Sunday, May 28, 2017

Open Letter To Archbishop Lori Regarding St. Matthew's On Loch Raven Boulevard

Archbishop Lori, for several years now, St. Matthew's on Loch Raven Boulevard has been led by Father Joseph Muth.  At his direction this parish has openly promoted the mortal sin of sodomy within its parish structures.  It has openly participated in Baltimore's "gay pride days" these past several years.  With its parish organization known as LEAD, it is fostering and hastening the damnation of numerous parishioners.  A Catholic parish is supposed to be a place where Catholics can receive teaching and Sacraments that will assist them in their ultimate goal for heaven, not delude them into committing mortal sins that will hinder if not prevent their salvation.  Sadly, it is the latter that has been occurring for several years now.  You and your chancery staff cannot pretend to be ignorant of this travesty.

The scandals from that parish continue to multiply.  This parish apparently is having elections for its parish council.  According to its May 28th bulletin, one candidate is Jordan Differding.  I link to the bulletin now.  On page six, Mr. Differding plainly states that he is "engaged" to another man and that the two plan to "marry" on June 17 (I pray it's not at St Matthew's).  Differding, on his Facebook page, is quite up front regarding his disordered tendencies.   Father Muth cannot claim ignorance about the fact that a candidate for parish council has openly proclaimed his perversion and his intention to live in mortal sin.  Given Father Muth's history, it is likely that he applauds Differding's debauchery.

Your Excellency, enough is enough.  You cannot allow Catholic souls to be scandalized by a parish that is literally being led to hell.  You, as bishop, have some accountability before God for these souls, and those of the rest of the Baltimore archdiocese who stand to be led astray not only by the filth pouring forth from this parish, but also by the abysmal silence of its shepherds.

So what will you do??

Saturday, May 27, 2017

Interview Between Cardinal Mueller And Raymond Arroyo

An interview between Raymond Arroyo and Cardinal Mueller aired on May 25 on the World Over.  My colleague at Tenth Crusade picked up more than I did.  I was quite frankly befuddled by all the verbal tap-dancing and gymnastics that I couldn't follow it.  Arroyo had much more patience than I would have exercised, had I been in his position.

Friday, May 26, 2017

Abortionists Gloat Over Their Cold-Blooded Murders

The Center For Medical Progress recorded a conference put on by the National Abortion Federation in 2014.  About 50% of its members and directors are affiliated with Planned Parenthood.  They were quite blunt about their murder techniques, etc.  The pro-aborts have been fighting via court injunctions to have these recordings suppressed.  Thanks to corrupt judges they have largely been successful.  Youtube took down videos that had been posted.

Thankfully, organizations such as Live Action have posted the video onto their own sites.  I now link to their page.  I would strongly suggest that all download this video to your own machines to keep the truth from being suppressed.  As you watch, you may be shocked at the cool, nonchalant way they talk about "eyeballs in their laps", etc.  Don't be.  Their consciences are deadened.  Pray that they may wake up before they die and have to answer to God for their heinous murders.

Wednesday, May 24, 2017

Students For Life And New York Times

When I last wrote about the attempt by Students for Life to meddle in the affairs of the Heritage Academy, I ended it with a question regarding the role of the New York Times in bringing undue pressure upon the school administration.  I'd like to continue with that thought, for reasons that will be made clear as this post progresses.

First, here is the original SFL post.  Now here is the NYT article.  Please notice that both of these were published to the internet on May 20.  However, the SFL post mentions the NYT article.  Was the SFL piece published as a response to the NYT article?  I may be incorrect, but that SFL post seems like it was written in advance, given the work that had to go into the content, layout, etc.

Now look at the NYT article.  Kristan Hawkins is quoted as saying, "she made the courageous decision to choose life, and she definitely should not be shamed."  I don't see that statement anywhere else: not on the SFL post..nowhere.  If that exact quote does exist elsewhere and that quote originated before May 20, please advise via the comments section.  Assuming that it doesn't, then I think it reasonable to assume that Hawkins granted an interview to the New York Times regarding the Heritage Academy situation.

Let that sink in for a moment.  The New York Times has made no secret of its hostility towards Christians, especially conservative and pro-life Christians.  Yet it appears that the New York Times was brought into this situation to put more pressure on the school administration to do the bidding of Maddi Runkles and Students for Life. Because of its own animus towards Christianity, NYT could have been only too willing to take a swipe at Heritage Academy.  Was that NYT attitude exploited by SFL to garner some publicity?

On Monday, David Hobbs, president of Heritage Academy, issued a statement regarding the situation on the HA site.  He stated the reasons that the administration acted as they did.  Kristan Hawkins yesterday issued her response on the SFL site.  Basically she said that Hobbs' statement didn't cut the mustard for her.  Well, so what?  Who appointed her to a position of oversight for the school?

To the right is an opinion of another faithful Catholic whose opinion on the matter differs from that of SFL.

One might ask me for my opinion on the matter.  I decline to give it for it is irrelevant to the deliberations of the HA administration.  So too is the opinion of Students for Life and all those who might be clamoring for HA to back down.  Suffice it to say any decision is that of the school administration and it should be respected.

I'm going to propose a course of action.  You have the HA site.  Why not pop them an email suggesting that they tune out all the noise and flak that they are receiving as a result of this SFL-instigated barrage?  Assure them of your prayers and encourage them to proceed as they deem best.

Monday, May 22, 2017

Students For Life Imperiously Demeans Heritage Academy

NOTE - Update at bottom
A lot of Christian sites are atwitter with a situation that has originated at Heritage Academy, a private Christian school in Hagerstown, MD, an hour's drive away from my home.  I learned of this primarily through news feeds from Students for Life.  They have posted an account of it on their site.  To their credit, they seem to have stated all the facts, although their disdain for the school is evident.

This is what I gather.  Heritage Academy is a private K-12 Christian school.  Its students sign a pledge (perhaps when they are old enough to understand it) promising to abide by Christian values; among other things, they promise not to engage in premarital sex, do drugs, drink alcohol.  A graduating senior named Maddi Runkles violated the pledge and became pregnant as a result.  It appears that the boy with whom she fornicated is not a student of the Academy.  Prior to that she occupied leadership positions in the Key Club and Student Council.  She was removed from those positions and will not be allowed to participate in commencement ceremonies.  She will receive her diploma.

Her father was president of the school board.  He resigned in protest over the disciplining of his daughter.  The Runkle family made contact with Students for Life through another agency and the result is the campaign that you see on the SFL site as they try to gin their followers into browbeating the Heritage Academy to do their bidding.

Maddi did toy with the idea of abortion.  To her immense credit she did not go that route and will give birth to her baby.  No one would think of condemning her.  What I must denounce, however, is the de facto demonization of the Heritage Academy administrators.  The SFL post is full of pejorative language aimed at the school, as are many of the comments on SFL's facebook page.  I will now unpack some of it, bit by bit, in "bullet" style.
  • The very title "you won't believe what her Christian school did" is designed to introduce the initial bias against the school.  This is a clear case of none-too-subtle peer pressure.
  • "what they did to Maddi for her mistake was unnecessarily cruel and set a bad example of what it means to be a pro-life Christian"  Dear SFL, with all due respect, you've no basis for sitting in judgment over the decisions of this school.
  • "Punishment without Compassion"  Who is defining the language here?
  • "Doesn’t that break your heart?"  And it better break your heart, or else you are judgmental and lack compassion.  Notice the manipulation?
Kristin Hawkins said she tried to convince the principal to see things her way, but he didn't bite the bait.  Did it not occur to her that he isn't answerable to her for his decisions?  Perhaps there are facts and other considerations that the principal won't divulge, simply because they are none of our damned business.  For that reason alone, SFL does not know what is the correct course of action in this matter; nor do I.  I, however, do not pretend to know it, let alone presume to urge others to strong-arm Heritage Academy to following any arbitrary dictates.

Too many commenters (and other bloggers) are following SFL's leads, allowing themselves to be swayed by the emotions ginned up by SFL's irresponsible post.  Some of the ridiculous comments include:
  • "punished for choosing life"
  • "the administrators should be ashamed of themselves"
  • "the school is not showing Christ's love"
Now precisely who are being the judgmental and condemning ones?  One comment said the school should "remove the plank from their own eye".  I might suggest that SFL and some of these commenters follow that excellent advice.

UPDATE - Something just dawned on me.  The SFL post mentions that New York Times did a write-up.  Indeed they have.  Bear in mind that on the national scale, Heritage Academy is a relatively small school, not one to be easily noticed.  So how did the NYT come to hear of this in order to do a piece?  Who told them?  Why?  Something about this whole situation does not pass the "smell test".

Sunday, May 21, 2017

Good News From Our Parish Times!!

On page 2 of the May issue (or page 3 from the online pdf) we read of the Catholic Communications Campaign that is scheduled for May 27-28.  At the end of the article, we are advised that additional information is available at the USCCB site - and so it is.

"So why is this news particularly good?", inquring minds might ask.  Because it is a way that Catholics can contribute towards communication efforts without any of these donations being diverted to the Catholic Campaign for Human Development.  For years now, I and many other faithful Catholic bloggers have been sounding the alarm about the CCHD being a front organization whose only function it is to divert Catholic dollars towards progressive anti-life and anti-God organizations.  This fact leapt into the public eye during the ACORN scandals - an organization to whom the CCHD granted millions of our dollars throughout the previous years.

We do notice one curious thing, though.  Even though the Communications efforts appear to have their own collection, the Communications name is still linked to the CCHD on the archdiocese's schedule for second collections.  The collection scheduled for August 5-6 is still called "Catholic Communications and Human Development".  So does the chancery think that Catholics have such short memories and attention spans that we'll forget in August that a collection for Catholic Communications was held less than three months earlier?  That this name and date change for the CCHD collection is a deliberate obfuscation is beyond doubt.

As August approaches, we'll have more information regarding the boycott of the CCHD collection in August.   Suffice it for now to say that any such boycott does not have to impact Catholic Communications.

Friday, May 19, 2017

Cardinal Burke Calls For The Correct Consecration Of Russia To Mary's Immaculate Heart

On Tuesday Cardinal Paul Josef Cordes (of Germany) confirmed the statement of Father Amorth (Vatican exorcist) that Pope John Paul II did not consecrate Russia to Mary's Immaculate Heart in 1984.  Apparently he wanted to do so, but allowed himself to be persuaded by Vatican diplomats not to mention Russia for fear of causing political conflicts.

We all know that he consecrated "the world" to Mary's Immaculate Heart.  While that consecration was undoubtedly beneficial in and of itself, it was not done in the manner that Our Lady specified to the Fatima seers in 1917.  The LifeSiteNews posts reminds us that the Fatima apparitions are not part and parcel of the Deposit of Faith and one may be a true Catholic and not believe them.  That is true enough.  However, one either believes that the Blessed Mother spoke at that time, or they don't.  If they do believe that she spoke, then why the reticence about taking her at her word?  Why demure in complete obedience?  Why place the pleadings of Vatican officials over the requests of the Mother of God?

Today at the Rome Life Forum, Cardinal Burke called for the consecration of Russia to Mary's Immaculate Heart per her exact specifications.  He too stated that the consecration in 1984 was not in accord with Our Lady of Fatima's specifications.  His exact quote is: "Certainly, Pope Saint John Paul II consecrated the world, including Russia, to the Immaculate Heart of Mary on March 25, 1984.  But, today, once again, we hear the call of Our Lady of Fatima to consecrate Russia to her Immaculate Heart, in accord with her explicit instruction."

There are those good Catholics who insist on pretending that the Fatima requirements were satisfied in 1984.  They probably are loathe to believe that Pope St John Paul II might have faltered in being completely obedient to Our Lady of Fatima.  They fail to consider that while he was still on this earth, he was subject to his own sin-weakened human nature, as are we all.  However some others who don't have any intention to honor God have their own reasons.  One individual on Facebook believes that these faux-katholycs fear a large-scale return to Faith and Tradition if Russia is properly consecrated.  I think he's onto something, especially in light of the bad-mouthing that Cardinal Burke received from Cardinal Maradiaga (head of the pope's "gang of nine" because of his dissidence).

Cardinal Burke went on to list six requests of Our Lady of Fatima.  Five of them we should be doing regularly ourselves.  The sixth one has to do with the consecration of Russia.  Let us join the cardinal in acknowledging that the consecration to Russia has been inexcusably delayed and pray and call for its immediate fulfillment.

Thursday, May 18, 2017

Defending Human Life And The Family

Several years ago, Cardinal Caffarra (one of the four "dubia cardinals") revealed the contents of a conversation he had with Sister Lucia, one of the Fatima seers.  She told him that the final battle between Our Lord and Satan will revolve around marriage and the family.  In this centenary of our Lady of Fatima's appearances to the children, we do see that battle ratcheting before our very eyes.

At the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast two days ago, Cardinal Robert Sarah called "gender ideology", "same-sex marriage" etc what they are: demonic attacks on humanity.  Earlier this evening, I attended a talk given by Doug Mainwaring on this very topic (see Tuesday's post).  He said very much the same things; I'll be posting reports on this within the next few days.

Today the fourth Rome Life Forum convened in Rome, spearheaded by Voice of the Family.  I now link to VOF's site so that you can follow along this important conference and will also post some commentaries on the talks as they proceed.  Today one of the speakers was Father Linus Clovis of Family Life International.  I would urge careful study of his entire talk, in which he names Amoris Laetitia as both a trojan horse and a cast-down gauntlet.

He reminds us of the three requests of Our Lady of Fatima: reform of our lives, the First Saturday devotions and the consecration of Russia.  We are certainly capable of fulfilling the first two, as they pertain to our personal lives.  We must pray that the pope and bishops finally consecrate Russia to Our Lady's Immaculate Heart.

Tuesday, May 16, 2017

Marriage, Family & Gender: Ground Zero For Spiritual Battle

For those in the Maryland area (and surrounding areas), I'd highly recommend attending this presentation at St. John Neumann Church in Gaithersburg MD.  Doug has been on the frontlines of this battle for some time now; the flyer below will speak for itself.


Pope Francis Continues To Clash With Sacred Tradition

The pace of the current pope's attempts to deconstruct the traditions as espoused by his predecessors is increasing to a pace that is difficult to match.  The pope recently referred to the death penalty as a mortal sin.  From America magazine we read how he equated the death penalty with slavery, saying erroneously that they were both considered acceptable.  Note - before some say that this article simply reflects America's progressive leanings, a careful read of the byline will reveal that this article is a reprint of a piece from Catholic News Service, the news outlet of the USCCB.  Why USCCB is clasping hands with this heretic rag will have to be a topic for a future post.  Suffice it to say that I've no reason to doubt the factual accuracy of the pope's quoted statements.

Nowhere in Scripture or Tradition is the practice of slavery condoned, let alone promoted as a social good.  Individual Christians may have been embroiled in it, but that does not mean the Church hierarchy gave official approval of slavery.  Sacred Tradition, on the other hand, has always held that the death penalty is a legitimate tool to be used by civil governments to facilitate the protection of the citizens under their care.  Even St John Paul II acknowledged the same when he made his own abhorrence of the death penalty known.

In the America article, the pope pretends to be able to take what Sacred Tradition always acknowledged to be a tool for the maintenance of the public good and to make it into a mortal sin.  He's trying to morph a moral good into an intrinsically moral evil.  I remember a quote whereby the Lord chastises those who call "evil" "good" and vice versa.  Let's move on.

Cardinal Coccopalmerio is President of the Pontifical Council For Legislative Texts.  He's responsible for interpreting much of canon law.  He recently said that Anglican orders may be, in some cases, valid.  That is a direct contradiction of Apostolicae Curie, issued by Pope Leo XIII.  In that papal bull, Pope Leo XIII declared (in section 36) "that ordinations carried out according to the Anglican rite have been, and are, absolutely null and utterly void".  Pope Leo could not have been any clearer.

Here's the last one for this post.  From Gloria TV we learn of the possibility that Humanae Vitae might be on the papal chopping block.  Well, it's all about being "pastoral", isn't it?  Will contraception be considered "pastoral" and "accompanying"?  That would be a violation not only of Humanae Vitae, but of Evangelium Vitae, Casti Connubi, and most likely others - all teachings of Jesus Christ Himself.

Any sitting pope can only guard the Deposit of Faith.  He cannot alter it.  I'm not a canon lawyer so I ask that if Pope Francis were to solemnly proclaim these errors to be truth, would said declaration show his papacy to be illegitimate?