An important theme for this blog is the scene in the New Testament where Jesus can be found FLOGGING the money-changers out of the temple. My header above depicts a priest FLOGGING the devils that distort the faith and assault believers. The faith that gives us consolation can and should also make us very uncomfortable. Both Divine Mercy and Divine Justice meet in Jesus. Priests are ministers of reconciliation, but never at the cost of truth. In or out of season, we must be courageous in preaching and living out the Gospel of Life. The title of my blog is a play on words, not Flogger Priest but Blogger Priest.
The March-April 2026 edition of DEFEND LIFE included an article by Dr. Elizabeth Rex wherein she plugged her book, THE ZYGOTE OF CHRIST. She argues that “prenatal adoption is a moral option.” However, this is neither the view of the late Pope John Paul II nor the official stance of the Catholic faith.
Dr. Rex argues that prenatal adoption of frozen embryos is a moral option. While elements of this sentiment were shared by my late teacher, Dr. William May, the intervention remains highly problematic. We know that the Church condemns both IVF and the freezing of embryos as contrary to human dignity and the sanctity of human life. The question might change with the development of artificial wombs, especially in cases of premature deliveries. However, we are not there yet. The practice of inseminating multiple eggs from women, implanting a couple and freezing the rest is a heinous practice. Many of the embryos will never survive freezing, and others are outrightly discarded. I can appreciate the pro-life sentiments and compassion that would lead women to adopt these embryos, but the practice still has the same ethical hurdles as posed to the immediate agents of the process. While advocates for embryonic adoption may be moved by mercy and a desire for pro-life rescue, it is still surrogate motherhood. Ethicists will argue that the intent is different, one wrongly to manufacture a child and the other rightly to save a child from death. However, can such motivations or intentions be so clearly defined? The surrogate mother of a rescued embryo still benefits from having a baby. Further, just as the freezing process is problematical, so is the thawing. Many will be lost in this process. Defenders will argue that this is the unborn child’s only chance, but the ends never justify the means.
This “radical act of hospitality” is so much more than a corporal work of mercy. Motherhood brings about a change in the woman’s body. God has deigned that women become mothers through the marital act (vaginal intercourse) between a loving husband and wife. Catholic moralists have long argued that a third party cannot be introduced into this intimate act of human procreation. Embryonic adoption takes this to the fourth quadrant of intervention: (1) the biological father, (2) the biological mother, (3) the medical technician, and (4) the surrogate.
Surrogacy or even just artificial insemination violates the marital bond. Indeed, it can be an act of adultery if the semen used is not from the spouse. One wrong is added upon another. (By contrast, it is argued that the donation of unfertilized eggs for placement in the womb might constitute appropriation. If so, then any subsequent fertilization through the marital act, not in the lab, would be permissible.) In any case, returning to the immediate subject, do we really want to violate marriages with surrogacy? Do we want a new class of unwed mothers? I have even heard it suggested that virginal pro-life nuns should donate their wombs to such rescues. Ridiculous! It would be a violation of their state of life. Motherhood is more than an activity. It touches a woman’s identity on a very basic level.
My position is simple, while we can agree that the creation of embryos outside the marital act and the nuptial covenant is sinful, I would disagree with the article’s positive stance, contending that any form of surrogacy is immoral, even prenatal adoption. The conjugal act is not merely another means of accomplishing what the technician does in the laboratory. It is the sole means fashioned by God. Every human being has the right to come into existence through an act of loving self-donation between spouses. Technology dehumanizes what should be sacred. The unborn child is reduced from a person with value to a commodity.
If the use of semen from a man other than one’s husband is adultery, then what about the product of such semen and another woman’s egg? Wombs are not intended for rental despite the current lucrative industry that prostitutes women. Similarly, they cannot be violated for charity purposes.
Dignitas Personae (2008) states: “The proposal that these embryos could be put at the disposal of infertile couples as a treatment for infertility is not ethically acceptable for the same reasons which make artificial heterologous procreation illicit as well as any form of surrogate motherhood; this practice would also lead to other problems of a medical, psychological and legal nature. / It has also been proposed, solely in order to allow human beings to be born who are otherwise condemned to destruction, that there could be a form of ‘prenatal adoption.’ This proposal, praiseworthy with regard to the intention of respecting and defending human life, presents however various problems not dissimilar to those mentioned above. / All things considered, it needs to be recognized that the thousands of abandoned embryos represent a situation of injustice which in fact cannot be resolved. Therefore John Paul II made an ‘appeal to the conscience of the world’s scientific authorities and in particular to doctors, that the production of human embryos be halted, taking into account that there seems to be no morally licit solution regarding the human destiny of the thousands and thousands of ‘frozen’ embryos which are and remain the subjects of essential rights and should therefore be protected by law as human persons’” (#18).
Ultimately the most we may be able to do for these frozen embryos is to allow them a natural death and thus avoid exploiting them in any immoral technological procedure. As believers, we might also memorialize them in prayer.
I had thought the man would remain a faithful son of the Church. I was wrong. Many still give him credit for exposing Cardinal McCarrick. But what happened after that? It is anyone’s guess. I have listed a few items taken from online. It hurts too much for me to add any personal reflections. It surprises me that the Vatican would elevate a man responsible for unauthorized leaks. Truth is important, but so is discretion. Many allegations were made against bishops and popes and others— so much of it a false narrative. He cut his ties to the living Church founded by Christ. Foolish Catholics clamor for his dissent against the Holy See and in placing right-wing politics over the Gospel. I find it all hurtful to my soul. I lament the damage that such men have brought to the Church, especially since I saw much hope for healing in his early intervention. But there was much going on behind the scenes that was terminal. There was a lack of respect— a lack of obedience— and a lack of charity. God save us!
Viganò spread numerous COVID-19 conspiracy theories in 2020, saying that populists and other conspiracy theorists wanted containment of the pandemic to establish a hate-filled technocratic tyranny and wipe out Christian civilization.
In June 2020 he wrote a letter to President Donald Trump, wherein he made “apocalyptic claims about a looming spiritual battle and a globalist conspiracy pursuing a one-world government.”
In a July 2020 interview, Viganò accused Pope Francis of following the “homosexual agenda of the New World Order.”
He has rejected the Second Vatican Council and the Mass of Paul VI. In June 2020, Viganò said that the Second Vatican Council ushered in a schism where a false church exists within the Catholic Church alongside what he considers to be the true Church. According to Viganò, the Council aimed to create the doctrinal premises to revolutionize the Catholic Church, making the Catholic Mass much more like Protestantism and trying to secularize Catholicism.
Viganò criticized the inter-religious activities of Pope John Paul II and especially of Pope Francis, seeking to link actions undertaken during their pontificates to what he perceived to be errors or ambiguities in the council.
He repudiated Dignitatis humanae (Vatican II’s Declaration on Religious Freedom).
He repudiated Nostra aetate (Vatican II’s Declaration on Non-Christian Religions).
In November 2020, he denounced the Mass of Paul VI as a “liturgical rite that seems to have been invented by Cranmer’s perverse mind.” By January 2022 he announced that he was exclusively celebrating the Tridentine Latin Mass.
Viganò described Pope Francis as a “false prophet” and a “servant of Satan.”
Viganò has been a vocal supporter of Russian President Vladimir Putin. In early March 2022, Viganò released a 10,000-word manifesto in which he pushed Russian disinformation. He adopted Putin’s justifications for attacking Ukraine, blamed neo-Nazi groups in Ukraine for the conflict, and asserted that the United States and Europe should “form an alliance” with Russia.
He announced plans in December 2023 to establish a “traditionalist” seminary outside of the Church’s jurisdiction.
In 2024, he was charged with schism and, after refusing to appear at a trial, was declared guilty and excommunicated. In April 26 it was announced that he had joined Trump in slamming Pope Leo XIV.
The problem with the president’s recent remarks is that he presents himself either as Christ or within the caricature of a religious warrior. Such borders on blasphemy and great care should be tendered as not to cross the line. Further, Trump largely uses the language of “ad hominem” attacks against persons, instead of focusing wholly upon the debate of ideas or policies. The Pope represents a universal Church, and while he is an American, no successor of Christ could ever subscribe to “America First” politics. He speaks for the children of the Church around the world and across all borders. The Vicar of Christ must advocate peace because he speaks for the Prince of Peace. He speaks for believers and for the needs of all in the family of man. The Church is sometimes a lone voice in crying out for the rights of the oppressed, the hurting, and the poor. If Jesus could forgive his murderers from the Cross— you and me— then his representative must also argue for mercy and compassion both here at home and on the world stage. The Church would not deny nations the right to defend themselves, but wholesale aggression and targeting the innocent or threatening genocide, all this is too much. Might does not make right. The ends does not justify the means. The Church judges such a stance as sinful.
The current tension emerges as a Christian nationalism is taking hold of the administration, even infecting Catholics. But make no mistake about it, from the Catholic perspective, Nationalism is morally wrong and sinful. Nationalism or “my country right or wrong” is an untenable moral stance and is inherently evil. It should not be confused with the virtue of Patriotism (love of one’s homeland) wherein we “support our country when she is right and correct her when she is wrong.”
Be careful about hero worship. We belong to the LORD. Americans of any inclination can argue politics and for or against military action, that is one’s own business and right of a lay person and citizen; but the teaching Church also has a right or duty to take sides in the great moral issues of our day. It is not about Trump. Despite what he thinks, the world does not revolve around him. It is about basic human dignity and the rights of all people to live in peace with others without intimidation and fear. We should not undermine the moral leadership of our shepherds, especially the one Christ made the ROCK of his Church and to whom he gave the keys to the Kingdom. Today, that is Pope Leo XIV. As true believers, we do not pray for blood, but for mercy and peace. Hate compromises the two-fold commandment of Christ.
The article from Frank Pavone linked below is correct that the Church often espouses moral principles that need to be applied by others. Thus, a secular leader like our president might be compelled to take military action against a clear and present danger from another nation. Such was the argument made by President Bush to invade Iraq, arguing that we had to take out weapons of mass destruction. Pope John Paul II had just previously recently received a delegation from Iraq and argued for peace. But it was admitted that the application of the moral principles rested with the secular leaders who were privy to all the pertinent information. That is where the tension between the Vatican and the White House should have remained over Iran. However, Trump took Pope Leo XIV’s pleas for peace as a personal attack against him and his judgment. Thus, he criticized the Pope as “weak on crime,” “terrible for foreign policy,” and admitted that he was “not a big fan” of the Pope. He falsely accused the Pope of thinking that it was “okay for Iran to have a nuclear weapon.” Trump even took credit for the papal election, saying on Truth Social, “If I wasn’t in the White House, Leo wouldn’t be in the Vatican.” Does he really believe this? Would he expect the Pope to become his subservient lackey?
Pope Leo responded that he has “no fear of the Trump administration” and that he would continue to speak out against war and for the Gospel. The Holy Father labeled Trump’s threat to destroy the “whole civilization” of Iran as “truly unacceptable” and as a violation of international law.
Frank Pavone of PRIESTS FOR LIFE has weighed in and there is no denying the grudge he holds against the papacy for approving his removal from the active priesthood. Remember, he was rightly censured for disobedience first to one bishop and then to another, violating his sacred promise. I will never forget his offensive 2016 video where he placed an aborted fetus on a table, purportedly an altar, and offered a rant that mixed the pro-life cause with partisan politics. Despite his intent, such an act devalued a human life as a prop for his campaign and “apparently” desecrated the altar. This act that the bishop judged as sacrilege was also a strike against his practical judgment. Like Trump, today he has no standing in the Church to judge the Pope. There are other reasons that precipitated his laicization, but they are not public and I would refrain from saying anything about them as the man needs to continue in rebuilding his life.
I would neither look to a lapsed Presbyterian president nor to a disgraced Catholic priest for a rebuttal of the Pope’s moral teachings. Remember, that Pavone has skin in the game as an outspoken supporter of Trump and thus is not a neutral voice in this controversy. He chose a long time ago to place partisan politics over his vocation as a diocesan priest. Yes, Pavone’s initial advocacy for Trump was because of the president’s strong “pro-life” stand but now the president has flipped and has made himself the great champion for IVF. Between 1.6 to 1.9 million IVF embryos are created annually in the U.S. Half die in the process. Multiple embryos per patient (often 7–8) are created, some are frozen and about 100,000 babies are allowed to be born annually. The rest are frozen or discarded. Trump fails to understand that this is morally the same as abortion. Millions of innocent human lives are stolen because people are reduced to commodities!
Pavone is correct that immigrants should come in legally and that our laws should be enforced. The Church always urges following just laws. However, what he dismisses is the need for compassion about the desperation of many who have known persecution and dire poverty. Instead of rushing to deport all that are here, could we do a better job of helping good people and struggling families to enculturate and to become valued members of American society? Instead, of saying this, Pavone sided with the harsh tactics of ICE against the Pope and bishops, invoking a partisan allegation toward “the DNC-loyal Cardinals on 60 Minutes.” It is wrong to insinuate that any bishop or a Pope, liberal not, is a puppet to one of our reigning political parties. The Gospel is not the exclusive property of either!
Pavone writes: “When the Pope or bishops express an opinion on a prudential judgment made by public officials elected precisely to make those decisions, anyone is free to disagree with that opinion, and such disagreement is fully consistent both with respect for the Church and with being a faithful Catholic.” Did he see the A.I. of Trump as Jesus Christ? Does he believe it is okay to threaten a whole People with extermination? Pete Hegseth, our Secretary for War, prayed to God the following: “Break the teeth of the ungodly. Pour out your wrath upon those who plot vain things. . . and grant overwhelming violence of action against those who deserve no mercy.” While certain Protestants might approve of a prayer reflecting an Old Testament bloodlust, it clashes with the new dispensation. Pope Leo quoted the great prophet of the promised messiah, “Even though you make many prayers, I will not listen: your hands are full of blood” (Isaiah 1:15). While ours is a God of justice and mercy, we should be wary of invoking his vengeance.
Yes, there can be disputes about prudential decisions. But voices other than the Pope are urging us to be wary about committing war crimes. Pavone denies that Trump and his administration would target innocent people for destruction.
Pavone accuses the Pope of ambiguity when he says we should not wage war. Pavone suggests we are coming to the defense of the innocent. Really? Regime change was looking ever more likely in Iran until we intervened. Now even those who were looking favorably to the West are siding with the defenders of Iran.
Strike Number 1 — While Pope Leo XIV called for the safeguarding of human rights and the caring for the needs of the poor in Venezuela, he expressed “deep concern” about the abduction of Nicolás Maduro by U. S. military forces. The Holy Father urged respect for Venezuelan sovereignty, the rule of law, and a peaceful resolution. This criticism upset Trump.
Strike Number 2 — Pope Leo XIV was saddened and mourned further bloodshed after civilians and parishioners were killed from an Israeli military strike upon the Holy Family Catholic Church compound in Gaza. Like his predecessor, the Pope renewed his plea for a ceasefire, the release of hostages, and humanitarian aid. The Gaza is rubble. 75,000 plus people have died. 171,000 people were injured. 2% of Gaza’s child population has been killed, including some 1,009 babies under one year old. 42,000 children have been injured, with over 21,000 suffering permanent disabilities. Thousands are orphans from military action. All this is the response to 250 abductions and the killing of 1,200 Israelis. Is this a proportionate response? Really? Meanwhile, Trump has maintained a policy of strong support for Israel. His administration has provided approximately $12 billion in military sales since taking office and $4 billion in emergency military assistance. We are complicit, there is more blood on our hands. It is starting to look like Zionism and securing Israel’s goals is the whole of American foreign policy. But everyone is afraid that such spoken sentiments would earn charges of antisemitism. In any case, they would upset Trump.
Strike Number 3 — Pope Leo XIV challenged the ongoing U.S.-Israeli military operation in Iran. In the Truth Social post, Trump threatened Iran over the strategic waterway, writing: “Tuesday will be Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day, all wrapped up in one, in Iran,” and adding, “Open the F***in’ Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell – JUST WATCH!” Trump gave the ultimatum that either the Strait of Hormuz would open, or else, “A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again.” He said that “. . . we will conclude our lovely ‘stay’ in Iran by blowing up and completely obliterating all of their Electric Generating Plants, Oil Wells and Kharg Island. . .” As of early April 2026, reports indicate that maybe 5,000 plus people have been killed in Iran since the conflict began. Back in Feb. 28, 2026, a Tomahawk missile strike hit the Shajareh Tayyebeh girls’ elementary school in Minab, Iran, on the first day of a joint U.S.-Israeli military operation. At least 168 to 175 people were killed, with reports stating that over 100 to 110 of the victims were schoolchildren. But these are not enough, threats of even more death and destruction are held over heads.
Amnesty International reported: “This harrowing attack on a school, with classrooms full of children, is a sickening illustration of the catastrophic and entirely predictable price civilians are paying during this armed conflict. Schools must be places of safety and learning for children. Instead, this school in Minab became a site of mass killing. The US authorities could, and should, have known it was a school building. Targeting a protected civilian object, such as a school, is strictly prohibited under international humanitarian law,” said Erika Guevara-Rosas, Amnesty International’s Senior Director of Research, Advocacy, Policy and Campaigns.
What has the Pope said? “There are certainly issues of international law here, but even more so a moral issue for the good of the whole, entire population. I would like to invite everyone to truly think in their hearts about the many innocent people, so many children, so many elderly, completely innocent, who would also become victims of this escalation of a war that began from the very first days.”
Pavone concludes by sharing his animus against the bishops and questions their pro-life convictions. He implies that they are hypocrites who vote for pro-abortion Democrats. I guess he does not see the issue of millions of illegals as also being a matter about human dignity and the sanctity of life. As far as he is concerned, the thousands of war dead do not seem to matter either. While I sympathize with his frustration regarding abortion, he fails to see how his rationalizations also make him seem hypocritical, which, if one reflects upon it honestly, is what brought his priesthood to an end.
Slaves kneel in prayer before an idol of the pagan war god in Spartan armor.
As a contract priest to the Coast Guard for thirteen years and as a chaplain to the Knights of Columbus for over thirty, I can attest that there is sometimes a confusion in the minds of believers between the virtue of patriotism and the sin of nationalism. True patriots support their country when she is right and correct her when she is wrong. But nationalism is always unhinged and argues instead, “My country, right or wrong!” The distinction often shows itself in language. We are “Catholics in America,” part of a worldwide family that crosses borders. This aids us in appreciating the brotherhood of man. A spirit of nationalism is intimated in the expression, “American Catholics,” as if there is a national church distinct from international believers and even separate from Rome. Given that the current Pope is also an American, there are critics, especially in politics, who are perturbed that he does not subscribe to “America First” in his thinking and preaching. Despite the jargon of the current populism, Americans may be blessed by God, but they are not morally superior to others. The United States had Catholics involved with its beginnings, but in large part was the product of English values and a Protestant mindset. The Bible was given place of honor, but the individual was placed over it, not the Church. Individualism was prized. A desire for separation from the home country and freedom resulted in a revolutionary war. The conflict over the rights of states versus the federal government, along with making people of dark skin into commodities and not full persons, resulted in still another conflict, the civil war. Catholics found themselves mixed up with all this as well, and yes, sometimes infected with a Protestant over a Catholic perspective about things. When she could, the universal Church looked the other way; but there were levels of dissent that could not be excused. We seem to have forgotten that many Catholics came to this country as unwanted and reviled immigrants. Catholic churchmen like Bishop Hughes of New York opposed the public schools because he saw them as efforts to proselytize Catholics. Public schools in the United States, particularly in the 19th and early 20th centuries, frequently employed the King James Version (KJV) Bible as the primary text for reading instruction and moral education. Catholicism was distrusted. Bigots contended that so-called “papists” were conspiring to take over the nation for the Pope. It was a lie of course, but disinformation existed long before there was an internet.
It may be that some of our early worries were well founded because increasing numbers of Catholics sound like these Protestants of old in how they rebuke the Pope and dismiss the bishops of the Church. Indeed, I am shocked that some who currently tout themselves as solid Catholics have compromised their faith by embracing the fundamentalist mindset given place of honor in the Trump Administration. This sect views the state of Israel as the fruit of prophecy, thus negating any rights of Palestinians to their homeland. The Evangelical Protestant perspective in vogue here refashions Christianity into a BOOK religion. This is idolatry because we encounter Christ not in the dead words on a page but in the living Word proclaimed. There is nothing of the Church as “the great mystery” because the sacraments are rejected as sources for grace. They focus upon a rigid Old Testament morality as a model for today. The defense of Israel thus becomes paramount. They are quick to excuse atrocities in Gaza and the systematic destruction of Iran.
A wimpish Congress has largely surrendered its role in governance to executive orders, first in the Biden administration and now with Trump. Subordinates that disagree with the supreme leader or who prove ineffective in fulfilling autocratic demands are quickly dismissed or replaced. Here I am thinking of figures like Pam Bondi, General Randy George, and Carrie Prejean Boller. Boller was fired for stating, “I am a Catholic, and Catholics don’t embrace Zionism.” What she says about the faith is true as the New Israel or Kingdom is not the middle eastern political state, but the universal or world-wide Catholic Church. But as I said, the fundamentalist Protestant has no such notion for the Church as essential for salvation. Boller was roundly condemned as antisemitic and eliminated. Those who speak for our pretentious potentate must pander to incur his favor, either that or to fall upon their swords. Note that everything they say, from news briefings to prayer services, begin with heaping blame upon his predecessor and other enemies and next extolling praise and thanks upon him for his accomplishments. They even make up new awards to pamper his enlarged ego. Everything must be “bigger,” “greater,” and “like nothing before.” It is quite literally, too much.
Catholics should rightly be hesitant to embrace the archaic Protestant ethos which traditionally ruled this nation despite the constitutional separation of church and state. Make no mistake about it, these new Protestants like those of old distrust Catholics. (Note that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth held a Protestant-only Good Friday service at the Pentagon in-house chapel, specifying that there would be no Catholic services (like stations or veneration of the cross). While the constitution forbids the establishment of a national religion, this restraint is being severely strained, and I would not be surprised if it is challenged. What perplexes me is how these fundamentalists will carve a place for Jews in this proposed Christian state given their political mating with diehard Jewish defenders of Israel? A common hate or indifference for the Moslem or Palestinian (which includes Catholics and other Christians) might wear thin.
The Pope has been the target of “correction” from Karoline Leavitt (a Catholic), Pete Hegseth (a Christian nationalist), and Franklin Graham (a Baptist evangelist). Graham, true to form, cites David in the Old Testament, in defense of what the Pope rejects as prayers for blood. The Pope is concerned that anyone would adopt a diplomacy based upon the threat of military intervention. He is not of the mind that President Donald Trump is specially chosen or elected by God as a new David or even as a son of David, a title that belongs to Jesus Christ. The Holy Father’s position was the whole point of our opposition against Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. Ironically, Trump gained office by opposing the military malfeasance of the Democrats. Catholics and others also found appealing his defense of religious liberty. Almost the entire pro-life movement applauded his stance against abortion. Many worried about rising crime rates and the danger of open borders. But throughout, the bishops warned us about the mistreatment of immigrants. Many of us wanted justice, but not devoid of compassion and charity. Despite promises that we would not police the planet, the president has ordered the invasion of Venezuela and the kidnapping of a head of state, collaborated over the destruction of Gaza, bombed Iran and killed its leadership, and now threatens Cuba with demands for regime change. Like the man or not, this administration is on the warpath. Islamic extremists pursue Jihad or holy war. Now evangelicals invoke God in favor of the president’s aggressive policies. Indeed, even worse, Paula White speaks of God and then praises Trump as if he is another Jesus Christ. Enough is enough!
The Pope may be an American, but he is also “Peter” and he governs a people for Christ the world over. The foot-washing on Thursday reminded us that he is “the servant of the servants of God.” He represents the Prince of Peace where “an eye for an eye” was replaced by the Lord who forgives his murderers. Why are we surprised that Pope Leo XIV preaches peace? Pope John Paul II did the same when we invaded Iraq.
Catholic morality views biblical laws through the prism of tradition, natural law, and the guidance of the Magisterium. We are not obliged to follow obsolete Levitical ceremonial or civil laws. We also speak about the theory of just war and proportional force. Military action might sometimes be required, but only in desperation and when diplomacy has failed. The American system is based upon checks and balances that seem to be currently bypassed for political expediency. This is dangerous. How long and far should such go on? Americans have been known, at least in our popular mythology, as on the side of “might for right,” not that of “might makes right.” There is an important difference. Gaza has suffered 169,000 injured (many requiring amputations) and 90,000+ dead (of which 20,000 were children). The current action in Iran has resulted in the deaths of 3,531 people, of which 1,607 were civilians and 244 were children. When politicians and aberrational Protestant clergy thank God for military victories and the death of enemies, why is the Pope such a lone voice in the wilderness shouting, no! Catholics who realize their faith with charity and who pray for the dead should cry out as well. Indeed, true believers among Catholics, Protestants, Jews and others need to speak with one voice for PEACE.
As one who regularly seeks to discern spirits, there was something intensely unsettling about a recent prayer service in Washington orchestrated by Paula White. Might there be something demonic taking place that threatens to spill over to the rest of the country and to infect our churches? Silence as much as wrongful praise might compromise us. I am no YES man, even to lawful authority. While I feel that obedience is the most crucial and most difficult promise a priest makes, my personality or character cringes against blind obedience. It is not in my makeup to join the lines of doting sycophants to any man, no matter how charismatic or popular. Over the years I have periodically gotten into trouble for speaking my mind and failing to toe the line. The most painful incident was when I argued with Cardinal McCarrick over his silence or even praising certain politicians opposed to the sanctity of life. He refused to change about this, saying that we might need them on other issues. I was later disciplined for being outspoken. It wounds me still because I love the Church. We belong to Christ, even when men in the Church fail and disappoint us. We belong to Christ and should not suffer bondage to any party or mere mortal. Too many fail to understand the lesson of the coin, as there can be no divided loyalty. Caesar may have his likeness on a coin, but Christ’s likeness alone must be inscribed upon human hearts. Yes, even Caesar belongs to God. There is no comparison. We must be careful of idolatry in all its devious forms.
U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth prayed at a recent Christian worship service for the military:
“Let every round find its mark against the enemies of righteousness and our great nation. Give them wisdom in every decision, endurance for the trial ahead, unbreakable unity, and overwhelming violence of action against those who deserve no mercy.”
This might make a good pagan prayer to the false god Ares or Mars, but it is no prayer to the true God revealed in Jesus Christ. The Holy Father is under attack for his corrective response:
“God rejects the prayers of warmongers. . . This is our God: Jesus, king of peace, who rejects war, whom no one can use to justify war. He does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war, but rejects them. ‘Even though you make many prayers, I will not listen: your hands are full of blood’ (Isaiah 1:15).”
Tradition teaches that Pilate constantly washed his hands, particularly after the death of Christ. He lamented, will I ever get my hands clean? That should again be the question, today.
This is the home of the AWALT PAPERS, the posting of various pieces of wisdom salvaged from the writings, teachings and sermons of the late Msgr. William J. Awalt.
Blogger Priest 