Quantcast
Channel: Vox Cantoris
Viewing all 3701 articles
Browse latest View live

I will not submit to sodomy as anything other than the filth and evil that it is and it is straight out of Hell

$
0
0
This was on a friend's Facebook entry. While it has been a decade in Canada and has only just come to the United State of America.

I reprint it here:

I DECLARE, PROFESS, PROCLAIM, AND STATE WITHOUT AMBIGUITY OR COMPROMISE that Same-Sex (so called) Marriage is an UNNATURAL, MORTAL and GRIEVOUS SIN that cries to heaven for vengeance and is reprobate, as are all acts of SODOMY!

NO HUMAN AUTHORITY, no matter how legitimate or honorable, whether, monarch, republic, democracy, or totalitarian dictatorship as the right to make lawful that which is unlawful by nature and by nature's GOD. It does not matter how many people agree (even if it were the whole world) to legitimize anything against the law of GOD especially 

ABORTION, SODOMY, and EUTHANASIA it still remains illegitimate and NO ROMAN CATHOLIC can in anyway, condone, legitimate, accept, support or agree with an unjust law that is opposed to the Law of GOD.

Silence in the face of evil is cooperation with evil. It is the duty and the obligation of all Roman Catholics to vociferously OPPOSE any law that is opposed to the Law of GOD. To do or say nothing when these unjust laws are enacted is to silently approve them even if you do not.

I therefore PROCLAIM for all to see, read, and hear I believe that Sodomite 'marriage' is an evil that cannot be tolerated. I oppose it with every fiber of my being as I oppose the murder of Abortion and the murder/suicide of Euthanasia. I will proclaim this and oppose these evils to my death. If I am persecuted because of it so be it. NEVERTHELESS, let it be known that I will never go quietly into the night, I will not be arrested without a fight, I will not loose my freedom without a fight to the death.

LET BE KNOWN I AM A CRISTERO AND I WILL ACT AS SUCH IF ANYONE ATTEMPTS TO TAKE AWAY MY GOD GIVEN RIGHTS. SO HELP ME GOD!


VIVA CRISTO REY! 
VIVA LA VIRGIN DE GUADALUPE!

BREAKING REPORT—June 26: A Day That Will Live in Infamy

The Catholic justices that did this, Sotomayor and Kennedy, have, unless they repent, condemned themselves to Hell.

Life imitates art? The fantasy has become the reality!

$
0
0
Gird your loins my brothers and sisters.

Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth and the Life.


Fantasy is becoming reality where "one vast and ecumenical holding company, for whom all men will work to serve a common profit, in which all men will hold a share of stock, all necessities provided, all anxieties tranquilized, all boredom amused."

And yet, there is only one Reality.

And His name is Jesus Christ.


 

The Precious Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ was spilt for all, even for those who mock him in derision

$
0
0


Today on July 1 in Canada we celebrate "Canada Day" or until Pierre Elliot Trudeau wiped away our cultural history, Dominion Day. We are still, the Dominion of Canada and our motto is from the 72nd Psalm, Ad mare usque ad mari-- "And he shall have dominion from sea unto sea." My readers in the United States will soon celebrate Independence Day. May it be a peaceful day, in spite of the threats from Islamo-fascists and yet, given the scandalous and destructive decision of the SCOTUS, it may not be peaceful. In ancient Israel the Lord often withdrew His protecting hand. Can either of our countries founded on the bedrock of Christianity, ours in Canada Catholic, at least initially, claim His protection now? We sanction sodomite "marriage" we kill our infants in the wombs of their mothers and we expect His help?

Liturgically speaking, in the Ordinary Form it is rather ordinary, as Wednesday of the Thirteenth Week in Ordinary Time. However, there is a Votive Mass of the Precious Blood in the Third Roman Missal which could be easily said today. Perhaps it should be, in reparation for what will come at the end of this post.

In the traditional calendar, today is the Feast of the Most Precious Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ, which in the new was combined on Corpus Christi. If you look at your new rite Missal it will say Solemnity of the Body and Blood of Christ where as in the traditional it is simply the "Body of Christ" -- Corpus Christi. It was added to the calendar in 1849 by Pope Pius IX and was observed in Spain since the 16th century having been brought to Rome by St. Gaspar del Bufalo. Corpus Christi is from the 13th century and the whole Proper of the Mass and its sequence and the Office were assembled from scripture and composed by St.Thomas Aquinas. He gave us the texts of the hymns Pange Lingua, gives us the Tamtum ergo, Sacris solemniis gives us the beautiful compositions of Panis Angelicus, Verbum supernum prodiens is from where we sing O Salutaris Hostia and of course, Adore te Devote. 

One of the seven deadly sins is pride from which all others flow. We know what it is used to celebrate. A few days ago, in Sao Paulo, Brazil, in a city named after the great Apostle to the Gentiles, 2,000,000 people gathered in the streets. A man who had gone through the mutilation of a surgery and chemical cocktail to appear as a woman was displayed on a float "crucified" in a mockery of Our Lord Jesus Christ. That is not all. In other parades, Our Blessed Lord was also blasphemened in manners which I cannot write, nor can I post the pictures. You may find these links:

http://m.snopes.com/2015/06/30/gay-pride-crucifixion-photos/

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/after-blasphemous-gay-pride-parade-brazil-seeks-to-ban-christophobia

http://www.buzzfeed.com/javiermoreno/this-transgender-actress-sparked-a-huge-uproar-after-dressin#.ntKO39WkQ

http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/internacional/en/brazil/2015/06/1640156-crucifixion-at-the-gay-parade-causes-controversy-with-religious.shtml

http://shoebat.com/2015/06/29/two-million-homosexuals-flood-the-streets-to-express-their-hatred-against-god-they-then-take-a-transgender-man-dress-him-up-as-jesus-christ-whip-him-until-he-bleeds-and-then-crucify-him/

On this day in Dominion Day in Canada and on Independence Day in the United States, before our BBQ's, let us gather in our gardens and parks and together say these:


PRAYERS OF REPARATION FOR BLASPHEMY

May the most holy, most sacred, most adorable, most mysterious and unutterable Name of God be always praised, blessed, loved, adored and glorified in heaven on earth and under the earth, by all the creatures of God, and by the Sacred Heart of our Lord Jesus Christ in the most Holy Sacrament of the altar. 
Imprimatur - T. J. Toolen, Archbishop of Mobile-Birm.

Praise to the Holy Name of Jesus 
The Holy Name of our Saviour is taken in vain so often. When we hear someone use the Name above all names as a common swear word, we can cross ourselves and reverence the precious Name being defamed. Another commendable practice involves the devout, fervent recitation of the following prayer:

May the Holy Name of Jesus be infinitely blessed!
May the Holy Name of Jesus be infinitely blessed!
May the Holy Name of Jesus be infinitely blessed!
May the Holy Name of Jesus be infinitely blessed!
May the Holy Name of Jesus be infinitely blessed!

Act of Reparation to the Sacred Heart of Jesus
O Sacred Heart of Jesus, animated with a desire to repair the outrages unceasingly offered to Thee, we prostrate before Thy throne of mercy, and in the name of all mankind, pledge our love and fidelity to Thee.
The more Thy mysteries are blasphemed, the more firmly we shall believe them, O Sacred Heart of Jesus!

The more impiety endeavors to extinguish our hope of immortality, the more we shall trust in Thy Heart, sole Hope of mankind!

The more hearts resist Thy Divine attractions, the more we shall love Thee, O infinitely amiable Heart of Jesus!

The more unbelief attacks Thy Divinity, the more humbly and profoundly we shall adore It, O Divine Heart of Jesus!

The more Thy holy laws are transgressed and ignored, the more we shall delight to observe them, O most holy Heart of Jesus!

The more Thy Sacraments are despised and abandoned, the more frequently we shall receive them with love and reverence, O most generous Heart of Jesus!

The more the imitation of Thy virtues is neglected and forgotten, the more we shall endeavor to practice them, O Heart, model of every virtue!

The more the devil labors to destroy souls, the more we shall be inflamed with desire to save them, O Heart of Jesus, zealous Lover of souls!

The more sin and impurity destroy the image of God in man, the more we shall try by purity of life to be a living temple of the Holy Spirit, O Heart of Jesus!

The more Thy Holy Church is despised, the more we shall endeavor to be her faithful children, O Sweet Heart of Jesus!

The more Thy Vicar on earth is persecuted, the more will we honor him as the infallible head of Thy Holy Church, show our fidelity and pray for him, O kingly Heart of Jesus!

O Sacred Heart, through Thy powerful grace, may we become Thy apostles in the midst of a corrupted world, and be Thy crown in the kingdom of Heaven. Amen. 2

Nihil Obstat - John J. Clifford, S.J. Censor Liborum

Imprimatur - + Samuel A. Stritch, December 17, 1943 Archbishop of Chicago.



The treason of Canada's bishops in the debate on so-called, same-sex "marriage"

$
0
0
Recently, I wrote that the blame for the recent American SCOTUS decision changing the legal definition of marriage lay with the bishops and priests who for a half-century have failed to properly teach and admonish the faithful in the Truth of the Catholic faith, the Truth of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

As an aside, and perhaps some of my many and loyal American readers can comment. It seems to me that the 10th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America is the model of Catholic subsidiarity. It states that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Since the Constitution is silent on the whole issue of marriage, how can the SCOTUS force a State to go along with its redefinition of marriage? Has this been interfered with before without States' objections leading to a de facto abrogation?

Getting back to the matter of bishops, my good friend ELA at ContraDiction has posted a column an article of July 8, 1996 by Joseph K. Woodword in Alberta Report, which ceased publication in 2003.

It is worth reading today to understand how our bishops in Canada failed us too. The red text is my commentary to update the article, the bolding is mine for emphasis.

Treason Of The Clerics
Subtitled: Gay Apostasy Subverts And Paralyzes The Canadian Catholic Church

By Joseph K. Woodard
w/ permission

Alberta Report, July 8, 1996 

One of the mysteries surrounding the speedy passage of Bill C-33, the "sexual orientation" clause to the Canada Human Rights Act, is the near-silence of the Canadian Catholic Church in the debate. The Vatican defines homosexual behaviour as an "objective moral disorder" and has opposed repeatedly the very idea of "gay rights." The Church's silence in 1996 was a marked change from 1994, when the robust opposition of Ontario bishops was instrumental in defeating the NDP provincial government's own homosexual rights bill. (The NDP stands for New Democratic Party a democratic socialist and labour party at the federal and provincial levels in Canada. It is radically pro-abortion and one cannot run nor be a member of one subscribes to an "anti-choice" position.) Now a possible and shocking explanation has surfaced. It is now known that the Canadian Catholic hierarchy made its own peace with the radical homosexual agenda in 1992, when in a settlement of sexual abuse claims made against Ontario monks, it recognised homosexual "spousal benefits."

Despite Justice Minister Allan Rock's assurances to the contrary, C-33 will soon result in the complete elimination of legal distinctions heterosexual marriages and homosexual liaisons. (Rock was then Minister of Justice in the government at the time under Prime Minister Jean Chretien; both Rock and Chretien were Roman Catholics. So-called, same-sex "marriage" was approved by the Parliament of Canada on July 20, 2005 put forward by the minority government under Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin, also a Roman Catholic.) And so the relative uninterest of the Canadian bishops in this crippling blow to the legitimacy of the traditional family has not gone unnoticed. Indeed, Bishop James Wingle of Yarmouth, a C-33 opponent, has condemned the "false impression" that his colleagues had actually supported the legislation. (The Diocese of Yarmouth no longer exists having been folded into the new Halifax Yarmouth Archdiocese. Wingle later became the Bishop of St. Catharines in Ontario and disappeared suspiciously and without explanation resigning in April 2010.)  

It is true that no Canadian bishop actually endorsed C-33. But of the more than 50 Anglophone bishops, only a handful stood firmly against the bill. And when representatives of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB)--the church bureaucracy, appeared before the House Justice Committee on May 2, they effectively sabotaged what little opposition Canada's prelates had mustered.

When C-33 was announced, Vancouver Archbishop Adam Exner issued a statement demanding the law continue to protect "the conscience rights of Canadians morally opposed to homosexual behaviour," and "allow employers to make non-practice of homosexual activity a bona fide occupational qualification." Yet on May 2, when homosexual MP Svend Robinson questioned CCCB general-secretary Doug Crosby about that statement, the priest could only stammer an incoherent denial of Bishop Exner's position. (Bishop Douglas Crosby is now the Bishop of the Diocese of Hamilton, in Ontario. Next year, he will become the President of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops). The CCCB delegation also repudiated the Vatican's 1992 statement on homosexuality.  

"It was pathetic," objects Sylvia MacEachern, of Ottawa's traditionalist St. Brigid's Association. (named after the sad state of the parish and the Oratorian Affair made known in the book The Last Roman Catholic by the late James Demers. I had the honour as a parishioner there of suffering along with them) "Here was Canada's most infamous gay MP, the only one quoting the Church's teaching, and when he asked the representatives of the Canadian Church whether they agreed with it, they were tongue-tied." In her response to Mr. Robinson, Father Crosby's colleague, Jennifer Leddy, could only beg him, as a "serious advocate for human rights," to "give us a chance to participate constructively," since "we want to participate."

Apologists for the Canadian Catholic hierarchy say the speed with which C-33 was rammed through Parliament made any strong resistance impossible. (This is true, it was rammed through. Canadians could barely organise against it and had no say as we were bombarded by the dictatorship of a minority parliament dancing to an evil agenda and we're too damn polite!) But the capitulation of the Catholic bureaucracy to the gay rights agenda was in April, when New Brunswick Senator Noel Kinsella introduced his "sexual orientation" Bill S-2. The CCCB was offered the opportunity to make a submission against it to the Senate but declined.

Furthermore, the Liberal government has been promising to bring in such legislation since 1993, and renewed its promise last winter. Yet the national church office did nothing.

National bishops' conferences are a modern innovation. In 1964, when episcopal collegiality was discussed at the Second Vatican Council, the venerable Cardinal Oddi quipped that he could find only one biblical citation for the notion, the time during Christ's passion when "they all fled."By 1985, Vatican theology watchdog Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger was warning of the "burdensome bureaucratic structures" of the national offices. They have "no theological basis" and "do not belong to the structure of the church," he insisted. Each bishop has complete authority in his diocese and is subject only to the pope. But the national conferences, however, allow the majority of the bishops to hide in anonymity.

The CCCB's General Secretariat employs just under 100 people in a half-dozen commissions, with a budget of roughly $4.5 million. Its functionaries deal directly with their opposite numbers in the local dioceses, and thus they control information flow in the Canadian Church. The secretariat is under the nominal governance of an executive committee--this year led by Kingston Archbishop Francis Spence. But the election of full-time directors falls to its periodic "plenary sessions," dependent on the "guidance" of the existing directors.

"Individual bishops have great difficulty in freeing themselves from the national conference," says MonsignorVincent Foy, a Toronto canon lawyer. "They're afraid their authority can be undercut at any moment. It's a great burden on the Church. But the Holy See is now preparing a document on the problem."(On June 7, 2014 a Solemn Mass according to the Roman Missal of 1962 was offered in the presence of Cardinal Collins to celebrate the 75th anniversary of ordination of Msgr. Vincent Foy. He turns 100 on August 14, 2015.)

While lack of accountability is the "iron rule" of bureaucracy, the CCCB's "gay-friendliness" is the result of personalities. In the 1980s, Father Doug Crosby, (now the Bishop of Hamilton and Pastor there when the whole "Oratorian Affair" occurred and from where the main antagonists came)  who was appointed CCCB general-secretary, was pastor of Ottawa's St. Joseph's Church. This parish was jocularly referred to "St. Joe's by the Whirlpool," because of the party tub in its rectory. St. Joseph's became home to the Ottawa chapter of Dignity, the homosexual fifth column within the Catholic Church. Special pews were reserved for Dignity members at the church's noon masses. (To this day, St. Joseph's in Ottawa under the OMI priests is still a parish of liturgical, ministerial and catechetical dissent. 

Gay or gay-sympathetic priests tend to form a solid, cohesive block within the church, observes Michael McCarthy, a retired priest from the diocese of Saskatoon. "They have such an enormous potential to create embarrassment with their dirty little secrets, the bishops won't stand up to them."

While the number of homosexuals in the Canadian Catholic priesthood is unknown, it is known they have a particular interest in seminaries, where new priests are formed. On the eve of Pope John Paul II's visit to Canada in 1984, Emmett Cardinal Carter, then-archbishop of Toronto, ordered a clean-up of his St. Augustine's Seminary. "Students in the residence could hear other seminarians padding up and down the halls at night, and everybody knew what was going on," says one Toronto-area priest, who wishes to remain anonymous. The obvious theological dissidents were fired, but the previous graduates were already worming their way through the Canadian hierarchy. (The Dean of Studies at the time was notorious. and known by all to be gay. The Rector at the time, Father Brian Clough whose first Mass I attended as a boy around 1968 as my parents were friends of his and its a darn good thing I didn't end up in Seminary at the worst possible time; was fired by Carter for a leaked paper encouraging "tolerance for the heterosexual seminarians." It is documented in the book, The Desolate City by Anne Roche Muggeridge but being pre-Internet days, that document has never been able to surface. Father Clough went on to become the Judicial Vicar for the Archdiocese of Toronto.)

An investigation into St. Augustine's found no evidence of homosexual behaviour. That investigation, however, was led by the then-bishop of London, Ont., Marcel Gervais. Bishop Gervais subsequent career has revealed him to be one of Canada's foremost gay-friendly clerics. He has since become Archbishop of Ottawa, sometime president of the CCCB, grand chancellor of Ottawa's dissident St. Peter's Seminary, (this may be an error in the author's original piece. St. Peter's Seminary in in London, Ontario, Ottawa no longer has one though there is a school of philosophy and theology at St. Paul's University within the once Catholic University of Ottawa on whose campus St. Joseph's parish sits. As for the dissidence of St. Peter's Seminary in London, I know four fine priests that came from there and that is all I will say about that!) and the ultimate superior--and protector--of its heterodox sexual ethicist, Fr. Andre Guindon. (whose work was condemned by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith under then Cardinal Ratzinger!) 

A just-published book, Who's in the Seminary, suggests that Canadian seminaries are still hothouses of homosexuality. St. Paul University professor Martin Rovers sent out 455 questionnaires to students at Canada's three major seminaries (St. Augustine's, London's St. Peter's, and Edmonton's St. Joseph's). Fully 25% of the 203 respondents claimed they were either gay, bisexual or unsure of their orientation. As with most self-reported surveys, the accuracy of Prof. Rovers data is open to question, yet it is certain that homosexual representation in Canadian seminaries is many times higher than the now-accepted figure of 1.5% to 3% for the population at large.

"The Catholic Church had a major problem with the retention of priests through the 1970s," says Pennsylvania State University sociologist Philip Jenkins, author of the major new study, Pedophiles and Priests. "So they let in a lot of guys they ought not to have." Many thousands of priests had left the North American churches after the tumultuous changes ushered in by the Second Vatican Council. Desperate for new vocations, seminaries relaxed intellectual and moral standards. According to Prof. Jenkins, many homosexuals have been ordained since then, resulting in "the gay movement becoming solidly entrenched in the Canadian hierarchy."He cautions, however, not to confuse the issues of homosexuality and pedophilia. "If you look dispassionately at the figures, priestly pedophiles run maybe two per thousand, about the same as the rest of the population," says Prof. Jenkins, an Episcopalian.

The perception of a pedophilia crisis was created both by a hostile media and by the division between conservative and liberal Catholics, says Prof. Jenkins. The former blamed homosexuality, and the latter, celibacy. "In fact, the figures indicate that there is no Catholic pedophilia problem, so it's not caused by celibacy." Most of the recent school and choir scandals have not been pedophilia, with prepubescent victims. Rather, they've involved 14-or 15-year-old boys--which is classic homosexuality. That problem, Prof. Jenkins repeats, arose from poor recruiting and later, subversive networking among gay priests. (This is what most of us have been saying all along. Homosexual men came into the priesthood and raped post-pubescent boys. They used the priesthood as their cover.)

Ironically, it is the worst homosexual scandal in Canadian history that has cemented the power of gay network within the Church. The Christian Brothers, a lay Catholic order, was for decades under contract to the government of Ontario to run reform schools at Alfred, near Ottawa, and Uxbridge, near Toronto. These schools may have seen some 500 to 1000 cases of physical and sexual abuse, from the 1960s through the early 1980s. When this abuse became public in 1990, a victim's group, Helpline, hired Toronto lawyer Roger Tucker to pursue their claims. Mr. Tucker approached long-time liberal-Catholic functionary Doug Roche, to mediate. Mr. Roche, a powerful Church fixer for three decades, was the founding editor of the Western Catholic Reporter, and a former MP and Canadian disarmament ambassador. He was then also Mr. Tucker's father-in-law. His mediation proved agreeable to the Ottawa Christian Brothers and the Toronto and Ottawa archdioceses. (The Toronto Christian Brothers have refused to endorse Mr. Tucker's efforts. They are pursuing a separate compensation arrangement with abuse survivors).

By 1992, Mr. Roche had completed an agreement whereby validated abuse claimants would receive some $20,000 each and keep silent about their abusers' identities. Yet by 1996, says negotiator Mike Watters, the claimants had received an average of only $12,000 each, Mr. Tucker had pocketed $750,000, and more than $10 million had been spent in administrative costs. Mr. Roche's fee remained secret. Even more interesting, Mr. Roche or one of his colleagues slipped a curious little clause into the agreement, one that was not noticed until years later.

"If you want to know why the bishops didn't fight Bill C-33 and argue the case against gay marriages, check out the reform school agreement," says journalist Michael Harris, author of Unholy Orders, an account of the Mount Cashel Orphanage scandal. The agreement with the Christian Brothers' victims provides for dental, medical, educational, and counselling benefits to victims, their family members, and those "in a close personal relationship that others recognize is of primary importance in both persons' lives."This, claims Mr. Harris, constitutes the Canadian Catholic Church's recognition of gay spousal benefits.

It is unclear whether (then) Ottawa's Bishop Gervais or Toronto's Bishop Ambrozic knew about the "personal relationship" clause in 1994, when both vocally opposed the Ontario gay rights bill. But by 1996, "I think the bishops knew it was there, and Svend [Robinson] knew it was there," suggests Mr. Harris. Bishop Gervais remained silent during the C-33 debate, and Bishop Ambrozic, normally the "pit bull" of the conservative Canadian bishops, merely distributed a summary of the lacklustre CCCB statement.

For whatever reason, dissident former priest and theologian Gregory Baum (Baum was interviewed by Father Thomas J. Rosica of Salt + Light Television, the transcript of that fascinating interview includes, "You remain a faithful, deeply devoted Catholic, you love Jesus, the Church, the Eucharist.") is glad the Canadian bishops ducked Bill C-33. "I don't think the Church has any business saying this is okay or this isn't okay." he says. "This was not a church wedding the government was debating, but a human right." 


While Canada's Catholic heretics are pleased with the C-33 resolution, the orthodox are appalled. "The Catholic Church isn't a foreign institution," says Toronto lawyer David Brown, (then) vice-president of the Catholic Civil Rights League. "Canada is founded upon a vision of the human being, grounded in religion. And if the country loses that vision, it risks self-destruction."

Justice Thomas is called a "clown in blackface." What would that make the person who said it?

$
0
0
Clarence Thomas official SCOTUS portrait.jpgI have no horse in the race in U.S. politics but I have long been impressed by Mr. Justice Clarence Thomas. In what I have read of him and hearing him speak in interviews and reading some excerpts of his decisions he has come across to this Canadian as a man of dignity, grace, courage and humility. He rose from child poverty and a racial segregation to rise to the position he has today. He is also a Roman Catholic.

On the other hand, I could never get Star Trek, notwithstanding the Canadian son who played the main character.


George Takei, a man who engages in sodomy with another man, was also on the series. The child of Japanese immigrants interred during World War II, called Justice Thomas a "clown in blackface."

I should think two things.

One, Mr. Takei is fascist and a racist.

The second is; I doubt he would like to be called one of these.

An appeal for a Deacon in India on this Feast of St Thomas of India and Apostle of Our Lord Jesus Christ!

$
0
0


Voxers,

A few weeks ago, I wrote about a Seminarian in India in the Syro-Malabar rite of the Catholic Church. He is the Reverend Deacon Joice Joseph Puliyammakal whom you can read about below. He is to be ordained to the priesthood and is completing now his final studies. Deacon Joseph was raised by good and holy parents who have little in material aid. He has been called by the LORD to the harvest but he also desires to honour his father and mother by providing for them a house so that he can go to serve God in the holy priesthood without worry. He is their oldest son and on him is this great responsibility.

I have verified his Diaconal Ordination and good standing with his Order and his seminary. When I first put out the appeal it was at $60. As of today, it is at $1800.  You are wonderful!

You can visit his page below and see the progress on the house, our dollars can go a lot further in India. You can also see photos of Deacon Joseph's ordination and the house of his parents and some videos of how hard living there has been for them, particularly in the rainy season.

However, what has been raised is not enough to complete the house.

We have been bombarded with bad news affecting our faith. We are bombarded for money. Yet, here is an opportunity to build a house in India for our Catholic brethren in need and at the same time to help this man become a priest to serve the Lord and you can watch it all happen too - you can actually see your generosity's result.

Today is the Feast of St. Thomas the Apostle. Did you know that the Syro-Malabar Rite of the Mass is apostolic in origin and was brought to India by this great apostle? These original Catholics of southern India refer to themselves as St. Thomas Christian!

Let us honour this great Apostle on his Feast by helping Deacon Joseph get this house built and become a priest for the Missionary Society of St. Thomas the Apostle!

You can be assured that you will be in his prayers and those of his parents. 

A Seminarian in India - The Lord has called him to the "harvest." What can we do to help?

The purpose of this blog is not fundraising; but every once in a while, the need comes along to help one of our brothers or sisters. I have urged help here for New Jersey teacher, Patricia Jannuzzi and there are two seminarians whom I know personally, one studying for the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest in Italy (we will have another campaign in September) and more recently a man from Toronto studying for the Ukrainian Rite.

Recently, Reverend Deacon Joice Joseph Puliyammakal of the Missionary Society of St. Thomas the Apostle, a Society of Apostolic Life in Ujjain City, Madhyapredash, India has written to me in the hope that through this blog, we can help him on his journey to the priesthood. 

Deacon Joseph's formation is the Ruhalaya Major Seminary where over 120 men are studying for the priesthood over its seven year program of Philosophy and Theology. Would that we  had that in Toronto and every North American and European seminary. Praise be Jesus Christ! If you click on this link to the Seminary and then click on "IIIrd Year Students" and scroll down to #15, you can verify Reverend Joseph's position. You can find him on Facebook.

For your assurance, and mine, I have written to the Director General of the Missionary Society of St. Thomas the Apostle, Father Kurian Ammanathukunnel pictured on the left during Deacon Joseph's diaconal ordination in the Syro-Malabar Rite, of the Catholic Church founded by St. Thomas the Apostle. Father has confirmed to me directly, that Deacon "belongs to our Society (MST) and is at present a student of our own Major Seminary (Ruhalaya) at Ujjain in the State, Madhya Pradesh. His request is genuine and authentic and, I shall be happy if you can render a helping hand to him. Hence I confirm the legitimacy of his position and request. May God Bless you." 

Here is Deacon Joseph's story:

My Story
I am from a poor family. My father is a farmer and mother is house wife. My father was affected by tuberculosis some years back but now he is ok. I have a younger brother. He is at home now taking care of my family. And he finds time to study by himself. We don’t have a good house. We have been staying in a plastic shelter for long years. It was my great ambition to become a missionary priest that made me joining in seminary. I have been living in seminary with minimum things and even short of. I was happy all the time and even now. God is leading me in good way. Now I have become a deacon and I will be ordained to priesthood soon.  My parents are not able to support me for my studies and now I need to find some ways to do my ordination ceremony and to build a small house for my parents. If you can help me a bit by posting my fundraiser campaign in your page and website, I may be helped. i request your cooperation and help to consider me as your own brother. Since you have visited Kerala I hope you might have witnessed the life of normal people here. Only in cities we have good houses and rich people. Here in villages we are poor. But we have a lot of vocations from these villages. I hope you would help me.
BY
With hope
Deacon Joice Joseph 

Deacon has taken out a YouCaring support page. As of this writing, there is $60.00 listed. 

Voxers, what is $20, $60, or $100 to us these days? McDonald's for two is $20. How much can we do for this Deacon and his family and for the Church in India. How much further can our money go there than here?

May the Lord send many harvesters to the harvest in India and may they come to re-evangelise those of us who have forgotten so much.


So called "same-sex marriage" and your duty as a Catholic

$
0
0
Don't give me that "who am I to judge" or that "Jesus never mentioned homosexuality" line.

Read this; and if you are Catholic and hold a different position, well then; you're a mis-informed Catholic and need to change your position or get out of the Church.

It is really that simple.

CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH

CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS
TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION
TO UNIONS
BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS 

INTRODUCTION

1. In recent years, various questions relating to homosexuality have been addressed with some frequency by Pope John Paul II and by the relevant Dicasteries of the Holy See.(1) Homosexuality is a troubling moral and social phenomenon, even in those countries where it does not present significant legal issues. It gives rise to greater concern in those countries that have granted or intend to grant – legal recognition to homosexual unions, which may include the possibility of adopting children. The present Considerations do not contain new doctrinal elements; they seek rather to reiterate the essential points on this question and provide arguments drawn from reason which could be used by Bishops in preparing more specific interventions, appropriate to the different situations throughout the world, aimed at protecting and promoting the dignity of marriage, the foundation of the family, and the stability of society, of which this institution is a constitutive element. The present Considerations are also intended to give direction to Catholic politicians by indicating the approaches to proposed legislation in this area which would be consistent with Christian conscience.(2) Since this question relates to the natural moral law, the arguments that follow are addressed not only to those who believe in Christ, but to all persons committed to promoting and defending the common good of society.
  
I. THE NATURE OF MARRIAGE
AND ITS INALIENABLE CHARACTERISTICS

2. The Church's teaching on marriage and on the complementarity of the sexes reiterates a truth that is evident to right reason and recognized as such by all the major cultures of the world. Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It was established by the Creator with its own nature, essential properties and purpose.(3) No ideology can erase from the human spirit the certainty that marriage exists solely between a man and a woman, who by mutual personal gift, proper and exclusive to themselves, tend toward the communion of their persons. In this way, they mutually perfect each other, in order to cooperate with God in the procreation and upbringing of new human lives.

3. The natural truth about marriage was confirmed by the Revelation contained in the biblical accounts of creation, an expression also of the original human wisdom, in which the voice of nature itself is heard. There are three fundamental elements of the Creator's plan for marriage, as narrated in the Book of Genesis.

In the first place, man, the image of God, was created “male and female” (Gen 1:27). Men and women are equal as persons and complementary as male and female. Sexuality is something that pertains to the physical-biological realm and has also been raised to a new level – the personal level – where nature and spirit are united.

Marriage is instituted by the Creator as a form of life in which a communion of persons is realized involving the use of the sexual faculty. “That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife and they become one flesh” (Gen 2:24).

Third, God has willed to give the union of man and woman a special participation in his work of creation. Thus, he blessed the man and the woman with the words “Be fruitful and multiply” (Gen 1:28). Therefore, in the Creator's plan, sexual complementarity and fruitfulness belong to the very nature of marriage.

Furthermore, the marital union of man and woman has been elevated by Christ to the dignity of a sacrament. The Church teaches that Christian marriage is an efficacious sign of the covenant between Christ and the Church (cf. Eph 5:32). This Christian meaning of marriage, far from diminishing the profoundly human value of the marital union between man and woman, confirms and strengthens it (cf. Mt 19:3-12; Mk 10:6-9).

4. There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God's plan for marriage and family. Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law. Homosexual acts “close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved”.(4)

Sacred Scripture condemns homosexual acts “as a serious depravity... (cf. Rom 1:24-27; 1 Cor 6:10; 1 Tim 1:10). This judgment of Scripture does not of course permit us to conclude that all those who suffer from this anomaly are personally responsible for it, but it does attest to the fact that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered”.(5) This same moral judgment is found in many Christian writers of the first centuries(6) and is unanimously accepted by Catholic Tradition.

Nonetheless, according to the teaching of the Church, men and women with homosexual tendencies “must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided”.(7) They are called, like other Christians, to live the virtue of chastity.(8) The homosexual inclination is however “objectively disordered”(9) and homosexual practices are “sins gravely contrary to chastity”.(10)
  
II. POSITIONS ON THE PROBLEM
OF HOMOSEXUAL UNIONS

5. Faced with the fact of homosexual unions, civil authorities adopt different positions. At times they simply tolerate the phenomenon; at other times they advocate legal recognition of such unions, under the pretext of avoiding, with regard to certain rights, discrimination against persons who live with someone of the same sex. In other cases, they favour giving homosexual unions legal equivalence to marriage properly so-called, along with the legal possibility of adopting children.

Where the government's policy is de facto tolerance and there is no explicit legal recognition of homosexual unions, it is necessary to distinguish carefully the various aspects of the problem. Moral conscience requires that, in every occasion, Christians give witness to the whole moral truth, which is contradicted both by approval of homosexual acts and unjust discrimination against homosexual persons. Therefore, discreet and prudent actions can be effective; these might involve: unmasking the way in which such tolerance might be exploited or used in the service of ideology; stating clearly the immoral nature of these unions; reminding the government of the need to contain the phenomenon within certain limits so as to safeguard public morality and, above all, to avoid exposing young people to erroneous ideas about sexuality and marriage that would deprive them of their necessary defences and contribute to the spread of the phenomenon. Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimization of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the approval or legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil.

In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection.
  
III. ARGUMENTS FROM REASON AGAINST LEGAL
RECOGNITION OF HOMOSEXUAL UNIONS

6. To understand why it is necessary to oppose legal recognition of homosexual unions, ethical considerations of different orders need to be taken into consideration.

From the order of right reason

The scope of the civil law is certainly more limited than that of the moral law,(11) but civil law cannot contradict right reason without losing its binding force on conscience.(12) Every humanly-created law is legitimate insofar as it is consistent with the natural moral law, recognized by right reason, and insofar as it respects the inalienable rights of every person.(13) Laws in favour of homosexual unions are contrary to right reason because they confer legal guarantees, analogous to those granted to marriage, to unions between persons of the same sex. Given the values at stake in this question, the State could not grant legal standing to such unions without failing in its duty to promote and defend marriage as an institution essential to the common good.

It might be asked how a law can be contrary to the common good if it does not impose any particular kind of behaviour, but simply gives legal recognition to a de facto reality which does not seem to cause injustice to anyone. In this area, one needs first to reflect on the difference between homosexual behaviour as a private phenomenon and the same behaviour as a relationship in society, foreseen and approved by the law, to the point where it becomes one of the institutions in the legal structure. This second phenomenon is not only more serious, but also assumes a more wide-reaching and profound influence, and would result in changes to the entire organization of society, contrary to the common good. Civil laws are structuring principles of man's life in society, for good or for ill. They “play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behaviour”.(14) Lifestyles and the underlying presuppositions these express not only externally shape the life of society, but also tend to modify the younger generation's perception and evaluation of forms of behaviour. Legal recognition of homosexual unions would obscure certain basic moral values and cause a devaluation of the institution of marriage.

From the biological and anthropological order

7. Homosexual unions are totally lacking in the biological and anthropological elements of marriage and family which would be the basis, on the level of reason, for granting them legal recognition. Such unions are not able to contribute in a proper way to the procreation and survival of the human race. The possibility of using recently discovered methods of artificial reproduction, beyond involv- ing a grave lack of respect for human dignity,(15) does nothing to alter this inadequacy.

Homosexual unions are also totally lacking in the conjugal dimension, which represents the human and ordered form of sexuality. Sexual relations are human when and insofar as they express and promote the mutual assistance of the sexes in marriage and are open to the transmission of new life.

As experience has shown, the absence of sexual complementarity in these unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children who would be placed in the care of such persons. They would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood. Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development. This is gravely immoral and in open contradiction to the principle, recognized also in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, that the best interests of the child, as the weaker and more vulnerable party, are to be the paramount consideration in every case.

From the social order

8. Society owes its continued survival to the family, founded on marriage. The inevitable consequence of legal recognition of homosexual unions would be the redefinition of marriage, which would become, in its legal status, an institution devoid of essential reference to factors linked to heterosexuality; for example, procreation and raising children. If, from the legal standpoint, marriage between a man and a woman were to be considered just one possible form of marriage, the concept of marriage would undergo a radical transformation, with grave detriment to the common good. By putting homosexual unions on a legal plane analogous to that of marriage and the family, the State acts arbitrarily and in contradiction with its duties.

The principles of respect and non-discrimination cannot be invoked to support legal recognition of homosexual unions. Differentiating between persons or refusing social recognition or benefits is unacceptable only when it is contrary to justice.(16) The denial of the social and legal status of marriage to forms of cohabitation that are not and cannot be marital is not opposed to justice; on the contrary, justice requires it.

Nor can the principle of the proper autonomy of the individual be reasonably invoked. It is one thing to maintain that individual citizens may freely engage in those activities that interest them and that this falls within the common civil right to freedom; it is something quite different to hold that activities which do not represent a significant or positive contribution to the development of the human person in society can receive specific and categorical legal recognition by the State. Not even in a remote analogous sense do homosexual unions fulfil the purpose for which marriage and family deserve specific categorical recognition. On the contrary, there are good reasons for holding that such unions are harmful to the proper development of human society, especially if their impact on society were to increase.

From the legal order

9. Because married couples ensure the succession of generations and are therefore eminently within the public interest, civil law grants them institutional recognition. Homosexual unions, on the other hand, do not need specific attention from the legal standpoint since they do not exercise this function for the common good.

Nor is the argument valid according to which legal recognition of homosexual unions is necessary to avoid situations in which cohabiting homosexual persons, simply because they live together, might be deprived of real recognition of their rights as persons and citizens. In reality, they can always make use of the provisions of law – like all citizens from the standpoint of their private autonomy – to protect their rights in matters of common interest. It would be gravely unjust to sacrifice the common good and just laws on the family in order to protect personal goods that can and must be guaranteed in ways that do not harm the body of society.(17)
  
IV. POSITIONS OF CATHOLIC POLITICIANS
WITH REGARD TO LEGISLATION IN FAVOUR
OF HOMOSEXUAL UNIONS

10. If it is true that all Catholics are obliged to oppose the legal recognition of homosexual unions, Catholic politicians are obliged to do so in a particular way, in keeping with their responsibility as politicians. Faced with legislative proposals in favour of homosexual unions, Catholic politicians are to take account of the following ethical indications.

When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is proposed for the first time in a legislative assembly, the Catholic law-maker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against it. To vote in favour of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral.

When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is already in force, the Catholic politician must oppose it in the ways that are possible for him and make his opposition known; it is his duty to witness to the truth. If it is not possible to repeal such a law completely, the Catholic politician, recalling the indications contained in the Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, “could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality”, on condition that his “absolute personal opposition” to such laws was clear and well known and that the danger of scandal was avoided.(18) This does not mean that a more restrictive law in this area could be considered just or even acceptable; rather, it is a question of the legitimate and dutiful attempt to obtain at least the partial repeal of an unjust law when its total abrogation is not possible at the moment.

CONCLUSION

11. The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions. The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society. Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behaviour, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity. The Church cannot fail to defend these values, for the good of men and women and for the good of society itself.

The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, in the Audience of March 28, 2003, approved the present Considerations, adopted in the Ordinary Session of this Congregation, and ordered their publication.

Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, June 3, 2003, Memorial of Saint Charles Lwanga and his Companions, Martyrs.

Joseph Card. Ratzinger
Prefect

Angelo Amato, S.D.B.
Titular Archbishop of Sila

Secretary

Holy Father, please explain the "scandal" you muse about creating

$
0
0
People wave as Pope Francis leaves the Apostolic Nunciature in Quito, Ecuador, on July 6.
Pope Francis rides in "air-conditioned" comfort in fossil-fuel vehicle in Ecuador

Exactly what does Pope Francis mean when he says this when at Los Samenes Park in Ecuador during his homily he asked the million or so gathered there to:
"to pray fervently for this intention, (the Synod) so that Christ can take even what might seem to us impure, scandalous or threatening, and turn it -- by making it part of his 'hour' -- into a miracle. Families today need this miracle!"
Poor Father Federico Lombardi was left again to spin the Pope's comment and he stated that the Pope was not referring to any specific proposals discussed in the anticipation of the Synod.

Well, let's see.

The two proposals from last year and that seem to be on the docket again are Holy Communion for the divorced and remarried and some kind of accommodation of sodomy and its perverse lifestyle.

Given that the Pope says that these things to pray that change are "to us impure, scandalous and threatening" what the hell else could he be referring to when he asked that Our Lord Jesus Christ can turn this around "into a miracle." How can yo ask Our Lord to intercede to commit impurity or scandal?

Even CNN sees that something has gone awry with the headline that "Pope...'hints' at Scandalous Changes for the Church."

The Pope himself is either engaging in some sick game with the faithful, has heterodox and possibly heretical views or is suffering from some form of dementia.

What other explanation can there be?


Vatican obsessed with kissing by sodomites and lesbians! Pope Francis, what the hell are you doing about it?

$
0
0
UPDATE: 

Gloria TV is reporting on the priest behind the Vatican's German Radio
Father Bernd Hagenkord is the head of German Vatican Radio. On his Vatican Radio blog he allows vulgar postings against Catholics and agrees with them. Those who criticized an explicit picture of a lesbian kiss published by Vatican Radio and later deleted under pressure are called – quote - "a case for the psychiatrist". Hagenkord’s posters ask to bring critics of the sin of homosexuality to court and call them disgusting agitators or right-wing propagandists. Hagenkord himself writes in a posting that critics of the sin of Sodom are – quote – "just sick". One poster, however, is allowed to call the problem at Vatican Radio by its name: "The biggest scandal are you Father Hagenkord."
Are all of these priests actual sodomites themselves? 

Michael Voris at Church Militant is reporting on an article on Vatican Radio that features a photo of two lesbians kissing. After the photo was Tweeted by Edward Pentin, it was removed but not before Michael Voris' staff got a full screen shot!



This is not the first time. 

Nearly one year ago a German Bishop, Stephen Ackermann, made comments that were accompanied by a photo of two sodomites kissing in front of a rainbow flag. My article on that event can be found at this link; the Eponymous Flower has the original picture as it is shown below. After these perverts were caught, they later changed the picture to Ackermann in front of a crucifix.

Do they think we're stupid. We have the Internet, they cannot hide their filth anymore.

These pathetic bastards must be outed. Every. Single. Effeminate. Heretical. Deceitful, Evil one of them. These filthy liars and deceivers that work for Vatican Radio and other sodomites imbedded in the Church must be uprooted from the power base and rooted out of the Church so that they can do Her and the faithful no more harm.

They can seek mercy and forgiveness through repentance but they cannot earn their bread from Her.

This vile and disgusting practice under the nose of the Pope must be made known to him and he must act. If he fails to do act, then he condones it by his silence!

Toronto Priest denies Holy Communion on the tongue and announces it publicly!

$
0
0
Well, well, well.

The annual game of musical chairs in the Archdiocese of Toronto is being played out. I was always told that priests are to "make no changes for a year." 


It seems to me that little fact only works for those who might have a tinge of tradition let alone orthodoxy, you know a little Gregorian chant or Latin in keeping with the Documents of Vatican II, or a cassock or heaven forbid, moving the Tabernacle to the centre!

News has reached me today, confirmed from two sources, that a new Pastor at a prominent Toronto parish named after a very holy Saint who was also a Pope has refused to provide people who wish to kneel, the Holy Eucharist. Not only that, but he refuses to provide Holy Communion on the tongue, admonishing at least one; and he has announced this publicly at the Mass!

The parish has (or at least had) a large banner of its Patron Saint on the front wall overlooking the street. It shows this holy Pope in a beautiful green Roman chasuble giving Holy Communion to two children kneeling and on the tongue! 

How ironic!

I can tell you that both persons are known to me and they are both suffering a crisis of conscience!

All this in the first week Father is a the parish and publicly claims it to be a "health hazard."

Touché, ;),  I say.


Many fine articles on the matter of reception of Holy Communion can be found at here.

Just who is this Bernd Hagenkord, S.J.?

$
0
0
Just what kind of priest is the Jesuit Bernd Hagenkord of Vatican Radio's German language?

From Gloria TV:
Father Bernd Hagenkord is the head of German Vatican Radio. On his Vatican Radio blog he allows vulgar postings against Catholics and agrees with them. Those who criticized an explicit picture of a lesbian kiss published by Vatican Radio and later deleted under pressure are called – quote -"a case for the psychiatrist". Hagenkord’s posters ask to bring critics of the sin of homosexuality to court and call them disgusting agitators or right-wing propagandists. Hagenkord himself writes in a posting that critics of the sin of Sodom are – quote – "just sick". 
Let me get this straight, if you'll pardon the pun; St. Paul, St. Jude, Holy Moses and Our Lord Jesus Christ are "just sick?" 

This from a Vatican official? 

Father has a Twitter account which can be found at https://twitter.com/berndhagenkord

The Internet can be a grand place, it yields up this priceless quote of his from Rorate Caeli:

“Francis knows exactly how power is spelled,” says Bernd Hagenkord, a Jesuit who is in charge of German programming for Vatican Radio. “He’s a communicator in the league with Mother Teresa and the Dalai Lama. They say he’s being unclear, but we know exactly what he means.”
It turns out that this priest even attended Cardinal Marx's little sodomite friendly soirée as reported by the Mr. Edward Pentin. He was "one of the few Vatican officials to attend a secretive, closed-door meeting at the Pontifical Gregorian University in May that tried to steer the upcoming synod to recognize same-sex unions."

Canonist Dr. Edward Peters discusses Hagenkord's treatment of the Pope's foot-washing scandal in 2013.

Just one more to add to the list. Just one more traitor of Our Lord Jesus Christ and His Holy Catholic Church and the lay faithful at their mercy.

What these stupid men don't get though is that we're not going to put up with them anymore. 

Out these bastards.

Out all of them!

Pope's trip to South America is a disaster in the making

$
0
0
The Pope's trip to South America is a disaster a disaster in the making. If some of these instances were not so outright scandalous they might be considered as sick jokes. These instances reveal deep problems with this papacy and the people in the Vatican in general and specifically with the men that surround the Pope. Charitably, we must assume they are idiots, but they are most likely must more than that. Manipulative, evil, destructive, Christ-hating monsters. Freemasons, communists and homosexuals have have no faith and no fear of the Lord.

I will make three points.

The Pope's homily requesting the people of Ecuador to "pray fervently for this intention, (the Synod) so that Christ can take even what might seem to us impure, scandalous or threatening, and turn it -- by making it part of his 'hour' -- into a miracle. Families today need this miracle!"

A comment that Fr. Federico Lombardi said the Bishop of Rome did not refer to anything specific.

Really Padre Lombardi?

Do you think we're stupid?


Then we have the socialist El Presidente with the bad haircut presentint the Pope with a Corpus of Our Lord on a communist hammer and sickle. We are told the Pope said, "this is not okay." Or he may have said "I did not know that" after it was explained to him. Did he say the first? The second? Both? It does not matter, The Pope should have handed this blasphemy right back to the tinpot dictator who has disgraced his country. What Vatican official would not have known the protocols that gifts to the "leaders" are discussed beforehand? El Presidente also put an "pectoral cross" of this blasphemy around the Pope's neck.


Lombardi assures us that the monstrosity will not end up in a Church.

Want to bet?


This is another beach ball moment if I ever saw one.


Yet, the worst of all?

The Most Blessed Sacrament distributed by laymen from paper bags.


Well, at least the bags were white.


Paper bag ciboria here, plastic cups at WYD in Brazil.

These people have no faith.

They are deceived or bloody evil.

Get right or get out!

Lombardi and the rest of the Vatican spindoctors

$
0
0
Oh give it a rest you clowns,

You say you're not "offended" that the clown El Presidente of Bolivia gave that wretched and blasphemous gift to the Pope? Well, I am offended.

You say that it is a about "dialogue?"

I say it is about murder and mayhem and the hatred of Christ.

You can't spin this and you can't try to make it seem like another form of a Roman crucifixion.

You also cannot know the intend of the Jesuitical artist (RIP) that allegedly made this piece of shite.

Get the hell out.


The Change Manifesto

$
0
0
Below is the address by Jorge Bergoglio, Bishop of Rome to the people of Bolivia. The salutation, "Good afternoon" reminds us of another time when we did not hear "Praise to Jesus Christ" but instead, "good evening."

The Holy Name of Jesus appears four times. "Christ," not once. "Grace" is not to be found. The word "sin" appears four times, three in connection with an apology that the Europeans were so nasty, nothing about individual sin. "Conversion" appears once in the context of social structures. "Change" appears thirty-one times, where have we heard that word before?

Take a look at this one paragraph:
"Today I wish to reflect with you on the change we want and need. You know that recently I wrote about the problems of climate change. But now I would like to speak of change in another sense. Positive change, a changewhich is good for us, a change– we can say – which is redemptive. Because we need it. I know that you are looking for change, and not just you alone: in my different meetings, in my different travels, I have sensed an expectation, a longing, a yearning for change, in people throughout the world. Even within that ever smaller minority which believes that the present system is beneficial, there is a widespread sense of dissatisfaction and even despondency. Many people are hoping for a change capable of releasing them from the bondage of individualism and the despondency it spawns."
How can there be any change except that based on Our Lord Jesus Christ?

When has a Pope ever spoken in this manner? All that was missing was liberté, égalité, fraternité!

What is most concerning about this speech is that it was not just an off-the-cuff mess that we've become familiar with. It was written down and with footnotes.

The problems of Central and South America are well known. They are not the fault of Europeans who brought the saving news of Christ, the problems is political and economic corruption, criminal domination and a Church which has failed to preach the Truth as clearly seen in the vanishing numbers of faithful, an outright collapse as people leave for other congregations that actually preach about Jesus. Convert the people to Christ and His Church and you will convert the economic and political system.

The liberation theology inspired chickens of the 1970's have come home to roost. 

It was a heresy then and it is a heresy now no matter who proclaims it.

The Bishop of Rome's address follows, God help us.

***

Good afternoon!

Several months ago, we met in Rome, and I remember that first meeting. In the meantime I have kept you in my thoughts and prayers. I am happy to see you again, here, as you discuss the best ways to overcome the grave situations of injustice experienced by the excluded throughout our world. Thank you, President Evo Morales, for your efforts to make this meeting possible.

During our first meeting in Rome, I sensed something very beautiful: fraternity, determination, commitment, a thirst for justice. Today, in Santa Cruz de la Sierra, I sense it once again. I thank you for that. I also know, from the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace headed by Cardinal Turkson, that many people in the Church feel very close to the popular movements. That makes me very happy! I am pleased to see the Church opening her doors to all of you, embracing you, accompanying you and establishing in each diocese, in every justice and peace commission, a genuine, ongoing and serious cooperation with popular movements. I ask everyone, bishops, priests and laity, as well as the social organizations of the urban and rural peripheries, to deepen this encounter.

Today God has granted that we meet again. The Bible tells us that God hears the cry of his people, and I wish to join my voice to yours in calling for land, lodging and labor for all our brothers and sisters. I said it and I repeat it: these are sacred rights. It is important, it is well worth fighting for them. May the cry of the excluded be heard in Latin America and throughout the world.

1. Let us begin by acknowledging that change is needed. Here I would clarify, lest there be any misunderstanding, that I am speaking about problems common to all Latin Americans and, more generally, to humanity as a whole. They are global problems which today no one state can resolve on its own. With this clarification, I now propose that we ask the following questions:

Do we realize that something is wrong in a world where there are so many farmworkers without land, so many families without a home, so many laborers without rights, so many persons whose dignity is not respected?

Do we realize that something is wrong where so many senseless wars are being fought and acts of fratricidal violence are taking place on our very doorstep? Do we realize something is wrong when the soil, water, air and living creatures of our world are under constant threat?

So let’s not be afraid to say it: we need change; we want change.

In your letters and in our meetings, you have mentioned the many forms of exclusion and injustice which you experience in the workplace, in neighborhoods and throughout the land. They are many and diverse, just as many and diverse are the ways in which you confront them. Yet there is an invisible thread joining every one of those forms of exclusion: can we recognize it? These are not isolated issues. I wonder whether we can see that these destructive realities are part of a system which has become global. Do we realize that that system has imposed the mentality of profit at any price, with no concern for social exclusion or the destruction of nature?

If such is the case, I would insist, let us not be afraid to say it: we want change, real change, structural change. This system is by now intolerable: farmworkers find it intolerable, laborers find it intolerable, communities find it intolerable, peoples find it intolerable … The earth itself – our sister, Mother Earth, as Saint Francis would say – also finds it intolerable.

We want change in our lives, in our neighborhoods, in our everyday reality. We want a change which can affect the entire world, since global interdependence calls for global answers to local problems. The globalization of hope, a hope which springs up from peoples and takes root among the poor, must replace the globalization of exclusion and indifference!

Today I wish to reflect with you on the change we want and need. You know that recently I wrote about the problems of climate change. But now I would like to speak of change in another sense. Positive change, a change which is good for us, a change – we can say – which is redemptive. Because we need it. I know that you are looking for change, and not just you alone: in my different meetings, in my different travels, I have sensed an expectation, a longing, a yearning for change, in people throughout the world. Even within that ever smaller minority which believes that the present system is beneficial, there is a widespread sense of dissatisfaction and even despondency. Many people are hoping for a change capable of releasing them from the bondage of individualism and the despondency it spawns.

Time, my brothers and sisters, seems to be running out; we are not yet tearing one another apart, but we are tearing apart our common home. Today, the scientific community realizes what the poor have long told us: harm, perhaps irreversible harm, is being done to the ecosystem. The earth, entire peoples and individual persons are being brutally punished. And behind all this pain, death and destruction there is the stench of what Basil of Caesarea called “the dung of the devil”. An unfettered pursuit of money rules. The service of the common good is left behind. Once capital becomes an idol and guides people’s decisions, once greed for money presides over the entire socioeconomic system, it ruins society, it condemns and enslaves men and women, it destroys human fraternity, it sets people against one another and, as we clearly see, it even puts at risk our common home.

I do not need to go on describing the evil effects of this subtle dictatorship: you are well aware of them. Nor is it enough to point to the structural causes of today’s social and environmental crisis. We are suffering from an excess of diagnosis, which at times leads us to multiply words and to revel in pessimism and negativity. Looking at the daily news we think that there is nothing to be done, except to take care of ourselves and the little circle of our family and friends.

What can I do, as collector of paper, old clothes or used metal, a recycler, about all these problems if I barely make enough money to put food on the table? What can I do as a craftsman, a street vendor, a trucker, a downtrodden worker, if I don’t even enjoy workers’ rights? What can I do, a farmwife, a native woman, a fisher who can hardly fight the domination of the big corporations? What can I do from my little home, my shanty, my hamlet, my settlement, when I daily meet with discrimination and marginalization? What can be done by those students, those young people, those activists, those missionaries who come to my neighborhood with their hearts full of hopes and dreams, but without any real solution for my problems? A lot! They can do a lot. You, the lowly, the exploited, the poor and underprivileged, can do, and are doing, a lot. I would even say that the future of humanity is in great measure in your own hands, through your ability to organize and carry out creative alternatives, through your daily efforts to ensure the three “L’s” (labor, lodging, land) and through your proactive participation in the great processes of change on the national, regional and global levels. Don’t lose heart!

2. You are sowers of change. Here in Bolivia I have heard a phrase which I like: “process of change”. Change seen not as something which will one day result from any one political decision or change in social structure. We know from painful experience that changes of structure which are not accompanied by a sincere conversion of mind and heart sooner or later end up in bureaucratization, corruption and failure. That is why I like the image of a “process”, where the drive to sow, to water seeds which others will see sprout, replaces the ambition to occupy every available position of power and to see immediate results. Each of us is just one part of a complex and differentiated whole, interacting in time: peoples who struggle to find meaning, a destiny, and to live with dignity, to “live well”.

As members of popular movements, you carry out your work inspired by fraternal love, which you show in opposing social injustice. When we look into the eyes of the suffering, when we see the faces of the endangered campesino, the poor laborer, the downtrodden native, the homeless family, the persecuted migrant, the unemployed young person, the exploited child, the mother who lost her child in a shootout because the barrio was occupied by drugdealers, the father who lost his daughter to enslavement…. when we think of all those names and faces, our hearts break because of so much sorrow and pain. And we are deeply moved…. We are moved because “we have seen and heard” not a cold statistic but the pain of a suffering humanity, our own pain, our own flesh. This is something quite different than abstract theorizing or eloquent indignation. It moves us; it makes us attentive to others in an effort to move forward together. That emotion which turns into community action is not something which can be understood by reason alone: it has a surplus of meaning which only peoples understand, and it gives a special feel to genuine popular movements.

Each day you are caught up in the storms of people’s lives. You have told me about their causes, you have shared your own struggles with me, and I thank you for that. You, dear brothers and sisters, often work on little things, in local situations, amid forms of injustice which you do not simply accept but actively resist, standing up to an idolatrous system which excludes, debases and kills. I have seen you work tirelessly for the soil and crops of campesinos, for their lands and communities, for a more dignified local economy, for the urbanization of their homes and settlements; you have helped them build their own homes and develop neighborhood infrastructures. You have also promoted any number of community activities aimed at reaffirming so elementary and undeniably necessary a right as that of the three “L’s”: land, lodging and labor.

This rootedness in the barrio, the land, the office, the labor union, this ability to see yourselves in the faces of others, this daily proximity to their share of troubles and their little acts of heroism: this is what enables you to practice the commandment of love, not on the basis of ideas or concepts, but rather on the basis of genuine interpersonal encounter. We do not love concepts or ideas; we love people... Commitment, true commitment, is born of the love of men and women, of children and the elderly, of peoples and communities… of names and faces which fill our hearts. From those seeds of hope patiently sown in the forgotten fringes of our planet, from those seedlings of a tenderness which struggles to grow amid the shadows of exclusion, great trees will spring up, great groves of hope to give oxygen to our world.

So I am pleased to see that you are working at close hand to care for those seedlings, but at the same time, with a broader perspective, to protect the entire forest. Your work is carried out against a horizon which, while concentrating on your own specific area, also aims to resolve at their root the more general problems of poverty, inequality and exclusion.

I congratulate you on this. It is essential that, along with the defense of their legitimate rights, peoples and their social organizations be able to construct a humane alternative to a globalization which excludes. You are sowers of change. May God grant you the courage, joy, perseverance and passion to continue sowing. Be assured that sooner or later we will see its fruits. Of the leadership I ask this: be creative and never stop being rooted in local realities, since the father of lies is able to usurp noble words, to promote intellectual fads and to adopt ideological stances. But if you build on solid foundations, on real needs and on the lived experience of your brothers and sisters, of campesinos and natives, of excluded workers and marginalized families, you will surely be on the right path.

The Church cannot and must not remain aloof from this process in her proclamation of the Gospel. Many priests and pastoral workers carry out an enormous work of accompanying and promoting the excluded throughout the world, alongside cooperatives, favouring businesses, providing housing, working generously in the fields of health, sports and education. I am convinced that respectful cooperation with the popular movements can revitalize these efforts and strengthen processes of change.

Let us always have at heart the Virgin Mary, a humble girl from small people lost on the fringes of a great empire, a homeless mother who could turn a stable for beasts into a home for Jesus with just a few swaddling clothes and much tenderness. Mary is a sign of hope for peoples suffering the birth pangs of justice. I pray that Our Lady of Mount Carmel, patroness of Bolivia, will allow this meeting of ours to be a leaven of change.

3. Lastly, I would like us all to consider some important tasks for the present historical moment, since we desire a positive change for the benefit of all our brothers and sisters. We know this. We desire change enriched by the collaboration of governments, popular movements and other social forces. This too we know. But it is not so easy to define the content of change – in other words, a social program which can embody this project of fraternity and justice which we are seeking. So don’t expect a recipe from this Pope. Neither the Pope nor the Church have a monopoly on the interpretation of social reality or the proposal of solutions to contemporary issues. I dare say that no recipe exists. History is made by each generation as it follows in the footsteps of those preceding it, as it seeks its own path and respects the values which God has placed in the human heart.

I would like, all the same, to propose three great tasks which demand a decisive and shared contribution from popular movements:

3.1 The first task is to put the economy at the service of peoples. Human beings and nature must not be at the service of money. Let us say NO to an economy of exclusion and inequality, where money rules, rather than service. That economy kills. That economy excludes. That economy destroys Mother Earth.

The economy should not be a mechanism for accumulating goods, but rather the proper administration of our common home. This entails a commitment to care for that home and to the fitting distribution of its goods among all. It is not only about ensuring a supply of food or “decent sustenance”. Nor, although this is already a great step forward, is it to guarantee the three “L’s” of land, lodging and labor for which you are working. A truly communitarian economy, one might say an economy of Christian inspiration, must ensure peoples’ dignity and their “general, temporal welfare and prosperity”.[1] This includes the three “L’s”, but also access to education, health care, new technologies, artistic and cultural manifestations, communications, sports and recreation. A just economy must create the conditions for everyone to be able to enjoy a childhood without want, to develop their talents when young, to work with full rights during their active years and to enjoy a dignified retirement as they grow older. It is an economy where human beings, in harmony with nature, structure the entire system of production and distribution in such a way that the abilities and needs of each individual find suitable expression in social life. You, and other peoples as well, sum up this desire in a simple and beautiful expression: “to live well”.

Such an economy is not only desirable and necessary, but also possible. It is no utopia or chimera. It is an extremely realistic prospect. We can achieve it. The available resources in our world, the fruit of the intergenerational labors of peoples and the gifts of creation, more than suffice for the integral development of “each man and the whole man”.[2] The problem is of another kind. There exists a system with different aims. A system which, while irresponsibly accelerating the pace of production, while using industrial and agricultural methods which damage Mother Earth in the name of “productivity”, continues to deny many millions of our brothers and sisters their most elementary economic, social and cultural rights. This system runs counter to the plan of Jesus.

Working for a just distribution of the fruits of the earth and human labor is not mere philanthropy. It is a moral obligation. For Christians, the responsibility is even greater: it is a commandment. It is about giving to the poor and to peoples what is theirs by right. The universal destination of goods is not a figure of speech found in the Church’s social teaching. It is a reality prior to private property. Property, especially when it affects natural resources, must always serve the needs of peoples. And those needs are not restricted to consumption. It is not enough to let a few drops fall whenever the poor shake a cup which never runs over by itself. Welfare programs geared to certain emergencies can only be considered temporary responses. They will never be able to replace true inclusion, an inclusion which provides worthy, free, creative, participatory and solidary work.

Along this path, popular movements play an essential role, not only by making demands and lodging protests, but even more basically by being creative. You are social poets: creators of work, builders of housing, producers of food, above all for people left behind by the world market.

I have seen at first hand a variety of experiences where workers united in cooperatives and other forms of community organization were able to create work where there were only crumbs of an idolatrous economy. Recuperated businesses, local fairs and cooperatives of paper collectors are examples of that popular economy which is born of exclusion and which, slowly, patiently and resolutely adopts solidary forms which dignify it. How different this is than the situation which results when those left behind by the formal market are exploited like slaves!

Governments which make it their responsibility to put the economy at the service of peoples must promote the strengthening, improvement, coordination and expansion of these forms of popular economy and communitarian production. This entails bettering the processes of work, providing adequate infrastructures and guaranteeing workers their full rights in this alternative sector. When the state and social organizations join in working for the three “L’s”, the principles of solidarity and subsidiarity come into play; and these allow the common good to be achieved in a full and participatory democracy.

3.2. The second task is to unite our peoples on the path of peace and justice.

The world’s peoples want to be artisans of their own destiny. They want to advance peacefully towards justice. They do not want forms of tutelage or interference by which those with greater power subordinate those with less. They want their culture, their language, their social processes and their religious traditions to be respected. No actual or established power has the right to deprive peoples of the full exercise of their sovereignty. Whenever they do so, we see the rise of new forms of colonialism which seriously prejudice the possibility of peace and justice. For “peace is founded not only on respect for human rights but also on respect for the rights of peoples, in particular the right to independence”.[3]

The peoples of Latin America fought to gain their political independence and for almost two centuries their history has been dramatic and filled with contradictions, as they have striven to achieve full independence.

In recent years, after any number of misunderstandings, many Latin American countries have seen the growth of fraternity between their peoples. The governments of the region have pooled forces in order to ensure respect for the sovereignty of their own countries and the entire region, which our forebears so beautifully called the “greater country”. I ask you, my brothers and sisters of the popular movements, to foster and increase this unity. It is necessary to maintain unity in the face of every effort to divide, if the region is to grow in peace and justice.

Despite the progress made, there are factors which still threaten this equitable human development and restrict the sovereignty of the countries of the “greater country” and other areas of our planet. The new colonialism takes on different faces. At times it appears as the anonymous influence of mammon: corporations, loan agencies, certain “free trade” treaties, and the imposition of measures of “austerity” which always tighten the belt of workers and the poor. The bishops of Latin America denounce this with utter clarity in the Aparecida Document, stating that “financial institutions and transnational companies are becoming stronger to the point that local economies are subordinated, especially weakening the local states, which seem ever more powerless to carry out development projects in the service of their populations”.[4] At other times, under the noble guise of battling corruption, the narcotics trade and terrorism – grave evils of our time which call for coordinated international action – we see states being saddled with measures which have little to do with the resolution of these problems and which not infrequently worsen matters.

Similarly, the monopolizing of the communications media, which would impose alienating examples of consumerism and a certain cultural uniformity, is another one of the forms taken by the new colonialism. It is ideological colonialism. As the African bishops have observed, poor countries are often treated like “parts of a machine, cogs on a gigantic wheel”.[5]

It must be acknowledged that none of the grave problems of humanity can be resolved without interaction between states and peoples at the international level. Every significant action carried out in one part of the planet has universal, ecological, social and cultural repercussions. Even crime and violence have become globalized. Consequently, no government can act independently of a common responsibility. If we truly desire positive change, we have to humbly accept our interdependence. Interaction, however, is not the same as imposition; it is not the subordination of some to serve the interests of others. Colonialism, both old and new, which reduces poor countries to mere providers of raw material and cheap labor, engenders violence, poverty, forced migrations and all the evils which go hand in hand with these, precisely because, by placing the periphery at the service of the center, it denies those countries the right to an integral development. That is inequality, and inequality generates a violence which no police, military, or intelligence resources can control.

Let us say NO to forms of colonialism old and new. Let us say YES to the encounter between peoples and cultures. Blessed are the peacemakers.

Here I wish to bring up an important issue. Some may rightly say, “When the Pope speaks of colonialism, he overlooks certain actions of the Church”. I say this to you with regret: many grave sins were committed against the native peoples of America in the name of God. My predecessors acknowledged this, CELAM has said it, and I too wish to say it. Like Saint John Paul II, I ask that the Church “kneel before God and implore forgiveness for the past and present sins of her sons and daughters”.[6] I would also say, and here I wish to be quite clear, as was Saint John Paul II: I humbly ask forgiveness, not only for the offenses of the Church herself, but also for crimes committed against the native peoples during the so-called conquest of America.

I also ask everyone, believers and nonbelievers alike, to think of those many bishops, priests and laity who preached and continue to preach the Good News of Jesus with courage and meekness, respectfully and pacifically; who left behind them impressive works of human promotion and of love, often standing alongside the native peoples or accompanying their popular movements even to the point of martyrdom. The Church, her sons and daughters, are part of the identity of the peoples of Latin America. An identity which here, as in other countries, some powers are committed to erasing, at times because our faith is revolutionary, because our faith challenges the tyranny of mammon. Today we are dismayed to see how in the Middle East and elsewhere in the world many of our brothers and sisters are persecuted, tortured and killed for their faith in Jesus. This too needs to be denounced: in this third world war, waged peacemeal, which we are now experiencing, a form of genocide is taking place, and it must end.

To our brothers and sisters in the Latin American indigenous movement, allow me to express my deep affection and appreciation of their efforts to bring peoples and cultures together in a form of coexistence which I would call polyhedric, where each group preserves its own identity by building together a plurality which does not threaten but rather reinforces unity. Your quest for an interculturalism, which combines the defense of the rights of the native peoples with respect for the territorial integrity of states, is for all of us a source of enrichment and encouragement.

3.3. The third task, perhaps the most important facing us today, is to defend Mother Earth.

Our common home is being pillaged, laid waste and harmed with impunity. Cowardice in defending it is a grave sin. We see with growing disappointment how one international summit after another takes place without any significant result. There exists a clear, definite and pressing ethical imperative to implement what has not yet been done. We cannot allow certain interests – interests which are global but not universal – to take over, to dominate states and international organizations, and to continue destroying creation. People and their movements are called to cry out, to mobilize and to demand – peacefully, but firmly – that appropriate and urgently-needed measures be taken. I ask you, in the name of God, to defend Mother Earth. I have duly addressed this issue in my Encyclical Letter Laudato Si’.

4. In conclusion, I would like to repeat: the future of humanity does not lie solely in the hands of great leaders, the great powers and the elites. It is fundamentally in the hands of peoples and in their ability to organize. It is in their hands, which can guide with humility and conviction this process of change. I am with you. Let us together say from the heart: no family without lodging, no rural worker without land, no laborer without rights, no people without sovereignty, no individual without dignity, no child without childhood, no young person without a future, no elderly person without a venerable old age. Keep up your struggle and, please, take great care of Mother Earth. I pray for you and with you, and I ask God our Father to accompany you and to bless you, to fill you with his love and defend you on your way by granting you in abundance that strength which keeps us on our feet: that strength is hope, the hope which does not disappoint. Thank you and I ask you, please, to pray for me.

FOOTNOTES
[1] JOHN XXIII, Encyclical Mater et Magistra (15 May 1961), 3: AAS 53 (1961), 402.
[2] PAUL VI, Encyclical Populorum Progressio (26 March 1967), 14: AAS 59 (1967), 264.
[3] PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR JUSTICE AND PEACE, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, 157.
[4] FIFTH GENERAL CONFERENCE OF THE LATIN AMERICAN AND CARIBBEAN BISHOPS, Aparecida Document (29 June 2007), 66.
[5] JOHN PAUL II, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Ecclesia in Africa (14 September 1995), 52: AAS 88 (1996), 32-22; ID., Encyclical Letter Sollicitudo Rei Socialis (30 December 1987), 22: AAS 80 (1988), 539.

[6] Bull of Indiction of the Great Jubilee of the Year 2000 Incarnationis Mysterium (29 November 1998),11: AAS 91 (1999), 139-141.

Chopped babies and their parts sold by a presumed Catholic - Deborah Nucatola - Repent lest you be judged

$
0
0
Deborah Nucatola!

You have many happy pictures on your Facebook. Even with your smiling niece. Thank God she wasn't cut up and sold off as spare parts.

One can only presume you were baptised as a Catholic, given your name.

Shame on you.

You have achieved your 15 minutes.

May it bring you to repentance and God's mercy before you find His justice!




Changing doctrine id on the agenda

$
0
0
Do you remember this?
"Will this Pope re-write controversial Church doctrines? No. But that isn't how doctrine changes. Doctrine changes when pastoral contexts shift and new insights emerge such that particularly doctrinal formulations no longer mediate the saving message of God's transforming love. Doctrine changes when the Church has leaders and teachers who are not afraid to take note of new contexts and emerging insights. It changes when the Church has pastors who do what Francis has been insisting: leave the securities of your chanceries, of your rectories, of your safe places, of your episcopal residences go set aside the small minded rules that often keep you locked up and shielded from the world."
With that quote, (originating at the NCReporter) Father Thomas J. Rosica, on numerous occasions, laid out the plan of the upcoming Synod on the Family.

In this breaking report by Sandro Magister, French Dominican theologian Thomas Michelet has written:  
This lack of clarity - Michelet cautions - would also end up making the concluding proposals of the synod ambiguous, opening the way to pastoral practices so diversified as to undermine the unity of the doctrine concerning the indissolubility of marriage, even if in words it is reaffirmed as intact.
I was threatened with a lawsuit by Father Thomas Rosica for stating that he and others were attempting to change doctrine through pastoral practice. I quoted his own quote. Now, others are articulating that same thing -- and people much more educated and qualified than this simple layman.

The bishops and priests and theologians who are planning this scam will be held accountable by Our Blessed Lord.



Synod. The Preparatory Document’s Arabian Phoenix

Everybody says there is one, what it is nobody knows. It is the “penitential way” to communion for the divorced and remarried. The Dominican theologian Thomas Michelet lays bare the contradictions

by Sandro Magister



ROME, July 14, 2015 - From the theological faculty in Fribourg, Switzerland, the French Dominican theologian Thomas Michelet is calling attention to an obscure passage of the “working instrument” of the synod on the family, preparatory to the session next October.

The obscure passage is in paragraph 123 of the working document. Which begins by taking it for granted that “a great number agree that a journey of reconciliation or penance, under the auspices of the local bishop, might be undertaken by those who are divorced and civilly remarried.”

Michelet first of all points out that it is not known how and when it was determined that “a great number agree.”

And then, above all, he observes that the content of this presumed “agreement” is anything but clear, according to how the “Instrumentum laboris” talks about it. As for the Arabian Phoenix in “Così fan tutte” by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart: “Everybody says there is one, what it is nobody knows.” 

This lack of clarity - Michelet cautions - would also end up making the concluding proposals of the synod ambiguous, opening the way to pastoral practices so diversified as to undermine the unity of the doctrine concerning the indissolubility of marriage, even if in words it is reaffirmed as intact.

From this comes the urgency of clarifying as soon as possible what is meant by “journey of penance,” at the end of which there would be reopened that access to the Eucharist which continues to be precluded for the divorced and remarried.

In the prestigious magazine “Nova & Vetera” of the theological faculty of Fribourg, Fr. Michelet already advanced last spring the proposal to restore in updated forms what in the ancient Church was the “ordo paenitentium,” for all of those who find themselves in a persistent condition of discrepancy from the law of God but undertake a journey of real conversion that can last many years or even a whole lifetime:

> Synod. The Proposal of a “Third Way” (1.5.2015)

But now Michelet is coming back to the issue by entering into the thick of the synodal discussion. In his judgment, the proposal of Walter Kasper and of those who, like him, want to grant the divorced and remarried access to communion even though they remain in their situation of life, is not in keeping with but opposed to the authentic mercy of God.

Not only that. This concession would make a second civil marriage “the only sin for which it would be possible to obtain forgiveness without renouncing the sin itself beforehand,” as well as undermining at the root the authentic meaning of the sacraments of marriage, of the Eucharist, and of penance.

Completely different, instead, is a penitential journey that would remain faithful to the commandments of Jesus and to the tradition in the Catholic Church, like the one already illustrated by Michelet and now presented again here.

The following - in an exclusive for www.chiesa - is the complete text of the new contribution from the Dominican theologian.

__________



“INSTRUMENTUM LABORIS.” THE PENITENTIAL WAY

by Thomas Michelet, O.P.



The “Instrumentum laboris” of the synod on the family of next October, published on June 23, 2015, is now available in several European languages, allowing one to get a more precise idea of it. There has been talk on www.chiesa of a “cold shower for the innovators,” of “putting on the brakes on communion for the divorced and remarried and on homosexual unions” (Sandro Magister, June 30). For my part, I find myself instead between relief and disquiet. Even if it is true that some additions to the “Relatio synodi” of October 18, 2014 move in this direction, a reason for rejoicing, there remain some ambiguities that demonstrate that the battle is not yet won and that the serious threats to the integrity of the Catholic faith have not gone away.

Here I will concern myself with just one point, that of the “penitential way” (third part of the “Instrumentum,” chapter 3, no. 122-123). Article 122 incorporates no. 52 of the “Relatio synodi,” which was one the three not formally approved by the synod of bishops in October of 2014, because of the lack of the required two-thirds majority. It was even the most soundly rejected article, with only 104 placets and 74 non placets (when instead there were 125 placets and 54 non placets for no. 41; 112 placets and 64 non placets for no. 53). So then, according to the “Instrumentum laboris,” by now “a great number agree [on the hypothesis of] a journey of reconciliation or penance” (no. 123).

“Instrumentum laboris” :

122 (n. 52 della "Relatio Synodi"). The synod fathers also considered the possibility of giving the divorced and remarried access to the Sacraments of Penance and the Eucharist. Various synod fathers insisted on maintaining the present discipline, because of the constitutive relationship between participation in the Eucharist and communion with the Church as well as her teaching on the indissoluble character of marriage. Others proposed a more individualized approach, permitting access in certain situations and with certain well-defined conditions, primarily in irreversible situations and those involving moral obligations towards children who would have to endure unjust suffering. Access to the sacraments might take place if preceded by a penitential practice, determined by the diocesan bishop. The subject needs to be thoroughly examined, bearing in mind the distinction between an objective sinful situation and extenuating circumstances, given that "imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors" (CCC, 1735).

123. Concerning the aforementioned subject, a great number agree that a journey of reconciliation or penance, under the auspices of the local bishop, might be undertaken by those who are divorced and civilly remarried, who find themselves in irreversible situations. In reference to "Familiaris consortio", 84, the suggestion was made to follow a process which includes: becoming aware of why the marriage failed and the wounds it caused; due repentance; verification of the possible nullity of the first marriage; a commitment to spiritual communion; and a decision to live in continence.

Others refer to a way of penance, meaning a process of clarifying matters after experiencing a failure and a reorientation which is to be accompanied by a priest who is appointed for this purpose. This process ought to lead the party concerned to an honest judgment of his/her situation. At the same time, the priest himself might come to a sufficient evaluation as to be able to suitably apply the power of binding and loosing to the situation.

In order to examine thoroughly the objective situation of sin and the moral culpability of the parties, some suggest considering The Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church concerning the Reception of Holy Communion by the Divorced and Remarried Members of the Faithful of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (4 September 1994) and The Declaration concerning the Admission to Holy Communion of the Faithful who are Divorced and Remarried of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts (24 June 2000).

*

So the “Instrumentum laboris” no. 122 simply reuses as-is no. 52 of the “Relatio synodi,” which had not been accepted by the synod fathers with the required majority and therefore in theory should not be part of this text. It is simply followed with a new number (no. 123), which in addition to affirming the agreement on this hypothesis established at the time adds various references to texts of the magisterium that in fact were lacking in the “Relatio synodi,” as well as a pastoral proposal that remains very general.


A “common agreement”?

It must be recalled that between the “Relatio synodi" and the “Instrumentum laboris” there was the phase of the questionnaires in the dioceses, of their return to the episcopal conferences, without forgetting the work of various theologians, institutions, and universities, as well as the summation of all this work produced in Rome. Thus the reflection was able to develop the approach of both sides, which was the more or less recognized objective of this year of hiatus between the two sessions of the synod.

The fact remains that this affirmation of a “common agreement” comes as a bit of a surprise: does it refer to the synod fathers, who in fact had not met together again since then? Or, in a broader way, to the episcopal conferences? Or even to the whole people of God? The test does not specify.

Moreover it is not a given that this “common agreement” concerns the proposal of the same “Relatio synodi”; perhaps it concerns only “the hypothesis of a journey of reconciliation or penance,” which is broader and can be understood in many ways.

One can imagine that those who previously supported no. 52 of the “Relatio synodi” still support it. But what have the others done, those who ruled it out? Have they just changed their minds after thinking it over? Or have they been reassured by the addition of these few references to texts of the magisterium that shore up this proposal and correct it in a more traditional direction? Or are they instead satisfied by the fact that the idea of a “journey of reconciliation or penance, under the auspices of the local bishop” is a bit more developed and that there are thoughts of submitting this process to the discernment of a priest deputized for it, which would allow many “adaptations”? The reasons for such agreement, if it is possible and even probable, are also multiple and variegated. 

But above all it may be feared that this new unanimity is rather the effect of a broad and fluctuating process of development that would seem to leave everyone satisfied, the “innovators” as well as the “conservatives,” but not for the same reasons and not with the same interpretation.

In short, it may be feared that the agreement remains apparent rather than concrete and that the indefiniteness of the proposal conceals a true and profound dispute that threatens to last for a long time, even in the final proposals of the next synod if there is not greater precision. There would be the risk of a declaration of principle on the doctrinal level that would not be discussed by anyone, but would then open the way to the most highly varied pastoral practices that would in fact involve very different doctrines. After a few years, we would find ourselves facing the fait accompli of these practices and of the doctrinal change that they imply and that they would have brought into common acceptance. This is why clarity must be brought immediately to this issue, its presuppositions, its stakes, its ins and outs, so that all of this may be done in truth.


What kind of penitential journey?

According to some commentators, there has been a move from the idea of an “all or nothing,” of an immediate admission or a persistent refusal of access for the divorced and remarried to the Eucharist, to what could seem like a “third way”: the idea of an admission conditional on the completion of a penitential journey, on which everyone finally seems to be in agreement. Great, but concretely, what sort of process would this be? What would be its specific steps?

It seems to us that the fundamental alternative is the following.

Would it be sufficient if there were a time of penance with its duration to be determined by the bishop (or by a priest deputized for this), followed by an admission of the divorced and remarried to the Eucharist just as they are, without even the slightest change of life with respect to the disordered situation in which they find themselves?

Or would this time be a journey not only of penance and repentance, but also of genuine conversion and change of life; the duration of penance being in this case that which would be necessary for obtaining this conversion?

The choice between the two alternatives is particularly decisive.

In the first hypothesis, which to us seems to converge with the one formulated by Cardinal Kasper (apart from errors of interpretation on our part), marriage after divorce would be the only sin for which it would be possible to obtain forgiveness without renouncing the sin itself beforehand. This seems contrary to the Gospel, to the authentic mercy of God who shows mercy to the sinner without closing his eyes or forgetting the sin, but rather by transforming hearts. It therefore cannot be the way chosen by the synod, which can only want to remain faithful to the doctrine of the Gospel, and it would be right for this to be stated clearly.

Some faithful or pastors come to the point of denying that there could be a situation of sin here. But then why do penance? And if there really is a sin, how can it be forgiven unless it is left behind? It seems to us that these errors stem from a grave loss of the sense of mystery in general, and of the sacraments in particular. Of marriage, in which it is no longer seen that the fact of remarrying when the spouse is still alive is adultery, while Christ teaches this explicitly (Mk 10:11-12). Of the Eucharist, which is no longer received as the sacred body of the Lord but rather as the simple sign of a social bond whose privation means only exclusion from the group. Of penance, in which confusion is created between regret and repentance, between penance and conversion. It is not enough, in fact, to “regret” having placed oneself in an impossible situation; one must also really want to get out of it, with the grace of God. This is why it is also not good enough to propose a journey of penance for the past action that is regretted, if this journey of penance is not also aimed at transforming the future and at opening upon a true way of salvation, a journey of grace, an itinerary of holiness.

In the second hypothesis, the final admission to the Eucharist could take place beforehand only in the three situations already established by the magisterium (Familiaris Consortio no.84, and other texts): either the resumption of cohabitation (that of the first marriage, which is the only valid one); or the effort to live “as brother and sister” (which is equivalent to being exonerated from cohabitation while still respecting the other obligations of marriage, meaning the exclusivity promised in marriage but also the duty of mutual assistance); or the death of the spouse, permitting a real new sacramental marriage (a situation that obviously is not to be desired). It could be that other situations might come up, but at this point there is no telling what they might be; or it does not turn out that those who have presented them so far have given proof of their conformity with authentic Catholic doctrine (Scripture, tradition, and magisterium).


A new way?

This second hypothesis - that of maintaining the current discipline - is therefore the only one that seems conceivable to us, granting that one wishes to be faithful to the Word of Christ. Does this mean that we are talking about an absolute rejection of any change with respect to the present situation? Not necessarily. Even in fidelity, there is always the possibility of a new development, of a “surprise of the Holy Spirit.”

First of all, there are various ways of presenting the matter. Either as a door that is closed and the rejection of any way of salvation, or rather as a pilgrimage in which the one who undertakes a journey of happiness is already on the right path, even if he is not able to conform immediately to all the aspects of life in the Spirit according to the Gospel. This second way of acting, which should be decisively preferred, in fact consists in integrating the law of incrementalism presented by Pope John Paul II in “Familiaris Consortio” no. 84, without creating confusion with its inverse figure, that of incrementalism of the law (which would be the first hypothesis of which we just spoke).

Moreover, it remains to be acknowledged that some pastoral practices faithful to this teaching of Pope John Paul II have already been established since that time, demonstrating that they can give good fruits of grace. For example, it has happened that some “divorced and remarried” couples have manifested, in making the decision not to receive communion anymore, such faith and such profound respect for the Eucharist that the bishop has allowed them to keep the real presence in their homes, in order to nourish their journey of conversion through Eucharistic adoration. So these pastoral practices exist, but not in all countries of the world; and it must be admitted that even when they are present and in use they are known to few. So it would be right for the synod to promote these, give thanks for those who have obeyed the call of the Holy Spirit to discover and explore them in prayer and in experience, take stock of the fruits that have already been obtained and of those still to be hoped for, and indicate in a clear way that this direction is a good one to follow.

In order to move forward along this line of innovative fidelity defined by Pope John Paul II, we ourselves have made the proposal of an updating of the “ordo pænitentium,” the restoration of this ancient order of penitents of Christian antiquity that long survived in tandem with the current form of the sacrament of penance. This “ordo” could find renewed interest, because it took place over a long period of time and in stages marked by liturgical celebrations. It was considered sacramental right from the stage of the imposition of ashes, not only in the final stage of absolution. It also had the advantage of demonstrating well that the sinner was not excluded from the Church, because he was part of an “ordo,” and was therefore on the contrary urged to nourish himself on the Church’s treasury of graces in listening to the Word of God and participating in its life of prayer. Just as the emergence from the regime of Christendom procured the grace of the rebirth of adult baptism, it could also lead to the rebirth of these orders of penitents in what was most evangelical about them, without reviving, obviously, the excesses that were not connected to their essence. Thus the penitent would have a prophetic mission to accomplish in the Church: that of urging greater respect for the Eucharist and greater consideration of one’s sins.

Our Campaign for Deacon Joseph in India and a Contribution Matcher!

$
0
0
Dear Voxers,

Help me to become a Priest & build a dwelling 4 My Parents (Deacon Joice PJ)As you know, there is a little widget running to the left for Deacon Joseph of the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church in India. Reverend Deacon has been called by Christ to His Holy Priesthood. As the eldest son, he is also taking responsibility for his parents' situation. His parents live in a three walled hut. His father has recovered from tuberculosis but I imagine the rainy tropical seasons are not the best for him. I have posted twice, here and here about the need for funds for Deacon Joseph to complete a small house for his parents before moving on to ordination. 

For your assurance, I have personally communicated with his religious superior and his seminary to validate that this is a legitimate need.

You have been wonderful. When I first posted, the amount donated was only $60.00 (U.S funds). As of this writing, the amount is $3,053.00! Our dollars go a lot further in India but a little more is needed to finish the house. By the end of July, $2,000.00 more is needed and Deacon hopes to raise a total of $8,000.00.

There is also another matter that has slowed down the funds. PayPal, which is one of the three services to receive funds through YouCaring, is not providing any further services in India due to regulatory issues or lack thereof and banking concerns as reported by ZDNet. This has caused donations to stop and has become a great worry to Deacon Joseph.

The good news is that a solution has been found.

The Toronto Traditional Mass Society - UNA VOCE TORONTO, has partnered with Deacon Joseph to be the recipient of your donations. The Society is a registered charity with the Canada Revenue Agency and is Chapter of Canada's longest standing member of Foederatio Internationalis Una Voce. The TTMS will receive the funds which you donate to Deacon Joseph at YouCaring from PayPal directly to its Toronto bank account. These funds (100% after the PayPal fee) will then be wired directly to Deacon Joseph's bank account in India. If you are in Canada and you wish to make a direct donation to the Society's seminarian program, you can do so and receive a charitable tax receipt. A grant in the equivalent amount will be made by the Society to Deacon Joseph. For more information on making a direct contribution, you may write to unavocetoronto@gmail.com.

But there is even better news.

A reader and commenter at this blog, The Anonymous Flower, has come forward and has pledged to provide matching contributions dollar for dollar for everything over the $4,000.00 mark!Dollar for dollar. How wonderful!

I know that there is considerable donor fatigue out there but the overall amount needed here is not great. You have been terrific, notwithstanding. 

Can we do a little more and push this not only over the $4000.00 where Anonymous Flower has offered to match but all the way to the amount to finish the house and secure his ordination?

Deacon writes, "Please provide my loving regards and prayers to everyone. I don't know how to thank you all. Our dream of home will come true soon."

Know that Deacon Joseph and his family keep his benefactors in their prayers.

Fresh Fetal Livers - on sale this week!

$
0
0
This is where "choice" leads, as if we did not already know that it was happening. Ann Barnhardt reports on the selling of fetal livers and other parts on sale this week at Stem Express.  This information has come our way from PewSitter and as Mundabor also reminds us, this is nothing more than "Nazification!" What would the greatest generation think after spilling so much blood that we have become them? Mundabor also reminds us how important PewSitter is as a portal of unstoppable information that informs and educates Catholics in this dark age in which we are living. It is incredibly important.

When our governments approved research in "embryonic" stem-cell research, what did they expect was going to happen? Did anyone really think that money was not behind it all along? If you didn't then you were simply stupid or in denial. They were warned.


Abortion is a big business. The business of death is worth hundreds of millions of dollars as clearly told to all by this spiritual child of Mengele, Deborah Nucatola, neither of whom deserve the title "Doctor" before their names. Nucatola is not alone, she is one cog in an enormous wheel of evil and death.


Yet, the truth is; even if the fresh fetal liver cells were not on sale or aborted babies were not burned to heat buildings, abortion would be no less evil.


How much longer can this evil continue without some kind of divine intervention?


Not long, methinks.






Archdiocese of Toronto: Televised Mass for Shut-Ins features Hymn to Earth goddess Gaia!

$
0
0
For those of us that work to ensure that the music in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is focused on the true worship of God and with the dignity that befits the sacred liturgy, the introduction of hymns has been a challenging exercise. How often do we see the sacred texts in the Ordinary Form of the Mass, the Entrance, Offertory (yes, it exists) and Communion antiphons, replaced by hymns of dubious quality and theology. Hymns replacing scripture. The whole premise seems counter to what the reformers of the Mass allegedly wanted.

Less control of course is given over the recessional hymn which is certainly not necessary as technically speaking, Mass has ended just before. Yet, this is a time, should a hymn be chosen, for glorious singing of praise or thanksgiving to God or perhaps the Blessed Mother.

For those poor souls trapped inside and unable to attend the Holy Mass in Toronto, they often choose to be subjected to the liturgical banality of a televised Mass for Shut-Ins which does not substitute for the Sunday obligation.

Is that not bad enough?

No, it seems.

How about this hymn to the pagan earth goddess, gaia at the end of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. You can listen to it yourself at 27:30.

This is a disgrace. How hard, some of us have worked for proper liturgy to the glory of God and the edification of his people. How disgusting it is to see this priest and these laymen and women and these musicians do such a disgrace. So unprofessiona; so scandalous to the faithful held hostage by these liturgically incompetent musicians and priests who permit this right under their noses. Have they no faith? 

There is no excuse for this in Toronto, not with the presence of St. Michael's Choir School and the outstanding work done there for over eighty years. Msgr. Ronan would not be amused but I think, they all hated him anyway.


Let nobody tell you that the liturgy in the Archdiocese of Toronto, except for a few minor exceptions, is not impoverished, banal, self-serving and narcissistic. Those are harsh words, this is a condemnation and I am tired of preaching and working for something better when ecclesiastics really don't seem to give a damn. 

A few months ago, a bishop stopped to question me about the book, the Simple English Propers and his questioning of the existence of the Offertory Antiphon. I had to explain to a bishop, what it was. Who the hell am I to explain liturgy to a bishop?

I have over 25 years as a Cantor in the Ordinary Form. I find this liturgical bile reprehensible and insulting to Our Lord and to the work that those of us faithful have done. Frankly, I think there is simply no hope for the reformed liturgy. I am becoming more convinced than ever that the future of the Church is back to its past. 

Pagan gaia worship, and on the official Archdiocese of Toronto YouTube page!


Enough!
 

Cardinal Collins, you need to fix this!


For more on the composer.

http://www.carolynmcdademusic.com/bio.html

http://www.carolynmcdademusic.com/gaia-index.html

Deodorant needed against Clericalist dis-odour

$
0
0

Basilian Father, Thomas J. Rosica, spoke recently at the annual assembly of the American Association of Priests, a rather dubious organisation of clerics without clericals still opining about their issues with the Third Edition of the Roman Missal correctly translated and helping the nuns on the bus, in between advocating for women deacons. The whole speech has been made available by this cleric at Zenit and here is this little gem as GloriaTV reports:
Wrong Smell: Father Thomas Rosica, the CEO of the liberal Canadian Salt and Light Catholic Media Foundation and English language Media Attaché to the Holy See Press Office has claimed in a keynote address delivered in St. Louis, Missouri on June 30th, that – quote – “the Church must smell like the world it penetrates.” In sharp contradiction to Rosica, Saint Paul writes in 2 Cor 2,14 of Christ who “through us spreads in every place the fragrance that comes from knowing him.
The bolding of that quote above is also in the text as published by Zenit. Father Rosica must have clearly intended that quote to stand out. Well, let is stand, it says much. 

We've surely heard that we are to become like the Saints who exude the "odour of sanctity" and as St. Paul reminds us above, we are to become the "fragrance" of  Our Lord Jesus Christ.

I am quite sure that most faithful, practicing Catholics have no desire to smell like the world. Frankly, Father Rosica needs to stop telling us and the world what the Church needs to do, because he is wrong. 

What the Church needs to do is to preach that there is no salvation outside of the Church, that one must come to Jesus Christ in order to be saved lest one perish in Hell for all eternity. The Church must preach the Social Kingship of Christ, not the socialist, environmentalist and homosexualist/adulterist false gospel that has been shoved down our throats for decades.  The Church must re-catechise Its faithful, restore Her liturgy and speak the truth with clarity and charity. The Church must preach God's mercy but not apart from His justice. This generation, for the most part, of bishops and priests seem to have forgotten this. 

If Father Rosica or the Bishop of Rome himself wish to take on the smell of the world they are more than free to do so. They can take on any stench they like. However, the Church Herself, being the spotless Bride of Christ, has the odour of sanctity, perfumed with incense to adorn Her beauty. 

To say that the Church must take on the smell of the world is to corrupt Her with filth. It is to defile Her and they don't have the right to do that. 

Anymore. 

That is all.
Viewing all 3701 articles
Browse latest View live