Tuesday, December 12, 2017

Doug Jones engages in hypocrisy...he's really in favor of victimizing women and children...

Doug Jones, who loves to attack Roy Moore over still unproven allegations that he sexually accosted underage females, is radically pro-abortion and fully supportive of the ultimate form of physical abuse against women.  See here.

Abortion, as this compendium makes clear, "contrary to popular opinion, doesn't help women but hurts
them severely and/or kills them."

As Frederica Mathewes-Green has said:
"Truly supporting women's rights must involve telling the truth about
abortion and working for it to cease."

Monday, December 11, 2017

Francis de la Mancha: Tilting at Windmills

In an EWTN post which may be found here, Father John Echert notes that:


"The RSV records the Lord’s Prayer as follows:

6:9 Pray then like this: Our Father who art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. 6:10 Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, On earth as it is in heaven. 6:11 Give us this day our daily bread; 6:12 And forgive us our debts, As we also have forgiven our debtors; 6:13 And lead us not into temptation, But deliver us from evil.

The Greek text is accurately rendered by the RSV, "Lead us not into temptation" with God understood as the subject. However, we should not understand this to mean that God actively tempts us to sin but that He allows us to undergo testing, including at the hands of the Tempter. In fact, this is precisely what happened to the Son of God who was driven or led by the Spirit into the wilderness, wherein He was tempted by Satan. As we read in the Gospel of St. Mark:

1:12 The Spirit immediately drove him out into the wilderness. 1:13 And he was in the wilderness forty days, tempted by Satan; and he was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered to him.

The Father knew that the Son would successfully face down these temptations and in the process, in His humanity, grow stronger by testing and obedience. The same is true for us; God does not allow us to be tested or tempted beyond what we can endure and He allows it only for the greater good that it may occasion, if we remain faithful.

St. Augustine comments upon the Lord’s Prayer and makes a distinction between being tempted and being led into temptation. He understands being led into temptation as meaning temptations which we are not able to resist and so we are asking that we may not, deserted by His aid, either consent or yield to any such temptation. But as to being tempted or tested, he notes that without temptation none can be approved and so we do not seek to avoid all temptations which we may successfully face with God’s grace. By these temptations, one is approved and made stronger in the process. Or, as one author correctly notes, 'He who refuses the combat renounces the crown.' Of course, God knows each of us personally and so for one who sincerely prays 'and lead us not into temptation' will not be abandoned by God to a test to which one would succumb."

Which makes it problematic that Francis would assert that, the current language of the Our Father prayer "is not a good translation."

Saint Thomas Aquinas, Doctor of the Church, would disagree.  For this giant of Catholic thought, in his Summa, says:

"We are directed to beatitude accidentally by the removal of obstacles. Now there are three obstacles to our attainment of beatitude. First, there is sin, which directly excludes a man from the kingdom, according to 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, 'Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, etc., shall possess the kingdom of God'; and to this refer the words, 'Forgive us our trespasses.'

Secondly, there is temptation which hinders us from keeping God's will, and to this we refer when we say: 'And lead us not into temptation,' whereby we do not ask not to be tempted, but not to be conquered by temptation, which is to be led into temptation. 

Thirdly, there is the present penal state which is a kind of obstacle to a sufficiency of life, and to this we refer in the words, 'Deliver us from evil.'"

As Father William Saunders has noted, "..we must understand this petition in its context. The preceding petition asks our heavenly Father to forgive us our sins as we forgive others — a very positive petition imploring an outpouring of God's healing grace. The petition in question must also be viewed positively: it asks the Father not to lead us into temptation, but not in the sense of God putting us into temptation. St. James reminds us, "No one who is tempted is free to say, 'I am being tempted by God.' Surely God, who is beyond the grasp of evil, tempts no one" (Jas 1:13). Our Lord would never set us up for a fall to sin.

Rather, as the Catechism indicates, the petition means more "do not allow us to enter into temptation" or "do not let us yield to temptation" (No. 2846). 

Rather than engaging in some sort of Quixotic battle against imaginary dragons, perhaps Francis could make better use of his time by clearing up doctrinal confusion which he has sown through Amoris Laetitia or by addressing the homosexual problem in the priesthood?


Saturday, December 09, 2017

Francis: Propagator of the Cult of Softness...

Father Ray Blake writes:

"Finished that book, 'The Dictator Pope', a few days ago. There was very little that was new in it but it is shocking when scandals are brought together in a catalogue of vice. This is certainly not a book I would recommend most people reading, especially those who are easily shocked.

It portrays a picture of an arbitrary self-seeking princeling with few virtues and practically every vice. For those who hear confessions regularly it gives an insight into the cup which is clean on the outside but full of corruption on the inside.

It gives an insight into the contemporary Church, certainly into the psychology of many of its leading clergy and perhaps into the heresy of Mercy. In the abuse crisis so many of our leaders like Cardinal Daneels, who comes in for much criticism, not only defended abusers, telling their victim they needed to repent but they simply pretended there was no problem. Maybe they were not as bad as Cardinal Maradiaga who chairs Francis' Council of Nine, he dismissed the whole matter as a construction of the 'Jewish media'.

A false, heretical understanding of Mercy reduces God to being tolerant of everything, to the point where sin disappears and black becomes white, the foolish are regarded as wise, the corrupt become virtuous. A tolerant God means mankind has no need of Redemption or Salvation, the whole Christological drama becomes unnecessary and humanity has no need of a moral compass, because whatever is done, so long as it doesn't undermine the Enlightenment virtues, is fine.

An excess of Mercy has a tendency to remove any critical faculty. God becomes the watchmaker who having finished his work, sets it in place to run by itself, he is not as scripture portrays him concerned by our every action, nor is he the one who will come to judge between sheep and goats, and certainly not the one who is concerned about our personal integrity, our truth telling, our sexual or financial morality and our craving for power. It works well for a dictator, in that any criticism or expression of doubts or any questioning about this new god (the god of theological speculation, rather than God revealed by Jesus Christ in scripture and Tradition) becomes a sign of sickness, rigidity, even heresy but worst of all of the unforgivable sins of divisiveness and disloyalty.

What I find so shocking in this book, which hardly reveals any new secrets, just adds a few details, is that such corruption as it reveals causes dis-ease in so few. Indeed, those who do raise concerns are hussled to the margins and vilified. Colonna gives us insight into a court that seems to be hotbed of neurotic revenge, nepotism, financial corruption, homosexual practice and where surveillance and gossip are rife and where image is all. A quote from the book, a priest said, "It is not who or what you know, it is now about what you know about who you know", he was talking about a culture of blackmail.
Why is it tolerated? Why is it so easily accepted? Why do so few denounce it?

Perhaps it is that Catholicism in particular has seen so many changes in recent years that there are so few points of stability from which bearings can be taken. Even the Gospels, the actual revealed words of Jesus are pushed to the background and replaced by 'the sublime theology' of some German Cardinal. The author makes the point that what has been lost in the last few years is Jesus's 'Let your yes mean yes and your no mean no',

Being anxious that some fragment of the Lord's body might be lost or desecrated should be important to priests, nowadays being deeply concerned that a word, a comma of Lord's being lost should be a deep, deep concern of every Christian because where sin and vice abounds Christ cannot be tolerated

But then many bishops and religious superiors simply turned a blind eye to sexual abuse and abusers....."

ABC News reported earlier this year that, "Pope Francis has quietly reduced sanctions against a handful of pedophile priests, applying his vision of a merciful church even to its worst offenders in ways that survivors of abuse and the pope's own advisers question.

One case has come back to haunt him: An Italian priest who received the pope's clemency was later convicted by an Italian criminal court for his sex crimes against children as young as 12. The Rev. Mauro Inzoli is now facing a second church trial after new evidence emerged against him, The Associated Press has learned.


The Inzoli case is one of several in which Francis overruled the advice of the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and reduced a sentence that called for the priest to be defrocked, two canon lawyers and a church official told AP. Instead, the priests were sentenced to penalties including a lifetime of penance and prayer and removal from public ministry.

In some cases, the priests or their high-ranking friends appealed to Francis for clemency by citing the pope's own words about mercy in their petitions, the church official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because the proceedings are confidential.

"With all this emphasis on mercy ... he is creating the environment for such initiatives," the church official said, adding that clemency petitions were rarely granted by Pope Benedict XVI, who launched a tough crackdown during his 2005-2013 papacy and defrocked some 800 priests who raped and molested children.

At the same time, Francis also ordered three longtime staffers at the congregation dismissed, two of whom worked for the discipline section that handles sex abuse cases, the lawyers and church official said..."

Contrast the attitude of Francis with that of St. Basil of Cesarea (322-379AD). He instructed that the cleric or monk caught making sexual advances (kissing) or otherwise sexually molesting young boys or men was to be whipped in public, deprived of his tonsure (head shaven), bound in chains and imprisoned for six months, after which he was to be contained in a separate cell and ordered to undergo severe penances and prayer vigils to expedite his sins under the watchful eye of an elder spiritual brother. His diet was that of water and barley bread - the fodder of animals.

Outside his cell, while engaged in manual labor and moving about the monastery, the pederast monk was to be always monitored by two fellow monks to insure that he never again had any contact with young men or boys.

Clearly Francis, his mind corrupted by false notions of "compassion" and "mercy," has more regard for sexual predators than their innocent victims and those who seek to discipline the predators.

While it is true that everything must be done to help sinners, this cannot include helping them to sin or to remain in sin. Because of human frailty, every sinner deserves both pity and compassion. However, vice and sin must be excluded from this compassion. This because sin can never be the proper object of compassion. (Summa Theologica, II-II, q. 30, a.1, ad 1).

It is a false compassion which supplies the sinner with the means to remain attached to sin. Such 'compassion' provides an assistance (whether material or moral) which actually enables the sinner to remain firmly attached to his evil ways. By contrast, true compassion leads the sinner away from vice and back to virtue. As Thomas Aquinas explains: "We love sinners out of charity, not so as to will what they will, or to rejoice in what gives them joy, but so as to make them will what we will, and rejoice in what rejoices us. Hence it is written: 'They shall be turned to thee, and thou shalt not be turned to them.'" (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, II-II, q. 25, a.6, ad 4, citing Jeremiah 15:19).

St. Thomas Aquinas teaches us that the sentiment of compassion only becomes a virtue when it is guided by reason, since "it is essential to human virtue that the movements of the soul should be regulated by reason." (Summa Theologica, II-II, q. 30, c.3). Without such regulation, compassion is merely a passion. A false compassion is a compassion not regulated and tempered by reason and is, therefore, a potentially dangerous inclination. This because it is subject to favoring not only that which is good but also that which is evil (Summa Theologica, II-II, q. 30, a.1, ad 3).

An authentic compassion always stems from charity. True compassion is an effect of charity (Summa Theologica, II-II, q. 30, a.3, ad 3). But it must be remembered that the object of this virtue is God, whose love extends to His creatures. (Summa Theologica, II-II, q. 25, a.3). Therefore, the virtue of compassion seeks to bring God to the one who suffers so that he may thereby participate in the infinite love of God. As St. Augustine explains: "'Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.' Now, you love yourself suitably when you love God better than yourself. What, then, you aim at in yourself you must aim at in your neighbor, namely, that he may love God with a perfect affection." (St. Augustine, Of the Morals of the Catholic Church, No. 49,

Weakening or watering-down moral norms is not an act of charity.  It is an act of counterfeit charity, an act of spiritual violence.

It seems that Francis is committed toward re-victimizing those who have suffered sexual abuse at the hands of predator priests and is not truly concerned with showing an authentic compassion and mercy toward convicted pederasts.

Recall the anger Francis demonstrated and the  tough words he had for a rowdy crowd when their shoving caused him to fall in Mexico.  He was angry because he perceived his safety was in jeopardy.  What a shame he lacks the same concern for the safety of innocent children.

But then, the dictator advanced the Cult of Softness.

Wednesday, December 06, 2017

Francis, not known for "wisdom and prudence," calls for Jerusalem "status quo."

Already dark forces are raging against President Trump for recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital.  See here.

But Francis is opposed.  As reported here:

"Pope Francis spoke in support of the 'status quo' in Jerusalem on Wednesday, calling for 'wisdom and prudence' in order to avoid conflict.


The Roman Catholic leader's comments came after President Donald Trump announced plans for the U.S. to support the relocation of the Israeli capital to Jerusalem -- and for the U.S. Embassy to be relocated there as well.

The pope said he was 'profoundly concerned' about recent developments regarding Jerusalem, which he called a 'special vocation for peace' and a sacred place for Christians, Jews and Muslims.

He appealed to all sides to respect 'the status quo of the city' as according to the United Nations resolutions."

But Francis isn't known for his "wisdom and prudence."  Jerusalem belongs to the Jewish People:

“The oldest and holiest Jewish cemetery on Mount of Olives is in East Jerusalem, (3,000 years old) as is the Western Wall, so to call new Jewish suburbs in East Jerusalem, settlements, is absurd, and designed to undermine Jewish legitimacy there.” -- Mervyn Bufton

“[Jerusalem is the] "unified capital of Israel and the capital of the Jewish people, and sovereignty over it is indisputable.” -- Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu

•“We are joyful and honored to commence the construction of our new neighborhood which strengthens the Jewish presence in united Jerusalem and stresses the fact that Jerusalem is the home of every Jew in Israel and throughout the world.” -- Rabbi Dani Isaac

• “The Land of Israel without Jerusalem is merely 'Palestine.' Down the generations the Jews have been saying not 'Next year in the Land of Israel' but 'Next year in Jerusalem'... One can create Tel-Aviv out of Jaffa but one cannot create a second Jerusalem. Zion lies within the walls, not outside them.” -- Menachem Mendel Ussishkin

•“After 2,000 years of sacrifice for the dream of returning to Jerusalem, we cannot allow it to be taken away.” -- Irving Moskowitz

•“All countries of the world should understand that attempts to endanger Jerusalem’s unity and Israel’s sovereignty in it, will be rejected immediately.” -- MK Ofir Akunis

•“It’s a noise of construction, not of destruction, thank God. And it will always be like this. Development in Jerusalem, it’s a good thing. Not to the studio but for other things.” -- Benny Elon

“The Jewish people are in Jerusalem, not as settlers or invaders, but as of right. These rights are clearly spelt out in International Law and should be respected by the international community.” -- Jacques Gauthier

•“A non-broken series of treaties and resolutions, as laid out by the San Remo Resolution, the League of Nations and the United Nations, gives the Jewish People title to the city of Jerusalem.” -- Hillel Fendel

•“You ought to let the Jews have Jerusalem; it was they who made it famous.” -- Winston Churchill

•“Jerusalem was the focal point for the historical connection of the Jewish people to the land of Israel.” -- Dore Gold

Jerusalem belongs to Israel.  This is historical and legal fact.  See here.
Anyone who says otherwise is opposing God's Holy Word.

Monday, December 04, 2017

The church of heresy, schism and scandal is going to make itself voluntarily the slave of the beast and the dragon which have conquered it


No serious Catholic can ignore the heterodoxy of Francis.  See here.

Church Militant is confirming that Pope Francis has officially approved the interpretation of Amoris Laetitia that opens Holy Communion to the divorced and civilly remarried in some instances, directly contradicting Canon 915 of the Code of Canon Law, arguably making this interpretation binding on the consciences of the faithful.

In a Papal Rescript granted on June 5, 2017 ex Audientia Sanctissimi to the Cardinal Secretary of State Pietro Parolin, and just now released by the Vatican in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, the Holy Father has raised to the level of “authentic Magisterium” both the private letter he wrote on September 5, 2016 to Bp. Sergio Alfredo Fenoy, the Delegate of the Buenos Aires Pastoral Region of the Bishops’ Conference of Argentina, and the Criterios Basicos para la aplicación del capitulo VIII de Amoris laetitia (“Basic Criteria for the Application of Chapter VIII of Amoris Laetitia“), issued on the same day by the bishops of the Buenos Aires Pastoral Region.

Some are arguing that Pope Francis is using a “back door” in order to raise to the level of official teaching what his defenders had been describing as merely new “pastoral” discipline.Tweet

The directives of the Buenos Aires bishops caused controversy last year because it interpreted the pope’s apostolic exhortation to allow Holy Communion in certain cases to those in invalid unions who deliberately engage in sexual relations. In the Pope’s September 5 letter to the bishops, he praised their interpretation.

“The document is very good and completely explains the meaning of Chapter VIII of Amoris Laetitia,” he said, adding, “There are no other interpretations.”

According to experts whom Church Militant has consulted, the importance of the official decision of the Pope to elevate the referenced documents to the level of “authentic Magisterium” and order their publication in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis (the official register of the Holy See, a compendium of decrees, encyclicals, appointments and other official acts of the Holy See) cannot be underestimated. The issuance of the decision through Rescript form puts to rest any more discussion regarding the official and precise interpretation to be given by the episcopal hierarchy and faithful to Amoris Laetitia.

Church Militant’s unofficial English translation of the Rescript published in Latin states:

The Supreme Pontiff decrees that the two Documents that precede [this Rescript] are to be made known by publication on the Vatican website and in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, as authentic Magisterium. From the Vatican Palace, on the 5th day of June in the year 2017. (emphasis added)

Pietro Cardinal Parolin
Secretary of State

The terms of art, “authentic Magisterium,” are especially referenced in canon 752 of the Code of Canon Law:

While the assent of faith is not required, a religious submission of intellect and will is to be given to any doctrine which either the Supreme Pontiff or the College of Bishops, exercising their authentic magisterium, declare upon a matter of faith or morals, even though they do not intend to proclaim that doctrine by definitive act. Christ’s faithful are therefore to ensure that they avoid whatever does not accord with that doctrine. (Code of Canon Law Annotated, 2nd ed. Midwest Theological Forum: Woodridge, 2004, p. 586) (emphasis added)

The use by the Supreme Pontiff of the terms “authentic Magisterium” has been qualified as “very troubling” by one expert whom Church Militant consulted regarding this breaking development, because such usage is primarily employed in strictly categorizing doctrines pertaining to faith or morals, not merely ecclesiastical discipline. Consequently, some are arguing that Pope Francis is using a “back door” in order to raise to the level of official teaching what his defenders had been describing as merely new “pastoral” discipline meant to “accompany” divorced and civilly remarried faithful in their “discernment” as to whether they can receive Holy Communion despite living more uxorio (as husband and wife).

_____________________________

It was Frere Francois de Marie des Anges, in his important work entitled "Fatima: Tragedy and Triumph," who warned that:

"The Apocalypse teaches us that the "false prophet" will act exteriorly as exercising authority in the name of God and in His service, whereas he will be in reality in the service of the Beast.  Our Father Superior comments:

The church of heresy, schism and scandal is going to make itself voluntarily the slave of the beast and the dragon which have conquered it

In order to bend souls and not only bodies under his domination and obtain their adoration, the political power instigated a religious power completely to his service, and thus the lamb is going to become the vehicle of error. , the spiritual animator of the empire of Satan.  He will use fire from Heaven, which is the Word of God, anathema, to disarm its enemies and conquer Christians.  Then the lamb will condemn what is holy and consecrate what is of the evil one.  Here we are at the most extreme point of the triumph of impiety, at the hour of the most complete victory of the mystery of iniquity....'" (Fatima: Tragedy and Triumph, p. 285).

Friday, December 01, 2017

Cardinal Raymond Burke: The End Times may have arrived...

Lifesite News reports:

"Confusion and error in the Catholic Church regarding its fundamental teaching on marriage and family are so serious that the End Times may have come upon us, Cardinal Raymond Burke said in a new interview.

When the foundation of the moral law is questioned within the Church, the cardinal said, 'then the whole order of human life and the order of the Church itself are endangered.'

'So there is a feeling that in today’s world that is based on secularism with a completely anthropocentric approach,' Cardinal Burke continued, 'by which we think we can create our own meaning of life and meaning of the family and so on, the Church itself seems to be confused.'

'In that sense, one may have the feeling that the Church gives the appearance of being unwilling to obey the mandates of Our Lord,' he stated. 'Then perhaps we have arrived at the End Times.'

Cardinal Burke confirmed in an interview with Catholic Herald contributing editor Paolo Gambi published today that 'very serious questions' remain regarding the dubia submitted to Pope Francis last year on his exhortation Amoris Laetitia.

But he persisted in that the specifics of how to proceed on a formal correction of the pope have yet to be determined.


Cardinal Burke has been long known for his defense of Church orthodoxy, and many regard his resoluteness to that end in the face of seemingly political demotions and derision as an example of courage and fidelity to the faith.

Burke further confirmed in the Catholic Herald interview that although he remains cardinal patron for the Order of Malta, he currently has no function within the Order and thus receives no communication from either the organization itself or from Pope Francis.

He reaffirmed in the interview as well that priests are free to celebrate the Extraordinary Form of the Mass since Pope Benedict XVI’s motu proprio Summorum Pontificum, saying that both the Ordinary Form and the Extraordinary Form of the liturgy are considered normal in the Church.

Gambi asked the cardinal to expound on recent comments he made about the present time being 'realistically apocalyptic' due to 'confusion, division and error' within the Church coming from 'shepherds' even at the highest levels.

Cardinal Burke explained that allowing access to sacraments for individuals living in sinful unions is 'a violation of the truth' for both the indissolubility of marriage and the sanctity of the Eucharist.

'In the present moment, there is confusion and error about the most fundamental teachings of the Church,' said Cardinal Burke, 'for example with regard to marriage and the family. For instance, the idea that people who are living in an irregular union could receive the sacraments is a violation of the truth with regard both to the indissolubility of marriage and to the sanctity of the Eucharist.'

Citing St. Paul, he said 'we eat our condemnation' if we receive the Eucharist in an unworthy way.

'Now the confusion in the Church is going even further than that,' Burke added, 'because there is today confusion as to whether there are acts which are intrinsically evil and this, of course, is the foundation of the moral law,' imperiling the order of the Church and human life.

Asked his thoughts on Italian Episcopal Conference Secretary-general Bishop Nunzio Galantino’s recent claim that the Protestant Reformation was an 'event of the Holy Spirit,' Cardinal Burke responded, 'Well, I don’t see how you can say that the division of the Church was an act of the Holy Spirit. It simply does not make sense.'

He also dismissed talk of a common Eucharistic celebration with Lutherans as 'not possible' because of the differences on the doctrine of transubstantiation.


'For Catholics to engage in some kind of ecumenical Eucharist would be abandoning the Catholic Faith,' stated Cardinal Burke. 'This is a profoundly false ecumenism which would do grave harm to the Faith and to souls.'

His response to Gambi asking what his first act would be if elected pope was that 'the first thing any pope should do is simply to make the profession of faith together with the whole Church, as Vicar of Christ on Earth.'

'Most popes did that,' Cardinal Burke added, offering Pope St Pius X’s encyclical E Supremi as example.

'Also Pope St John Paul II’s Redemptor Hominis is a sort of profession of faith,' the cardinal noted, 'calling to mind again that the Church is the Body of Christ, the Church belongs to Christ and that we are all obedient in his service.'"

On June 11, 1988, Our Lady told Father Gobbi, "Satan, my Adversary, with snares and by means of his subtle seduction, has succeeded in spreading errors everywhere, under the form of new and more updated interpretations of the truth, and he has led many to choose with full knowledge - and to live in - sin, in the deceiving conviction that this is no longer an evil, and even that it is a value and a good. The times of the general confusion and of the greatest agitation of spirits has come. Confusion has entered into the souls and the lives of many of my children. This great apostasy is spreading more and more, even through the interior of the Catholic Church. Errors are being taught and spread about, while the fundamental truths of the faith, which the authentic Magisterium of the Church has always taught and energetically defended against any heretical deviation whatsoever, are being denied with impunity....In these times, in the Catholic Church, there will remain a little remnant who will be faithful to Christ, to the Gospel, and to its entire truth. The little remnant will form a little flock, all guarded in the depths of my Immaculate Heart. This little flock will be made up of those bishops, priests, religious and faithful who will remain strongly united to the Pope, all gathered together in the cenacle of my Immaculate Heart, in an act of unceasing prayer, of continual immolation, of total offering to prepare the painful way for the second and glorious coming of my Son Jesus..."

The Sons of Hell, the Children of Belial as St. Louis de Montfort refers to them, are spreading their errors everywhere. The confusion of our own time has become general. And this too was prophesied by the great Jesuit priest Father Nectou, who said that before the triumph of the Church, "The confusion will be so general that mankind will not be able to aright, as if God had entirely withheld His providence from mankind, and during the worst crisis the best thing that can be done will be to remain where God has placed us, and persevere in fervent prayer."

Signs are multiplying everywhere. Today, all across society, people are committing grievous sins and even blasphemously calling these sins virtue. Sin is justified. It is even celebrated. Active homosexuals and lesbians have the audacity to call their perverse practices "love" (practices for which God destroyed the five cities of the plain: Sodom and Gomorrah) and agitate for - demand - the legal status of marriage. As a girl in the Ukraine is reported as hearing from the Blessed Mother: "The present times are worse than at the time of Noah. Then the world was scourged by a deluge of water; now the world is going to be scourged by a deluge of fire." (Firs apparition to Anna at Seredne, December 20, 1954).

Our sin-sick world, puffed up with satanic pride, has become too blind to see its own miserable state. Today our great cities have become new Sodom and Gomorrahs. And at a time when so many confused people look to their priests for moral and spiritual guidance, often they receive chaff instead of wheat.

Pray the Holy Rosary to the Immaculata every day.  Consecrate yourself daily. Confess your sins regularly.  The Devil, through ecclesiastical masonry, has entered within the highest ranks of the Church.




Wednesday, November 29, 2017

The artificial vocations crisis and Francis the "Merciful"...

Writing on the continued vocations crisis, Father John Zuhlsdorf correctly notes:

"The crisis of priestly vocations is largely artificial.   It has, in some cases, been manufactured.

Tradition is the counter-measure to the crisis.  It works where it is tried.

Also, we need to pray explicitly for vocations and keep the sound of that prayer ringing constantly in the ears of parents and their sons.  Again, I propose that every parish adopt the following prayer, to be prayed while kneeling by the entire congregation at every Sunday Mass immediately after the Gospel..."

Readers of this Blog know that I've been addressing the vocations crisis for years.  My own vocation was sabotaged by the La Salette Missionaries because I oppose the ordination of women to the priesthood.  See here.

Although I have had extensive psychological testing and screening for the United States military (as part of my security clearance for military intelligence) and have received glowing reports which indicate that I am free of any pathologies - including a homosexual inclination, when I contacted the Worcester Diocese (twice) to express my interest in discerning a priestly vocation, I received no response whatsoever.

Meanwhile, the Diocese of Worcester has ordained homosexual men to the priesthood.  For example, a psychological evaluation in 1977 prior to the ordination of Fr. Jean Paul Gagnon  indicated that the candidate had possible "sex role identification" problems. See here.

When I left a comment on Francis' Facebook page detailing my struggle to pursue a vocation to the priesthood, I received no response whatsoever.  And yet, Francis found the time to personally meet with a homosexual activist who claims to be married to another man - Simon Cazal.  See here.

But then, as a pesky orthodox Catholic who actually believes everything contained in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, no doubt the "merciful" Francis seems me too "rigid" and not open to change.

That's okay though.  I'd rather be a faithful member of the Common Priesthood of the Faithful than Francis' idea of a priest.

For what does it profit a man...you know the rest!

But not to worry folks, all is well.  See here.

Monday, November 27, 2017

Mark Shea on immigration: Ignorant and enjoying it...


Once again, Mark She's has it wrong with regard to immigration.  See here.

Some common sense from TFP:

In looking at the debate over immigration, it is almost automatically assumed that the Church’s position is one of unconditional charity toward those who enter the nation, legally or illegally.

However, is this the case? What does the Bible say about immigration? What do Church doctors and theologians say? Above all, what does the greatest of doctors, Saint Thomas Aquinas, say about immigration? Does his opinion offer some insights to the burning issues now shaking the nation and blurring the national borders?

Immigration is a modern problem and so some might think that the medieval Saint Thomas would have no opinion about the problem. And yet, he does. One has only to look in his masterpiece, the Summa Theologica, in the First part of the Second Part, question 105, article 3 (I-II, Q. 105, Art. 3). There one finds his analysis based on biblical insights that can add to the national debate. They are entirely applicable to the present.


Commentary: In making this affirmation, Saint Thomas affirms that not all immigrants are equal. Every nation has the right to decide which immigrants are beneficial, that is, “peaceful,” to the common good. As a matter of self-defense, the State can reject those criminal elements, traitors, enemies and others who it deems harmful or “hostile” to its citizens.

The second thing he affirms is that the manner of dealing with immigration is determined by law in the cases of both beneficial and “hostile” immigration. The State has the right and duty to apply its law.


Saint Thomas: “For the Jews were offered three opportunities of peaceful relations with foreigners. First, when foreigners passed through their land as travelers. Secondly, when they came to dwell in their land as newcomers. And in both these respects the Law made kind provision in its precepts: for it is written (Exodus 22:21): ‘Thou shalt not molest a stranger [advenam]’; and again (Exodus 22:9): ‘Thou shalt not molest a stranger [peregrino].’”

Commentary: Here Saint Thomas acknowledges the fact that others will want to come to visit or even stay in the land for some time. Such foreigners deserved to be treated with charity, respect and courtesy, which is due to any human of good will. In these cases, the law can and should protect foreigners from being badly treated or molested.

Saint Thomas: “Thirdly, when any foreigners wished to be admitted entirely to their fellowship and mode of worship. With regard to these a certain order was observed. For they were not at once admitted to citizenship: just as it was law with some nations that no one was deemed a citizen except after two or three generations, as the Philosopher says (Polit. iii, 1).”

Commentary: Saint Thomas recognizes that there will be those who will want to stay and become citizens of the lands they visit. However, he sets as the first condition for acceptance a desire to integrate fully into what would today be considered the culture and life of the nation.

A second condition is that the granting of citizenship would not be immediate. The integration process takes time. People need to adapt themselves to the nation. He quotes the philosopher Aristotle as saying this process was once deemed to take two or three generations. Saint Thomas himself does not give a time frame for this integration, but he does admit that it can take a long time.

Saint Thomas: “The reason for this was that if foreigners were allowed to meddle with the affairs of a nation as soon as they settled down in its midst, many dangers might occur, since the foreigners not yet having the common good firmly at heart might attempt something hurtful to the people.”


Commentary: The common sense of Saint Thomas is certainly not politically correct but it is logical. The theologian notes that living in a nation is a complex thing. It takes time to know the issues affecting the nation. Those familiar with the long history of their nation are in the best position to make the long-term decisions about its future. It is harmful and unjust to put the future of a place in the hands of those recently arrived, who, although through no fault of their own, have little idea of what is happening or has happened in the nation. Such a policy could lead to the destruction of the nation.

As an illustration of this point, Saint Thomas later notes that the Jewish people did not treat all nations equally since those nations closer to them were more quickly integrated into the population than those who were not as close. Some hostile peoples were not to be admitted at all into full fellowship due to their enmity toward the Jewish people.

Saint Thomas: “Nevertheless it was possible by dispensation for a man to be admitted to citizenship on account of some act of virtue: thus it is related (Judith 14:6) that Achior, the captain of the children of Ammon, ‘was joined to the people of Israel, with all the succession of his kindred.’”

Commentary: That is to say, the rules were not rigid. There were exceptions that were granted based on the circumstances. However, such exceptions were not arbitrary but always had in mind the common good. The example of Achior describes the citizenship bestowed upon the captain and his children for the good services rendered to the nation.

*          *          *
These are some of the thoughts of Saint Thomas Aquinas on the matter of immigration based on biblical principles. It is clear that immigration must have two things in mind: the first is the nation’s unity; and the second is the common good.

Immigration should have as its goal integration, not disintegration or segregation. The immigrant should not only desire to assume the benefits but the responsibilities of joining into the full fellowship of the nation. By becoming a citizen, a person becomes part of a broad family over the long term and not a shareholder in a joint stock company seeking only short-term self-interest.

Secondly, Saint Thomas teaches that immigration must have in mind the common good; it cannot destroy or overwhelm a nation.

This explains why so many Americans experience uneasiness caused by massive and disproportional immigration. Such policy artificially introduces a situation that destroys common points of unity and overwhelms the ability of a society to absorb new elements organically into a unified culture. The common good is no longer considered.

A proportional immigration has always been a healthy development in a society since it injects new life and qualities into a social body. But when it loses that proportion and undermines the purpose of the State, it threatens the well-being of the nation.

When this happens, the nation would do well to follow the advice of Saint Thomas Aquinas and biblical principles. The nation must practice justice and charity towards all, including foreigners, but it must above all safeguard the common good and its unity, without which no country can long endure.






Friday, November 24, 2017

Pope Saint John Paul II's prophecy regarding Europe and Islam...

The Gateway Pundit reports on a prophecy issued by Pope Saint John Paul II:

"A never-before published prophecy attributed to Pope John Paul II has been revealed by a close confidant of the former pontiff during a memorial lecture on his life, the contents of which could cause scandal within the increasingly politically-correct Vatican.

Speaking in Italy on October 22nd, Monsignor Mauro Longhi from Trieste, an Opus Dei prelate and for ten years a member of the Vatican’s Congregation for the Clergy, was still a student when he accompanied the Polish pope on summer retreats into the Italian Alps in the 1980s and 90s.

Born Karol Wojtyła in Poland, John Paul II was known for his love of hiking and skiing, and it was during one such mountain retreat in the early 1990s at Bienno, Northern Italy, that the Italian priest claims to have been told of a troubling vision by the pontiff.

“I had looked at him thinking that he might need something,” the longtime friend of John Paul II explained as part of a series of recollections and anecdotes on their friendship, “but he realizes that I am looking at him; he has the shiver in his hand. It was the beginning of Parkinson’s.’’

“Dear Mauro, it is old age”, John Paul joked, before becoming more serious in tone and voice, according to the then student priest, going on to explain his vision.

‘’Remind this to those whom you will meet in the Church of the third millennium. I see the Church of the third millennium afflicted by a mortal plague, which compared to those of this millennium will be deeper, more painful’’, the Polish pope confided, having meant Communism and Nazism as the plagues of his time.


‘’It is called Islam. They will invade Europe. I have seen the hordes surging from the West to the East, from Morocco to Libya, from the Oriental countries towards Egypt.’’



“They will invade Europe. Europe will be a cellar; old relics, twilight, cobwebs. Old family souvenirs. You, the Church of the third millennium, must contain the invasion. But not with weapons. Weapons will not be enough, but with your faith, lived with integrity.”

_____________________________


Pope Pius XI, in his Act of Consecration of the Human Race to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, prayed:


Most sweet Jesus,
Redeemer of the human race,
look down upon us,
humbly prostrate before Thine altar.

We are Thine and Thine we wish to be;
but to be more surely united with Thee,
behold each one of us freely consecrates himself today
to Thy Most Sacred Heart.

Many, indeed, have never known Thee;
many, too, despising Thy precepts,
have rejected Thee.

Have mercy on them all,
most merciful Jesus,
and draw them to Thy Sacred Heart.

Be Thou King, O Lord,
not only of the faithful who have never forsaken Thee,
but also of the prodigal children who have abandoned Thee,
grant that they may quickly return to their Father's house,
lest they die of wretchedness and hunger.

Be Thou King of those who are deceived by erroneous opinions,
or whom discord keeps aloof
and call them back to the harbour of truth and unity of faith,
so that soon there may be but one flock and one shepherd.

Be Thou King of all those who even now sit in the shadow of idolatry or Islam,
and refuse not Thou to bring them into the light of Thy kingdom.
Look, finally, with eyes of pity upon the children of that race,
which was for so long a time Thy chosen people;
and let Thy Blood, which was once invoked upon them in vengeance,
now descend upon them also in a cleansing flood of redemption and eternal life.

Grant, O Lord,
to Thy Church,
assurance of freedom and immunity from harm;
give peace and order to all nations,
and make the earth resound
from pole to pole with one cry:
Praise to the Divine Heart
that wrought our salvation:
to it be glory
and honour forever.

Amen


Whoever denies that Jesus is God is of Antichrist (1 John 2:22).  Bearing that in mind, let's look at what Dr. Mark Durie has to say about the Muslim "Jesus":


The Muslim ‘Isa (Jesus)

There are two main sources for ‘Isa, the Muslim Jesus. The Qur’an gives a history of his life, whilst the Hadith collections — recollections of Muhammad’s words and deeds — establish his place in the Muslim understanding of the future.



The Qur’an

‘Isa, was a prophet of Islam

Jesus’ true name, according to the Qur’an, was ‘Isa. His message was pure Islam, surrender to Allah. (Âl 'Imran 3:84) Like all the Muslim prophets before him, and like Muhammad after him, ‘Isa was a lawgiver, and Christians should submit to his law. (Âl 'Imran 3:50; Al-Ma’idah 5:48) ‘Isa’s original disciples were also true Muslims, for they said ‘We believe. Bear witness that we have surrendered. We are Muslims.’ (Al-Ma’idah 5:111)



‘The Books’

Like other messengers of Islam before him, ‘Isa received his revelation of Islam in the form of a book. (Al-An’am 6:90) ‘Isa’s book is called the Injil or ‘gospel’. (Al-Ma’idah 5:46) The Torah was Moses’ book, and the Zabur (Psalms) were David’s book. So Jews and Christians are ‘people of the Book’. The one religion revealed in these books was Islam. (Âl 'Imran 3:18)



As with previous prophets, ‘Isa’s revelation verified previous prophets’ revelations. (Âl 'Imran 3:49,84; Al-Ma’idah 5:46; As-Saff 61:6) Muhammad himself verified all previous revelations, including the revelation to ‘Isa (An-Nisa’ 4:47), and so Muslims must believe in the revelation which ‘Isa received. (Al-Baqarah 2:136) However, after ‘Isa the Injil was lost in its original form. Today the Qur’an is the only sure guide to ‘Isa’s teaching.



The biography of ‘Isa

According to the Qur’an, ‘Isa was the Messiah. He was supported by the ‘Holy Spirit’. (Al-Baqarah 2:87; Al-Ma’idah 5:110) He is also referred to as the ‘Word of Allah’. (An-Nisa’ 4:171)



‘Isa’s mother Mariam was the daughter of ‘Imran, (Âl 'Imran 3:34,35) — cf the Amram of Exodus 6:20 — and the sister of Aaron (and Moses). (Maryam 19:28) She was fostered by Zachariah (father of John the Baptist). (Âl 'Imran 3:36) While still a virgin (Al-An’am 6:12; Maryam 19:19-21) Mariam gave birth to ‘Isa alone in a desolate place under a date palm tree. (Maryam 19:22ff) (Not in Bethlehem).



‘Isa spoke whilst still a baby in his cradle. (Âl 'Imran 3:46; Al-Ma’idah 5:110; Maryam 19:30) He performed various other miracles, including breathing life into clay birds, healing the blind and lepers, and raising the dead. (Âl 'Imran 3:49; Al-Ma’idah 5:111) He also foretold the coming of Muhammad. (As-Saff 61:6)



‘Isa did not die on a cross

Christians and Jews have corrupted their scriptures. (Âl 'Imran 3:74-77, 113) Although Christians believe ‘Isa died on a cross, and Jews claim they killed him, in reality he was not killed or crucified, and those who said he was crucified lied (An-Nisa’ 4:157). ‘Isa did not die, but ascended to Allah. (An-Nisa’ 4:158) On the day of Resurrection ‘Isa himself will be a witness against Jews and Christians for believing in his death. (An-Nisa’ 4:159)



Christians should accept Islam, and all true Christians will



Christians (and Jews) could not be freed from their ignorance until Muhammad came bringing the Qur’an as clear evidence (Al-Bayyinah 98:1). Muhammad was Allah’s gift to Christians to correct misunderstandings. They should accept Muhammad as Allah’s Messenger, and the Qur’an as his final revelation. (Al-Ma’idah 5:15; Al-Hadid 57:28; An-Nisa’ 4:47)



Some Christians and Jews are faithful and believe truly. (Âl 'Imran 3:113,114) Any such true believers will submit to Allah by accepting Muhammad as the prophet of Islam, i.e. they will become Muslims. (Âl 'Imran 3:198)



Although Jews and pagans will have the greatest enmity against Muslims, it is the Christians who will be ‘nearest in love to the believers’, i.e. to Muslims. (Al-Ma’idah 5:82) True Christians will not love Muhammad’s enemies. (Al-Mujadilah 58:22) In other words, anyone who opposes Muhammad is not a true Christian.



Christians who accept Islam or refuse it



Some Jews and Christians are true believers, accepting Islam: most are transgressors. (Âl 'Imran 3:109)

Many monks and rabbis are greedy for wealth and prevent people from coming to Allah. (At-Taubah 9:34,35)

Christians and Jews who disbelieve in Muhammad will go to hell. (Al-Bayyinah 98:6)



Muslims should not take Christians or Jews for friends. (Al-Ma’idah 5:51) They must fight against Christians and Jews who refuse Islam until they surrender, pay the poll-tax and are humiliated. (At-Taubah 9:29) To this may be added hundreds of Qur’anic verses on the subject of jihad in the path of Allah, as well as the ‘Book of Jihad’ found in all Hadith collections.



Christian beliefs



Christians are commanded not to believe that ‘Isa is the son of God: ‘It is far removed from his transcendent majesty that he should have a son’. (An-Nisa’ 4:171; Al-Furqan 25:2) ‘Isa was simply a created human being, and a slave of Allah. (An-Nisa’ 4:172; Âl 'Imran 3:59)

Christians are claimed by the Qur’an to believe in a family of gods — Father God, mother Mary and ‘Isa the son — but ‘Isa rejected this teaching. (Al-Ma’idah 5:116) The doctrine of the Trinity is disbelief and a painful doom awaits those who believe it. (Al-Ma’idah 5:73)



‘Isa (Jesus) in the Hadith

‘Isa the destroyer of Christianity



The prophet ‘Isa will have an important role in the end times, establishing Islam and making war until he destroys all religions save Islam. He shall kill the Evil One (Dajjal), an apocalyptic anti-Christ figure.



In one tradition of Muhammad we read that no further prophets will come to earth until ‘Isa returns as ‘a man of medium height, or reddish complexion, wearing two light garments, looking as if drops were falling down from his head although it will not be wet. He will fight for the cause of Islam. He will break the cross, kill pigs, and abolish the poll-tax. Allah will destroy all religions except Islam. He (‘Isa) will destroy the Evil One and will live on the earth for forty years and then he will die’. (Sunan Abu Dawud, 37:4310) The Sahih Muslim has a variant of this tradition: ‘The son of Mary ... will soon descend among you as a just judge. He will ... abolish the poll-tax, and the wealth will pour forth to such an extent that no one will accept charitable gifts.’ (Sahih Muslim 287)



What do these sayings mean? The cross is a symbol of Christianity. Breaking crosses means abolishing Christianity. Pigs are associated with Christians. Killing them is another way of speaking of the destruction of Christianity. Under Islamic law the poll-tax buys the protection of the lives and property of conquered ‘people of the Book’. (At-Taubah 9:29) The abolition of the poll-tax means jihad is restarted against Christians (and Jews) living under Islam, who should convert to Islam, or else be killed or enslaved. The abundance of wealth refers to booty flowing to the Muslims from this conquest. This is what the Muslim ‘Isa will do when he returns in the last days.

Muslim jurists confirm these interpretations: consider, for example, the ruling of Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri (d. 1368).



"... the time and the place for [the poll tax] is before the final descent of Jesus (upon whom be peace). After his final coming, nothing but Islam will be accepted from them, for taking the poll tax is only effective until Jesus' descent (upon him and our Prophet be peace) ..." (The Reliance of the Traveller. Trans. Nuh Ha Mim Keller, p. 603).

Ibn Naqib goes on to state that when Jesus returns, he will rule ‘as a follower’ of Muhammad.

In my last post, I noted how Archbishop Jozef De Kesel is calling on Catholics to be in solidarity with Islam.

 Be nice. Be nonjudgmental. We must be more tolerant. This is the mindless mantra of those who have succumbed to relativism.

'America, it is said, is suffering from intolerance,' wrote Servant of God Archbishop Fulton Sheen in his prophetic 1931 essay 'A Plea for Intolerance....It is not. It is suffering from tolerance: tolerance of right and wrong, truth and error, virtue and evil, Christ and chaos. Our country is not nearly so overrun with the bigoted as it is overrun with the broad-minded.'

But shouldn’t we be tolerant? Isn’t that charitable?

'Real love involves real hatred,' countered Archbishop Sheen. 'Whoever has lost the power of moral indignation and the urge to drive the buyers and sellers from the temples has also lost a living, fervent love of truth. Charity, then, is not a mild philosophy of live and let live.'

Adds Father Andrew Apostoli of the Franciscan Friars of the Renewal, EWTN host and vice postulator of Archbishop Sheen’s cause, 'You can’t tolerate evil teachings and distortions of values against God’s laws and natural law to be accepted by society.'

It’s a daily challenge for many when confronted with today’s morally bankrupt political correctness masquerading as real tolerance.


True Tolerance
So how is a Catholic to walk the narrow road of true Christian tolerance with genuine love of neighbor and not stumble along the wide road of politically correct tolerance?
First, 'Love is not tolerance,' Archbishop Sheen wrote. 'Christian love bears evil, but it does not tolerate it. It is not broad-minded about sin.'

Then the archbishop made an important distinction. 'Tolerance applies to the erring, intolerance to the error,' he noted. 'Tolerance does not apply to truth or principles. About these things we must be intolerant.'


We condemn the sin, but not the sinner, as Father Apostoli puts it: “That’s the kind of distinction Bishop Sheen is making. We have to be tolerant toward the person who many be weak, confused, mistaken in good faith or may even be deliberately promoting distortions.”

Thursday, November 23, 2017

Liberally biased Facebook sends me a notification with a "fact-checking" website which is itself liberally biased...

We all know that Facebook has a liberal, anti-conservative bias.  See here.
Yesterday I received a notification from Facebook regarding an article I shared on Francis.  The notification read:


I responded on Facebook:


Within an hour or two, I couldn't post on Facebook.  Not a word.  Retaliation?  It wouldn't surprise me.  See here.








Monday, November 20, 2017

Francis neglects to mention Holy Fear...

"Wherefore, my dearly beloved, (as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but much more now in my absence,) with fear and trembling work out your salvation." (Philippians 2:12).



EWTN reports:

"Pope Francis on Sunday cautioned against having a 'mistaken' idea of God as harsh and punishing, saying this fear will end up paralyzing us and preventing us from doing good, rather than spreading his love and mercy.

'Fear always immobilizes and often leads us to make bad choices,' the Pope said Nov. 19. 'Fear discourages us from taking the initiative, and encourages us to seek refuge in safe and guaranteed solutions, and so we end up doing nothing good.'

To go forward and grow on the path of life, he said, 'we must not be afraid, but we have to trust.'

Pope Francis spoke to pilgrims in St. Peter's Square during his Sunday Angelus address on the first-ever World Day for the Poor, which he implemented at the end of the Jubilee of Mercy.

In his speech, the Pope turned to the day's Gospel reading from Matthew, which recounts the parable of the talents. In the passage, a master goes on a long trip and entrusts three servants with different talents, but when he returns, only two have gained profit from it, while the third buried his out of fear.

This parable 'makes us understand how important it is to have a true idea of God,' Francis said, noting that the third servant didn't really trust his master, but but feared him, and this fear prevented him from acting.

We shouldn't think that God is 'an evil, harsh and severe master who wants to punish us,' the Pope said, explaining that if we have this 'mistaken image of God, then our lives cannot be fruitful, because we will live in fear and this will not lead us to anything constructive.'

Fear, he said, paralyzes us and so is self-destructive..."

But not all fear is destructive.  This is simply false.  As Father Cantalamessa explains:

"Jesus says: 'Do not be afraid of those who can kill the body but cannot kill the soul; fear rather him who has the power to make both the soul and the body perish in Gehenna.' We must not be afraid of, nor fear human beings; we must fear God but not be afraid of him.

There is a difference between being afraid and fearing and I would like to take this occasion to try to understand why this is so and in what this difference consists. Being afraid is a manifestation of our fundamental instinct for preservation. It is a reaction to a threat to our life, the response to a real or perceived danger, whether this be the greatest danger of all, death, or particular dangers that threaten our tranquility, our physical safety, or our affective world.

With respect to whether the dangers are real or imagined, we say that someone is 'justifiably' or 'unjustifiably' or 'pathologically' afraid. Like sicknesses, this worry can be acute or chronic. If it is acute, it has to do with states determined by situations of extraordinary danger. If I am about to be hit by a car or I begin to feel the earth quake under my feet, this is being acutely afraid. These 'scares' arise suddenly and without warning and cease when the danger has passed, leaving, if anything, just a bad memory. Being chronically afraid is to be constantly in a state of preoccupation, this state grows up with us from birth or childhood and becomes part of our being, and we end up developing an attachment to it. We call such a state a complex or phobia: claustrophobia, agoraphobia, and so on.

The Gospel helps to free us from all of these worries and reveals their relative, non-absolute, nature. There is something of ours that nothing and no one in the world can truly take away from us or damage: For believers it is the immortal soul; for everyone it is the testimony of their own conscience.

The fear of God is quite different from being afraid. The fear of God must be learned: "Come, my children, listen to me," a Psalm says, "I will teach you the fear of the Lord" (33:12); being afraid, on the other hand, does not need to be learned at school; it overtakes us suddenly in the face of danger; the things themselves bring about our being afraid.

But the meaning itself of fearing God is different from being afraid. It is a component of faith: It is born from knowledge of who God is. It is the same sentiment that we feel before some great spectacle of nature. It is feeling small before something that is immense; it is stupor, marvel mixed with admiration. Beholding the miracle of the paralytic who gets up on his feet and walks, the Gospel says, "Everyone was in awe and praised God; filled with fear they said: ‘Today we have seen wondrous things'" (Luke 5:26). Fear is here simply another name for stupor and praise.

This sort of fear is a companion of and allied to love: It is the fear of offending the beloved that we see in everyone who is truly in love, even in the merely human realm. This fear is often called "the beginning of wisdom" because it leads to making the right choices in life. Indeed it is one of the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit! (cf. Isaiah 11:2).

As always, the Gospel does not only illumine our faith but it also helps us to understand the reality of everyday life. Our time has been called "the age of anxiety" (W.H. Auden). Anxiety, which is closely related to being afraid, has become the sickness of the century and it is, they say, one of the principal causes of the large number of heart attacks. This spread of anxiety seems connected with the fact that, compared with the past, we have many more forms of economic insurance, life insurance, many more means of preventing illness and delaying death.

The cause of this anxiety is the diminishing — if not the complete disappearance — in our society of the holy fear of God. 'No one fears God anymore!' We say this sometimes jokingly but it contains a tragic truth. The more that the fear of God diminishes, the more we become afraid of our fellow men!

It is easy to understand why this is the case. Forgetting God, we place all our confidence in the things of this world, that is, in the things that Christ says 'thieves can steal and moths consume' — uncertain things that can disappear from one moment to the next, that time (and moths!) inexorably consume, things that everyone is after and which therefore cause competition and rivalry (the famous 'mimetic desire' of which René Girard speaks), things that need to be defended with clenched teeth and, sometimes, with a gun in hand.

The decline in fear of God, rather than liberating us from worry, gets us more entangled in worry. Look at what happens in the relationship between children and parents in our society. Fathers no longer fear God and children no longer fear fathers! The fear of God is reflected in and analogous to the reverential fear of children for parents. The Bible continually associates the two things. But does the lack of this reverential fear for their parents make the children and young people of today more free and self-confident? We know well that the exact opposite is true.

The way out of the crisis is to rediscover the necessity and the beauty of the holy fear of God. Jesus explains to us in the Gospel that we will hear on Sunday that the constant companion of the fear of God is confidence in God. 'Are not two sparrows sold for a small coin? Yet not one of them falls to the ground without your Father's knowledge. Even all the hairs of your head are counted. So do not be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows!'

God does not want us to be afraid of him but to have confidence in him. It is the contrary of that emperor who said: 'Oderint dum metuant' — 'Let them hate me so long as they are afraid of me!' Our earthly fathers must imitate God; they must not make us afraid of them but have confidence in them. It is in this way that respect is nourished: admiration, confidence, everything that falls under the name of 'holy fear.'"

Francis offers a false conception of you and a theology of presumption.  See here and here.



Related reading here



Friday, November 17, 2017

Norbert Schackmann: Saint Paul suffered from "verbal diarrhea" and Saint John from "spiritual arrogance"...

This morning on Facebook, an individual by the name of Norbert Schackmann insulted both Saint Paul and Saint John, accusing the former of "verbal diarrhea" and the latter of "spiritual arrogance."

An unhappy soul with a very strange and unscriptural view of these two great Apostles.

Mr. Schackmann asserted that the Apostle John was spiritually arrogant because He referred to himself as, "The disciple whom Jesus loved."  But, as this EWTN article explains:


"Our divine Redeemer had a particular affection for him above the rest of the apostles; insomuch that when St. John speaks of himself, he saith that he was 'The disciple whom Jesus loved*'; and frequently he mentions himself by this only characteristic; which he did not out of pride to distinguish himself, but out of gratitude and tender love for his blessed Master."

Father Vincent Miceli, S.J., in a wonderful essay on zeal, reminds us that, "Christian zeal is an essential qualification in the very notion of a servant of God.  It is the source of holy action in religious services that manifest love of God and of neighbor.  Christian zeal signifies that a person loves God above all things, above all men, above one's dearest, most intimate beloved ones.  And Christian zeal partakes of a priestly quality, for it signifies the consecration of God's servants to the office of rendering sacrifice and adoration to God....Consumed by zeal Himself, is it any wonder that Christ chose His Apostles, those with whom He would share His divine Priesthood forever, from among the zealous?...Extraordinary is the example of St. Paul.  He is perhaps the most zealous of the Apostles...The new Paul, no longer lived his own life but Christ lived in him..."

Mr. Schackmann doesn't see it this way. Referring to the time Saint Paul preached all night long and into the next day, Mr. Schackmann asserts that Saint Paul suffered from verbal diarrhea, thereby implying that the Good News he was bringing, which comes from Christ Jesus Himself, Who personally chose Paul, is mere excrement.

In a General Audience given by Pope Benedict XVI, His Holiness said, "... in this brief list of Paul's journeys it suffices to note how dedicated he was to proclaiming the Gospel, sparing no energy, confronting a series of grave trials, of which he left us a list in the Second Letter to the Corinthians (cf. 11: 21-28). Moreover, it is he who writes: "I do it all for the sake of the Gospel" (1 Cor 9: 23), exercising with unreserved generosity what he called "anxiety for the Churches" (2 Cor 11: 28). We see a commitment that can only be explained by a soul truly fascinated by the light of the Gospel, in love with Christ, a soul sustained by profound conviction; it is necessary to bring Christ's light to the world, to proclaim the Gospel to all of us. This seems to me to be what remains for us from this brief review of St Paul's journeys: to see his passion for the Gospel and thereby grasp the greatness, the beauty, indeed the deep need of the Gospel for all of us. Let us pray the Lord who caused St Paul to see his light, who made him hear his word and profoundly moved his heart, that we may also see his light, so that our hearts too may be moved by his Word and thus that we too may give the light of the Gospel and the truth of Christ to today's world which thirsts for it."

Amen!

*"According to tradition, John is the 'disciple whom Jesus loved', who in the Fourth Gospel laid his head against the Teacher's breast at the Last Supper (cf. Jn 13: 23), stood at the foot of the Cross together with the Mother of Jesus (cf. Jn 19: 25) and lastly, witnessed both the empty tomb and the presence of the Risen One himself (cf. Jn 20: 2; 21: 7)." (Pope Benedict XVI, General Audience).


Wednesday, November 15, 2017

The Athol Daily News publishes an offensive anti-Christian cartoon...

The Athol Daily News, a local newspaper which is published and written by leftist ideologues, today published a political cartoon from Kevin Siers of The Charlotte Observer showing Roy Moore reading the Scripture where Jesus says, “Suffer the little children to come unto me."

The implication of this cartoon is obvious. For this same cartoon shows Moore asserting that, "The media are just trying to destroy those who follow God's Word."

If indeed Roy Moore has accosted underage females (something not yet established), this anti-Christian cartoon is insinuating that he receives his marching orders from Christ Jesus.

When "comedian" George Carlin used this same Scripture in a blasphemous way, the Catholic League addressed that instance of Catholic bashing.  See here.

It is perhaps unrealistic to expect the far-left propagandists at The Athol Daily News to strive for anything even remotely resembling objectivity.  Like most fanatics, nothing will produce the slightest crack in their wall of conviction.

It would be nice if they could at least refrain from insulting Christians and their deeply-held beliefs.

I won't be holding my breath.


Men are being ignored by the Church and Mass attendance is in free-fall as a result...

Catholic author Michael Brown writes:

"Recently, as members of our bishop’s council on culture, we attended a Mass con-celebrated by all the bishops in Florida (eight of them, main celebrant, Archbishop Thomas G. Wenski of Miami); about thirty priests; and more than a dozen deacons who were honoring the anniversary death of a local prelate. It was a very formal Mass, replete with beautiful singing and organ and incense — an hour and a half, and a truly holy experience. The sanctity was palpable.

There is no question that when done the right way, with elan as well as solemnity, the liturgy, even as formulated since Vatican II, can be profound.

But herein — what occurs elsewhere, during Mass — is the problem.

While the United States bishops, gathering for an annual conference, discuss political issues such as immigration, far more urgent matters concerning the Church itself — particularly in the U.S. — press in from all sides.

None is more so than that of the liturgy and church attendance, which is some dioceses is in free-fall.

One example: Pittsburgh — for decades a Catholic stronghold — has seen a forty percent drop in attendance since 2000.

In many parishes, youth are an endangered species — all but gone save for small scattered pockets on Saturday or Sunday, most seduced by weekend sports events or turned off by what they hear as long, dry homilies and uninspiring music, as well as unnecessary prolongations contrary to the flow of Mass. A modern, sterile interior does not help in the feeling of holiness — and without any feeling, without a sense of the Holy Spirit personally touching them, pews empty..."

What Mr. Brown neglects to mention is that the war on masculinity within the Catholic Church is a major factor in the emptying of pews.

As this article explains:

"Though the New Evangelization has been a major effort in the Catholic Church for over forty years, it has failed to stem the disastrous losses of the faithful in the U.S. The New Evangelization is faltering: since 2000, 14 million Catholics have left the faith, parish religious education participation of children has dropped by 24%, Catholic school attendance has dropped by 19%, baptisms of infants has dropped by 28%, baptism of adults has dropped by 31% and sacramental Catholic marriages have dropped by 41%. Something is desperately wrong with the Church’s approach to the New Evangelization.

The New Emangelization Project has documented that a key driver of the collapse of Catholicism in the U. S. is a serious and growing Catholic “man-crisis”. One third of baptized Catholic men have left the faith and the majority of those who remain “Catholic” neither know nor practice the faith and are not committed to pass the faith along to their children. Recent research shows that large numbers of young Catholic men are leaving the faith to become “Nones”, men who have no religious affiliation. The growing losses of young Catholic men will have a devastating impact on the U.S. Catholic Church in the coming decades, as older Catholic men pass away and young men fail to remain and marry in the Church, accelerating the devastating losses that have already occurred.

While there are massive cultural forces outside of the Church (e.g. secularism, pluralism, anti-Christian bias, radical feminism, pornography, media saturation, etc.) and missteps within the Church (e.g. failure to make men a priority, sex abuse scandals, homosexuality in the priesthood, etc.) that have contributed to the Catholic “man-crisis”, the New Emangelization Project has conducted dozens of interviews with top Catholic men’s evangelists that suggest that a core reason for the “man-crisis” is that bishops and priests have not yet made the evangelization and catechesis of men a clear priority. Men are being ignored by the Church."

_________________

Addicted to homosexuality and effeminism, the Cult of Softness has a deep and abiding hatred of real men and anything even remotely resembling masculinity.  I've addressed this truth often at this Blog-  see here for example.

In the New Church, which will accept the Man of Sin, the Cult of Softness will be the New dogma.  Already there is preparation on so very many levels.

The Latin Vulgate (see the Douay-Rheims Bible) indicates that the effeminate will not inherit the Kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:10). But the New American Bible, which is used by the USCCB, omits the word effeminate:


1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (Latin Vulgate):

Verse 9: "Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: Neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers:

an nescitis quia iniqui regnum Dei non possidebunt nolite errare neque fornicarii neque idolis servientes neque adulteri

Verse 10: Nor the effeminate nor liers with mankind nor thieves nor covetous nor drunkards nor railers nor extortioners shall possess the kingdom of God.

neque molles neque masculorum concubitores neque fures neque avari neque ebriosi neque maledici neque rapaces regnum Dei possidebunt."


1Corinthians 6: 9-10 (New American Bible) posted online by the USCCB:

Verse 9: "Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor sodomites

Verse 10: nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God."

Why do you think this is so?  The Latin Vulgate, which we have obtained from the great St. Jerome, is the most precise translation of the Sacred Scriptures available.  There are many other problems with recent translations of the Scriptures.  But my focus here is on this passage.  Why has the word "effeminate" been dropped from 1 Corinthians 6?

Dr. Leon Podles writes, "Walter Ong, having been formed in a masculine, Jesuit, clerical milieu does not seem to be aware of how feminized Christianity had become even before the 1960s, but he saw a rapid shift in the Catholic Church in the 1960s toward even greater feminization...The contrasts of Christianity, grace and sin, life and death, have been toned down with a considerable loss of emotional power.  Without this power, the popular appeal of the liturgy has declined (even with a more accessible language) and church attendance has plummeted...Even the change from Latin to the vernacular was also a symptom of feminization, according to Ong.  Latin had been a means of maintaining a Latin culture in the Roman Catholic clergy.  A language restricted to men is common; it is a sign of masculine separation from the feminine world.  After it became a learned language, Latin was learned almost exclusively by men.  The system of education that used Latin and centered around Latin literature was centered around contest and disputation and was confined almost entirely to men.  The disappearance of Latin was part of the demasculinization of the clergy.." (The Church Impotent: The Feminization of Christianity, pp. 133-135).

So crippled by radical feminism and effeminate clergy, the Church often finds herself incapable of either giving or receiving fraternal correction.  The Cotton-Candy "Church of Nice" (not the Church founded by Christ Jesus to deliver hard truths and thereby save souls), is the Church of "Who am I to judge?", the Church of empty, bland New Age homilies-  Chicken Soup for the Chicken Catholic. Because I had the audacity to stand up to several women at a parish in Baldwinville, Massachusetts who were disrespecting Our Eucharistic Lord by talking loudly and laughing before the tabernacle as people attempted to prepare for Holy Mass, I was told by the priest that I am a "large man" who is scary and that I would be "ostracized."

This is a favorite tactic of liberals to silence authentic men who are not sissified and who actually possess backbone.

The Cult of Softness permeates the entire Church.  It is passive aggressive and desires total control of everything it comes into contact with.

But it cannot fight head on or on solid ground. That is its weakness.  And it is there we must take the fight.

Monday, November 13, 2017

Francis, Mueller and the so-called internal forum solution approach...

The AP is reporting that:

"Pope Francis on Saturday reaffirmed the 'primacy' of using one's conscience to navigate tough moral questions in his first comments since he was publicly accused of spreading heresy by emphasizing conscience over hard and fast Catholic rules.

Francis issued a video message to a conference organized by Italian bishops on his controversial 2016 document on family life, 'The Joy of Love.' The document has badly divided the Catholic Church, with some commentators warning that it risked creating a schism given its opening to divorced and civilly remarried Catholics.

Francis told the conference that priests must inform Catholic consciences 'but not replace them.' And he stressed the distinction between one's conscience — where God reveals himself — and one's ego that thinks it can do as it pleases.


'The contemporary world risks confusing the primacy of conscience, which must always be respected, with the exclusive autonomy of an individual with respect to his or her relations,' Francis said.

Francis reaffirmed the centrality of 'The Joy of Love' as the church's guide to Catholic couples today trying to navigate the ups and downs of complicated family situations.

When it was released in April 2016, 'The Joy of Love' immediately sparked controversy because it cautiously opened the door to letting civilly remarried Catholics receive Communion.

Church teaching holds that unless these Catholics obtain an annulment — a church decree declaring their first marriage invalid — they cannot receive the sacraments since they are seen as committing adultery in the eyes of the church.

Francis didn't give these Catholics an automatic pass, but suggested that bishops and priests could do so on a case-by-case basis, with the couples' 'well-formed' consciences as the guide.

Conservatives accused the pope of sowing confusion and undermining the church's teaching on the indissolubility of marriage. Four prominent cardinals formally asked for a clarification to five "dubia," or doubts, they said had been spawned by the document.

More recently, a group of traditionalist and conservative priests and scholars formally accused Francis of spreading heresy.

Cardinal Gerhard Mueller, whom Francis recently removed as the Vatican's chief doctrinal watchdog, didn't join the four 'dubia' cardinals or the heresy accusers. But he warned in a recent book preface that 'schismatic temptations and dogmatic confusion' had been sown as a result of the debate over the document. He said such confusion was 'dangerous for the unity of the church.'

Mueller sought to offer his own interpretation — that 'The Joy of Love' can only be read as a continuity of the church's traditional teaching on marriage — offering what he said was his own 'contribution to re-establishing peace in the church.'"

Holy Communion for divorced and civilly remarried Catholics on a case-by-case basis with the couples "well-formed consciences" as the guide represents "a continuity of the Church's traditional teaching on marriage"?

How so Your Eminence?  The Church has already addressed the so-called "internal forum solution" proposed by Francis.  Pope Benedict XVI, then Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect for the Doctrine of the Faith, explained that:

"By the way, as far as the 'internal forum solution' is concerned as a means for resolving the question of the validity of a prior marriage, the magisterium has not sanctioned its use for a number of reasons, among which is the inherent contradiction of resolving something in the internal forum which by nature also pertains to and has such important consequences for the external forum. Marriage , not a private act, has deep implications of course for both of the spouses and resulting children and also for Christian and civil society.  Only the external forum can give real assurance to the petitioner, himself not a disinterested party, that he is not guilty of rationalisation.  Likewise, only the external forum can address the rights or claims of the other partner of the former union, and, in the case of the tribunal's issuance of a judgment of nullity, make possible entering into a canonically valid, sacramental marriage." (Ratzinger, "Church, Pope and Gospel").

The problem with letting couples using their consciences as a guide is that there is often a tendency to rationalize sin. Likewise, couples committing adultery will often be tempted to rationalize their situation when considering whether or not to approach Holy Eucharist which is properly the sacrament of those who are in full communion with the Church (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1395).

As Dr. Germain Grisez explains, "The practice of the so-called internal forum approach lies in trying to reduce a problem about the validity of a marriage (or one's right to receive Holy Eucharist, my note) to a private problem of individual conscience, even though marriage is ineluctably social as a human reality and ineluctably ecclesial as a saving mystery.  The practice of so-called internal forum solutions also is pastorally disastrous. Even though someone whose problem has been dealt with in this way may really believe he or she is not living in sin (such as receiving Holy Eucharist unworthily because one is living in adultery, my note), the practice itself cannot reasonably be expected to being about that state of conscience.  For it invites self-deception and rationalization, and peace of conscience attained by such means is not a reliable sign of freedom from the guilt of grave sin (See CMP, 3.C).

As I explained in a previous post:

"For all too many people today (including sadly, many Catholics) the conscience has become a "mighty fortress" built so as to shelter one from the exacting demands of truth. In the words of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, "In the Psalms we meet from time to time the prayer that God should free man from his hidden sins. The Psalmist sees as his greatest danger the fact that he no longer recognizes them as sins and thus falls into them in apparently good conscience. Not being able to have a guilty conscience is a sickness...And thus one cannot aprove the maxim that everyone may always do what his conscience allows him to do: In that case the person without a conscience would be permitted to do anything. In truth it is his fault that his conscience is so broken that he no longer sees what he as a man should see. In other words, included in the concept of conscience is an obligation, namely, the obligation to care for it, to form it and educate it. Conscience has a right to respect and obedience in the measure in which the person himself respects it and gives it the care which its dignity deserves. The right of conscience is the obligation of the formation of conscience. Just as we try to develop our use of language and we try to rule our use of rules, so must we also seek the true measure of conscience so that finally the inner word of conscience can arrive at its validity.


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

Cardinal Mueller apparently has not considered these truths.  Nor has Francis.

What a shame!


Site Meter