Saturday, April 27, 2013

"Once again, an aggressive homosexual movement is sweeping the world".


WE often hear from some self-styled theologians that the sin in the Sodom and Gommorah story was inhospitality. How are faithful Catholics to understand this story in light of the direction American culture is taking today? Fr. Regis Scanlon sheds some light on this in his recent Crisis article.

While We're at it..."


A recent editorial in our most famous Catholic University's paper stated:

"Notre Dame’s failure to educate its students about the Church’s sexual teachings is a failure that most affects its women.  Most Notre Dame women remain unaware of the mandate’s relevance to their lives even though it pertains to them especially.  Educating Notre Dame women about the Church’s important teachings on sexuality should have been one of the administration’s natural reactions to the mandate." I could not agree more. I also thought this pertinent:


"Ovaries aren't Catholic...."
Suzy Younger, Guest Contributor
I wish someone had told me.  I wish someone had given me the truth, about my body, about my health, about my fertility, about my options.  I wish someone had been there for me.  But they weren’t.   If they had, perhaps my story would have been different.
Like many women I know, the physician I saw for my health issues had only one solution for my situation: go on the Pill.  So I did.  After all, didn’t he know best?  He had seemed so confident that this would solve my problems.  Without even examining me, he had written me a prescription for the Pill—a triple dose in fact.  So I tried it.  But instead of relief, my problems remained and now I experienced a myriad of side-effects as well.  Eventually I took myself off of the Pill and began a quest for something better,  for authentic and complete healing.  A quest for hope.
I battled heavy periods, abnormal bleeding, incapacitating bouts of hormonally-induced depression and anxiety attacks, irritability that strained even my closest relationships, shed more tears than I can count and ultimately endured years of infertility before I would come to learn what I know now: the truth. The truth that saved my hopes of one day becoming pregnant.  The truth that healed my body and mind. The truth that restored my spirit.  The truth that indeed saved my life.
Finding the Creighton Model FertilityCare System and NaProTechnology was the answer I was looking for.  A scientific system that allows a woman to observe her body’s biomarkers and therefore monitor her own gynecologic and reproductive health.    A system that telegraphs abnormalities in her cycle and guides her physician in identifying, diagnosing and treating the underlying medical conditions she faces.  A system that offers effective alternatives to the Pill.  A system that works to restore and protect her fertility, not suppress it as is the case with hormonal contraceptives.  A system that empowers a woman with knowledge of her body and herself.  A highly-effective system that can be used by couples to achieve or avoid pregnancy.  A system that is morally acceptable to people of all faiths.  My mind was blown. Why had I never learned this before?  Why was no one talking about this?
This powerful women’s health science has healed me and changed my life—so much so that I left a career in higher education and went back to school to become a FertilityCare Practitioner.  Now, in my work at Saint Joseph FertilityCare Center, I am able to share with others the information that I so wish I had known years ago.
So here we go.  The 10 things I know now and wish I had known in college:
1) Ovaries aren’t Catholic
Know what? Ovaries are not Catholic.  Ovaries are non-sectarian.  They don’t care if they are in the body of a Catholic or an atheist.  They function according to science.  What I share here is not just for Catholics.  It’s science and it’s for everyone, regardless of faith or lack of it.
2) Women are empowered when they chart their cycles
It’s embarrassing how little most of us women know about our bodies and how they work.  Charting your cycles changes this.  For me it was as if a veil was lifted.  For the first time I really understood myself.  In charting you come to understand the inner workings of your body.  You understand why you can’t stop crying one day and yet feel ready to take on the world the next.  You understood how various choices you make positively or negatively affect your health.  You understand precisely how and when you could become pregnant.  With knowledge comes empowerment.
3) The Pill is not the only way.  There are effective alternatives.
We are bombarded by the message that the Pill is essential to a woman’s health—that it is the only way to address her gynecological issues.  That’s simply not true.  I have lost track of the number of my patients that I have seen healed through NaProTechnology’s alternatives to the Pill.  Many of them are walking this campus—your fellow Notre Dame students, faculty and staff.
4)  Women deserve something more than a Band-Aid.
Hormonal contraception for medical purposes is little more than a Band-Aid.  It suppresses a woman’s fertility cycles and manipulates them to appear regular.  In doing so, however, it masks the real issues and fails to correct them.  When the “Band-Aid” is removed, the issues are still there, unhealed.  NaProTechnology on the other hand is a cooperative approach to women’s health.  It allows the woman and her physician to observe her cycles in their natural state, see where things are not working properly and then work to address and heal those specific areas—not mask the issues or suppress her entire fertility.
5) Now is the time to address your health concerns!
Don’t wait until you are ready to start a family to address your gynecologic health concerns.  I firmly believe that if my issues had been properly diagnosed and treated when they first appeared in my early 20’s, I would have been able to have biological children by now. Instead, because my conditions remained masked by the Pill, and I didn’t know about NaProTechnology, healing was delayed by 10 years.  Get help now.
6)  You’re not crazy!
Ladies, have you ever experienced any of the following symptoms before your period starts: irritability, depression, crying easily, breast tenderness, bloating, weight gain, carb craving, headaches, fatigue or insomnia?   Gentlemen, do you know a woman in your life that fits this description?  This is called premenstrual syndrome (PMS) and it is no joke.  It is a legitimate medical condition that can destroy a woman’s quality of life approximately one week per cycle.  That’s approximately 25 percent of her life!  She’s not crazy, she just needs help.  NaProTechnology is 95 percent successful in alleviating or completely eliminating PMS without the use of antidepressants.  In all seriousness, it has saved my life.
7) You can go green with your health
Organic and environmentally-sustainable living is a hot topic.  So as you carefully select your organic, non-hormonally altered foods, consider this: an 8-oz steak from a steer given a hormone implant contains 45 percent more estrogen (5.1ng) than a steak from a non-implanted animal (3.5ng).  By contrast, just one birth-control pill contains 35,000ng of estrogen!  So for a woman on the Pill, that’s the hormonal equivalent of eating 3,431 lbs of beef from a hormone-implanted animal, every single day!  Doesn’t that put it into perspective?  To go green with your health, consider natural family planning and Pill-alternatives for medical purposes.
8) Natural Family Planning is scientific and it actually works
When used to avoid pregnancy, the Creighton Model FertilityCare System is as or more effective than the Pill and more effective than any barrier method such as a condom— 99.5 percent (method effectiveness), 96.8 percent (use effectiveness).  When used to achieve pregnancy, 70 percent of couples of normal fertility are pregnant within in the first cycle and 98 percent by the sixth.  For those couples struggling with infertility, nearly 80 percent can become pregnant within the first year.  This is nearly three times more effective than in vitro fertilization and other artificial reproductive technologies.
9) Men need to know this!
The information provided by FertilityCare and NaProTechnology is absolutely pertinent to men. Not only can a man can better understand the conditions under which he could become a father, but also because knowledge of a woman’s health helps him understand, support and assist the women in his life be they wife, girlfriend, sister, mother, or friend.
10) Faith and Science, not Faith versus Science
FertilityCare and NaProTechnology stand on their scientific merits alone.  But I want to point out that faith and science are not in conflict here.  In this area of women’s gynecologic and reproductive health, faith and science agree.  One does not diminish or exclude the other.  This system allows one to be faithful to the teachings of the Catholic Church while having effective family planning options and access to excellent medical care.  It’s the best of both worlds.
The need and desire for this authentic view of women’s health and fertility are abundant.  Now it’s time to respond.  Count me in.
Suzy Younger is a FertilityCare™ Practitioner and Manager of Saint Joseph FertilityCare™ Center at Saint Joseph Regional Medical Center.  She may be reached at youngesu@sjrmc.com or (574) 335-6472.

Libido Redux: Porn use at the University of Notre Dame


A recent Notre Dame campus survey revealed that attending A Catholic university does not serve as a shield against temptations of the world, flesh, and Devil. Fr King, Campus minister, wisely remarked,

“Pornography has grown as a problem as it has become increasingly prevalent and easier to access. It’s the nature of the temptation. The easier something is to get away with or rationalize, the harder it is to resist.” Fr. King noted that confession can help people “admit things, deal with them, and have a ‘prodigal son moment,’” but that some people may need more help. He added, “If it becomes addictive—and hopefully before it reaches that point—people need to be honest with themselves and become proactive the same way they would with an eating or alcohol issue… If it become habitual a person should seek counsel and help.”


 One hears often that the “liberation” of the human libido began in earnest in the United States in the “sexual revolution” of the 1960s. Americans, troubled over repressive attitudes toward human sexuality, hoped for a revolution that would free them from outdated moral and social constraints. It resulted not in liberation but in license and a host of societal sexual crises. Since the onset of the sexual revolution, we have had to face an ever-increasing array of sexual problems. One has only to think of the tremendous increase in the number of post-1960s illegitimate births and abortions, sexually transmitted diseases, opposition to censorship of pornography (especially on the Internet), and the resulting sexual addiction (in some extreme instances resulting in murder). Consider too the tremendous blows to marriage and the family done by adultery, the battle over the homosexual lifestyle in the United States, Canada and Europe (now to the point of the redefinition of marriage under the law); the increasing incidences of sexual harassment, child pornography on the Internet, Internet predators, date rape, and of course, the divorce rate. If one is worldly and hedonistic, Satan enters with temptations of the flesh! Pray that as he prowls about, seeking the ruin of souls,  we may resist him, solid in our faith. Following Fr. King's advise is a good start. ou might also check this out.

Wednesday, April 24, 2013

Hot or Cold?


"Lukewarm Christians are those who want to build a church in their own measure, but it is not the Church of Jesus" -Pope Francis


Being lukewarm in the preaching of the Gospel is thus forbidden, lest there come about a time wherein “although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man….” Our Lord spoke often and bluntly about Hell, where we all drift unless we put on Christ, let Him dwell in our hearts, let His thoughts be our thoughts: “The gate is wide that leads to destruction, and those who enter it are many.” In my years in Catholic education, I have witnessed close up a veritable silence on Hell as a reality for those who reject the Good News, rendering the teaching of Jesus Christ false, and eliminating a powerful motive for evangelization.
-from The Smoke of Satan in the Temple of God 

Thursday, April 18, 2013

‘When we do not profess Jesus Christ, we profess the worldliness of the devil’


The Smoke of Satan in the Temple of God , in addition to recounting the Church in the U.S. since Vatican II is a primer on spiritual combat in Catholic teaching. something central to the remarks of Pope Francis here.

The Smoke of Satan Homily



On his Secret Info Club site, apologist Jimmy Akin has summarized the 1972 “Smoke of Satan” Homily of Pope Paul VI, as follows:

“The Second Vatican Council did its work to renew the Church and to bring a new day of light. However, the Council's work has been frustrated by an attack by the devil by means of broader sociological currents that were present in the late 1960s and early 1970s, such as secular social experts and social movements and scientists who lack faith and political and cultural revolutionaries. These sociological currents ("the smoke of Satan") have infected the Catholic community and caused many to doubt and trust the Church and turn away from the eternal answers it has to offer and follow after passing modern ideas that are hostile to Christian thought. In this way the devil has thwarted the work of the Council in bringing in the day of joy and renewal that should have followed the Council.”

That Jimmy's summary is spot on is shown in my recently published book, which was inspired by Paul VI's homily. The homily is not about Satanists in the Curia, though to my knowledge, the entire homily has not been discussed, which is whi I penned the book. In it I show how JPII and Benedict (and, no doubt Francis) saw the need to bring about the vision of the true Vatican II in the New Millennium.

Saturday, April 13, 2013

Vatican II and who will make it to Heaven

Product Details

I just ran across a comment to CATHOLIC WORLD REPORT'S discussion of Ralph Martin's new book on Vatican II and salvation:

"Vatican Councils II needs to be scrapped as it has inflicted massive despoliation of the church and compromised it with the norms and values of the world. The so-called magesterium of the post-conciliar papacies is ambiguous and frequently at odds with tradition. The new liturgy is so appalling that they can try to fix it as many times as they like but it will always remain protestant and anthropocentric. Imagine how many lies and how much misinformation was given to lead us into believing The Holy mass in Latin was abrogated. Whatever happened to the so-called "church of love" which has led to serial presbyterial abuse of minors and the excommunication of a Society of bishops and priests who defended Sacred Tradition in the Sacraments? In what manner can we find it acceptable to ecumenise [sic] so much it appears as though the church hierarchy no longer seem to believe in The Roman Catholic Church as the established church of Our Blessed Lord? Even the papacies ignore liturgical laws on the liturgy and ecclesiastical ones too."

This type of thinking is one MAJOR reason why I wrote The Smoke of Satan. That the above viewpoint is disingenuous is corroborated by my discussion of Catholic the Traditionalist vs. 'progressive' (heterodox) dichotomy in my second chapter. The point/ READ THE DOCUMENTS for yourself, as I did, and you will see that, in the words of another, "Vatican II is yet to be!" Better yet, read my analysis of the Church in the U.S. since Vatican II!

Friday, April 12, 2013

Francis and the New Evangelization

Having just written of the New Evangelization as the way to begin the end of the crisis of faith now plaguing the Church, I love what Francis has to say here! 

Let us not close our hearts, let us not lose confidence, let us never give up: there are no situations which God cannot change… —POPE FRANCIS, Easter Vigil Homily, n. 1, March 30th, 2013; www.vatican.va

Saturday, April 6, 2013

Are YOU ready for the LONG-AWAITED Contraception Homily???




LifeSite News. In a frank interview with the Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto, Cardinal Timothy Dolan, who heads the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and is increasingly being billed as America’s leading Catholic cleric, says the Church has failed to communicate its moral teachings in the area of sexuality.  He says further that the fault lies with Church leaders.
“I’m not afraid to admit that we have an internal catechetical challenge—a towering one—in convincing our own people of the moral beauty and coherence of what we teach. That’s a biggie,” said Dolan.
“We have gotten gun-shy . . . in speaking with any amount of cogency on chastity and sexual morality,” he added.
The Church’s own failure to communicate its teachings on contraception has been one of the leading tools used against it in its fight against Obama’s mandate, with critics repeatedly pointing out that the majority of Catholic women are using some form of contraception.
The Cardinal told Taranto that the problem arose in the “the mid- and late ‘60s, when the whole world seemed to be caving in, and where Catholics in general got the impression that what the Second Vatican Council taught, first and foremost, is that we should be chums with the world, and that the best thing the church can do is become more and more like everybody else.”
The “flash point,” he said, was Humanae vitae, Pope Paul VI’s prophetic 1968 encyclical reiterating the Church’s opposition to contraception.
Humanae vitae “brought such a tsunami of dissent, departure, disapproval of the church, that I think most of us—and I’m using the first-person plural intentionally, including myself—kind of subconsciously said, ‘Whoa. We’d better never talk about that, because it’s just too hot to handle’,” said Dolan.
“We forfeited the chance to be a coherent moral voice when it comes to one of the more burning issues of the day,” he added.

For an expanded version of just how Humanae vitae in the Cardinal's words, “brought such a tsunami of dissent, departure, disapproval of the church...see my third chapter. For now, LET"S HAVE THAT HOMILY!
Here you go!

Friday, April 5, 2013

The Dragon would have us think it PEDOPHILIA




“…. the moral crisis facing the Church, … is not “pedophilia” but stems from an inordinate amount of active homosexuals as ordained priests and some inattentive bishops who have run interference for them, all the consequences of a failure to uphold and live the Church’s sexual moral teaching”. 

George Weigel in a piece for National Review has noted this recently, and if one doubts, try and obtain a copy of Fr. Rueda’s The Homosexual Network. It is fascinating reading and will leave the reader flabbergasted. Phillip Jenkins corroborates here.

As Fr. Z has summarized in relating Weigel: 

Most clerical abusers were not pedophiles, that is, men with a chronic and strong sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children. Most of those abused (51 percent) were aged eleven to fourteen and 27 percent of victims were fifteen to seventeen; [78% over 11] 16 percent were eight to ten and 6 percent were younger than seven. Males between eleven and fourteen account for more than 40 percent of all victims. Clerical ephebophilia (a sexual attraction to adolescents, often boys) was clearly a serious problem. But to label this a “pedophilia crisis” is ignorant, sloppy, or malicious. [We sometimes use terms in loose ways, as a kind of shorthand.  However, when the context is more technical, it is necessary to use more accurate terms.  I think some people, by avoiding some of the technical terms, are actually applying misdirection.]

So Cardinal; Archbishop Dolan is to be applauded for his recent ruminations, of which, more later.



Thursday, April 4, 2013

On the Spirit of the Liturgy


Defending the papacy of Benedict XVI vs. the New York Times (!), Randall B. Smith has written:

Like his predecessor before him, Benedict effectively carried on the authentic reforms of the Second Vatican Council, as opposed to the false “reforms” that so often led the Church astray in the post-conciliar period.  A cardinal archbishop told an audience recently that the liturgy was so abused in the early seventies when he was in seminary that the faithful seminarians would say about the ersatz masses being done by their elders: “Everything in them changes but the bread and wine.” Benedict, by contrast, did a great deal to help realize the original intentions of the liturgical reformers.  Given that the lex orandi (the law of praying) is intimately intertwined with the lex credendi (the law of believing)—which is another way of saying that what we pray is what we believe—reforming the liturgy has always been an absolutely essential way of helping re-form the Church (in the sense of renewing its essence) and helping to re-inform the faithful who are its “living stones.”

In my fourth chapter I discuss Benedict on "the original intention of the liturgical reformers," which substantiates Professor Smith's defense:


Cardinal Ratzinger, in his memoirs, recalled both joy at the promulgation of this now binding missal after a time of liturgical experimentation (1965-70) which had denigrated the Mass, and dismay at the complete prohibition of the 1962 Missal, an unprecedented event in the history of the liturgy. Recall that the Roman Missal had been reworked by Pius V in 1570 in response to the Reformation; subsequent papal reworkings (as in 1962) had been carried out without opposing the reworking to its predecessor in a “continual process of growth and purification in which continuity was never destroyed.” In her history, there had never been a prohibition of a previous edition of a missal that had been approved by the apostolic authority as valid — until Paul VI’s promulgation of “The Missal of 1970” as it came to be known. Now the forbidding of the organically grown 1962 missal began a discontinuity in the history of the liturgy that has proven tragic. The Cardinal’s assessment is telling:

….the old building was demolished, and another was built, to be sure largely using materials from the previous one and even using the old building plans. There is no doubt that this new missal in many respects brought with it a real improvement and en­richment; but setting it as a new construction over against what had grown historically, forbidding the results of this historical growth, thereby makes the liturgy appear to be no longer a living development but the product of erudite work and juridical authority; this has caused us enormous harm. For then the impression had to emerge that liturgy is some­thing "made", not something given in advance but something lying within our own power of decision. From this it also follows that we are not to recognize the scholars and the central authority alone as decision makers, but that in the end each and every "community" must provide itself with its own liturgy. When liturgy is self-made, however, then it can no longer give us what its proper gift should be: the encounter with the mystery that is not our own product but rather our origin and the source of our life. A renewal of liturgical awareness, a liturgical reconciliation that again rec­ognizes the unity of the history of the liturgy and that understands Vatican II, not as a breach, but as a stage of development: these things are urgently needed for the life of the Church. I am convinced that the crisis in the Church that we are experiencing today is to a large extent due to the disintegration of the liturgy, which at times has even come to be conceived of etsi Deus non daretur ( “as though there were no God”): in that it is a matter of indifference whether or not God exists and whether or not he speaks to us and hears us. But when the community of faith, the worldwide unity of the Church and her history, and the mystery of the living Christ are no longer visible in the liturgy, where else, then, is the Church to become visible in her spiritual essence? Then the community is celebrating only itself, an activity that is utterly fruitless. And, because the ecclesial community cannot have its origin from itself but emerges as a unity only from the Lord, through faith, such circumstances will inexorably result in a disintegration into sectarian parties of all kinds—partisan opposition within a Church tearing herself apart. This is why we need a new Liturgical Movement, which will call to life the real heritage of the Second Vatican Council[emphasis added].


How could such a Pope do anything less than carry on "the authentic reforms of the Second Vatican Council, a self-proclaimed mission of this Pope and his predecessor?"

Blogging Disciples!



To promote a book I spent years in writing, I began this blog. I am a baby boomer who knows all too little about blogging and the latest techie stuff. As I was perusing various Catholic blog sites, I noticed a post by Fr. Longenecker entitled, "The Smoke of Satan." If one troubles oneself to read Fr.'s quite accurate assessment, and becomes interested in just exactly how, according to the Pope who coined the phrase "Smoke of Satan" the Devil made his entrance into the post-Vatican II Church in the U.S., then my book is just what the Savior may have ordered, so why don't you!?

Wednesday, April 3, 2013


 In The Smoke of Satan I quoted Robert Royal on Catholics and "social justice":

 If we've learned anything from the past 35 years, it is that the world does not need more social workers and activists who also happen to say prayers. It desperately needs contem­platives who understand that their love for God—and the graces they get in prayer—are the source and guide to their love of neighbor. That was the revolution Vatican II introduced into the modern world.

Of late Alejandro Chaufen makes a point on Catholic Social teaching that I share. He writes:

As a thought experiment, let’s imagine the story of the good Samaritan taking a different twist. Let’s suppose that the Samaritan, upon spotting the badly wounded man, also sees a rich man walking by. Let us then suppose that the Samaritan is a big, powerful man who intimidates the rich man into handing over enough money to pay for the wounded man’s care. The man in need would still receive the help that he so desperately needs, but would the Samaritan still touch our heart, and would he have acted selflessly? Would we remember him as a paragon of Christian virtue and charity?
Jesus had not demanded that the Samaritan take money from strangers on the street by threat of force. That wouldn’t feel right, would it?

The obvious difference, of course, is that in Jesus’ parable, the Samaritan acts voluntarily—out of the goodness of his own heart—whereas in my hypothetical, counterfeit version, the Samaritan engages in an ersatz pseudo-charity by forcing someone else to pay for the good deed that the Samaritan wants to be performed. Is it true charity to be generous with other people’s money?
This is the murky moral territory onto which many Christians stray in the name of “social justice” or the social gospel. The desire to help those in need is laudable, but the means often employed by advocates of “social justice” are not.

Many Christians commit a fundamental error when they call for government to redistribute wealth to the poor, the sick, the needy. Government necessarily introduces the additional factor of compulsion into the equation, as government employs organized force.
If we wouldn’t justify an individual collecting funds for the poor by threatening passersby, then how do we justify government using the threat of fines or imprisonment to extract property from some to give it to others’ In the words of Thomas Jefferson, “It is strangely absurd [to suppose] that a million human beings, collected together, are not under the same moral laws which bind (or liberate) each of them separately.”

This isn’t to say that no collective action should be taken to minister to the poor. Indeed, many churches and various private-sector charities are doing praiseworthy work for those in need, and they merit our financial support. The common factor, though, in these nongovernmental organizations is that participation is voluntary. Nobody compels you to belong to a certain church or contribute to a specific charitable organization. It is your prerogative and choice.
By all means, be charitable. But don’t mix charity with compulsion. Jesus never did.

Tuesday, April 2, 2013

" A Conversation with my Gay Friend"



In Chapter 3 of The Smoke of Satan in the Temple of God, I write:

If one is worldly and hedonistic, Satan enters with temptations of the flesh. One hears often that the “liberation” of the human libido began in earnest in the United States in the “sexual revolution” of the 1960s. Americans, troubled over repressive attitudes toward human sexuality, hoped for a revolution that would free them from outdated moral and social constraints. It resulted not in liberation but in license and a host of societal sexual crises. Since the onset of the sexual revolution, we have had to face an ever-increasing array of sexual problems. One has only to think of the tremendous increase in the number of post-1960s illegitimate births and abortions, sexually transmitted diseases, opposition to censorship of pornography (especially on the Internet), and the resulting sexual addiction (in some extreme instances resulting in murder). Consider too the tremendous blows to marriage and the family done by adultery, the battle over the homosexual lifestyle in the United States, Canada and Europe (now to the point of the redefinition of marriage under the law); the increasing incidences of sexual harassment, child pornography on the Internet, Internet predators, date rape, and of course, the divorce rate.

Currently in the United States we are faced with a growing movement in favor of fostering one of these crises, the destruction of the family. The arguments one hears in favor of so-called same sex MARRIAGE are discussed in a fine recent piece by Jennifer Fulwiler!