How Groupthink And Political Correctness Are Damaging Faithful Catholics

Last Thursday at Our Lady of Lourdes in Bethesda, I attended a fascinating talk given by Stella Morabito-Green.  It was entitled "Living Faithfully In A Culture Of Fear", and it dealt with the threat of political correctness.  Her focus was on political correctness as it exists in secular culture and the very real threat it poses to faithful Catholics who seek to integrate their faith in all facets of their lives.  As I listened to her talk and related it to discussions I had been having on Facebook and elsewhere, I could see how even some faithful Catholics were embracing and even using some tenets of political correctness interlaced with groupthink.

Progressives have been quite adept at using political correctness, by seizing control of language and vocabulary to shape public thought.  Largely they've been successful because 1) most folks (including most faithful Catholics) don't understand the dynamics of group-think even though 2) they latch onto group-think as a means of social survival.  As she spoke, however, I could understand well what she was saying.  A little over twenty years ago, I had been involved with a "charismatic" group that had more and more assumed the characteristics of a thought-reform cult.  After many of us started questioning things AND the local church forced leaders to step aside, I left the group and started reading voraciously about thought-reform techniques, mostly from the Cultic Studies Journal.  Most cults exhibited similar behaviors.  The late Dr. Robert Lifton listed eight such characteristics.  As you read them, recall how the politically-correct left has hijacked certain words and phrases: "freedom of choice", "bigot", "homophobe", etc.  This is what Dr. Lifton would have called "loading the language".  Here is another summary on characteristics of cults.  As I go through the discussions in which I participated, I'l try to remember to point out these cult characteristics as I saw them at play.  You might want to keep these pages open and refer to them as I relate the examples in following paragraphs.

From The Niggers Of The New Age Department: Australian Catholic Forced Out Of Army For Expressing His Views

First a note: I know there are some who object to my coining of the phrase "niggers of the new age".  It describes exactly how the politically correct, God-hating culture is treating sincere Christians and particularly faithful Catholics.  If you think such a phrase "too harsh" or "not nice", it's time you wake up and remove the rose-colored happy-clappy glasses from your faces.  Are you really going to sit still for this and pretend everything is tolerable?  If so, you probably are compromising your faith to the peril of your immortal soul.  The rest of us need to pray and fight this - while we still can.

Why Are The Bishops Groveling For Immigration Reform?

Pope Expounding On Kasper's Mess With Divorcees And Holy Communion

Rorate Caeli has a quote from an interview in which the Holy Father is asked to clarify Cardinal Kasper's controversial remarks about Communion and remarried divorcees.  My colleague at the Tenth Crusade commented on the interview.  She got far more out of it than did I.  For the life of me, I still cannot make heads or tails of that verbal gobblygoop. Mea culpa!

Bending Over Backwards To Justify Pope's Kissing The Hand of Gay Activist Priest

For some background, please review this.

Did I say "bending over backwards"?  There might have been other choices like "comparing apples to oranges" or "lousy scriptural interpretation" or just "contortions of logic".  That just about sums up Simcha Fisher's piece in yesterday's National Catholic Register blog.

She desperately tried to compare the Pope's actions with De Paolis and St. Francis' actions with the sinful priest.  There are differences between the two accounts to render Fisher's comparison to be an "apples to oranges" comparison.

• The story indicates that St. Francis, in an infirm condition, was brought rather unwillingly to the priest.  The Holy Father was quite willing to be so engaged.
• St. Francis had no canonical authority over that priest.  The Holy Father most certainly does have authority over De Paolis (and every other priest for that matter).  Thus St. Francis had no binding responsibility to address the priest's problems.  The Holy Father has solemn responsibility over all his priest-sons.  To insinuate that it was appropriate for the Pope to (try to) imitate St. Francis in this matter is to deliberately disregard their very different roles and responsibilities to the Church.
• St. Francis never pretended the scandal didn't exist.  The Holy Father has given all appearances of pretending that there is nothing wrong about De Paolis's decades of in-your-face dissidence and promotion of mortal sin.

She then tries to liken the Pope's actions to that of the father of the prodigal son.  She goes so far as to claim, "Francis is speaking and acting precisely like the prodigal son's father".  No.  Not by a long shot.  Why not review Luke 15:11-32?  The choice of translations isn't particularly important.  Note that the boy's father never went on a search for him.  It wasn't until the father saw the son making the gesture of returning that he went out to greet him.  Also note that the boy acknowledged his sin and publicly repented.  De Paolis promoted heinous sin for decades in flagrant manners; did he repent at least as openly as he dissented?  Remember that he sinned not only against papal authority but against the Church, leading many into sin and probably even eternal damnation by his words and examples.

Did Jesus eat and associate with public sinners?  Yes.  Did He ever invite them to join Him as He preached and worked miracles if they had not repented?  Of course not.  Why should that now be presumed to be oakie-doakie today?

Catholic Clergy Continue To Lick The Boots Of Pro-Abortion Politicians

There are two incidents that bear mentioning.  The one incident already happened in Boston.  The second is a local event scheduled for mid-June.  We might be able to prevent that second debacle.

Last week at its commencement ceremonies, Boston College, an ostensibly Catholic institute of higher learning, honored rabidly pro-abortion John Kerry.  Instead of rebuking the college and boycotting the scandal, Cardinal O'Malley joined in the boot-licking.  Boston Catholic Insider has more details, with pictures of the detestable schmoozing.  The article asks why the Cardinal boycotted Enda Kenney last year but not Kerry this year.  One of the commenters seemed to have the answer: " I had a feeling he’d do this, as he is now part of the pope’s “special staff” he must feel that rules don’t apply.  As for BC, it’s just another Jesuit school that seems to have a problem with the Magisterium of the Church.  In both cases, the Vatican will do nothing and the cardinal and the school know it."

My blogging colleague, An Archdiocese of Washington Catholic, alerted me to the second.  He refers to a fundraiser to be held for the San Miguel School Annual Scholarship Benefit on June 19th at the Congressional Country Club in Bethesda.  My colleague holds a high opinion of the place.  In looking at the school website, I see the language "breaking the cycle of poverty".  It sounds lovely - but it's also Alinskyian language.

But the main problem is that a pro-abortion politician is being honored at that fundraiser: Muriel Bowser.  My colleague is right.  It only took me one search to learn that during one of her races she had the endorsement of Emily's List.  That right there should have alerted Msgr John Ensler and the others working with the fundraiser of her ineligibility to be honored at the fundraiser.

The Idol Of Diversity Worshiped At Mass

Today I attended 9am Mass at St Martin of Tours in Gaithersburg MD - a neighboring parish.  Towards the end of Mass, the priest announced that next week was their annual picnic and that at that Mass, he wanted foreign-born parishioners to give the Prayers of the Faithful - in their native languages.  Of course the whole idea is to "celebrate diversity", but frankly I believe that Holy Mass is not the proper venue for "diversity worship".  The focus is on the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ - that and that alone.  Once other ancillary things start being insinuated therein, the people's proper focus is distracted and diluted.  Besides, what's the good of listening to what amounts to gibberish?  If they're serious about wanting prayers, they'll put them forth in the common language of the locality.  That common language is English.  To my readers who regularly worship at the altar of "political correctness", please get over your attack of vapors.  It's simply a fact that English is the common language of the United States of America.

When I returned home, I saw an account of something similar at Connecticut Catholic Corner.  I won't rehash her piece here. I suggest you read it.  I think she's spot on when she speaks of the focus being removed from Jesus Christ and placed on mutual back-slapping.  No good comes from that - certainly none that will make a difference in the eternal salvation of anyone.  We need to stop tolerating this nonsense in our parishes.

Pope Francis: "Muslims Worship..One True God"

I don't know how I missed that but yes the Holy Father did utter those words last year.  He uttered those words as part of an address he gave to an "ecumenical" address at the beginning of his papacy.  I now link to the English translation as found in Zenit.

Was he coached/directed by Cardinal McCarrick?  (FYI, that was a facetious question.) Recall that almost nine years ago His Eminence also disgraced his calling by invoking "allah" three times while addressing some Jordanian dignitaries.  Guess how many times he invoked Jesus Christ, the One True God, for whom he was ordained?  Zero-zip-nada!.  The text of the disgusting screed can be found here.

A Catholic Media Coalition colleage, Orlando Truth, wrote an excellent piece exposing the errors and perils of Islam.  I link to it here. I will also link to an article written by Joseph Farrah, explaining just why the Holy Father's (apparent) naivete regarding the nature of Islam will lead to incredible peril unless he opens his eyes quickly.   Would those in the Vatican who are reading this blog be so kind as to make sure His Holiness gets and reads copies of these immediately?  Thank you.

The Orlando Truth article, plus authentic Catholic teaching, make plain that "allah" and the One Triune God that we worship are not the same.  For all their many grievous faults and errors, even the Muslims understand that what they worship is not the God whom we worship; they don't accept (yet) that their "deity" is false.  Why will not our Church leaders acknowledge that "allah" is a false idol?  Are they so seduced by the siren calls of political correctness and the poisonous doctrines of the "church of nice"?

One line in that papal address is, "the Catholic Church is aware of the importance of promoting friendship and respect between men and women of different religious traditions."  That's nice; but are Church leaders aware of the even greater importance of bringing these men and women to the One True Faith?  That is their charge, since they are in Holy Orders.  However, I've reason to believe that proclamation of the Truth is the last thing on their minds as they serve their idols of "political correctness" and the "church of nice".

Feminism In The Washington Archdiocese Chancery - Why Sister Jeannine Gramick Has Free Rein Here

My fellow Catholics of the Archdiocese of Washington, as you listen to the definition of feminism as being the abandonment of true masculinity by men, you cannot help but recognize this stench in what has proceeded from the DC chancery these many years.  When priests have had the courage to defend the faith like men (not only Father Guarnizo but other priests whom I cannot mention lest they suffer even more repercussions), the chancery - from the very top - drove them away to maintain the facade of the "church of nice".  Below the video I will delve more into the latest scandal from Sr. Jeannine Gramick.

Sister Jeannine Gramick is a co-founder of New Ways Minstry, a dissident "katholyc" organization founded expressly to flout the Church's teachings on homosexual conduct.  There was another co-founder, the late Father Robert Nugent.  The tribute to him mentioned that he ceased involvement with New Ways in obedience to directives he received in 2000.  Not mentioned is that Sister also received those directives but continues her involvement in direct disobedience to the Church.

I have a friend in local pro-life circles who maintained that Sister opposed abortion.  I hope she is now aware of the truth regarding Sister Jeannine and abortion.  On May 14 she joined others in signing a letter asking Obama to expand overseas abortion; the letter is HERE.  So there it is: prima facie evidence that Sister Jeannine Gramick supports the murder of unborn babies.  How can there be any doubt that New Ways Ministry isn't so influenced?  She signed as "coordinator for National Coalition of American Nuns"; they must be similarly corrupt as well.

New Ways is located in Mount Rainier, MD.  That means Sister Jeannine lives in the Archdiocese of Washington.  Granted this letter was just announced, but should we not expect a prompt response - in terms of appropriate discipline - from the DC chancery?  We might - if this was the Diocese of Springfield IL, but sadly not, coming from that agency of the "church of nice".  But perhaps I'm too cynical.  With prayer, we might see a miracle and see authentic masculinity return to the DC chancery.

Pope Affirms Renegade Priest In His Dissidence

Yesterday we noted with appreciation the excommunication of the "We Are Church" founders by Pope Francis.  I perceived the beginnings of a message that dissidence from Church teaching by prominent Catholics would be treated in helpful and decisive manners.  Unfortunately that message became (once more) garbled and muddied.

News came (via LifeSiteNews) that last week Pope Francis concelebrated Mass with and kissed the hand of Father Michele de Paolis.  This priest has been a long-time activist for "gay rights" and is a founder of a dissident "katholyc gay rights group in Italy called Agedo Foggia.  That group's website advertises one of Paolis' books as being written to "help people get out of the quagmire of biblical precepts".  (Note: Many people don't need help getting out of that "quagmire".  It's quite easy to do; but then they wind up in that nastier quagmire called hell.).

De Paolis is 93 years old.  His time is drawing near; with that his time for repentance is growing short.  One might hope that the Holy Father would perceive the eternal peril that looms over one of his spiritual sons and take appropriate measures to encourage repentance - even defrocking and/or excommunication.  Some might opine that the pope is acting out of misguided sympathy for his age and is trying a lenient approach.  But what happened last week is not mere leniency; it is outright affirmation of a wayward priest as he apparently careens towards eternal damnation.

Please keep Father de Paolis in prayer, that he come to repentance and that he makes a good confession.  Our prayers may be the only source of grace for him.

Welcomed House-Cleaning

Pope Francis excommunicated the heretic president of "We Are Church", Martha Heizer and her equally heretic husband Gert.  Among other things, both of them have simulated the celebration of Mass - itself a grave offence.  For that we are grateful and we pray for the repentance of the Heizers.

We also learned that Bishop Paprocki of Springfield Illinois excommunicated another "priestess-wannabee".  Her name is Mary F. Keldermans.  She went through a mock "ordinaton" for Roman Catholic Womynpriests Inc.  In doing so, she incurred an automatic excommunication, ratified by His Excellency.

Let us pray for these wayward women for they both have placed their souls in danger of hell.   Let us pray that more medicine of truth and discipline be administered to such souls before their eternal fates are sealed.

Why Social Media Will Be Crucial Towards Restoration Of The Church

Yesterday's Vortex details the story of how an American in Australia, Nina Jurawicz (herself a Harvard alumnus) kick-started the protest against the Harvard black mass.  Through intelligent use of Facebook, she mobilized the petitions and Eucharistic procession and Holy Hour that finally impelled Harvard to eject the black mass from its campus.

Ladies and gentlemen, if you are reading this blog, you are at least acquainted with the potential that this form of instantaneous communication holds.  I'm aware that some of you may hold social media in disdain.  I strongly suggest that you take any knee-jerk repugnance towards this "newfangled stuff" and banish it to the netherworld from which it originated.  Then decide that you will become proficient at the use of social media with no excuses for failure.  Be inspired by this story and be motivated to use all the tools that God has placed at our disposal.

Video of MD Gubernatorial Candidates' Forum

A few weeks ago I posted notice of a MD Gubernatorial Candidates' Forum - that occurred yesterday.  I attended that last evening and took the following video.  Please watch it as you consider your votes during the primary election that will happen June 24th.  An article will appear in the next Defend Life newsletter; when that is released I'll post a link.

Good Bishop Or Bad Bishop?

Today's Vortex touches upon the question of what constitutes a "good" bishop versus a "bad" bishop.  At 6:00 he quotes from Pope Francis.  This blog and many others attempt to fulfill that suggestion - and humbly implore "the milk of grace, of doctrine and of guidance" - without obfuscation or confusion - from the Holy Father.

Sedevacantism - Seducing From The One True Church

My blogging colleague The Eponymous Flower put forth a piece earlier touching upon the serious problems caused by Pope Francis' imprudent actions and remarks.  She makes two excellent points that we must all bear in mind as we try to deal with the seemingly nonstop barrage of nonsense emanating from the Vatican these days.

1. Faced with the incongruous proceeds from the Pope lately, many Catholics have become deluded by sedevacantism.  I said the following in a previous post but will repeat it again.  If such Catholics see flaws in the Holy Catholic Church and are distressed because they know it to be the One True Church, by what convolution of logic do they abandon that same One True Church?  Under no circumstance whatsoever can this sin of apostasy be justified.  These Catholics place their immortal souls in grave danger.  Still, another question must be answered.  For all the snarky comments I've received alleging that I don't appreciate that the Pope is a Pope of the world and not just the United States, I must wonder if the Pope realizes that he is the Pope of these traditionally-oriented Catholics who feel deep hurt at being dismissed as "rosary counters" and the such.  Do those commenters care about that question?  I will not hold my breath waiting for a reply.
2. Further down the article we see that the Pope is definitely infallible when four criteria of the Extraordinary Magisterium are met.  Otherwise, his teachings are solemnly binding only insofar as they conform to Tradition already set forth by the Magisterium.  The four criteria are below:
1. He solemnly teaches as Pope.
2. He teaches on faith or morals.
3. He teaches definitively.
4. He teaches so as to bind all Catholics.

I'll now touch upon a piece put out by Mundabor a few days ago called "The Bloggers, The Orks and The Uruk-Hai".  Not being much of a movie-watcher, I don't understand the references to "orks" and "uruk-hai" (whatever the heck they are).  I absolutely agree that we must shine the light and cry out when things contrary to the Faith issue forth from the Vatican (or even the Pope's pen or mouth).  We may no longer demure from that task.  However, I do think Mundabor crosses an unacceptable line when he speaks of "mocking him, ridiculing him, making him a laughing stock".  Ladies and gentlemen, it's one thing to shine the light on erroneous doings and sayings from the Pope; it's quite another thing to belittle him as a person.  He is the Holy Father; he is the Vicar of Christ.  His person must remain inviolate.  As we speak the truth about troublesome words and actions, we must take great care not to attack his person.  

But we must speak out.

White House Appoints Father Reese To Religious Freedom Commission - Fox To The Hen House

Apparently I missed this two weeks ago, but the White House appointed to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom Father Thomas Reese, the Jesuit who's been at Georgetown ever since Pope Benedict XVI fired him from America magazine (ht - NotAtAll Catholic Reporter).  Follow the link on Reese's name to see just why the White House would think that Reese would represent them well.  He may well have not been their first choice, but Father Robert Drinan has already passed and gone to his eternal reward (whatever that might be).

One might wonder if Reese obtained permission from his Jesuit superiors to accept this position from the Messiah Most Miserable.  Knowing the sorry spiritual condition of the Jesuits, though, his superiors probably approved heartily (assuming he bothered to ask).

I anticipate that Reese will do a stellar job selling the Catholic Church down the river, just like Ken Hackett did at the Vatican.

Two Bishops, Appointed To High Posts By The Pope, Besmirch Their High Offices

Let's start with Archbishop Nunzio Galantino, who was appointed by Pope Francis to be the Secretary General of the Italian Bishops' Conference.  In an interview on May 12 he plopped quite a few stinkers.  Let me start with the first, which I take rather personally.  Be sitting down be prepared to calm yourself.  Ready?  Here we go!

• "In the past we have concentrated too much on abortion and euthanasia.  It mustn't be this way because in the middle there's real life which is constantly changing."  Be patient.  This mess will take a while to unpack.
• We concentrate "too much" on abortion and euthanasia?  When the archbishop is finally called before the Judgment Throne, I'd love to hear him explain that not only to Our Lord but to all the millions of babies, sick and elderly who have been wantonly murdered via abortion and euthanasia.
• Does "real life" only occur "in the middle"?  Is this a nod of approval to the murder of the elderly?
• For all this over-concentration, how many Sunday homilies do we hear during the year on these intrinsic evils?   We might hear one in October, the month designated by the USCCB as "right to life" month or around the January March for Life - but that's it.
• When 3,500+ babies are butchered every day in the United States alone, how can one dream that we concentrate "too much" on these horrible crimes?
• "I do not identify with the expressionless faces of those who recite the Rosary outside the clinics who practice interruption of pregnancy."
• "Clinics who practice interruption of pregnancy"!  Why does not His Excellency call them what they are?  These are death mills where babies are brought to be systematically slaughtered.  Only proponents of baby-murder try to couch their grisly business in this innocuous-sounding language.  Is His Excellency a supporter of abortion?
• "The expressionless faces of those who recite the Rosary outside the hell holes clinics.."  Well I beg His Excellency's pardon!  As one who has been praying the Rosary and counseling for approximately twenty years now, I take great umbrage at his gratuitous insult of those who do pray and work for an end to abortion - and who sometimes save some lives (I have been graced a few times with that privilege).  We do so at no small cost and only wish many more would join us.  He does not identify with us?  That admission only solidifies my suspicion that he may well be an abortion supporter.  Otherwise, with whom would he identify?

Now we'll examine some of the nonsense emanating from Cardinal Lorenzo Baldiserri, Secretary General of the Synod of Bishops.  I'll do this in "bullet format" as well.

• He opined that "Familiaris Consortio" written by Saint John Paul II, needs to be "updated".  Why?  Because it's (gasp!) thirty-three years old!  Eeeek!  How ancient!  How thoroughly unmodern!  If he openly states that a thirty-three year old encyclical is outdated, one can only wonder what he thinks of solemn dogmas, etc written hundreds of years ago.  Would he consign them to ash heaps of irrelevance? That seems highly likely.
• He said "the Church is not timeless".  Yes it is.  It's true that the Church Militant and the Church Suffering will be subsumed into the Church Triumphant at the End of Time, but it's still the Mystical Body of Christ.  More importantly, the Church's God is most timeless - and so are His laws.  I daresay that Cdl Baldiserri is trying to undermine in the thinking of Catholics the immutability of God's Laws as manifested through the Church.

Both these men were appointed to their positions by Pope Francis.  Why is he not demanding their immediate resignations?

False Dichotomes Between Faith And Intellect, Being Joyful And Being Serious

In his morning homily yesterday the Holy Father described what he believes are two groups into which humanity can be classed.  One group is those open to the Holy Spirit and docile to His movements, who move by faith.  The second group puzzles me a bit.  While he says they are obtuse to God, he says they are so because "everything was about the mind, the intellect..no love of beauty, no harmony".

I know some folks who are quite hostile to God.  Trust me when I say that their hostility to God has nothing at all to do with their intellects.  More often than not, their sensuality has deadened not only faith but any intellectual prowess they might have had.  It is Our Lady of Fatima herself who told the three children that more souls go to hell due to sins of the flesh more than anything else; I would assume that includes any intellectual pride.

Since when are "intellect" and "openness to the Holy Spirit" mutually exclusive as the Pope seems to be implying?  Since we are created in the image and likeness of God primarily through intellect and will, I would think that there is no "openness to the Holy Spirit" without some modicum of intellectual rigor.  I would think that there can be no real "love of beauty" without a sound intellect to inform us of the nature of true beauty.

He then said, "when there is a lot of seriousness, the spirit of God is lacking".  What does that mean?  Since when does a serious outlook preclude the presence of the Spirit of God?  I might think that the Spirit of God might bring about a more serious outlook on life and the eternal realities surrounding us.  True joy and seriousness are not mutually contradictory.  That assumes we understand that real joy has nothing to do with posing in selfies while wearing clown noses.  Our Lord Himself always displayed the fruits of the Spirit, did He not?  Does that include the time known as His Passion?  I would think so.

These artificial dichotomies that appear in the Pope's remarks seem confusing and divisive rather than helpful.

Abortionist Harold Alexander Whines About Getting Caught

As reported some time back. Harold Alexander, Maryland abortionist operating a mill with no license, had his license suspended.   Like most petty criminals, he blames his misfortunes not on his own criminal conduct, but upon those who reported his transgressions.  In this case, that would be Operation Rescue.  His whining is analogous to that of a bank robber blaming his imprisonment on the police who caught him or the witness who testified at his trial - not on his own aberrant way of life.

The three-month suspension is not much more than a rap on the knuckles.  However, this is the state of Maryland where much of the state government is in the back pockets of NARAL and Planned Parenthood.  But still that's three months when he's not slaughtering babies.

Congratulations to Operation Rescue for their hard work on exposing Alexander and so many other child-killers.

Catholic Bloggers/Writers - Drop The Polite Silence And Speak Out

As most long-time readers of this blog know, I have broached problems with various actions and words that have issued forth from either the Vatican or from Pope Francis himself.  I have found them to be at odds with revealed truth to varying degrees.  Other Catholic bloggers have chosen to remain silent on these matters; until now I have not objected to their silence regarding foibles from the Vatican.  However, I am more and more finding such silence to be indefensible.

The tipping point occurred Friday, with the Pope's bizarre statement that there should be "legitimate redistribution of economic benefit by the state".  I will be blunt.  In shilling for socialism, he is advocating that the entire world adopt a philosophy of economic chaos that has visited upon millions of people abject misery and even death.

My fellow Catholic bloggers, in the face of this statement that is beyond reckless, you can no longer afford to maintain facades of polite silence and undue deference.  Your silence may well be interpreted as tacit approval of this serious error; do you want any resulting spiritual fallout laid to your charge?  Your silence in this matter might be construed as an obligation to accept every utterance from the pope as though it had the weight of infallible dogma.  Do you really want this "redistribution" nonsense to be ascribed as having the same weight as the teaching on the Real Presence in the Blessed Sacrament?  Realize what a disaster that would be since the previous pontiffs (during the past 130 years) have not spared any breath in denouncing socialism as the spiritual and moral evil that it is.  Sensing the inherent evil of socialism, good Catholics may feel constrained to leave the Church - if we don't raise our voices to make plain that socialism is abhorrent to God and His Church and that the Pope is dead wrong on this most crucial matter.

There are a few others who are speaking out, and for these fellow bloggers I am most grateful.  One of them is A Blog for Dallas Area Catholics.  He put up a post a few days ago as he himself tried to understand why so many are playing "the three monkeys".  Read what he has to say, particularly of ultramontanism.  Related to that, he links to another article from the Blaze that also deserves consideration.  This author mentions the cults of personality that have arisen around all the recent popes, including Francis.  These cults seem comprised of people who do want to be good Catholics but who have lacked (often through no fault of their own) proper education in the most basic of Catholic truth.  He points out that in the Church's 2000-year history, some of the popes have been very unsavory characters, and that we should not be surprised to find that any pontiff is not an angel in disguise.

Fellow bloggers/writers, no good will come from stifling the truth any longer.  Please end your silence now.

Black Mass At Harvard - NOT Happening! Deo Gratias!

Most know of the satanic black "mass" that the Extension Cultural Studies Club was planning to conduct at Harvard.  Comes now the news that Harvard administration officials are no longer allowing it on campus.  We applaud the Harvard administration for finally coming to their senses and for admitting that this event would have been a gratuitous slap in the face to Catholics.

Many people contacted Harvard to protest this planned blasphemy.  I saw some facebook pictures of demonstrations and prayer vigils just outside campus.  Kudos to all of them; prayer and action works.  Of course all thanks belongs to God.

Intelligent Words To Address The Pope's Very Unintelligent Remarks On Economic Redistribution

In response to the Pope's very irresponsible suggestion for "redistribution by the state" (see yesterday's post), two online articles have appeared that address fundamental flaws in His Holiness' economic thinking.

The first is by Craige McMillan and this appeared in World Net Daily.  Among other things, he pointed out that the United Nations, whom the Pope was addressing, have been known to skim taxpayer funds for themselves instead of disbursing it to the poor.  That was the crime of Zacchaeus and most of the Roman tax collectors.  They really were crooks.  Zacchaeus was announcing his repentance via a vow to make the reparation dictated by Old Testament law.  He echoed also the reply I left for "Papa Alex": that God requires private, personal charity from each of us.  We cannot designate any government to act as a surrogate on our behalf in the discharge of charitable duties.  It will not satisfy God's laws.  Moreover, when has government ever done anything of that sort effectively?

Father John Zuhlsdorf also weighed in; here's his thorough, line-by-line analysis of the papal address in question.  He asks his own questions.  I'll echo a few of them here.

• Do we all recall that a UN agency recently suggested that the Church was guilty of torture for promulgating its teaching against abortion? (That occurred to me, too, as I was reading it.)  Why is the Pope appealing to the UN for anything?
• The Pope, hailing from Argentina, comes from a country whose economy has been spiraling downward.  Why should we listen to anyone from Argentina regarding economic matters?
• Finally, "How about talking about something other than what has been shown time and again to be a disaster?"

Finally, let me point out that the Venerable Archbishop Fulton Sheen often linked the traitor Judas Iscariot with the "social justice" philosophy, going so far as to call Judas "the patron saint of social justice".  Here is a brief piece he wrote.  

Pope's Economic Ideas - Harmful To Civilization

Approximately 400 years ago, the settlers who landed at Plymouth Rock (Pilgrims) decided at the get-go that they would hold all in common.  All would work for the good of all.  They were led in this venture by their governor, William Bradford.  The result was several years of paltry harvests plus resentments among the pilgrims that they could not benefit from their own labor.  Bradford and the others had the wisdom to know that socialism (for that is what it was) was an inherently flawed system that was doomed to failure.  Bradford divided the land among the settlers and decreed that what the farmers grew was theirs to use.  Lo and behold, both planting and harvests increased dramatically and the famines they had experienced became a thing of the past.  Read here and here for more details and context.

Of course I need not go into the spectacular failures of socialism that have been evidenced throughout modern history, most notably the FORMER Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the other Iron Curtain countries.  They and the free world were at odds with one another during what was known as the Cold War.  They collapsed as a result of the inherent corruption and flaws of socialism.  By and large, their leaders had not the wisdom and humility that William Bradford possessed 400 years ago.  Of course Bradford was a professed Christian and the Iron Curtain leaders were atheists so that accounts for a large part of their mental dispositions.

In light of all this, I and many others look with dismay upon the words of the Holy Father as he addressed United Nations leaders today.  I link now to the complete address that he gave.  Let me remind one and all that the Holy Father, by virtue of his office, will never solemnly proclaim error.  He can speak infallibly on matters of faith and morals: immutable and inherent truths of the Church.  He does not possess those same guarantees when it comes to matters of prudential judgment.  A discussion on what economic policies to pursue falls into this area in which good Catholics can respectfully disagree with the Pope simply because in these matters the Holy Father may well be in error from a prudential perspective.

Yes.  With respect to the Holy Father's economic ideas, I beg to differ.  In his address he appeals to a "legitimate redistribution of economic benefits by the state".  With all due respect to His Holiness, this notion is not only incorrect, but downright dangerous to all who would be impacted by its implementation.  All those already impacted by this concept have already experienced the inherent tyranny of a state so empowered.

Let's examine that phrase that he coined: "legitimate redistribution".  Why does he betray a need to qualify the word "redistribution" with "legitimate"?  Either it's understood to be legitimate or it isn't legitimate.  The very attempt to sanitize this "redistribution" with the word "legitimate" makes plain that he is trying his darnedest to get us to accept a very illegitimate redistribution.

Now for the places cursed with this "legitimate redistribution", we must ask "how does the state obtain these economic benefits to redistribute"?  Isn't it odd how progressive Catholics (and it appears the Holy Father is

in that number) don't like to address that question?  Not really - for they realize that this "obtaining" involved inherently sinful actions.  So let's spell it out in "black and white", shall we?  For all this "legitimate redistribution" to occur, the state would have to be empowered to confiscate the "economic benefits" from those who earned them by their own hard work and risk-taking of investment.  Those earners are treated as so many cash cows to be plundered at will by the state, with the approval - if not assistance - by progressive Catholics.  But there's this minor matter of the Seventh Commandment - Thou Shalt Not Steal.  That commandment binds upon the Church and State as much as it binds on individuals.  The fact that these progressives - from the highest Church office on down - are silent on this aspect of "redistribution" speaks volumes about both their guilty consciences and their refusal to repent of their socialistic proclivities.  What the Holy Father is also saying here is "from each according to his ability to each according to his need".  Ladies and gentlemen, I just quoted Karl Marx.

Pope Francis might do well to examine the words of his predecessors, going all the way back to Pius IX.  They saw clearly the dangers of socialism and a bloated, arrogant state.  Yes the state that is empowered to give us things is the state that is empowered to take them away.  If more and more power is ascribed to the state - and by extension to the oligarchy running it - it will become more and more corrupt and tyrannical.  Don't we see that today with Obamacare breathing down our necks?

Remembering that "redistribution" can hardly be called a dogma of faith, I have no bones opining that the desire for this "redistribution" is at best dangerously simplistic and naive if not downright moronic and deadly.  The Holy Father can and should speak about matters of immutable dogma and inherent morality.  Most people understand that the most common predictor of poverty for an individual is whether or not they come from an intact family where biological father and biological mother remain married to each other and who observe chastity in keeping with their married state.  So many evils militate against the family and against life (the Holy Father did make mention of the culture of death): contraception, abortion, acceptance of homosexuality and other perversions, etc.  Would not the Church and the world be better off if the Roman Catholic clergy would concentrate on faith and morals and stop meddling in matters where she has no practical expertise?  Yes.

We, The Church Militant, May Not Quit The Spiritual Battle

My blogging colleague at Dymphna's Road put up a piece today entitled "Screaming in Pain".  Truth be

told, I've seen a lot of defeatist attitudes among bloggers and other fellow Catholics.  Some are confused over the foibles that issue forth from the Vatican.  They are sincere Catholics wanting to be loyal to the Church, but owing to the lackluster post-Vatican II formation they have received, they do not understand that not every utterance of the Holy Father constitutes dogma.  The Holy Father can be incorrect in matters of prudential judgment and it is only healthy to acknowledge it.  Truth be told, the "three monkeys" approach to the Holy Father's gaffes (exemplified by ChurchMilitant.tv) has exacerbated this confusion since viewers might interpret such silence as tacit approval of Papal blunders.

Still, when I read that article, I cannot help but sense that these distressed individuals are knowingly preparing to cut off their noses to spite their faces.  They sense some leaks in the Barque of Peter.  So if they fear possible drowning, will they really jump ship and undergo definite drowning - and even risk eternal damnation?  (Yes, ladies and gentlemen!  If you go "sedevacantist", you greatly increase your chances of going to hell!  If you wish to avoid hell, you will stay with the Roman Catholic Church, no "ifs ands or buts"!)    Even if we take lousy Catholic education into account, this attitude is bereft of all logic and common sense.  With all due respect, Dymphna is restrained in her advice to such tempted souls - restrained to a fault, I daresay.  You don't tell such individuals to "wait", for that holds out the notion that after a "waiting period" it's acceptable to commit a mortal sin of apostasy.   We tell them the unabridged and plain truth about what is emanating from the Vatican.  We also tell them - in no uncertain and overly "gentle" terms - that if they continue to nurse notions of leaving the Roman Catholic Church that they jeopardize their eternal salvation.  Then we tell them, in no uncertain terms, that they must reject any discouragement and thoughts of leaving the Church as the filthy tempting lies of Satan that they are.

Now let me say a word to some of my fellow bloggers who are flagging or who have in fact quit (I know who some of you are!).  I'm speaking as a blogger myself who has experienced many of the tribulations that come with that job.  Either we've been called by God to proclaim His truth over this media - or we haven't been called by God.  It's one or the other.  If we've been called by God to speak some truth - what makes us think we're at liberty to quit at will?  Let me preface by making clear that some have had to lay aside blogging to attend to duties regarding our states in life; perhaps we have to attend to sick family members or children who need us.  We have our priorities and no one will gainsay that.  I'm addressing those who quit because they're "tired of fighting".  Dymphna speaks of those who've decided to "tune out".   This is mind-boggling for several reasons.

First, let us remind ourselves of what St Catherine of Siena had to say regarding the need to speak out against evil: "We've had enough of exhortations to be silent!  Cry out with a hundred thousand tongues!  I see that the world is rotten because of silence!"  Those once-stalwart bloggers who have decided to quit and "tune out" are now adding to the silence that is contributing to the rot of the world, if not damnation of poor souls who will no longer benefit from their truthful voices.  Either we're part of the solution - or we're part of the problem; there is no middle or neutral ground.  Moreover, on this side of the grave we remain the Church Militant, not the Church Moribund.  We get to retire when we die and join the ranks of either Church Triumphant or Church Suffering - and not split second beforehand.

Now what is leading to all this jaded cop-out?  Frustration?  Anger?  Lack of faith?  What's going on?  I cannot pretend to read minds/hearts, but I do know there's something terribly amiss when those who were engaged in spiritual warfare throw up their hands and walk away.  Let's deal with it, shall we?  To put in another way, you'll deal with it either now or in Purgatory, but you WILL deal with it.  That's the same with any sin to which we have attachment.

I could go on, but I think we get the point.  Keep on persevering.

Maryland Gubernatorial Candidates' Forum May 20th

Defend Life and Maryland Coalition for Life are co-sponsoring a forum for Maryland's candidates for governor.  Between the two parties, there are seven candidates.

It will be held on Tuesday May 20, starting at 7:30pm.  It's in the Plum Gar Community Center in Germantown Maryland.

Please see this flyer for directions and other details.  The flyer is downloadable so please feel free to print off copies and distribute them.

An important reminder - the primary elections for Maryland will occur on June 24th.  Please attend this forum and invite others to join us, to learn as much as possible about the various candidates.

Father Ray Kelly - Beginning Of The End Of His Priestly Vocation?

I had written in recent weeks about the mess that Father Ray Kelly of Ireland made of a nuptial Mass.  I had thought that was the end of it, but alas, the sad saga continues.  You see, he's been offered record deals by both Sony and Universal.  And what does Father Kelly say of all this new-found fame and opportunity to make a bundle?  Sit down for this!

“It looks like it is going to happen (the record deal). Ninety per cent of people don’t get a break and now, at this stage of my life, it is happening for me. Dreams do come true.”

That's a direct quote, and quite revealing, it seems.  Just what "dream" is coming true?  Forgive me for being so boring and mundane, but isn't the "dream" of a Catholic priest to save souls and to be an "alter Christi"?  I understand that he thinks he's going to remain a priest -but what comes first?  Let's look at it another way - what will demand the most of his time?  The answer to that question is the answer to the previous question.

I'll now ask another question that I suspect will cause flaming attempts in my combox.  While the primary blame for the obscuring of Father's priestly vocation is his, might not some culpability lie with those who thoughtlessly swooned over this priest's abuse of the wedding Mass?  I think that's very likely.

Pray for Father.  Pray for those who remain bamboozled over Father's performance.  Pray that dust be knocked from their eyes and that eternal life with Christ, through His Church be the "dream to come true".

Now THIS Is A Campaign Ad!

Joni Ernst is running for US Senate from Iowa.  She's straight-shootin'!  In more ways than one!

(By the way lawyer lap-dogs!  Faithful Catholics of MD/DC Inc is NOT an IRS section 501c organization.  That means we can say what we dang well please in terms of politics!)

Cdl Muller Administers Much-Needed Truth To LCWR

A few days ago, Cardinal Gerhard Muller of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith administered some much-needed medicine to the Leadership Conference of Women Religious.  He did not sugar-coat it, he did not adulterate it with disgusting "nuance" and "diplomacy".  He served the truth straight up.  The question remains whether or not the LCWR will actually repent and remind themselves that they took religious vows to obey Holy Mother Church.

Here is the address on the CDF site.

Obama-Appointed Former Vatican Ambassador Implicated In Sexual Harrassment

Miguel Diaz, theology professor at University of Dayton, will be transferring to Loyola University of Chicago.  This move comes on the heels of an investigation that he sexually harassed a married couple who also work at the University of Dayton.  No, that is not a typo.  He allegedly harassed the couple - both husband and wife.  If there's such a thing as an "equal opportunity harasser", Diaz might be the prototype.

The investigation results are that it is "likely" that the harassment occurred.  But should this be any surprise?  Let's look a bit more into Diaz's history.  This Catholic News Agency article sums it up.  He has been a member of the Soros-funded "Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good".  He has contributed to Obama's election (and rewarded with the Vatican appointment).  While claiming to be "pro-life", he signed a statement supporting the nomination of Kathleen Sebelius as HHS Secretary.

So what's the connection between his dubious associations and this current allegation of misconduct?  How about "lex orandi, lex credendi, lex vivendi"?  If one is going to associate with progressives and in fact be a progressive himself, it's far more likely that he/she will adopt liberal and libertine morals.  Deviate from the Magisterium in one or few respects, and if you don't repent, the moral contagion will corrode the rest of your life.  Miguel Diaz may be just the latest piece of evidence for that truism.

Guess Who's Stung By Obamacare?

While the below clip is a parody, many citizens are living that nightmare - with many more to come.

Pope Francis' Communication Methods: Helpful Or Harmful?

I have written over the past year about my concerns regarding Pope Francis.  See this anthology.  As you can see, some of my concerns stem from the caricature that that some adolescent-minded folks insist on creating of the Holy Father.  In one of my previous posts, I call this the "barneyfication" of the papacy.

Other concerns stem from the communication methods that the Holy Father seems intent on using, despite evidence that such styles are counter-productive at best.  Yesterday, Father Dwight Longenecker, in his blog post, asked the question "Is Pope Francis a Loose Cannon?"  He articulates well many of my concerns and, I suspect, concerns shared by millions.

Below I'll pull two paragraphs from Father's article that should be shouted far and wide, particularly in Vatican City.

Furthermore, shouldn’t a pope realize he is pope and behave accordingly? No matter what the pope’s personal style and personal preferences, he is now the pope and whether he likes it or not, people hang on his every word and action. Yes, yes, we all know that a chat with reporters on a plane or a personal phone call by a pope are not infallible doctrinal statements. The problem is, a huge number of people in the world don’t realize that. Pope Francis should therefore understand that he is no longer Padre Bergoglio and learn that one of the greatest things a pope can do is to not do anything.

There is another problem with Pope Francis’ style which is lurking in the background which I have not heard anyone else commenting on, and it is this: if a person in a public role trivializes that role with a very personal and informal style, then when they want to make a formal pronouncement the chances are that they will not be taken seriously. Make enough gaffes and speak off the cuff enough and soon the world will consider everything you say to be a gaffe and all your pronouncements to be inconsequential, off the cuff matters of opinion.

Hear!  Hear!

Maryland's "Bathroom Bill"

SB 212, the so-called "Fairness for All Marylanders Act of 2014" is signed and will go into effect on October 1, 2014 - unless we can stop it.  Please read the text.  

For now, there is a petition that can be signed by registered voters in Maryland at MDpetitions.com.  Please be very exacting in following the instructions; any deviation from the instructions will very likely invalidate your signature.

Please spread the word.

Two Legal Victories - One National, One Local

Both are significant to us, particularly to those who labor in pro-life arenas.  First, I'll relay the national news.

The last nail has been pounded into the coffin of the 28-year-old case known as NOW vs Scheidler.  This case has been to the Supreme Court three times - all three times the rulings have been in Scheidler's favor.  The Thomas More Society has been assisting Scheidler all along and they have a report.  They've also racked up some legal costs during these past two decades.  A few days ago, the Seventh Circuit Court ruled that the plaintiffs must cover the costs that had been awarded to the defendants - a little over $63k.

This one is definitely closer to home, but still has much national impact on the pro-life effort.  In 2009, the Montgomery County Council (many of the members effectively owned by NARAL) passed a NARAL-inspired piece of unconstitutional legislation aimed solely at crippling the efforts of pro-life pregnancy centers.  In December 2009 I spent much time blogging about the hearings.  One of the pregnancy centers, Centro Tepeyak of Silver Spring, took the lead in filing legal challenge.  They were assisted by Alliance Defending Freedom.  As in the Scheidler case above, several court rulings had been decided in favor of the pro-life side.  Finally Montgomery County saw the light, realized it just couldn't win and decided to give up its obviously futile effort.

By the way - in reference to the Montgomery County affair, I remind all Montgomery County citizens that every one of these council members is up for reelection this November.  Since so many of them show a disdain for the Constitution that they promised to uphold, it's time to give them their pink slips next Election Day.

Strange Double Standards From The Vatican

Two days ago came the news that a flagrantly dissenting priest of Ireland, Father Sean Fagan, has had all sanctions lifted.  Six years ago he had been silenced because he refused to cease his dissent in matters pertaining to sexual morality.  It has been said that he was an advocate for the liberalization of abortion.  The news report does not indicate any repentance on Father Fagan's part.  There are intimations that the lifting of sanctions came about as a result, at least in part, of intervention by Pope Francis.

Contrast this treatment with that of Father Stefano Maneli, a founder of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate.  They are the order that has been wildly successful in promoting the Traditional Latin Mass - until some malcontents managed to bend the ears of influential Vatican officials to stifle the order.  The elderly Father Maneli is essentially under "house arrest", forbidden to visit his parents' graves to celebrate his birthday.

I am having grave difficulty reconciling this strange double-standard.  One the one hand we have a flagrantly dissident priest having his sanctions lifted, out of the blue with no conditions placed upon him: conditions such as fidelity to the Magisterium, etc.  On the other hand we have draconian measures taken against a faithful religious order and no justice in sight for these Franciscans.  All this has occurred with the Pope's approval, if not at his direction.  How does this work?  Where's the "method to the madness"?  OR, what's the motivation to the madness?

Kumbaya To Archbishop Gregory

Note: the following is a parody - a work of fiction - that I'm using to illustrate a point that I'll explain at the end.  Please let no progressives pop a gasket when reading this.  Now let us begin..

In some seedy neighborhood within the Archdiocese of Atlanta, a group of thugs/terrorists/whatever were plotting to wreck mayhem by shooting up some Catholic Church within that archdiocese during a Sunday Mass.  They had just finalized their dastardly scheme when one of them glanced at a newspaper lying on a table.  He beheld the news that Archbishop Gregory has declared that Catholic property will remain "gun-free" in the wake of Georgia's law making it easier for licensed gun owners to take guns into venues previously prohibited.

With grave concern, he pointed this out to his accomplices in crime.  "We cannot do this!", he exclaimed.  "Our guns simply aren't permitted on Church property!  That's what the archbishop just said!"  His companions nodded in agreement and laid their shoot-em-up scheme aside.  Thus the archbishop saved the day!  Hip-hip, hooray!

End of parody

Ladies and gentlemen, must I spell out how ridiculous the story is?  It's ridiculous for the same exact reasons as is the Archbishop's insistence on "gun-free" churches.  Of course the Archbishop is within his right to govern what happens on Church property.  But does he really think any malevolent individual will give a rat's rump about his desire for a "gun-free" Church?  The only ones who will honor his request will be those who might have stopped a terrorist but who would be reduced to becoming the victims of terrorists.

Such is the convoluted thinking of progressives - lots of "kumbayas" and wishful, unrealistic thinking.