Auschwitz In Maryland?

Many of us over the past week or two have become acquainted with the situation in Marion County, Oregon.  News broke that the Covanta Marion "waste to energy" plant has been incinerating the bodies of aborted babies to produce electricity.  The babies' bodies have been coming from British Columbia.  After LifeSiteNews broke the story that week, the Marion County Board of Commissioners called a halt to the activity and promises an investigation.

Breitbart News put out an article showing where Covanta justifies the grisly practice as a means "to offset greenhouse gases to combat climate change".  Here is the page from Covanta's site.

The Covanta "waste-to-energy" facilities are scattered throughout the country.  There's one in Dickerson MD.  That's in Montgomery County, on Route 28 between Sugarloaf Mountain and the Potomac River.  The precise address of the Covanta is on this page, with email information as well.  Marylanders, why not contact this Covanta and ask them what they're burning in their generators?

Boehner: "Surrender On Obamacare AND Illegal Immigration"

Last Thursday, at a Rotary Club meeting, the Weeper of the House said the repeal of Obamacare "isn't the answer".  After giving a bunch of lame excuses for a statement that many of us knew for years he was waiting to utter, he plops another about illegal immigration.  In other words, (paraphrasing ever so slightly), "As long as we're wimping out over Obamacare, let's wimp out over illegal immigration, too."

One of the commenters in this article asks a very good question: "What does Obama have on Boehner?"

Boehner faces a Tea-Party challenger in his primary election: J.D. Winteregg.  I would urge Ohio's 8th Congressional District to support him and retire John Boehner.

More On Sister Jane At Charlotte Catholic High School

Yesterday in Crisis Magazine, Austin Ruse published an article giving additional details about Sister Jane Dominic Laurel's talk, the knee-jerk reactions and the progressive attitudes that existed prior to Sister's talk.  Apparently the kids started their angry tweeting sessions before Sister ended her talk.

I needn't rehash the entire thing here; please read it.  Apparently the dissidents had their long knives out for Father Kauth, the school chaplain who had previously restored some reverence to what was a progressive bastion.

Now the question is - as it has been - will Bishop Jugis uphold both Father Kauth and Sister Jane?  That still remains to be seen.  The delay is unconscionable.

The Role Of Situation Ethics In The Border Mass And Singing Priest Debacles

Now that some of the dust - and emotions - have (hopefully) calmed after the revelation of Father Kelly's performance two weeks ago, I think it bears revisiting.  There are underlying moral principles at play, and we cannot ignore them for the sake of maintaining a facade of peace.  A "peace" that cannot bear some rigorous examination of situations and underlying principles is not true peace.

Father Ray Kelly is the priest in Ireland who violated Mass rubrics by putting on a singing performance during a Nuptial Mass two weeks ago.  In discussions regarding his actions, I've seen undercurrents of a "situation ethics" mindset in the remarks of faithful Catholics.  I've also seen it as we've discussed the "border Mass" on April 2, done by some bishops as part of their ongoing shilling for amnesty for people in this country illegally.  Needless to say I'm greatly concerned.

Let's define "situation ethics".  In this Christian-oriented site, we see that "situation ethics" was pioneered by an Episcopal priest in the early 1900s.  He also happened to be an advocate for euthanasia and for Planned Parenthood - small wonder.  The site does an excellent job in demonstrating the logical fallacies of situation ethics.  In a nutshell, situation ethics is a notion that decision-making should be based on the particulars of a given situation and not upon fixed law (such as Mass rubrics as defined by the GIRM, the Ten Commandments, etc).

I was involved in a closed discussion during the Triduum weekend with faithful Catholics regarding the Father Kelly matter.  More than a few seemed to buy the notion that the rubrics, generated by the Roman Catholic Church, can be suspended for the sake of a "happy moment".  It was mentioned that "at least there were no dancers or clowns".  Now see the problem?  If the rubrics of Mass can be suspended at will, what's the difference between priests singing versus puppets galloping down the aisles?  Without objective principles that govern the Mass, those embellishments become a mere matter of personal taste, don't they?  Once we jettison a principle for one circumstance, it can never be invoked for another circumstance for in that first act of disregard we would have shown our own disrespect for that principle.

I've also seen "situation ethics" ethos in other discussions.  One very public discussion is on Jill Stanek's site.  Granted, Jill and many of her site assistants aren't Catholic.  I'm just appalled at how they think they're knowledgeable enough to tell Catholics what their attitudes toward Church authority should be.  Some of the commenters - Catholics - tried to explain the role of Church authority in our Mass.  But again too many Catholics were all too willing to turn a blind eye "because the song made people happy" or some other similar excuse.

I also had a Facebook discussion on the matter.  Of course there was my original post on this matter.  Take a look at those comments and you'll notice that most of those supporting Father's disobedience voice their own flippant attitudes towards the Magisterium.

I think we also saw the situation ethics mental poison at play during the "border Mass" on April 2.  Please read the link to refresh your memories about that event.  I link now to an article that explains why that was a violation of Canon Law regarding Mass.  Situation ethics has corroded even the thinking of many of our bishops.

Some might ask why I continue to harp on what they might consider "minor matters".  Folks, it's very simple.  The underlying moral principles of any situation can never be regarded as "minor".  If we refuse to examine rigorously these principles behind our thinking when it comes to so-called "minor matters", we risk crippling our ability to deal properly with matters that aren't so "minor".  I'm no expert in that regard, but I do know enough to realize the damage done when we don't attempt rigorous, thorough thinking that applies Christ's Commandments and Church law appropriately.

Bundy A Racist? No Evidence For That Charge!

When I heard that the New York Times had a video, I knew that it was literally a hatchet job; the hachet was taken to the original clip that the NYT and Media Matters had.  Here's the full clip so that you can develop an informed opinion on the matter.

Community College Of Baltimore County: Anti-Religious Bigots??

Last year Brandon Jenkins applied for admission to the Radiation Therapy Program at the Community College of Baltimore County.  He had all the academic qualifications.  During the interview portion of the admission process, he was asked what was the "most important thing to him".  He had the audacity to answer "my God".  That was deemed unacceptable and he was told that "the field of radiation therapy is not the place for religion."

Yesterday the American Center for Law and Justice filed suit on Jenkin's behalf, stating that Jenkin's First Amendment rights were violated.  The suit asks that Jenkins be admitted into the program and that the school be enjoined from engaging in any retaliation against him.  We'll be following this closely.

MD Officials Sue To Stymie Pro-Life Access to Public Records

Maryland's Department of Health and Mental Hygiene filed suit last year to stop Andrew Glenn, director of the Maryland Coalition for Life, because the latter made a public records request for documents pertaining to the licensing of abortion centers in Maryland.  He was concerned (and his concern has solid basis) that some abortuaries are operating illegally.

The excuse is that the release of the information could lead to "harassment and violence".  The American Center for Law and Justice attorney representing Glenn stated that during arguments this past Friday, the state could not cite one instance where that occurred.  I refer you now to Operation Rescue's report on that matter.

Whereas the release of that information led to no "harassment and violence", there's no doubt that embarrassment and humiliation have occurred - not just for the abortionists but also for the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene.  Just last week it was reported that Harold Alexander received a three-month suspension because he (wait for it!) operating an unlicensed abortuary (again).  I link to more reading material so you can see how Carhart, staff and fellow abortionists have been found to be - uh - "license-challenged"!

As I pointed out in a previous post, Joshua Sharfstein is Secretary of the Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene and an unabashed pro-abortion activist.  See here for his past pro-abortion doings.  If you want additional information, just google "Sharfstein NARAL" and feast your eyes.  Does anyone doubt here that Sharfstein is simply trying to run interference for the lucrative baby-murder business in Maryland?  These days it seems to be the only industry that isn't fleeing Maryland.

Let us pray that Glenn and the ACLJ attorneys prevail.

When Orthodox Teachers Are Attacked

Michael Voris is commenting on the latest episodes of orthodox religious being attacked for proclaiming the faith; Sister Jane Dominic Laurel is one of them, the other Father Francis "Rocky" Hoffman.  Take note when he (at 5:33) rebukes bishops for not having the "spine, guts or taste to do what needs to be done."  That means you, Bishop Peter Jugis!

Tonight's Dog-And-Pony Show

My blogging colleague An Archdiocese of Washington Catholic commented on the forum for the Montgomery County Executive candidates being held as I write this.  He's right.  The areas of focus are "soft-ball" matters.  The "Justice and Advocacy Council of Montgomery County" (an arm of the Archdiocese of Washington, I believe) refuse to allow discussion of issues that have real moral substance.

Interestingly enough, the flyer that appeared in the parish bulletins didn't even list the names of the four candidates.  There is a reason.  First, pro-abortion "katholyc" Doug Duncan is running again.  Second, pro-abortion Ike Leggett, who helped ram through the bill four years ago that was designed to cripple pro-life pregnancy centers is also running.  Phil Andrews is also pro-choice, although to his credit, he opposed that pregnancy center gag bill.  The GOP candidate, Jim Shalleck, is pro-life (I believe).  So there you have it: this "council" did not want faithful Catholics to know that they were providing rabid pro-abortion candidates a platform (St Jude's in Rockville, to be precise) so that they could come off smelling like roses, given the namby-pamby subject matter being spoon-fed to them.

I was at a similar forum four years ago (at St Jane de Chantal).  It was a complete waste of time.  Again there were the morally-neutral issues being bandied about.  There was no opportunity for audience questioning or input.  All they wanted were warm bodies in the audience so that they could brag about the "valuable service" they were affording to Catholic voters.  Tonight I decided I was not going to waste my time just so I could increase their "body count".  I certainly hope the attendance was paltry.  Maybe then the Archdiocese of Washington will learn that faithful Catholics will not be stage props to aid and abet their kiss-ups to the progressive pols that do dominate Montgomery County.

Alabama Supreme Court Ruling - Precedent To End Legal Abortions?

Yesterday the Alabama Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a mother who endangered her unborn child by using illegal drugs during her pregnancy.  Her conviction had been challenged on the grounds that the unborn baby "was not a child".  The Alabama Supreme Court, in a 8-1 decision, stated otherwise.  Chief Justice Roy Moore delivered a concurring opinion that cited natural law and the fact that human rights are granted by God, not governmental bodies.  I send you to this link to review his opinion.

Let us pray that this groundwork will prove useful into restoring legal protections to the unborn child.

Guess What Today Is??

If you said "the third day in the Easter Octave", some might chide you for being archaic and not with it (whatever the heck "it" is).

You silly geese!  It's Earth Day!  Did you let this stupendous event go by, as I almost did (stop yawning!)?  I think we can be grateful that April 22 is during the Easter Octave this year; else the politically-correct yammering about the Catholic Climate Covenant would be much louder than it is now.  As it is, the nonsense reigns at Blessed Sacrament in Chevy Chase.

By the way - read about Ira Einhorn who claims to be one of Earth Day's founders.  He's a convicted murderer!  What a guy!  He holds human life cheaply, obviously.  Why give him and his crackpot notions any moral credibility?

Maryland Abortionist Gets His Knuckles Rapped

What else do you call the kid-glove treatment of Harold Alexander?  Last week he received a 3-month suspension of his medical license.  It's his second in two years and he still will be allowed to continue?  Do you find this baffling?  Not at all - let me explain in two words:

Joshua Sharfstein

He's the Secretary of the Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene.  He oversees all the state agencies who are supposed to be monitoring abortuaries (and other medical facilities).  He's also quite the pro-abortion activist.  Read this little expose done on Sharfstein and his chequered career.  Apparently he was at the NARAL fundraising gala that we picketed last October, receiving one of their "Leadership Awards".

Carhart, Alexander et al clearly do have friends in high places in Maryland - even in the State House.  The 2014 elections can't come soon enough.

Another Parochial Damage-Control Attempt??

Two weeks ago I learned of a breakfast, sponsored by Mother Seton parish to our north that is to feature a gay-sympathetic religious, Sr Anne Bryan Smollin.  I wrote to the pastor; read it here.  The very next day I received a reply from Father Fangmeyer stating that he'd "look into it".  I wonder if "look into it" is code-talk for "pitch in trash"?

In today's bulletin was the same exact announcement; that's two weeks later.  This breakfast will still occur, although there remains some time for it to be cancelled.  We can be grateful that this event is not occurring on Church property, I suppose.

Follow-Up Open Letter To Bishop Jugis

Remember that laughable reply that the Charlotte Diocese tried to pass off as a response?  Well, I'm going to give them another chance to render a decent and honest reply.  Here goes!

(BEGIN)

Dear Bishop Jugis, Mr. Hains or Whoever,

Did half the email sent to me on April 16 somehow get truncated?  It seems to be extremely incomplete.  All I see is an acknowledgement that you received my email.  To your credit, you’ve done far more than other chanceries have in reply to inquiries.  Still, I have received no reply of substance.

As mentioned in my original email, the email was an open letter.  I have posted that and the below reply to my blog http://restore-dc-catholicism.blogspot.com/2014/04/bishop-jugis-replies-well-kinda.html

I am in turn posting this email to the blog.  Please be advised that I will not let the plight of Sister Jane Dominic Laurel fall from attention – at least not on my blog (which enjoys respectable readership).  She deserves real justice: not to be treated as a sacrificial lamb to appease the noisy coyote-like homophiles that control the parents’ group at that school.

Thank you.

Janet Baker

Bishop Jugis Replies! Well, Kinda!!!

Last week I wrote my Open Letter to Bishop Peter Jugis in regards to his milquetoast pig-slop of a statement.   Well, lo and behold, - he replied!  At least David Hains did.  Are you just waiting with bated breath to read their words of wisdom?  Well feast your eyes for here it is!  Drum roll and trumpets, please!

(BEGIN REPLY)

Ms. Baker,

Your email below has been forwarded by the Chancery to me for a response.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this subject.  We have received a great deal of input on this subject.

-d

David Hains

Director of Communication, Diocese of Charlotte

704.370.3336

Webmaster, www.CatholicVoiceNC.org

    

chancery@charlottediocese.org 

(END REPLY)

Well, doesn't that just clear everything right up?  More mealy-mouthed mush from on high!  Truth be told, I believe him when he says they received "a great deal of input on this subject".  The real questions are:

• Do they give a rat's rump about all this "input"?  I fear this question is merely rhetorical.
• Will they still compel the Dominicans to keep Sister Jane Dominic Laurel in perpetual limbo?  And no, I don't buy the crap that Sister started her sabbatical "on her own"!

Holy Thursday Rubrics Violated At My Parish

This past Sunday I wrote what I intended to do if my parish's Holy Thursday service was marred by the washing of women's feet.  All the while of course I was praying that our parish wouldn't surrender to the temptation (I mean that word in every sense) to political correctness and false sense of "inclusion" to violate the rubrics for Holy Thursday.  Alas, I was disappointed although not the least bit surprised.  As I announced earlier, I knelt and prayed a Rosary in reparation for the violations occurring on the altar steps before our eyes.  Not my eyes, though, for I refused to give that debacle my visual attention.  Two women were up there.  One I don't know, but the other is one who (I thought) would have known better than that.  I suspect poor catechesis had a significant role to play here.

My blogging colleague Connecticut Catholic Corner has done excellent work with this, compiling many sources including this from Fifth Column.  She even posted a letter from the Vatican that confirms that Holy Thursday feet-washing is reserved for men only.  I will post it below.  I will also post an "oldie-but-goodie" from the Vortex on this matter.

Julie's post asks a good question: "Is Pope Francis a Bad Example to Catholics?"  It's a fair question.  Unfortunately with respect to Holy Thursday rubrics, the answer is an unequivocal "YES!"  I think I just saw a good portion of my parish (St John Neumann in Gaithersburg) get blind-sided, snookered and hog-tied big-time by his poor example.

Cultural Nazis And The Persecution That IS Underway

The Cultural Nazis already have their long knives out.  In many cases, they are being actively aided and abetted by Catholic leaders.  I saw it in my own parish two years ago, when the gay-nazis engineered the ouster of Father Guarnizo, with the DC chancery delivering the final heave-ho to Father.  Those who heard Michael Voris interview Peter LaBarbera will recall that the latter voiced the possibility of being arrested.  It happened.  Read the account in a gay site called queerty; you can smell the nazi mentality all over the language of that article.

The first step in fighting this tyranny (including its manifestations in the church) is to take our heads out of the sand now and be informed.

More On Why The Father Ray Kelly Fan Club Is Flirting With Hell

God bless these Protestant preachers.  They see the perils to which so many Christians expose themselves by dint of their emphasis on subjective "good feelings" versus God and His Word.

At 8:40 we hear that "entertainment is the devil's substitute for joy".  Hear!  Hear!

When Emotions Trump Intellect And Will - The Father Ray Kelly Fiasco

Several days ago, at a nuptial Mass in Ireland, the priest decided it was time for a "lovely moment" so he broke out in song.  However he did so during Mass - constituting liturgical abuse.  The video went viral, with people everywhere gushing over the priest's voice, how touching it was, and on and on.

A few of us tried to talk some sense (you know, as in logic and reason and fidelity to rubrics), but apparently we're resented as a bunch of mean ole party-poopers.  Even many Catholics are swallowing the nonsense "hook, line and sinker".  I am not sure what troubles me more: the liturgical abuse itself, or, what passes for reason and discourse in Catholic circles.  For the moment I'll not consider the reactions of non-Catholics for they would not have had opportunity for proper education regarding such matters.

I brought up the fact that Mass is not about the people as much as it is about the Unbloody Sacrifice of Our Lord.  I pointed out that the priest is "alter Christi" and is not about the business of attracting attention to himself (don't you think all the gushing over his "talent" should have been a clue?).  For those who tried to trot out the "legalist" schtick, I pointed out that Jesus Christ, through His Magisterium, had His Hand on the creation of the rubrics.  But nope!  None of that mattered one iota?  Wanna know what the supreme consideration was when opining about this performance?  And several said this, so I'll put it in quotes!  Wait for it!!  Here it is!

"It was so bee-yoo-tee-fulll, it just moved me to tears!  Sigh!  Sob!"

Got that?  It's all about emotions!  Forget the fact that Our Lord informs our intellect and strengthens our wills.  Intellect and will just don't amount to a hill of beans when emotions are being tugged and manipulated.

See the big problem there?  Men and women are created in the image and likeness of God, particularly through our faculties of intellect and will.  Of all God's creatures, only men and angels possess these faculties.  Emotions are on a lower level.  Animals have emotions, but they don't have intellect and will to render them made in the image and likeness of God.  This over-exaltation of emotions is nothing more than a degradation of man, impelling him to live in a lower, animal-like plane of existence.  And let's face it.  It's more palatable to our fallen natures to lower ourselves to that plane; it requires less effort to indulge our emotions rather than discipline them to be ordered by intellect and will.

The Culture of Death is prevailing largely because more and more people are living solely in their emotions and are not exercising intellect and will.  The Voris video I just posted shows how homofacism is progressing largely because they are manipulating the emotions of those who are largely undisciplined intellectually and who are most likely not pursuing Christ through His Church.

Below I post the video.  I think if you look at the beginning and end of it you'll see the damage being done without having to subject yourself to the entire bilious debacle.

Of Homofacists And Homophiles

Here is this past Wednesday's Mic'd Up edition regarding homofacism.  Yes that word does describe a sinister reality that I've seen first-hand.

He gives various examples of homofacists rearing their ugly heads.  At 3:45 he broaches the topic of Sister Jane Dominic Laurel who is being persecuted for proclaiming God's truth about marriage.  Right after that he interviews David Hains, Communications Director for the Diocese of Charlotte.  Mr. Hains did stand up for Sister.  I should point out that this Mic'd Up was recorded before Bishop Jugis opened his mouth and waffled all over the place.

Notice at 31:15 where Voris brings up the DC example of homofacism?  He's speaking of the situation two Lents ago at St John Neumann parish when they turned on Father Marcel Guarnizo, with the permission - if not outright connivance - of the DC chancery.  Voris asks the question whether or not Fr. Guarnizo was being set up.  I think that's a fair question; I couldn't help but notice that the Washington Post picked that up immediately - as though they had prior notice.

Notice at 41:30 where he talks of the definition of "homophile" (as coined by Austin Ruse) to mean (among other things) Catholics who seem to think homosexuality is a gift from God that must be celebrated.  Sister Anne Smollin, about whom I wrote yesterday, is such an individual.  For that reason I'm urging that her planned appearance be canceled and at least opposed.  I actually coined that term before; my definition is a bit more broad than Ruse's.  I use it to describe someone who advocates for acceptance of that perverted lifestyle, regardless of whether that person is homosexual or not.  And yes, they are often part and parcel of the homfacism.   I'll now post the video below.

If Holy Thursday Services Are Profaned

Today Holy Week starts.  In this week, particularly during the Triduum, we celebrate our redemption.  These are our highest Holy Days - much more so than Christmas.  On Facebook walls and blog posts everywhere I see the call to turn away from the muck of the world and focus solely on prayer, etc.  They also include the fight against dissidence within the Church.  Would that it were possible - but it isn't.  That goes double when we may well find dissidence rubbed in our faces during Triduum liturgies.

This week's Catholic Standard has a picture similar to this that appeared in the Washington Times two years ago.  I don't see that picture in the online version of the Standard, but I think a gauntlet has been tossed.  I hope I'm wrong, but I suspect parishes could well be put under pressure to admit women to the Holy Thursday foot-washing.  If that happens, we cannot just politely sit there and pretend all is hunky-dorry with the world.  So - what to do?

For some of us ladies, we may need to act beforehand, for that's when our participation in the foot-washing may be solicited.  Of course we have to decline (for we cannot participate in dissidence) - and let them know why.  Be polite and respectful, but be very firm, clear and complete in your explanation.

Now if we're at the service and we see men and women going up to the altar, what then?  Here's what I'll do, should I be so unfortunate as to see that.  I will immediately kneel (but lean back in the seat so as not to disturb the person in front of me), pull out my Rosary, bow my head and pray a prayer in reparation.  I will not look up at the travesty happening on the altar.

It's a pity that we must consider these actions during Holy Week, but we must deal with reality as it presents itself, not as we'd ideally like it to be.

Open Letter To Bishop Peter Jugis

The following is an open letter to Bishop Jugis that I just sent to the Charlotte chancery.  By the way - here's a commentary by American Life League on the abysmal treatment being meted out to Sister.

________________________________________________________________________

I am a lifelong Catholic who embraces ALL the Church’s teachings, including those on life, sexuality and marriage.   While I understand from friends that you have a reputation of being similarly oriented – and because of that understanding – I am disappointed by the statement that you released on April 9^th. 

While it was very nice that you expressed “support” for the staff, faculty, students and parents of the school, you omitted one key person in your support – Sister Jane Dominic Laurel.  That omission was glaringly obvious; a reasonable person could conclude that omission to be capitulation to those students and parents who took umbrage at Sister’s clear proclamation of Catholic truth.

While you are shocked at the reports you heard of the “lack of charity and respect” at the parents’ meeting, did you consider the underlying root of that rancor?  The parents took umbrage with Sister’s clear teaching – no, not Sister’s teaching, but the teaching of the Catholic Church as faithfully and accurately rendered by Sister.  When dissidents are presented with the unabridged truths of the Faith and have no disposition to conform to the truths taught by Jesus Christ, they will hurl bile and venom at the faithful souls who “preach the Gospel in season and out of season”.  Such was the mindset of those who crucified Our Lord and Savior and who have been shedding the blood of Christians ever since.  We all need to get used to it and not chase after some vaporous illusion of “charity and respect”.

Some opined to me that the motive behind your statement may have been to pacify certain noisy individuals and quiet things down.  If that was the case, may I suggest that motive is not at all valid?  If you really want to address the root cause of the snit-fits pitched by the parents and their children, please consider immediate remedial catechism from the pulpits of your parishes (or some other form of instruction in the Faith).  Otherwise these parents will persist in beliefs and perhaps conduct that will only increase their chances of eternal damnation AND they will continue to lead their own children down that same hideous path.  Let’s be clear; such preaching may well occasion additional rancor on the parts of those who will remain obdurate in their disobedience.  So what?  That’s simply part of the price that we must all bear when proclaiming the truth to a hostile world.  That proclamation of truth may well lead others may be led to repentance.  That won’t happen unless all hear unambiguous truth.  Let us harbor no illusion that real peace will be restored by smiles and happy-talk.  Real peace will only happen when people accept Catholic truth and conform their lives to the same. 

I appreciate that David Hains expressed his support of Sister Jane.  But such support should have been reinforced by the one entrusted with the miter, crosier, pectoral cross and ring of the Bishop’s office.  Your unfortunate statement of April 9^th only served to further undermine a faithful teacher of Catholic truth.  In all justice – not only to Sister but to all those associated with the school – please amend that statement immediately, with no delay “because of Holy Week”.  Thank you.

More On Bishop Jugis' Farce Of A Statement

I'm glad I'm not the only one to notice that Bishop Jugis's gobblygoop of a few days ago was nothing more than a plop of namby-pamby waffling pabulum.  Catholic Culture's analysis of it is far more thorough than mine.  They're right.  In his cowardly attempt to be "all things to all people" he squandered a perfect teaching opportunity.  Here's hoping and praying that he instructs his priests to immediately commence "remedial catechism" from their pulpits - no matter how many hissy-snits may result.  If anything should have shocked the good bishop, it should be the abysmal ignorance of the Faith that so many adults in his diocese have demonstrated these past few days.

Gay-Sympathetic Sister To Speak At Mother Seton Event - Please Pray And Take Action

In a comment to one of my April 6 post, an anonymous reader mentioned that Sister Anne Bryan Smollin is to be the featured speaker at a breakfast sponsored by Mother Seton Parish in Germantown MD.  He/she pointed to a number of links that demonstrate that Sister does not adhere to Church teaching on homosexual conduct.  I've no doubt that the pastor is unaware of this and perhaps the same could be said of those who are contemplating being a part of this event.  To that end, I wrote to Father Lee Fangmeyer, pastor of Mother Seton, this open letter.  Please circulate this around and encourage others to speak out (in a respectful manner) - or at least consider not attending this event.  Now the letter...

Hello, Father Fangmeyer.   I am a parishioner of St John Neumann, the parish to the southeast of your location.  In our own parish bulletin this past weekend, we saw an announcement regarding a breakfast that will be sponsored by your parish’s Sodality of Our Lady.  It is to be held Sunday May 4^th and features a speaker named Sister Anne Bryan Smollin, CSJ.   It was brought to my attention that Sister has spoken at “Catholic gay ministries” conferences; see https://www.calgm.org/calgm-national-conferences.   This is the sort of “gay ministry” that reinforces homosexual Catholics in their disordered passions as opposed to helping them live chaste lives (unlike the truly worth Courage Ministries).  You may also wish to review this http://www.natcath.org/NCR_Online/archives/101802/101802i.htm.

I am trusting that most members of the Sodality of Our Lady would be aghast at the thought of paying honorarium to someone who dissents from the Magisterium regarding homosexual conduct and lifestyle.  No doubt you are and many others would be.  To that end, I am writing this open letter to you in the hopes that this event can be stopped or at least potential attendees can be advised of this serious problem before they commit to giving Sister an undeserved audience.

Thank you for your time in reading this.  You and Mother Seton Parish are in my prayers.

Bishop Jugis' Non-Statement Regarding Sister Jane Dominic Laurel

In the face of the treatment that Sister Jane Dominic Laurel received in his diocese for proclaiming God's truth, this statement of the Bishop of Charlotte is pathetic.  His diocesan officials have shown more spine than has he.  This is literally a bunch of non-committal mishmash.  I do notice that while he expresses "support" for parents, students, staff, etc of the school, he expresses none for Sister.

He's also "shocked" about the "lack of charity and respect".  Well, that's nice but... what about the lack of understanding and respect for the teachings of Jesus Christ and His Church on the part of so many parents?  Will he be instructing his parish priests to proclaim the truths from the pulpit more directly to give the parents some desperately-needed remedial catechism?  While I'd hope so I don't think that will happen.

Intolerance Of God-Defying Progressives

As I reported two days ago, the Diocese of Charlotte has expressed its support of Sister Jane Dominic Laurel when the latter taught the teaching of the Church at a Catholic high school in Charlotte.  The parents went ballistic and a meeting was held.  One line from the LifesiteNews article was quite telling of the mentality (or lack thereof) of those who sinfully dissent from Church teaching.

The Diocese of Charlotte’s newspaper, the Catholic News-Herald, reported that the meeting was acrimonious, with those who dared to speak out in support of Sr. Laurel or the Church being shouted down by an angry mob.

The term "angry mob" accurately described those who opposed Church teaching.  Now remember - these are parents who are publicly opposing the proclamation of truth.  They are in open dissent from the Church (at least in belief if not actual life) and by their opposition, are providing scandalous examples to their own children, thus imperiling their children's salvation.  (We must pray for them for they are putting their own immortal souls in grave peril).

They are screeching, of course, because of their own guilty consciences.  They cannot stand the truth so they try to shout it down - literally in this case.

Some times they try to mow it down with their cars, bringing me to this next topic.  In Maryland, we've seen these "coexist" bumper strips everywhere - particularly in the looney bin called Montgomery County.  Hear from this college pro-life leader how he learned just what these progressives mean by "coexist" and "tolerance".

Sister Jane Dominic Laurel - Another Joan Of Arc

Forgive my tardiness for weighing in on this matter, but I will do so now.

Most have heard that Sister Jane Dominic Laurel of the Dominican Sisters of St Cecilia (a rather orthodox order that is faithful to the Magisterium) gave a talk to students of a Catholic high school in Charlotte, NC.  The talk was entitled "Masculinity and Femininity: Difference and Gift".  This talk was deemed "controversial" for Sister had the unmitigated gall to proclaim the truth of Catholic teaching regarding divorce, sodomy, extramarital sex, etc.

Many of the students, their faith and morals already corroded by lackluster education and even more lackluster family example, went apoplectic and complained to their parents (or surrogates as the case may be).  Being the adults that they are, they waxed even more hysterical than their children and had themselves a little letter-writing campaign.  In their petition they wrote, "As rational people, we know that most homosexual people lead healthy, normal and productive lives like their heterosexual counterparts.."  No, only irrational people hold onto those pipe-dreams - folks who are in complete denial as to why the average life-span of the gay man is much lower than his heterosexual counterpart.

You may read here to see how the Diocese of Charlotte has reacted in cowardly fashion, throwing Sister Jane under the bus for being true to her religious vows and to her Lord Jesus Christ.  By the way - the Bishop's name is Peter Jugis; he can be contacted at chancery@charlottediocese.org.  Please do so; let him know that fidelity to the Magisterium is worth far more than the donations he thinks he's salvaging by his cowardice.  He harms not only Sister, but also the students of that school who now have a sorry image of a bishop before their eyes.  IMPORTANT UPDATE BELOW - READ BEFORE TAKING ACTION

You'll also read in that article that Sister is "starting a sabbatical".  And guess what?  It's her own initiative!  They make a point of emphasizing that it's "her own initiative".  Do they think we just jumped off a turnip truck.  They know it's a lie, and they think if they repeat it enough, we'll believe it.

Father Z has it right when he refers to Sister as "The Nun UNDER the Bus".  Also, while I don't favor too many of the Patheos blogs, Rebecca Hamilton's has an excellent commentary on this disgraceful situation.  So too does Father Longenecker.

Of course these prelates would like us to forget about this matter and let poor Sister languish in "sabbatical".  They tried that with Father Guarnizo two years ago.  I for one am determined that this will not happen.  Let us all keep shining the light on the money-grubbing cowardice that has disgraced the church these past weeks.  Our pastors should lead us in commending Sister Jane Dominic Laurel.  Instead they toady to the homofacists and other progressive tyrants, presumably out of fear of lost donations (thirty pieces of silver?).  Shine the light on them, too.

UPDATE FROM LIFESITENEWS  It seems that the Diocese of Charlotte has reconsidered its stance towards Sister Jane Dominic Laurel.  Lifesitenews reports now that diocesan officials acknowledge that Sister's talk was in conformity with Church teaching and that she'd be welcome to return.  Please now thank them, as gay-nazis and rabid parents will certainly lash at them.

St John Neumann Catholic Church Bulletin - Poor Theology Of The Mass

As you read this post, please have open the bulletin insert in question; it is here, on page 5, right-hand column.  Before I proceed, I voice agreement that our devout assistance at Holy Mass is imperative to our receipt of the graces that are present at Holy Mass.  However, these graces are present owing to the nature of the Mass itself.  No other person present can impede my reception of these graces, provided that I am properly disposed.

First, what is the Mass?  Let's look at the clear, concise answer from the Baltimore Catechism.  That question, by the way, is Question 263 of the Baltimore Catechism.  The answer is - again from that catechism - The Mass is the unbloody sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ.  Here are more questions and answers from the Baltimore Catechism delving into the nature of the Mass.

Here are some more from EWTN.  Take special note here of Question 360, and part (a) of the answer: "Christ, though invisible, is the principal minister, offering Himself in the Mass.  The priest is the visible and secondary minister, offering Christ in the Mass".  This statement of fact is why this statement from the SJN bulletin is flat-out incorrect: "Mass at St. John Neumann and in any church is the joint effort of all the people in the assembly, not just the priests and special ministers who are, first of all, also members of the assembly. Every member of the parish assembly has a serious responsibility to help make the Mass a life-giving sacramental experience. To the degree that any member of the assembly does not work to make the Mass life-giving, to that degree the sacramental signs fail and the Eucharistic sign becomes less than what it should be."  The rather modern error that seems to be the undercurrent of this paragraph is the error that the roles of clergy and the roles of laity are on a par with regard to the Mass.  That's simply incorrect.  Christ is the primary minister and the priest is the secondary minister.  That's it!  No more "ministers"!  This is why a priest can say a private Mass, by himself.  The presence of laity have absolutely no impact on the sacramental validity of the Mass.  Conversely, no priest means no Mass - no matter how many devout laity are gathered.

I just don't have time to elaborate on all the error that is contained herein.  Suffice it to say that it is absolutely false to equate the role of those who've received the Sacrament of Holy Orders with the role of the laity.  It is NOT our presence that is "the transforming energy of all sacramental celebrations".  A Sacrament is an outward sign instituted by Christ to give grace (again, from the Baltimore Catechism).  What's with this "transforming energy" new-age talk?

But in going down, we see the lists of ushers, readers, musicians, etc.  "Priest" is thrown in the laundry list, and there's no particular order.  That's simply wrong.  It is the priest who is the minister, acting as alter Christi.  No lector nor greeter can do that.

I agree that one's lack of attention can impact the grace that they are able to receive from Mass.  So too can a faulty understanding of what Mass is.

Proper Attire For Sunday Mass

Below I will try to reconstruct from memory an email I sent to our parish council several years ago, in response to their solicitation for ideas on improving worship. Needless to say, my ideas were disregarded.  I offer these words to all my readers, to use as you deem best.  Here goes..

There has been a decent number of comments from the pulpit regarding immodest dress at Mass, particularly on the part of women.  While I agree with the comments as they are, they fail to address a larger question - that of proper attire for Sunday Mass, for women and men.

It is no secret to those with at least one functional eye ball that the bar has been lowered quite a bit over these past five decades.  I daresay it's been visible over this past one decade; parishioners who ten years ago would always have worn a tie to Mass now show up in jeans, sneakers and open collars.

Now let me anticipate some preliminary screeching from my readers, as they wail and gnash their teeth protesting, "You're judging by appearances."   New flash!  News flash!  Dress is NOT appearance!  Dress is behavior!  This behavior is reflective of the philosophies, attitudes and priorities of those engaging in that given behavior.  It might even be reflective of one's relationship with God.  I lamented in a previous post of the overly-casual, overly-jocular and even flippant attitudes that people harbor to their Creator, Savior and Sovereign Lord.

I believe the idea behind the "bar lowering" was the false hope that relaxed dress standards would increase Mass attendance.  So church leaders encouraged informal attire.  Well, we all know what happens when the bar is lowered just one inch.  Informal becomes casual becomes careless becomes sloppy becomes indecent and even obscene.  For all this bar-lowering, has Mass attendance improved?  No!  Quite the opposite!  Mass attendance has not increased but plummeted over the years!  I think there is a correlation between dress standards and Mass attendance, but not the one imagined by church leaders.  "When we dress like Mass is no big deal, what's the big deal about attending at all?"  While that attitude is lamentable, it is also logical.

Truth be told, if one leaves the issues of modesty aside for sake of this discussion, men dress in a more slovenly manner than do women.  Should not men be leaders in all things - including attire at Mass?  In other words, should they not be leading as opposed to lazing?

Let's get down to "nuts and bolts".  The thought of discussing that does cause outbreaks of cowardice among church leaders but it's high time we did violence to such reticence.  For all: there should be no shorts, jeans, tee-shirts, polo shirts, no bare shoulders, no bare midriff, no sneakers, no sandals nor flip-flops, nothing either tight or baggy.  No denim, including those jean-jumpers.  Nothing ripped or dirty.  Here are my specific suggestions.

For men - of all ages and at all times - jacket and tie, please.  That also entails dress slacks, dress shirts and dress shoes.  And keep the jackets on.  In our own church, we have added incentive since our hvac seems to be overly-efficient in the summer.

Ladies, we're not off the hook!  Skirts and dresses (no slacks!) should be no shorter than just below the knee.  Blouses and dress tops should not be "see-through".  There should be no bare shoulders (in other words, nothing sleeveless) and neck lines should be no lower than two fingers' breadth below the larynx.  Of course that means no bare backs or spaghetti straps.  In the summer, I see lots of bare legs.  Unacceptable.  I cannot see how that passes the most minimal standards for modesty.  Wear stockings and formal shoes.  This is no great hardship, ladies!

What I suggest should be most especially emphasized to those who occupy prominent positions of service during Sunday Mass: ushers, choir, lectors and most especially to the Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion.  How is it that one can presume to handle the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord without so much as tucking in their shirt-tails?  (On a happy note, the men in our choir are quite exemplary in their dress.)

Will there be exceptions?  Yes.  Military, medical and emergency-service personnel who are on-duty may be in uniform.  Illness, injuries and severe weather may necessitate changes of dress.  But by definition, these will be the rare exceptions, not the every-day standards.

Since I wrote my proposal to our parish council, it has become apparent to me that others have noticed the problem and are doing something about it.  I see more suits and ties among the men, and some of them are dressing their sons accordingly. These boys can only benefit from the examples of their fathers.

What I'm suggesting is not extraordinary hardship.  Fifty years ago, when class and dignity were more ingrained into our thinking, my suggestions would already have been established norms.

Lame Excuses For Episcopal Cowardice

I'm on Facebook a bit and saw this on my wall.  I won't embarrass the individual who posted it by naming them, but will take the opportunity to pick this apart.  This may well be part of the "Francis Effect".  However, I recall the Holy Father encouraging us not to be afraid to "make a mess".  This person is not taking those words to heart.  Because I'm sure these erroneous notions are shared by many, I'll pick them apart.  First, here's the whole quote.

Catholics are not allowed to make demands that will only result in resentment against the Church. Our job is to do only those things which will bear good fruit. "Standing for principle" often results more in resentment than in good fruit. We must never sacrifice our principles, but at the same time we must not make demands of people that will cause them to resent us. Sometimes silence is better than standing for principle, in this regard. That is likely why so many of our bishops are silent on our principles. They seek to protect us from the backlash of hateful people who will respond by lashing out. Please keep this in mind before criticizing a bishop. They may or may not be making the correct judgment but it is not okay to just assume that they have bad reasons for silence.

First, we don't "make demands" in the sense that we spout only our ideas.  We are called to proclaim and witness to Jesus Christ and His sayings as promulgated through His Holy Catholic Church.  Some of Christ's words are demands.  For instance, there are the Ten Commandments.  There are Christ's teachings on life and its engenderment with all that it entails.  So yes, not only are we allowed to "make the demands" that originate in Jesus and His Church, we are positively commanded to do so.

Might such promulgation "only result in resentment against the Church"?  It might, depending on the disposition of the listener.  However, we can never say that will be the case for certain unless we make the attempt.  Who knows?  Perhaps that person will take our words to heart and come to saving repentance.  Even if we do, we have done what we are called to do.  Paul exhorts us to "preach the gospel in season and out of season".  Our Lord Himself, at the last discourse, reminded the Apostles that "if the world hates you, know that it hated me before you", and "as they treated the master so will they treat the slaves".  In other words, some resentment is part of the suffering we must endure.

Did the world resent Jesus?  Well, yes!  That's what motivated them to crucify Him.  Later that's what motivated the Romans to send the Christians to the coliseums, etc and has motivated persecution of Christians throughout the centuries.  I'm sorry, but this notion that "our bishops are silent on our principles..to protect us from the backlash of hateful people", while it's probably well-intentioned, is diabolical nonetheless.  Consider what Peter said to Our Lord in a weak moment and that Our Lord replied "get behind me Satan".

Truth be told, I wonder if the author of that "apologetics for cowardice" was trying to justify the Diocese of Charlotte's disgraceful treatment of Sister Jane Dominic Laurel?  I'll have more on this poor sister and how so many cowards threw her under the bus after she relayed Church teaching to Catholic high school students?  I'll have more on her in a future post.

Amnesty-Hawking Bishops Exploit Holy Mass

Last Tuesday, April 2, several bishops decided to hold a Mass at the Mexican border.  I wrote a bit about that farcical abuse of Holy Mass on March 30 - no need to rehash what I already wrote.  Let me, however link to this article from New American, written yesterday.  At the bottom are some words of common sense from Arizona State Senator Al Melvin.  He believes (and I absolutely agree) that the bishops' little stunt, a thinly-disguised attempt to pander to progressives in power will only add to the chaos that's already there.   I'm sure most reasonable people have noticed that the bishops have uttered not one peep to the Mexican authorities to urge them to improve the economy so that Mexicans do not feel they have no where else but the US to obtain jobs.  Now why, oh why, is that?  Cloward-Piven anyone?

I almost forgot!  Tomorrow we'll see the onslaught of amnesty rallies nationwide to protest deportation.  They don't want one more lawbreaker deported!  Got that?  And of course the timing of these rallies, mere days after the Mass is just a coincidence!  No puppet-string pullers here!  Nope!  (of course I'm being just a tad sarcastic).

We need to stand up to these progressives - and not be afraid to take these pandering bishops to task for selling the citizens of this country down the river.

From The "Papal Head Scratcher" Department

In his homily today, the Holy Father elaborated on the Old Testament reading, where Moses is petitioning God to spare the Israelites.  He makes the point that during his prayer, it was Moses who was changed for he was able to perceive more clearly the extent of God's mercy on His sinful people.  The Holy Father reminded us not to be mindless about our prayer but honest before God.

Where he lost me (and maybe a proper train of thought) is when he told the Mass attendees, "And also scold the Lord a little: ‘Hey, you promised me this, and you haven’t done it …’ Like that, like you talk with a friend.”  Scold the Lord?  No, I think not!  He is the Potter, we are the clay.  He is God Almighty, we His humble creatures.  To be honest, there is way too much flippancy with too many people as they speak of and to God.  Remember the saying "familiarity breeds contempt"?  Well, it's quite applicable.  We love the Lord and trust His care for us.  But we also revere Him as Lord and Sovereign of all creation.  It is NOT adorable, it is NOT cute to even dream of scolding the Lord and Creator of all.  Again, if this is a lousy translation, I'd love to see the original.  Otherwise I again urge His Holiness to cease these "off-the-cuff" remarks.  There's nothing at all wrong with preparing one's homily beforehand and carefully scrubbing it to ensure that any opportunities for misconstruing it are minimized as much as possible.

Some Hierarchial Good News

First, most people know that on March 25 the Supreme Court heard arguments concerning Hobby Lobby's case regarding the HHS mandate's encroachment on their religious liberties.  On March 31, two days ago, Steve Green and 15 family members were in Vatican City and thanked Pope Francis for broaching this matter as he spoke with Obama a few days prior.

Second, Rorate Caeli reports that an Ordinary Apostolic Visitation of the Priestly Fraternity of St Peter will occur under the leadership of Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz.  While he was bishop of Lincoln, NE, the FSSP's American seminary was established in his diocese.  I am confident that this visitation will be fair and thorough.

Last but not least, I'd like to express appreciation to Nigeria's leading prelate, Cardinal John Onaiyekan for speaking truth to Islamic elements in his country.  Condemning Jihad and Boko Haram, he said that the Islamic community must do more to "rein in their mad dogs".  It is refreshing to one who lives in the same diocese where this was uttered a few years ago.