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

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

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

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

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

Bishop Jugis' Non-Statement Regarding Sister Jane Dominic Laurel

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

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

Intolerance Of God-Defying Progressives

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

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

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

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

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

Sister Jane Dominic Laurel - Another Joan Of Arc

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proper Attire For Sunday Mass

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lame Excuses For Episcopal Cowardice

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amnesty-Hawking Bishops Exploit Holy Mass

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

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

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

From The "Papal Head Scratcher" Department

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

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

Some Hierarchial Good News

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

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

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