Politics | Blogger Priest

The Scandal of Father Bob Pierson

Posted on August 24, 2012 by Father Joe

STEPHEN:

Father Joe, what is your take on Father Bob Pierson?

FATHER JOE:

I had heard of him but had not followed the recent business about his ten minute statement that went viral attacking the initiative supported by the U.S. bishops in opposition to so-called same-sex marriages.

What the priest fails to appreciate is that conscience must be properly informed. Freedom of conscience is not relative moral license. Otherwise, the cause of conscience could be rallied not only for homosexuality but also for other evils like polygamy, bestiality and pederasty. Rather, true liberty comes with an orientation to that which is true and good. Obedience to divine positive law (as revealed in the Church through Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition) and natural law (as ascertained through the right use of reason to the objective order) makes us truly free. The commission of sin and immoral acts brings not freedom but spiritual bondage.

The priest in the video takes statements from the Church and churchmen out of context, much as a fundamentalist minister might from the Bible to support his claims. Cardinal Ratzinger, i.e. the Pope, has certainly always taught about the obligation in following conscience; however, he has likewise insisted that homosexuality is a serious sexual disorientation and that the commission of genital acts associated with it are intrinsically immoral.

Notice that he quotes Cardinal Hume who wrote, “Love between two persons, whether of the same sex or of a different sex, is to be treasured and respected.” His quote came in the context of a larger statement in the UK on the homosexual question. While it is certainly permissible to exhibit fraternal and platonic love, as in most friendships, it would be wrong to equate these words with sexual activity and or anal or oral sex. This is another instance where the priest’s remarks are deliberately deceptive. He is well educated and knows what he is doing. This makes him all the more culpable.

Father Pierson is selective in his quotes from the universal catechism. Note that he does not read from CCC #1601: “The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament.”

Although he attempts to bracket off sacramental marriage in the Church from civilly recognized marriages, such is only a shallow ploy to avoid personal censure and to elicit support from normally orthodox Catholics. The way that society views marriage informs and spills over into how the faithful understand the sacrament of marriage. Indeed, he, himself, is a staff member in an organization where a Protestant minister and an ex-Catholic bless same-sex unions. Understood in this light, Father Pierson is not only promoting immorality but is taking a heretical position toward one of the seven sacraments of the Church.

The speaker acknowledges that Pope Benedict XVI has declared that homosexuals should not be accepted as candidates for the priesthood. Father Pierson has “come out” that he is a homosexual who opposes Church teaching. We can only hope that he has kept his promise of celibacy. Regardless, he now ridicules the Holy Father and takes a scandalous position against the U.S. bishops and the Marriage Matters campaign. I should add, however, that marriage was threatened long before this issue of so-called same-sex marriage. Marriage was imperiled by growing rates of promiscuity, cohabitation, contraception, adultery, divorce (especially the no-fault variety), and remarriage outside the Church.

Father Pierson had resigned from his post as director of campus ministry after the Vatican officially barred men with “deep-seated homosexual tendencies” from ordination, and because of associated issues in the Church’s faith and moral teaching. “Because I can no longer honestly represent, explain and defend the Church’s teaching on homosexuality, I feel I must resign,” he said. It was also rumored that he was forced out, as he should have been, to avoid further intervention from higher-ups.

His local bishop, Archbishop John Nienstedt of St. Paul and Minneapolis has strenuously promoted the amendment in opposition to so-called same-sex marriage. He required parishioners in the archdiocese to recite A Prayer for Marriage as part of the General Intercessions at Masses. The U.S. bishops have been very clear in their opposition. Marriage is only genuine if it is between a MAN and a WOMAN.

Back in 1986, Cardinal Ratzinger, writing for the Vatican, made a statement for correction and support of a letter promulgated by the American bishops. Father Pierson selectively quoted him, but strangely and dishonestly, not this statement which speaks to the question at hand.

Follow this link for the statement:

Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons

ON THE PASTORAL CARE OF HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS

“Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder…. It is only in the marital relationship that the use of the sexual faculty can be morally good. A person engaging in homosexual behavior therefore acts immorally.”

“To choose someone of the same sex for one’s sexual activity is to annul the rich symbolism and meaning, not to mention the goals, of the Creator’s sexual design. Homosexual activity is not a complementary union, able to transmit life; and so it thwarts the call to a life of that form of self-giving which the Gospel says is the essence of Christian living. This does not mean that homosexual persons are not often generous and giving of themselves; but when they engage in homosexual activity they confirm within themselves a disordered sexual inclination which is essentially self-indulgent….”

“It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church’s pastors wherever it occurs. It reveals a kind of disregard for others which endangers the most fundamental principles of a healthy society. The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in word, in action and in law.”

“But the proper reaction to crimes committed against homosexual persons should not be to claim that the homosexual condition is not disordered. When such a claim is made and when homosexual activity is consequently condoned, or when civil legislation is introduced to protect behavior to which no one has any conceivable right, neither the Church nor society at large should be surprised when other distorted notions and practices gain ground, and irrational and violent reactions increase.”

Father Bob Pierson, O.S.B. should be disciplined by his Benedictine order. He has caused scandal and given rise to public dissent from the Church. His faculties to function as a priest should be revoked or curtailed. As a man under ecclesial obedience, he should either publicly recant his dissent or face immediate dismissal. A priest who recommends mortal sin is no longer aligned with Christ. Even if he should be demented or ignorant, he is now on the side of the evil one.

STEPHEN:

Father Joe, I agree with everything you said, albeit except for maybe one small clarification. You write, “Understood in this light, Father Pierson is not only promoting immorality but is taking a heretical position toward one of the seven sacraments of the Church.” Father Bob would disagree as he was careful to differentiate between civil marriages, which are all “outside the Church” and the Church does not recognize anyway and “sacramental” marriages within the Church. Thus, Father Bob would argue that his voting NO on banning same sex “marriage” has nothing to do with Church teaching on sacramental marriage.

I completely agree this priest should be disciplined severely. But will he be? Almost certainly not, and this is the primary reason for our current crisis. Dietrich Von Hildebrand called it the “Lethargy of the Guardians” as far back as the 70’s. We have suffered under the complete unwillingness of ecclesiastical authority since Vatican II to discipline clerics and bishops for egregious sins against doctrine and the faith. What makes it worse is that the same ecclesiastical authority DOES discipline and bring the hammer down for breaking procedural rules/canon laws that have nothing to do with heresy or doctrine. This sets up a practice which lessens the credibility of the bishops who selectively punish lesser offenses while allowing the most egregious publicly scandalous statements from dissenting priests to go unpunished.

I would dare say it is a sin for this man’s bishop or superior not to discipline him in some way, including at minimum, silencing him on this issue to at least minimize further scandal. Will it happen? I’m willing to bet you a shiny nickel it will not. And it is a slap in the face to you and other good priests who would be punished in a second if you did something like deny Holy Communion to a practicing Lesbian Buddhist who introduced you to her “lover” in the sacristy before Mass.

FATHER JOE:

The priest has a track record beyond the video. (I have not directly linked the video, only a strong critique. Those who want to see it can Google the liberal propaganda.)

He recognizes same-sex marriages as valid, both civilly and in the eyes of God. What confuses the issue is that he denies that there has to be concurrence or approbation from the “institutional” Church. I do not have proof, but like some of his Episcopalian liberals, he would love to bless (and maybe has) these unions. He is a regular speaker at gay-lesbian conventions. Remember, too, that priests are only allowed to witness marriages in the U.S. that are also civilly recognized. We function as both civil magistrates and as ministers of the Church. This is not the case in many countries where Catholic couples are required to endure two ceremonies. Such only happens in the U.S. when there is a convalidation.

I should add, that the Church generally recognizes civil marriages between spouses who are not Catholic. If they are legitimately baptized, then there may be a sacramental character as well. Indeed, if there is a divorce and a desire to marry a Catholic, they would have to pursue a formal case annulment with no guarantees of success. Now we will further have to clarify that we do not recognize adulterous marriages or feigned same-sex marriages. I suspect, given the pressure from the Obama administration, that clergy will eventually have to forfeit their civil authority over marriages in order to distinguish the sacramental covenant from the civil legal contract. Once the definition of marriage diverges, we cannot be party to something in which we do not believe. This may already be happening in light of no fault divorce. I would also not be surprised if the government should seek to compel clergy to witness same-sex marriages. The rights of the Church are very much threatened. I pray that our bishops and priests will have the courage to face fines and imprisonment. The latter is quite possible, if the Church’s stand against homosexuality should be judged as a violation of civil rights laws and as hate-speech.

Further, the priest has been involved in the Catholic gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, transsexual community. He knows full well the canonical restraints upon Catholics and does not care. All this is to say that the video is deceptive propaganda. He is a liar. Even when he throws out crumbs of feigned respect to Church discipline, they are lies. If you are familiar with his work in Collegeville, then you would know that he also rejects the “proles” (open to human generation) element that is essential to the covenant of marriage. He literally believes that anal intercourse consummates the bond. It is in light of all this that I said that he is a heretic regarding the sacrament of marriage.

In regards to disciplinary measures, they may actually be in the works. Had he been a secular or diocesan priest matters might have been easier. The Benedictines tend to protect their own and have a rather progressive track record in his particular community. One of them (Fr. Anthony Ruff, OSB) recently attacked the corrected translation of the Mass at the national Call to Action convention. They also honored the Lesbian Buddhist-Catholic you mentioned and the pro-abortion Catholic Maryland governor was also in attendance. There are a lot of trouble-makers to go around these days.

Orthodox and traditional churchmen have a higher capacity for suffering in that they love the Church and seek to be obedient while the other side really does not care; liberal breakaway groups, as with Archbishop Milingo and Washington’s own Father George Stallings, were also censured and even faced excommunication. In this sense, there is some parallel. I suspect that many in the Church find the contemporary situation almost overwhelming given the pervasive dissent. During this silent and not so silent schism, there is also the worry that the wrong action might lead the ignorant or weak of faith out of the Church. You are right, not all shepherds are to be trusted. But we must also be careful NOT to spread calumny and to hurt good men who are doing their best.

Pope Benedict XVI seems to be hoping that attrition and orthodox replacements among the clergy might hold the answer. My worry is that he, himself, is not a young man. I have found an almost uncharitable delight in how Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone, the new Ordinary for San Francisco is making the gay establishment squirm and fret. They were pouting the other day because he outlawed drag queens at fundraisers! Really?

Again, do not be fooled. He might say that “…for committed, same-sex couples is not the Sacrament of Matrimony,” but he really does see it as analogous. Remember, sexual activity outside of marriage is a mortal sin. There is nothing equivalent to it. As a priest he knows this. He is talking out of both sides of his mouth. The Bishops are right on this one. So-called same-sex marriages are indeed a threat to the genuine covenant of marriage, natural or sacramental. There is no loop-hole or escape clause that would allow Catholics to support institutional sodomy.

STEPHEN:

Thanks for the background. In this video he seems to take the stance of…”who cares what the state of MN deems as ‘marriage’ since the Church only recognizes sacramental marriages anyway?” He argues the flip side of religious freedom by stating that the Church should not dictate to the state how it defines “marriage” as civil and Church marriages are separate entities and (in his mind) serve different purposes.

FATHER JOE:

The secular sphere in the public forum would not appreciate marriage as a sacrament. Rather, the point of intersection between the Church and state is the traditional view of marriage as a “natural bond.” The growing division between the Church’s view of marriage, as well as that of natural law, is the reason why someone like Bai Macfarlane has campaigned heavily for traditional marriage and against no fault divorce. Some of her supporters would claim that the conflict or opposition between the civil and ecclesial view of marriage has reached a breaking point, in both the heterosexual orientation and its permanence. They argue that clergy should opt out entirely from working within the system. They suggest that the priest who witnesses any marriage for the state has corrupted (by association) the Catholic understanding. This argument becomes even more defensible if society should formally equate same-sex unions with heterosexual marriages. While priests will not officiate at the feigned marriages of homosexuals and lesbians; will the truth be compromised by our continuing partnership with government in witnessing marriages and signing civil licenses? But what is the alternative? Priests in Europe and Asia often find that in the dual ceremony-system, couples tend to cohabitate if there is any extended duration between the vows before a judge and those before a priest.

The priest errs seriously, by his own admission, for failing to fault the homosexual lifestyle as sinful. Indeed, he seems to praise and to encourage the commission of evil. People of the same gender can be friends but they cannot be spouses. A legal fiction will not make it so.

Filed under: Anti-Catholicism, Apologetics, Bishops, Catholic, Celibacy, Church, Conscience, Discipleship, Faith, Family, Homosexuality, Magisterium, Marriage, Morality, News, Politics, Priests, Sacraments, Sexuality, Sin, Social Justice | 8 Comments »

Fake Priests for Show in Japan

Posted on May 3, 2012 by Father Joe

I find this story somewhat difficult to figure out. Christian-style weddings are all the vogue in Japan and Westerners are making lots of money pretending to be priests at these services.

Mark Kelly from the UK explained,

“I was living in Sapporo, studying Japanese, and I needed the money. It’s far better paid than teaching in a language school. Being a fake priest is big business in Japan – I’ve done a TV commercial for one company. In Sapporo, there are five agencies employing about 20 fake priests. In a city like Tokyo, there must be hundreds.”

Read more in the article at BBC News:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6067002.stm

Since the weddings have no legal force, the couples must also go to civil magistrates. It is truly bizarre because while only about 1% of the Japanese are Christian, 90% of weddings are performed in a Christian way. I am not talking about the content of the prayers, but rather the borrowed ritual and festivities. Prayers are often perloined from many sources. The old Shinto chapels are gathering dust and Christian ones are doing a booming business!

Of course, it is all about externals. These wedding chapels have flowing fountains, plastic cherub angels, flowers and special lighting. They are popping up everywhere, even in shopping malls.

The article says that the Japanese priests are not happy, but the problem is that there are not enough priests to satisfy the demand. The article and the Japanese are both missing the point.

The real priests in Japan have every right to be angry. It is admitted that many people do not know that fake priests are performing the ceremonies. Impostering a cleric is illegal in many nations and such should be the case in the Orient, too.

Is no one using this fascination with Christian marriage ceremonials for evangelistic and catechetical purposes? It is a tragedy that people are attracted to the externals and yet unable to appreciate the meat-and-potatoes of what Christian faith and the sacraments are about.

Does not the presence of fake priests pose a real danger that a few actual believers might get conned by them and think they are married when really they are not?

Real Catholic priests are generally forbidden to marry couples where neither is a member of the Church. Thus, the dilemma is more than a priest shortage.

Are there any ex-priests or laicized priests among these so-called fake priests? It all reminds me of the local problem with Rent-a-Priests. There are no checks on their abuses. If you pay, they will pray.

This story might seem like only a harmless oddity, but I would disagree. A fake priest and a ceremony for show, empty of substantial meaning or faith constitutes a deceit or fraud. Marriage implies promises being made where honesty and truth are paramount. A counterfeit priest and service undermines the truth with lies.

Filed under: Catholic, Faith, Marriage, News, Politics, Priests, Sacraments | 11 Comments »

Is the HHS Compromise Really a Compromise?

Posted on February 12, 2012 by Father Joe

CLICK HERE to read Cardinal Wuerl’s response to compromise.

CLICK HERE to read Cardinal Dolan’s letter to fellow bishops.

Who is the architect of this fiasco with the HHS?

The buck stops with the President and the head of the department, which he appointed: Kathleen Sebelius. What is her background as a “Catholic”?

When she was governor, Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City, Kansas told her that she “should stop receiving Communion until she publicly repudiates her support of abortion.” More recently, Archbishop Raymond F. Burke, former archbishop of St. Louis but now prefect for the Apostolic Signatura, the Vatican’s highest court, ruled that Mrs. Sebelius should not approach the altar for Communion in the United States. Despite pastoral admonition, she obstinately persists in serious sin and now she would entice the bishops and the rest of the Church to join her.

In 2008, Sebelius vetoed House Substitute for Senate Bill 389, titled the Comprehensive Abortion Reform Act by its sponsors. Proponents of the bill claimed the legislation would strengthen late-term abortion laws and prevent “coerced abortions” particularly with respect to minors.

She has been given high ratings and endorsement from Planned Parenthood, the biggest abortion provider around. It has made a financial “killing” in destroying unborn children under the banner of women’s rights.

The administration was SHOCKED into making a compromise… not because religious liberty was esteemed as an important value in itself.

The Obama administration hopes that the U.S. bishops will accept its proposed compromise (February 10, 2012). However, while we are still awaiting word from our shepherds, I still have serious reservations. The administration was shocked that even liberal Catholic voices were joining the chorus in deploring the initial policy as encroachment upon religious liberty. It was certain that there would be no movement of the Obama Whitehouse away from the giving women free access to contraception. But as Republicans picked up on the issue, election strategists urged an immediate counter-strategy. The offer of a year of grace was insufficient. Is this the best for which we can hope? Might this merely be a ploy to defuse the situation while really changing very little? Catholic parishes, schools, charities, and hospitals should not be forced to provide birth control to employees since such would violate Catholic teaching against artificial contraception. That is the bottom line!

Even if the institution is protected; what about the rights of individual believers? What about individuals and organizations that are not part of the Church administration but are Catholic in values? EWTN, for instance, is a lay organization with a lay board.

The sentiments of Catholics and other pro-life Christians would not be respected by this change. The Church is more than the institution but is found in her membership. Their personal religious rights and conscience would not be respected. I know a doctor who runs her own practice and refuses to prescribe birth control. Now, she would still be forced to pay for it as a health benefit for employees! That is wrong and the Church needs to be a voice for people like her. Similarly, I know a man who refused to take a vaccine because there was the remote use of embryonic material from an abortion. He would rather close shop than add his money to the purchase of abortifacients.

The First Amendment protects not only the rights of churches but the individuals who make up those faith communities. Even if Catholics should themselves personally dissent, continued membership implies that they still respect (on some level) the teachings and the authority of the Church. I suspect that President Obama miscalculated in thinking that Church teaching was subject to polls or that liberal Catholics could force further passivity upon the bishops. This new measure might protect Church institutions and pamper dissenters, but it would hang faithful Catholic citizens out to dry. Their rights would not be respected.

Nothing has really changed, what we have here is only magical sleight-of-hand.

The revised rule says that religious organizations would not have to offer or pay for contraception. So far, so good; but then it stipulates that health insurers would have to take up the cost and provide it directly to women for free. Does this really leave the employer out of the equation? It seems to me that what we have here is a new version of the old shell game. Nothing is really free. The money is going to have to come from somewhere. What will happen is that premiums will go up and people will pay more for a sick person’s needed antibiotic to make up for a promiscuous woman’s contraceptive.

What about those dioceses which are self-insured? Would this force us out of the insurance business?

Another wrinkle, and I see this as very problematical in my own Archdiocese, is that we are self-insured. There is no absolutely independent insurance entity to which we can give the dubious honor of providing contraception. I suppose such a measure would also make it hard for practicing Catholics to function at the leadership level or as CEOs of insurance agencies.

Where do we go from here?

It is not clear to me that the Obama administration really wants to go to the bargaining table. However, the bishops have suggested that this newest offer is a sign that he is willing to make some kind of compromise. It is my interpretation and I admit to being fallible, that there remains a serious hurdle and that we must take to heart Archbishop Timothy Dolan’s remarks in The Wall Street Journal, “Coercing religious ministries and citizens to pay directly for actions that violate their teaching is an unprecedented incursion into freedom of conscience.” This really says it all and is the line from which we must not retreat.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has made this statement: “The only complete solution to this religious liberty problem is for HHS to rescind the mandate of these objectionable services.” The statement continues, “We will therefore continue–with no less vigor, no less sense of urgency–our efforts to correct this problem through the other two branches of government.”

We must urge Congress to pass the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act!

Filed under: Anti-Catholicism, Morality, Politics, Pro-Life, Religious Liberty, Sexuality, Social Justice, Uncategorized | 3 Comments »

Debating the Legacy of Senator Ted Kennedy

Posted on February 10, 2012 by Father Joe

As the American bishops have faced the crisis to religious liberty presented by the Obama Administration’s requirement for artificial contraception, sterilization and abortifacients in our health plans; it occurred to me that we were struggling with the ghost of the late Senator Edward Kennedy, no not his actual soul, but of his ideas and dissent.

Although Senator Ted Kennedy has been gone since 2009, critics wrongly still like to enumerate about his many personal scandals and general lack of discretion. Indeed, although they are all dead, the Kennedy boys are still the fodder for sensational tabloid journalism. True or not, I have no desire to enumerate upon such things. I still insist that ours has to be the posture of prayer for a man who was baptized and raised as a Catholic. God will be his judge, even as we continue to repair the damage that he did to the witness of the Church and the moral standing of our nation. Indeed, for all we know, God’s grace might have brought him to repentance and conversion at the last moments of life.

The president and many of his compatriots in the Democrat party (a fair number who are Catholics) have carried on the agenda that he pursued. NARAL had awarded the Massachusetts senator a 100% approval rating. He was the Catholic voice for the culture of death for a quarter of a century, supporting not only abortion but partial birth infanticide, the use of embryonic human beings for research, and same sex unions for homosexuals and lesbians. He also championed repression against free speech and religious liberties (at least for conservative, orthodox or biblical churches) by expanding “hate crimes” legislation to include criticism of gays.

He was also responsible for the increased politicization of the Supreme Court by his pro-abortion litmus test against the nomination of Judge Robert Bork, a strict-constructionist, in 1987. Judge Bork came into the Catholic Church a few years ago. At the time of his death, Senator Kennedy was advocating health care reform that would guarantee federal money for artificial contraception and abortions. His objective has now been met by the Department of Health and Human Services under President Obama.

While many acclaimed Senator Kennedy as a hero for women and the poor. Many pro-lifers regarded him as one of the nation’s chief enemies of motherhood and the poorest of the poor, innocent and voiceless children in the womb. When he died, he was favorably eulogized by representatives of Planned Parenthood, the National Abortion Rights Action League, and the Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual and Transgendered groups. They wept at the loss of one of their great defenders and proponents. Pro-life advocates observed that it was too bad that they neither wept for the murdered children nor about the decomposition of morals and marriage.

Supporters argue that Ted Kennedy was a pivotal figure in the transformation of the Democrat Party and its agenda, making possible the Obama presidency. He certainly made his impact felt upon history. He passed away from his brain cancer in Hyannis Port, Massachusetts. First Joseph, then John, next Robert and then Teddy— the last of the Kennedy brothers went to God. But their convictions, both good and bad, are still with us. We applaud the emphasis upon racial justice, equality in opportunity for our citizens, the support and hope given to the poor, the protection of worker’s rights, etc. But we must lament the liberalism that now feeds a liberal secular humanism at war with the Church while seeking to redefine our nature and to strip away the rights of the unborn.

Discussion from 2009

The catalyst for this discussion was the death of Senator Edward Kennedy and his mixed legacy. Be warned that some comments lack charity and suffer from bigotry.

GODLESS AMERICAN: Ah, more religious fanatics that demand people follow their beliefs when they can’t seem to follow their own. Cast a lot of stones, do we?

FATHER JOE: People of your sort would condemn Jesus and the apostles as fanatics, too. Jesus condemned the hypocrisy of the scribes and Pharisees as kin to the murderers of the prophets. It is not my fault that people pledged to promote the public good should violate their basic principles in enabling the murder of children in the womb. It is not my fault that Morality 101 should be dismissed as intolerance toward grievous sexual sin. I have always acknowledged myself as a sinner; however, that does not mean I must be silent against the wrongs committed by others. Even you judge, despite an atheistic attitude, because you condemn me. I can pray for the poor man and I can remember you to God. I cannot pretend that grievous wrongs are okay.

GODLESS AMERICAN: Father Joe, I’m atheist, there are no tenets against judging others. I freely judge whomever I choose. Those are your beliefs that you refuse to follow, not mine. Yes, I would have labeled the disciples as fanatics, and Jesus if I thought he actually existed. There is no hell, and there is no heaven. It’s sad that you’ve decided to dedicate your life to the hatred of other people, instead of spreading love and acceptance which some religious people choose to do. Your actions are no better than the Muslims that attacked America on 9/11.

FATHER JOE: Judgment about sin and judgment (i.e. condemnation) of sinners are two different things. Evidently you do not understand Christianity as much as you claim. Indeed, your dogmatism against Christ and the truths of religion is itself a kind of false religion or anti-religious faith. The most you could honestly embrace is a kind of agnosticism; in other words, that you doubt the existence of God and an afterlife. The denial of Jesus as a historical figure is pure bigotry and ignorance. You might not believe that he is God or that he performed miracles; but, there is sufficient evidence for his existence, even outside the Bible. The fact that you would compare me to the criminals who killed thousands of people on 9-11 shows the depth of your irrationality and depravity. I rarely ban people from my site, but congratulations, you pushed the right buttons. Time restraints and health concerns prevent me from trying to correct the lies and self-deception of people like you. Have a good life, and after your have gone for all the gusto of a dissolute life, look forward to being forgotten and either cremated or devoured by the worms. I suspect you will also be surprised, when you appear before the judgment seat of Christ. However, I will pray for you and if possible offer my poor intercession for your soul, which exists regardless of what you think.

BOB: Godless American, I’m afraid you are neither. Such monumental ignorance is hardly deserving of a response.

BRONX BILL: Hey Godless American, what offends you about Fr. Joe’s initial remarks? Except for the sentence, “It’s too bad they don’t weep for the murdered children…,” this entry could have appeared on Slate. He is summarizing the impact of Ted Kennedy’s work objectively and with minimal commentary. Or is it the lack of fawning praise for this “liberal lion” that has you upset? By the way, how the (he–two sticks) do you prove a universal negative statement – twice: “there is no hell” and “there is no heaven.” Or does this dogmatic proclamation come from a personal revelation you received? One would suspect that you are impressed with such emotional lectures as Senator Kennedy was known to give, untroubled by the rules of logic. When you speak of hatred of others, it’s best to start by looking in the mirror. There’s more intolerance in your words then in those of Father Joe that you are quick to condemn.

HOWARD: Father Joe, I can just say – “Amen.” Thank you for speaking the truth about this man. He was not a great American. He helped lead America down a horrible road – far away from God. God will judge America and Mr. Kennedy.

MARY: Thank you, Father Joe. I, too, hope that Senator Kennedy had the opportunity to reconcile with the Church before his death. If a public announcement is not made that he repudiated all his anti-life stances prior to a public funeral Mass, the scandal of Notre Dame will be child’s play in comparison. I am so grateful for the Catholic clergy (sadly few and far between) that stand up for the teachings of the Church… and I must now place you in the company of Archbishop Raymond Burke. My heart breaks for our Catholic young people and all everyday Catholics in the pews who are being led by the example of so many clergy to believe it is okay to ignore Church teaching on the life issues and not endanger their souls and the souls that are entrusted to them.

FATHER JOE:

There are some words which are foul or mean and I will not use them. I changed this post many times and gave the benefit of a doubt to critics. Maybe I am naïve, but is the word “sodomite” now classified as a “bad” or “unacceptable” word? It was used in Scripture and that is where I first encountered it. Given what it means, how can one clean it up? The word “gay” is hardly descriptive and it destroys an otherwise perfectly good word for happiness. In any case, I have deleted the word from my post. Sorry if some view it as vulgar, but I intended it only as it has been traditionally defined in law and in reference to the Biblical testimony. There is nothing I can do about the pejorative connotation, especially since it refers to sinful acts that fall under the condemnation of God. But, if it is an unnecessary stumbling block for this particular discussion, I am not tied to the biblical term and will substitute a softer nomenclature in the post above… this time around. But, I do have my limits.

Some object to my calling abortion, “the murder of babies.” Again, I am not into the misdirecting semantics of speaking about “CHOICE” and “the selective termination of embryos or fetuses.”

Kennedy was lauded as the senator who cared the most about women. Well, I am all for saving women’s lives; however, some of those women are still in the womb. Human life is incommensurate.

Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in the world and it makes big bucks on abortion. They own a lot of politicians and manipulate parties. Repression of speech and persecution of the Church is the end result. If they have their way, health plans operated by the Church will have to offer coverage for artificial contraception and abortion. Catholic doctors will have to do referrals for abortion and prescribe the abortifacient pills or face the loss of their licenses to practice. Catholic hospitals will be compelled to close because of such manipulation. Adoption services, as in Boston, will shut down because same-sex couples will insist upon adopting innocent children.

Universal healthcare, as it is currently being orchestrated, will mean more tax dollars into the pockets of Planned Parenthood and NARAL. Almost everyone on Clinton’s staff had past ties to them and many in the Obama administration did legal work for Planned Parenthood. Even good organizations like the NAACP have been infected by the acceptance of abortion as a solution to their problems instead of as a form of black genocide.

Kennedy helped to create this nightmare world. May God have mercy on his soul.

SOJOURNER: “It is impossible for us to refrain from speaking of what we have seen and heard”. (Acts 4:20). It is not for us to condemn; however, we are required to speak the truth and guide those who cannot see to it. This is the direction we receive at the end of every Mass. Jesus also lost many followers for speaking the truth. He lost thousands on the day he told them, “Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you will have no salvation.” To whom should we go? I choose my Lord and my God!

AL: Father Joe, thank you for your words. It helped me to understand and put my thoughts into an ordered manner less vehement than many who covered the Senator’s passing.

BRONX BILL:

Father Joe, concerning the proposed Health Care measures, members of Congress put up a smoke screen when they claimed that abortion was not included. Explicitly it is not, it is already presumed to be a standard benefit. In order that tax payer money not go for abortion, this needs to be made explicit with an amendment. As for Planned Parenthood, Congressman Mike Pence tried to cut off funding for them but was unsuccessful.

Yes, this is part of Big Ted’s liberal legacy: helping a privileged elite profit from the sufferings of the poor and defenseless, particularly the unborn. As with Dr. Tiller, I am not sad to hear of his passing. The dream that Kennedy was so interested in keeping alive was death for millions of infants waiting to be born. Now his dreams are dead and he must face the author of life. Would that he have felt remorse and confessed in his final moments that in due course he may find eternal peace.

NICK: Father Joe, thank you for your thoughts on Ted Kennedy. I agree completely. Also, thank you for this website. Your words are always encouraging and truthful, I just wish more priests were like you. God bless you!

COWARDLY: Father Joe is what’s wrong with the Catholic Church.

FATHER JOE: I take it then that you are pro-abortion and pro-homosexual unions. Sorry, but I cannot change the law of God.

COWARDLY: You are a terrible terrible person, how dare you speak about Sen. Kennedy like that.

FATHER JOE: I did not speak about the particulars of his personal life. However, his dissent against Catholic teaching and the Gospel of Life is part of the public record. You might be proud of it. I am ashamed that a Catholic could so betray the basic principles of our faith and human dignity. Many bishops and priests would have refused him Holy Communion. Some are upset that I would still pray for him; well, that is too bad. I am pledged to pray for souls, even those who are most reprehensible. I will add you to my prayer list.

COWARDLY: Re-read that part of the Bible about loving thy neighbor. You’re not winning anybody over.

FATHER JOE: I do love my neighbor, but love of God is first. We cannot betray Christ for human approval or to appease fickle sentiment. My job is not to make you like me but to preach the truth for the salvation of souls.

COWARDLY: This is the kind of [expletive deleted] that I’d expect to see on WorldNetDaily.com, not on the blog of a Catholic priest.

FATHER JOE: Check around, I am one of the kinder “orthodox” Catholic priests writing upon this subject. Maybe you have fallen into the clutches of those rascals who are silent about abortion, artificial contraception, divorce and adultery and remarriage, homosexual disorientation, etc.? I have not cursed or used vulgar language, as you have. I have urged hope for repentance, conversion and salvation. I can pray for the man but I cannot hail as a hero one who stood for so many things which I think are repulsive to God and degrading to human dignity and the sanctity of life.

A READER: Ted Kennedy cheated on an exam in college and was expelled. He also walked away from a car accident that resulted in another person’s death and didn’t report it until the next day. Now, we are making him out to be some kind of hero? Sorry, but I disagree with those of you who criticize a priest who has the intelligence and courage to speak out and share the actual facts about Ted Kennedy.

FATHER JOE: Young men often do many stupid things. My concern is more what the mature Kennedy did politically to help refashion American society along the lines of a radical liberalism often at odds with Christian morality and natural law. Again, we should all pray for his soul.

CHRIS: By now I’m sure Teddy knows just how well that whole abortion thing worked out for him. Money and family influence only work here on earth.

RICK: My prayer is that there would be a 100,000 Fr. Joe’s in our pulpits. Then for sure we wouldn’t have had the audacity to negate God’s condemnation of contraception. In 1930 the Anglicans were the first to condone birth control, with all Protestant denominations following. This has led inexorably to all the sexual debauchery we’ve been subjected to in the last 80 years. Kennedy was one of the main “Catholics” leading this rush to change God’s laws. If the Catholic Church had enough Fr. Joe’s, Kennedy would have been long ago excommunicated along with Pelosi, Biden, Leahy, Mikulski, Kerry, Durbin and many more “Catholics” in name only. Let us rejoice in the Lord for raising up Fr. Joe and pray that many more would have the courage to stand up and defend the faith.

MARY FRANCES: Rick, I’m praying the same right along with you. Father Joe, God bless you! May you always be the shining example that you are of courageous virtue in speaking the truth. And may your brother priests be likewise. I have placed you among the group of people in my heart for whom I pray daily.

JOHN: Ted Kennedy did more than anyone else in Congress to promote and protect abortion, and he is a Catholic. I would think every Catholic Priest should point this out.

FIN-TASTIC: Judging by the popularity of his blog, it seems Father Joe is winning over a lot of people!

RD: Great words, Father Joe. Something tells me, that like me, you did not have the stomach to endure Obama’s eulogy. Who was brave (or irreverent) enough to take Communion at the funeral Mass?

JOHN: Well said Father Joe! I won’t speak ill of the dead, but…it is about [deleted] time Ted made his exit. I have prayed that the people of Massachusetts vote in a replacement who has the kind of integrity which Ted found wanting and if the new senator is a Catholic, he or she will act like it means something.

PATRICK: Fear of the word ‘sodomite” is just MORE proof those liberals can’t face truth– instead they try to change the language. I wish the news would focus on some important things now.

MARY: I cannot disagree about abortion, etc. I am strongly pro-life; however, I am extremely distressed about the “taking communion if you are pro-choice is a mortal sin” stance. How DARE WE… How dare we decide what Catholic receives communion and what Catholic does not? Are we going to ask everyone in line – “excuse me, are you pro-choice?” This stand is becoming frightening and out of hand. I have talked to my brother-in-law about this, who is a priest as well. If someone has not had an abortion then who do we think we are? We are absolutely no different than the Pharisees with this mindset. We are not Christ-like in our thoughts and actions. Why don’t we just start another crusade while we are at it? The pope makes it quite clear as well that we are to take care of each other – a seamless cloak from the cradle to the grave…as Christ would. Does no one see how UN-Christian it is to argue against paying taxes (Those ridiculous Dems are at it again!)? How unloving to our neighbors.

FATHER JOE:

The Church has the authority to impose interdict and to refuse the sacraments to those who cause public scandal, teach heresy, and who are not disposed for the sacrament because of mortal sin. Usually, we ask people to make this determination for themselves and if they are not prepared, to go to Mass but to excuse themselves from Holy Communion. Priests will tell people in private and in the confessional not to receive. It is doubtful you will see many priests reproach individuals from the pulpit or altar.

Public scandal and outward dissent is a far more serious matter. While the reception of Holy Communion by such people would constitute sacrilege and mortal sin; if kept quiet, they only damn themselves. In contrast, public division with the Church and then the outrage of receiving the sacrament of unity is a serious offense and disconnect with the faith witness that should be exhibited. It can lead others to sin or make them feel that anyone can receive regardless of faith and morals. Would we readily give Holy Communion to those who supported racial cleansing as in Hitler’s Germany, Eastern Europe and parts of Africa? Would we be comfortable in giving Holy Communion to those who supported a politics of hate and segregation which resulted in lynching and other racist acts? The problem is that we do not regard the unborn and the issue of abortion as on the same level. The Holy Father has written, even back when he was known as Cardinal Ratzinger, that sometimes the sacrament must be withheld. The seamless garment argument, much misunderstood and abused, was that of the late Cardinal Bernardin.

It is a false love that would readily give the sacrament to those who are not disposed. As the Scriptures relate and St. Augustine made clear, they receive their own judgment or condemnation. Every priest as Confessor is a judge of souls. He can withhold or give absolution. He can ask people not to receive, when they are not in good standing with the Church. Canonically, the Church permits all this. You cannot strip the bishops and their priests of this authority given by Christ in his keys. It is an essential element of Catholicism.

The issue is increasingly one of jurisdiction. What do I mean? For instance, can the archbishop of Baltimore order that a politician from the Wilmington diocese, also part of Maryland, not receive Holy Communion when he enters his archdiocese?

Further, one can be guilty of the sin of abortion without ever having an abortion herself. One can also be guilty through proximate and/or remote collaboration. The person who pays for an abortion is guilty of murder. The person who drives a girl to the abortion clinic is guilty of murder. (We even had a stupid priest do this a few years ago, thinking he was helping the poor girl.) The priest was excommunicated and had his faculties stripped. He could not say Mass or hear Confessions. Indeed, collaboration with abortion can sometimes bring most of the weight of the sin upon the secondary party. An instance of this is a parent who “forces” the daughter to have an abortion. A minor may have little or no culpability in such cases. The mother and father sin grievously and are automatically excommunicated. Nurses, doctors, and other support personnel in abortions are also morally culpable. Politicians who support abortion and infanticide are remote agents but agents all the same in the holocaust against children. While the degree of remoteness with its consequences is argued, it must be said that those who vote for the enablers and supporters of abortion and infanticide also have blood on their hands.

MARY: Father Joe, I am very much aware of what constitutes mortal sin and that one can be indirectly involved without actually committing mortal sin. I am pro-life all the way. I am abhorred by abortion as well as I am of the murder of my fellow neighbor. What is frightening to me is the fact that we take abortion and (very rightfully) discuss the evils and the “blood on our hands,” but to our convenience, we disregard any other murder that perhaps the conservative ticket is not against.

FATHER JOE: I am not speaking as a FOX News “conservative” commentator but as a Catholic priest. I would not negate the need to help the poor and to struggle for social justice in many areas. However, as the late Mother Teresa told us, the issue of abortion and the unborn is most fundamental and at the heart of the Gospel of Life. The Church gives a special gravity to the rights of the unborn, not only because of natural law, but because of Christianity’s stress upon the INCARNATION. There are many issues, but they are not regarded as equal. They are interconnected and the right to life of the unborn is foundational to many other rights. Destroy a human being in the womb, and at least for that person, there are no more issues. If the most vulnerable among us are not safe, no one is safe. Pope Benedict XVI has also spoken about this. My pro-life Catholicism and beliefs as an American citizen are not subject to review, approbation or rebuttal by the state or any political party. While the matter of something like capital punishment does not have the same moral weight in conscience as abortion and infanticide, certainly I lament that Catholics are sometimes not on the same page with the Pope and bishops. However, while there are legitimate arguments about capital punishment and just war, there are no reservations about the evil of abortion. It is never right to directly intend and to actualize the destruction of “innocent” life in the womb.

MARY: If those that voted for the democratic ticket have blood on their hands, then those that voted for the conservative party should look at the blood on their hands. Murder is murder is murder. Abortion is used as a gold ticket in politics, and I believe Roe vs. Wade still exists? None of us are exempt from our votes.

FATHER JOE: We all have blood on our hands. That is the doctrine which has come down to us from the Council of Trent. All men and women in every place and throughout all human history are responsible for the passion and death of Christ on the Cross. All sin makes us party to deicide. The particular sin of murder, in whatever form, is intimately tied up with Calvary. Abortion and infanticide have a singular place because their innocence resonates with Christ who is the “innocent” Victim, the unblemished Lamb, who suffers a redemptive death against the sins of the world.

MARY: Father Joe, I am saying this with all respect for you and your vocation, but I am noticing that we are all too quick to use our political beliefs and wrap it in morality. This is very frightening to me. I believe it is wrong to speak of one party being “evil,” and the other party as “the right way to vote.”

FATHER JOE:

There is right and wrong in all parties. But, parties can become corrupted. The Nazis were a political party which won elections and then sought to retain power by force. Pope Pius XI condemned it. Along with the Communist party, members of these associations were told that they could not belong both to such parties and to the Church. WIKIPEDIA states: “He vehemently protested against both Communism and National Socialism as demeaning to human dignity and a violation of basic human rights, but found no echo or support in the democracies of the West, which he labeled a Conspiracy of Silence.” The parties might change, but the silence still threatens us. Passivity to evil is to cooperate with evil.

Worse yet, what happens when so-called Catholics actually become advocates and enablers for the enemies of life? Remember evil men are rarely or never totally evil. They care for pets. They might love their children. They might have an affinity toward the needs of women. There can be a real regard for the poor. Hit-men and abortionists can still come home to their families and even go to church. But, if one should fall into mortal sin, without repentance, conversion, and amendment of life… no good work or act of charity would have any merit whatsoever. As I said before, I do not pretend to read souls or to know how God will judge particular people. I condemn no one. But, there is a Tribunal before which we will all stand. No one will escape the judgment of God. Yes, there is forgiveness in Christ, but not so abundant that it would destroy or make a farce out of divine justice.

Returning to the matter of parties, would we not condemn today much about which the Nazis and Communists advocated and sought to execute? History will judge us as well. What can we say about any party which makes the murder of children part of its platform and the litmus test for appointments? We can scapegoat neither Jews nor children. Rome used to have a vigorous Christian party which was closely associated with the Church. There is nothing wrong with that and I would applaud a recovery of lay Catholic Action groups in our own nation. I am not advocating an end to the separation of Church and state. However, there should not be civil enmity to genuine faith and the moral values which best promote human dignity, the sanctity of life, and human liberty. Good Catholics in political life should promote what they truly believe and not compromise on fundamental truths just to get re-elected.

MARY: I respect your opinions Father Joe, and I enjoy this blog, but we all need to look at ourselves and the responsibility we have for any party we voted for. Neither is exempt.

FATHER JOE: Yes, I agree.

SCOOTER: Yeah I agree with Father Joe. Ted Kennedy supported abortion and all that [deleted] and that’s not good at all. To the person under “Cowardly” that said “You are a terrible terrible person, how dare you speak about Senator Kennedy like that.” That’s so dumb. I’m guessing you worship Teddy Kennedy.

CABBAGEJUICE: Re: Ted Kennedy and Chappaquiddick: Capital Punishment for the rich and powerful– “If you have Capital, you don’t get Punishment.” (That is, the in world governed by Satan, NOT the Kingdom of God…)

RD: I’ve read in the New York Times article that Senator Kennedy went to this church where the funeral is being held on his own a few times, it doesn’t say at Mass, it says alone and with his wife last year when his daughter was in hospital, to reflect and pray. Ted Kennedy is quoted: “Separation of church and state cannot mean an absolute separation between moral principles and political power.” He also said: “The separation of church and state can sometimes be frustrating for women and men of religious faith. They may be tempted to misuse government in order to impose a value which they cannot persuade others to accept. But once we succumb to that temptation, we step onto a slippery slope where everyone’s freedom is at risk.” He also stated: “The real transgression occurs when religion wants government to tell citizens how to live uniquely personal parts of their lives. The failure of Prohibition proves the futility of such an attempt when a majority or even a substantial minority happens to disagree. Some questions may be inherently individual ones, or people may be sharply divided about whether they are. In such cases, like Prohibition and abortion, the proper role of religion is to appeal to the conscience of the individual, not the coercive power of the state. ” I see irreconcilability between the first statement and the other two. It is my belief that Mr. Kennedy will now learn what the word “transgression” really means.

KEN: Blessings and prayers for the courage to speak the truth, Father Joe. Christ lost followers, even some of His first disciples when he spoke the truth, without modifying it when he gave us his own Body and Blood. When asked, what must I do to be saved, did He say, “oh, try to do some good, be popular and it will be ok”? His command was pretty harsh to the guy who didn’t want to give up his earthly possessions. Until he repented, I doubt St. Augustine was a bad fellow by today’s standards– he just wanted to hang onto his sins of the flesh.

JOHN:

RD, I would hope and pray that Ted Kennedy made a good confession before his death, and far be it from me to speculate on what was in his heart, BUT…BUT…

If I understand the Sacrament correctly, courtesy of the habit wearing Holy Cross Sisters who taught at the parochial school I went to, God’s forgiveness is not a one way street. Kennedy had plenty of opportunity to publicly correct his legacy of abortion advocacy during his protracted illness. He didn’t (unless he was denied so by the political powers that be). His Holiness Benedict XVI comments on this in his book Jesus of Nazareth. Part of the deal is making amends to those who were hurt by one’s sins. In Kennedy’s case that would include the Democratic Party, several generations of Americans, the Holy Church, the medical profession and the Holy Innocents…the list goes on and on.

JOE: Father Joe, like sickly moths drawn to a robust fire do these atheists swarm to your blog. Not many other Catholic blogs and websites I frequent have such a high concentration, so I believe you must be doing something right. Keep up the good fight, and me and mine shall pray for your continued success. God bless.

HUMAN LIFE INTERNATIONAL:

Human Life International’s Statement on the Passing of Senator Edward Kennedy

August 27, 2009

We must, as a matter of precept, pray for the salvation of heretical Catholics like Senator Edward Kennedy, but we do not have to praise him let alone extol him with the full honors of a public Catholic funeral and all the adulation that attends such an event. There was very little about Ted Kennedy’s life that deserves admiration from a spiritual or moral point of view. He was probably the worst example of a Catholic statesman that one can think of. When all is said and done, he has distorted the concept of what it means to be a Catholic in public life more than anyone else in leadership today.

Obviously we don’t know the state of Senator Edward Kennedy’s soul upon death. We don’t pretend to. We are told by the family that he had the opportunity to confess his sins before a priest, and his priest has said publicly he was “at peace” when he died. For that we are grateful. But it is one thing to confess one’s sins and for these matters to be kept, rightfully, private. It is another thing entirely for one who so consistently and publicly advocated for the destruction of unborn human beings to depart the stage without a public repudiation of these views, a public confession, as it were.

It is up to God to judge Senator Kennedy’s soul. We, as rational persons, must judge his actions, and his actions were not at all in line with one who values and carefully applies Church teaching on weighty matters. Ted Kennedy’s positions on a variety of issues have been a grave scandal for decades, and to honor this “catholic” champion of the culture of death with a Catholic funeral is unjust to those who have actually paid the price of fidelity. We now find out that President Obama will eulogize the Senator at his funeral, an indignity which, following on the heels of the Notre Dame fiasco, leaves faithful Catholics feeling sullied, desecrated and dehumanized by men who seem to look for opportunities to slap the Church in the face and do so with impunity simply because they have positions of power.

It is not enough for Kennedy to have been a “great guy behind the scenes” as we have seen him referred to even by his political opponents. It is also not praiseworthy to put a Catholic rhetorical veneer on his leftist politics that did nothing to advance true justice as the Church sees it or to advance the peace of Christ in this world. Every indication of Senator Kennedy’s career, every public appearance, every sound bite showed an acerbic, divisive and partisan political hack for whom party politics were much more infallible than Church doctrines. Whatever one’s political affiliation, if one is only “Catholic” to the extent that his faith rhymes with his party line, then his Catholicism is a fraud.

As the Scriptures remind us, there is a time for everything under the sun. This, now, is the time for honesty about our Faith and about those who are called to express it in the public forum. If we do not remind ourselves of the necessity of public confession for public sins such as Senator Kennedy was guilty of, then we are negligent in our embrace of the Faith and we are part of the problem. As Pope Benedict has reminded us recently, charity without truth can easily become mere sentimentality, and we must not fall into that error. A Catholic show of charity for the family must not eclipse the truth that is required of all with eyes to see and ears to hear.

Senator Kennedy needs to be sent to the afterlife with a private, family-only funeral and the prayers of the Church for the salvation of his immortal soul. He will not be missed by the unborn who he betrayed time and time again, nor by the rest of us who are laboring to undo the scandalous example of Catholicism that he gave to three generations of Americans.

ENZO: Reverend Father, THANK YOU for speaking the truth on our auto-excommunicated Senator. I appreciate that you have been very Roman about your critique — not impugning his personal life, but being clear about his public record. Nothing could be more FAIR, JUST, and Righteous! If only his Bishop had the testicular fortitude to say the same things! Instead, the Diocesan Paper out in Boston, essentially praises him, and tries to minimize the fact that Kennedy actively worked for the destruction of the social doctrine of the Catholic Church, directly, and mostly, indirectly. Intellectually, I join you in your prayers for the rest of his soul. Physically, it’s very hard for me (and many others, I think) to distinguish where our personal concern for him as a brother in Christ ends, and where the hurt for his apostasy, and bitterness for all the evil he wrought, begins… Perhaps you can pray for us too. Christus Vincit!

RD: Personal eulogies at Mass? Father Joe, I’ve never seen that before. Comments? The video feed wouldn’t show the Holy Communion line. Not surprised, and I do recognize that as private, although I must say I am disappointed.

FATHER JOE: Eulogies often come at the end of a funeral Mass before the prayers of final commendation. My main concern was that the prayer of the faithful or general intercessions not be politicized.

DAVID: I am sure that by now, Ted Kennedy has seen all the aborted children that he helped to an early grave. How sad. Mr. Kennedy, you have moved on to your reward. I do not want any part of your reward. You are surely [deleted], and if not it would only be for the grace of God. Wake up!

GHOST OF ED KENNEDY:

Edward Kennedy’s Final Letter to Pope

At Arlington Cemetery, Cardinal McCarrick read portions of Kennedy’s letter to the Pope:

“I am writing with deep humility to ask that you pray for me as my own health declines.”

“I was diagnosed with brain cancer more than a year ago and although I continue treatment, the disease is taking its toll on me. I am 77 years old and preparing for the next passage of life.”

“The gift of faith has sustained and nurtured and provides solace to me in the darkest hours.”

“I know that I have been an imperfect human being, but with the help of my faith I have tried to right my path.”

He stressed his belief “in a conscience protection for Catholics in the health field,” and said that he would “continue to advocate for it as my colleagues in the Senate and I work to develop an overall national health policy that guarantees health care for everyone.”

“I have always tried to be a faithful Catholic, Your Holiness, and though I have fallen short through human failings, I have never failed to believe and respect the fundamental teachings of my faith.”

“I continue to pray for God’s blessings on you and on our church and would be most thankful for your prayers for me.”

The Pope prayed that the senator would be “sustained in faith and hope, and granted the precious grace of joyful surrender to the will of God, our merciful Father.”

JOHN: The letter Cardinal McCarrick refers to appears to be only more smoke and mirrors from someone (perhaps with a red hat?) wishing to carry on the Kennedy legacy of confusion among Catholics: http://www.ewtn.com/news/blog.asp?blog_ID=2

FATHER JOE: Cardinal McCarrick was my Ordinary and I pray for him daily. He was often very kind and gracious to me, despite possible differences of opinion. I am still intensely bothered in conscience as to whether I always gave him the proper respect and obedience. He walked a very precarious tight-rope, as does any archbishop of the nation’s capitol. Despite the conflict about pro-abortion politicians and holy communion, he spoke about the right to life frequently and did much in the cause for life: Pregnancy Centers, Gabriel Project, Project Rachel, the Right to Life Office of the Archdiocese, Pro-Life Month, Respect Life in the African-American Community Month, the Right to Life March and the Youth Rally, etc. He felt that if we reacted too strongly we would drive certain politicians further away from the Church and forfeit their support in other crucial areas. He hoped that we might win them back gradually through dialogue and compassion for their struggles in conscience. I have no doubt that he is solidly pro-life in his convictions. But he is a gentle man; he would heal where my impulse is to clobber. We would probably all do better to borrow pages from his book. By contrast, I am much more brash in my arguments and unsympathetic toward those who dissent. I believe that the pro-abortion position is not only a moral evil but a heresy against the Incarnation itself. I would have asked them to attend Mass but not to receive communion until a public recantation and private confession. But, I am only a lowly priest. That is undoubtedly for the best. Maybe he asked them something similar, but they did not listen to him and he opted to keep the business to himself? In any case, priests should love their bishops and I will not speak ill of him. He is a good man, far better than I am, and I still count him my spiritual father.

RD: What a perfect response/prayer by the Holy Father. The Pope prayed that the senator would be “sustained in faith and hope, and granted the precious grace of joyful surrender to the will of God, our merciful Father.”

FLAGMAN:

Yes, you are right about that much; you are an angry man who shows no compassion and gentleness to others.

Senator Kennedy did more for the working man and woman, as well as for the poor and minorities, than many presidents. He made a positive difference in our lives that neither you nor other hate-mongers in the church could ever match.

He cared about women who died in back-alley abortions and swore that this would never happen again.

He cared about gays and lesbians who were treated as criminals for just loving each other.

He cared about minorities when so many whites still regarded them as second-class citizens and turned a blind eye toward segregation and prejudice.

He cared about the poor, something a millionaire did not have to do, but which his sense of justice demanded of him.

He cared about the immigrants and their needs for education and just treatment, remembering the roots of his own Irish forebears who suffered bigotry and hardship but accomplished much.

Shame on you! You malign the dead and a good man, a hero for the ages!

You are nothing by comparison; maybe that is the point? Your own ego seeks to make yourself more by tearing down a real man of faith and compassion.

Those who praise you are no better. The whole lot of you is hard-headed and insensitive to the REAL needs of people.

BOB: Flagman, Fr. Joe hasn’t an ounce of “hate” in him, except for sin; but that’s for the behavior, not the sinner. It is tragic that women died from “back-alley” abortions, but you don’t condone something that’s morally wrong – like the murder of an innocent unborn – because one of the victims died. That’s as ridiculous and outrageous and wrong as a court awarding a burglar damages for injuries he sustained while robbing someone’s home. Except for some archaic and not enforced laws still on the books in some states, gays and lesbians haven’t been treated as “criminals” for a long time, and Fr. Joe has always viewed those with a homosexual orientation with nothing but compassion; however, a psychological or physiological disorder of epidemic proportions is nonetheless a disorder. Yes, Ted Kennedy did a lot of good. He also disqualified himself as a Catholic by his voting record on Life issues. The right to LIFE is the most basic and the foundation of all other human rights, and if that is denied, the rest of the entire edifice is most assuredly a “house built on sand.”

JOHN: My sincere apology to you, Father Joe, for bringing up Mr. Arroyo’s post about His Holiness’ letter. I am sure the Cardinal is a kind man as are most of the priests I have had the pleasure to know personally.

FATHER JOE: No offense taken, John.

RD: Flagman, if a woman is going to have a back-alley abortion, I say she only injures herself, deservedly. This country was fine with abortions illegal for 197 years. As far as Ted Kennedy helping the working people, he never knew an honest day’s work in his entire life. He never had to worry about the demands this country has placed on working families and individuals in a personal way. Why do so many working people oppose his actions? Do not confuse being generous with taxpayer dollars as generosity. The Catholic Church does more for the poor and persecuted in this world than all the Democrats ever will. And, they do it through donations to Catholic charities, not forcibly stealing from hard-working Americans.

DAN: Flagman, your post sounded angry and without compassion…. I think that you might miss the point which is that Senator Kennedy was a Catholic who did NOT use his influence to promote Catholic values. Did he have his reasons? I am sure that he did, including wanting to remain in a powerful and influential position. This is a CATHOLIC blog – so why the surprise that it tends to judge things through a Catholic frame of reference?

PAT: I believe The Lord Jesus and the Holy Father are not in need of “judges,” juries, or pointing fingers. Speaking the truth must be with charity, not with a club, and certainly not focusing on an individual, by name, and proceeding to enumerate all his sins. Gee………

FATHER JOE: Christ established a Church and gave Peter the keys to the kingdom. Every priest is a judge and confessor of souls. We keep to ourselves that which comes through the sacrament of reconciliation. We are prudent about our parishioners and the counsel we give. However, neither the Church nor her priests should be afraid to respond to evil and dissent in the public forum. I make no judgment upon anyone’s soul. I would not even presume that Stalin or Hitler is in Hell, despite the fact that their “politics” resulted in the murder of millions. For all we know there was mental illness and/or diabolic possession. Many regard it highly likely that they share the lot of the damned, but I would never claim to know for sure. I have not spoken about anyone’s personal life. Kennedy supported same-sex unions, abortion, and partial birth infanticide. He made no secret about it and we should not be dismissive about his record now that he is dead. Indeed, many are celebrating his record and want abortion coverage in the new health care initiatives as a tribute to him. Abortion and infanticide are known by another word, MURDER. You might claim to be pro-life, but you would silence our efforts against the enablers and promoters of such perversity. That is wrong.

PAT: I wonder what Father would have said if he had encountered Paul on the road to Damascus? Read him the “riot act”?

FATHER JOE:

Speaking to the Pharisee Saul (Paul) who approved of the stoning of Stephen, I would have quoted Christ:

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You lock the kingdom of heaven before human beings. You do not enter yourselves, nor do you allow entrance to those trying to enter.”

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You traverse sea and land to make one convert, and when that happens you make him a child of Gehenna twice as much as yourselves.”

“Woe to you, blind guides!”

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You pay tithes of mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier things of the law: judgment and mercy and fidelity.”

“Blind guides, who strain out the gnat and swallow the camel!”

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You cleanse the outside of cup and dish, but inside they are full of plunder and self-indulgence.”

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You are like whitewashed tombs, which appear beautiful on the outside, but inside are full of dead men’s bones and every kind of filth.”

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the memorials of the righteous, and you say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our ancestors, we would not have joined them in shedding the prophets’ blood.’ Thus you bear witness against yourselves that you are the children of those who murdered the prophets; now fill up what your ancestors measured out! You serpents, you brood of vipers, how can you flee from the judgment of Gehenna?”

“Therefore, behold, I send to you prophets and wise men and scribes; some of them you will kill and crucify, some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and pursue from town to town, so that there may come upon you all the righteous blood shed upon earth, from the righteous blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar. Amen, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation. Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how many times I yearned to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her young under her wings, but you were unwilling! Behold, your house will be abandoned, desolate.”

Of course, our Lord struck him blind, charged him with his participation in murder, and sent him to a member of the Church for healing and the full truth.

PAT: We are called to be witnesses of the love and mercy of Jesus Christ, to the saints AND the sinners, speaking out the truth, not with sarcasm and “vinegar”, but as Christ would have us do. The sinner has a choice, and the judgment is none of our business.

FATHER JOE: Our Lord was not wimpish and neither should his Church and ministers be so against evil, both from outside and within the Church. The Church preaches the Gospel both in and out of season. The Church imposes sanctions against those who commit evil. Abortion brings excommunication. Heresy can bring censure and interdiction. The Code of Canon Law itself makes provisions against groups and individuals that probably you would not allow. I have never said that the late Senator should be denied a funeral Mass and prayers. I did object to that Mass being televised. Objecting to scandal, false witness and collaboration with abortion is very much the business of a priest, indeed, of any true Christian.

EWTN: EWTN News Director Raymond Arroyo:

The prayer intercessions at the funeral mass, the endless eulogies, the image of the Cardinal Archbishop of Boston reading prayers, and finally Cardinal McCarrick interring the remains sent an uncontested message: One may defy Church teaching, publicly lead others astray, deprive innocent lives of their rights, and still be seen a good Catholic, even an exemplary one.

ALL: American Life League President Judie Brown:

The entire travesty, from the television cameras to spectacle itself, goes beyond anything I have witnessed in my more than 65 years of life. In fact, while we all thought the appearance of President Barack Obama at the University of Notre Dame was a scandal, the very idea that he offered a eulogy in a basilica, while the real presence of Christ was in the tabernacle, is perhaps the most dastardly thing I have ever seen.

CARDINAL O’MALLEY: Cardinal Sean O’Malley:

Senator Kennedy was often a champion for the poor, the less fortunate and those seeking a better life. Across Massachusetts and the nation, his legacy will be carried on through the lives of those he served.

CATHOLICS UNITED: Senator Kennedy’s legendary advocacy for justice and the common good – on issues such as health care, immigration, community service, and poverty – spanned more than four decades and touched millions.

CATHOLICS BETRAYED: Catholics United is a pro-abortion front-group for Obama. They support current healthcare efforts which include artificial contraception and abortion. They have publicly attacked Donohue from the Catholic League and Brown from the American Life League. They talk about a preposterous “abortion neutral” stance which is really just more passivity to the murder of millions. They distribute voter guides which equate matters as having the same gravity like clean water with infanticide. Their purpose is clear, to minimize the crucial moral evils against human life and marriage under a large list of issues that better fit their liberal agenda. Back in October, Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput accused Catholics in Alliance and Catholics United as doing a “disservice” to the Catholic Church. If you read A NATION FOR ALL by the founders of Catholic United, you will see just how progressive and non-Catholic both Chris Korzen and Alexia Kelley actually are. Since they delivered the Catholic vote, Alexia Kelly was rewarded by Obama by being made the Director of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships for the HHS. Bill Donohue, Catholic League president, claims pro-abortion multibillionaire George Soros funds Catholic United (a dissenting so-called Catholic organization) in order to confuse Catholics about abortion and funnel votes for pro-abortion Democrats and Obama. Donohue writes: “Catholics in Alliance [for the Common Good] willfully misrepresents Church teachings on abortion, and George Soros funds them through the Open Society Institute. Is it illegal? No. Is it immoral? Yes!”

ANNIE: Once God has His hand on a man, we should take ours off. Shout out about the issues, but let the dead bury the dead.

FATHER JOE:

Both the living and the dead are always in God’s hands.

Where does the man end and the issues begin?

We might leave this world for eternity, but the effects (good and bad) continue to be felt.

Dissenters in faith and morals can cause immeasurable harm both in life and death. Those who pay tribute to Kennedy are also seeking to use him and his legacy to inspire and to promote abortion and perversity. Only God knows his heart and mind. Only God is his judge. I am sure that he, along with all the dead, knows the truth. The unborn are human persons. Unfortunately, what he knows now is not something that his earthly disciples believe or promote. Given the presumption that he was a good man, I suspect this causes him great remorse. I suppose such is what many will experience in purgatory.

JOHN: Cardinal O’Malley, Kennedy’s legacy will be carried on through the lives of those he served as you’ve said, but what sort of legacy has he left us? A controlling political party which has made abortion a cornerstone in its platform and made it a “right?” A so-called “health care reform” so ambiguous that it terrifies the elderly and working classes alike? His campaigning for President Obama, whose dealings with the Catholic Church have been one continuous string of insults (anti-Catholic political appointments, as well as the mockery at Notre Dame) His leadership by example which inspired a generation of Americans that power equals immunity from criminal prosecution. Some people have been helped by Kennedy’s legislation but I feel his agenda was never to help, only to build a power base which in gratitude tolerates hostility to the Church. Respectfully, I beg to disagree.

ANNIE: Father, cConsider that you are preaching to the choir. You have a forum for teaching us how to protect the unborn with positive actions. What do bringing dead flowers to Kennedy’s grave accomplish? I’m genuinely upset by this kind of rhetoric.

FATHER JOE: Not everyone who comes here is the choir, and some of the choir members may even be singing off key if not the wrong tune. I take it that you also disagree with Human Life International and the American Life League? I am not alone in my reservations. This was a teaching moment and the Church allowed a contradictory message to be taught. In any case, I said we should pray for the poor man. I suspect some are upset because I refuse to praise him.

NICK: Cardinal O’Malley, iIs that ALL you have to say? My response to your comment will be just as brief: Would you like some bread to go along with that baloney? All due respect – Your Eminence.

BLABBER MOUTH:

Except for affection for certain prayers and piety, was Kennedy really a Catholic? Kennedy had no reservations about abortion and contraception. The funeral Mass should have used his votes for the litany of petitions:

Voted NO on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP
HAVE MERCY ON US!

Voted NO on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion
HAVE MERCY ON US!

Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines
HAVE MERCY ON US!

Voted NO on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions
HAVE MERCY ON US!

Voted YES on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives
HAVE MERCY ON US!

Voted NO on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime
HAVE MERCY ON US!

Voted NO on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life
HAVE MERCY ON US!

Voted NO on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions
HAVE MERCY ON US!

Voted NO on banning partial birth abortions
HAVE MERCY ON US!

Voted NO on banning human cloning
HAVE MERCY ON US!

Voted to ensure access to and funding for contraception
HAVE MERCY ON US!

JOHN: Blabber Mouth, you’ve hit the nail on the head. Some very important clergy (the ones at the funeral, for starters) don’t (or refuse) to see Kennedy’s hand in the causality of genocidal sin which cries to heaven for justice. Why this is, I can only guess, but that I fear would be a waste of time and only open me to attacks of “passing judgment.” I will say that whatever or whomever has their “hooks” in these men, be they spiritual or corporeal, has them sunk in deep. We all have our failings. The more famous get to have their failings made more public. Sadly, these priests were caught doing the unthinkable on national television, furthering the scandals from which the Church in the US suffers. They need our prayers.

MINDY: Honestly, the whole Ted Kennedy Funeral Parade with the full participation of members of the clergy, some of whom at very high levels, made me question a lot of things. We don’t know if the senator made a confession and was remorseful for his wrong doings during his personal life and very public career. The choices he made in the public arena did great harm to women, and while I can give praise for his aide in the civil rights movement- I can’t forget he discarded the weakest among us. I guess I do not understand what a proper confession and atonement should be. Words of praise from monsignors, cardinals, archbishops and a letter from the Holy Father made no sense to me. If he were to be truly sorry for his sins against the right to life, why would not a man in his position be asked to say something to that fact? His words WERE read from the grave, but, to the best of my recollection, they said nothing about the sanctity of the life of an unborn child. I didn’t understand the Clergy’s support of him and the high praise for his family, so many whom support abortion.

PAT: There is no argument here, amongst Catholic Christians regarding abortion and homosexuality etc and the teachings of the Church.

FATHER JOE: I disagree; I think there is an argument. Abortion is the murder of human beings. You would have me praise those who support such actions. Because I refuse to do this, you condemn me.

PAT: What there is here is disagreement on Father’s tone toward those who sin and violate the teachings of Christ and the Church.

FATHER JOE: My tone toward sin is the same as that announced by John the Baptist, Christ and later his apostles: REPENT AND BELIEVE! Forgiveness is possible, but we also need contrition and a firm purpose of amendment.

PAT: …except, Father, and friends…that happens to be each and every one of us, not one of us is deserving of the love and mercy of God. “All have sinned….” And let’s not get into the mortal and venial sermon…as if you can size up your transgressions as small, medium and large.

FATHER JOE: The distinctions between mortal and venial sin are straight out of the Catholic catechism. They are not matters easily dismissed. Abortion and homosexual acts constitute grave matter. If a person knows such acts are wrong and gives full consent, or enables and/or leads others into such sins, he or she sins mortally. Mortal sin destroys the life of the soul.

PAT: …although Father I am sure you will quote something for me on that… that is not the point… and the reply you wrote about what you would say to Saul on that road, although you quoted Jesus’ words to the Pharisees, was Not what words Saul heard.

FATHER JOE: I am not Jesus; you asked what I would say? Saul was a Pharisee. He admits later on that he was guilty of innocent blood. He repents and is changed. But without repentance, can there be any real transformation?

PAT: Saul heard, “Why do you persecute me?”

FATHER JOE: And I suspect that many pro-abortion politicians will hear these words from Jesus. But remember, Saul was still alive and could change. Had he heard these words after death, they would have constituted a definitive judgment. Why did you persecute me in the womb? Why did you seek out my life again and again? Why was it you could love others, but not me as the embryo, the fetus, and the infant ready to be born?

PAT: You are not a reader of hearts, or souls, but the Lord is, and knows our deepest motivations.

FATHER JOE: I am a confessor of souls with the same power that Christ had to forgive or to retain sins. Jesus gave this power to his priests. Even the late senator purportedly received the Last Rites from a priest. About this and his funeral Mass I fully concur. He had a right to the sacraments at the end of his life. He was entitled to a funeral Mass, although the public display sent mixed messages. I make no claim of knowledge about his place in the hereafter. Indeed, I suggest we pray for him. But that is not enough for you and some others. Your bitterness and hatred toward me is very evident. But you also attack the Catholic priesthood.

PAT: I also disagree that you say a priest is a “judge” and confessor. A priest is no judge; withholding absolution, does not a Judge make.

FATHER JOE:

You would reject here another doctrine of the Church. The priest as confessor is judge, spiritual physician, father and teacher. He judges whether one might be given absolution and restored to the sacraments and good standing of the Church. He has the power to lift the censure of excommunication from those who have involved themselves with abortion. He makes a determination as to a person’s disposition. If it is clearly a bad confession, he urges the person to make further reflection and to return when he or she is serious about seeking God’s mercy. He gives penance and can also require reparation and restitution.

I have deleted the last part of Pat’s comment because such a “personal” attack against a priest by a believer is itself a sin. I would not parade your disgrace further upon this matter.

I will add you to my prayers and hope that you will one day wake up to the full import of the Gospel of Life and the important mission of priests to preach the truth both in and out of season… even to our own.

PAUL: Father Joe: I thought your comments on Senator Kennedy were entirely appropriate. There is a fine line between being righteous and self-righteous. We are not judge and jury. Just like the older brother in the “Prodigal” story, we must not give in to our feeling about a particular person. God will judge the Senator by his own standards not Man’s.

Filed under: Catholic, Celebrities, Morality, Politics, Religious Liberty, Sin, Social Justice | 1 Comment »

URGENT: Religious Liberty of the Church in Jeopardy!

Posted on January 27, 2012 by Father Joe

Attached is a letter from Cardinal Wuerl to the priests of the Archdiocese of Washington.

It has been asked that we please bring this information to the attention of parishioners.

Recommendations were made for a bulletin announcement or information on the parish website, recommending that parishioners visit…

www.usccb.org/conscience

and

www.mdcathcon.org

…for details about the new federal mandate and how to contact Congress to support legislation that would reverse the administration’s decision.

On January 20, 2012, the United States Department of Health and Human Services with the approval of President Barack Obama issued a new federal mandate making coverage of abortifacient drugs, sterilization and all FDA-approved contraceptives obligatory for virtually all employers, including faith-based institutions.

What will happen if this mandate stands? Our schools, hospitals and charitable organizations will be placed in the untenable position of choosing between violating civil law and abandoning our religious beliefs.

There can no longer be any doubt that religious liberty in our country is in jeapardy. Only weeks ago, the Obama administration unsuccessfully argued to the Supreme Court that the government has the right to interfere in a church’s choice of ministers. Thankfully, the Court unanimously rejected this radical position. Undeterred, the government has advanced on another front.

Archbishop P. Broglio of the Military Services has sent a letter to those in the Armed Forces and their families, expressing similar concerns. He writes:

It is imperative that I call to your attention an alarming and serious matter that negatively impacts the Church of the United States directly, and that strikes at the fundamental right to religious liberty for all citizens of any faith. The federal government, which claims to be “of, by, and for the people,” has just dealt a heavy blow to almost a quarter of those people–the Catholic population–and to the millions more who are served by the Catholic faithful. It is a blow to a freedom that you have fought to defend and for which you have seen your buddies fall in battle.

We cannot–we will not–comply with this unjust law. People of faith cannot be made second-class citizens. We are already joined by our brothers and sisters of all faiths and many others of good will in this important effort to regain our religious freedom.

Filed under: Politics, Religious Liberty | 6 Comments »

Activist Judges and Moral Questions

Posted on January 14, 2012 by Father Joe

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has objected to the era of the “moralist” judge, arguing that they are not qualified to decide moral questions like gay marriage and abortion. He places the gravity for such things with the elected legislators and points as an example to the constitutional amendment of 1920 that gave women the right to vote. Given that activist judges with a leftist bent gave us Roe vs. Wade, reading something into the Constitution that was not there, Justice Scalia has a point. Who is to say that activist judges cannot be just as abusive when they come from the other side of the ideological spectrum? While a few judges like Clarence Thomas have an extensive philosophical and ethical formation; many judges would not consider possible moral absolutes and the natural law. Unfortunately, I am not sure that voters, and least of all elected representatives, would possess the necessary formation and personal integrity to deal coherently with the major questions of the day, either.

Speaking for myself, I like judges, who prefer long-standing precedent; who have a vast respect for the inalienable rights of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” and who are somewhat unoriginal and literal in their thinking. Creativity is great in the artist and poet, I am not so sure about judges.

The large Catholic presence on the Supreme Court is quite amazing. Even Judge Bork, denied a place on the Court, was baptized by my dear spiritual father, Msgr. William Awalt, at the Catholic Information Center in DC. He is now a Christian and a Catholic. Justice Clarence Thomas was received back into the Catholic Church through the ministry of another brother priest in Washington. While Scalia sometimes attends his son’s Masses in Virginia, he and Thomas often attend the Tridentine Latin Mass at Old St. Mary’s in Chinatown, DC. Pat Buchanon, although a parishioner at Blessed Sacrament, is also a regular there.

Filed under: Catholic, Politics, Pro-Life, Right to Life, Social Justice | 1 Comment »

Business & Trade, Internet Search Engines, China & the Yearning to Be Free

Posted on November 28, 2011 by Father Joe

Can or should politicians interfere with Internet search engines, business and trade because of human rights concerns? I recall that several years ago Chris Smith, the New Jersey Republican congressman, came under some heat for wanting an examination and disclosure of Google’s international operations. He was the head of the House subcommittee on Human Rights. Back in February of 2005, he called hearings to investigate the operating procedures of US internet companies in China. It was thought that there could be a serious backlash against companies which capitulated to the demands of the Communist Chinese government. Of course, he was confronting big money and power. Given the indebtedness of the US to the Chinese and the change in administrations, such efforts were an uphill battle. Human rights abuses have continued and sometimes we have not been the friends of freedom. However, Chinese hacking of Google and further US government scrutiny factored in Google’s growing conscience about the matter. Google has certainly had a strained history in China. Everything came to a head in 2010. Along with other US tech companies, Google acknowledged that they had been hacked (email accounts) and that they were no longer willing to censor searches from China. They threatened to pull out. Also, in January of that year, it was reported that the US Congress was going to investigate allegations that the Chinese government used Google’s service to spy on human rights activists. On March 30, 2010, all Google search sites and services were banned in Mainland China. Today, China has their own brand of Google and YouTube.

Chris’ position was vindicated and his fears from five years earlier were fully realized. Chris is a man of conviction who believes in justice and the right to life. He has even been critical of fellow Republicans who made too many compromises. I have not spoken to him in years but he reminds me of Jimmy Stewart’s MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON. Given the current field of candidates, it is too bad that he is not running for President. We all should be concerned about the sanctity of life and human rights. His message was and is a good one: the internet business community should not collaborate with governments that seek to silence and to oppress their people.

Back in 2002, China blocked access to Google from Chinese computers and attempted to create its own search engine, with limited results. In return for access, Google created software to exclude content not approved by the Chinese government. They copied Google and now the Chinese have their own big “censoring” search engine where Big Brother can spy on all. The message was no doubt also sent to Microsoft (MSN) that they were not exempt from such an investigation either. They also censored their search engine for the Chinese and even took down Chinese blogs deemed political by the government. I read of one case where the information provided about the identity of the blogger was used by the Chinese government to prosecute the man responsible. This means that collaboration with the Communists by Internet companies in the US could have led to the imprisonment or even the torture and execution of men and women in China. I would say that was pretty important and given that Chinese slave labor provides many of our goods today; it is doubtful that the business community left to itself would do anything about it.

Congressman Chris Smith made this statement a number of years ago. Are they not still true today, even if the names of some of the players have changed?

CHINESE TRADE: “Through the efforts of the Clinton Administration, we have abandoned the American ideals of freedom and democracy for the sake of marginally cheaper consumer goods from China. We have squandered our patrimony of liberty for the profit of corporations who want access to China’s inexpensive labor market. It is time to do an about face, to condition expanded trade relations upon respect for internationally recognized, fundamental human rights. If we can promote sanctions for video games and rock-and-roll, why can’t we do it to preserve human rights?”

CHINA & GOOGLE: While Google eventually made the morally right decision, it only came after the hacking of their site. “It is astounding that Google, whose corporate philosophy is ‘don’t be evil,’ would enable evil by cooperating with China’s censorship policies just to make a buck. China’s policy of cutting off the free flow of information is prohibitive for the growth of democracy and the rule of law. Many Chinese have suffered imprisonment and torture in the service of truth – and now Google is collaborating with their persecutors.”

GW’s old man, the first George Bush, would agree with arguments that it is better to allow unrestricted business cooperation with China. Although, it seems that we have become as dependent upon their goods as they are with our money. Many of the social changes about which we hoped have failed to materialize. As for myself, I would also argue for political and economic relations with them; but always with strings attached. Our treatment of Taiwan after the Nixon/Ford Administrations has always bothered me. As for Hong Kong, the British made a treaty with a China that no longer existed; should they not have been given their sovereignty? But those are my pet notions. While our country is no paragon of virtue, nations and the world community do have an obligation to insure that businesses and organizations do not trample upon basic human rights. Collaboration with evil makes one an accomplice, for which God will judge each and every one of us. Utilitarian arguments are outrightly rejected by the Catholic Church.

I recall the arguments about opening Western businesses to China when the first President Bush gave most favored status to China; and certainly no one wants to isolate China from the rest of the world. However, economics is the only wedge short of military intervention that we have with the Communists. Do we sacrifice human rights at the altar of consumerism and materialism, either of the Socialist or Capitalist variety?

This growing middle-class in China is still less than one percent of the population. Most of the wealth generated goes to a few hundred families among the upper Communist hierarchy. Middle-class in China translates to making between $3,000 to $12,000 a year. That would rate as the poverty level in the U.S. Many of these will themselves have a servant or maid that is paid $50 a month. Peasants represent 70% of the population of 1.3 billion, earning about $100 a year!

Guess what? Finding computers in schools and coffee-houses, the majority of the bloggers and those questioning Chinese politics are from the poor! Religious persecution is still a predominate cause for internet censorship and prosecution. This includes the Chinese who reject the Patriotic Catholic Church and accept the authority of the Pope. The internet is giving people in China a voice to speak out about oppression. Big business left to its own devices does not care about this; even many in government do not. People who embrace the basic human values in government and business must work together, not only against oppression in lands like China, but also against the passivity and blindness of so many in the West.

I generally believe that government should not interfere with business; however, I qualify this with the exception of human rights. A few years ago when human fetal material was added to a popular shampoo as “animal protein”– individuals, organizations and government got involved. We have fair labor laws that try to preserve safety and dignity to workers. Products produced by companies must face safety requirements. Again and again, when it comes to human rights, governments and other organizations must get involved.

China might be on the other side of the globe. But they are people too with basic human rights and dignity. We should not enable, either through inactivity or secondary collaboration, those who would silence the voice of the poor, those yearning to be free.

A television news report announced that because of contracts with companies like Matel, 90% of all toys sold in the US are manufactured in China. Few Chinese children will ever play with such toys. Catalogues from Autom Catholic Religious Goods advertise inexpensive articles, almost all from China. However, all of it is reserved to foreign export and domestic circulation would be regarded a crime. Heck, even my DVD Player has “Made in China” on the back. Dollar Stores came into existence because of this trade. Other nations could step in, but there is no underestimating its vast scope. I wrote a few years ago that while it would cost us, the US could flex its business muscle for the sake of human rights. But each year the interdependence becomes more pervasive. The day may have come when such action would be too costly. As one critic remarked, “It is too late, the Chinese already own us.”

To illustrate how things have so rapidly changed, it was only in the 1980′s that the last television set wholly manufactured in the US was produced (ZENITH). Japan, Hong Kong, Korea and now also China produces them for us. When it came to clothing, many of us always looked for the “Union Label” and took pride in wearing shirts, pants, and dresses manufactured in the US. But the cost disparity became too much for the poor and the average working man. This started happening in the 1960′s. I recall my first concession to the trend when my mother bought me a new coat for school. It was the mid-1960′s and the coat’s label read, “This coat is manufactured by the free people of the Republic of SOUTH VIETNAM.” Evidently it was an effort to support our allies economically while in conflict with the Communist North. I wore that coat with pride, even though I was only in the fourth grade, because (in my mind) it symbolized freedom and justice.

By the way, there was a television expose some years ago about Walmart where reporters followed shirts and pants from China sweatshops to the US. They found that they were sold at Walmart carrying the designation, “Made in the U.S.A.” When challenged about this, the executives at Walmart said that there was nothing deceptive for while the clothes were of Chinese origin, the attached label was indeed, made in the Unites States. Not deceptive? The label? And these are the people who are supposed to stand up for human rights and justice?

The dilemma about the internet is just one important wrinkle in this situation: how far do you collaborate with thugs to make a buck? Where arguments might be made that trade helps the poor and middle class of China; for an American or Western company to assist in the restriction of information and free speech of Chinese dissidents is something else. And to hand over information that leads to the arrest, imprisonment, and maybe torture of such people is the worst case scenario.

I am not utterly opposed to trade with China. But I did have problems with Google installing censorship software at the behest of the Chinese government that blocked religious sites like the Vatican and Free the Fathers and blogs where men and women yearning to be free speak out.

The Chinese tried to create their own search engine back in 2002 and made a mess of things. But today it is up and running. We helped them in this. We will have to answer for it.

For the record, I should stress that I am not an isolationist. It may be that we must bargain with the devil every day. We can hope that our relationships with the Red Chinese and Moslem extremists will make a difference; but we should never let down our guard and directly cooperate in human oppression. Communism is not dead, and instances of free enterprise can disappear tomorrow if the dragon awakens. Some of our so-called allies in the war against terror are themselves corrupt and oppress minorities, women and others. Is the pacified Westernized Islam that we see here at home the true faith of Mohammed; or is the genuine face really the Hamas and the extremism that we see in the Middle East and now parts of Africa and Asia?

Trade with China will not in itself prevent a new Cold War. Indeed, their military buildup is largely financed with our own money. Oil money in the Middle East can also translate into a fearful New World. I am not sure what we can do about much of this. Such questions will not be resolved by bloggers, but at least we have the freedom to speak, which some do not have. And Western and American companies should not help to silence voices. I only wish people in all walks of life would more effectively engage these issues and politicians would devise a clear plan about where our policies are taking us. We tend to be so short-sighted, instead of looking to the horizon.

Back when Google was much in the news, I wrote: “I guess it all depends upon how seriously Google cooperates with the Red Chinese government. While I am all for the censorship of pornography sites, the protection of children, and the prosecution of those who criminally exploit others; the Communists would use political and religious censorship to oppress their own people. Should Google cooperate in human oppression? What if the censorship software identifies dissidents who could suffer arrest or murder? People still disappear in China. Hackers might find their way around censorship software, but most poor Chinese blog operators and general users only have elementary computer skills. The issue is bigger than Google. If the poor Chinese can get past the national portal to the internet, they deserve protection within the international community. The Web can be a great tool for democracy; or we can ruin it like we did so much else of the media.”

Filed under: Censored, Morality, Politics, Right to Life, Social Justice | 2 Comments »

Polygamy OUT, Monogamy IN

Posted on June 17, 2011 by Father Joe

Msgr. Pope writes a good post on his blog about the seeming conflict between the monogamous plan of creation in Genesis and the practice of polygamy by the ancient patriarchs.

Msgr. Pope’s Blog Article: Don’t Do Polygamy

In passing, he notes that marriage is defined by God as a relationship between a man and a woman. The core purposes of marriage are also espoused:

Adam is lonely and is given a helpmate who complements him in a shared nature.
Adam and Eve are told to be fruitful and multiply.

The unitive meaning (fidelity) and procreation are stressed. There is nothing capricious about this bond. It is expected that it will be lasting and life-long. They are no longer two, but one.

But as we hear from our Lord in the Gospel of Matthew, there is a problem with their hardness of hearts. The early believers are much like their pagan neighbors. The marriage bed is compromised with many would-be spouses and Moses would even allow a writ of divorce. This is not the way things were supposed to be.

It may be that primitive men of faith lacked the capacity to receive the fullness of truth and God tolerated or even used a situation that would later be remedied. Further, as with various Islamic men today, such extended households were usually reserved to the wealthy and/or to the leadership. Most men had their hands full caring for one wife and family. By the time of Jesus, polygamy was frowned upon and the sin of adultery was attached to any who would compromise a singular union. We must learn from God’s Word, not by extracting isolated proof texts but by an integral approach which respects progressive revelation. The people of God grow in the ways of God and the fullness of truth.

Msgr. Pope argues that the rivalries between the wives and the place of their children are illustrative that polygamy was always frowned upon by God. It is fraught with problems. I would concur, although even having one wife can be a source of both joy and heartache, going back to Adam, the first man. When ladies lament that they feel sorry for priests and wish we could get married, I often respond (somewhat tongue-in-cheek), “Why would I want to get married; I have enough penance in my life!”

Today, our society is indeed returning to the transgressions and abuses of the past. Divorce and remarriage, or the practice of cohabitation and fornication, is essentially serial or successive polygamy. Similarly, just as certain Greeks tolerated and institutionalized homosexual liaisons, there are efforts today to condone and legalize same sex civil unions. When will we learn?

Pic: Adapted from National Catholic Register Blog, America’s Most Complete Catholic News Source.

Filed under: Adultery, Bible, Catholic, Creation, Discipleship, Divorce, Family, Islam, Marriage, Morality, Politics, Sacraments | 1 Comment »

Can Catholics Kill Protestants? And Other Fables

Posted on April 3, 2011 by Father Joe

There are some charges beyond ridiculous. One of these is that the Canon Law of the Catholic Church advocates the killing of Protestants. Again, the anti-Catholic loves sensationalism and scare tactics. It is not unlike the BIG LIE tactics of the WWII Nazi propaganda machine. The Church is not only blamed for the Dark Ages and the Inquisition but probably for everything from bad breath to smelly feet. Instead of pictured as a loving mother, the anti-Catholic calls the Church of Rome a “monster,” “the beast” or “the harlot.” He cannot tolerate her authority or the possibility that there is a claim to truth beyond his control. Such a belligerent stance often puts the anti-Catholic bigot in the embarrassing position of castigating even those policies and persons with whom he would have an affinity, if he truly loves the Lord. Thus, he takes public positions against pro-life endeavors which he probably favors all because they originate with the Catholic Church. He also suggests that the likes of Mother Teresa are burning in hell because they did not espouse fundamentalist propositions; indeed, Mother Teresa closely associated the Eucharist with her charity endeavors. He becomes the very thing he says he hates about the Catholic Church, intolerant and dishonest.

EXCOMMUNICATION – Turning his attention to this subject, the anti-Catholic denies the Church any authority to discipline her membership. However, he ignores the fact that many Protestant communities shun and expel those who do not follow the party line. In ancient days banishment was preferred to taking the life of an unbeliever. Communion in the Catholic Church implies uniformity in worship and belief. If such a unity is imperiled by heresy and/or irregular worship, the Church has the obligation to protect the integrity of the faith. One critic compared this policy to the work of Hitler or the Red Scare. However, there is no comparison. The substance of what is being protected is the truth, not egregious deceits as in totalitarianism. Further, one may still dissent, but one may not do so upon a serious matter and pretend to be a good Catholic Christian. The two matters which bring automatic excommunication are harming the person of the Pope and deliberately procuring an abortion. Would the anti-Catholic argue contrarily for violence or for excusing the murder of babies? I hope not.

PROSCRIPTION FROM OFFICES – This only pertains to ecclesiastical offices these days as most governments in the West are secular. Should a person continue as a pastor of souls if he is leading them into error or causing scandal by his conduct? I think not. In ancient days, this concern was tied up with the tension with kings over authority and interference in Church matters. While this point is now more historical than current, the Pope has insisted that Catholic priests and male and female religious not hold political positions in civil governments. Would the anti-Catholic who feels this infringes upon private rights really want a Catholic clergyman as his Senator or President? I doubt it. He makes a lot of noise for nothing!

CONFISCATION OF GOODS – This notion is quite archaic and no longer applies except in cases where goods belonging to the Church have been illicitly procured. Would the anti-Catholic want a disgruntled pastor to sell his church from under him or leave it to children with no interest in religion? No. It was the same issue with the Catholic faith. The temporal goods of the Church belong to the People of God. I would readily compare the few hundred dollars a month most of our priests get to the high salaries of many evangelical and fundamentalist ministers any day! Who is it who is really getting rich on religion? On top of this most priests have to maintain their own car, pay insurance, and pay the same taxes as all the rest of us. Religious clergy even take a vow of poverty. Mother Teresa’s sisters only possess two habits each and a bucket to wash them in. Millions upon millions go to charity and the Vatican often suffers a short-fall in funds. Where is this rich Vatican government that anti-Catholics shout about? Should the Church sell off her holdings of art to private collectors and deprive the world of what she safeguards for all humanity? The argument of the anti-Catholic bigot on this score is a tumbling house of cards.

EXECUTION – Anti-Catholics play this tune for all they can get out of it. Again, nations, Protestant, Catholic, Moslem, and Secular have often used religion to their own ends. The complicity of certain ones in the membership (or in leadership) is not grounds for damning the entire Church fellowship. In ancient times, the people themselves would often drag out and lynch heretics. The Church encouraged the rule of law to bring order and justice to the situation. Oftentimes confiscation of property and banishment was the punishment. However, over time the death penalty did encroach upon the scene. Further, until recent times, the Papacy actually retained a substantial territory, the Papal States. Consumed by the Italian unification movement, all that remains is the small Vatican City. The civil legislation of the old Papal States must be reckoned on the same level as other nations. Countries in the past and in the present have sometimes allowed the death penalty for threats to society. Records indicate that such executions in papal lands dealt with capital crimes like murder. Today, the Church has discerned a development in doctrine that would rescind this right of the state to take life since it adds to the current culture of death. Incarceration and rehabilitation are preferred avenues for criminals. However, this is again in reference to what we would all discern to be crimes against society. The irony here is that while many fundamentalists side with Catholics against abortion, they are frequently strong advocates of capital punishment in our own nation. This brings us back to the ludicrous assertion that Catholics are given liberty to kill Protestants. It just is not so. Alongside fundamentalists who want free access to the people inside the old Soviet Union, the Catholic Church has joined her voice in defending the sanctity of conscience and religious liberty as a constitutive right of the human person.

Development along these lines does not impinge upon the charism of infallibility regarding faith and morals given the Church. While the Church is holy because of the abiding presence of Christ, her members are always sinners in need of their redeemer, Christ. Regarding matters of science and practical matters of government, the Church has had to feel her way through time just like other organizations. The Church may be infallible, but she is not always impeccable. Anti-Catholics often fail to make this distinction.

One anti-Catholic had to go all the way to Gratian’s Decretals of the 12th century (one of the earliest attempts to codify the laws of Christendom) in order to discredit the Catholic Church. His own denomination did not yet exist; indeed, the Protestant Reformation had yet to happen. Nevertheless, he belittles the Church for oppressing his compatriots during that time.

Utterly desperate to show that Catholics can kill Protestants with impunity, one anti-Catholic bigot cites the St. Bartholomew Day Massacre. The king’s sister, Margaret of Valois, married an important Protestant leader, Henry of Navarre. Her mother and her family secretly arranged for his assassination. When it failed, they convinced the king that there would be a Huguenot reprisal. They decided to strike first but the government could not retain the violence. Religious war broke out and upon his conversion to Catholicism, Henry of Navarre became king, himself. Unfortunately, another religious war would follow. The anti-Catholic bigot gives few of the facts and condemns the whole Catholic Church for what was a French civil war.

The typical bigoted anti-Catholic’s views which I have largely reviewed here always end with a terrible bluntness. He says that unless one leaves the Catholic Church, one must be damned to hell. He tells the Catholic to run, but only gives him a religion which judges itself by its hate of Catholicism. That is no choice. The Catholic should stay home and explore his own spiritual roots. Our history may have some blemishes, but it also contains many jewels. It is the Church of the saints and the family of God established by Jesus.

Filed under: Anti-Catholicism, Apologetics, Bible, Catholic, Church, Discipleship, Evangelization, Faith, Politics, Pro-Life, Social Justice, Works | Leave a comment »

Mr. Sean Hannity vs. Fr. Thomas Euteneuer

Posted on January 17, 2011 by Father Joe

I wrote this commentary back in April of 2007. Given that we are coming up to the March for Life in a week’s time, I thought I would repost it.

Mr. Sean Hannity: “I have no problem with birth control. It’s a good thing.”

It was this statement and attitude that was to result in a sad spectacle of dissent on Church teaching and disrespect to a Catholic priest. It should be noted that Mr. Hannity claims to be pro-life, although he makes exceptions for abortions in cases or rape, incest, or for the life of the mother. A rule is only as strong as its exceptions, and thus this really reflects a moderated pro-abortion stance. A child conceived through rape is still innocent and cannot be understood as an unjust aggressor. A child of incest or sexual abuse is still a human being entitled to the right to life. A child’s life and that of the mother cannot be measured on a scale as to which one is more deserving to survive. All human life is incommensurate.

Mr. Sean Hannity invited Fr. Thomas Euteneuer of Human Life International to the television show, supposedly to discuss the matter of dissent on contraception by high profile Catholics, particularly in the media. It turned out to be a setup forum for Hannity to enact revenge against the priest for questioning his Catholicism and judging his dissent.

Regarding the recent public clash between Mr. Sean Hannity of FOX News and Fr. Thomas Euteneuer, I must come down on the side of the good priest. Compounding the matter, the “sometimes” FOX News analyst Fr. Jonathan Morris scolded Fr. Euteneuer and inadvertently aided dissenters on birth control. He said that Fr. Euteneuer “exercised, on this occasion, shockingly poor judgment,” and was mistakenly “brandishing law without palpable love.” However, the truth be said, Fr. Euteneuer hardly got a word in edgewise. I do not think undermining Church teaching was Fr. Morris’ intent, but it has been the result. As one purported Regnum Christi member said, “If a Legionary of Christ supports Hannity, then he must be in the right!” Personally, I think a general clarification from the Legionaries is required and Fr. Morris should be directed to terminate his formal association with FOX News. He was ordained to be a priest for Christ and the Catholic Church, not for Murdock’s neoconservative news propaganda machine. He has compromised himself.

Fr. Euteneuer reveals that he sought a private meeting about the subject with Hannity back in 2004. Nothing came of it.

Even a number of people who disagree about artificial contraception admitted to me that the priest was treated pretty shabbily after being invited upon the television show. There was no real discussion of the matter at hand. The priest was kept on the defensive and given no opportunity for a proper response. Mr. Hannity contended that the priest had no right to judge him and that he should worry about the outrageous cover-up of pedophile priests before coming after him. Of course, Mr. Hannity makes such judgments on his television and radio shows regularly. This was not the real problem, just that he disliked being under the gun, himself. Further, a priest is not any Christian. He is appointed by Christ as a minister of reconciliation. This role requires that he be a judge of souls and that he speak clearly about what is right and wrong.

Mr. Hannity argued falsely that Fr. Euteneuer had not spoken out forcibly about sexual abuse and the scandal of bishops who did not take it seriously. What Mr. Hannity did was to take the attention off him and to move it elsewhere, insinuating that Fr. Euteneuer was being hypocritical. Mr. Hannity also quickly appealed to the fact that not everyone is Catholic, as if that is an excuse for a Catholic in the public forum to renounce an important element of our moral teaching. Such an appeal to relativism is tragic from a figure who purports to be a political conservative. He had apologized for eating meat on a Friday of Lent. Fr. Euteneuer rightly observed that there is a big difference between the inadvertent violation of a Church discipline and the repudiation of a doctrinal or moral teaching, as here touching upon the Theology of the Body and the openness to human life that must be present in every instance of the marital act.

Mr. Hannity asked again and again, more in a rhetorical fashion than in actuality, “Do you know me?” He said he had been in seminary and had studied Latin. When I heard this I began to scratch my head, so what? The news anchor was becoming incoherent in his tirade against the priest. Were we suppose to give him a gold star for being an altar boy? Fr. Charles Curran, the great dissenter on contraception, abortion, homosexuality, etc. also went to seminary and studied Latin…such things did not make him right or insure that he had the mind of the Church about all matters.

NOTE: When challenged by Fr. Euteneuer, Hannity made a big deal out of being a former altar boy and “seminarian” who studied Latin. Actually, his “seminary” training consisted of attending a boys’ Catholic High School called St. Pius the X Preparatory Seminary in Uniondale, NY. Most of its graduates, like Hannity, were not headed for the priesthood. He was a college drop-out and his “theology” courses were nothing more than high-school and grammar school catechism.

Let us cut to the quick, Mr. Hannity is a neo-conservative in the political arena who leans toward liberalism in the area of Catholicism. It is fine and good that he has urged his children to be chaste and celibate until marriage. He might be anti-abortion, and about this we should all be pleased, but he is not consistent given his stance in favor of certain exceptions and artificial contraception. He even went so far as to mock the priest with what he saw as an inconsistency on Catholicism’s part, a so-called Church-approved birth control, i.e. contraception, Natural Family Planning. But, of course, NFP is not true contraception, it is simply periodic abstinence based upon a knowledge of the body and how it works. It is a way to regulate or space births. Further, unlike the pill or condom, NFP can be used to help couples get pregnant, since they know the times of maximum fertility. If one were to use NFP in a selfish way then it could also be turned into a sinful practice. One may space births but not turn against the meaning of the marital act.

The priest was able to squeeze in the truth, under the mantra of Hannity’s unending assault, that a majority of those who have abortions do so because of contraceptive failure. Artificial contraception is indeed the handmaid to abortion. This is what the priest knows and what Mr. Hannity refuses to admit. It creates a contraceptive mentality which fuels the holocaust of abortion. Nothing was said about the fact that certain forms of contraception are also abortifacient. But, as I said, the interview was not a civil exchange of ideas, but an opportunity to malign a priest who wanted to help Mr. Hannity to be consistent and to insure that Catholics know that contraception is a grievous matter not to be flippantly handled.

In writing to Fr. Jonathan Morris, who chastised a fellow priest and gave solace to Hannity, Fr. Euteneuer writes:

The question that comes to mind is an obvious one: if you are a Fox analyst on Catholic matters, wouldn’t you have been the one to have had those “private conversations” on birth control with Mr. Hannity? How about discussions on his abortion exceptions? When you told Sean “in person” that you “disagreed with him,” was it on the issue of birth control? If you had done that, I applaud you, but your powers of persuasion may need a little honing—Sean has only gotten more vocal on this issue over time. If you did not speak to him about his public dissent, then I ask you, “Why?” While we are on the subject, have you also analyzed and disagreed with Bill O’Reilly’s perfectly horrible disdain for the Holy Father and the Church that you represent?

The church sex abuse scandal was not just about homosexual and predatory priests. It was about clerical negligence and silence on issues that not only affect people’s souls but also ruin people’s lives. It is highly unusual that you or anyone else would want a priest to be silent on issues that affect the salvation of souls. We used to recognize “admonishing the sinner” as one of the Spiritual Works of Mercy, and I consider my admonishment of Mr. Hannity to have been done in that spirit. I might also add that in doing so I have fulfilled my duty as a priest which is a requirement for my salvation.

Further evidence that Mr. Hannity suffers from a poor faith formation as a Catholic is the following notation at the HLI site:

Mr. Hannity is not backing down, saying on Monday’s radio program that if he were excommunicated he would call the Rev. Jerry Falwell and ask to join his Thomas Road Baptist Church in Lynchburg, Va.

No one, of course, is talking about excommunication; that is just his continuing hysterics about this matter. But note that he would join a Baptist Church, no doubt because of their “political” conservatism, but one that is silent on a weighty moral matter like artificial contraception. Doctrinal differences between them and Catholics are enormous. He would reject the Pope, much of the deposit of faith, and the sacramental life, particularly the Eucharist, to maintain his dissent. He would embrace a Protestant sect and forever turn his back on the sacrifice of the Mass and the real presence of Jesus’ body and blood in the Blessed Sacrament in exchange for grape juice and loaf bread. Even a knowledgeable Catholic excommunicant, if his faith be real, would want to come home to the sacraments and to the true Church established by Jesus Christ.

ADDENDUM

Fr. Jonathan Morris

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258291,00.html

As I watched a fellow Catholic priest spar with you on the March 9 edition of Hannity and Colmes, I hung my head in shame and sadness. My colleague in religion (whom I’ve never met) used the public airways and Internet to call you a heretic and hypocrite. Because he chose to do this in a public forum, I want you and your viewers to know, publicly, that as an analyst of this television network, I believe this good priest, who does great work, exercised, on this occasion, shockingly poor judgment. I consider his willingness to give his personal opinion about your status within the Church inappropriate and ill-considered, to say the least.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258501,00.html

While Fr. Thomas Euteneuer and I may disagree on how best to attain this lofty goal in certain venues, like on a secular television network, we are of one heart and mind on substance.

Filed under: Anti-Catholicism, Catholic, Celebrities, Church, Contraception, Discipleship, Faith, God, Marriage, Morality, News, Politics, Priests, Pro-Life, Prophets, Sexuality, Sin | 6 Comments »