HOLY FATHER GIVES OBAMA ETHICS LESSONMAINSTREAM MEDIA IGNORES IT

Pope Benedict XVI:
"If Jesus could put up with being between two thieves for three hours, I guess I can put up with this!"

by Philip Pullella and Jeff Mason
Reuters

President Barack Obama held talks with Pope Benedict on Friday and the pontiff gave him a booklet explaining Vatican opposition to practices such as abortion and embryonic stem cell research, which Obama supports.

Obama told the pope Washington wanted strong relations with the Vatican.

Obama and Benedict held private talks for about 40 minutes in the pope's private frescoed study in the Vatican's apostolic palace and the president briefed him on the G8 summit which ended hours earlier in the central Italian city of L'Aquila.

The pope gave Obama, who last March lifted restrictions of federal funding for human embryonic stem cell research, a copy of a recent Vatican document on bio-ethics in which the Holy See explains it opposition to such practices.

"Dignitas Personae" (dignity of a person) condemns artificial fertilization and other techniques used by many couples and also says human cloning, "designer babies" and embryonic stem-cell research were immoral.

It defends life from conception to natural death.

The pope's private secretary later told reporters after the meeting: "This reading can help the president better understand the Church's position on these issues."(Don't hold your breath. Planned Parenthood owns Obama.)

Obama told the pope during a picture-taking session after the private part of the audience: "We look forward to a very strong relationship between our two countries."

The pope told Obama, who is a Christian, "I pray for you."

He also gave the president a copy of his latest encyclical, "Charity in Truth," which called for a "world political authority" to manage the global economy and for more government regulation of national economies to pull the world out of the current crisis and avoid a repeat.

Obama, who was going to the airport from the Vatican, joked to the pope when he gave him the two documents: "I'll have something to read on the plane."

OBAMA PLEASED WITH G8

Obama arrived at the Vatican under tight security from the central city of L'Aquila, where he participated in the G8 summit. Much of the area around the Vatican was blocked off and cell phone coverage was jammed as his motorcade passed.

Unlike his predecessor George Bush, Obama and the pope do not see eye-to-eye on abortion rights and embryonic stem cell research.

The Vatican condemns embryonic stem cell research, which scientists say can lead to cures for diseases such as Alzheimer's, because it involves the destruction of embryos.

U.S. Catholic bishops criticized Obama for lifting the ban and later many of the bishops denounced Notre Dame University, a leading American Catholic institution, for giving Obama an honorary degree.

Still, the Vatican says it wants to have constructive dialogue with Obama on a host of issues, including peace, the Middle East, the environment and dialogue with the Muslim world.

The G8 summit pledged $20 billion in farm aid to help poor nations feed themselves.

"It was very productive, particularly today," Obama told the pope."

Before he arrived at the Vatican, Michelle Obama and their children Malia and Sasha were given a private tour of St Peter's Basilica and the Sistine Chapel.

Michelle Obama joined her husband and the pope after the private talks ended.

MY COMMENTS
As much as the mainstream press tries to downplay this, the Holy Father's gift was a pretty dramatic gesture, not in keeping with standard diplomatic protocol. It's as much as saying, "We can shake hands and smile all you like, but you know where the Church stands and I expect you to understand why we stand there and get beyond your sloganeering that passes for debate."

Could you imagine President Reagan meeting with Fidel Castro and giving him a copy of the U.S. Constitution? That's just about the equivalent of what happened today in the Vatican.

CHURCH SANCTIONED SACRILEGE

Archbishop Andre Richard, St. John, New Brunswick
In a scandal that has Catholics from Canada (and everywhere else) scratching their heads, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, a non-Catholic, received Holy Communion at a funeral Mass and, allegedly, pocketed the Host. He received the Host from Archbishop Andre Richard. His handlers insist he consumed the Host, but no one seems to know for sure.

Archbishop Richard has gone on the record to say, "In the context, it's obvious that no disrespect was meant, I'm quite sure." The archbishop added that a Communion is sacrilegious only when a non-believer takes part out of disrespect.

Huh?

• When non-believers know that they are not supposed to receive Holy Communion and they do it anyway, is that not disrespect?

• In a country as large as Canada, with such a large Catholic population, are we to seriously believe that a man as worldly and sophisticated as its prime minister would not know that non-Catholics are not supposed to receive Holy Communion?

• Are we to actually believe that the metropolitan bishop of a Canadian archdiocese would not know that his prime minister was not Catholic?

• Why did the archbishop not refuse him Holy Communion?

There was a time when ANY priest or bishop in good conscience would have to refuse Holy Communion to a non-Catholic out of a sense of faithfulness to Jesus Christ and the need to protect His Body and Blood from sacrilege. This seems to reflect our weak-kneed age of preferring human respect and "just getting along" rather than faithfulness to the truth.

Perhaps we can help. Here is a statement that is found in the first two or three pages of every missalette:

FOR OUR FELLOW CHRISTIANS:
We welcome our fellow Christians to this celebration of the Eucharist as our brothers and sisters. We pray that our common baptism and the action of the Holy Spirit in this Eucharist will draw us closer to one another and begin to dispel the sad divisions which separate us. We pray that these will lessen and finally disappear, in keeping with Christ's prayer for us "that they may all be one" (Jn 17:21).

Because Catholics believe that the celebration of the Eucharist is a sign of the reality of the oneness of faith, life, and worship, members of those churches with whom we are not yet fully united are ordinarily not admitted to Holy Communion. Eucharistic sharing in exceptional circumstances by other Christians requires permission according to the directives of the diocesan bishop and the provisions of canon law (canon 844 § 4). Members of the Orthodox Churches, the Assyrian Church of the East, and the Polish National Catholic Church are urged to respect the discipline of their own Churches. According to Roman Catholic discipline, the Code of Canon Law does not object to the reception of communion by Christians of these Churches (canon 844 § 3).

Of course embarrassments and scandals like these could easily be avoided (and likely will be soon) by revoking the indult or special permission that currently permits Catholics to receive Holy Communion in the hand, since receiving on the tongue is still the worldwide norm for receiving Holy Communion.


Ending this will end a lot of sacrilege.

Some select Catholics reading this in Valdosta might be a bit confused by some of these terms, since they might be too "preconciliar" for them, so let me help with this definition:

sac⋅ri⋅lege [sak-ruh-lij]
–noun
1. the violation or profanation of anything sacred or held sacred.
2. an instance of this.
3. the stealing of anything consecrated to the service of God.

Of course, the need for such explanations will no longer be necessary when every parish and diocese stops placing the "personal authority" and preferences of priests and bishops above the authority of the Roman Catholic Church.

Be patient. The day is coming.

SO I'M A RACIST. WHY HIDE IT?

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the U.S. Supreme Court's napping justice, should be glad that there is a Democratic majority in Congress that is unwilling to take the steps to impeach her from her cozy lifetime appointment to the nation's highest court.

Justice Ginsburg stepped in it this time in an interview for this Sunday's New York Times Magazine, in which she is asked the following question after expressing her concerns about the availability of abortion for "poor women" (codespeak for "ethnic minorities"):

Are you talking about the distances women have to travel because in parts of the country, abortion is essentially unavailable, because there are so few doctors and clinics that do the procedure? And also, the lack of Medicaid for abortions for poor women?

Her answer:

Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v. McRae – in 1980 the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions.] Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn't really want them. But when the court decided McRae, the case came out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong.

What's the point of listening to oral arguments when your mind is made up?

If a similar remark had been made by Justices Scalia or Thomas, there would be indignation ringing across media airwaves and the senate would begin impeachment hearings toute de suite. But not for Justice Ginsburg. You will likely only find this story on the pro-life blogs today and it will die quickly.

Ironically, the Democratic party once had a conscience before its "win at all costs" era. In 1968, President Johnson nominated Justice Abe Fortas to be elevated to Chief Justice when Earl Warren retired. Several Democrats in Congress joined Republicans in launching a filibuster against Fortas' elevation because of alleged ethics violations, including a compromising relationship with the president and accepting speaking honorariums. Apparently those days are over.

Meanwhile, Ginsburg can take her rightful place in the pantheon of baby-killers, next to another notorious racist who believed in eliminating "undesirable populations" through birth control and abortion: Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger.


Margaret Sanger: "Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race."

Get more on this story here.

It should also be noted that Ginsburg's interview was conducted by Emily Bazelon. Bazelon is the granddaughter of the late appeals court judge David Bazelon, a liberal in the mold of William O. Douglas, and she is also the cousin of the late feminist uber-pro-abort Betty Friedan. A graduate of Yale Law School, (one of the few liberal, elite Ivy League schools that are de rigueur for success in the "working man's" Democratic party), Bazelon is also a faculty member at her alma mater as well as senior editor for Slate magazine.

So how likely do you think it is that Bazelon asked Ginsburg any tough questions?

TRUE NOW MORE THAN EVER

Without truth, charity degenerates into sentimentality. Love becomes an empty shell, to be filled in an arbitrary way. In a culture without truth, this is the fatal risk facing love. It falls prey to contingent subjective emotions and opinions, the word “love” is abused and distorted, to the point where it comes to mean the opposite.
-Pope Benedict XVI
Caritas In Veritate
July 7, 2009


Sentimentality. Mawkish displays of grief. A "macabre circus".
Symptoms of a culture without truth.
July 7, 2009

Timely Words from Fr. Casey

VISUAL RELIEF

For those reading the story below, I thought a visual reminder of what once was--and can be again--would be appropriate.

Click on the image to enlarge. Notice the serenity in the subject's eyes.

CRY OF THE HARPIES

Sister Sandra Schneiders
As the Vatican's long overdue investigation of women's religious orders in the United States approaches, it is interesting to see the reactions of "new era" nuns like Sister Sandra Schneiders, an instructor at Berkeley California's Jesuit School of Theology, who sent this email to her colleagues:

...we can receive them, politely and kindly, for what they are, uninvited guests who should be received in the parlor, not given the run of the house. When people ask questions they shouldn't ask, the questions should be answered accordingly.

Of course, the secular press is also having an anti-Catholic field day with this, as they paint a picture of a "sexist, authoritarian instutition" seeking to "keep women in their place". For instance, Chicago Sun-Times columnist Carol Marin wrote on the visitation in a story entitled, "Why Is the Vatican Going After Nuns?", which includes such perceptive insights as this:

There can be good reasons for the church to conduct a study of its nuns. Their numbers are declining fast. Their communities are shrinking. And we all could, in whatever work we do, profit from studying how well we're performing.

But frankly, these investigations are really about dissent in the Catholic Church and how to stop it. You know, women's ordination, homosexuality, birth control, abortion and celibacy.

And this process is nothing more than an assertion of control. Because the conclusions of the studies will stay confidential, the sisters may never know the outcome. But just by conducting the probes, the bishops are warning the sisters to sit a little straighter in their chairs.

By applying secular standards to religious life, Marin and others like her miss the point: These women chose to take vows and serve the Church. It would not have been fair if I had married my wife and later argued that we should have an "open marriage" because society's standards have changed.

If you know anything about the state of women's religious orders in the United States, the picture is bleak. They are aging out, disappearing and growing increasingly irrelevant--yet at the same time, traditional orders that stick to their original vocations and unashamedly wear the habits that set them apart as Brides of Christ are thriving (You can click here for just one example).

The scandal of modern nuns in the United States is directly related to their choice to deviate from their vocations. Instead of imitating the Mother of God and setting the example of virtue for all people, many of these orders have chosen a different path: New Age Spirituality, Reiki, Liberation Theology, Militant Lesbianism, Homosexual Rights, Abortion Rights, Wicca, and every new thing in secular politics.

Which begs the question: If they hate the Vatican so much, why do they even want to be part of the Church?


"Hey Holy Father: BUTT OUT!"

They Just Don't Go Together

Grace and Kathy: Beautiful / Ugly Not Beautiful
Some things just don't go together. Take the photo below, for instance, showing a church in Linz, Austria. You see a beautiful old church with a magnificent baroque reredo that is almost defaced by the presence of a modern "people's altar" and some tacky wooden chairs that would be the envy of most modern Catholic liturgists.



Sublime beauty juxtaposed against empty, existentialist functionalism.

The rupturistas just don't get it--or else they refuse to go down without a fight. They could learn a great deal from the recent restoration of the Pauline Chapel in the Vatican's Apostolic Palace (below). The "people's altar" was removed once and for all and the chapel has been restored to its former glory without any distractions that hint at the Church's embarrassing silly season of deviation from Her heritage.



Kudos to the Holy Father for, once again, leading by example.

Now do we really need liturgical consultants to explain common sense and beauty to the average Catholic--or will they finally go away as we wake up to the fact that the emperor has no clothes and their sales pitch is no longer necessary?

RE-RUNYou Voted for Obama Because You Care About the Poor?THINK AGAIN

Whenever I ask misguided Catholics about why they vote for Democrats when the party line is to support abortion "rights", invariably they respond with the same basic answer:

"Democrats care about the poor. Cutting taxes just makes the rich richer and we have an obligation for social justice."

Wonderful sentiments. And I used to believe that too. Too bad that it's just not true.

The Heritage Foundation published a list called "Ten Myths About the Bush Tax Cuts and the Facts". You can click the link to read the entire story, but I will just point out a coupleof significant excerpts below:

Myth #6: Raising tax rates is the best way to raise revenue.
Fact: Tax revenues correlate with economic growth, not tax rates.
Many of those who desire additional tax revenues regularly call on Congress to raise tax rates, but tax revenues are a function of two variables: tax rates and the tax base. The tax base typically moves in the opposite direction of the tax rate, partially negating the revenue impact of tax rate changes. Accordingly, Chart 4 shows little correlation between tax rates and tax revenues. Since 1952, the highest marginal income tax rate has dropped from 92 percent to 35 percent, and tax revenues have grown in inflation-adjusted terms while remaining constant as a per cent of GDP.







Chart 5 shows the nearly perfect correlation between GDP and tax revenues. Despite major fluc tuations in income tax rates, long-term tax revenues have grown at almost exactly the same rate as GDP, remaining between 17 percent and 20 percent of GDP for 46 of the past 50 years. Table 1 shows that the top marginal income tax rate topped 90 percent during the 1950s and that revenues averaged 17.2 percent of GDP. By the 1990s, the top marginal income tax rate averaged just 36 per cent, and tax revenues averaged 18.3 percent of GDP. Regardless of the tax rate, tax revenues have almost always come in at approximately 18 percent of GDP.[13]

Since revenues move with GDP, the common-sense way to increase tax revenues is to expand the GDP. This means that pro-growth policies such as low marginal tax rates (especially on work, savings, and investment), restrained federal spending, minimal regulation, and free trade would raise more tax revenues than would be raised by self-defeating tax increases. America cannot substantially increase tax revenue with policies that reduce national income.

Myth #10: The Bush tax cuts were tilted toward the rich.
Fact: The rich are now shouldering even more of the income tax burden.
Popular mythology also suggests that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts shifted more of the tax burden toward the poor. While high-income households did save more in actual dollars than low-income households, they did so because low-income house holds pay so little in income taxes in the first place. The same 1 percent tax cut will save more dollars for a millionaire than it will for a middle-class worker simply because the millionaire paid more taxes before the tax cut.



In 2000, the top 60 percent of taxpayers paid 100 percent of all income taxes. The bottom 40 percent collectively paid no income taxes. Lawmakers writing the 2001 tax cuts faced quite a challenge in giving the bulk of the income tax savings to a population that was already paying no income taxes.

Rather than exclude these Americans, lawmakers used the tax code to subsidize them. (Some economists would say this made that group's col lective tax burden negative.)First, lawmakers low ered the initial tax brackets from 15 percent to 10 percent and then expanded the refundable child tax credit, which, along with the refundable earned income tax credit (EITC), reduced the typical low-income tax burden to well below zero. As a result, the U.S. Treasury now mails tax "refunds" to a large proportion of these Americans that exceed the amounts of tax that they actually paid. All in all, the number of tax filers with zero or negative income tax liability rose from 30 million to 40 million, or about 30 percent of all tax filers.[17] The remaining 70 percent of tax filers received lower income tax rates, lower investment taxes, and lower estate taxes from the 2001 legislation.

Consequently, from 2000 to 2004, the share of all individual income taxes paid by the bottom 40 per cent dropped from zero percent to –4 percent, mean ing that the average family in those quintiles received a subsidy from the IRS. (See Chart 6.) By contrast, the share paid by the top quintile of households (by income) increased from 81 percent to 85 percent.

Expanding the data to include all federal taxes, the share paid by the top quintile edged up from 66.6 percent in 2000 to 67.1 percent in 2004, while the bottom 40 percent's share dipped from 5.9 per cent to 5.4 percent. Clearly, the tax cuts have led to the rich shouldering more of the income tax burden and the poor shouldering less.[18]

CLOSING COMMENTS
The point of this post is not to canonize George Bush (who has disappointed me in many ways) but to point out that the Democratic Party has no slam-dunk solution to the problems of the poor. Indeed, many of their policies only serve to institutionalize poverty and keep people dependent on the government.

I once sat through a homily listening to a priest commenting on an upcoming election. He insisted that the Church could not take sides in politics, then went on to ask us rhetorical questions like, "Do I support a fair and just living wage? Do I support health care for all people? Do I have compassion for the poor?" Many of the poor saps in the congregation had no information to draw from to show them that forced increases in the minimum wage often force layoffs, or that the minimum wage is most commonly an entry level wage for young workers. No one pointed out to them how socialized medicine has failed miserably in the countries that employ it. No, it was just assumed that to take these positions would be a perfect fit for Catholic social justice and any other view was callous disregard for the poor. Catholics hear this codespeak for the Democratic Party from their priests at parishes all over the country as every election approaches.

Finally, a word about the rich. The average millionaire in America lives in a middle-class neighborhood and works full-time. The outlandish McMansions are often purchased by the nouveau-riche (usually liberals who want you to know how much they care about the poor). Taxing the rich to death and other punitive measures toward success do not improve the lives of the poor and only harm the country. Before you start demonizing the rich, ask yourself: How many poor people own businesses or run corporations that employ people?

ABSURD YOU SAY?

Next weekend San Diego's Old Mission Beach Athletic Club will host yet another Over the Line tournament. For those of you who don't know, this is a four-day bacchanalia of hedonism and heavy drinking, ostensibly in the name of finding the true "champions" of this beachfront hybrid of baseball and softball.

The team names are a study in themselves. Most are double entendres like "The Spanish Flies" or "The Twelve-Inch Strokers" and many of the names are so sexually explicit that I could not print them here. Reading over a list of names one year, I noticed one that was particularly bizarre:
"Gay Nazis for Christ".

Of course, the name is patently absurd because the Nazis were anti-Christian and anti-homosexuality to the point of committing genocide. Homosexuality and Christianity are both irreconcilable with Nazi philosophy (and each other). You simply cannot be a Nazi and tolerate homosexuality. You cannot be a Nazi and tolerate Christianity (just ask Saints Edith Stein and Maximilian Kolbe). One is inimical to the other.

Yet we see something equally absurd in play today: Catholics taking anti-Catholic positions and Catholics living anti-Catholic lives, both privately and publicly.



The Church explicitly teaches that abortion is wrong. Killing an unborn child is not a mere "choice".
YET THERE ARE CATHOLICS WHO INSIST THAT THEY CAN BE CATHOLIC AND PRO-CHOICE

The Church explicitly forbids the use of artificial contraception. Most are abortifacients and using them demonstrates the exclusion of new life.
YET THERE ARE CATHOLICS WHO INSIST THAT THIS IS A PRIVATE MATTER AND DO IT ANYWAY.

The Church explicitly forbids In Vitro Fertilization for conceiving children. The practice removes the necessity of the sexual act and creates multiple embryos, most of which end up being destroyed.
YET THERE ARE CATHOLICS WHO INSIST THAT THIS IS A PRIVATE MATTER AND DO IT ANYWAY.

The Church explicitly forbids homosexual behavior. It is objectively disordered, is not oriented toward life and has destructive consequences for individuals, families and society.
YET THERE ARE CATHOLICS WHO BELIEVE THAT HOMOSEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS SHOULD ENJOY MARITAL STATUS AND THOSE WHO LIVE LIVES OF CONTINUAL FORNICATION IN THIS MANNER SHOULD BE WELCOMED AS FULLY-PARTICIPATING MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH.

The Church has spoken definitively that ordination is a sacrament that is exclusively for men and the Church has no authority to ordain women.
YET THERE ARE CATHOLICS WHO INSIST THAT THIS IS "CHANGEABLE" AND SOME EVEN GO SO FAR AS TO PARTICIPATE IN PRETEND "ORDINATIONS" OF WOMEN.

The Catholic Church is not exclusionary. Everyone is welcome. However, like any other organization, those who are members must abide by its laws and teachings. God loves sinners (if He doesn't we're all in trouble). God welcomes us because we are to welcome HIM and when HE enters our lives, we are called to change. Christianity is a lifetime of repentance, change, self-denial and shunning our personal desires for what God asks of us. We cannot claim to be a member of a family when we live in a state of perpetual disobedience against our Father.

That makes about as much sense as Gay Nazis for Christ.

"The world awoke with a groan..."

St. Jerome (El Greco)
The Arian heresy was one of the first of the great heresies that threatened the soundness and unity of the Catholic Church. In its simplest terms, Arianism denies the trinitarian God and placed Jesus Christ below God the Father in substance and dignity. During the fourth century, the debates and excommunications raged as emperors and bishops sided with the heretics. St. Athanasius was exiled five different times by Arian forces. St. Jerome summed it up by writing, "The world awoke with a groan to find itself Arian." Catholics who held to orthodoxy often found themselves in the minority.



So too, the influences of Gertrude Stein, Pablo Picasso, Albert Einstein and their contemporaries to make a new world seeped into the thought of many Catholics, eventually creating what St. Pius X called "the synthesis of all heresies": Modernism.

It is hard to define Modernism in exact terms, but St. Pius X gave us a solid list of indicators in his encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis, Lamentabili Sane, and his Oath Against Modernism. Among these false, non-Catholic ideas are:

• Catholic dogma is irreconcilable with science and must be subservient to science

• Scripture interpretation is strictly personal and does not need the guidance of the Church

• All religions are equally valid

• There is nothing divine in sacred tradition

• Dogmas can be tailored to suit cultures and time periods

• There can be many "Christs" and Jesus Christ is not actually the Son of God

• Dogmas of the faith can change and evolve

• Christ's death as expiation for our sins is just an idea that St. Paul developed

• Mass was originally simply a Christian "supper" that later assumed the nature of a liturgical action

• Faith is simply a sentimental impulse of the unconscious

• Truth is not unchanging and can evolve



Now none of these ideas are teachings of the Church. Certainly they are not products of any Ecumenical Council, including the often invoked and seldom read Second Vatican Council. But for the last 30 years or so, the certitudes of the Catholic faith have been replaced by relativism, disobedience to the Magisterium and an unsettling imposition of a Church that seems to "change with the times" rather than offering a timeless refuge from the tempests of the world's decline. Forces within our Church have tried to secularize the Holy Catholic Faith. St. Pius tried to warn us, but many have ignored his warnings at their own peril.

Alas, for many of us, the Church awoke with a groan one day in the early 1970's to find itself Modernist.

Remember Athanasius. Those who deposed him are a mere footnote in history. He is a saint.

If you are one of the minority who have stood against the Modernist attack, hold on. Salvation is at hand.

WILL THE REAL MONTINI PLEASE STAND UP?

Pope Paul VI: "That other guy's not the pope!"
Hmmmmmmm.

Now HERE"S a Conspiracy Theory!
Below is the complete text of a fascinating email I received a few days ago. I have not been able to confirm any of this information or find the web page that it originated from, or even find who the author is. I will not vouch that it is true. But like all conspiracy theories, some of it makes sense. If ALL of it is true (and that's a BIG "if"), then we truly have been deceived in a huge way.

POPE PAUL VI NOT THE AUTHOR OF NEW MASS
Pope Paul VI was perhaps the most betrayed pope of history whose subjects took the law into their own hands and promulgated their designs in his name
A common mistake held even among traditionalists is that Pope Paul Vl was the architect of the post-conciliar Mass (Novus Ordo) when in fact he had virtually nothing to do with it. During the last two years of the Vatican II Council he actually resisted any notions of a new Mass and would put it in writing on September 3, 1965, stating that, "It cannot be tolerated that any individual should on his own authority modify the formulas used by the Council of Trent to propose the Eucharistic doctrine of belief."

MASONIC PLOY
Traditionalists are not always getting the full picture about Vatican II. When the agents of Freemasonry infiltrated the Council their objective wasn't only to generate a reform and corrupt the Faith, but equally, their plan was to shift the blame onto the pope so as to discredit the papacy and drive the good Catholics from the Church so that they could get on with their destructive plans without any competition from them. It was carefully calculated in their plan to make us think that Paul VI was the modernist culprit who masterminded the new Mass, or that the past five popes have been antipopes, or that the Mass today is *not valid, so that good Catholics would no longer feel a reason to remain in their parishes and fight.

When the Second Vatican Council convened in the early sixties their aim was to use Pope Paul VI to spearhead the new reform, but when the pope got wise to their plan (through Cardinal Ottaviani) and rejected their proposal for a new Mass they were so infuriated against him that they haven't ceased punishing him ever since. Unfortunately, much of this punishment today is coming from traditionalists.

Pope Paul certainly wasn't perfect. For instance, he could have stood behind his May 1969 prohibition of Communion in the hand with a lttle more force, just as he could have put his foot down harder against the reform of liturgy. But the new Mass was not his work and should never be attributed to him, especially after he had gone on record as saying that the rule of language [Latin rite] that had preserved the Faith for so many centuries "must be religiously preserved." (9-3-65)

NOVUS ORDO
The change of liturgy was in fact the work of the devil who infiltrated the bishops at Vatican II. The infernal enemy broke into the church at a time when the hierarchy was vulnerable (open to the spirit), prompting Pope Paul VI to later make his famous statement: "From some fissure the smoke of Satan entered into the temple of God." (June 29, 1972)

The game plan was to bring about a change of ordinance. [Novus Ordo Seclorum] The devil knew that if he could get his foot in the door he could use the Church as a forum to advance this New Order and pave the way toward a coming New World Order. Forty years of slow conditioning have just about brought this plan to fruition - the reform was well planned.

SHIFT OF FOCUS
Their primary objective was to turn the priest around so that he says the Mass facing the people with his back to the tabernacle. The idea was to suggest that the church should turn its back on God and turn to one another instead, which is what we have seen since the Council. A shift of focus has ensued where the emphasis today is on the community instead of on God. Pope Pius XII after his reading of the Fatima Third Secret stated that the day was coming when the church would "be tempted to believe that man has become God."

PAUL REFUTES REFORM
With apostasy encroaching upon the Church in the middle sixties Pope Paul VI issued his encyclical on the Eucharist (Mysterium Fidei) in order to remind the faithful of how God through the centuries had established and preserved a rule of language [old liturgy] for the purpose of safeguarding the Church's dogma on the Eucharist so that Catholics wouldn't adopt false notions concerning it. (e.g. the Eucharist is a symbol of our unity, we are the true Eucharist, the Mass is a meal, the Mass is a community gathering, the Mass is a celebration, etc.) In His document he states, "The Church, therefore, with the long labor of centuries and the help from the Holy Ghost has established a rule of language [old liturgy], confirming it with the authority of the Councils. This rule which has often been the watchward and banner of orthodox Faith must be religiously preserved... Let no one presume to change it at his own pleasure or under the pretext of new science. Who would ever tolerate that the dogmatic formulas used by the ecumenical councils for the mysteries of the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation be judged as no longer appropriate for men of our times and therefore that others [new Mass] be rashly substituted for them? (Mysterium Fidei, September 3, 1965)

ARCHITECTS OF NEW MASS
The following Masonic directive is from a set of 34 guidelines that was issued by the Italian P.2 Lodge in March of 1962 and gives us a better idea of where the new Mass really came from: (11) "Stop the practice of saying Mass before the Holy Eucharist in the Tabernacle. Do not allow any tabernacles on the tables used for the Mass. Make the table look like a dinner table. Make it portable, to imply that it is not sacred, but could do double duty for anything, such as a conference table or for playing cards. Later, put at least one chair at this table. Make the priest sit in this after Communion to signify that he rests after his meal. Never let the priest kneel at Mass, nor genuflect - people don't kneel at meals."

The above closely coincides with directive no. 4 of this same set of guidelines: "Stop all Latin in Mass liturgy, devotions, and songs. It lends a feeling of mystery and respect. Show it up as mumbo-jumbo of soothsayers." Removing the solemnities of the old Mass would open the way for the many other abuses planned by the Masons in 1962, for instance their plan concerning the reception of Communion: (30) "Get women and laity to give Communion, say that this is the age of the laity. Start giving Communion in the hand like the Protestants, instead of on the tongue, say that Christ did it this way. Collect some for Satan Masses."

These infernal guidelines were primarily executed by fallen members of the clergy, especially Masonic initiates like Archbishop Bugnini, the key architect of the new Mass who was seen many times going to the Masonic lodge to receive his regular paycheck to carry out his commission to destroy the Church. That is to say, the change of liturgy was not from Pope Paul VI.

DECEPTION OF THE CENTURY
Even so, many today find it difficult to accept Pope Paul's innocence, one of the reasons being that from 1975 on there was an impostor in Rome who went about discrediting him. This was common knowledge among diplomatic circles and is well documented in a book by German author, Theodore Kolberg, entitled The Impostor Pope. Therein he substantiates his claim with numerous photos of the two popes as well as with voice prints of both men speaking the same words [papal blessing] which show that there were two different men speaking from the Vatican balcony on Easter and Christmas of 1975. (voice prints will stand as evidence in a court of law) The impostor was an Italian actor with the initials P.A.R. who worked as a puppet under the control of those who had seized control of the Vatican in 1972, namely, Cardinal Villot, Cardinal Benelli, and Cardinal Casaroli whom the Wanderer in 1999 had even identified as a KGB affiliate. They drugged the true pope and created this impostor, using the best of plastic surgeons, so that the true pope made very few appearances from that point on.

These are standard news photos of the two men as they were seen and known in the press as Pope Paul VI. Note the visible difference in the nose. Pope Paul VI (left) has a longer, straighter, more pointed nose, while the impostor (right) has a shorter and rounder nose.



The photos were taken only four years apart, Pope Paul in 1973 (left) and the impostor in 1977 (right).Trick photography or creativity was not used in either photograph. The Photos speak for themselves and attest to the powers of darkness at work in the Vatican. The four years that lapsed between the two photos would not account for such a drastic difference in appearance.

The existence of the impostor would explain the many discrepancies that had confused the faithful concerning Pope Paul VI, for instance, why he would condemn the Charismatic Movement in 1969, and why he would embrace it in 1975; or why he would forbid Communion in the hand in May of 1969, and why then he would sanction it from 1975 on. Having an impostor in Rome made it easier for the modernists to get on with their reform which up to that point had been hampered by the Holy Father's resistance.

SPIRIT OF THE COUNCIL
Pope Paul himself would lament the turbulent aftermath of Vatican II and identify the underlying force behind it when he gave us this quote on October 13, 1977: "The tail of the devil is functioning in the disintegration of the Catholic world. The darkness of Satan has entered and spread throughout the Catholic Church even to its summit. Apostasy, the loss of the Faith, is spreading throughout the world and into the highest levels within the Church."

Question: Does this sound like a pope who consented to the change of ordinance that had wrought so much destruction upon the Church? Did he not warn the hierarchy in 1965 of their obligation to maintain their fidelity to the Mass of the Council of Trent?

PROFANATION OF LITURGY DOES NOT INVALIDATE MASS
Despite the changes to the liturgy the Mass today remains valid, not because of any reforms, but because of the essential elements of tradition that are still intact in the new rite. The modernist innovations render today's Mass illicit, not invalid. The priest will always have the power to confect a valid sacrament provided he be legally ordained and that the essentials of the Consecration are present in the Mass. (which they still are) The illicit conduct or procedure of the priest does not affect the validity of the Mass unless his procedure causes him to mutilate or omit the essentials altogether. According to the Council of Trent the essentials of the Consecration needed to confect a valid Mass are the words: "This is My Body" and "This is My Blood." The preceding and subsequent words of Consecration (e.g. which shall be shed for you and for many, etc.) do not constitute part of the essential wording and therefore the changing of these non-essentials does not invalidate the Mass unless this change is such that promotes formal heresy, which of course is not the case today.

TRUE THEN, TRUER NOW

Liberalism in religion is the doctrine that there is no positive truth in religion, but that one creed is as good as another, and this is the teaching which is gaining substance and force daily. It is inconsistent with any recognition of any religion, as true. It teaches that all are to be tolerated, for all are matters of opinion. Revealed religion is not a truth, but a sentiment and a taste; not an objective fact, not miraculous; and it is the right of each individual to make it say just what strikes his fancy. Devotion is not necessarily founded on faith. Men may go to Protestant Churches and to Catholic, may get good from both and belong to neither.

...I lament it deeply, because I foresee that it may be the ruin of many souls; but I have no fear at all that it really can do aught of serious harm to the Word of God, to Holy Church, to our Almighty King, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, Faithful and True, or to His Vicar on earth.
-Venerable John Henry Newman
Biglietto Speech
May 12, 1879
(given on his elevation to the College of Cardinals)


Newman's beatification has been approved by the Holy Father. Read more about it here.

ADVENTURES IN OBVIOUSLAND

This nun has been appointed by the Vatican
to investigate the activities of U.S. nuns


This "nun" is urging other nuns not to cooperate

GEE, WHAT A SURPRISE!

Get the story here.

no "mainstream" coverageTHE FRUITS OF HOMOSEXUAL ADOPTION

Frank Lombard

HOMOSEXUAL UNIVERSITY OFFICIAL ATTEMPTS TO SELL
BLACK 5-YEAR OLD SON FOR SEX
by Zoe Ortiz
News Busters

Frank Lombard is an associate director at Duke University's Global Health Institute and a homosexual who was charged last week with the molestation of his adopted 5-year-old black son and actively trying to sell him for sex on the internet.
The 40 words above are 40 more than the Main Stream Media has said on this horrible story.

In nearly a week since Lombard was arrested, not one national broadcast or cable television news show has picked up the story. Compare this to the weeks on end of sensational coverage of the white male lacrosse players of the same university charged with rape several years ago.

At the time of this post not one television show has reported the story and only 17 newspapers in the United States featured it - a majority of which are only small local newspapers.

And most of these articles cited the American Press' report on the events, which was as follows:

AP) WASHINGTON - A Duke University official has been arrested and charged with offering his adopted 5-year-old son for sex.

Frank Lombard, the school's associate director of the Center for Health Policy, was arrested after an Internet sting, according to the FBI's Washington field office and the city's police department.

According to an affidavit by District of Columbia Police Det. Timothy Palchak, an unnamed informant facing charges in his own child sex case led authorities to Lombard.

Authorities said that Lombard tried to persuade a person -who he did not know was a police officer -to travel to North Carolina to have sex with Lombard's child.

The detective's affidavit charges Lombard identified himself online as "perv dad for fun," and says that in an online chat with the detective, Lombard said he had sexually molested his son, whom he adopted as an infant.

The court papers say Lombard also invited the undercover detective to North Carolina to have sex with the young boy, and even suggested which hotel he should use."

In response to the AP report, which most of the newspapers used almost verbatim, Mike Adams of Townhall made the observation that "The Associate Press (AP) did not mention the fact that the five-year old offered up for molestation was black. Bringing that fact to light might be damaging to the political coalition that exists between blacks and gays. Nor did the AP mention that the adopted child is being raised by a homosexual couple. Bringing that fact to light might harm the gay adoption movement."

With this shocking lack of coverage of an even more shocking story, many are asking why this did not make the front pages and top headlines like the Duke lacrosse team scandal did. Thomas Lifson of American Thinker posited that "identity politics ... apparently trumps all sense of outrage."

TRUE THEN, TRUER NOW

"Sexual orientation" does not constitute a quality comparable to race, ethnic background, etc. in respect to non-discrimination. Unlike these, homosexual orientation is an objective disorder and evokes moral concern.

There are areas in which it is not unjust discrimination to take sexual orientation into account, for example, in the placement of children for adoption or foster care, in employment of teachers or athletic coaches, and in military recruitment.

Homosexual persons, as human persons, have the same rights as all persons including the right of not being treated in a manner which offends their personal dignity. Among other rights, all persons have the right to work, to housing, etc. Nevertheless, these rights are not absolute. They can be legitimately limited for objectively disordered external conduct. This is sometimes not only licit but obligatory. This would obtain moreover not only in the case of culpable behavior but even in the case of actions of the physically or mentally ill. Thus it is accepted that the state may restrict the exercise of rights, for example, in the case of contagious or mentally ill persons, in order to protect the common good.
-SOME CONSIDERATIONS CONCERNING THE RESPONSE TO LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS ON THE NON-DISCRIMINATION OF HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS
Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith
1992

Suspended Priest Attacks Bishops,The Church's Teachings,Knights of Columbus

Fr. Geoffrey Farrow
"How much filth there is in the Church..."
-Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
Good Friday Meditation, 2005
Fr. Geoffrey Farrow, the priest from the Diocese of Fresno Who came out as a homosexual and denounced California's Defense of Marriage initiative, Proposition 8 at the same Mass, has found a new way to market himself: As a speaker for dissident groups.

Farrow will be the homilist for Dignity's "Eucharistic Celebration" (Whatever happened to Mass?) for their 2009 convention in (where else?) San Francisco.

Meanwhile, he is using his blog to persuade militant homosexual activists disguised as practicing Catholics to take over their parishes and shun the Knights of Columbus, the group he blames as one of the organizations "which the bishops have employed to do their dirty work."

Among his suggestions:

“Borrow the full amount against your Knights of Columbus life insurance policy immediately. Take the check and invest the funds with an LGBT friendly fund. Do not pay back the loan.”

Pastors may grant or withhold permission for organizations to use church facilities for their meetings. Most parishes have very tight facility scheduling. Create a program and tell the K of C they need to meet elsewhere.”

Get the whole story here.

While such outrageous behavior will surely continue to alienate Farrow from his bishop, John Steinbock of Fresno, he will probably be lauded as a hero in some upcoming issue of U.S. Catholic, that "mainstream" Catholic publication you'll find in the vestibule of too many churches.

WE'RE DOOMED

Our newest U.S. Senator
Writer, satirist and all-around smart aleck Al Franken has finally won his prolonged fight for election to the United States Senate.

Woe is us.

1) The Culture of Death under the leadership of B.O. now has a filibuster-proof majority.

2) Minnesota has elected a virulently anti-Catholic man as their senator.

What do I mean?

Here is just a a short list of some of Franken's anti-Catholic history from the Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph's Catholic Key:

• He has mocked the Eucharist

• He has ridiculed the crucifixion of Jesus

• He has slandered all priests as molesters

• He has belittled practicing Catholics (e.g., Knights of Columbus)

• He has disparaged the Church’s teaching on embryonic stem cell research

• He made crude jokes about a dying woman, Terri Schiavo, and then misrepresented her condition by passing her off as "already dead."

• Franken also addressed a New York audience on the topic of that city's late, great archbishop asking, "Isn't Cardinal O'Connor an a**hole?"

Nice stuff.

What can we do about it? Prayer and fasting for a start. The worst evils are yet to come.

The Pope Says:GROW UP!

POPE EXPLAINS
WHAT "THINKING LIKE AN ADULT" REALLY MEANS
In the last few decades, the expression ‘adult faith’ [fede adulta, 'grown up faith'] has become a widespread slogan. It is often used in relation to the attitudes of those who no longer pay attention to what the Church and her Pastors say — which is to say, those who choose on their own what to believe or not to believe in a sort of ‘do-it-yourself’ faith. Expressing oneself against the Magisterium of the Church is presented as a sort of ‘courage’, whereas in fact not much courage is needed because one can be certain of receiving public praise.

Instead, courage is needed to adhere to the Church’s faith, even if it contradicts the 'order' of today’s world. Paul calls this non-conformism an ‘adult faith’. For him, following the prevailing winds and currents of the time is childish.



For this reason, it is part of an adult faith to dedicate oneself to the inviolability of life from its beginning, thus radically opposing the principle of violence, in defense precisely of the most defenseless. It is part of an adult faith to recognize the lifelong marriage between one man and one woman in accordance with the Creator’s order, re-established again by Christ. An adult faith does not follow any current here and there. It stands against the winds of fashion.

-Benedict XIV
Homily - First Vespers of the Feast of Saints Peter and Paul
June 28, 2009





with thanks to Rorate Caeli

Indulge Me for a Moment

HERE IS A GOOD REASON TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT ETERNITY:
There are two kinds of punishment attached to sin, eternal and temporal. If the sin is mortal (serious, grave) sin, the person loses the friendship of God and with it the life of divine grace within. This punishment is eternal. If the person is not restored to grace before death he will be punished forever in hell, since serious sin is an infinite insult to an All-Holy God and thus deserves a like punishment. It was to repair for such sin that Jesus became man and was crucified. As God His sacrifice was infinitely meritorious, as Man He was able to represent us. He thus could expiate for our mortal sins, which are not just beyond our power of expiation but infinitely beyond it.

Mortal sin, and also venial sin (which has no eternal punishment attached to it), both disturb the right order within us and in the order of justice in general. We all experience these temporal (or in-time, in-this-world) consequences of sin, both both personally and socially. Sin changes us (or rather we sin because we are not what we are supposed to be), and like a pebble in a pond these changes have effects beyond us. Not only must we be sorry for our sins, but we must be more thoroughly converted to the Lord, and demonstrate that conversion (Acts 26:20) by our actions. So, while sacramental absolution forgives the eternal guilt of sin, which requires the infinite merits of Christ, it does not necessarily remove all the temporal punishment, since they are somewhat within our power to repair (and somewhat unknown to us). Depending on our degree of sorrow, absolution may result in the expiation of all the temporal guilt of sin. However, for that which it does not repair, we must offer further expiation through prayer, penance, carrying the Cross etc., or after death be purified in purgatory (Rev 21:27).

A WAY OUT: INDULGENCES
What an Indulgence does is to take an occasion of such expiation (a certain prayer, penance, charity or other designated work) and add to its intrinsic merit before God an additional value based on the treasury of merits of Jesus Christ, and those perfectly united to Him in heaven (the saints). This can either partially, or under certain conditions, totally remit the temporal punishment due to sin. This depends, naturally, on our openness to God's grace. A mechanical performance of an indulgenced work would not have effect. Performing an indulgenced work should have the consequence of fixing our will away from our sins and entirely on God. This is why among the most important of the conditions for receiving a plenary indulgence, and the hardest to satisfy, is the complete detachment or detestation of our sins. By detesting our sins we orient our will away from creatures (to the degree we love them inordinately), towards God. In this way we open our will to the action of His mercy flowing into our souls, which alone is able to effect the complete remission of the temporal punishment to our sins.

An example will perhaps better illustrate these points. A boy playing ball breaks a window of his home. Contrite and sorrowful he goes to his father, who forgives him. However, despite the forgiveness the window is still broken and must be repaired. Since the boy's personal resources are insufficient to pay for a new window, the father requires him to pay a few dollars from his savings and forego some of his allowance for several weeks, but that he, the father, will pay the rest. This balances justice and mercy (generous love). To ask the boy to do nothing, when it is possible for him to make some reparation, would not be in accordance with the truth, or even the boy's good. Yet, even this temporal debt is beyond the boy's possibilities. Therefore, from his own treasury the father generously makes up what the child cannot provide. This is indulgence. Unlike the theologies that say "we are washed it the blood of the Lamb and there is nothing left to do," Catholic teaching respects the natural order of justice, as Jesus clearly did in the Gospels, yet recognizes that man cannot foresee or undo all the temporal consequences of his sin. However, God in His mercy will satisfy justice for what we cannot repair.

HOW DO I PLACE MY ORDER?
To gain any indulgence you must be a Catholic in a state of grace. You must be a Catholic in order to be under the Church's jurisdiction, and you must be in a state of grace because apart from God's grace none of your actions are fundamentally pleasing to God (meritorious). You also must have at least the habitual intention of gaining an indulgence by the act performed.

To gain a partial indulgence, you must perform with a contrite heart the act to which the indulgence is attached.

To gain a plenary indulgence you must perform the act with a contrite heart, plus you must go to confession (one confession may suffice for several plenary indulgences), receive Holy Communion, and pray for the pope's intentions. (An Our Father and a Hail Mary said for the pope's intentions are sufficient, although you are free to substitute other prayers of your own choosing.) The final condition is that you must be free from all attachment to sin, including venial sin.

Because of the extreme difficulty in meeting the final condition, plenary indulgences are rarely obtained. If you attempt to receive a plenary indulgence, but are unable to meet the last condition, a partial indulgence is received instead.

Below are indulgences listed in the Handbook of Indulgences (New York: Catholic Book Publishing, 1991). Note that there is an indulgence for Bible reading. So, rather than discouraging Bible reading, the Catholic Church promotes it by giving indulgences for it! (This was the case long before Vatican II.)

An act of spiritual communion, expressed in any devout formula whatsoever, is endowed with a partial indulgence.

A partial indulgence is granted the Christian faithful who devoutly spend time in mental prayer.

A partial indulgence is granted the Christian faithful who read sacred Scripture with the veneration due God's word and as a form of spiritual reading. The indulgence will be a plenary one when such reading is done for at least one-half hour [provided the other conditions are met].

A partial indulgence is granted to the Christian faithful who devoutly sign themselves with the cross while saying the customary formula: "In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen."

Priests who administer the sacraments to the Christian faithful who are in a life-and-death situation should not neglect to impart to them the apostolic blessing, with its attached indulgence.

But if a priest cannot be present, Holy Mother Church lovingly grants such persons who are rightly disposed a plenary indulgence to be obtained in articulo mortis, at the approach of death, provided they regularly prayed in some way during their lifetime. The use of a crucifix or a cross is recommended in obtaining this plenary indulgence. In such a situation the three usual conditions required in order to gain a plenary indulgence are substituted for by the condition "provided they regularly prayed in some way." The Christian faithful can obtain the plenary indulgence mentioned here as death approaches (in articulo mortis) even if they had already obtained another plenary indulgence that same day.

SOURCES: New Advent Encyclopedia, This Rock magazine, Jimmy Akin.

Padre Pio Said It

The Christian who has forgotten his true vocation and is merely a Christian in name, a worldly Christian, judges things quite differently. His judgment is the exact opposite to that of the Christian worthy of the name who lives according to the spirit of Jesus Christ. The former judges things from the point of view of their capacity to satisfy his vanity and his passions. The latter, on the other hand, invariably judges them in relation to eternal things.

Hence the one that is a Christian merely in name, the Christian in high society, sets a great value on honours, wealth, fleeting things, comforts and all that this wretched world has to offer. 0 foolish man, enter into yourself and remember that by your baptism you renounced the world and are dead to it. The Holy Spirit tells you so by the mouth of St. Paul: "You have died, and your life is hid with Christ in God"

ANSWERING THE ANTI-BLOGGER BISHOP

Archbishop James Weisgerber

LifeSite News is running an interesting story about the Archbishop of Winnipeg, James Weisgerber and the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (of which he is the president) and the controversy over their funding of Development & Peace, an agency that has been accused of funding abortions. Unhappy that this funding has been exposed and caused the bishops the CCCB embarrassment, the archbishop has attacked Catholic bloggers, by saying:

"These bloggers who claim to be more Catholic than anyone -- I think first of all they're not part of the church, they're not Catholic in the sense that they have no mandate, they have no authority, they have no accountability. And they speak very, very definitively about what it means to be Catholic, and they're followed by so many people."

I cannot speak for all Catholic bloggers, but I would like to address his accusations point by point, at least with regard to my own efforts at blogging:

"These bloggers who claim to be more Catholic than anyone..."
I've never made any such claim.

"I think first of all they're not part of the church..."
Would he like to see my baptismal certificate?


"they're not Catholic in the sense that they have no mandate..."
Perhaps he could re-read Vatican II's Decree on the Laity, APOSTOLICAM ACTUOSITATEM, specifically, this excerpt:

As sharers in the role of Christ as priest, prophet, and king, the laity have their work cut out for them in the life and activity of the Church. Their activity is so necessary within the Church communities that without it the apostolate of the pastors is often unable to achieve its full effectiveness. In the manner of the men and women who helped Paul in spreading the Gospel (cf. Acts 18:18, 26; Rom. 16:3) the laity with the right apostolic attitude supply what is lacking to their brethren and refresh the spirit of pastors and of the rest of the faithful (cf. 1 Cor. 16:17-18).

I would add that every Catholic has a mandate to share and defend his faith.

"they have no authority..."
The sidebar of this blog makes it clear that this site is not an official site for any diocese or parish.

"they have no accountability..."
To a certain extent this is true. However, I am accountable in ways he seems to be overlooking. I am accountable to those who read this blog. I engage my readers and discuss topics with them in a way that many bishops shun. In fact, when many Catholics attempt to contact their bishop, they soon find many layers of bureaucracy protecting their bishop from ever facing anyone he doesn't wish to talk to. My name is on the line with every post on this blog.


"And they speak very, very definitively about what it means to be Catholic..."
If I make any definitive statements about being Catholic, I make it a point to back up my statement with Church documents. In fact, I would prefer to say that I present what The Church definitively says about being Catholic. There was a time when we could count on our priests and bishops to tell us but...oh, never mind.

"...and they're followed by so many people."
Take a look at the counter at the bottom of my sidebar. As Catholic blogs go, I'm pretty small-time. In fact, most Catholic blogs have relatively small followings, except for a few very popular ones.

The archbishop should admit what is REALLY bothering him:
With the internet, everyone is more accountable. Bishops are now accountable (well, at least a bit MORE accountable) about how they spend our money. Priests, bishops, nuns and catechists are now more accountable for what they say, teach and preach. One stupid remark from the pulpit on any given Sunday can be all over the blogosphere on Sunday night. This is one of the reasons that the rupturistas who have lied to us about Vatican II for the last 40 years aren't getting away with it any longer.

Part of the success of the Church's return to orthodoxy and tradition can certainly be attributed to Catholic bloggers who have held our priests' and bishops' feet to the fire. But first and foremost, we must thank the Holy Father, Pope Benedict for his courage and leadership. We bloggers are simply sticking to his orders, even when his own lieutenants are subverting him.

THE WHOLE IS WORSE THAN THE SUM OF ITS PARTS

Is the USCCB an Intrinsic Evil?
By Jim Fritz
Catholic Media Coalition

I know! I know! There are many saintly bishops within the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), but is the USCCB as an entity an intrinsic evil? This article takes a look at the actions of this group and lets you determine the answer. First, let's define an intrinsic evil using some of the USCCB's own words. Then, let's look at some of the actions of the USCCB in recent years.

Intrinsic Evil
There is a strong tradition in Catholic moral theology that evaluates the morality of acts according to a threefold test that looks at 1) the act itself, 2) the intent of the actor; and 3) the circumstances surrounding the act. All three must be good (or at least neutral) for the act to be morally licit. Traditionally, to say that something is "intrinsically" evil is to say it is evil at the level of the act. It is "objectively" wrong, regardless of the intent of the actor or the circumstances. Such acts can never be morally licit. This does not mean, however, that such acts are always greater evils than acts that are evil by intent or circumstance.

What are these Intrinsic Evils? According to the Church these are: 1) murder of unborn babies (abortion); 2) murder of the sick and disabled (euthanasia); 3) conception of human lives for the purpose of Fetal Stem Cell Research; 4) illicit and intrinsically disordered sexual licentiousness; and, 5) cloning of humans.

Actions of the USCCB
The actions we will review are:

• the publication of the purposely defective Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship;
• the Catholic Campaign for Human Development (CCHD);
• the rejection of Canon 915;
• publication of Always our Children; and lastly,
• cinema reviews recommending movies with homosexual content.

Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship
To put it bluntly, this USCCB document has played a decisive role in empowering Catholic supporters of abortion by providing the escape clauses needed to convince Catholics they could vote for a pro-abortion candidate in good conscience. There are two major loopholes in the document. First, it states that Catholics are allowed to vote for a supporter of abortion rights so long as 1) the voter does not intend to support that position, or 2) there are offsetting "morally grave reasons." The document never explains what constitutes "morally grave reasons," leaving it to the reader to make his own determination which can be quite erroneous.

It is this writer's contention this clause was purposely inserted into the document by socially progressive bishops as a loophole. Common sense indicates the bishops had to have been aware this clause was a loophole to allow voting for pro-abortion politicians and not an accidental opening. Arguments that Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship needs to be taken as a whole to be understood do not hold water. The loophole was taken out of context repeatedly and published on the websites of the pro-abortion candidates. At a conference at Creighton University in June, John Carr, Executive Director of Social Development and World Peace for the USCCB, "stressed that the bishops' document does not shut the door on any candidate, not even one who supports abortion rights." The bishops were told this, and they still left the loophole intact as this was their original intent. Although several bishops have spoken out forcefully, saying the document is being abused, it was never changed or clarified by the USCCB.

Bishop Robert Vasa pointed out that voting for a pro-abortion candidate is never justified when the opponent is pro-life. Similarly, Bishops Kevin Vann and Kevin Farrell in a joint letter to their faithful insist there are no "'truly grave moral' or 'proportionate' reasons, singularly or combined, that could outweigh the millions of innocent human lives that are directly killed by legal abortion each year."

Is this act of letting the purposely defective Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship stand as a document to be used by the faithful an intrinsic evil?

Catholic Campaign for Human Development
In 1969, the U.S. bishops established the CCHD to fund low income controlled empowerment projects and to educate Catholics about the root causes of poverty. In 1994, The Wanderer, a national Catholic weekly, ran a series of articles by Paul Likoudis shedding light on the activities of the CCHD. Likoudis wrote that the anniversary "brought [many U.S. Catholics] to plead with the… bishops for an investigation of and an audit into what kinds of programs the ecclesiastical apparatus has funded." Likoudis exposed a broad range of serious problems. They included financing organizations that support abortion and contraception, funneling money into leftist groups working for socialistic political goals, and organizing voter drives to elect radical politicians. Likoudis exposed the intimate connection between atheist Saul Alinsky's Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF) and CCHD. Alinsky, the grandfather of a new type of community organizing, promoted radical and immoral means. Approximately one third to one half of all organizations funded by the USCCB's CCHD are Alinskyite groups with philosophies antithetical to Catholic teaching on social justice. The CCHD has used millions of dollars from unsuspecting Catholics to fund these groups.

In 2006, the Employment Policies Institute released a study called Rotten ACORN: America's Bad Seed. It describes ACORN (one of the organizations funded by the CCHD) as a "vast web of groups run by long-time anti-corporate activist Wade Rathke and a handful of his closest allies…[with] more than 75 organizations run…out of one office…in New Orleans." The thirty-page report with 140 footnotes goes on to describe what essentially is the "Rathke family business," up to its neck in voter fraud, shaking down banks and private businesses, funneling massive amounts of money into the pockets of family members through its spider web of networks, and mistreating its employees. Rathke was forced out in 2008 after his brother, Dale, embezzled almost a million dollars which Rathke covered up, keeping his brother on the payroll for eight years after the 2000 crime. Finally, after the FBI began an investigation into the CCHD funded ACORN, the USCCB decided to suspend funding. They did not cancel it - they merely suspended it to continue again when the publicity dies down. The USCCB still refuses to overhaul a completely dysfunctional organization that, according to one of their bishops, cannot possibly be managed under its present organizational set up.

After the election of the most pro-abortion candidate in history, supported in part by the CCHD, is this another example of the USCCB supporting an intrinsic evil?

Rejection of Canon 915
Church's Canon Law 915 states: "Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to Holy Communion." Debate on the issue was closed several years ago with a letter from Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI. The then-head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith intervened in a debate between the US Bishops on the issue in 2004. Cardinal Ratzinger said in his letter titled, "Worthiness to receive Holy Communion," that a Catholic politician who would vote for "permissive abortion and euthanasia laws" after being duly instructed and warned, "must" be denied Communion. Ratzinger's letter explained that if such a politician "with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it." Recently Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, confirmed this position. Former St. Louis Archbishop Raymond Burke, whom Pope Benedict appointed this year to head the highest judicial court in the Vatican, has remarked on the need for bishops to uphold this canon, since without doing so they undermine belief in the truth of the evil of abortion. "No matter how often a bishop or priest repeats the teaching of the Church regarding procured abortion, if he stands by and does nothing to discipline a Catholic who publicly supports legislation permitting the gravest of injustices and, at the same time, presents himself to receive Holy Communion, then his teaching rings hollow," wrote Burke. "To remain silent is to permit serious confusion regarding a fundamental truth of the moral law."

Cardinal Arinze in 2004 said a pro-abortion politician "is not fit" to receive Communion. "If they should not receive, then they should not be given," he added. In November 2007 during a video interview, Cardinal Arinze was asked again if a person who votes for abortion can receive Holy Communion. He replied, "Do you really need a cardinal from the Vatican to answer that? Get the children for first Communion and say to them, 'Somebody votes for the killing of unborn babies, and says, I voted for that, I will vote for that every time.' And these babies are killed not one or two, but in millions, and that person says, 'I'm a practicing Catholic,' should that person receive Communion next Sunday? The children will answer that at the drop of a hat. You don't need a cardinal to answer that." Excommunication is allowed by Canon law which says the killing of an innocent child is incompatible with receiving communion, which is receiving the body of Christ. Yet the USCCB refuses to enforce this law.

With the majority of the bishops refusing to enforce Canon Law 915 to stop "Catholic" politicians from supporting abortion, is this another example of the USCCB supporting an intrinsic evil?

Publication of Always our Children
n October 1997, a document entitled Always Our Children: A Pastoral Message to Parents of Homosexual Children was published by the Committee on Marriage and the Family of the USCCB. To be fair it should be made clear the document was composed without any input from the majority of the American Catholic bishops, who were given no opportunity whatsoever to comment on its pastoral usefulness or on its contents. The illusion is given, perhaps deliberately, and carried forth by the media to the effect that this is something the U.S. bishops have published. However, to this date the USCCB has not denounced this very flawed and defective document, and it is still being promulgated by the homosexual movement.

Bishop Fabian W. Bruskewitz, who has been one of the most vocal opponents to Always Our Children, had the following to say: "The document, in a view which is shared by many, is founded on bad advice, mistaken theology, erroneous science and skewed sociology. It is pastorally helpful in no perceptible way. Does this committee intend to issue documents to parents of drug addicts, promiscuous teenagers, adult children involved in canonically invalid marriages, and the like? These are far more numerous than parents of homosexuals. The occasion and the motivation for this document's birth remain hidden in the murky arrangements which brought it forth.

"Not only does this document fail to take into account the latest revision in the authentic Latin version of The Catechism of the Catholic Church regarding homosexuality, but it juxtaposes several quotes from the Catechism in order to pretend falsely and preposterously that the Catechism says homosexuality is a gift from God and should be accepted as a fixed and permanent identity. Of course, the document, in order to support the incorrect views it contains, totally neglects to cite the Catholic doctrine set forth by the Holy See which teaches that the homosexual orientation is "objectively disordered." Also, the document's definition of the virtue and practice of chastity is inadequate and distorted. "The character of this document is such that it would require a book of many pages to point out all its bad features, which sometimes cross the border from poor advice to evil advice. For instance, I believe it is wicked to counsel parents not to intervene, but rather to adopt a 'wait and see' attitude when they find their adolescent children 'experimenting' with homosexual acts. Parents have a grave moral duty to prevent their children from committing mortal sins when they can. It is certainly and seriously wrong to counsel parents to 'accept' their children's homosexual friends.”

“Calamity and frightening disaster' are terms which are not too excessive to describe this document. It is my view that this document carries no weight or authority for Catholics, whom I would advise to ignore or oppose it."

With the USCCB seemingly supporting illicit and intrinsically disordered sexual licentiousness by their lack of action, is this another example of the USCCB supporting an intrinsic evil?

Cinema Reviews
Harry Forbes, who heads the USCCB's Office for Film and Broadcasting, in his latest review, praises the movie, Milk, which exalts the first openly homosexual man elected to public office in U.S. history. According to Forbes, Milk contains scenes of "male kissing and non-graphic encounters, rear male nudity, murder, suicide, and some rough language, crude expressions and profanity."

Despite such material, and despite the movie's blatant glorification of the homosexual rights agenda, it is not rated "Morally Offensive" (O), but only receives a rating of "L," for "Limited Adult Audience." Furthermore, in his review Forbes in no way objects to or cautions viewers about the content of the film, instead offering nothing but words of praise.

Forbes calls the movie "a solid biographical drama about San Francisco Supervisor and gay rights activist Harvey Milk." Forbes also speaks approvingly of the movie's strong emphasis on the Catholic faith of Milk's assassin, Dan White.

Forbes has written other reviews praising films that promote and glorify homosexual behavior and attack the Catholic faith, including "Brokeback Mountain," which is about a sodomite relationship between two cowboys, and "The Golden Compass," which is atheistic and vilifies Christianity.

Despite repeated protests from priests and Catholic laity, the USCCB continues to allow Forbes to write reviews on the organization's behalf.

Human Life International President Fr. Thomas Euteneuer angrily denounced Forbes' latest pro-homosexualist review. "Moral outrage is the only response to someone like Harry Forbes who consistently trashes Catholic values in his movie reviews and gets away with it," wrote Euteneuer. "We are accustomed to pagans celebrating their values and letting lots of immorality slide with a wink and a nod, but when the official movie reviewer for the USCCB does it time and time again with no consequences, we have no credible moral compass with which to evaluate the content of movies any more."

With the USCCB seemingly supporting illicit and intrinsically disordered sexual licentiousness, is this another example of the USCCB supporting an intrinsic evil?

CONCLUSION
During this last election only 50 bishops stated that abortion is the most important issue in a U.S. election. It is an abomination that less than 20 percent of the bishops came out against an intrinsic evil. There is no excuse for all the rest who failed their flock by not fighting for the lives of the least among us. Can you imagine what the impact would have been if all of the bishops of the USCCB had honored the sanctity of human life?

In short, we're talking about a sorry organization that should have been dissolved shortly after its inception years ago. One of its founders, the late Joseph Cardinal Bernardin, was so unCatholic that he enabled purported Catholics to easily vote for pro-abortion politicians by equating abortion with any other peace and social justice issue, ad nauseam, via a 'con' which he referred to as a "seamless garment."

Infiltrations of the so-called "social progressives" and the confusion in the Church by these people have been going on since the formation of the USCCB. Many of the social justice advocates have replaced the goal of heaven with a goal of earthly happiness and their focus is very much on placing these same advocates in charge of worldly means with the power to distribute these means to those they deem needy. It is amazing that so many in positions of authority in the Church have not yet caught on to how this undermines the Faith rather than supports it.

Approval rating and trust in the USCCB could not be lower. The good bishops are embarrassed by the actions of the USCCB. The faithful are disgusted. The credibility of the USCCB is lower than the US Congress composed of lawyers and politicians, not bishops. Positive actions by the USCCB, such as opposition to the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), must be viewed with suspicion. Do they know FOCA is not likely to pass and are simply trying to look good?

We offer no answer to the question posed at the beginning. We believe it is obvious, but leave it up to the reader.

We offer no solution other than prayers, plus verbal and written comments to your bishops. We believe there are many saintly bishops who are as embarrassed as we about the USCCB. Give them your support. Be active in your protection of the unborn, the handicapped and the elderly. Be active in your protection of the Faith.

"Who is going to save our Church? Not our bishops, not our priests and religious. It is up to you, the people. You have the minds, the eyes, the ears to save the Church. Your mission is to see that your priests act like priests, your bishops, like bishops, and your religious act like religious." (Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen)



Here is the website where you can find the contact information for all the bishops in the United States. By going to the individual diocese, you can find their e-mail addresses. http://www.usccb.org/bishops.shtml.
Also, for your information Pope Benedict XVI's e-mail address: benedictxvi@vatican.va.

TRUE THEN, TRUER NOW

The liturgy of the early ages is most certainly worthy of all veneration. But ancient usage must not be esteemed more suitable and proper, either in its own right or in its significance for later times and new situations, on the simple ground that it carries the savor and aroma of antiquity. The more recent liturgical rites likewise deserve reverence and respect. They, too, owe their inspiration to the Holy Spirit, who assists the Church in every age even to the consummation of the world.[52] They are equally the resources used by the majestic Spouse of Jesus Christ to promote and procure the sanctity of man.

Assuredly it is a wise and most laudable thing to return in spirit and affection to the sources of the sacred liturgy. For research in this field of study, by tracing it back to its origins, contributes valuable assistance towards a more thorough and careful investigation of the significance of feast-days, and of the meaning of the texts and sacred ceremonies employed on their occasion. But it is neither wise nor laudable to reduce everything to antiquity by every possible device. Thus, to cite some instances, one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive tableform; were he to want black excluded as a color for the liturgical vestments; were he to forbid the use of sacred images and statues in Churches; were he to order the crucifix so designed that the divine Redeemer's body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings; and lastly were he to disdain and reject polyphonic music or singing in parts, even where it conforms to regulations issued by the Holy See.
- Pius XII
Mediator Dei
1947

The Truth!The Truth!WE DESERVE THE TRUTH!

If you love the traditions of the Church and if you support the Magisterium of the Church and if you actually dare to speak out against the liturgical abuses and defiance of Church law that have become almost the norm in so many parishes, you can always count on someone invoking Vatican II. Or worse, you will be confronted by someone who assumes that you are against Vatican II. Which brings me to a demand that we Catholics need to scream at the top of our voices to some of our priests, bishops and catechists:

STOP LYING TO US ABOUT VATICAN II!

With that in mind, read this excerpt from a letter from the Bishop of Basel, Switzerland, Kurt Koch, to his priests, reprinted by Fr. Z. After you read it, click here and read it with Fr. Z's comments. You've got to love a bishop with this kind of horse sense--and let's hope it's contagious:

What moves me?

More honesty please!

In the last few weeks a lot of journalists, and also some clergy, have been expressing their opinions of Pope Benedict. In these opinions were also contained many half-truths, untruths, and slanders.The worst accusation asserts that the Pope wishes to go back to before the Second Vatican Council. This accusation is the worst because it implies that the very person who possesses the teaching authority of the universal Church would work to undermine the authority of the council. This verdict, however, would be completely mistaken. As a young theologian, in fact, Benedict XVI contributed very much to the council. Anyone who seeks to understand the Pope now—not just from the media—but also by reading what he writes, would come to the conclusion that he has oriented his entire magisterium on the council. How should we then understand the accusation being made?

Many people have signed a petition for the unqualified acceptance of the council. Right from the start, the expression "unqualified acceptance" irritates me because I don’t know anyone—myself included—to whom it would apply. A few arbitrarily chosen examples will suffice:

– The council did not abolish Latin in the liturgy. On the contrary, it emphasized that in the Roman Rite, apart from exceptional cases, the use of the Latin language must be maintained. Who among the vocal defenders of the council wishes "unqualified acceptance" of that?

– The council declared that the Church regards Gregorian Chant as the "music proper to the Roman Rite", and that it must therefore "be given primary place." In how many parishes is this implemented "without qualification?"

– The council expressly requested that governmental authorities voluntarily give up those rights to participation in the selection of bishops, that had arisen over the course of time. Which defender of the council advocates "without qualification" for that?

– The council described the fundamental nature of the liturgy as the celebration the pascal mystery and the eucharistic sacrifice as "the completion of the work of our salvation." How can that be reconciled with my experience, made in many different parishes, that the sacrificial understanding of the Mass has been completely eliminated from the liturgical language and the Mass is now understood only as a meal or "the breaking of bread?" In what way can one justify this profound change by reference to the council?

– No office of the Church was given more significance by the council that that of bishop. How can we then understand the widespread diminishment in Switzerland of this office of the Church, which is justified by reference to the council? When, for example, Hans Kung denies completely the teaching authority of the bishops, allowing them only the office of pastoral leadership?

It would not be difficult to lengthen this litany. Even so, it should be obvious why I demand more honesty in the current debate about the council. Instead of accusing others, and even the Pope, of wishing to go back to before the council, everyone would be well advised to look over their own books and reassess their own personal position on the council. Because not everything that was said and done after the council, was therefore done in accordance with the council—and that applies also to the diocese of Basel. In any case, the last few weeks have illustrated to me that a primary problem in the current situation has been a very poor, and in part very one-sided understanding and acceptance of the council, even by Catholics that defend the council "without qualification." In this regard we all—once more including myself—have a lot of ground to make up. Therefore I again repeat my urgent request: More honesty please!

+ Kurt Koch
Bishop of Basel

Yes, indeed! More honesty please! We deserve no less.


Bishop Kurt Koch

TRUE THEN, TRUER NOW

It is a common complaint, unfortunately too well founded, that there are large numbers of Christians in our own time who are entirely ignorant of those truths necessary for salvation. And when we mention Christians, We refer not only to the masses or to those in the lower walks of life -- for these find some excuse for their ignorance in the fact that the demands of their harsh employers hardly leave them time to take care of themselves or of their dear ones -- but We refer to those especially who do not lack culture or talents and, indeed, are possessed of abundant knowledge regarding things of the world but live rashly and imprudently with regard to religion. It is hard to find words to describe how profound is the darkness in which they are engulfed and, what is most deplorable of all, how tranquilly they repose there.
-St. Pius X
Acerbo Nimis
1905

FUTURE GENERATIONS WILL SHUDDER

J. Harvie Wilkinson
"The fact is that we - civilized people - are retreating to the haven of our Constitution to justify dismembering a partly born child and crushing its skull. Surely centuries hence, people will look back on this gruesome practice done in the name of fundamental law by a society of high achievement. And they will shudder."

-Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson
4th Circuit Appeals Court
from opinion upholding Virginia's Partial Birth Abortion Ban

Get the entire story here.

TRUE THEN, TRUER NOW

WHAT ARE the Church's greatest needs at the present time? Don't be surprised at Our answer and don't write it off as simplistic or even superstitious: one of the Church's greatest needs is to be defended against the evil we call the Devil.
-Pope Paul VI
Address to General Audience
November 15, 1972

Padre Pio Said It

"The Catholic Church is not a Hotel for Saints. It is a Hospital for sinners."

PRAY FOR CONVERSION!

OneNationUnderGod, a Catholic political advocacy group is sponsoring a campaign to have Catholics pray for the conversion of "Catholic in Name Only" (CINO) politicians.

Great idea! However, let's take the idea a bit further and apply to a few of our priests and bishops. Here are a few obvious choices:


Bishop Thomas Gumbleton
Retired Bishop Gumbleton might be the most famous auxiliary bishop to have never been promoted to a top job. He has been a supporter of Catholic dissident groups such as Priests for Equality and Call to Action (the same groups Bishop Bruskewitz of Lincoln, Nebraska has excommunicated) and has done everything possible to eliminate any responsibility of homosexual clergy for the sexual abuse crises that have been plaguing the Church since 1992. Yes, let us pray for his conversion to the Catholic faith.


Bishop Matthew Clark
Rochester's Bishop has not only embraced the homosexual agenda, but has made it known that homosexuals seeking ordination are more than welcome in his diocese. Never one to mention the Catechism of the Catholic Church's points about the grave disorder that homosexuality presents us with and completely ignoring the letters from Rome reminding bishops that homosexual candidates are unsuited for the priesthood, Clark has made his career vocation a mission of changing the very character of the Church. Let us pray for the conversion of this apostle of the hermeneutic of rupture.


Roger Cardinal Mahony
True, it may not be a crime to build the ugliest excuse of a cathedral in America (well, there is Oakland too) Cardinal Mahony has shamelessly attempted to redefine the Mass with his "pastoral litter letter" Gather Faithfully Together, has funded a video that proclaimed homosexuality as God's "gift" to the Church and has made his Religious Education Congress the most notorious dissent-fest of un-Catholic speakers posing as Catholics on the planet. It is going to take two generations to un-do the damage that he has done to the Archdiocese of Los Angeles. Pray not only for his conversion, but for his prompt resignation.

DON'T STOP THERE!
Do you know a priest or bishop preaching ideas that are antithetical to the teachings of the Church?

Do you know a priest or bishop that demands you respect his authority even though he brazenly rejects the authority of the pope?

Organize a prayer chain or prayer group and pray for these men. The Catholic Church is in need of Catholic leaders like never before.

Exposing Pro "Choice" Logic

When serious moral and political issues are reduced to sloganeering, any chance for substantive debate and examination are greatly diminished, as so brilliantly demonstrated here by Ann Coulter

TRUE THEN, TRUER NOW

However, a rude awakening is in store for the person who thinks that penance is necessary only for those aspiring to membership in the kingdom of God. He who is already a member of Christ must learn of necessity to keep a rein upon himself. Only so will he be able to drive away the enemy of his soul and keep his baptismal innocence unsullied, or regain God's grace when it is lost by sin.

To become a member of Holy Church by baptism is to be clothed in the beauty with which Christ adorns His beloved Bride. "Christ loved the Church and delivered Himself up for her; that he might sanctify her, cleansing her in the bath of water by means of the word of life; in order that he might present to himself the Church in all her glory, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she might be holy and without blemish."

This being so, well may those sinners who have stained the white robe of their sacred baptism fear the just punishments of God. Their remedy is "to wash their robes in the blood of the Lamb" -- to restore themselves to their former splendor in the sacrament of Penance -- and to school themselves in the practice of Christian virtue. Hence the Apostle Paul's severe warning: "A man making void the law of Moses dies without any mercy on the word of two or three witnesses; how much worse punishments do you think he deserves, who has trodden under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant through which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace? . . . It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God."
-Blessed John XXIII
Paenitentiam Agere
1962

Vatican II

"There will be an Ecumenical Council in the next century, after which there will be chaos in the Church. Tranquility will not return until the Pope succeeds in anchoring the boat of Peter between the twin pillars of Eucharistic Devotion and Devotion to Our Lady."
-St. John Bosco
1862

Your Excellencies,THIS IS HOW IT'S DONE

Bishop Marc Aillet
This past week, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops' "Ad-Hoc Committee in Defense of Marriage" gave a presentation to the bishops at their semi-annual meeting for what will eventually be part of a pastoral letter on marriage (and we all know just how effective those pastoral letters are). Many fear that this is too little, too late.

Now let's be serious. Do we really need committees in order for a bishop to teach basic morality backed up by the Catholic faith? The sad reality is that with a few courageous exceptions, most U.S. Bishops don't speak out much about homosexuality, except perhaps Cardinal Mahony, who calls homosexuality a "gift" to the Church.

So for the sake of the old guard of bishops who seem clueless about dealing with the issue and the younger bishops who are struggling to find their voice in the midst of the politically correct bureaucracy the old guard wants to bury them in, I offer the example of the Bishop of Bayonne, France, Marc Aillet, who released this statement about a Gay Pride festival in Biarritz:

The organization of the "Gay Pride 2009” in Biarritz for Saturday 20 June only arouses my indignation, as it arouses the disapproval of many families and other people whatever their religious beliefs may be.

Indeed, the participation in this event by "Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence", an association known for its provocative anti-Catholicism and blasphemous provocations, shows a genuine contempt for the Catholic faith and religious life which so strongly characterizes the soul, culture, and traditions of the Basque region.

It is the Churches intends to defend and promote in all circumstances, the family founded on marriage between persons of different sexes and the right of every child to be raised by a father and a mother.

It therefore rejects claims that "Gay Pride" echoes in the name of a tiny minority of our citizens, but it eminently respects homosexual persons with care and compassion for the suffering and difficulties that are so often theirs.

It proclaims that every person is a child of God and that everyone is called to conversion and holiness.

See, Your Excellencies? It's not that hard and it doesn't take a committee, focus groups or direct marketing campaigns to teach straightforwardly. In fact, our greatest saints were fabulously successful in getting the message out without the benefit of the media. The Bible is clear. The Catechism is clear. Why the hesitation? Why the silence?

Why have so few U.S. Bishops spoken out on this troubling issue?

Hmmm.

PRIVATE DOCTRINES

Rorate Caeli

"Our needs, our limits and weaknesses must lead us anew to the Heart of Jesus. If it is in fact true that sinners, by contemplating Him, must learn from Him the necessary "sorrow of sins" that leads them to the Father, this is even more true for sacred ministers.

"How to forget, regarding this, that nothing makes the Church, the Body of Christ, suffer so much as the sins of her shepherds, above all of those who turn into "robbers of sheep" (John 10, 1), either because they misguide them with their private doctrines, or because they suffocate them within snares of sin and of death? Even for us, dear priests, the call to conversion and to recourse to Divine Mercy holds true, and we ought also to present with humility to the Heart of Jesus the request that He may preserve us from the terrible risk of harming those whom we are bound to save."

-Benedict XVI
Homily during Vespers - Opening of the Year for Priests
June 19, 2009

TRUE THEN, NOW & ALWAYS

"We can see the hand of Satan in every hypocritical and powerful lie against the truth. We can identify the prodding of the devil Wherever love is absent, dead, and where selfishness is cold, cruel, and so on, and where the name of Jesus is defamed with conscious and rebellious hatred. Saint Paul tells us: Whoever denies Jesus Christ, Anatema sit [may he be condemned]. The condemnation goes to the demon who is behind man's denial. The devil is also active where the spirit of the Gospel is mystified* and contradicted: he achieves victory wherever despair has the final word.
-Pope Paul VI
Address to General Audience
November 15, 1972

*NOTE:
The use of mystify has nothing to do with mysticism. The term is defined as:

1. to confuse, bewilder, or puzzle.
2. To make obscure or mysterious.

The Holy Father was condemning those who confuse or obscure the spirit of the Gospel.

THE WORST KIND OF ABUSE:THE ABUSE OF AUTHORITY(after years of defying it)

Archbishop Weakland in 1980

THE DISGRACEFUL AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF REMBERT WEAKLAND
by George Neumayr
Catholic World Report

It sounds like an over-the-top Tom Wolfe novel: a successor to the apostles conducts an affair with a male graduate student, is accused of “date rape” and emotional harm by said student, and raids the collection basket of the faithful to hush the student up, then, as the bishop settles into a cushy retirement, he pens a “coming out” memoir in praise of homosexual behavior, all the while retaining the canonical rights and privileges of a retired archbishop and receiving pats on the back from fellow clergy.

Alas, this is no racy and risible fiction; it is the real story of Archbishop Rembert Weakland. The retired archbishop of Milwaukee released June 15 his autobiography,A Pilgrim in a Pilgrim Church: Memoirs of a Catholic Archbishop. In it he admits to several affairs with men, crowns himself the first voluntarily “out” bishop, and argues that the Church should endorse the “physical, genital expression” of homosexuality, as he put it to the New York Times in May.

“If we say our God is an all-loving god,” he said to the Times, “how do you explain that at any given time probably 400 million living on the planet at one time would be gay? Are the religions of the world, as does Catholicism, saying to those hundreds of millions of people, you have to pass your whole life without any physical, genital expression of that love?”


Weakland gave this interview to the Times, by the way, from the “Archbishop Weakland Center, which houses the archdiocesan cathedral offices in downtown Milwaukee.” This small snapshot of episcopal decadence—an openly “gay” bishop spouting heresy while sitting in a diocesan office still named in his honor—would be amusing if it weren’t so sad and scandalous.

If Church officials worried about the corruption and perdition of souls as much as they fret about “tolerance” and “collegiality,” they would end this disgusting farce and suspend Weakland’s faculties. Instead, they sit on their hands as Weakland, outfitted in his priestly collar, grants interviews to news outlets about the glories of mortal sin.

The chutzpah of Weakland is breathtaking. But then, this is a Benedictine monk (he once was head abbot of the order, a footnote that is not likely to be lost on future Edward Gibbons) who could with a straight face spearhead a pastoral letter accusing Ronald Reagan of greed and fiscal irresponsibility while dipping himself into the faithful’s pockets for a $450,000 “loan” to pay off his disgruntled paramour, Paul Marcoux.

In other eras, a disgraced Benedictine monk would disappear into obscure days of prayer and penitential labor; these days he publishes a tribute to homosexuality and anxiously awaits a booking to appear on Charlie Rose and Oprah.

Back in the 1980s and 1990s, when Weakland was riding high in his episcopal saddle, he regarded himself as a sort of modern-day Cardinal Richelieu, a viciously savvy player of progressive Church politics. He knew the rules and how to bend them. But now he presents himself as an innocent waif and victim.

He had no idea that those abusive priests he shuffled from parish to parish were committing a “crime” when they raped children. Also, he “naively” assumed these children would “grow out of” and “forget” the molestation.


The airbrushed, warm fuzzy version, designed for mass consumption

Weakland also has the gall to blame Pope John Paul II’s Vatican in part for his payout to the grad student. You see, if only Weakland could have been open about his homosexuality (and the Vatican hadn’t been so secretive), the payout wouldn’t have been necessary, he suggested to the Times:

Archbishop Weakland said he probably should have gone to Rome and explained that he had had a relationship with Mr. Marcoux, that he had ended it by writing an emotional letter that Mr. Marcoux still had and that the archbishop’s lawyers regarded Mr. Marcoux’s threats as blackmail.

But, the archbishop said, a highly placed friend in Rome advised him that church officials preferred that such things be hushed up, which is “the Roman way.”

“I suppose, also, being frank, I wouldn’t have wanted to be labeled in Rome at that point as gay,” Archbishop Weakland said. “Rome is a little village.”

The Roman way? Try the Weakland way. Notice he doesn’t mention the most obvious consequence of coming clean to Rome: he would have had to resign.

Weakland’s dishonesty is sickening. Here is a bishop who violated his vows grossly, then plundered the hard-earned dollars of Catholic families to conceal his fraud, all so that he could avoid resignation and preserve his power, which he then used to liberalize and corrupt the Church in America for over a generation.

TRUE THEN, TRUER NOW

Of its very nature Latin is most suitable for promoting every form of culture among peoples. It gives rise to no jealousies. It does not favor any one nation, but presents itself with equal impartiality to all and is equally acceptable to all.

Nor must we overlook the characteristic nobility of Latin for mal structure. Its "concise, varied and harmonious style, full of majesty and dignity" makes for singular clarity and impressiveness of expression.

For these reasons the Apostolic See has always been at pains to preserve Latin, deeming it worthy of being used in the exercise of her teaching authority "as the splendid vesture of her heavenly doctrine and sacred laws." She further requires her sacred ministers to use it, for by so doing they are the better able, wherever they may be, to acquaint themselves with the mind of the Holy See on any matter, and communicate the more easily with Rome and with one another.

Thus the "knowledge and use of this language," so intimately bound up with the Church's life, "is important not so much on cultural or literary grounds, as for religious reasons." These are the words of Our Predecessor Pius XI, who conducted a scientific inquiry into this whole subject, and indicated three qualities of the Latin language which harmonize to a remarkable degree with the Church's nature. "For the Church, precisely because it embraces all nations and is destined to endure to the end of time ... of its very nature requires a language which is universal, immutable, and non-vernacular."
-Blessed John XXIII
Veterum Sapientia
On the promotion of the study of Latin
1962

You Can Lose It

Tarcisio Cardinal Bertone

From Catholic Culture

In a homily preached in St. Peter’s Basilica on June 15-- the first of two consecutive days of meetings between Pope Benedict XVI and the bishops of Austria on the situation in the Diocese of Linz-- Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone referred to two texts of St. Paul in making two points he wished “to emphasize briefly.”

He said the first text-- “I have kept the faith” (2 Tm. 4:7)-- is a reminder that faith is a very precious gift that is not acquired once for all. “The faith is able to be lost in every age and condition of life,” said Cardinal Bertone. “Rather, the truth of the faith itself can be lost, adulterating it, polluting it, confusing it.” The second text (Phil. 3:12-14), Cardinal Bertone preached, shows that St. Paul kept focused on the judgment of God as he conducted his pastoral work.

RECAP:
YOU CAN LOSE YOUR FAITH BY...

ADULTERATING IT

POLLUTING IT

CONFUSING IT



GOT IT?

SIX MORE GOOD CATHOLICS(and one very bad one)

Fr. Hans Kung: Can ANYONE find a photo of him dressed in clerics?
FATHER HANS KUNG
Fr. Kung has the distinction of being the most famous dissident theologian in the world, He has led the charge to the denial of Vatican I’s dogma of papal infallibility and has been a relentless critic of Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI—a former university colleague. Among his criticisms is that the Holy Father is too rigid, yet when Pope Benedict lifted the excommunications against the Society of St. Pius X bishops, Kung criticized that too—evidently it’s O.K. to be rigid and exclusionary if it’s toward traditional Catholics. Kung was stripped of his license to teach as a Catholic theologian, but that has not stopped him from being the darling of leftist Catholics and he remains a priest in good standing in spite of how many people he has led away from the Catholic faith.


FATHER EDWARD SCHILLEBEECKX, O.P.
Like Fr. Kung, Fr. Schillebeeckx is also a world-renowned theologian of questionable ideas. In an age where belief in the Real Presence is at an all time low, Fr. Schillebeeckx has proposed that the "sign" of the bread and wine are changed into the "sign" of Jesus Christ. This heresy is specifically condemned in the Pope Paul VI Eucharistic Encyclical Mysterium Fidei. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has also questioned his positions suggesting that the resurrection of Christ is not an objective fact of faith. Retired (thanks be to God) he remains a priest in good standing, even though he has planted nothing but questions in the minds of so many Catholics who were looking for answers.


Michael Moore
Mega-calorie-consuming filmmaker Michael Moore, famous for firing cannonballs of hostility with a warm, fuzzy smile, proudly proclaims that his Catholic faith has influenced his quest for a more just society. The only problem is that Mr. Moore has taken the Church’s teachings on social justice and made the leap that they equate with a leftist political revolution. Besides promoting his anti-business, anti-capitalist ideology, Moore has probably done more than George Soros to help elect pro-abortion politicians. Of course, he is a Catholic in good standing and welcome in any parish.


Fr. Charles Curran
Fr. Curran was among the first of the traitors to publicly denounce Humanae Vitae and has been a consistent critic of the Church’s positions on premarital sex, masturbation, contraception, abortion, homosexual acts, divorce, euthanasia, and in vitro fertilization. Our Lady of Fatima told the young children she appeared to that more souls were in hell for unrepentant sins of the flesh than for any other sins. Where does that put a Catholic priest who actually promotes such sins? In this world, it wins him a favorable mention in every other issue of U.S. Catholic the “Catholic” magazine stinking up the racks in the vestibule of rupturista churches around America.


Fidel Castro
After years of persecuting Catholics, nationalizing Church property and making life miserable in Cuba, Fidel had the chutzpah to play the “faithful Catholic” when he welcomed Pope John Paul II to his island hell on earth nation. The Vatican has high hopes for Castro and his brother, Raul, to bring more religious freedom to Cuba and Cuba’s citizens have high hopes that both men will die soon. When Castro does pass, look for a huge funeral Mass with full honors.


The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence
This homosexual, gender-bending activist group takes every opportunity they can to make a mockery of the Catholic Church and the good women who for centuries put the world behind them to serve God. Their activities have included blasphemous Jesus look-alike contest and bingo games where sex toys were awarded as prizes. Are they Catholics in good standing? Heck, Archbishop Niederauer himself distributed Holy Communion to them!

AND NOW FOR THE BAD CATHOLIC…




ME!

Since March of 2007, I have been banished from my own parish by a restraining order that orders me to stay away from people who do not even live in Valdosta, whom I am forbidden to so much as mention by name!

Bishop Boland of Savannah has extended the reach of the order by ordering me off of all Catholic Church property in Valdosta, even though I have never been convicted of any crime, have never touched or threatened anyone and have a federal security clearance.

Yep, If these are "good" Catholics, then I'm glad to be one of the "bad" ones.

You're not a priest.You have no authority.NOW TAKE YOUR HANDS OFF MY KID!

Communion time at Our Lady of Perpetual Modernism:
16 Extraordinary Ministers (3 token men with 13 women)
18 people in the congregation
no stained glass
no statues
lots of pastel colors and plants

By Ed Peters, J.D., J.C.D.
In Light of the Law

Lay ministers of holy Communion should stop offering "blessings-in-lieu-of-Communion" at Mass.

Concerns about swine flu have prompted many parishes to discontinue the routine administration of the Precious Blood. Okay, fine. But there's another Communion rite practice that should also cease if only out of concerns for public health. This time, however, it's a practice that (unlike distribution from the Cup) is an abuse per se, namely, that of lay ministers of holy Communion purporting to confer "blessings-in-lieu-of-Communion" on every Tom, Pat, and Harriet who comes up in line.

Lay ministers of holy Communion (by definition, extraordinary ministers thereof), in response to people approaching them without the intention to receive Communion (maybe such folks are non-Catholics or are Catholic kids prior to First Communion), currently do one of three things: they (1) speak and gesture a sign of the cross over such folks, or (2) lay hands on such persons' heads or shoulders while voicing a blessing, or (3) waive the Eucharist over them while purporting to confer a blessing. I think all three actions are liturgical abuses.

Let's consider them in order of gravity:

1. Blessing the faithful with the Most August Sacrament is expressly reserved to the ordained. Lay persons may not confer any blessings with the Host (Eucharistic worship outside of Mass nn. 91, 97-99, and 1983 CIC 1168). This practice should therefore be immediately halted wherever it has cropped up.

2. Touching many persons' hair, faces, and/or garments while serving food (albeit divine Food) to the public has to be a violation of some health and safety regulation somewhere, not to mention its being poor manners. If the swine flu makes distribution from a common Cup an issue, surely touching hair and heads while serving others food from a common Plate is a problem. This particular practice should therefore be halted promptly, regardless of what one might think about lay blessings during Mass.

3. Ministers of holy Communion have, I suggest, no authority by their office to confer any sort of blessing on anyone. Neither the General Instruction on the Roman Missal nor the Book of Blessings (which later source makes provisions for laity to administer certain blessings) authorizes ministers of Communion to confer blessings during Mass. Given that lay persons serving as extraordinary ministers of holy Communion have no liturgical duties besides the administration of Communion, the introduction of a mini-blessing rite to be performed by them seems to me a plain violation of Canon 846. This practice should, I think, be halted pending a study of its liceity by qualified persons and, if appropriate, its authorization by the competent authority (1983 CIC 838, 1167).

In brief, I suggest that lay ministers of holy Communion have no authority to bless anyone in Communion lines, they should refrain from touching people while distributing holy Communion, and they should immediately cease using the Blessed Sacrament for mini-Benediction rites.

If it takes swine flu to provide the occasion of halting these liturgically illicit, and hygienically unsound, lay blessing practices during Mass, so be it.

CAN WE GET SOME VINDICATION HERE?

Retired Archbishop Weakland:
We've heard quite enough about his gay old times.

by Edward Peters, J.D., J.C.D.
In Light of the Law

If, as George Neumayr writes in the July 2009 Catholic World Report, Abp. Rembert Weakland's autobiography really is, among other things, a "memoir in praise of homosexual behavior" in which the prominent prelate admits "several affairs with men" and "argues that the Church should endorse the 'physical, genital expression' of homosexuality", then Rome has, as I see it, no defensible choice but, in accord with canons 1405.1.3 and 1717, to launch an investigation into the allegation that Weakland has, in violation of Canon 1369, used "published writings or other . . . instruments of social communication . . . to gravely injure good morals" and visit upon him a fitting penalty. That Weakland is an archbishop should not shield him from canonical investigation and punishment, but rather serves to underscore the need for his correction under c. 1326.1.2. Moreover, the Order of St. Benedict should, I think, signal its willingness to participate in the process in accord with law (esp. cc. 696.1 and 705).

It's obvious that Weakland has no intention of stopping his attacks on various Church teachings or of refraining from giving protracted scandal to the faithful. The damage he has done, especially to the Church of Milwaukee, but to the Church Universal as well, is incalculable. What Rome should have done during the decades of defiance shown it by Weakland is a matter for historians to debate. The only question today, as I see it, is what, if anything, will Rome finally do to vindicate the faithful against the appalling and on-going scandal of Abp. Rembert Weakland?

TRUE THEN, TRUER NOW

In these times, so dangerous to religion and society, when the clergy of every nation are called on to unite together in defense of the Faith and Christian morals, it belongs to you, beloved sons, joined by a special bond to this Apostolic See, to give to all an example and be the first in unlimited obedience to the voice and command of the Vicar of Jesus Christ; and so may the blessing of God which we invoke descend copiously and preserve the Italian clergy ever worthy of their illustrious traditions.
-Pope Leo XIII
Fin dal Principio
(On the Education of the Clergy)
1902

Paper Tigers & Scapegoats

Reverend Walter Hoye

The City of Oakland, California seems to have declared war on Walter Hoye, the pro-life pastor of Berkeley Missionary Baptist Church. Not content to arrest him a year ago in May for violating the city's abortion clinic "bubble law", they obtained a restraining order against him, in spite of the fact that there was no evidence of him ever committing any violent act (something I'm familiar with). Hoye was later convicted of violating the ordinance, sentenced to 30 days in jail with a fine and, finally, released after 18 days for good behavior.

Now Alameda County's district attorney is seeking a court inunction to keep Hoye the distance of a football field away from the clinic where he regularly counsels women considering abortion. Below is a the text of an email from Hoye explaining his situation:

Yesterday, the Alameda County District Attorney (Thomas J. Orloff) filed a "Motion for Injunctive Relief Pursuant to Oakland Municipal Code Section 8.52.040.”

The matter is set for Friday, June 19th, 2009, at 2:00 P.M. in front of Judge Stuart Hing.

This is the latest attack from the City of Oakland.

The D.A. is asking Judge Hing to issue an order to keep me from approaching within 100 yards of the Family Planning Specialist Medical Group's Oakland clinic for a period of three years.

I will be represented by the Life Legal Defense Foundation.

Feel free to publish this information.

As always, emphasize "Peace and "Prayer" to all those that feel led by God to attend.

"Peace and "Pray" is the calling card of the Issues4Life Foundation, as we are committed to the principles of "Non-Violent Civil Disobedience" advocated by Dr. Martin L. King, Jr.

As I learn more I will keep you posted.


Please pray for Reverend Hoye. A man with this kind of courage deserves our support. Please pray for his enemies in the abortion industry and the local government as well, that Hoye's suffering will help them grow a conscience.

The consistent defense of human life:

...Indians and all other people who may later be discovered by Christians, are by no means to be deprived of their liberty or the possession of their property, even though they be outside the faith of Jesus Christ; and that they may and should, freely and legitimately, enjoy their liberty and the possession of their property; nor should they be in any way enslaved; should the contrary happen, it shall be null and have no effect.
-Pope Paul III
Sublimus Dei
1537


To claim the right to abortion, infanticide and euthanasia, and to recognize that right in law, means to attribute to human freedom a perverse and evil significance: that of an absolute power over others and against others. This is the death of true freedom: "Truly, truly, I say to you, every one who commits sin is a slave to sin" (Jn 8:34).
-Pope John Paul II
Evangelium Vitae
1995

TRUE THEN, TRUER NOW

There is no need to insist how foreign it is to the virtue of charity, which embraces both God and men, for the members of Christ's Church not to think of those unfortunate souls who live in error outside the Fold. Surely the obligation of charity, which binds us to God, demands not only that we strive to increase by every means within our power the number of those who adore Him "in spirit and in truth" (John iv, 24) but also that we try to bring under the rule of the gentle Christ as many other men as possible in order that "the profit in his blood" (Psalms xxix, 10) may be the more and more fruitful and that we may make ourselves the more acceptable to Him to Whom nothing can possibly be more pleasing than that "men should be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth." (I Timothy ii, 4)
-Pius XI
Rerum Ecclesiae
On Catholic Missions
1926

Austrian bishops taken to the woodshed:HOW TO GET A FACE-TO-FACE MEETINGWITH THE POPE

"Now what we got here is a failure to communicate..."
Austria's bishops, led by Christoph Cardinal Schonborn, met with the Holy Father yesterday and will meet again today, but it was not their scheduled ad limina visit. It was an extraordinary "command" appearance in which the country's bishops were summoned to come to discuss the problems--many of their own making--in the Austrian Church.

Of particular concern is the Diocese of Linz, considered a "problem diocese" by the Holy Father. Linz' priests went into open rebellion against the Holy Father after he appointed Father Gerhard Maria Wagner as its new auxiliary bishop in January. Wagner was allegedly offensive to many of Linz' priests because of his traditionalist leanings, opposition to abortion and homosexuality and a statement he once made attributing Hurricane Katrina as a punishment for sin (evidently the priests in Linz believe New Orleans is a holy, family-friendly place, free of all vice). Wagner withdrew his name from consideration and the Pope acquiesced.

Under the leadership of Bishop Ludwig Schwarz, Linz has distinguished itself as the most un-Catholic diocese in Europe.

Among Schwarz' achievements:

• Urging businesses to fight "global warming" by "lifestyle change"

• Inviting Catholics in the diocese to a "Global Church Specialist" seminar to be addressed by Hindu "eco-feminist" Dr. Vandana Shiva

• Allowed one of his priests, Father Josef Friedl, to live openly with a woman--until the story broke worldwide and the bad publicity forced him to fire Friedl (This doesn't just happen in Austria, folks).

• Permitted a Corpus Christi procession this past week using an illicitly consecrated focaccia loaf held with tongs instead of a consecrated Host in a monstrance (see the photo below).

What makes a diocese like Linz so bold and brazen in its rebellion against Rome? Perhaps the leader of Austria's bishops, Cardinal Schonborn. In many respects, a fine Cardinal, Schonborn seems perfectly comforable with liturgical abuse, as evidenced by his own presiding at a youth Mass filled with blasphemous deviations from liturgical norms.

MAKE NO MISTAKE:
THIS MEETING IS MEANT TO SEND A MESSAGE TO THE WORLD'S OTHER "PROGRESSIVE" BISHOPS WHO HAVE "PROGRESSED" BEYOND THE BOUNDARIES
OF THE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH.

Austria's Catholics are crying out for relief and sanity under the leadership of a hierarchy that has embraced a different Gospel than the one Jesus preached. And Austria's bishops are crying out too: Crying out to be punished. Let us pray that the Holy Father can set these men straight or else move them into early retirement.

Come to think of it, that's not a bad game plan for America's bishops!


Would the Holy Father approve of THIS Corpus Christi procession?

SACRIFICE OR SMORGASBORD?

Only a priest can do this and it only happens at Mass.
Eucharistic sacrifice is the source and summit of the Christian life.
-Eucharisticum Mysterium
Instruction on Eucharistic Worship
Sacred Congregation of Rites
1967

I know we're not supposed to ask questions once the "authorities" have spoken, but can anyone tell me WHERE in the Vatican II documents that the Mass stopped being a sacrifice and the Eucharist was re-directed to become a "communal meal"?


Anyone can do this in their own home.

Catholic schools in the Amchurch era:LOOTED

SACRAMENTO BISHOP SUES RELIGIOUS ORDER
ALLEGES THEY TOOK THE MONEY AND RAN

Loretto High School, an all-girls Catholic preparatory school in Sacramento, is closing its doors after 50 years, citing declining enrollment--but something doesn't smell right: The nuns who ran the school, The Loreto Sisters from the Institute of the Blessed Virgin Mary (IBVN) have sold the campus, which listed at $10.3 million. They plan to use money donated to the schools to pay of existing debts and finance the retired nuns motherhouse in Illinois.

The IBVM, a garden-variety order of modernist "peace and justice" nuns who shed their habits years ago, is currently involved in promoting UN policies and programs has a history of existing on the fringe of the Church.

In 1998, its leaders issued statements supporting women's ordination. One of the "nuns", Sister Caroline Dawson, actually said, "For several years, I’ve stopped reading papal documents. To me, they’re irrelevant and painful." (And that is what we have entrusted the Catholic education of our children to?)

In 2005, Loretto High School's principal, Sister Helen Timothy, expelled a pro-life student for exposing one of Loretto High School's lay teachers as an abortion clinic escort, even after the bishop of the diocese demanded that the high school fire the teacher.

Bishop Jaime Soto and seven financial contributors who have given generously to the school are suing the Sisters of Loreto, insisting that the money was donated for Catholic education in Sacramento, and that it should be used explicitly for that purpose.

This is going to be very interesting.


Loretto High School Principal "Sister" Helen Timothy:
Just one more reason to bring back veils and wimples.

TRUE THEN, TRUER NOW

I exhort all the churches, and the bishops, priests, religious and members of the laity, to be open to the Church's universality, and to avoid every form of provincialism or exclusiveness, or feelings of self-sufficiency.: Local churches, although rooted in their own people and their own culture, must always maintain an effective sense of the universality of the faith, giving and receiving spiritual gifts, experiences of pastoral work in evangelization and initial proclamation, as well as personnel for the apostolate and material resources.
-John Paul II
Redemptoris missio
1990

Quacks, Charlatans & Heretics

"I wonder that you are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ, unto another gospel. Which is not another, only there are some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received,
let him be anathema."
-Galatians 1:6-9

Being married to a physician allows me to hear some incredible stories, some of which I wish I had never heard. Through medical school, residency and beyond, my wife has shared some of the most hideous things that can afflict the human body and some of the stupidest things some people will do in search of a cure.

Any major city has the newspaper ads for accupuncturists, chiropractors, hypnotists and varied "alternative" healers willing to sell a miracle for the right price. The more adventurous even cross the border, going to special clinics or buying prescription drugs without a prescription in Mexico. Most of us don't however. Especially with today's internet.

Instead, most of us look up our ailments online. We look up the prescription drugs our doctors give us. Sometimes we learn the side effects better than the healing properties of certain drugs. One thing is for sure: If the FDA told you that a particular drug was fatal, you wouldn't take it.

So what about the CDF? If they tell you it's fatal will you still take it? WHO is the CDF you ask?

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (previously known as the Holy Office and even the Office of the Inquisition) is the Vatican curial department that sorts out the good teaching from the bad. During the pontificate of John Paul II, our current Holy Father, Benedict XVI, served as its prefect.

The Catholic Church does not have the power to reverse its teachings when it comes to faith and morals. 2,000 years of tradition, scripture, the Church Fathers and an ancient tradition of scholarship have made it pretty clear that the Catholic Church does not bend with the times. And the CDF is the Church's arm for protecting the purity of the faith, so that nothing fatal can infect your relationship with God and His Church.

But some people don't like the Church's medicine. They are looking for easier cure. Repentence, mortification, self-denial, penance and discipline are not popular words these days. Instead, we hear trendy phrases like "fundamental option", "self-actualization", "self-fulfillment", "personal freedom", "liberation theology" and the like. But is that what Jesus taught us? Is that what He lived?

BUT WE ARE A VATICAN II CHURCH!

Fine. But Vatican II did not offer any new dogmas of the faith or reverse any that exist. Vatican II did not reverse any of the Church's teachings. Vatican II didn't reverse Pope St. Pius X's encyclicals warning us of the dangers of modernism.

The real irony is that the oldest members of the Church seem to have bought the false message. Often it is because a disobedient priest somewhere along the line took away the difficulty of Church law by giving them permission to take the easy way out. But deep down, their Catholic sense tells them that something is not right--they just refuse to listen.

What do I mean?

• Zeke wants to marry Zelda but he needs an annulment and he has no grounds. So Father Y coaches him about how to fill out the annulment papers to make it appear that there are grounds.

• Frank and Franny have a boy and a girl and don't want any more children. So Father Q tells Franny not to worry about taking birth control pills when she comes to Confession.

• Councilman Crowley has a blossoming political career. However, in order to rise in his party, he has to support fellow members who support abortion rights. Father X tells Crowley that the Church has changed, and it's between him and God, and it's nobody else's business.

• Simon and Shirley send their son to a Catholic school, where the religion teachers assure the students that there will be women priests just as soon as the pope dies and the next one is elected. It doesn't really sound right to them, but they get along well with the staff and don't want their kids kicked out, since there is a waiting list of students wanting to get in.

• Buddy and Betty have never married in the Catholic Church. Father G tells them that they are not married in the eyes of God and tells them that they must abstain from sex or else abstain from Holy Communion until they can be married in the Church. They shop a few parishes and settle on St. Crispin's because Father Z told them that the Church has changed and they don't need to abstain from anything.

• Father W has told everyone that it is no longer appropriate to kneel at the consecration during Mass, but that everyone must stand. He also turns away communicants who try to receive on the tongue, telling them that such practices are "preconciliar". Several parishioners yearn to receive Holy Communion the traditional way, but don't want Father W to be mad at them. He's very popular and it could hurt their "standing" in the parish.



Last week, I was listening to a song by U2 that included this poignant phrase:

You lied to me 'cause I asked you to...

Are we looking for a priest to lie to us?

Do we prefer the lies of a priest who is easygoing and friendly to the truths of another priest who may not have great social skills, but has great piety and devotion?

If your doctor told you that the lump in your stomach that was getting increasingly painful was nothing to worry about and just suggested taking painkillers, would you take him at his word, or would you get a second opinion?

If we won't let the quacks of medical profession get away with it, why do we trust the eternal destiny of our soul to quacks?

THE CHURCH'S TEACHINGS ARE VERY CLEAR.

THEY ARE NOT AMBIGUOUS.



The Catechism of the Catholic Church is online. The Code of Canon Law is online. Every papal encyclical is online. Every apostolic letter of instruction is online. Every decree of every ecumenical council is online. The writings of the Church Fathers are online.

If you have a good priest who is orthodox, check up on the Church's teachings anyway. You'll learn more and appreciate your priest more.

If you think you might have a quack running your parish, do your homework. Your eternal destiny is at stake.

Not Just a Prayer,But an Antidote

THE LITANY OF HUMILITY
O Jesus, meek and humble of heart, Hear me.
From the desire of being esteemed, Deliver me, O Jesus.
From the desire of being loved, Deliver me, O Jesus.
From the desire of being extolled, Deliver me, O Jesus.
From the desire of being honored, Deliver me, O Jesus.
From the desire of being praised, Deliver me, O Jesus.
From the desire of being preferred to others, Deliver me, O Jesus.
From the desire of being consulted, Deliver me, O Jesus.
From the desire of being approved, Deliver me, O Jesus.
From the fear of being humiliated, Deliver me, O Jesus.
From the fear of being despised, Deliver me, O Jesus.
From the fear of suffering rebukes, Deliver me, O Jesus.
From the fear of being calumniated, Deliver me, O Jesus.
From the fear of being forgotten, Deliver me, O Jesus.
From the fear of being ridiculed, Deliver me, O Jesus.
From the fear of being wronged, Deliver me, O Jesus.
From the fear of being suspected, Deliver me, O Jesus.
That others may be loved more than I, Jesus, grant me the grace to desire it.
That others may be esteemed more than I, Jesus, grant me the grace to desire it.
That, in the opinion of the world, others may increase and I may decrease, Jesus, grant me the grace to desire it.
That others may be chosen and I set aside, Jesus, grant me the grace to desire it.
That others may be praised and I go unnoticed, Jesus, grant me the grace to desire it.
That others may be preferred to me in everything, Jesus, grant me the grace to desire it.
That others may become holier than I, provided that I may become as holy as I should, Jesus, grant me the grace to desire it.

(accustomed to be said after celebration of Mass, by Merry Cardinal del Val, secretary of state to Pope Saint Pius X)

TRUE THEN, TRUER NOW

Some men, indeed do not attack the truth willfully, but work in heedless disregard of it. They act as though God had given us intellects for some purpose other than the pursuit and attainment of truth. This mistaken sort of action leads directly to that absurd proposition: one religion is just as good as another, for there is no distinction here between truth and falsehood. "This attitude," to quote Pope Leo again, "is directed to the destruction of all religions, but particularly the Catholic faith, which cannot be placed on a level with other religions without serious injustice, since it alone is true."

...Indeed, the Catholic Church is set apart and distinguished by these three characteristics: unity of doctrine, unity of organization, unity of worship. This unity is so conspicuous that by it all men can find and recognize the Catholic Church.

...It is the will of God, the Church's founder, that all the sheep should eventually gather into this one fold, under the guidance of one shepherd. All God's children are summoned to their father's only home, and its cornerstone is Peter.


-Blessed John XXIII.
Ad Petri Cathedrum
1959

He Must Have Read Mortalium Animos

Jeffrey Steel: Swimming the Tiber

Some people choose God first.

Before financial security, before respect among peers, before advancement in their field of employment, some people choose God first.

Such is the case of Anglican clergyman Jeffrey Steel of Durham England. On Sunday, June 7, he published a post on his blog explaining why he was leaving the Church of England to become a Catholic with his wife and six children.

This could be a very expensive decision for Steel. Besides losing his job as a minister, he will certainly incur the wrath of a number of his longtime peers as well as congregants in his soon-to-be former parish.

In his post, he makes an observation that many Catholics would do well to read, describing the effect of studying the letters of an early Anglican bishop to St. Robert Bellarmine: "...I saw how Catholic he was with regards to the Eucharist being the Christian offering which consisted of more than a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving. It was and is propitiatory as well as other things."

Some people choose God first.

Steel knows he is not taking the safe path. He writes: "Though my time in Rome had quite a bit of emotion as I prayed, what I actually came to see was the end of the wrestling with these questions in my mind and heart. It was now time to act on what my conscience was saying to me for some time. It was time to surrender myself and submit to Mother Church knowing in faith that God would open doors."

Some people choose God first.

Steel's adult life has been spent as a minister. While the Church has granted dispensations for the ordination of some converted Protestant ministers who are married, it has been on a case-by-case basis and there is no guarantee that Steel will ever be ordained a Catholic priest: "I realise that I do not come to the Church making demands. I come offering my life to Jesus and to the Church as I seek his will for my life. For the time being, I am simply giving up being the teacher and am now becoming the student of Mother Church. What she does with me is in the best interest of her and God's kingdom. "

Some people choose God first.

Finally it should be noted that the name of Steel's blog is "De Cura Animarum" (About the Cure of Souls). Many a Catholic priest would do well to review the purpose of his vocation in light of those words. It is glaringly obvious that Steel is not becoming a Catholic because of any false ecumenical gestures from the Catholic Church. He is joining the One True Church because it is the one Church that refuses to shed its sacramental character and divine mission, in spite of how hard some of its members have worked to undermine it.

Welcome home.

TRUE THEN, TRUER NOW

The unity of Christians cannot otherwise be obtained than by securing the return of the separated to the one true Church of Christ from which they once unhappily withdrew. To the one true Church of Christ, we say, that stands forth before all and that by the will of its Founder will remain forever the same as when He Himself established it for the salvation of all mankind.
-Pius XI
Mortalium Animos, 1928

INSTANT STRESS RELIEF

Fantasia X, Que Contrahaze La Harpa en La Manera de Ludovico
-Alonso Mudarra, 1546.

Too many words? Then how about "stunningly beautiful"?

GIVE US THE REAL THING!

Catholic Culture reports that adult baptisms in the Catholic Church (the indicator of conversions) dropped 9 percent last year.

This poses a tough question:

WHY WOULD ANYONE CONVERT
TO THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH?

There are several possible answers, but let's look at the reasons people will not bother becoming Roman Catholic:

• No one wants to become a Roman Catholic for more "community"

• No one wants to become a Roman Catholic for a Protestant Church with sacraments

• No one wants to become a Roman Catholic to follow the way of the world

• No one wants to become a Roman Catholic to attend a Mass that has no Catholic character to it

Actually, I could go on and on about the reasons people do not convert--but this list is really about the reasons that dioceses are discouraging conversions.

My wife is a convert to the faith. She had been attending Mass for years and attending seminars and pretty much learned a lot about the basics of the faith long before joining the Church. When she graduated from college and was applying for medical school, (long before our engagement) I suggested she get serious about joining the Church, since she might never find the time to do so again.

She began attending an RCIA class at the parish where she went to Mass. Now she probably could have TAUGHT the RCIA class, but she knew attendance was required if she was to be confirmed. After one class, she called me and said, "I don't think I can do this." She complained about how dumbed-down and watered-down the instruction was. I agreed to attend with her the following week. The class, taught by a modernist nun in lay clothes, was all she described and more--that is to say, it was horrible.

At my suggestion, she made an appointment with the associate pastor at the parish the next week. She went in and explained that the class was just too hard for her to take and she asked if she could "test out" and just move forward to Confirmation. The priest asked her why she wanted to become a Catholic. She immediately replied, "I want to be a member of the only Church that has valid apostolic orders and comes from the apostolic succession." His eyebrows raised.

He asked her a few more questions and suggested she return to talk to him in another week for some private instruction. After a couple of more conversations, he set a date for her Confrimation and she was received into the Church shortly after.

That's not the end of the story. We have many friends and acquaintances who converted to the Catholic faith. When they found out that my wife by-passed RCIA, they all said the same thing:

"That's not fair! Why couldn't I get out of going to those stupid classes?"

(As a footnote, I called another priest I knew at another parish to see about my future wife attending RCIA in his parish. When he asked where she had gone to her first class, I told him. He said, "Oh yes, Sister ------- is doing excellent work!" They all stick together.)

Weak formation is not limited to RCIA classes either.

I received an email recently from a candidate for the permanent diaconate in another part of the country. He writes:

As I look back on the formation process few words can describe this display and the "instructors": Shameful!

-women Priests and Deacons, we were told the church has not decided on this??
-condoms for the Aids problem in Africa ??
-be more inclusive to Protestants?? less liturgy!!!?

I was the only candidate willing to literally stand up and dispute the lies, which was always meet with nonsense discussions and more rhetoric and lies, all of the ultra liberal candidates were selected to continue in formation. I and a few others were asked to leave, big surprise.

My point?

Protestants do not join the Catholic Church to become Protestants.

No Catholic identity means no conversions.

TRUE THEN, TRUER NOW

“At no time in the future can a priest, whether secular or order priest, ever be forced to use any other way of saying Mass. And in order once and for all to preclude any scruples of conscience and fear of ecclesiastical penalties and censures, we declare herewith that it is by virtue of our Apostolic authority that we decree and prescribe that this present order and decree of ours is to last in perpetuity, and never at a future date can it be revoked or amended legally. . . . “And if, nevertheless, anyone would dare attempt any action contrary to this order of ours, handed down for all times, let him know that he has incurred the wrath of Almighty God, and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.”
-Pope St. Pius V
Quo Primum

"OFFENSIVE BEYOND BELIEF"

Abortion is not a "civil right"--it's the denial of the most basic right:
Life

Fr. Frank Pavone's Blog

Atlanta, GA - Dr. Alveda King, Pastoral Associate of Priests for Life and niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., today reacted to remarks by late-term abortionist LeRoy Carhart that compared the killing of George Tiller to the assassination of her uncle.

“For LeRoy Carhart to mention the murder of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., who worked through peaceful and non-violent means, in the same breath with that of George Tiller, whose work ended peace and brought violence to babies in the womb, is offensive beyond belief,” said Dr. King. “The analogy is just wrong.”

“Dr. Carhart also speaks of hate crimes,” added Dr. King. “I would simply ask him, is it not hateful to regard an entire class of people as non-human because they’re unwanted?”

Fr. Frank Pavone, National Director of Priests for Life, also commented, “The message of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was that every human being has equal dignity. LeRoy Carhart and every other abortionist violate that message every time they dismember a baby. The comparison is ridiculous.”


Dr. Alveda King

CHRIST THE HIGH PRIEST

By Father Richard Perozich
Pastor, St. Mary Church, Escondido, California

On the Thursday after Pentecost, the Church celebrates the feast of Christ the High Priest, using the liturgy of the Holy Eucharist from the Roman Missal. As I was preparing for the celebration of this Mass on June 4 which I did privately because Thursday is my day off, I began to reflect on who Jesus is, what he has done, what his priesthood means, how I share in it by baptism and ordination, and how short I fall in living out my commitment in the common priesthood and the ordained priesthood.

Ordained priests are configured to Christ, that is in their being a permanent indelible change is made so that they stay united to Him and to His Church, offer sacrifice and sacraments, teach the truth of Christ united to the whole Catholic Church over the centuries, and guide God’s flock according to Jesus’ teaching

The non ordained are configured to Jesus in baptism, and are freed from sin and set on a course toward new life where they participate in the offering of the sacrifice of the Mass uniting their own personal sacrifices to it, live the teaching and teach others to do the same, and pastor one another as they are pastored.

In America, a false idea of freedom is that we can leave the Catholic church, that all “churches” are equal, and it is our right to choose. Jesus created one Church. The fullness of it subsists in the Catholic Church with the Pope as its unifier on earth.

Catechism of the Catholic Church : 846 ... Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.