Good Question

The Vatican newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, has once again scandalized faithful Catholics by praising the Beatles rock group ("a musical genre which has been described by the Pope has the work of the Devil"). Even the rock band's former drummer has questioned the move...

"Didn't the Vatican say we were satanic?" "And they still forgive us?"

The Beatles' lead singer once boasted they were "more popular than Jesus", their former press officer once claimed "they're so anti-Christ they shock me", and various members of the group have been associated with drugs, the occult, debauchery...

Not exactly holy material for a Catholic newspaper, now is it?

"If then you were raised with Christ, seek what is above, where Christ is seated at the right hand of God. Think of what is above, not of what is on earth. (Col. 3:1-2)

Related: What's Next for L'Osservatore Romano - Praise for Satan himself? (7/09) | Vatican newspaper: Here we go again (10/09) | 'Rigid censors' or faithful Catholics? (12/09) | L'Osservatore Romano: Get Serious (2/10)

[4/13]

Catholic education begins at home

A preschooler in Denver being 'raised' by two lesbians will not be allowed to re-enroll in a Catholic school next year since, as the Archdiocese notes, those "living in open discord with Catholic teaching in areas of faith and morals unfortunately choose by their actions to disqualify their children from enrollment." Unfortunately, some misguided Catholics have criticized and even protested the decision. Some are reportedly considering pulling their own children out of the school and various teachers are supposedly "disgusted" by the decision.

Hopefully knowledgeably Catholics will be prepared to answer the various illogical, misleading, etc. statements of those who unjustly criticize the diocese's actions (e.g. "they won't have anyone if they only accept children with perfect parents", "we're all created equal", "what would Jesus do?", etc.). Some points for Catholics to keep in mind...

* Defending sin is itself sinful, as is an inappropriate silence (click here for ways of being an accessory to another's sin)

* If the school freely allowed two openly homosexual 'parents' to roam the school grounds they would be fostering scandal and confusing the children they are supposed to educate

* There's obviously a big difference between the occasional moral failings of other parents, which are often private, vs. a public, unrepented in-your-face 24/7/365 homosexual 'two mommy' environment that goes against nature itself as well as being contrary to God's moral laws (remember also that S*domy is one of only four sins that "cry out to heaven for vengeance"). To freely allow such a situation unchallenged on Catholic school grounds would undermine the Church's teachings

* The Catholic school has a DUTY to protect the integrity of its teachings - not just by words, but also by appropriate actions

* Despite one-liners to the contrary, Jesus actually DID exclude some people (click here)

* While it is true that Jesus reached out to sinners, he DID expect them to stop sinning upon becoming his followers

* Homosexual acts are grave sins which exclude people from heaven if they are not repented of (for more details, click here for story 'The End of Freedom in America?')

* While Jesus certainly welcomed children, he had harsh words involving a millstone for those who caused little ones who believe in him to sin

* It is unfair to accuse the Church of punishing the child for the sins of its 'parents'. The Church has an obligation to protect the other children from scandal and to safeguard its own teachings - the Church cannot appear to condone sinful behaviors, nor can it be held responsible for creating the unholy situation involving the two adults. The 'caregivers' (both persons can't possibly be the child's parents) of the child are the party unconcerned about providing the child with a solid Catholic education or they wouldn't force a child to live in such an immoral environment in the first place

* What is the point of a Catholic education at school if one's home life is entirely contradictory to the Catholic faith? It is the 'parents' who are preventing the child from getting a solid Catholic education, not the Church. If they don't believe in the teachings of the Church, why do they make a farce of seeking a Catholic education for the child?

* The situation may cause a heavy burden to be placed on the teachers, the child, and other pupils since they would rightly condemn the gravely sinful arrangement of the innocent child's 'parents' and possibly create even more conflicts in the innocent child's home

* If the Church provides a solid moral foundation for the youngsters, it must necessarily put a child cared for by lesbians in continual conflict with its 'parents' who are living in manifest grave sin. As the Archdiocese states, "To allow children in these circumstances to continue in our school would be a cause of confusion for the student in that what they are being taught in school conflicts with what they experience in the home."

* Other students may not wish to befriend this child since good Catholic parents would rightly want their own children to avoid having much association with an immoral 'two mommy family'

* Preventing the child from reenrolling provides a first-hand lesson to all students and parents about the importance of living out the Church's teachings

* The 'parents' broke the rules by their dishonest enrollment of the child. As the Archdiocese indicates, "Our admission policy states clearly, 'No person shall be admitted as a student in any Catholic school unless that person and his/her parent(s) subscribe to the school’s philosophy and agree to abide by the educational policies and regulations of the school and Archdiocese.'"

* It is the 'parents'' actions, not the Church's that are preventing the child from receiving a Catholic education, as the diocese notes: "Parents living in open discord with Catholic teaching in areas of faith and morals unfortunately choose by their actions to disqualify their children from enrollment." If the 'parents' wanted to, they could immediately stop those actions. The Church, on the other hand, has no control over this matter.

It seems that Catholics in Denver should be thankful that a Catholic school is actually acting . . . well, Catholic. The school's "expect[ing] all families who enroll students to live in accord with Catholic teaching" doesn't seem like too much for a Catholic school to ask, now does it? If children's home life is in direct conflict with Catholic teachings, what is the point of a Catholic education at all? The home itself will undermine the education.

"We should tolerate association with sinners only for the purpose of recalling them to repentance, by every means short of committing sin ourselves. But when every form of solicitude has been applied in their regard, we should avoid those who persist in their evil ways." (St. Basil the Great, Doctor of the Church)

[3/8]

Good news: Book signing cancelled

After much criticism, the director of the Catholic Information Center in downtown Washington has cancelled a planned book signing featuring Cokie Roberts. The director, an Opus Dei priest, claimed they were "unaware" that the "notorious dissenter" held views contrary to Church teachings ("We were unaware that some of the positions held by Ms. Cokie Roberts are inimical to the Catholic Faith and the support of our Holy Father that we hold very dear at the Catholic Information Center"). He also claimed to be "grateful" to those who expressed concern over the planned event and offered apologies "to all who may have been troubled by the scheduling of this event and the confusion it may have occasioned."

[2/19]

Fr. Jenkins would do it again

Despite the scandal, public protests, graduates' boycotts, criticism from bishops, and the flagrant disregard for the 2004 USCCB statement ("The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions"), Fr. Jenkins has told an interviewer that he would do it all again. The Notre Dame president - who has refused to seek leniency for pro-lifers who were arrested while peacefully protesting on his campus - said that if he had it to do all over again, he would again invite pro-abortion President Obama to speak at commencement and would again award him an honorary law degree. Regarding the pro-homosexual, pro-abortion President, Fr. Jenkins says "It was an honor for us to welcome him to campus." Too bad he wasn't so "honored" by the presence of the pro-lifers (including an elderly priest) who were carted off to jail and still face fines and jail time for peacefully protesting the scandal on Our Lady's campus.

Note: For more regarding the ND-Obama scandal, click here and see the news archives for 2009

[12/28]

Catholic - Jewish Relations

Some Jews claim that the Pope's planned visit to a Roman synagogue next month has been put "under a cloud" by the Supreme Pontiff's recent decision to declare Pope Pius XII venerable. At least one account speaks of "fears of the visit being cancelled." One commentator (laughably) suggests that the Church should "take [Jews'] sensitivities into serious consideration" when declaring saints. Others speak of "insensitivity", "Jewish anger", being "furious", and there has been at least one call for the Church to "renounce" the beatification plan. While some Jews think the late Pope was too "silent" during the Jewish holocaust, researchers have demonstrated that Pope Pius XII "did more than anyone else" to save Jews during this time.

Here in America, Archbishop Dolan has made waves in the opposite direction by lighting a candle on a menorah at a Jewish temple marking the beginning of Hanukkah. Or, in other words, a high-ranking Catholic prelate - in full clerical garb - spent part of Advent participating in a Jewish religious practice with persons who specifically reject (if not openly calumniate) Christ during a time where Catholics are to be preparing for the celebration of Christ's birth, thereby scandalizing & confusing many of the faithful.

"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (Our Lord Jesus Christ, Jn. 14:6)

"Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him." (Jn. 5:23)

"There is no salvation through anyone else, nor is there any other name under heaven given to the human race by which we are to be saved." (Acts 4:12)

"Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters." (Our Lord Jesus Christ, Mt. 12:30)

Related: Catholic Apologetics for Jews

Also See: Necessity of Belief in Jesus ("Who Jesus Is & Why You Should Believe")

[12/21]

Even More News Highlights...

* Fortunately, an offer to allow Anglicans the use of a Catholic church in Australia for their pretend 'ordinations' was withdrawn after an "unnamed Vatican department" complained. [Reminder: The Church has ruled that Anglican 'orders' are "absolutely null and utterly void"] Regrettably, some misguided local Catholics have "criticized the decision and apologized to the Anglicans" who had wanted to confer pretend 'orders' on (heretical) Anglican women (& men) inside a Catholic church [Note: Click here for 'Top Reasons Why Women Can't Be Priests' | Click here for information on the necessity of being Catholic for salvation]

* Good news: A Catholic college in Iowa has received $500 cash along with an anonymous handwritten apology letter regarding a radio stolen from the teacher's lounge back in 1955. The repentant thief said he/she "regretted this foolish act ever since and have resolved many times in these past years to make restitution" and asked for forgiveness and prayers.

Refresher: "[If] the penitent has taken anything from his neighbor, he is bound to restitution. Likewise if, by word or deed he has injured his neighbor's honor or reputation, he is under an obligation of repairing the injury by procuring him some advantage or rendering him some service. Well known to all is the maxim of St. Augustine: The sin is not forgiven unless what has been taken away is restored." (Catechism of the Council of Trent)

* Here we go again: Woman sees "image of Jesus" in brownish residue on the bottom of her iron. The woman, who is separated from her husband, feels the image in the residue is a reassurance that her "life is going to be good." She hopes the supposed residue-image will "inspire others during the holidays"

* Dissent female religious at it again: One of the rebellious U.S. women religious - who, as a whole, are "almost unanimously" refusing to cooperate in the Vatican's investigation - has claimed that it has been a "challenge" to "respond to the Vatican in a way that breaks a cycle of violence." The dissident sisters find language in the Vatican questionnaire to be "violent" (oh please!), while finding their "resistant" responses to be "creative and affirming"

* Ecumenism at it again: The President of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue has visited the Istiqlal mosque, which was designed by a Protestant architect and is "the largest in Southeast Asia." [Now hold your cookies...] The cardinal "walked barefoot" in the mosque and claimed "It seems there is no gap between Muslims and Catholics."

* Irish citizens are "stunned, furious, and sad" over the contents of a recently released abuse report concerning the Archdiocese of Dublin. The report concluded that there was "no doubt" of a "decades-long cover-up of abusive clergy coupled with the mistreatment of survivors." It was acknowledged that "no words of apology will ever be sufficient."

Also, since the release of the report, at least one commentator has complained that a "spin" is being put on the scandal, namely that "there is an effort to implicate the 'pre-Conciliar' Catholic Church in the wrongdoings." As proof, it is noted that one of the Archbishops who was a "Vatican II skeptic" is being "unjustly dragged into the scandal." The Archbishop in question had resigned years before the period covered by the report. The commentator notes that the image of abusers that is being propagated is one of traditional clergy whereas he claims "the nightmare...of relentless mortal sin recorded in this report was committed by modern priests" who "[devastated] their church sanctuaries as badly as they devastated children's lives, abolishing all the devotions such as Benediction, the Rosary, regular confession, devotion to saints, etc. that had sustained Irish faith for centuries." In short, he claims that this "filthy abomination was a scandal of the post-Vatican II, open-windows, relevant, touchy-feely" 'post-Conciliar Church'. [Note: Some typographical errors appearing in the original quotations have been corrected herein]

* Could it be, an end to ecumenical talks? A "third phase of official dialogue" with Anglicans will reportedly take place next year and will cover "divisive issues." One report claims that this third phase of ecumenical dialogue is "likely final"

* The president of the Pontifical Council for Culture has expressed "alarm" over an "immoral trend" of former churches being used as bars & nightclubs. He called on dioceses to use "great caution" in insuring that former church buildings are not used for immoral purposes

[11/27]

Dominican response regarding nun who served as an abortion clinic escort

The Dominican Sisters of Sinsinawa in Wisconsin have finally published a statement concerning the scandal caused by one of their members - a nun who for years has served as a volunteer abortion clinic escort. They "regret that her actions have created controversy and resulted in public scandal" and are "working with Sr. Donna to resolve the matter appropriately." Three prelates are also reportedly discussing "remedial action" against her, possibly including excommunication & dismissal from her order. The statement says:

"We as Sinsinawa Dominican women are called to proclaim the Gospel through the ministry of preaching and teaching to participate in the building of a holy and just society. As Dominican religious, we fully support the teaching of the Catholic Church regarding the dignity and value of every human life from conception to natural death. We believe that abortion is an act of violence that destroys the life of the unborn. We do not engage in activity that witnesses to support of abortion."

Apparently, the nun has been escorting women at the abortion clinic for yeas. She is also a member of a dissenting group and has reportedly commented that she remains in her religious community "only for 'the sisterhood'". She is supported by other dissident women religious, one of whom said, "We're standing with her very much. We consider her one of our prophets."

Anyone still wonder why the Apostolic Visitation is necessary?

[11/4]

Cardinal O'Malley addresses criticism

On his blog, Cardinal Sean P. O'Malley has tried to defend himself against his critics over the Kennedy funeral (see previous news brief). Some highlights and commentary appear below... [Note: Emphasis may be added, punctuation & typos may have been changed]

The Cardinal said...

"Needless to say, the Senator’s wake and Catholic funeral were controversial because of the fact that he did not publicly support Catholic teaching and advocacy on behalf of the unborn. ­­ Given the profound effect of Catholic social teaching on so many of the programs and policies espoused by Senator Kennedy and the millions who benefited from them, there is a tragic sense of lost opportunity in his lack of support for the unborn. To me and many Catholics it was a great disappointment because, had he placed the issue of life at the centerpiece of the Social Gospel where it belongs, he could have multiplied the immensely valuable work he accomplished."

Items missing from the above:

* Explanation of what the Cardinal means by "publicly" - being the tireless advocate for abortion that he was, Kennedy apparently didn't privately support Catholic teaching either - not that his public behavior would have been acceptable even had he held correct views "privately"

* Talk of sin - there is only talk of "a tragic sense of lost opportunity in his lack of support for the unborn" - no talk of the fact that this is gravely sinful. In fact, let's speak plainly: The Senator was an advocate for murder. This is especially serious in Kennedy's case since Scripture says concerning those who "sin deliberately after receiving knowledge of the truth": "If we sin deliberately after receiving knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains sacrifice for sins but a fearful prospect of judgment and a flaming fire that is going to consume the adversaries. Anyone who rejects the law of Moses is put to death without pity on the testimony of two or three witnesses. Do you not think that a much worse punishment is due the one who has contempt for the Son of God, considers unclean the covenant-blood by which he was consecrated, and insults the spirit of grace?" (St. Paul, Heb. 10:27-29) One may find it difficult to even conceive of St. Paul speaking of a "tragic sense of lost opportunity" in connection with a public figure who advocated for abortion for decades while calling himself Catholic and receiving Holy Communion.

* Talk about the harm he did or the evil he promoted - there is only talk about multiplying "the immensely valuable work he accomplished". A person doesn't get a pass on one of the commandments even if that person happened to fulfill all the other nine "really well". As Scripture says, "For whoever keeps the whole law, but falls short in one particular, has become guilty in respect to all of it. For he who said, 'You shall not commit adultery,' also said, 'You shall not kill.' Even if you do not commit adultery but kill, you have become a transgressor of the law." (St. James, Jms. 2:10-11)

The Cardinal also said...

"The thousands of people who lined the roads as the late Senator’s motorcade traveled from Cape Cod to Boston and the throngs that crowded the Kennedy Library for two days during the lying in repose, I believe, were there to pay tribute to these many accomplishments rather than as an endorsement of the Senator’s voting record on abortion."

Commentary:

Who cares how many people came? Let's also not forget that some may have been motivated by self-interest (e.g. being a part of "history", meeting "famous" people, etc.). Wouldn't it be realistic to expect that many of today's deluded people would even attend a public funeral for Hitler? Of course, each would have different reasons. The number of persons who might attend has no bearing on whether it is appropriate for the Church to give a public funeral to a public sinner - especially a funeral which gushed so much praise on the deceased. Obviously, a public funeral which heaps praise on a public sinner who has not publicly repented is a scandal, regardless of how many might attend the service.

The Cardinal also said...

"There are those who objected, in some cases vociferously, to the Church’s providing a Catholic funeral for the Senator. In the strongest terms I disagree with that position. At the Senator’s interment on Saturday evening, with his family’s permission, we learned of details of his recent personal correspondence with Pope Benedict XVI. It was very moving to hear the Senator acknowledging his failing to always be a faithful Catholic, and his request for prayers as he faced the end of his life. The Holy Father’s expression of gratitude for the Senator’s pledge of prayer for the Church, his commendation of the Senator and his family to the intercession of the Blessed Mother, and his imparting the Apostolic Blessing, spoke of His Holiness’ role as the Vicar of Christ, the Good Shepherd who leaves none of the flock behind."

Commentary:

This seems to be a distortion on a number of levels. First, most of the critics probably would not begrudge the deceased a private funeral, especially given the reports of an attempt to "make amends." What critics disagree with is the public aspect of the funeral - the scandal of it all. The funeral - with eulogies by a Protestant pro-abortion president & politicized prayer intentions - was celebrated with the help of many priests and two cardinals (how many Catholics who actually follow Church teachings have more than one priest, much less a Cardinal, at their funeral?). Officials of the Catholic Church have publicly lavished praise on a public sinner.

What critics have talked about - what they have "vociferously" objected to - is the perceived offense against God & bad messages these actions have sent to Catholics (and others) worldwide. For example, consider: Is the Church really serious about sin?, Considering the treatment of Kennedy, could abortion really be such a big deal?, Are there no consequences for mortal sins?, Are we no longer to tremble at the thought of the Just Judge?, How can a politician with an abortion advocacy record like Kennedy's even be considered Catholic?, Does the Church consider the laws of God subordinate to political "niceties"?, Should we consider it appropriate for prelates - much less a pro-abort Protestant - to publicly praise an abortion advocate even from the sanctuary of our basilicas?, Do we really feel this treatment accorded to a public sinner pleased God?, Etc.

Furthermore, while the Senator's letter did acknowledge some failings, it also claimed that "I have never failed to believe and respect the fundamental teachings of my faith." He had the audacity to include this in his letter to the Pope even despite his decades-long staunch pro-abortion advocacy (even for late term abortions!) and support for 'gay rights' & contraception. How could the Cardinal be so "moved by" this acknowledgement of failings considering that it was coupled with the patently unbelievable comment of the Senator that he "never failed" to "believe and respect the fundamental teachings of [his] faith"?

Regarding the Pope's letter, the Cardinal's remarks may be contrasted with Raymond Arroyo's previous comment that "Actually it was a note, very likely from the Secretariat of State. This is the sort of thing any member of laity receives when they send a prayer request or a Christmas card to the Pope. Cardinal McCarrick made is seem as if it had the weight of a new encyclical."

Cardinal O'Malley also said...

"As Archbishop of Boston, I considered it appropriate to represent the Church at this liturgy out of respect for the Senator, his family, those who attended the Mass and all those who were praying for the Senator and his family at this difficult time. We are people of faith and we believe in a loving and forgiving God from whom we seek mercy."

Commentary:

While it is very true that we believe in a loving and forgiving God from whom we seek mercy, it is equally true that He is a Just Judge that demands true repentance for sins and the amending of one's ways. If we omit the element of justice, we may place ourselves in danger of the sin of presumption. The big omission here in light of the public funeral is the deceased's public repentance. Hopefully he did truly repent - complete with the intention of amending his ways - so that he could receive mercy, but this is not for us to know since it was not made public. It is, however, especially worrying that he wrote to the Pope that he had "never failed to believe and respect the fundamental teachings of [his] faith." If he was so deluded in this matter, was he even aware that he was in need of repentance for violating these teachings that the thinks he "never failed" to "respect"? It seems he would have been better served if the Church had corrected him on this matter - and others - while he was alive. As Holy Scripture says "Reprimand publicly those who do sin, so that the rest also will be afraid." (1 Tm. 5:20) Scripture clearly doesn't say to simply presume God's mercy.

The Cardinal states...

"Advocating for the dignity of life is central to my role as a priest and a bishop."

Commentary:

Then it's a shame that he lost the chance to (1) turn the abortion-advocating Senator around while the he was alive (e.g. possibly by refusing him Holy Communion), and (2) send an unmistakable message to the world that advocating for abortion is a serious crime that - if not repented for - will result in one's being denied a public Catholic funeral. Instead, the Cardinal sent the message that one can be a rabid pro-abortion proponent and still be praised publicly from the sanctuary of the Catholic Church. The actions of the Cardinal speak much louder than his words.

The Cardinal states that...

"...the pro-life movement is best characterized by what it is for, not against. We are for the precious gift of life, and our task is to build a civilization of love. We must show those who do not share our belief about life that we care about them. We will stop the practice of abortion by changing the law, and we will be successful in changing the law if we change people’s hearts. We will not change hearts by turning away from people in their time of need and when they are experiencing grief and loss."

Commentary:

Maybe that's part of the problem with the pro-life movement today - few seem to speak of what we are against (e.g. mortal sin, offending God). Jesus certainly didn't shy away from these topics, nor did popes or saints of the past - yet this didn't hamper their efforts to build a "civilization of love." In fact, such warnings have turned many lives around. It is obviously necessary to show kindness and compassion, but glossing over harsh truths (e.g. mortal sin, judgment, hell) is a disservice to all. The great Catholic preachers of the past knew the power and importance of speaking of judgment & hell. It is sometimes essential to show one's care for others by "tough love" - going "against" what is wrong not simply advocating what is right. Jesus & the apostles certainly did this. Regarding not wanting to "turn away from people in their time of need and when they are experiencing grief and loss", one cannot argue with that - except to say that a private funeral would have sufficed. Obviously, the most appropriate time to have handled the matter of the Senator's sins was while the Senator was still alive. But they didn't want to do this then either. Instead, they allowed the Senator to receive Holy Communion even wile sinning publicly. They apparently allowed him to continue in grave sin and scandal without correction. That is truly something to grieve about. It is also grievous that they lost the opportunity to bring mourners to repentance for their own sins by denying a public funeral for a public sinner. They were given no sense of the gravity of the Senator's decades-long public sins. Rather, he almost seemed to be 'canonized'. We certainly won't change hearts by acting as if they don't need to be changed!

The Cardinal stated,

"At times, even in the Church, zeal can lead people to issue harsh judgments and impute the worst motives to one another. These attitudes and practices do irreparable damage to the communion of the Church. If any cause is motivated by judgment, anger or vindictiveness, it will be doomed to marginalization and failure. Jesus’ words to us were that we must love one another as He loves us. Jesus loves us while we are still in sin. He loves each of us first, and He loves us to the end. Our ability to change people’s hearts and help them to grasp the dignity of each and every life, from the first moment of conception to the last moment of natural death, is directly related to our ability to increase love and unity in the Church, for our proclamation of the Truth is hindered when we are divided and fighting with each other."

Commentary:

It's hard to know where to start here. Clearly the above contains some truths, but it seems a stretch to believe that those who criticized the Cardinal's actions were "imputing the worst motives." Rather, it seems critics have been genuinely concerned about the result - the scandal, the bad effect on others - rather than the motives of those involved. Regarding "harsh judgments", would it be accurate to say that the Cardinal may think that anyone who didn’t agree him was issuing a "harsh judgment"? St. Paul - along with many other saints - certainly uttered some "harsh judgments" and it seems doubtful that the Cardinal would say that their "attitudes and practices [have done] irreparable damage to the communion of the Church." Of course it is true that we must love one another, but this doesn't mean that we are to go along with anything anyone chooses to do. Rather, Scripture tells us to "hate what is evil" (St. Paul, Rom. 12:9) and "admonish one another" (St. Paul, Col. 3:16). Jesus himself says, "If your brother sins, rebuke him" (Lk. 17:3). The Cardinal is definitely right about one thing - "proclamation of the Truth is hindered when we are divided and fighting with each other." Might we suggest that the Cardinal stop causing division by fighting against those who rightly oppose the scandal?

If giving a public funeral brimming with praise to a public sinner (who never publicly repented) - one who may be complicit in the deaths of far more (unbaptized!) persons than Hitler ever was - a person who all the while claimed to be "Catholic" and received the Holy Eucharist - is not scandalous, what ever could be?

[9/3]

More well-known Catholics criticize prelates in wake of Kennedy funeral

Recent days have seen more well-known Catholics adding their names to the growing list of persons speaking out in the wake of the public Kennedy funeral, particularly against the prelates who lent their support to the scandal that left Americans "totally confused about what it means to be Catholic." A couple of relevant quotations appear below.

* ALL President Judie Brown stated that: "The entire travesty, from the television cameras to spectacle itself, goes beyond anything I have witnessed in my more than 65 years of life. In fact, while we all thought the appearance of President Barack Obama at the University of Notre Dame was a scandal, the very idea that he offered a eulogy in a basilica, while the Real Presence of Christ was in the tabernacle, is perhaps the most dastardly thing I have ever seen. America witnessed this nation's most avid supporter of abortion on demand, standing in a Catholic basilica, during the Mass, speaking of a fellow pro-abort in glowing terms! That alone is such an insult to Christ that words simply cannot express my sorrow. Yet a greater source of sadness is that the Cardinal Sean O'Malley, of the Archdiocese of Boston, looked on as though insulting Christ Himself were an everyday occurrence."

* EWTN News Director Raymond Arroyo, after noting the "marvelous bit of political theatre (as so much of Senator Kennedy’s funeral was)" and the Cardinal's "rather unfortunate history involving the delivery of letters, particularly those from a certain Vatican official by the name of Ratzinger" said: "The prayer intercessions at the funeral mass, the endless eulogies, the image of the Cardinal Archbishop of Boston reading prayers, and finally Cardinal McCarrick interring the remains sent an uncontested message: One may defy Church teaching, publicly lead others astray, deprive innocent lives of their rights, and still be seen a good Catholic, even an exemplary one. The casual viewer is tempted to think that Catholicism has become a Church of externals where core doctrines and major teachings are as malleable as they are in the nearest Protestant community... As a final desperate attempt to stamp the imprimatur of the Pope upon the funereal proceedings, Cardinal McCarrick read what he called the 'Pope’s response' to Senator Kennedy. Actually it was a note, very likely from the Secretariat of State. This is the sort of thing any member of laity receives when they send a prayer request or a Christmas card to the Pope. Cardinal McCarrick made is seem as if it had the weight of a new encyclical."

Of course these represent just a few of the many critical responses from Catholics who are scandalized by what they saw last weekend. Unfortunately, though, since so many prelates seem to have forgotten what the word scandal even means, it seems it might take a miracle for them to have a change of heart on such matters. But, as we know, miracles do happen - so keep praying! And, if you haven't yet voiced your concerns to those involved, why not do so now?

[9/2]

It is frightening

Speculation is that the 'famous' FL priest who betrayed his vows and left the Church to join a heretical sect soon will 'marry' the 'divorced' woman. The reprehensible behavior displayed is obviously lamentable & scandalous, but it also presents an opportunity to pause for some serious thought.

For example:

* He will now be preaching in a false 'church' that espouses heresy - Will he change his doctrine? Was his doctrine Catholic in the first place? If so, how can this sect accept him unless he changes his theology? Does he not care that his sect is set up in opposition to Christ? "Do they actually think that Christ is with them in their gatherings, when they gather outside the Church of Christ?" (St. Cyprian of Carthage)

* Will he be effecting a valid (although illicit) consecration in their 'temples of heresy'? Although his sect does not have the powers of the priesthood (click here for decree on Anglican orders), his personal priestly powers still remain. Therefore, he can confect a valid Eucharist if he uses the proper form & matter and has the proper intention.

* Does this former teacher of Catholic souls somehow fail to realize that he cannot be validly married to this woman if her husband is still alive and she was validly married to him? (click here) Unless his formation was incredibly deficient, he would have to know this. Yet he intends to go through with this mock "marriage" anyhow? What does this say about his supposed 'faith'? How could a man with such apparently shallow faith have been made a priest?

* Given his sudden betrayal of the Catholic Church for a heretical sect, one may wonder if this former leader of Catholics ever adhered to the infallible Catholic doctrine regarding No Salvation Outside the Church (click here). And, if he failed to hold this doctrine, was he not already under the Church's anathema? [For example: Pope Pelagius II, c. 585 A.D.: "If anyone, however, either suggests or believes or presumes to teach contrary to this faith, let him know that he is condemned and also anathematized according to the opinion of the same Fathers... Consider (therefore) the fact that whoever has not been in the peace and unity of the Church, cannot have the Lord (Gal. 3:7)" And, Lateran Council, 649 A.D.: "If any one does not profess, in accordance with the holy Fathers, properly and truthfully all that has been handed down and taught publicly to the holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church of God, both by the same holy Fathers and the five approved universal councils, to the last detail in word and intention: let him be condemned."]

* How could a man who has been ordained a Catholic priest simply stop caring about the Church or the souls he was placed over? How could he so easily betray them? Worse yet, how could he so easily abandon Christ for whom he solemnly promised to serve? Shouldn't someone have noticed his shortcomings? Remember, if he hadn't been caught, he'd probably still be a priest cavorting with this woman. Sadly, before he was exposed, this priest laid his adulterous hands on the Holy Eucharist time and again.

* How can it be thought that he actually "loves" the woman with whom he is about to enter a mock sacrament to commit adultery? We know the punishment for those unrepentant of the mortal sin of adultery is eternal hellfire. How is that love? Also, does he not care about this woman's offspring? How could he be said to care about them if he is willing to betray God, espouse heresy, cause their mother to live in adultery...?

Also worthy of serious thought is the fact that this former Catholic shepherd appears entirely devoid of fear of the Lord. His list of public sins is mounting rapidly: breaking of vows, adultery, heresy...

As Scripture tells us:

"[Jesus said,] I shall show you whom to fear. Be afraid of the one who after killing has the power to cast into Gehenna; yes, I tell you, be afraid of that one." (Lk. 12-5)

"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom; prudent are all who live by it." (Ps. 111:10)

"Give honor to all, love the community, fear God, honor the king." (St. Peter, 1 Pt. 2:17)

"So then, my beloved, obedient as you have always been, not only when I am present but all the more now when I am absent, work out your salvation with fear and trembling." (St. Paul, Phil. 2:12)

Does this former Catholic shepherd not fear hell? Did he therefore also fail to inspire his former parishioners with a fear of hell? And this was a "good priest" a "model priest"? One worthy to be on television and radio?

As St. Augustine says, "If, then, the Lord inspired fear, and inspired it strongly, and doubled it by repeating the threat, I ask you, is it wrong of you to fear? I would not say that. Fear openly, there is nothing better for you than fear; there is nothing you ought to fear more."

Should not Catholics be extremely troubled that a Catholic priest has apparently no fear of the Lord?

In fact, this former Catholic shepherd's recent behavior gives reason to question his entire body of past teaching. Was it truly orthodox? Is this simply a case of his not practicing what he preached? If so, how could he have taught Catholic doctrine correctly yet suddenly go against this doctrine? Did he really hold Catholic doctrine to begin with? Did his Catholic faith really mean so little to him or does he see little difference between it and the heretical sect he has joined? Ether way, the answer is frightening. Remember he was a CATHOLIC PRIEST placed over CATHOLIC SOULS. And a "famous" Catholic priest at that.

Now that he seems to have no qualms about joining a false 'church' and "marrying" a divorced woman in a 'temple of heresy', we see he is clearly lacking in the sensus Catholicus. Therefore, how could he have been ordained in the first place? How could he have been made "famous" on Catholic radio and television? How did the deceived masses - or his superiors - not notice his lack of faith or sanctity? God help us.

Final note: Is it not ironic that he has chosen to abandon the Church for a sect traced to Henry VIII, another former Catholic whose libido led to his destruction?

[Note: Previous story here] [6/13]

Former bishop's excuses countered by "strongly worded" statement of priests

Former bishop and now Paraguayan President Fernando Lugo has brought scandal to the Church with the allegations that he fathered three children with three different women. Although he asked forgiveness, he refused to resign. He also said that "I am human, and therefore nothing human is alien to me" and further insisted that he told the truth. Rather than referring to his repeated acts of fornication as mortal sins (or even sins for that matter), he recognized "personal errors" and said that "the more important thing was "valuing, perhaps belatedly, but strongly, the blessing of human life."

Well, perhaps that is one way to look at it (especially if you're the guilty party who wants to keep your job rather than the poor illegitimate children who have been deprived of a proper family). But wouldn't it be better for souls if we instead considered what Scripture has to say on the topic? For example, consider the following passages...

1 Cor. 6:9-10: "Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God."

Rv. 21:8: "But as for cowards, the unfaithful, the depraved, murderers, the unchaste, sorcerers, idol-worshipers, and deceivers of every sort, their lot is in the burning pool of fire and sulfur, which is the second death."

When it comes to the serious sin of fornication (not to mention breaking your vows, abusing your position, depriving children of a proper home, etc.), shouldn't one be reminded of "unpleasantries" such as mortal sin & eternal hellfire? Rather than tolerating your excuses, shouldn't the fear of God be put in you? Can you even imagine a sinner coming up to Christ calling their sins "personal errors" and giving the excuse that "I am human, and therefore nothing human is alien to me"? Rather, wouldn't they be more likely to fall to their knees and beg forgiveness?

Fortunately in this case, some priests have spoken out forcefully regarding this grave situation, saying "If we fall into sin, not only do we repent and ask for forgiveness, we also assume the consequences without looking for cheap excuses or childish justifications". They also addressed responsibility, temptations, fighting for values, the value of celibacy, and the former bishop's harm to the family. Please, more plain speaking like this and fewer excuses! [story here] [4/28]

Putting her faith first

Rather than putting her own interests first, Mary Ann Glendon, a former ambassador to the Vatican, has declined a prestigious honor from Notre Dame due to their honoring of Obama at their upcoming commencement. In her letter to ND's president she states, "as a longtime consultant to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, I could not help but be dismayed by the news that Notre Dame also planned to award the president an honorary degree. This, as you must know, was in disregard of the U.S. bishops’ express request of 2004 that Catholic institutions 'should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles' and that such persons 'should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.' That request, which in no way seeks to control or interfere with an institution’s freedom to invite and engage in serious debate with whomever it wishes, seems to me so reasonable that I am at a loss to understand why a Catholic university should disrespect it." Her letter was released to the public in order "to avoid the inevitable speculation about the reasons for my decision". Way to go, Mary! [4/27]

Great grades, but what about Catholic teachings?

Notre Dame's 2009 valedictorian has gone on record saying that the "opportunity" to have Obama speak at ND is "unbelievable and incredible". Unfortunately, she means this in a positive sense. She called Obama a "great leader" and praises that he "continues to live by those values... He sticks with his values and his ideals". How is it that this obviously intelligent student doesn't see that it would be better in his case - e.g. the case of the most pro-abortion president in history - if he gave up some of his "values and ideals"? Even if one conceded any positive "values & ideals" to the U.S. President, how can they be "of much value" if the man doesn't respect even the most basic right to live? Maybe ND needs to add another class to its roster concerning the importance of holding all Catholic teachings without exception. "For whoever keeps the whole law, but falls short in one particular, has become guilty in respect to all of it." (Jms. 2:10) And, further, how can such a smart student not see that for a Catholic University to give Obama an honorary law degree when he seeks to break the most basic of all laws - the right to life - is scandalous & most definitely not worthy of praise? [story here] [4/20]

What about chain of command?

After condemning Notre Dame's Obama invite and then warning about protests against it, Bishop D'Arcy now says he may join in a protest. While this is good news, why can't he simply stop the entire event? As "king" of his diocese, shouldn't he be able to say the word & put an end to it? Is he implying that a school enjoys higher authority than a bishop - even though a bishop "reigns supreme" in the diocese (under the Pope, of course)? [4/17]

With 'converts' like Blair...

It seems obvious that something was missing in the faith formation of Tony Blair, who recently 'converted' to the Catholic Church. Did someone forget to tell him that doctrines aren't based on polls or "evolving attitudes" but rather on eternal truths received from God? Did someone forget to mention to him that God is unchanging? Did he enter the Catholic Church thinking the Church could be molded like clay into whatever fashion he pleases? Did no one mention to him what 'scandal' is? Did no one cover sin? Did they miss passages in Scripture such as 1 Cor. 6:9-10? Blair needs to be publicly rebuked (cf. 1 Tm. 5:20) for his scandalous statements and forced to undergo proper faith formation. If he refuses to change his position, does he not become a heretic? As such, maybe he could be taught first-hand what the term "excommunication" means? Pray that those who will be entering the Church this week are properly formed & faithful, and that they will not follow this example. [4/8]