Friday, July 31, 2015

Wednesday, July 29, 2015

Nuns' Story Dominican Style


In my book I quoted the late Fr. Benedict Groescel as follows:

A surprising and welcome development at the pre­sent time is the emergence of a whole wave of young men and women interested in authentic religious life. They provide proof of the ongoing presence of God’s grace…. These young people surprise us by their willingness to join even communities beset by obvious theological confusion and little observance of their traditional rule. If they manage to survive for twenty years, the appearance of the sinking communities may change. In some communities there is an absurd phenomenon similar to a theological sandwich: The youngest and the oldest, who are in agreement, are like slices of bread. The age group in the middle reminds us of mayonnaise.

Something in human nature has been calling people to religious life for thousands of years—and gospel teaching and church tradition have aimed this human hunger at a strong form of Christian dedication. We should have learned by the disastrous experience of the twentieth century that we cannot afford the luxury of frivolous attempts at silly spirituality and self-seeking. We cannot continue to be misled by untested and unsci­entific sociological and psychological theories.


There hardly seems a mistake that religious orders did not make. Corruptio optimi pessimum, the old Latin proverb runs: Corruption of the best becomes the worst. We have seen it for forty years. The generation formed since John Paul II became pope is clamoring for something better.

Living close to the Mother House of the Sisters of Mary Mother of the Eucharist, I always thought this order was the most dynamic in the United States,  but now I see they have a rival in Tennessee: St. Cecelia's. All in all, THE DOMINICAN ORDER IS BEARING GOOD FRUIT!

Dancing With Mr. D: Magic Queer Powers?


In psychoanalytic thought, libido (from the Latin: desire, lust) is the psychic and emotional energy associated with man’s instinctual biological drives (sexual desire). Though theoretically held in check by the ego and super-ego, in Freudian thought libido understands man as a sexual animal whose happiness derives from the unrestrained libido. The virtue of chastity in Freudian logic could only end in illness and unhappiness. Such thinking became normative in the United States in the 1960s, and it was not long before “the greatest of natural mysteries,” the marriage act, was reduced to an openly discussable “fun activity.”

Paul VI offered libido as one way Satan, the “malign, clever seducer” undermines man’s sexual morality with his “sophistry.” The Devil’s strategy here, as the Pope cautioned, is “eminently logical.” He approaches man with what amounts to a false reason in his mind, which, if dwelled on, can influence the will by rousing him to do something evil which seems to be good. Deceit is basic to his strategy. 

One Mad Mom Gives us a current example as it relates to Cathodic education.

Monday, July 27, 2015

Baptiste the Prophet

Baptiste and Wujek

In 1976 Pope Paul VI invited Karol Cardinal Wojtyla to preach the papal retreat. In researching the event for my book, what struck me in Wojtyla's meditations was his inference that “the signs of the times” might explain the denial of the truth of Church teaching which had infiltrated her like “the smoke of Satan.” Surely the Pope Paul was moved by Wojtyla's preaching, for in June of 1968 he penned his magisterial Credo of the People of God, a vigorous defense of traditional Church doctrine after the Council’s close, followed by his prophetic encyclical, Humanae Vitae, for which the “modernizers” never forgave him. Monsignor Charles Pope's reflection on "Where Wisdon Lay" is never more timely than at present, Post-Obergefell, and so I reprint it here in full: 

The Wisdom of Humanae Vitae: Time Has Proved Where Wisdom Lay
Msgr. Charles Pope • December 7, 2009
A generation has passed since the publication of the boldly pastoral and prophetic encyclical Humanae Vitae which upheld the ancient ban on the use of artificial contraception. Perhaps no teaching of the Church causes the worldly to scoff more than our teaching against artificial contraception. The eyes of so many, Catholics among them, roll and the scoffing begins: Unrealistic! Out of touch! Uncompassionate!  Silly! You’ve got to be kidding!

The Lord Jesus had an answer to those who ridiculed him in a similar way:

“To what can I compare this generation? They are like children sitting in the marketplaces and calling out to others: ” ‘We played the flute for you,  and you did not dance;  we sang a dirge and you did not mourn.’ For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon.’ The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and “sinners.” ‘ But time will prove where wisdom lies.”  (Matt 11:16-18)

Indeed, times DOES prove where wisdom lies. Some forty or more years after widespread acceptance of contraception set in how have we done? Perhaps it is best to review some of the “promises” that contraceptive advocates made, then review the prophecies of Paul VI. Then lets review the record, looking at the “fruits” of contraception.

The Promises of the Contraception Advocates:
  •       Happier Marriages and a lower divorce rates since couples could have all the sex they wanted without “fear” of pregnancy.
  •       Lower abortion rates since there would be far fewer “unwanted” children.
  •      Greater dignity for women who will no longer be “bound” by their reproductive system.
  •       More recently contraceptive advocates have touted the medical benefits of preventing STDs and AIDS.

What were some of the concerns and predictions made by Pope Paul VI? (All of these are quotes from Humanae Vitae) :

  •          Consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity (Humanae Vitae (HV) # 17)
  •          A general lowering of moral standards. Not much experience is needed to be fully aware of human weakness and to understand that human beings—and especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation—need incentives to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law. (HV # 17)
  •         Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection. (HV # 17)
  •          Who will prevent public authorities from…impos[ing] their use on everyone. (HV # 17)
So, forty years later, who had the wisdom to see? The World or the Church? Well let’s consider some of the data:

The divorce rate did not decline. It skyrocketed. Divorce rates soared through the 1970s to to the 1990s to almost 50% of marriages failing. In recent years the divorce rate has dropped slightly but this may also be due to the fact that far fewer people get married in the first place, preferring to cohabitate and engage in a kind of serial polygamy drifting from relationship to relationship. The overall divorce rate despite its slight drop remains high, hovering in the low 40% range. Contraceptive advocates claim that divorce is a complicated matter. True enough. But they cannot have it both ways, claiming that contraception would be a “simple”  fix to make marriages happier and then,  when they are so horrifyingly wrong, claiming that divorce is “complicated.” Paul VI on the other predicted rough sailing for marriage in advent of contraception. Looks like the Pope was right.

Abortion rates did not decrease. They too skyrocketed. Within five years the pressure to have more abortion available led to its “legalization” in 1973. It has been well argued that, far from decreasing the abortion rate, contraception actually fueled it. Since contraception routinely fails, abortion became the contraception of last recourse. Further, just as the Pope predicted sexual immorality became widespread and this too led to higher rates of abortion. It is hard to compare promiscuity rates between periods since people “lie” a lot when asked about such things. But one would have to be very myopic not to notice the huge increase in open promiscuity, cohabitation, pornography and the like. All of this bad behavior made more possible by contraceptives also fuels abortion rates. Chalk up another one for the Pope and the Church.

The question of women’s dignity is hard to measure and different people have different measures. Women do have greater career choices. But is career or vocation the true source of one’s dignity? One’s dignity is surely more than their economic and utilitarian capacity. Sadly, motherhood has taken a real back seat in popular culture. And,  as the Pope predicted women have been hypersexualized as well. Their dignity as wives and mothers has been set aside in favor of the sexual pleasure they offer. As the Pope predicted many modern men, no longer bound by marriage for sexual satisfaction, use women and discard them on a regular basis. Men “get what they want” and it seems many women are willing to supply it rather freely. In this scenario men win. Women are often left with STDs, they are often left with children, and as they get older and “less attractive” they are often left alone. I am not sure this is dignity. But you decide who is right and if women really have won in the new morality that contraception helped usher in. I think the Pope wins this point as well.
As for preventing STDs and AIDS, again, big failure. STDs did not decrease and were not prevented. Infection rates skyrocketed through the 1970s and 1980s. AIDS which appeared on the scene later continues to show horribly high rates. Where is the promised deliverance? Contraceptives it seems, do not prevent anything. Rather they encourage the spread of these diseases by encouraging the bad behavior that causes them. Here too it looks like the Church was right and the world was wrong.
Add to this list the huge teenage pregnancy rates, the devastation of single parent families, broken hearts and even poverty. The link to poverty may seem obscure but the bottom line is that single motherhood is the chief cause of poverty in this country. Contraception encourages promiscuity. Promiscuity leads to teenage pregnancy. Teenage pregnancy leads to single motherhood (absent fatherhood).  Single motherhood leads to welfare and poverty. Currently in the inner city over 80% of homes are headed by single mothers. It is the single highest factor related to poverty.

Declining birth rates are also having terrible effects on contracepting cultures. Europe as we have known it is simply going out of existence. I have written on that before HERE: Contraception is Cultural Suicide!  Europe’s future is Muslim. They have huge families. Likewise here in the USA white and African American communities are below replacement level. Thankfully our immigrants are largely Christian and share our American vision. But for the Church the declining birthrates are now resulting in closing schools, parishes, declining vocations and the like. We cannot sustain what we have on a population that is no longer replacing itself. Immigration has insulated us from this to some extent but low Mass attendance has eclipsed that growth and we are starting to shut down a lot of our operations.

Conclusion: Time will prove where wisdom lies.  What have we learned in in over forty years of contraception? First we have learned that it is a huge failure in meeting its promises. It has backfired. It has made things worse, not better. Marriage, families, children have all taken a huge hit. Bad behavior has been encouraged and all the bad consequences that flow from it are flourishing. Most people seem largely disinterested in this data. Hearts have become numb and minds have gone to sleep. I hope you are not among them and that you might consider this information well and share it with others. Time HAS proved where wisdom lay. It’s time to admit the obvious.


Sunday, July 26, 2015

NINTH SUNDAY AFTER PENTECOST: Time for Weeping


EPISTLE (I Cor. 10. 6-13.) Brethren, Let us not covet evil things, as they also coveted. Neither become ye idolaters, as some of them: as it is written: The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play. Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed fornication, and there fell in one day three and twenty thousand. Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them tempted, and perished by the serpents. Neither do you murmur, as some of them murmured, and were destroyed by the destroyer. Now all these things happened to them in figure, and they are written for our correction, upon whom the ends of the world are come. Wherefore he that thinketh himself to stand, let him take heed lest he fall. Let no temptation take hold on you, but such as is human: and God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that which you are able but will make also with temptation issue that you may be able to bear it.
Can we sin by thought and desire?
Yes, if we desire evil and forbidden things, or voluntarily think of them with pleasure, for God prohibits not only evil deeds, but evil thoughts and desires in regard to our neighbor's wife or goods. (Exod. 10. 17.) Christ says, (Matt. 5. 28.) that he who looks upon a woman with evil desire, has already committed adultery. But wicked thoughts and imagination are sinful only when a person consents to, or entertains them deliberately. They become, however, an occasion of gaining merit, if we earnestly strive against them. For this reason God sometimes permits even the just to be tempted by them.
What is meant by tempting God?
Demanding presumptuously a mark or sign of divine omnipotence, goodness or justice. This sin is committed when without cause we desire that articles of faith should be demonstrated and confirmed by a new miracle; when we throw ourselves needlessly into danger of body or soul expecting God to deliver us; when in dangerous illness the ordinary and, natural remedies are rejected, and God's immediate assistance expected.
Is it a great sin to murmur against God?
That it is such may be learned from the punishment which God inflicted on the murmuring Israelites; for besides Kore, Dathan, and Abiron whom the earth devoured, many thousands of them were consumed by fire; and yet these had not murmured against God directly, but only against Moses and Aaron whom God had placed over them as their leaders. From this it is seen that God looks upon murmuring against spiritual and civil authority, instituted by Him, as murmuring against Himself. Hence Moses said to the Israelites: Your murmuring is not against us, but against the Lord. (Exod. 16. 8.)
GOSPEL (Luke XIX. 41-47.) At that time, when Jesus drew near Jerusalem, seeing the city, he wept over it, saying: If thou also hadst known, and that in this thy day, the things that are to thy peace: but now they are hidden from thy eyes. For the days shall come upon thee, and thy enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and straiten thee on every side, and beat thee flat to the ground, and thy children who are in thee: and they shall not leave in thee a stone upon a stone, because thou hast not known the time of thy visitation. And entering into the temple, he began to cast out them that sold therein, and them that bought, saying to them: It is written, My house is the house of, prayer, but you have made it a den of thieves. And he was teaching daily in the temple.
Why did our Saviour weep over the city of Jerusalem?
Because of the ingratitude and obduracy of its inhabitants who would not receive Him as their Redeemer, and who through impenitence were hastening to destruction.
When was the time of visitation?
The period in which God sent them one prophet after another who urged them to penance, and whom they persecuted, stoned, and killed. (Matt. 23. 34.) It was especially the time of Christ's ministry, when He so often announced His salutary doctrine in the temple of Jersualem, confirmed it by miracles, proving Himself to be the Messiah, the Saviour of the world, but was despised and rejected by this hardened and impenitent city.
Who are prefigured by this hardened and impenitent city?
The hard-hearted, unrepenting sinners who will not recognize the time of God's visitation, in which He urges them by the mouth of His preachers, confessors, and superiors, and by inward inspiration to reform their lives and seek the salvation of their soul, but who give no ear to these admonitions, and defer conversion to the end of their lives. Their end will be like to that of this impious city; then the enemy, that is, the evil spirit, will surround their soul, tempt, terrify, and drag it into the abyss of ruin. Oh, how foolish it is to squander so lightly, the time of grace, the days of salvation! Oh, how would the damned do penance, could they but return to earth! Oh, how industriously would they employ the time to save their soul! Use, then, my dear Christian, the time of grace which God designs for you, and which, when it is run out or carelessly thrown away, will not be lengthened for a moment.
Will God conceal from the wicked that which serves for their salvation?

No; but while they are running after the pleasures of this life, as St. Gregory says, they see not the misfortunes treading in their footsteps, and as consideration of the future makes them uncomfortable in the midst of their worldly pleasures, they remove the terrible thought far from them, and thus run with eyes blindfolded in the midst of their pleasure into eternal flames. Not God, but they themselves hide the knowledge of all that is for their peace, and thus they perish.

Saturday, July 25, 2015

ALL LIVES MATTER!!!



Powerful reflection from a holy woman...


Dear Dr. Nucatola,
I watched the video put out with your face on it. I heard you talking about harvesting fetal body parts. I saw you sip your wine while talking about how to remove an intact fetus.
I want you to know that I’m not disgusted by you. I’m not disgusted, because I used to be just like you. You see, my former Planned Parenthood clinic used to harvest fetal body parts. I used to sift through their bodies and prepare them for transport to the research lab we were contracted with.
The other day, I learned a new thing that I hate because of my work at the clinic. Dry ice. We used to participate in studies where we would have to collect fetal body parts and ship them to research labs…all for stem cell research. We kept their little bodies cold and preserved by using dry ice. My daughter was really excited to put water on it so she could see the smoke. I stood there and couldn’t get the memories of those little bodies out of my mind. My kids were squealing with excitement and I felt like I couldn’t move. I had to make a decision in that moment. I could either let my past consume me, or I could repurpose that memory and use it for good. And that’s what I chose to do. I sat down next to the block of ice and watched my kids run around in the smoke.
But that dry ice did cause me to recall that particular part of my work. All of the blood, body parts and extra tissue would be collected into a glass jar. That glass jar would come to me in the POC (products of conception) lab through a “pass through specimen cabinet.” I would take the jar to our sink, dump everything into a huge strainer, rinse out the jar and then rinse the blood out of the strainer. After I had a clean body, I would dump it into the glass baking dish that was sitting on top of an x-ray light box. I would put a little bit of water in the glass dish so that the body parts would float…that made it easier for me to manipulate them.
During the season of tissue harvesting, an intact body was gold. An intact fetal body is considered perfection in the land of fetal tissue research. But dismembered body parts were okay, too…and that is usually what we gave them. I would check the patient’s chart to make sure that they had signed the consent for us to donate their baby’s remains. Almost every woman did, because we made it seem like that by donating, they were helping others…altruism during abortion. If she had consented, then I would gather the parts wanted (usually all of them) and place them in a particular container given to us by the research company. At the end of the day, I would pack all of the containers neatly in the box with dry ice and ship them off.
That was my life, and I did it for eight years. The images of tiny bodies will always be burned in my memory. And in a strange way, I am thankful for that memory as it reminds me what I’m fighting for.
As I watched you on the video, I could almost see myself. After a grueling abortion day, we would all go out for margaritas and Mexican food. We would talk about the day and specific abortion cases. It wasn’t gross to us. We honestly didn’t think anything about it. We would plainly talk about harvesting fetal parts as if we were talking about harvesting a field of corn. That was our normal…and we were proud to live in it. I get the humor. I get how something grotesque to others can seem ordinary.
I understand the world you live in. I understand the blindness. I don’t think you are an evil person. I wasn’t an evil person. But just like I was, you are gravely misguided. I want you to know that I care about you. I have seen the things being said about you. I have seen the hate and vile comments about you. Seeing those things being said about you is honestly heartbreaking for me. I can’t imagine what you are feeling right now. I understand how hurtful people can be. I still receive comments like that sometimes.
But I am not one of those people. And no one involved in our organization, And Then There Were None, sees you as an evil person. We care about you. We want you to find peace. We want you to find true happiness. We know that won’t happen as long as you are involved in Planned Parenthood. We believe that your life matters. We believe that your life holds infinite value and worth. You matter to us. As hard as I fight to save unborn babies, I fight just as hard to save people like you from the grips of the abortion industry.
You can leave. We can help you. I hope you watch this video and see that we are a safe place for you to turn. Call me today at 888-570-5501 or email me directly at abby@attwn.org.
Sincerely,
Abby Johnson

Friday, July 24, 2015

Trolling the Polls


A Gallup poll in May showed record-high support for same-sex marriage at 60 percent.
But a Reuters poll taken in the two weeks following Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex "marriage" in all 50 states, showed a drop of almost 10 points, down to only 51 percent. These are the lowest numbers since 2012.
The poll (post-Obergefell) asked, "Do you support or oppose allowing same-sex couples to legally marry?" Those in support were 51 percent, while 35 percent opposed it, and 14 percent remained undecided. 
The poll also shows a shift in popular thinking with regard to the roles of the state vs. the federal government, as well as the roles of each branch of government. In response to the second question, which asked who should decide the issue of same-sex "marriage," 37 percent (the highest percentage in the group) answered that the Supreme Court should make the law.
As we know, marriage has traditionally fallen within the scope of state law, and has traditionally been a matter solely determined by the legislative branch of government. The judiciary was almost never involved, except in cases requiring interpretation or application of already-existing marriage laws passed by state legislators.
But in light of decades of what critics have called judicial activism, where the Supreme Court and other federal courts have violated the doctrine of Separation of Powers by usurping the role of the legislature, American opinion has gradually shifted towards seeing the judiciary as no longer apolitical — as was once the case — to now seeing it as the supreme "legislative" body in the nation.
Only 10 percent of those polled believe gay "marriage" laws should be determined by state legislators, while only six percent believe the federal Congress should make these determinations. Twenty-four percent believe it should be determined by state voter referendum, while 23 percent are undecided.
The gap narrows with the fifth question, which asks, "Would you support or oppose a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and woman only, meaning same-sex marriage would not be legal?" Thirty-eight percent support such an amendment, while only 46 percent oppose it. Sixteen percent remain unsure. This is also promising. OREMUS.


TransJennerism: Caitlyn Jenner To Bare All In Playboy Spread!!  |

Caroline Cossey

Please, Caitlyn Jenner To Bare All In Playboy Spread!!  |

Do not do this!! All lives matter!


'via Blog this'

Thursday, July 23, 2015

Post-Obergefell: Dutch woman to marry dog after cat-husband dies


Years go, when support for "same-sex marriage was 12% nationally, I would argue to my classes that it would never catch hold with a majority of the American people, as such a redefinition of marriage would not preclude one from marrying anyone one wanted- I used the example of marrying my pet turtles. No one took me seriously, though I wasnot far off the mark in this prediction, as evidenced in Dutch woman to marry dog after cat-husband dies - NY Daily News:

'via Blog this'

Wednesday, July 22, 2015

Hell? No!


In my book  I recall when Bishop Fulton Sheen warned us in his popular retelling of the life of Christ, The Eternal Galilean: "Do not mock the Gospels and say there is no Satan. Evil is too real in the world to say that. Do not say the idea of Satan is dead and gone. Satan never gains so many cohorts as when, in his shrewdness, he spreads the rumor that he is long since dead." Such an attitude only leaves the devil freer than he would otherwise be to work to gain souls for hell. “I am who am not.” 

Fr. Longenecker has weighed in on  this here.

Mic’d Up—Dancing with the Devil

Oh- seems someone picked up on my blog theme (taken from a Stones' song) Dancin' With Mr. D!



Mic’d Up—Dancing with the Devil

A comment on this:

According to your logic("Satan's great weapon is that he doesn't exist")he would avoid all corporeal "contact"with the human race, i.e., possession, demonic influences, etc. It's true that he does not want us to know he exists, And not all haunted houses are demonically caused, but just because Satan has a superior intelligence does not mean that he is not also stupid. He is ruled by the passion of "pure" hatred and can't resist getting "involved" with God's, after the angels, highest creation, mankind. His superior spiritual intelligence, like his spiritual power, have been curtailed by Almighty God. You could say he can't resist the temptation. However, his intelligence is still vastly superior to ours except for the saints.

'via Blog this'

Pope Francis’ Approval Ratings Slump Sharply in U.S. | Sojourners


I am a Catholic who generally considers himself slightly right of Center. I voted for Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush 41, Bush 43, McCain and Romney. But as a Catholic, Pope Francis is alright with me.  Today I came across Pope Francis’ Approval Ratings Slump Sharply in U.S. | Sojourners: and would remind the reader of  the teaching: render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's (your entire being).

'via Blog this'

Study finds homosexuals less healthy, happy than heterosexuals | News | LifeSite

Study finds homosexuals less healthy, happy than heterosexuals | News | LifeSite:



'via Blog this'

Retired cardinal sounds alarm: sees in Church ‘a perverse lust for self-destruction’


I, Having read Christus Dominus was delighted with retired Vatican cardinal and Church historian, Walter Brandmueller’s interview in Germany in which he admonishes the liberal agenda among Germany’s bishops. The cardinal sees in certain circles in the Church almost a “perverse lust for self-destruction,” for example, “by undermining the procreation of life in different ways and in putting into question the natural sexual identity of man and woman.”
Cardinal Brandmueller describes the danger of adapting to “political correctness,” admitting that violating it entails “risking execution by the Media.”
He decries the “dynamic of silence into which the majority” of bishops have slipped “and thus silently watch the execution.”  No one can claim “such conduct is worthy of a Christian,” he adds, “especially when dealing with fundamental questions concerning the teaching of Faith and Morals of the Gospel of Christ.”
“For what purpose did we receive the Sacrament of Confirmation?” he asks. “And, did not the bishops at their consecration promise that they would proclaim faithfully the Gospel of Christ and would preserve, pure and entire, the Deposit of the Faith according to the Tradition as held by the Church, always and everywhere?”
Cardinal Brandmueller calls for a “de-secularization” of the Church, meaning a form of thinking which does not follow earthly principles and calculations but “follows the Truth of the Faith.”  Instead of “preaching ‘Christianity light,’” he said, “we should have the courage to demand a program which is in firm contrast to the societal mainstream of today and lives out fully” the commandments.
“The Church can and must proclaim the Natural Moral Law which has been perfected by the Gospels and which is understandable for the man of good will,” he says. “Thereby, the Church should not allow herself to be deflected by the [growing] resistance against her message.”


Tuesday, July 21, 2015

Seek Forgiveness from Christ in Confession - Crisis Magazine



I can attest to the truth of   Seek Forgiveness from Christ in Confession - Crisis Magazine from personal experience. After  nearly 30 years of avoiding the healing love of Christ in the sacrament, I returned in 1995, and have been a regular penitent ever since.

'via Blog this'

Archbishop to priests: Here's how to not give bad homilies :: Catholic News Agency (CNA)

“I know your works; I know that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either cold or hot. So, because you are lukewarm, neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth.” (Rv 3:15-16)

Unhappily, it has been my experience that many Catholics (I, for many years, among them), were never effectively evangelized, and so never made a personal commitment to Christ and His gospel. Born into a sociological or traditional Catholicism, too many Catholics seem never to have met Our Lord! And, as we have seen, many of the flock since Vatican II are fundamentally ignorant of Christian doctrine, or may have received only nominal instruction, and are alienated from the Body of Christ.

I have witnessed the reality in the United States, where we are conditioned by a spirit of modernity to view religion as a private matter, where far too many Catholics grow uncomfortable with the call to evangelization and deep conversion of mind and heart. This is significant, for only from a personal relationship with Christ can effective evangelization develop. For Catholics like myself, there is a burning need to recover the certainty that we have the Truth urgently needed for the redemption of mankind.  Why evangelize? When we evangelize, we act on baptismal grace “to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ.” “To evangelize means: to show this path [toward happiness]—to teach the art of living.” If we are serious about our sonship in Christ Jesus then let us be not afraid to make the new evangelization the top priority in our lives.                
                            -from The Smoke of Satan in the Temple of God

It was heartening to red that my bishop has figured this out, as evidenced in the following piece: Archbishop to priests: Here's how to not give bad homilies :: Catholic News Agency (CNA):


'via Blog this'

Monday, July 20, 2015

Dancin' With Mr. D: Jesuitical Jesuits


In a now-infamous video, Dr. Deborah Nucatola discusses — over lunch in a Los Angeles restaurant — how Planned Parenthood facilitates trafficking in fetal organs and tissue. She discusses prices and confesses that Planned Parenthood’s doctors are happy to alter care in order to further the organization’s organ harvesting, for example using ultrasound where they ordinarily wouldn’t, in order to prevent damage to valuable organs. Here is the Jesuit Magazine's response, and  fine piece examining why some Jesuits prefer PP to the pro-life movement.

The National Catholic Distorter

Ignatius and Islam: Uncovering Faith Intersections- National CAtholic Reporter

Newer have liked this rag, and here is one reason why:

NcR Needs a Time Out!
Holy smokes! National catholic Reporter (small “c” no accident) seem to be hell-bent on going down with the ship! I think I’m going to change my pet name for them to “Not Catholic Reporter.” It’s just gotten that ridiculous. Seriously, it decided it’s going to be the number one mouthpiece for the anti-USCCB folks? I’m a little shocked that they’ve done a piece tying the entire editorial staff to the same millstone, but they have indeed (http://donotlink.com/ncronline.org/news/politics/editorial-go-beyond-foot-stomping-no#.VaZ-wdIIoxY.twitter):
In another way, however, this broad new acceptance may be as transformative in its own way of our understanding of something deeply personal and mysterious as recent explorations have been transformative of our understanding, in equally jarring ways, of an infinitely vast and endlessly mystifying universe.
OK, I’m just going to ask this? What…the…H E Double Hockey Sticks does that mean??? Anyone? Really? What are they trying to say? I feel like a new age psychologist on acid wrote this. Thanks for the comic relief.
In each case, old certainties that once comfortably contained our presumptions are shattered. Even those who marvel at or celebrate such new realities might, at the same time, find them unsettling.
Uh, yeah, thousands of years of God’s Law just went out the window. You bet we find them unsettling. I’m going to bust this out again – Thanks Captain Obvious!
 The Catholic church, which has used some of the most severe language of major denominations in its condemnation of homosexuality, labeling those with a homosexual orientation “intrinsically disordered,” is especially challenged by the ruling.
Really? Homosexuals have been condemned? Mind showing us a citation for that? Honestly, why do you even want to have “Catholic” in your name again? You clearly are against most doctrine.
At least its leaders are, for it has become clear in recent years that when it comes to believers, Catholics are among the most accepting of homosexuality. In terms of same-sex marriage, according to recent Pew Research polling, “Among Catholics and white mainline Protestants, roughly six-in-ten now express support for same-sex marriage.”
OK, we all know by now the Pew Research poll was an outlier (http://nineteensixty-four.blogspot.com/2015/05/the-island-of-misfit-polls.html). Still desperately clinging to that one, NcR? Just for the sake of making you feel better about your downward spiral, sanity-wise, let’s say Pew was right (which is a bigger stretch of logic than their poll). If 99% of people are wrong, does that make them right? I seem to recall a story about Noah, and another about Lot. Pesky, but if you call yourselves Catholics, you might want to flip through the pages of the Bible once in a while.
Churches certainly don’t run on polling data, but the bishops should at least be informed of what the flock is thinking. And the majority of the flock is not in agreement with assertions such as those voiced by Archbishop Joseph Kurtz of Louisville, Ky., who called the decision “a tragic error.”
Great, Carnac! Tell me what am I thinking right now? That you are all pompous idiots? Right on the money.
Kurtz, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, compared Obergefell v. Hodges to Roe v. Wadeand said that just as Roe v. Wade did not settle the question of abortion, Obergefell v. Hodges does not settle the question of marriage. “Neither decision is rooted in the truth and, as a result, both will eventually fail. Today the Court is wrong again. It is profoundly immoral and unjust for the government to declare that two people of the same sex can constitute a marriage.
The comparison with Roe is simply way off base.Obergefell is not a matter of life and death. The case thus stated by Kurtz also places the conference in the posture of combatant — with everyone: gays and lesbians, their families, government structures, not to mention the church itself in the expression of the many Catholics who disagree.
And here’s how we know you wouldn’t know Catholicism if it hit you with a 2×4. Yes, it is a matter of life and death. You have NO concept of eternal life or eternal damnation. The Catholic Church is not called to be in union with everyone. Everyone is called to be in union with the Catholic Church. Can you really be this out of touch with Catholic teaching?
Further, if the church’s experience with Roe is any indication, taking the combative approach will mean endless years of litigation and lobbying, convincing few and alienating many while further depleting whatever political capital the church might have left.
I’m sorry. Did anyone catch the news the last couple of days? Let’s see – the Israelites wandered 40 years in the desert, and now it’s taken about 40 years to see Planned Parenthoods closing left and right and the National Organization going up in flames. Sorry, NcR. God’s people are very, very patient.
The Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage has, like the Affordable Care Act before it, raised new questions about religious freedom — how it is interpreted in the course of day-to-day life, and who can claim it as a means of exempting themselves, individuals or businesses, from following the law. These complex matters will demand more of the bishops than a foot-stomping “no.”
Nope, not really. It’s time to come out with all guns a blazing. If this line in the sand is crossed, it might take a lot longer than 40 years to reclaim this land. I think we’ve all learned that impossible is quite possible. We’re not taking anything for granted anymore – especially our Religious Freedom. It’s quite clear that if the “powers that be” in this country are going to go after the Little Sisters of the Poor, they’re going to go after us all.
As Jesuit Fr. Tom Reese points out in his analysis, a combative stance is not the only option. First, the church’s treatment of divorced and remarried people is an apt comparison to gay couples. Divorce and remarriage is legal in all states, but the church is not required to perform such weddings. Ministers remain free to denounce divorce. At the same time, it is rare that Catholic institutions fire people who divorce and remarry; moreover, they and their new spouses often receive benefits. Such consideration is not viewed as an endorsement of a lifestyle.
Further, Reese points out, “In Catholic morality, there is nothing to prohibit a Catholic judge or clerk from performing a same-sex marriage. Nor is there any moral obligation for a Catholic businessperson to refuse to provide flowers, food, space and other services to a same-sex wedding.” Bishops, even those intent on railing against the decision, need to make that point clear to their people.
First of all, does it bother anyone that Fr. Reese uses Thomas Reese in his articles? Dropping “Fr.” from his byline really should be a tip-off. Next, he’s a Jesuit. God bless those priests who still follow St. Ignatius, but odds are he’s into subverting faithful Catholicism. Next, let’s just be clear: “Thomas Reese” doesn’t want the Church to fight for any core Catholic principles like marriage, life, etc. He really does everything he can to step over the Catholic “line” without actually saying what he’s thinking lest he be silenced. He already had to leave America Magazine for not defending the Faith (he simply reported both sides, don’tcha know?).
Fortunately for U.S. Catholics, examples exist of other episcopal voices who took a more measured and prudent approach. Cardinal Donald Wuerl of Washington, D.C., wrote that the meaning of marriage for the church was the same post-Supreme Court ruling as it was before.
The practical challenge for the church and its agencies, he said, is the need “to balance two important values, the provision of appropriate health care benefits for all church personnel including their spouses, and the avoidance of the perception that by doing so we accept a definition of marriage and spouse contrary to faith and revealed truth.
Hmmm…the editorial staff is cherry picking. Perhaps they didn’t notice this part:
The ancient Maxim “love the sinner but hate the sin” is central to our behavior because it refers to all human beings. The Lord asks us to “be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect,” but he does so in reference to how we are to love one another (Matthew 5:48). In the Sacraments, he also gives us the grace to do so. The Church has and always will meet people where they are to bring them closer to Christ.
At the same time, to condemn any sin is not discrimination against the person who commits the sin. Disagreement is not discrimination. We do not force people to agree with us, we ask to be granted the same freedom to hold our beliefs. Catholic teaching on human sexuality is the same for all. We are called to love God and love one another in truth (Matthew 22:36-40; Ephesians 4:15; Philippians 1:27; cf. Gaudium et Spes, 24; Caritas in Veritate, 1-2; Familiaris Consortio, 11 et seq.). (http://cardinalsblog.adw.org/2015/06/the-implications-of-the-supreme-courts-ruling-on-same-sex-marriage/)
Another NcR favorite:
 “Bishop Gregory Hartmayer of Savannah, Ga., wrote, “This decision of the Supreme Court is primarily a declaration of civil rights and not a redefinition of marriage as the church teaches.”
He warned that those on either side of the issue are not dispensed “from the obligations of civility toward one another. Nor is it a license for more venomous language or vile behavior against those whose opinions differ from our own.”
Not a shock. Isn’t it interesting that they’re not quoting from the over 50 bishops who put out other statements? Do you think that maybe the NcR editorial staff are the ones living in the 1970s-fashioned ivory tower and out of touch? I think yes. Can we finally put away the felt banner, bell-bottomed, Birkenstock Catholicism and get back to the Faith of our fathers please.
I guess not, because then they go on to write a long soliloquy to Archbishop Cupich – the prince of ambiguous speak.
In a statement following the decision, Chicago Archbishop Blase Cupich urged calm and “mature” reflection. “The Church must extend support to all families, no matter their circumstances, recognizing that we are all relatives, journeying through life under the careful watch of a loving God,” he said.
We suspect that for a time, at least, the air will be full of warnings about the ongoing march of a “gay agenda” and threats to everything we have previously understood about marriage. The ruling was certainly due, in part, to the activity of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community and its striving for rights during the past 40 years.
No, Archbishop Cupich, the air hasn’t been full of warnings. It been actually quite full of threats and attacks from those promoting the “gay agenda.” Perhaps you missed these:
Oh, and then there’s this little thing:
Yep, the faithful have absolutely nothing to worry about in the least. How is it that an Archbishop in the United States concludes this ruling is a result of “striving for rights?” Can you really give the alphabet soup community any more accolades for destroying Traditional Marriage? It’s really quite an insult to Martin Luther King, Jr. and Rosa Parks.
But bishops and others should not underestimate the power of human experience nor the depth of insights gleaned in the short period during which parents stopped being embarrassed by their children, and gay children stopped hiding themselves and their sexual orientation.
Repeat after me: “The bishops should uphold the teachings of the Catholic Church.” Was that so hard? Maybe the editorial staff that uses “Catholic” in its name might want to suggest that one? Yes, I know I’m being silly. Why would NcR want to start doing that now? It would be nice, however, if they maybe read the Church’s documents. Here’s one I might suggest. Do you disagree with this NcR?http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html
Cupich’s “take a deep breath” approach seems a far more productive way to sort out the tangle of issues that certainly will unravel in the wake of this decision. The bishops — many of whom like to compare themselves to fathers of a family — might, before they commit to a protracted fight, sit down with gay and lesbian Catholics and their families and respectfully listen to their stories.
Oh, for goodness sake! Yeah, I bet no other bishop besides Cupich, McElroy, and Cardinal O’Malley has ever associated with “gay and lesbian” Catholics. Could you be more condescending?!? Get over your arrogant selves!
Meanwhile, we need to call a halt to actions that will further divide and damage the body of Christ. Almost immediately, different models have surfaced for handling gay marriage in the context of Catholic institutions.
Code for: We just need to let everyone do what they want and forget about that pesky sin stuff.
On one hand, officials at Jesuit-run Fordham University wished J. Patrick Hornbeck and his male spouse “a rich life filled with many blessings” following their marriage the day after the Supreme Court decision.
While noting that church teaching does not support same-sex marriage, a school spokesman said Hornbeck, chairman of the theology department, had a constitutional right to marry, “and like all University employees, students and alumni, is entitled to human dignity without regard to race, creed, gender, and sexual orientation.”
And this is what they really want. The editorial staff just wants all the bishops to put a nice piece of duct tape over their mouths, sit on their hands and take it. “What can we possibly do? SCOTUS says it’s the “Law of the Land.”
But in the Philadelphia archdiocese, where Archbishop Charles Chaput predicted dire social consequences as a result of the decision, Waldron Mercy Academy decided not to renew the contract of Margie Winters, director of religious education and outreach, because she is married to another woman.
According to a July 8 report on Philly.com, Waldron Mercy Principal Nell Stetser explained in a letter to parents that the school “recognizes the authority of the archbishop of Philadelphia, especially in the teaching of religion, because we call ourselves Catholic.
According to the report, many of the parents are supportive of Winters, who has worked at the school for about eight years, and they are angry at the archdiocese.
While an archdiocesan spokesman denied that the archdiocese had anything to do with Winters’ dismissal, Stetser said in the letter that “my duty is to protect our school’s future,” and there apparently is no perceived threat from students’ parents.
What’s the point here? The teacher was told to keep her “marital” status quiet. She agreed. After a while, her marital status was made known to some and was thrown into the public realm. Sorry, but according to Canon Law “teachers are to be outstanding in correct doctrine and integrity of life” (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2N.HTM). Are you suggesting that Canon Law be ignored? I’m pretty sure it’s your hope, but are you willing to say it or are you just going to pull a Cupich and ambiguously suggest it?
Fordham’s response stems from the correct understanding of the Supreme Court ruling: It advances societal understanding of equality and non-discrimination. That is something the church can and should embrace. Church leaders certainly shouldn’t fight it.
The Fordham staff are a bunch of dissenters who are going to have to answer for that. Are YOU, editorial staff, suggesting the Catholic Church accepts whatever the Supreme Court says? Really? You might want to re-examine why it’s taken so long to stop the killing of babies in this country. That would be the likes of organizations, publications, etc. like you who are a bunch of wishy-washy people.
Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority decision acknowledges a religious exemption in the recognition of same-sex marriages, the meaning of which Catholics need to study and discuss maturely and calmly. It won’t be an easy discussion, but it will be good for the community.
There’s that condescending tone once again. Are you all this smug in person? Do you all think the bishops and cardinals are recent graduates from the local junior colleges? Stop acting like Catholics who disagree with you are a bunch of eight-year-olds you can just pat on the head. Was Christ immature when He overturned the money changers tables? It’s called just anger and whole lot of holy cardinals and bishops are rather calmly expressing their utter grief over the situation in comparison to Christ and the money changers. You are the ones who really need to slap the duct tape on your mouths. A time-out is definitely in order for you.
What we must avoid at all costs is a spate of firings of Catholic high school track coaches and math teachers. We can respect a narrow definition of the ministerial exemption out of respect for religious belief, but the broadening of the definition of “minister” to include schoolteachers, food pantry workers, diocesan accountants and parish musicians is wrong and must be resisted.
Uh, says who? You? Before you spout off as smarter than the bishops, you might want to actually re-read the Hosanna-Tabor decision again. There is no “narrow definition of the ministerial exemption.” That’s something you hope for to undermine Catholic Identity.
Justice Roberts:
The Court, however, does not adopt a rigid for­mula for deciding when an employee qualifies as a minister. (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-553.pdf)
Where’s that narrow definition again, editorial staff? At least do a little honest journalism and note that justice after justice said they aren’t deciding who is and who is not a minister. Also, is someone suggesting a diocesan accountant be named a minister? Please. Can you say “overly dramatic?” Back to the NcR:
Furthermore, if state Catholic conferences work to enact laws against discrimination in employment and accommodations based on sexual orientation, that would help heal wounds in the religious community and society at large.
Wait, are you suggesting that the Church work for laws that limit her Religious Freedom to maintain their Catholic Identity? Really, would that shock anyone? I think the editorial staff is hoping the Catholic Church in the United States is going to be the France of the Catholic World. Here’s hoping our cardinals and bishops have learned a little more from history than NcR.