesota – one of seven such Lutheran leaders in the state. Over the next years one of the highlights of my time in office was the annual noon-to-noon retreat with our eight Catholic counterparts in the state.

The bond that developed between us was deep and respectful. We shared our differences; we celebrated our likenesses. My friendship with Archbishop John Roach and Bishop Raymond Lucker, in particular, is a blessing I will treasure as long as I live.

May I share a word with all of you who now lead the Roman Catholic community of faith in Minnesota?

First, I would go to the wall to defend your right to work for the adoption of the so-called marriage protection amendment. Having said that, I must tell you that I believe you are making a significant mistake.
Over my 35 years as an active and retired bishop I have come to know hundreds of gay and lesbian persons. I have yet to meet even one who is opposed to the marriage of one man and one woman. After all, they are the daughters and sons of such unions.

What they cannot understand is why church leaders would oppose their fundamental desire and right to be in partnership with someone they love and respect who happens to be of the same gender and sexual orientation. They don't understand why they should not enjoy all the rights and privileges their straight counterparts take for granted.

More than a half century ago Father Francis Gilligan spoke out for equality for African American citizens of Minnesota. Though many argued on the basis of the Bible that these neighbors were inferior to others, Gilligan fought tirelessly for justice for these brothers and sisters.

In our generation homosexual persons are subject to the same discrimination. Their detractors often use the Bible and tradition as weapons of choice.

Is it not time for religious leaders, walking in the footsteps of Father Gilligan, to do the same for another minority, neighbors who are as responsible as our African American sisters and brothers?

I also suggest that you ask yourselves an important question: If the amendment is passed, will it make one particle of difference in our common culture in Minnesota? I don't think so.

Responsible lesbian and gay persons will continue to seek companionship with those they love. This law will only work to drive many of them deeper into closets of anonymity.

Instead, why not welcome them into our communities of faith where they can work side by side with us as equal partners?

Let me put out a challenge to each of you brothers. Invite 15 gay and lesbian persons from your respective areas, one at a time, to spend two hours with you.

Thirty hours are a pittance compared to the time you are investing to promote adoption of the marriage amendment. Use the time, not for confession, but to listen to them describe what it is like to live in our culture in Minnesota.

Hear as they tell you what it means to be a child of God and a faithful member of your church, persons who happen to be gay or lesbian through no choice of their own. I can promise you, based on my experience, that your heart will be deeply moved by what you hear.

When you have finished your time with these sisters and brothers in Christ, spend a quiet hour reflecting on a single question: "As I understand the heart of my Savior Jesus, how would he treat these sons and daughters of my church?"

Herbert W. Chilstrom is former presiding bishop, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.

For Bishop Chilstrom, homosexuality is genetic.    Which is why he refers to "persons who happen to be gay or lesbian through no choice of their own."  But this tired lie has been thoroughly refuted.  See here.  Note too how this confused soul equates the demand for perversion, for same-sex "marriage," with the struggle for civil rights for African-Americans.  It is not discrimination to forbid homosexuals to marry: "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." (Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons, No. 8).

What is most tragic is that a Lutheran Bishop would refer to those who oppose homosexuality on moral grounds as "detractors" who "often use the Bible and tradition as weapons of choice."    Saint Paul assures us that, "In receiving the word of God from hearing us, you received not a human word but, as it truly is, the word of God." (1 Thessalonians 2:13).  It is the Church's role to proclaim and safeguard the Divine teaching which comes from the Lord Jesus.  This is why the Church condemns all forms of immorality, especially those which are opposed to the natural order such as homosexuality.

Those of us who are authentically Catholic understand - and appreciate - that the Word of God - in both Sacred Scripture and Tradition - is a priceless gift to be cherished and protected at all costs.  But for Lutheran Bishop Herbert Chilstrom, the Word of God is nothing more than a "weapon of choice" employed by hateful bigots - "detractors."  The Word of God is something which can be watered-down at will or simply discarded when it comes into conflict with the demands of "modern man."

Bishop Chilstrom is a progressive to be sure.  And he has forgotten what - or simply couldn't care less - about what the Word of God has to say to progressives: "Anyone who is so 'progressive' that he does not remain rooted in the teaching of Christ does not possess God, while anyone who remains rooted in the teaching possesses both the Father and the Son." (2 John 9).

Read More

On rash judgment and genuflecting before the Eucharist exposed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Another relevant article on the CCHD may be found here:

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


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

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

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

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

Rash judgment.

Read More