Open Letter To Judge Sara Smolenski

Please recall that she is the lesbian judge in Michigan who was denied Holy Communion by Father Scott Nolan for publicly living in sin with another woman.  Since that incident, she has been on a rampage to have Father ousted from his parish.  Fortunately Bishop David Walkowiak is supporting his priest.

Many have rightly suggested that both Father and His Excellency should be congratulated and thanked.  I concur and have done so.  I also applied the Spiritual Work of Mercy known as "rebuking the sinner" to the errant judge.  I got the fax number from the contact information for the courthouse in which she works.  To that number I sent the letter below.

Begin letter:

Ms. Smolenski, I read of your situation with Father Nolan.  As a Catholic who strives to live by the moral precepts of the Church, I concur with Father.  Perhaps we can look at the situation from another vantage point.  I presume that as a lawyer, you are a member of the Michigan State Bar.  That association undoubtedly has standards and ideals to which you and other lawyers are expected to adhere.  The rights and privileges of that association were not automatically granted to you; you had to qualify to be admitted and must conduct yourself in a manner deemed worthy by your association to retain membership with all its attendant advantages.

Parallels con be derived when it comes to the Church.  The reception of Holy Communion entails allegiance to the Church's moral standards, including those of marriage and the use of procreative powers.  Deliberate and obstinate flouting of those prescriptions is grounds for denial of Holy Communion.  That denial is actually for your benefit, as reception of Holy Communion while you pretend to be married to another woman would only cause you to incur the guilt of receiving Our Lord in a sacrilegious manner, its own mortal sin.

Ms. Smolenski, neither you nor I can dictate to the Church who has a "right" to receive Holy Communion.  Yes, we are all sinners.  Jesus Christ welcomes all sinners - to repent and turn from their sins, not to wallow in them and expect to be celebrated for them.  We are called to repent via the Sacrament of Confession and then to amend our lives.  As your fellow Catholic I strongly urge you cease this lifestyle and return to Jesus Christ and His Church - on His terms, not yours.
You may ask what business do I have in saying these things to you.  Well, it is you who chose to publicize this matter, not I.  Apparently neither did Father choose to publicize this; he approached you via a private phone call - per your recollection.  Father Nolan, as an ordained priest of Jesus Christ, cannot and will not acquiese to your demands that your sinful lifestyle be accepted as being in conformity with Church teaching.  The words of Jesus will not change.  I for one am grateful to Father for upholding the teachings of the Church.

Ms. Smolenski, please be advised that this letter is an open letter, to be publicized on the internet.  Any replies will likewise be publicized; that includes replies from anyone else as well.  Thank you for your time.

End Letter

Michigan Priest Denies Holy Communion To Flagrant, Arrogant Lesbian Judge - Action Needed Now

Father Scott Nolan of St Stephen parish in the Diocese of Grand Rapids (MI) denied Holy Communion to an openly lesbian judge.  The judge's name is Sara Smolenski and she is the chief judge of the Kent County District Court; she and her accomplice in perversion are pretending that they are "married" with the help of civil courts.  Fr. Nolan advised her in private that she was living a sinful lifestyle.  Still, she presented herself for Holy Communion. Father, in obedience to Canon 915, denied her Communion.  Immediately Smolenski took to mainstream media to pout about the matter and to gin up opposition to Father Nolan simply because the latter acted like an actual Catholic priest.

Long-time readers of this blog will realize why this story immediately caught my eye.  Over seven years ago in my own parish, just as Lent 2012 was getting underway, Father Guarnizo likewise denied Holy Communion to another flaming lesbian.  One just has to go into this blog's archives circa March 2012 to get an idea of the situation.  The mainstream media likewise jumped all over that story and it even caught international attention.  The two situations are similar in many respects, but differ in one key, striking manner.

Reading through Fr Guarnizo's story, one will see that the Archdiocese of Washington acted immediately to evict Fr Guarnizo from the Archdiocese.  I've no doubt that they would have suspended him as a priest, had it not been for the fact that he's incardinated in another diocese.  While the situation was unfolding, I thought that the chancery's actions were simply the result of cowardice and wanting to toady to the politically correct and powerful.  At the time, McCarrick was still a cardinal and bishop emeritus of the DC archdioecese, and Wuerl held the helm.  Over the past few years, we've come to understand that McCarrick was himself a serial gay predator and that Wuerl was covering for him.  Those revelations shine quite a different light on their attitude towards Fr Guarnizo.  I think they ousted him because his presence and actions seared their own sick and guilty consciences.

Father Nolan is blessed to have the support of his bishop, Bishop David Walkowiak.  He released a statement saying that Father Nolan acted correctly.  He stated that while the Church accepts its members, that it expects of its members adherence to the Church's teachings.  He did so by quoting (of all things) Amoris Laetitia.

NEEDED ACTIONS

Here is the contact information for the parish.  Please call and/or email Father to express support.  You can bet your bottom dollar that the gay nazis are out in force against him, just as they drew their long knives against Father Guarnizo seven years ago.  Here is the diocese's contact information, along with their statement regarding Father Nolan.  Thank Bishop Walkowiak for supporting his priest.

In addition to voicing support for both Father Nolan and Bishop Walkowiak, there is other action that we as the Church Militant must take.  It seems that this broad Smolenski has had her long knives pointed at Father Nolan previously.  From LifeSiteNews we read that she tried to get Father ousted as chaplain for the Catholic Lawyers' Association of Western Michigan.  When those in mortal sin refuse to repent of said sins, they hate with a passion anyone who dares to suggest that they need to repent.  They think that by hurting the truth-tellers that they can justify their filth and perversion.  Witness how the murderers of St Stephen the First Martyr covered their ears as he spoke.

Here is the website for the district courthouse in which she sits as judge.  I for one think it highly unethical that she is using her public position as a platform from which she can launch her attacks against a Catholic priest who was acting according to his responsibilities.  Of course be polite but also be firm.  For her own good, we cannot allow her attacks to go on without any rebuke to her.

Support Bishop Paprocki

Pro-abortion CINO's in the Illinois state legislature are working to pass an extremely deadly abortion-rights bill.  Bishop Thomas Paprocki has decreed that those CINO's may not receive Holy Communion in his diocese; he singled out by name the Illinois Senate President and the Speaker of the House.  Moreover he ordered his priests not to give them Holy Communion, should they dare present themselves for it.

Note what just happened.  Paprocki invoked Canon 916 when he directed that the pro-abortions not present for Holy Communion.  Canon 916 speaks to the laity.  This is not the first time I've heard bishops make this proclamation.  It is, however, the first time that I've heard a bishop order his priests to deny Holy Communion to pro-aborts.  This is Canon 915, that speaks to the ministers of Holy Communion.  Correction: Several decades ago, Bishop Rene Gracida, then bishop of Corpus Christi, put some pro-aborts under interdict.

As one can imagine, Bishop Paprocki is taking a lot of heat for his proclamation.  I daresay that a good portion of that heat might be coming from brother bishops.  Let's sign this petition to publicly support this bishop for acting like a bishop.  We pray that others follow suit.

Bishops - Good And Bad

Let's start with the bad first so that we can end this post on the good side.  The German Bishops' Conference, under Cardinal Reinhard Marx, has formally declared it permissible to commit sacrilege against Holy Communion.  They are allowing Protestant spouse of Catholics to receive Holy Communion "under certain conditions".   Of course sensible people understand that "under certain conditions" is a polite way of saying "allowing the camel's nose to get under the tent".  We know where that leads.  Remember that at the infamous 1930 Lambeth Conference, the Anglican church permitted the use of contraceptives under "limited" circumstances.  Now the Anglicans and many other church bodies brook baby-murder, gay clergy, etc.

No one may permit that kind of sacrilege - ever.  If Cardinal Marx retains his position of influence, we can very well glean the pope's own attitudes towards the Eucharist - and perhaps towards God Himself.

That's the bad news about bad bishops - now for some good news about good bishops.

I've lauded Bishop Thomas Paprocki before on this blog.  He is the bishop of Springfield, IL.  In his diocese resides Senator Dick Durbin, one of the most rabidly pro-abortion faux-katholycs.  Bishop Paprocki recently announced that Durbin was not to be admitted to Holy Communion until he repents of his support of baby-murder. The straw that broke the camel's back appears to be Durbin's vote against the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. 

Imagine that!  A bishop obeying Canon 915 and instructing his priests to do the same.  Let us pray that other bishops follow suit and that the wolves at the USCCB learn a thing or two from him.

Another Courageous Priest - In Montana

Normally I would be loathe to link to anything from New Ways Ministry, but they seem to have the only account of this incident.  Of course, being advocates for perversion, they will be putting onto it their own warped perspective.  I needn't rehash the entire account here but will attempt to shine the light of the Teaching of Jesus Christ onto the matter.

Two years ago, Father Spiering of St. Leo's Catholic Church in Lewistown MT had denied Holy Communion to two gay men who pretended to be "married".  He also expelled them from parish apostolates.  A number of parishioners got into a huff; several members of the choir, including the director, immediately resigned.

It seems that an elderly member of the parish also had her nose put out of joint.  Her own son was engaged in ongoing sodomite mortal sin.  She passed away and expressly asked that the choir director - who had stomped off on her own volition - be allowed to lead the singing.  A former pastor, who was obviously sympathetic to the gays, defended the woman's "right" to sing.  Father Spiering said "no", correctly stating that no such "right" existed.  Do consider that Father Spiering, as pastor, had complete responsibility for the occurrences in that parish and for the upholding of the Teachings of Jesus Christ.  He and the former pastor argued, but Spiering stood his ground, stating that he would ban the former pastor from the parish if necessary.  He informed the family that he would be conducting the funeral.

Enter now the wimps of the local chancery.  Father Peterson, vicar general for the Diocese of Great Falls - Billings, conducted the service and allowed the ex-choir director to lead the singing.  He himself is a personal friend of the deceased woman's family, presumably including the gay "couple".  In other words, he undermined Father Spiering's authority in that situation.  He acknowledged Father Spiering's canonical rights, but said the actions weren't "pastoral".  Don't you just love that word "pastoral" and how it's used to justify all manners of disobedience to Our Lord?

The New Ways screed closes by stating that "Father Spierling's minsterial competencies and role in active ministry should be questioned".  The fact is that New Ways Ministry is steeped in dissent from the Teachings of the Church.  As far as "ministerial competencies" are concerned, New Ways simply doesn't know apple butter from cow pie.  That won't stop them from calling the diocese and screeching at them to remove Father Spierling - much like they did to Father Marcel Guarnizo of my own parish four years ago.

Just as I suggested yesterday that we support Father Mann, so too must we support Father Spierling.  Many of my readers will recall the similarities between these two cases and what happened to Father Guarnizo.  Please - we must raise our own voices in defense of good priests.  Here is the contact information for the Diocese of Great Falls - Billings, headed by Bishop Michael Warfel.

Please spread the word.

From The Maturation Department - Prior Eucharistic Disciplines Were "A Heavy Cross"

In his interview with La Nacion, the one in which he said he was blessed with a "healthy state of unawareness", he claimed that "I'm permanently making statements, giving homilies; that's teaching".  I concur with Pat Archibald at Creative Minority Report that he intends these words to be considered part of his personal magisterium.

With that in mind, I think we need to look seriously at the homily he gave today.  He stated that observances of law and discipline are signs of a "weak heart" (please note I corrected the spelling of "weak").  I'm appalled that as an example he used a prior discipline of a Eucharistic fast, going so far as to call it a "very heavy cross".  He credits Pope Pius XII for amending the discipline.  But..does that mean he thinks that the previous popes, from Pius XI on back, were just a bunch of Pharisaical meanies for instituting the fast in the first place?

After he complains about the inconvenience of the fast, he goes back into a tirade against "rigid" (or is that neo-pelagian?) folks.  He "confesses" that he asks the Lord to (I'm not making this up!) "throw a banana peal in front of them".  I see little repentance, to be frank, for wishing harm to people with whom he disagrees.  I fail to see how slipping on a banana peal is supposed to make people realize they're sinners; perhaps some good old-fashioned "rigid" proselytizing might do the trick.

But let's look at what's being slipped into the discussion and perhaps our thinking.  He's using as an example a discipline regarding the reception of Holy Communion.  Is he trying to instill questioning mindsets about other Eucharistic disciplines and even dogmas?  What happened six weeks ago?  The Sin-Nod!  What was put into the final relatio despite the vote of the attending bishops?  We see in the Italian translation of the preliminary questionnaire some discussion about distribution of Holy Communion to divorced/remarried Catholics who, by definition, are living in the mortal sin of adultery.

What happened today was no unintentional gaffe.  When he says he's "teaching" I believe him.  It's part of the brainwashing "maturation" process to lull us into accepting "pastoral solutions" to icky "rigid" doctrines.  That's why every word of his must be measured carefully.

New Chicago Archbishop - A Harbinger Of Disaster For The Church

In many ways, the Church hierarchy in the United States was already a mess, with liberals occupying the Sees of key dioceses.  By appointment of Pope Francis, one more such individual, Bishop Blaise Cupich as Archbishop of Chicago to replace the ailing Cardinal George.  Many of us recalled his abysmal wafflings in not standing for true morality.  I wrote over the years about his derelictions, including the forbidding of his priests' participation in the 40 Days for Life campaign and being one of the cowardly bishops who refused to protest Obama's appearance at Notre Dame in 2009.

It didn't take him long to get started on his progressive rampage.  He apparently wasn't pleased that more women weren't involved in his installation Mass and made quite plain that he wants more women involved in "leadership".  Well that should just inspire more priestly vocations (yes, that is sarcastic)!

This past Sunday on Face The Nation, Cupich said of pro-abortion Catholics receiving Holy Communion that "the grace would be instrumental in bringing them to the truth".  What grace?  Is not Holy Communion a Sacrament of the Living?  I'm no moral theologian, but it seems that no grace could accrue to someone in a state of mortal sin until that sin is properly confessed in the Sacrament of Reconciliation.  Otherwise, instead of grace comes the guilt of the sin of sacrilege.

Two other things that he said during that interview are, to be frank, whoppers.  First he stated that "I would not use the Eucharist, or as they call it 'the Communion rail', as a place to have those discussions in which people should be excluded from the life of the church."  This language has a very familiar ring to it!  Go back five years.  When Cardinal Wuerl was asked about denying Holy Communion to Nancy Pelosi, he said he wouldn't because the Church "doesn't use communion as a weapon".  My!  They do have those talking points down pat, don't they?

Then Cupich said that "the Eucharist is an opportunity of grace and conversion; it's also a time of forgiveness of sins".  It sure does sound like His Excellency is getting some sacraments confused with one another.  The "time of forgiveness of sins" particularly mortal sins (as is the support of abortion), is within the Sacrament of Reconciliation.  It is that authentic forgiveness of sin (requiring real repentance, by the way) that is necessary to receive Holy Communion worthily.  Else what you have is an occasion of the mortal sin of sacrilege.  Period.

Last week I observed that the USCCB and many bishops seem to have forgotten that their first job as bishops is to save souls.  Read this post, particularly the first paragraph that quotes the Baltimore Catechism on this matter.  It seems that not only has Bishop Cupich forgotten that basic truth, especially with regards to so-called "immigration reform" but he even had the unmitigated audacity to declare that "immigration reform", as defined by progressives, is God's agenda!  In his nonsensical statement, he says that "God has called us to a better life".  What defines this "better life"?  A life lived for God, marked by obedience to His laws, prayer, reception of the sacraments - or merely a more advantaged life?  The two aren't necessarily opposed to each other, but neither are they equivalent to each other.  It seems His Excellency doesn't get it.

Under this current pontificate, must we dread similar episcopal appointments in the future?

Guess What?? I'm Super-Catholic!!

At least that's what one Patheos-oriented blogger said of me and other faithful Catholics recently.  I understand that the bloggers of Patheos receive compensation based on the number of clicks their blogs receive; therefore I will not link to the post directly.  In regards to the "super-Catholic" crack we read his speculations regarding the thinking of the Holy Father:

"He means that holier than thou super-Catholics who spend much of their time demanding that the Impure be barred from the sacraments need to pipe down and accept the judgment of their pastors when they allow weak sinners to approach the Altar. He’s addressing a sort of latter day Jansenism that wants to keep as many people as possible from approaching the sacraments."

There's so much sloppy thinking in those few sentences to unpack, but I'll put forth a heroic effort.  (After all, I'm Super-Catholic, you know!)

We "super-Catholics" do NOT "demand that the impure be barred from the sacraments".  That statement betrays a complete disdain for Canon 915.  Let me post Canon 915 for review; it's really very simple. Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to holy communion.

It is Canon 915, not "super-Catholics", that impose a demand, both to honor the dignity of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ AND to prevent a person in mortal sin from incurring the guilt of yet another mortal sin, the sin of sacrilegious Holy Communion.  We simply won't let that demand be swept under the rug and ignored out of cowardice and desire to toady to the powerful of this world.

He goes on to make a caricature of us as mean, niggardly scoundrels wanting to keep "weak sinners" from approaching the altar.  Well, no.  There's not a person alive (even among us super-Catholics!) who isn't a weak sinner.  Canon 915 does not address all such people - only those obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, to use the precise language from the Canon.  Not all "weak sinners" place themselves in that most serious predicament of being arrogantly in the practice of public mortal sin as do flagrant gays and abortionists and abortion enablers.  It is the latter who are to be denied Holy Communion for their own benefit.  Should they receive Holy Communion with unconfessed mortal sin on their souls, they incur the guilt of yet another mortal sin, namely the sin of receiving Holy Communion sacrilegiously.  When a prelate says they're being "pastoral" by overlooking their Canon 915 obligations, it usually means one of two things: 1) they need some consideration from a CINO big-wig, so they need to butter up that person by profaning the Eucharist or 2) they're afraid of being trash-talked should they dare to act like men of integrity.

An important note regarding the last paragraph.  In the first sentence I'm using a word that ended the political career of George Allen - simply because some folks have limited themselves to "valley girl" talk.  It is not my problem if my progressive trolls have an insufficient grasp of the English language and its vocabulary.  I will not dumb down mine accordingly.  Get off your duffs, pull out a dictionary and look the word up.  Chalk it up as an educational experience!  Now back to the Patheos prattle.

We wind up this expose with an examination of the last phrase "keep as many people as possible from approaching the sacraments".  Well, no.  That's our entire point.  I trust this author does recall that there is more than one sacrament.  When one has lost sanctifying grace due to mortal sin, there is one sacrament to which they must fly in haste to avoid eternal damnation.  Of course I'm referring to the Sacrament of Confession.  We encourage all - particularly those whom the Patheos blogger dismissively calls "impure", to make good and frequent use of that Sacrament of Confession.  After they've been restored to a state of grace, by all means receive the Eucharist.

Thank You, Father Brian Sistare!

Father Brian Sistare, pastor of Sacred Heart Parish in Woonsocket RI has taken stances for the integrity of true marriage.  He has served notice upon the RI state senators who voted for legalization of gay-marriage-make-believe that he will call them out by name (make sure you read Father's actual letter in this link).

Now comes word that Father has denied Holy Communion to two men who are living together in homosexual sin.  Of course gay activists are having snit fits, much like they did when Father Marcel Guarnizo denied Holy Communion to a practicing lesbian at St John Neumann Church in Gaithersburg MD during Lent 2012.  Let us pray that the clergy of Rhode Island join Father Sistare in boldly proclaiming the entirety of God's truth.