Father Marcel Guarnizo On The Corruption Of Democracy

On November 22, Father Marcel Guarnizo gave an interview to Celtic Times.  The topic was the corruption of democracy.  During that conversation, Father differentiated between "true democracy" versus "procedural democracy".  I might opine that these could be more aptly called "constitutional republic" versus "mob rule".

A constitutional republic consists of government where the officials are elected by the citizenry and that government must act within the bounds set forth by constitutional law.  That is our form of government; at least that was the intention of our founding fathers.  Within the United States Constitution are key amendments known as the Bill of Rights.  Implicit in the concept of the Bill of Rights is an acknowledgment that the citizens possess rights and that these rights are unalienable because they are granted to human beings by God.  The Bill of Rights is an acknowledgment of our preexisting rights, and it certifies that the federal government will make no attempt to usurp these rights out of respect for the citizenry and respect for God's omnipotent authority.

Years ago I often wondered why the ranks of liberals, progressives, Democrats, etc were populated with far more atheists than were the ranks of conservatives, etc.  The preceding paragraph provides a big part of the answer to that question.  Atheists have attempted to expunge God from their personal lives and from civil life.  But nature abhors a vacuum, and even their human natures sense the void they created by their atheism. Unconsciously seeking for a "deity", they have ascribed that role in their lives to civil government.  Hence we see atrocities like Roe v Wade and the more recent pushes to legalize euthanasia, same-sex marriage, etc.  The proponents for these murderous policies are ascribing to the state authority over life itself.  We also can grasp how and why Obamacare was passed by the Democrat-controlled congress and signed into law by the Messiah Most Miserable.  One unconscionable facet of Obamacare is that it forces every citizen to purchase a commodity that he or she may not desire.  In all these examples, government has encroached upon unalienable rights, with a result that our constitutional republic has degraded to a "mob rule" regime.

Another theme discussed was that of a unifying principle.  It seems that when the constitution of the European Union was drafted, there was not stated therein any principle that might unite the member nations.  Father mentioned that prior to the EU, the various nations had pronounced Judeo-Christian heritages but that those who drafted the EU constitution deliberately omitted any acknowledgement of that pre-existing heritage.  In doing so, they acted against the council of Pope Benedict XVI.  Now there are many problems in the EU, and unsurprisingly so.

The conversation then shifts to the silence of Irish bishops on the threatened abortion law in Ireland.  Both Father and Ms. Sinnott remark that the Irish bishops don't understand the connection between their silence and their loss of freedoms to operate their schools and hospitals according to Catholic principles.  Both opine that the bishops are compromised by the acceptance of government funding.  They could just as easily be talking of the situation in the United States and how our USCCB - heavily funded by the feds - will not speak with force on moral issues such as abortion and gay marriage.  Father remarks about the situation in Germany and Austria, with their "church tax", saying that the next synod on the family should tackle these matters.  Yes they should, but as long as Kasper and Marx wield the influence that they currently enjoy at the Vatican, they will not be upsetting their gravy train.

Father believes, and I concur, that real democracy ended with Roe v Wade, when the right to life of a whole class of citizens was devalued.  Unless we change course on this matter, no other reforms (taxes, economy, etc) will suffice to save our democracies and end the de facto tyrannies (or, as Pope Benedict calls it, the dictatorship of relativism) in which we find ourselves.  Here is the link to the interview.  Listen closely at the 25:00 mark.  At the 26:42 mark, Sinnott asks him what can be done about it.  Among other things, Father urges that all in the Church be educated in these matters, placing responsibility on the bishops and clerics to do so.  My editorial comment: if the bishops won't be equal to that task, the Catholic in the pew will have to educate themselves; in these days of the internet that is NOT hard to do.

Please listen to it and share it far and wide.  Thank you.

From The Ecumenicide Department - Is The Vatican Trying To Thrust On Us A One-World Religion Of Humanism?

I don't know what else to make of recent events.  Last summer the Holy Father proposed a 10-point plan for happiness: a plan that didn't once mention the word "God".  The SinNod that happened last October bore evidence of high church officials trying to compromise the Church's moral teachings regarding sexuality, marriage and family life.  He urged protestant Tony Palmer not to convert to Catholicism when the latter expressed that desire.  On Pentecost Sunday the Holy Father allowed a Muslim to utter idolatrous islamic "prayer" in the Vatican Gardens.

Today, during his visit to Turkey, Pope Francis went to the Blue Mosque and prayed in it with the Grand Mufti and did so while facing Mecca.  He then asked the Mufti to pray for him.  Knowing that the Mufti would do obeisance to a false idol, what benefit did he think he'd acquire from such idol worship?  Has he been listening too much to Cardinal McCarrick?  It is said that he wants "dialogue" to combat "fanaticism and fundamentalism".  Can he really be that naive?  Once again, the Church is about the business of saving souls, not combating "fanaticism and fundamentalism".  That means proclaiming the Gospel and the teachings of the Church, not praying to false idols.

In 1928 Pope Pius XI released his encyclical Mortalium Animos.  In it Pope Pius wrote about religious unity and the fact that true unity can only be obtained when the world converts to the one truth Roman Catholic Faith.  Until then, no Catholic is to engage in any pretense of a premature unity.  In that encyclical, it is clear that Pope Pius is condemning false unity with protestants.  These words still bind on us.  If they bind on us with regards to protestants, how much more do they do so with regards to those whose very quaran evinces hatred of Christians?

I for one look upon this incident in the Blue Mosque with much regret.

Rose-Colored Glasses Often Lead To Complicity In Sin

Yesterday was Thanksgiving.  Being busy with Mass, food prep and the dinner I was unable to post some thoughts.  For what it's worth, I'll do so now.

With some regularity I'll receive some very irate comments to my posts urging - even demanding - that I "cease negativity and be grateful for the a) pope's cuteness, b) happy-clappy crap, c) you name it".  For the record I'll state that I am very grateful for what Jesus did 2000+ years ago, and that He founded His Church to mediate His graces and to save souls, including mine.  But thanksgiving is more than just happy, "positive" thoughts about real blessings received.  It also involved dogged, relentless efforts to preserve these blessings AND to recover those that we squandered by apathy and even disdain.  Those efforts require speaking the truth, sometimes in direct and blunt terms.  It is for these reasons that I - and other bloggers - speak out against evils emanating from within the Church and even those originating from the Holy Father (when not speaking infallibly).

I now have a word of warning to those who insist on looking at the hierarchy - and particularly the pope - through rose-colored glasses.  While in the past you have lambasted others and me for "being negative", I could not help but notice your abysmal silence when that debacle that I call the SinNod was going down last month.  Why, oh why, was that?  I could hypothesize a number of reasons, but in reality those reasons are quite irrelevant.  Rather I beg you to consider that you are silent in the face of numerous gaffes and even de facto heresies that have spewed from the Vatican and even the Holy Father's mouth.  Time and time again you ignore the glaring evidence before your eyes.  Not only that, you chastise those of us who have the clarity to understand that there is an elephant in the living room - all to perpetuate your own denial of the truth that all is not peaches and cream at the Vatican.

Church teaching has always taught that there are nine ways that one can share in the guilt of a particular sin without being the primary one to commit that sin.  I refer to this, this and this (paragraph 1868).

For ease of reference, I'll list the nine below.

1. Counsel: Giving advice or direction to the evil-doer;

2. Command: Ordering or inducing another to commit sin;

3. Consent: approving of the sin, before or after its act;

4. Provocation: Inciting or urging one to commit sin;

5. Praise or flattery: Inciting or urging one to commit sin by praise;

6. Concealment: helping one to commit sin by offering to conceal the crime;

7. Partnership: Sharing the fruits of another’s sin;

8. Silence: Not speaking out when we should, or not acting to prevent sin when obliged;

9. Defending evil: Attempting to justify the evil actions of others.

Many detractors, I believe, are acting in accord with numbers 8 and 9.  This goes for some bloggers and other social media wielders who do not speak out when the Pope utters rank heresy (as I believe he did here).  To those bloggers, I believe our platforms and audiences present to us an obligation to speak out.  If that is not your persuasion, I'd welcome comments as to why you would not believe that to be the case.

Be advised that I will not risk being an accessory to the corrosion of Holy Mother Church by my silence.  I'd encourage others to do the same so that the Church can be about her true mission to save souls.

I'll present this link to show how many sainted Catholics - many of them popes - regarded silence in the face of evil with utter disdain.  I'll close with this from St Catherine of Siena: "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!"

Hichborn On CCHD, Cdl Maradiaga And Their Corrupting Influences On The Church

Christine Niles of Forward Boldly recently interviewed Michael Hichborn of Lepanto Institute.  Hichborn has done extensive research on the Catholic Campaign for Human Development and other socialistic encroachments into the leadership and structure of the Catholic Church.  Another corroding element upon which he touched is Cardinal Maradiaga.  He focused on Maradiaga's leadership of Caritas International.

The interview was extensive so perhaps time did not permit the discussion of other issues regarding Maradiaga; I've touched upon some of these, as you can see in this anthology of blog posts.  One of them is the role that Maradiaga played in our recent and ongoing influx of illegal aliens pouring through our southern border.  The other is the role that he played in the SinNod last month, advocating for the distribution of Holy Communion to those living in adultery.  Yet another is the role that Maradiaga holds as he is de facto head of the group of eight cardinals who are top advisers to the Holy Father.  Pope Francis picked them himself.  I find it difficult to believe that the Holy Father was unaware of Maradiaga's unsavory doings at the time of his selection.

Please continue to offer prayers (especially the Mass and Rosary) for Holy Mother Church.  Now here is the interview.

Has Pope Francis Jumped Onto The "All Are Saved" Bandwagon?

Today at St. Peter's Square, the Holy Father spoke to pilgrims gathered there.  Much of his talk was nice-sounding, except for this: "It is beautiful to think of this, to think of Heaven. And we will all meet there. All of us, All of us...Up there...all of us."

All of us?  Dare I opine that his certitude may be, at best, a bit premature?  Or has he bought into the "no one is in hell" heresy?  No one's salvation is assured.  Before any of us dies, we may have the misfortune of committing a mortal sin.  If one dies with an unrepented mortal sin, that individual will go to hell.  That remains Church teaching.

I go to Mass on Sundays and whenever I can make weekday Mass.  I confess once or twice a month and pray daily.  I know I need the graces from these to avoid mortal sin (and for other reasons of course).  Even at that, I don't dare presume that I'll make it to heaven for I know myself too well.  What then, can be said for those who completely disdain the salvific graces procured by Christ's death and resurrection, and mediated by the Church?  While I hope the Holy Father was only intending to be encouraging, such language can very well have the consequence of lulling mortal sinners into false complacency while they hop and skip merrily to eternal perdition.

Providentially (and through Pewsitter) I came across this post from Athanasius Contra Mundum regarding what to do if a member of the magisterium errs.  This webmaster draws from St. Thomas Aquinas.  It's well worth your time to read it, and explains the reasons why I bring these matters to the forefront.

Church Prelates - Jacks Of All Trades And Masters Of None

As I said yesterday, our bishops - and even the Bishop of Rome (he likes to call himself that!) - are occupied with all sorts of important matters - well not all sorts!  Let's see what tickles the fancy of some USCCB officials.

First we hear that some USCCB officials are jumping on the bandwagon to get the Feds to spend $1.5 billion so that all schools can have high speed internet.  Let's lay aside for a moment the fact that this $1.5 billion comes straight from our tax dollars.  Just get a load of what Bishop John Wester had to say on the matter. "It will mean that more of our schools can provide the bandwidth necessary to support 1:1 digital learning ... The additional funding will ensure adequate access to connectivity, including a focus on our schools in disadvantaged communities so that everyone, everywhere – rural, urban and suburban – has access to sufficient capacity."

That may be fine from someone trying to sell some technology, but it's missing something if it's coming from a bishop.  My question is to Bishop Wester, "how do you believe this will aid you in your task to bring these school pupils to heaven"?  Not one peep is uttered by this successor to the Apostles regarding what should be the driving motive behind everything he does and says.  In his considerations of all this technology, is Bishop Wester taking into account the need to protect Catholic students from the pornography and false doctrine that will literally be at the students' fingertips?  I've a hunch that hasn't crossed his mind.

Sadly, another who seems to be veering into areas in which he has no expertise is the Holy Father.  As he addressed a UN meeting on nutrition, he called for a "fair distribution" of food and condemned profit-making and commodity speculation with regard to food trade.  A question that should occur to all is "with whom or what would the pope entrust with this fair distribution"?  Is this a thinly-disguised call for collectivism?  Another is why he veers into the realm of economics.  Read Tom Worstall's excellent article as he tries to educate the Holy Father (and his readers) on basic economic principles and why the Holy Father was flat out incorrect.  I'm sure the Holy Father was not trained in economics, so why would he lend the weight of his high holy office to his mere opinions?  Once again, we must also ask "what does this have to do with the salvation of souls - not bodies, but souls"?

If our church leaders stuck to the mission with which Jesus Christ entrusted to them, more people would be escaping hell and going to heaven (including them).  They might also find that many social ills would also be greatly reduced, as personal sin is addressed.

USCCB Doesn't Know The Church's Primary Mission

Once upon a time there was no question regarding the Church's primary mission.  As a refresher, I present Baltimore Catechism Question 137: "Why did Jesus Christ found the Church?  Jesus Christ founded the Church to bring all men to eternal salvation."  In short, the Church's all-encompassing mission is to save souls from hell and lead them to heaven.  Anything else that the Church does must be done with the aim of facilitating that first mission - not replacing it with anything else, good as that "anything else" may be.

Sadly, over the years we've seen the Church hierarchy focused more on temporal matters rather than their chief mission.  And even the "temporal matters" leave something to be desired, for all too often the USCCB and its state affiliates have fallen lock-step in with Democratic and progressive efforts.  The latest scandal of the USCCB supporting Obama's amnesty initiative is just the latest example.  It seems to matter not a whit to the bishops that once again the Messiah Most Miserable is jettisoning the rule of law to flood this country with illegal immigrants.  I've detailed before how the bishops have a financial stake in aiding and abetting the president's violation of oath of office.  In their high-sounding prattlings regarding illegals, the bishops and their henchmen blur the very real distinctions between those crashing our borders legally and those who abide by our laws.

I don't intend to focus on illegal immigration in this post.  I merely cite it as the latest glaring example of the US bishops selling their souls and high offices to facilitate progressive causes so that they can receive their "thirty pieces of silver".  Of course in all the endless screeds they vomit forth regarding illegals, we hear nary a word about the salvation of their souls.  Perhaps, though, the bishops are merely following directives that seem to be emanating from the Vatican.

Yesterday, during his homily, the Holy Father uttered these troubling words: "The starting point of salvation is not the confession of the sovereignty of Christ, but rather the imitation of Jesus’ works of mercy through which he brought about his kingdom."  Pardon my french, but His Holiness has things precisely ass-backwards.  Please see this excellent analysis by "From Rome" to understand why the Pope may have uttered heresy (albeit not solemnly).  One can see, though, how progressives would believe that this pontificate may very well be giving them carte-blanche permission to be spewing their progressive poison and touting it as "catholic teaching"; hence the slop oozing forth from the USCCB regarding immigration.

Let me make an important point on how the SinNod may have endangered souls.  Recall the interim report and its three paragraphs that were intended to compromise the Church's teachings on divorce and homosexuality.  If Archbishop Forte, Cardinal Kasper et al have their way, sins of the flesh will be validated by the Church.  Now recall what Our Lady of Fatima said to the three children about those who go to hell.  She told them that most who go to hell do so because of "sins of the flesh".  Of course she meant sexual sins.  These so-called church leaders, by their attempts to enable sins against marriage, are contributing to the damnation of souls, not their salvation.  Pray that they'll see and repent of their errors and that more prelates like Cardinals Burke, Muller et al will rise.

Let us oppose error, no matter its source.

Pope Francis Rebukes SOME Fees Collected In Churches

Two days ago, the Pope rebuked priests and parishes that levy fees for baptism, Mass intentions, etc.  He invoked the image of Jesus chasing the money changers out of the temple.  Does his displeasure include the renting out of church facilities for concerts?   There are two instances that come to my mind.

One incident may be fresh on many people's minds.  A good friend of mine, when she read the above, wondered how the Holy Father could have rented out the Sistine Chapel last month.  This happened last month and it cost a pretty penny to be allowed into the Sistine Chapel for that time slot.  Problem!  It's still a church, even for that moneyed time slot.  Does Canon Law permit the prohibition of valid church visiting without an entrance fee?  I would think not (canon lawyers, please educate me if I'm incorrect), and I don't think "charity" poses a valid reason to block the free use of a church for all Catholics.

Another incident happened seven years ago, at the Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington DC.  The administration of the Shrine allowed the Upper Church to be commandeered by the Interfaith Conference of Metropolitan Washington.  I wrote a bit about the blasphemies that occurred there.  What I neglected to mention is that I had to pay for admittance to the Upper Church that evening.  At no time should I, a Catholic, have to pay for admittance to a Catholic Church, let alone to have idolatry displayed before my eyes and ears.  Period.

Is The Vatican Shilling For Illegal Immigrants?

Last Thursday many of us watched the Messiah Most Miserable spit upon the United States Constitution as he attempted to usurp legislative powers to grant amnesty to illegal aliens in this country.  It is not my purpose to analyze the sludge that oozed from his mouth but to dwell on a concurrent event.

That event is the World Congress on the Pastoral Care of Migrants.  I believe it started November 19th.  Am I the only one who thinks it to be quite a coincidence that this meeting is concurrent with Obama's nonsense?

Let's take a gander at some of the Pope's remarks during this Congress; "When encountering migrants, it is important to adopt an integrated perspective, capable of valuing their potential rather than seeing them only as a problem to be confronted and resolved. The authentic right to development regards every person and all people, viewed integrally. This demands that all people be guaranteed a minimal level of participation in the life of the human community. How much more necessary must this be in the case of the Christian community, where no one is a stranger and, therefore, everyone is worthy of being welcomed and supported”  I agree - when the immigrants come here legally.  If not, they are disrespecting our laws.  If they come here illegally, they are the ones who make themselves strangers.  Again - notice that we see no distinction between law-abiding immigrants and those who flout our rule of law?  I find that lack of distinction, particularly among progressive Catholics, to be patently dishonest.

Earlier in the address he said that the Church "is a mother without limits and without borders".  Well, ok - but the Church is not a nation in the political and temporal sense.  I certainly hope that no one tries to draw a false analogy and try to adapt that principle to nations.

As I said, I don't think the timing of these two events "just happened".  Most likely the White House glommed onto this Congress since the latter would have required a long time to plan.  But I certainly expect to see more cooperation, uh, "coincidences" in the future.

Doctrine Is To Be Obeyed, Not Debated

In Mark 8, we read that Jesus elevated Peter to the role of His first vicar on earth.  However, we also read that after Jesus told them of His impending crucifixion. Peter objected.  Immediately Jesus rebuked him, saying "get behind me, Satan.  You do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men".  Notice that Jesus did not "discuss" and "dialogue" with Peter.  He taught Peter the truth in no uncertain terms, and that truth simply was not a topic of legitimate debate.  Objective truth never is subject to debate for truth stands on its own merits, regardless of the opinions of mere humans.  That same principle holds for the truths that are solemnly declared by the Church for they are the very teachings of Jesus.

Sadly our current pontiff shows signs of falling into Peter's error.  We know that those Catholics who are validly married in the Church and then divorce and take up with other people are living in the sin of adultery.  They cannot be admitted to Holy Communion, lest they burden their souls with additional mortal sins of sacrilege.  These are immutable truths, not subject to debate.  Yet as we read the interim report of last month's extraordinary synod, we see that these topics were indeed debated by prelates who should know better than that.  Pay attention to paragraphs 47-48, and 50-52.  Those who wrote these paragraphs undoubtedly toy with the heinous notion that these truths, taught by Jesus Christ Himself through the Magisterium, are subject to debate and even doubt and disobedience.  Towards the end of the synod, these paragraphs were voted out of the report by the synod fathers.  Incredibly and yes, inexcusably, the Holy Father ordered that these paragraphs remain in the final report, thus opening the topics once again to debate at next year's ordinary synod.  We also note with dismay that the Holy Father has retained Archbishop Bruno Forte as special secretary of the synod.  It was he who wrote paragraphs 50-52.

Already one can see the scandal wrought by this de facto wavering on the truths that have always been taught by the Church.  Many good priests and religious are now finding themselves in constant "damage control" mode, trying to repair the damage done by signals from the synod that are conflicted at best.  Read this account by Father Jerry Pokorski in the Catholic Thing.

In a valiant effort to prevent much damage at next year's synod, Cardinal Burke is urging all the faithful to write to the Pope to ask him to remove these topics from the agenda for the next synod.  Here is contact information.