This is thus far my most difficult column in all the years that I have been writing editorials. The subject is the American Bishops' spring meeting in St. Louis. As always I tune in to EWTN's coverage with much trepidation because these Bishops, as a lot are too fickle and too weak to be real Shepherds; instead they are political animals and activists for the enemy: feminism, liberalism, Americanism, in short anything but Catholicism or traditionalism, which by definition and Divine design, are mutually inclusive.
And like the other conferences before it, these proceedings were commented on by Mr. Arroyo of EWTN's "World Over" and Fr. Gould of the diocese of Arlington, VA. These two had it right as you will soon see.
The theme of "protecting the children", "safety for the children" seemed to be the main agenda. Fr. Gould rightly observed that most of the incidents of the crisis involved teenage boys, not children, thus homosexuality. He also reiterated a once upon adage that where there is moral malfeasance there is first doctrinal malfeasance and vice versa. Mr. Arroyo told the viewers about all the e-mail and calls from Catholics around the country who are not so much afraid their children will be harmed by pedophiles [the numbers of young children being molested are very low in relation to out-and-out homosexuality, something the general media is quick to hide as they by and large support the sodomite agenda including NAMBLA] than they are concerned about doctrine and proper liturgy. Although no one actually said so, underneath I suspect that both men were thinking what I was, "Bishops, clean out your seminaries!", although my thoughts put it more strongly than I write here. Little was said about sound doctrine and catechesis, except by way of passing almost. The handful of real Shepherds are permitted to make statements but are always marginalized by being ignored.
The other theme haunting the spiritually blind Bishops-----our chastisement from God for our own infidelity to evangelize and come to the defense of the rights of Christ the King-----was "lay ministry" or what both commentators referred to as "LEMS", which is an acronym for "Lay Ecclesial Ministers." The lemmings with their LEMS. Apparently "lay Eucharistic ministers" which should be properly called Extraordinary Eucharistic ministers, parish administrators and facilitators of this and that as long as it does not include Tradition, are not sufficiently titled and invested with importance and universality as in ubiquitous. So now we must have the LEMS. One Bishop observed that Rome keeps rejecting the term minister for the laity and that they needed to come up with a term the Vatican would accept, a most telling note: We will have them even if we use a ruse by altering the language. Same unCatholic reality with all the attendant consequences of more meltdown, only we will all pretend everything is in accord with St. Paul's admonitions in his Epistles regarding the role of women in church and within the Church, etc.
I say this because the Bishops went headlong into the next upcoming disaster, "collaboration with women" specifically, as opposed to the laity in general. The feminists own the Bishops lock, stock and barrel. A couple of the Bishops objected that they should adopt the more general approach and that first fidelity to doctrine on the impossibility of the Ordination of women among other agitations, should be ascertained before the collaboration process, but as I have just said, these were ignored. The documents were adopted. Mr. Arroyo asked the question of the Bishop in charge of the subcommittee of the committee handling this time bomb how a term which has not been finalized, LEMS, could have a theology behind it. And as expected this theoretician answered back with jargon that served to obscure rather than clarify. How typical! How bureacratic! and How unCatholic!
I tried to picture St. Peter and the other Apostles having this sort of discussion in relation to doctrinal and social matters back then; I tried to picture all our Sainted Pontiffs doing so, but to no avail. All I could do was weep and then cry some more.
The matter of the resignation of Gov. Keating from the Lay Oversight Board on the clergy sexual scandal also came up. All the Bishops offering commentary on it agreed that the Bishops were in compliance and that Keating was pre-mature about some of the Bishops not co-operating. However, today I receive the following from a most concerned Catholic, asking that it be published far and wide as a warning to the unsuspecting laity [It remains unsigned for obvious reasons]:
Dear Friends,
The priest shuffle has continued in the Diocese of Scranton despite the rosy picture of progress painted by the bishops' conference in St. Louis last week. Bishop Timlin has now apparently given permission to Fr. Marshall Roberts of the Society of St. John to find a new home outside of the Diocese of Scranton to "serve" traditional Catholics. As a result, an e-mail alert was sent out last week by one of the Latin Mass communities that was recently contacted by Fr. Roberts. I have attached the warning below.
As a third year seminarian, Marshall Roberts was expelled from the Institute of Christ the King for proposing a homosexual relationship in a letter to a first year seminarian. The vice-rector of the seminary, who was presented with this letter, has confirmed this account. In addition, Mr. Rod Pead, the editor of Christian Order, who was a seminarian there at the time, has published in the August/September 2002 edition the following account of Marshall Roberts' expulsion:
"The superiors simply turned a blind eye in some cases but not in others, as with a third year student who was sent packing overnight after it emerged that he had been harassing one of my first year colleagues. In fact, some years later this seminarian, having managed to get himself ordained elsewhere, found his way to the Society of St. John in America. It raised immediate suspicions about that highly publicised traditionalist venture, since homosexuals recruit their own kind and the predators help 'groom' young and trusting victims for one another. I was not particularly surprised, therefore, when allegations finally surfaced of homosexual molestation within the Society."
Bishop Timlin, having performed
no background checks on the SSJ members, allowed Fr. Roberts to serve
as
a chaplain at St. Gregory's Academy where Fr. Roberts attached himself
to one young student in particular. Upon graduation, this student
joined
the Society of St. John. ... All of this has been
documented
at
www.SaintJustinMartyr.org/news/notices.html
Although I fully informed Bishop Timlin of Fr. Roberts' past misconduct, Bishop Timlin has continued to allow Fr. Roberts access to new hunting grounds. Bishop Timlin not only allowed Fr. Roberts to work at St. Michael's in Scranton, but he also permitted Fr. Roberts to teach religion at Bishop O'Hara High School in Dunmore, Pennsylvania from August, 2002 to February 2003. All the while Bishop Timlin has assured the faithful that he is in full compliance with the Charter.
Let Bishop Timlin know that we are watching him by contacting him at dio34@epix.net. And please circulate the warning below far and wide so that Fr. Marshall Roberts does not find a new flock to fleece.
Subject: WARNING! SSJ Priest from Scranton Hawking his wares!
Father Marshall Roberts has recently contacted [names withheld
by request] in the South presumably under the pretext of
"finding a home to serve traditional Catholics", allegedly,
according to him, with the permission of Bishop Timlin.
I won't go into the details, but I thought that in the midst of
scandals in the Church, it might serve the benefit of us all to
know that Fr. Roberts, ex-SSPX and apparently ex-SSJ, according
to a first-hand source with written information, was asked to
leave the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest as a
seminarian.
... I had an extensive phone conversation with Father Roberts
and exchanged several e-mails and have left a message with the
diocese of Scranton, but have not received a return call.
He is calling [names withheld by request] in the South under the
pretext of finding a home to serve traditional Catholics,
according to him, with Bishop Timlin's permission.
Our Shepherds appear to more concerned with being politically correct within their own dioceses and with getting the Vatican to comply by subterfuge than defending the flock from ravenous wolves. We are without Shepherds, Shepherds true and with the hearts and souls of Martyrs ... without Shepherds ...
St. Athanasius, St. Pius X, and Bishop Vaughn,
pray for us!
The U.S. Supreme Court closed its annual term today by granting the right to sodomy or unclean acts that cry out to Heaven for vengeance, to homosexuals, under the rationale that to not do so would have violated the "Equal Protection" clause of the 14th Amendment.
The problem with this finding is that no one has the right to unnatural intercourse, heterosexual or not. The commandment forbidding sodomy applies to everyone, equally. Unnatural intercourse includes contraceptive intercourse and any act that precludes by its very nature openness to conception.
Rather than send the Texas case back to be rewritten to include all unnatural sex, whether between married couples or homosexuals, the Court opted for normalizing the abnormal rather than banning the unnatural or abnormal. Of course we ought to have expected this outcome because evil has its own logic and trajectory. Having first permitted the sale of contraceptives and then the unspecified right to "privacy" [the Griswold and Doe cases], thus separating the marital act from its primary purpose, thus granting a false right, sex without babies with intention, it then went on to separate personhood from the existent human being to render personhood a subjective reality dependent, not on science, common sense, the natural law, etc., but only on the say so of the woman and only hers [the Roe case]. If life is no longer sacred and defined and granted by God alone, then why should those sacred acts that generate life have any special reality? Sterile sex is sterile, no matter who engages in it.
So from the Court's point of view it was being perfectly logical, although it had long ago abandoned reason.
As the two forest fires continue to burn red-hot and murderous in the west, we can be sure we are under God's judgment. Will our fate be to endure the blaze of His justice by being slowly scorched, one fire at a time, one sweeping tragic event after another until we repent as a nation? If we are willing to continue to give President Bush a high approval rating while he negotiates very cleverly and carefully the sodomite agenda through the Log Cabin [homosexual activists] Republicans, what makes us think we will have the courage to do anything more than we have now? The longer we accept evil on the installment plan the more complicit we are, since we claim to be "a self-governing" people?
Heaven help us, the perverts are in charge! There are none so blind as those who tempt God by closing their ears to the voice of conscience until the soul is for all practical purposes, dead. When we continually reject His grace, He lets us wallow in our vices and their attendant miseries. We now know that America is in its last dregs of existence as a one nation under God. History teaches us that when homosexuality is not checked, that those societies so self-inflicting are given up to their ways as a punishment by God, just before they are destroyed. And Scripture confirms this. I think it is now too late for America, but let us pray without ceasing that we will have final perseverance to endure the martyrdom that is coming for all fervent Catholics and orthodox Christians. The sodomites will never be content with this victory, not until they rule supreme and sassy over every still normal and sane person and the natural family. The rights of Christ the King, the natural law, such as they were in this cesspool culture, but still recognizable by virtue of the obstinate denials coming from the elites, are all officially dead, de facto. Pray to endure and hold on tight, these are are going to be the "good ole days" that people reminisce about.The U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee is in a holding pattern in re nominations for judgeships to the Federal courts because the Democrats are in permanent filibuster in order to block nominees who are perceived as "pro-life." At the center of the firestorm are three Catholic nominees, all of whom have records that belie the Catholic position and the natural law. So there is more than a modicum of irony that cuts both ways. This double-edged sword of irony struck in a most piercing manner while I watched a Special Order session this evening on C-Span.
The participants were three Republicans, one of whom is a Catholic, Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania; the other two were Mitch McConnell, husband of the current Labor Secretary and Orin Hatch, a Mormon. The interchange between them was stunning precisely because these Republican stalwarts, rightfully outraged at the filibuster strategy by the liberals, without realizing it, I am certain, confirmed the liberals in the diehard opposition to Catholic candidates, and thus the irony.
What do you mean, you might ask? Here is the gist of the issue:
The liberals, Kennedy, Schumer, et al, one of whom is a "Catholic" and the other a Jew, representing others of the same persuasion------the pro-abortion side come Hell or high water and even God Himself, apparently------have been forthright in their opposition to the Catholic Pryor and the other two [I forget their names at the moment] because they believe that their Catholicism is so strong that they cannot set aside their pro-life views, and thus would rule pro-life. Now these liberals understand Catholicism and the natural law: that the Church teaches that when the natural law is violated by a law, that law is null and void and that Catholics have a duty to not observe such an unjust law, to resist it according to the norms of Catholic action promulgated by the Church and to work to overturn such a law. Under no circumstances can a Catholic uphold such a law. If his public office mandates that he has an "obligation" to do so, he must resign or else jeopardize his immortal soul.
Let's take an example closer to home. Let's say I have a position as an ad agency executive and my firm has just contracted to take the account of a drug manufacturer that sells contraceptives and wants the firm to promote their latest pill. Contraceptive devices are an abomination and I in no way can directly participate in their sale and promotion. If I were the night cleaning lady I could continue to work for the firm because it sells more than contraceptives and my cleaning the floors does not directly involve the sale of contraceptives. But I am the executive who has been given the account for the Afternoon after the Morning After Pill. There is no way I can participate, direct, promote, etc., the ad campaign for such a pill. I can ask my firm to give the account to another member. If it insists, I must resign my position, even if I land in poverty for a time being. It is not as if the firm is the only employer in the entire city. I have options, although greatly diminished as word spreads I am not a "team player."
The same principle holds for a judge. If a Catholic judge is not sharp enough to find a way around upholding an unjust law, he must recuse himself at the very least. In Nazi Germany the natural law was violated when Jews and others, some of them Catholic priests and nuns, were held to be criminals or worse, sub-humans. Any Catholic judge upholding the Nazi laws on ethnic peoples and the like would be working for Satan himself. In fact, he would have been liable for prosecution under the Nuremberg trials, for crimes against "humanity". And rightly so. The laws protecting the barbarism of abortion are at least as evil and just as null and void under the natural law as the Nazi laws were.
Why is is that everyone, including almost every Catholic in public life, including the nominee, Pryor, thinks that Catholics are to set aside the natural law when faced with a greater holocaust than when faced with a lessor one? And yet, this is what is happening in the Senate this evening, as I pen this column. Rick Santorum and his two Republican cohorts, think they are coming to the defense of Pryor et al, when they stand there and repeatedly state that the nominees under fire will set aside their views and uphold the law!
They cannot. Heck, even Ruth Bader Ginsburg, liberal Supreme Court Justice, is on public record as saying that Roe v. Wade was badly decided. A Supreme Court clerk fresh out of law school could probably prepare the case that would send that infamous blot on our nation into the black hole it merits. Why not an able Catholic judge who supposedly has the qualifications for the Federal bench? Only a lack of will, as in the Casey decision: The Supreme Court recognized that Roe was badly decided but because abortion had been the law of the land for decades, the justices did not want to upset matters, so Roe was upheld in essence.
Ironically the liberals recognize Church teaching and practice, while those concerned about anti-Catholic bias do not. The fact that the nominees are spineless, vowing to uphold the law even when it violates the natural law and their Catholic conscience, does not matter. They appear to want to punish the Catholic nominees for the Catholic position. Surely they must know that the Republicans are being truthful: the Catholics won't defend Christ the King and fear not His warning about those who would harm His innocent ones!
What a double irony! The blind defending the blind before those who can see but who do not care! It is very revealing that only Catholics and Evangelical Protestants are expected to set aside their beliefs at the courtroom door. Reform Jews and liberal Protestants and atheists are expected to uphold their pro-abortion agenda, that they are not considered extreme for upholding even partial birth abortion [infanticide out of the womb]. American Jews hold double citizenship, American and Israeli. If there was a conflict between the U.S. and Israel, no one asks them what position they would take. Imagine if a Catholic said he was Catholic first and American second [the only viable position for a Catholic who is serious about his salvation] the uproar! It is not so much the argument is that religion does not belong in government, but rather what religion. Catholics need not apply. This is to our good. After all, if we have to compromise our position to be in public office so we can have a Catholic presence, then we will be in public life but will no longer be recognizably Catholic and thus, there will be bodies there but no Catholics worth having, which defeats the purpose in the first place . . .Those of us who still nurture a kernel of hope even in these dark days of widespread apostasy and perversion thought that the Franciscan bishop, Sean O'Malley, newly installed Archbishop of Boston might be a real shepherd for a change. The media kept referring to him as "conservative", so we thought he might be at least pro-life, if not a traditionalist. A true traditionalist would have the reputation in the media as a "schismatic" or some other slur, so we knew he was at least not a traditionalist. But we should have known he was not even a "conservative" because a true conservative would have the media tag of "traditionalist." Media watchers know that there is a code whereby one backs up a notch for each label considered a pejorative by the talking heads, meaning liberals, no matter how fair and balance they claim to be, and going in reverse for non-pejorative labels. We let hope trump reality, but it did not take us long to catch on to the game:
Archbishop O'Malley [he is not a Cardinal as yet] said he invited few bishops to his installation because he wanted to keep things simple; this did not deter him from inviting all the Boston pro-abort pols, mostly "Catholic" [of course, of course!]. The "Catholic" pols received Holy Communion in the hand. In a letter in the media he had said that Catholic politicians who supported abortion ought not to receive Communion, but that if they did it would have to be in "good faith."
Apart from punching a hole the size of the Hindenburg in his pro-life stand through his inaction in this regard, the installation Mass and the subsequent letter provide a lesson in fallacious reasoning, here the O'Malley Fallacy, to wit:
First, "good faith" implies that the person holding the errant belief and unorthodox practice stemming from the error is either incapable of grasping the actual truth, or if he is, that he is ignorant because there is no way for him to learn the truth at least as yet. Another name for this is "invincible ignorance." While the person in this state is in error, he is held to be not culpable, morally speaking. Now, let us examine the situation at hand to see if Senators Kennedy and Kerry, et al, are in "good faith".
One, there is a way for the errant senators to learn the truth: the old-fashion way, by teaching from a pastor, in this case, the Archbishop, shepherd of souls, first and foremost. Two, they should have already known, having grown up in Catholic families who provided some Catholic education, and those families, if Catholic should have been pro-life in the first place. But let us say the second, which ideally is the first teacher, failed, as apparently it has, then the Archbishop needs to instruct his wandering sheep. Merely releasing a letter that in effect "absolves" them by not instructing on the parameters of "good faith" is failure also. They are in rebellion, enslaved to the politically correct world view, not in good faith. Anyone in good faith who is ignorant through no fault of his own has a different attitude: he yearns for the truth and prays for it. And God rewards him with it. To be solidly pro-abortion for so many years when the truth is readily available is most revealing and we need say no more on this aspect.
Second, let us use an analogy, similar to the parables of Christ. Let us substitute the father of a family for the Archbishop of Boston. Now the family has a dozen children and two of them are unruly and disobedient, flaunting their rebellion, setting a bad example for the other siblings, most of them younger. Dad tells the two boys they "ought not to behave that way, but if they do he presumes they are in good faith." On what basis does he do this? It is up to to the father to discipline the children and take measures if the wayward ones persist. He cannot allow them to be a bad example to the other children and he has to do his best to see that all his children remain in the state of grace and for that he provides instruction and discipline for training the will which must accompany the intellect. If he fails in this regard his children will soon start to rebel in every way possible, claiming, "It's okay, Dad, we are in good faith." The family will break down along with the Catholic faith. And we need say no more here either.
The loudest, most eloquent sermons are our actions, not nice little letters. To pretend that hypocrisy is a virtue is irrational, dishonest and cowardly. It will be business as usual in Boston and its environs unless O'Malley changes his methods------all madness for now. After all, bad "good Faith" applies across the board, doesn't it, human nature being what it is?
The Fox in the Chicken Coop
Or Tomorrah, Gomorrah
August 6, 2003
The FOX News Channel is up to its old tricks again of promoting the homosexual agenda through "fair and balanced." In a recent discussion about the newly elected sodomite from New Hampshire as a bishop in the Episcopal Church, the interviewer interjected that each person should be able to interpret the Bible whatever way he wants to. This is unfair as it is a lie of monumental proportions and unbalanced because it negates truth altogether. The Foxy Fox was Edie Hill and the exchange just before her bold claim involved acceptance and tolerance, versus taking the Bible as the unchangeable Word of God. Just in case any one missed it, she made sure the audience knew what side was the "reasonable" one-----the anything goes by way of interpretation morality.
Let us follow the natural line of the Hill "logic":
If anyone has the right to claim the right to interpret Scripture by his own standards, then in essence there is no Bible worth having because there is not the Word of God, but the words of the world and every man becomes his own "Church" and "pope" so to speak. In fact there is no need for a Bible in this case because the so-called interpretations are nothing more than the rationale for any sin imposed superficially on Scripture. Truth is not tolerant by definition because it must exclude error. Now truth is knowable by the intellect and God has given man a sure guide, through the Catholic Church to ascertain it when the world attempts to impose the words of the prince of this world: Tradition, Scripture, and Magisterium. But one must will to grasp the truth, to cherish it and defend it. This takes grace and the gift of faith. But of course the world and Edie Hill thinks this is intolerant. Thus truth for her and her compadres, who are legion these days, is whatever you decide it is. FOX New says "you decide." Sounds like the Serpent in the Garden to Eve once more, doesn't it?
Beware of "fair and balanced" coming from a network owned by the pornographer, Rupert Murdoch. Better the purposeful liberal media, by which the enemy is known, than a Fox disguised as one of the hens roosting in the coop.
And as an adjunct, for weeks the media ballyhoo was that the bishop was going to be elected even though the election was yet to occur. By the time the election was held the news account was already stale. In other words the fix was in, in a manner of speaking, that is, the politically correct, oh so stylish surrender to Sodom ... and next? Gomorrah!
Gomorrah is tomorrah: when the elites
persuade the commoners to imitate the sodomites, in fashion,
art and speech . . .
FOX News Channel's Bill O'Reilly who claims his policy is the avoidance of "spin" when his guests come on "The Factor," had his own "spin" last night during an interview with a New Yorker writer on the topic of Mel Gibson and the invective against him in much of the major media for his movie, "The Passion."
To his credit, O'Reilly used the example of a reporter using Gibson's elderly father's views as a way of attacking the movie by attacking the father----guilt by association.
Unfortunately, and definitely not to his credit, "The Factor" began this portion with the line, "His father is a traditionalist Catholic, he has some wacky views." He did not explain to the viewers what those wacky views are, and how they are related to Catholicism, which is by definition, traditionalist. This is "spin".
I do not know what these wacky views are; I bet you don't also. And I bet that most people, including most Catholics today do not know what traditionalism is. After that tag line they won't want to. Why mention the traditional Catholicism? Could not the wacky views be held even if Gibson senior were not a Catholic? To juxtaposition traditional Catholic with wacky is a form of ad hominem, something O'Reilly says he abhors.
Ironically, Mel Gibson is a traditionalist Catholic as we all were just a generation ago, until this peculiar, novel form, "non-traditional" Catholicism, appeared on the scene in the aftermath of the now imploding pastoral Council of Vatican II. So what wacky views does Mel Gibson hold, O'Reilly? You seem to support him?
What wacky views do I hold? That the Tridentine or Roman Mass ought to be normative once more? That a baby in the womb, from the moment of conception is not just "potential life" as you claim, but a real person in residence in the womb? That I cannot be a cafeteria Catholic picking what parts of Scripture I accept and what parts I do not, as you claim you have a right to do? That homosexuals do not have a right to adopt so long as they are not "in your face" about it as you advised Rosie O'Donnell? And so on ... and on and on.
You owe traditionalist Catholics an apology
for the implied slur, intended or not. You owe all your viewers
an
explanation of why Gibson senior's wacky views are tied to Catholicism.
Could it be that the "No Spin Zone" is reserved for your own spin?
The title of this column is both literal and descriptive. I am writing it on the above date, a month before the pagan gala known as Halloween, a sacrilegious rite that occurs on the same date as the ancient All Hallow's Eve, that is, the night before All Saints' Day, hallow being another way of saying holy. But I could be putting this column together just as well on Halloween as you will see below. It is that scary.
The instigation for this piece was a so-called "Catholic" gift catalogue that came in the mail today. Before I opened it I knew something must be awry as the company had changed its web name to include "christian" in the URL, rather than Catholic, which is somewhat more fitting one could say.
Among the goods offered for sale for the Advent season were clerical shirts in an array of colors, including pink and hot pink or Advent purple. There was a chasuble available for "children's' Masses" with the center band sporting cartoon faces of children representing the various races and culture, as if sponsored by the United Nations. Priests' vestments are not to have profane symbols on them, and by profane I mean not sacred as in related to the Blessed Sacrament, The Trinity or Our Lady, etc. Your picture and my picture cannot be appliquéd to a vestment and no matter how sweet little children are in their innocence, neither can their images be used on a vestment.
As an adjunct to this "chasuble" were children's full-length stoles for them to wear at "children's' liturgies", some of them with the same cartoon-like faces running the entire length of the "stole." The stole is properly the vestment of the ordained, not the laity. All of this was boldly in color and without any subterfuge, so I assume that the paganization-Protestantization of the American "Catholic" Church is so advanced that a catalogue company has no problem marketing these items and the owners of the enterprise have no idea what it is they are doing in relation to that which is Catholic and only Catholic as Catholic must only be.
It gets worse, so hold on.
There was a section titled "Remembrance Sets", which consisted of an assembly line-style kit for passing out "remembrance wafers" from a party-type platter; one had options for the traditional host shape or little puffy soft clouds of bread in two kinds. The kit included throwaway wine cups. One could also purchase an instrument with a plunger for filling the cups, and there were different styles of these as well.
Some Protestant sects have "remembrance ceremonies" but the Catholic Church does not, at least not using items that mimic the Blessed Sacrament, for that would diminish belief in the Real Presence, at the the very least, not to mention the sacrilege implied.
If the "Remembrance Sets" were not to your liking and you wanted to be a little more "traditional" you could order "Communion Sets" along the same line, a distinction without an essential difference, except the platters were fancier and had special covers, etc.
Now, since the laity as a general rule do not purchase hosts and altar wine for consecration at Mass, as the priest usually takes care of this as it is his purview, or he can delegate it under special circumstances, which would include the instructions where to purchase them, one wonders who is ordering these sets. Traditional Catholics sometimes have to make like purchases for priests who come to say home Masses, but there is no need for all the wine cups and platters and paraphernalia, and no Traditional Catholic would purchase anything like what I have described. So that leaves do-it-yourself liturgies either in a totally paganized church or elsewhere, which means not Catholic!
If you receive such a catalogue in the mail, and these kinds of promotions are proliferating faster than I can peruse them, do not waste your time and your Catholic equilibrium-----cast them into the trash bin where they belong.
The New Age Church masquerades as the Catholic Church and one of its main teachings is that almost everyone is saved and that it is just fine to be a Hindu, etc. The only people who go to Hell are a "few who miss the mark" as was literally given in a recent homily by one such priest who sincerely believes what he is preaching. I can picture him wearing the above chasuble if he ever learns of its existence. This priest appears to have passed over the various Gospel passages that speak of the "many" who go to Hell, not the "few", the many includes unfaithful Catholics, not just those who had an opportunity for Baptism and membership in Christ's only True Church and chose to decline the gift of faith-----"I have other sheep, and them I must bring also . . . "
How long, O God, how long, our penance for our own infidelity to Thee?The media coverage of the 25th Anniversary of Pope John Paul II's ascendancy to the Chair of Peter is almost staggering. I am not sure what to make of the amount of coverage, unless it is anticipatory in re the next Pontiff, without actually saying so.
The cast of experts rolled out to answer questions for the commentators and journalists is rather new, except for the Jesuit, Fr. Thomas Reese, of America magazine and Cardinal McCarrick. But fresh faces do not necessarily make for refreshing [as in the truth] answers.
Repeatedly we hear about the Pontiff's evangelical efforts, the "secrecy" of the Vatican, the so-called "conservatism of the Pope" and of course, his illness, and the recent scandals.
Traditional web sites have covered the Pope's fuzzy thinking on evangelization, thinking that borders on "universal salvation", so we will not address this here.
The secrecy aspect was almost funny: every organization has secrets, that is dealings and documents that are not available for public inspection, but you never hear about the secrets of the AMA, the ACLU, the Trilateral Commission, the ABA, PETA, Jesse Jackson, etc. No, just the Vatican, as if it were hiding something, while the other organizations, would never have real secrets ...
The media apparently has never heard of traditional Catholics or their web sites because if they were up to snuff they would not have to fish for the real low-down on the Pope's health and which efforts are of no avail. We hear questions about the possibility of the Pope's retirement, which would be unprecedented. No priest panelist has mentioned this to my knowledge. Instead they talk of His Holiness' tireless efforts to keep traveling and writing, the busy-busyness of it all. One wonders if all of this is his idea or his handlers; but this is of little import. How I long for one act of discipline instead of caving in, just one, before God calls him to eternity.
As usual the media is looking for change on birth control, abortion, and "women priests." The priests' answers were almost good, but not good enough. They neglected to mention that this is about doctrine and that the Pope, no matter who he is, has no authority to change one iota of any dogma and the attendant doctrines derived from dogma. The closest one of them could come to the whole truth is that the Catholic Church "has a philosophical way" of looking at human nature and how we are made. Philosophy is not doctrine. The same priest who uttered this also said that these matters were the views of the Church. Not exactly, Father. Views can change because they are attitudes and general patterns of thinking. What the Church teaches officially is truth, as revealed by God and given to His Holy Church to safeguard in its entirety, the special prerogative and duty of the Vicar of Christ.
But the media has one idea correct, straight from the "out of the mouths of babes" department. When speaking of the Pope's "conservatism", they refer to abortion, birth control and "women priests". They never mention the rest, as if to say without admitting it, that the rest is pretty darn liberal. The irony of it is that supposedly the new generation of American Catholics has no idea that birth control is evil and forbidden. Yet they get their news from these media outlets. If the non-Catholic media knows, surely they must also. Hmmmmmm ...Below is our original column on Terri Schiavo. After Governor Jeb Bush said his hands were tied and her food and water removed, I thought it was over. But Bush has rallied and called a special session of the Florida Legislature. In addition we have learned the evidence that her husband may have been complicit in her condition is more explicit: x-rays show evidence of old multiple fractures and other past injuries that cannot be explained except to suspect physical abuse as the cause. But the most startling of all is that Terri was refuse the Last Rites from a Catholic priest by order of her husband and the doctors. Now since the feeding tube was removed, if the doctors are correct, Terri could not swallow on her own the Sacred Host. To deny the priest administering the Viaticum is to admit she might be able to swallow on her own, or otherwise the denial of the administration would be meaningless. The fight is on: Visit Terri Schiavo's web site and sign the petition if you have not already.
Yesterday the tube was ordered re-inserted by Governor Jeb Bush with an overwhelming vote in the Florida legislature by both houses.
Her husband tried to get a court ordered stay and was denied; he has said he wants her body cremated just as we suspected. But if Terri Schiavo should die the family wants to know about the old injuries showing broken bones, etc. Someone badly hurt her and she never told anyone. This is a clear signal of abuse as people do not hide normal injuries from their family.
Today is the Feast of St. Teresa of Avila and the beginning of the execution of Terri Schiavo of Florida by forced starvation. For those who have not read of her plight and that of her parents who have waged a heroic battle to save her life, Terri was originally thought to have suffered a stroke as a young married woman, but evidence may exist to prove that she was a victim of a failed murder attempt by her husband. As a result of the "stroke" she experienced severe brain damage that left her needing a feeding tube and unable to communicate except by a radiant smile and the movement of her head. When told once that she might be put to death she raised herself up and seemed horrified.
Her husband refused permission to have her receive therapy so she could eat normally----medically this is and was possible, but he refused. Recall when parents were threatened with prosecution if they did not permit their young son to undergo chemotherapy for cancer, a treatment that is still considered extraordinary in that the outcome is doubtful and very painful: therapy to assist eating is ordinary medical care and it is the height of abuse and neglect to not permit it and no threat of prosecution here. O how the double standard of injustice is raised to a new low!
Her parents are willing to take Terri home and feed her and care for her all the days of their lives. But the husband refuses. He has a new honey and a child and he wants Terri dead as he says she would want to refuse treatment. Her parents are convinced he is lying about this supposed discussion that took place before the "stroke." Of course, once dead and cremated, no autopsy to prove murder, if this is the case.
The media refers to this vivacious woman who smiles and responds to her loved ones and nurses as "vegetative", as in "persistent vegetative state". So the husband who has absolute rights over her as a chattel, is having her executed by starvation beginning this afternoon and a federal judge straight out of a Nazi Germany nightmare has so ordered her execution. The parents will not be allowed to feed her and or even see that she has water. These "Nazi" butchers are not even willing to give her a shot as they would so do for a proven guilty criminal who is to be put to death. Terri Schiavo would receive more mercy if she were a convicted killer. Irony has been raised to a new intensity! I mean, the media would not stand for the forced starvation of even a dog!
Meanwhile, except for a few conservative media hosts, all the media can do is wring their poor pampered manicured hands and say "What a tragedy." These are the same ones who agree that she's a vegetable, not a human being, in so many words. The tragedy is that it need not occur at all. Any husband who is shacked up with a new mate and child and who is suspected of attempting to kill his wife, should not be given absolute custody over her. Not when there are two loving parents available. They take away kids from good homes under any pretext these days, especially Christian homes, but the state powers could care less about the forced starvation of an innocent woman.
The barbarity, not just the injustice sickens and cries out for the vengeance of God upon the land. Death by starvation and dehydration is unbelievably ghastly and painful, so much so I cannot describe it here because words utterly fail.
I think that as she lies dying in such horrific pain, this sweet, precious woman will no longer smile as much as emit tears to pierce her parched flesh for some relief, if there is enough water left in her body to permit tears to form. Then the world will know she is no longer a vegetable, as she never was, but a human being saying good-bye to her parents who will be prevented from helping their beloved daughter.
Will she be crying for her homeland which has abandoned her to the merciless courts and the medical practitioners who concur? She seems to be so good that I can imagine she will ask for mercy from God for the likes of them, they who know not what it is to be merciful ...
May God have mercy on any of us who are in a position to enter the hospital and kidnap her and provide for her and do not, out of fear of a single earthly judge, when we should fear the only Judge that counts!