Religious Liberty | Blogger Priest

Married Priests Now? Um, No Thank You!

Posted on June 10, 2013 by Father Joe

Cathy feels very strongly that the Church should allow priests to marry. I took exception to her opinion.

CATHY: It is impossible to make the assumption that having a wife and children would be distraction to priests, bishops, cardinals and the pope when they were never allowed to have a family in the first place and many have fooled around anyway.

FATHER JOE: You are presumptuous that many priests have “fooled around.” Most Catholic priests are faithful to their promises and to the commitment of obedience and celibacy. Priests are normal men who grew up in families. We also deal with the marriages and families of others. Many married people who have come to understand what priesthood entails have themselves told me that celibacy is the best way. The Catholic preference is that the priest’s wife and family is his parish— he belongs to them, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year (or 366 in leap year). I am not saying that we do not have some good and holy married priests. We do. But the daily character of their priesthood and personal life is very different. It has to be or they would not be good and faithful husbands and fathers. Even things that are usually reckoned as good can be distractions to the priest. Here I speak not just about activity but about the donation or surrender of himself and of his heart.

CATHY: To make people choose against a holy sacrament of marriage is to break the first commandment in the bible which is to be fruitful and multiply.

FATHER JOE: First, the sacrament of marriage comes with the Christian dispensation; all that comes before belongs to the natural covenant of marriage. Second, the mention of fruitfulness comes not as a command in itself but rather as part of man’s stewardship over creation. Third, what we are dealing with here is a divine benediction or blessing. We read: “God blessed them and God said to them: Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it. Have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and all the living things that crawl on the earth. (Genesis 1:28). Fourth, it is a generalized matter for the whole human race and not a particular command to individuals. You personally cannot fill the earth and subdue it. You personally do not have mastery over all the animals. There is no commandment that says that men and women MUST get married. Choosing celibacy is not simply opting never to get married; rather, it is the decision to love in another way. Marriage is regarded by the Church as a natural right. However, the man called to priesthood or religious life opts not to exert this right. Yes, it does signify sacrificial love but so does marriage. What makes it a higher form of love is that it is the road less traveled. It points in a unique fashion to the coming kingdom where there will neither be marriage nor the giving in marriage. This is what theologians mean when they speak of priestly celibacy as an eschatological sign.

CATHY: You would take away some of the supposed scandal from the church if you would allow for men and women (nuns) to serve and be married.

FATHER JOE: Are you so sure? Have you noticed the divorce and remarriage rates among Lutheran clergy? Child abuse rates are higher in marriages than among celibate clergy. No, you are very wrong about this. The Church could make the discipline of celibacy optional; however, it will neither be because of scandals nor because genital sexual expression has become a modern necessity.

CATHY: How can ministers of the word even begin to identify with parishioners if they have not lived through some of their circumstances, especially since ministry begins in the home?

FATHER JOE: Again, you pile one false presupposition upon another. Priests do not come from distant Pluto. We have grown up in families, some good and a few that were dysfunctional. Priests prepare couples for marriage, give counseling, interact regularly with families, and know all the blessings and malignancies that can plague the home. It comes first through our pastoral training and then in our daily association with the people we serve. I would suspect in all this that priestly experience is far beyond yours or that of many married people. This is precisely an area where celibacy frees the priest so that he can be available to his parishioners. Otherwise, the cares and tribulations of his own home would have to come first.

CATHY: Sex is not vile if done within marriage. It is a God sanctioned act.

FATHER JOE: Did I ever say that sex was vile? Please do not put words into my mouth. The marital act consummates the marital union and it regularly renews the covenant of the spouses with each other and with God. Marital love and family are great treasures; but celibate love is a still greater gift. You do not prize it. You do not understand. This is the tragedy of the modern age. We agree with St. Paul, that the single-hearted love of God (celibacy) is the better way. But, it is not the only way. God will give the gift of celibacy to any man truly called to the priesthood. I firmly believe this. We see it realized in the lives of thousands upon thousands of priests.

CATHY: This not being married is a man sanctioned decree.

FATHER JOE: There are doctrinal components, but yes it is what the Church terms a discipline. Remember that the Church is both a human and a divine institution. While the Church has charge over such disciplines, it is the mind of the Church that celibacy pleases God and that such reflects his providential will over the orders of the Church.

CATHY: Every prophet and most of the apostles including St. Peter were married.

FATHER JOE: So what? We still have married clergy, a few priests and many deacons. And they are permitted to exercise their marital prerogatives. However, many married clergy in the early Church opted after their ordinations to live like Joseph and Mary. They may have had children before ordination but then practiced perfect and perpetual continence just as the Jewish priests practiced temporary abstention during their terms of service.

CATHY: Their trials were due to the times they were living in. Now, unless you are living in pagan or atheist parts of the world, no one is trying to burn or stone you for being Catholic.

FATHER JOE: What you say here is not entirely topical to this discussion. But, your gullibility frightens me. Have you missed all the uproar this past year about religious liberty? I have a parish with members from Asia and Africa. They have seen their priests killed and churches at home destroyed. I know priests here at home who have suffered the prison cell for peacefully protesting evils in our society like abortion. I suspect the day will soon come when declaring homosexual acts as sinful from the pulpit will be equated as hate-speech. When that happens, we will see many more priests behind bars. A priest-friend was murdered in his bedroom just a few years ago by a madman unhappy with him. We had several priests up north killed by a homeless man who beat their brains out with the very soup can with which these holy men sought to give the beggar nourishment. The family of married priests, as with ministers, can become the ground for manipulation and the cause for passivity in the face of evil. How is that? The celibate priest has only himself. The married man thinks first of his wife and children. He needs an income to provide for them. He needs a home to shelter them. The world plays hardball all the time. How many ministers have shut their mouths on certain issues for fear of alienating parishioners and forfeiting lucrative positions? We have some incredibly poor parishes. We already have men who can barely pay their small salaries. Could you raise a family on a thousand or fifteen hundred dollars a month? When all the assessments are paid there is not much left. Sometimes there is nothing left. The Church’s resources go back into our care for the poor, our schools, hospitals, and churches. As I said, we belong to the people we serve.

Filed under: Catholic, Celibacy, Magisterium, Pope, Priests, Religion, Religious Liberty, Sacraments, Sexuality, Sin | 1 Comment »

Should Priests Be Able to Witness (CIVIL) LEGAL Marriages?

Posted on October 4, 2012 by Father Joe

The CORPSE BRIDE promotion really has nothing to do with this article, although the film did remind viewers about sacrifice and “until death do we part,” albeit in a morbid way.

The post is an OPINION piece for me, and maybe I am wrong, but here are my two cents worth.

I recently read an article where a renown and orthodox philosophy professor argued that Catholic priests should not perform marriages as civil officials of the state. Right now in the United States, a wedding witnessed by a priest is both recognized by the Church and by the civil authorities. The couple must have a license and the priest signs it after the service, giving the couple their segment, keeping a copy for Church records, and sending the third page back to the courthouse for formal registration. The professor argues that given the disparity in how the State and the Church defines marriage, the priest taints himself and undermines the sacrament.

Obviously, the divorce culture has compromised the notion of marriage, and the absurdity of homosexual marriages has definitely complicated matters; however, should the Church isolate herself as an ideological, cultural and civic ghetto or safehaven?
Would this not surrender the public institution of marriage to secular humanists and hedonists?
Would we forfeit our right to enter into the national debate on marriage?

The priviledge of a priest witnessing legal marriages is not just a sign of overcoming past prejudices, but remains a steadfast witness that legal marriages reflect the natural law and that couples are called to holiness and fidelity. The priest and the Church offer preparation classes on marriage, the state does not. There is also a safeguard in the two-tiered program in that State and Church records help to confirm the freedom of people to marry.

The good doctor says that Catholic priests should witness sacramental marriages only. He adds that if the newlyweds want to get a civil law marriage certificate as well, that is left to them.

Does a priest really compromise his office by witnessing marriages that are recognized both by the State and the Church?
Given that such a statement were true, would this not mean that “every” priest and bishop would be compromised and guilty of serious sin?
If we permitted sacramental weddings that were not licensed by the state, would we not endanger the permanence of marriage further?
Would our married people be stamped with the stigma of cohabitation and lewd conduct in the eyes of non-Catholic believers and secular persons with high morals?
Since the state would not recognize such marriages, and common law marriages are no longer recognized in most places, could not such couples easily separate (even more so than with No-Fault Divorce) with little if any civil recourse?

Some countries require two ceremonies, a civil one before a judge or notary public and a ceremony before a priest and two witnesses. This is a possible eventuality, although it increases the likelihood that some couples would dispense with the Church service entirely. If the couple attempted to consummate the civil contract before engaging in the marital covenant, then they would commit mortal sin. Every such marriage would become a convalidation. Giving the Catholic minister the faculties to perform both a civil and an ecclesial wedding is a small insurance that this eventuality need not happen. I do not even want to imagine what the implications would be for inheritance, health insurance, pension and other benefits. Critics would contend that the problem is not the priest and his role for the Church and State; the trouble is that Catholic couples, who are the true ministers of the sacrament, are not keeping their promises. There is also an “intentional” difficulty with Catholics going to a hall or court after the Church wedding. First, it might undermine the full reality of the sacrament, as if there is something constitutive that is missing. Second, given whatever ritual that may be used, it may constitute “simulation” which is forbidden regarding the sacraments. (Marriage renewals must always adjust the vows to recognize that there is a distinction with the original and true marriage.) Remember, that while the notion of permanence has been compromised by divorce, the vows used by civil officials are often the same used at Church weddings, and stipulating “until death do we part”. Schizophrenic or not, such is the situation. For the Catholic there is no such thing as a parallel marriage, once the deed is done, it is done. Two ceremonies tends to harm this appreciation.

If one argues that state marriage is an entirely different species from Church weddings, then what about the marriages of Protestants and other non-Catholics by civil magistrates? Not bound by Catholic law, we always considered those marriages valid. However, by extension, the professor’s argument would seem to infer that such marriages, even between men and women, would have no more reality and substance than that of gays and outright fornicators. Of course, I am probably wrong here, and he would likely contend that “properly disposed” people would still be able to confect a suitable bond, even if only a natural one.

As a postscript, I have a priest friend (on the faculty of a seminary) who vehemently disagrees with me. He thinks that the Church should get out of the marriage business completely and hand the whole mess over to the state. Obviously, I would very much object.

********************

Here is a recommended book that continues the discussion about the tension and disconnect between Catholicism and contemporary American society, particularly the Democrat Party:

Agree or not with it, the book makes interesting reading and will surely inspire lively discussions!

Filed under: Adultery, Homosexuality, Marriage, Priests, Religious Liberty, Sexuality, Sin | 5 Comments »

Faith & Values in the News

Posted on September 20, 2012 by Father Joe

Religious Banners Removed at Catholic School

God forbid that young people at school events should get a taste of traditional American liberties, like freedom of religion and freedom of speech… NOT! Schools can teach science and the faith of atheism but are to make no mention a Creator. Schools can teach safe “promiscuous” sex and give away condoms, but not a penny is available for abstinence education. Schools are forbidden to teach the 10 Commandments and then wonder why youth misbehave and get in trouble with the law. All manner of vulgarity is tolerated but not a bible verse on a sheet… yep, these girls are real trouble-makers, but the right kind. When Islamic religious fanatics burn the flag, destroy property and commit murder… we target our sights upon peaceful Christian cheerleaders at a school football game. Ah, the world is insane!

Muslim Prayer Room Opens at Catholic High School

How many Catholic chapels are there in Islamic schools? Where does courtesy end and religious indifferentism begin? How does one reconcile this with the insistence that “Catholic identity” is not at risk in our parochial schools? Do the Jewish children get their private prayer space as well? What about the Wiccans and Satanists? Do they get chapels to honor the goddess and/or the horned beast? Certainly, we would not want to discriminate or be judgmental… would we? Ah, the plight of radical tolerance!

7-Election 2012

It does not look good for Romney… vote with a cup of coffee. The trouble is that the Tea Party is into another type of drink!

Ex-Priest Sues the Catholic Church to Clear His Name

If what he says is true, I really feel sorry for this guy and there needs to be justice.

The New York Times Remembers Sister Mary Rose

Rest in peace, Sister, and many thanks for saving children and Covenant House.

Children Freak When Disney Channel Cartoon is Interrupted by Porn

If trash television were not trasmitted at all then such accidents would not happen. The truth is that our children are exposed to unhealthy and vulgar images all the time. We cannot trust television to babysit our children. It is a compromised media. The providers are more interested in making money, even with virtual prostitution, then in helping parents to raise kids of good moral character and virtue. In any case, if adults are themselves corrupted by this media, then how can they pass on anything of value without the poison of hypocrisy?

Filed under: Atheism, Bible, Catholic, Celibacy, Conscience, Discipleship, Evangelization, Faith, Family, Modesty, News, Politics, Religion, Religious Liberty, Schools, Sexuality, Sin, Youth | 1 Comment »

Cardinal Dolan’s Benediction Prayer at the DNC

Posted on September 7, 2012 by Father Joe

With a “firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence,” let us close this convention by praying for this land that we so cherish and love:

Let us Pray.

Almighty God, father of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, revealed to us so powerfully in your Son, Jesus Christ, we thank you for showering your blessings upon this our beloved nation. Bless all here present, and all across this great land, who work hard for the day when a greater portion of your justice, and a more ample measure of your care for the poor and suffering, may prevail in these United States. Help us to see that a society’s greatness is found above all in the respect it shows for the weakest and neediest among us.

We beseech you, almighty God to shed your grace on this noble experiment in ordered liberty, which began with the confident assertion of inalienable rights bestowed upon us by you: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Thus do we praise you for the gift of life. Grant us the courage to defend it, life, without which no other rights are secure. We ask your benediction on those waiting to be born, that they may be welcomed and protected. Strengthen our sick and our elders waiting to see your holy face at life’s end, that they may be accompanied by true compassion and cherished with the dignity due those who are infirm and fragile.

We praise and thank you for the gift of liberty. May this land of the free never lack those brave enough to defend our basic freedoms. Renew in all our people a profound respect for religious liberty: the first, most cherished freedom bequeathed upon us at our Founding. May our liberty be in harmony with truth; freedom ordered in goodness and justice. Help us live our freedom in faith, hope, and love. Make us ever-grateful for those who, for over two centuries, have given their lives in freedom’s defense; we commend their noble souls to your eternal care, as even now we beg the protection of your mighty arm upon our men and women in uniform.

We praise and thank you for granting us the life and the liberty by which we can pursue happiness. Show us anew that happiness is found only in respecting the laws of nature and of nature’s God. Empower us with your grace so that we might resist the temptation to replace the moral law with idols of our own making, or to remake those institutions you have given us for the nurturing of life and community. May we welcome those who yearn to breathe free and to pursue happiness in this land of freedom, adding their gifts to those whose families have lived here for centuries.

We praise and thank you for the American genius of government of the people, by the people and for the people. O God of wisdom, justice, and might, we ask your guidance for those who govern us: President Barack Obama, Vice President Joseph Biden, Congress, the Supreme Court, and all those, including Governor Mitt Romney and Congressman Paul Ryan, who seek to serve the common good by seeking public office. Make them all worthy to serve you by serving our country. Help them remember that the only just government is the government that serves its citizens rather than itself. With your grace, may all Americans choose wisely as we consider the future course of public policy.

And finally Lord, we beseech your benediction on all of us who depart from here this evening, and on all those, in every land, who yearn to conduct their lives in freedom and justice. We beg you to remember, as we pledge to remember, those who are not free; those who suffer for freedom’s cause; those who are poor, out of work, needy, sick, or alone; those who are persecuted for their religious convictions, those still ravaged by war.

And most of all, God Almighty, we thank you for the great gift of our beloved country.

For we are indeed “one nation under God,” and “in God we trust.”

So dear God, bless America. You who live and reign forever and ever.

Amen!

Note: The major networks purportedly cut away from the convention and did not show the prayer.

Filed under: Catholic, Church, Conscience, Discipleship, Faith, Fortnight for Freedom, God, Homosexuality, Jesus, Marriage, Morality, News, Politics, Pro-Life, Religion, Religious Liberty, Right to Life, Sexuality, Sin, Social Justice | 1 Comment »

Religious Liberty, Traditionalists & Obedience

Posted on August 28, 2012 by Father Joe

The SSPX has made no secret of its opposition to the teachings about religious liberty both espoused at Vatican II and in the recent USCCB campaign against government intrusion.

We have faced many challenges to our religious liberty. At one time Catholics were forbidden entry into certain colleges like William and Mary. Catholic churches were burned and our worship was curtailed. Later there was the issue of public education and the reading of Protestant bibles. Catholic schools emerged to insure the faith of generations of children.

In more recent times there has been the issue of prayer in schools, the celebration of religious holidays and public symbols, and the status of the Sabbath or Sunday blue laws. The emphasis has shifted from a preference given to the Protestant faith over the Catholic, to an atheistic secular humanism that is hostile to all faith. Today, there is a concerted effort to force the Church to compromise on matters like homosexuality, artificial contraception, and abortion. Will the Church face charges of hate-speech for opposing same-sex unions and homosexual acts? Will the Church be forced to pay for contraceptives, abortifacients and sterilization in healthcare plans? How far will this fight go and how strong and courageous will we find Catholic churchmen. And will the Catholic people stand with their shepherds or with an anti-Catholic modernity? We would expect that traditionalists would be of one mind with conservatives on such matters; but such is not always the case.

The Church would not argue that religious liberty is absolute or that it “necessarily” applies to all creeds equally. However, the principle of religious liberty and freedom of conscience are critical to the Church’s understanding of human dignity. The more a religion reflects the objective order and spiritual truth, the more that faith must remain free from coercion. Mormons once taught polygamy and were rightfully corrected by the federal government. Satanism is restricted on military bases because occult services in the nude conflict with the military code of conduct. Sometimes peculiar things are tolerated in other religions so that the Church herself might benefit from non-interference, matters like the pacifism of Quakers and rigid alcoholic temperance. Then there are acts that cause quite a bit of debate, matters like snake-handling, the prohibition of blood transfusions (Jehovah Witnesses) and interdictions toward inter-racial dating. However, there are also clear limits as with ritual euthanasia, human sacrifice, bondage or trafficking, and the abuse of children.

Furthermore, society has the right to defend itself against possible abuses committed on the pretext of freedom of religion. It is the special duty of government to provide this protection. However, government is not to act in an arbitrary fashion or in an unfair spirit of partisanship. Its action is to be controlled by juridical norms which are in conformity with the objective moral order. These norms arise out of the need for the effective safeguard of the rights of all citizens and for the peaceful settlement of conflicts of rights, also out of the need for an adequate care of genuine public peace, which comes about when men live together in good order and in true justice, and finally out of the need for a proper guardianship of public morality.

These matters constitute the basic component of the common welfare: they are what is meant by public order. For the rest, the usages of society are to be the usages of freedom in their full range: that is, the freedom of man is to be respected as far as possible and is not to be curtailed except when and insofar as necessary. (Dignitatis Humanae #7)

Given the persecution of the Church in England, the separation of the Church and state was interpreted as a way to protect our interests. While an ideal state is one where the Church and state are in harmony, history has proven that such unity is hard to achieve and even harder to maintain. There was also the unpleasant side-effect that with the Reformation, the creed of the land followed the local prince. While such was legally tolerated in Europe to prevent bloodshed, this arrangement was very unfair to Catholics who felt abandoned by Rome and a Catholic Europe. Religious liberty in the United States permitted the Church to expand at a rate that surprised even the Holy See. Marylanders rejoiced to be liberated from the penal laws. Our Catholic school system grew to be second to none. It must be added that the separation of Church and state never meant a disavowal of traditional religious values or culture. Such is the extreme that we see today from organizations like the ACLU and the liberal People for the American Way. The American state was viewed by many of our founders as a Christian one, not atheistic as some contend today.

The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself.(2) This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right. (Dignitatis Humanae #2)

If everyone were Catholic, we might presume that the public values and laws would reflect this fact. But states that are largely Catholic do not always remain sympathetic to the Church. Mexico in the 1920’s would be a case in point. The rupture of the Reformation took place in what were formerly Catholic nations. Never underestimate original sin and the hunger of men for power.

While we might hope and work for the day when earthly realms would recognize Christ and his Church, we leave such eventualities to divine providence. Anything else would be a pelagian nod to earthly utopias. Our emphasis is always upon the kingdom of Christ which is ushered in by God’s grace.

Some critics, particularly within the SSPX, would criticize the model of religious liberty taught by the late Fr. John Courtney Murray. They go so far as to fault its promulgation at Vatican II as the source for global apostasy and secularization. However, Father Murray simply gave voice to what he saw as the American experiment. I would argue that it was not an ingredient in the subsequent conflict with modernity, Vatican II or no Vatican II.

It is simplistic to demonize the council or to give a heightened importance to the pre-conciliar Church that it did not possess. The council was an attempt by the Church to respond to a changing world. Not everything worked out and many purposely distorted the meaning and purpose of the gathering. However, the world’s bishops did gather, it was a legitimate council, and the Pope ratified it. Those who utterly reject it will find themselves in opposition to a crucial Church teaching— that the universal Magisterium so gathered is safeguarded by the Holy Spirit. It is no wonder that those who oppose the council are neither united to the majority of the world’s bishops nor in juridical union with the Holy See. There are only two options open to critics of the council. Either there was a misapplication of the council by those who invented a “spirit of Vatican II” or there is no supernatural agency protecting ecumenical councils, the Magisterium and the Pope. It is for this reason that castigating the council is a very dangerous thing for a “faithful” Catholic to do. It leads either to a Catholicized variation of Protestantism or to atheism.

It is true that Cardinal Ottaviani shared a number of concerns about the council and his view regarding Church/state relations. It is no secret that this holy prelate was unhappy, especially given that his schema for the council was brushed aside and replaced. But he was only one man and in the end he was obedient. The fact remains that the majority of the world’s bishops and the Pope signed off on the council documents. The issue here is clearly one of ecclesiology. Pope Benedict XVI was at the council and yet critics would try and tell him what was what. The arrogance in all this is insufferable.

Church social teaching cannot be merely theoretical but must reflect the pragmatic reality of the world where we find ourselves. While there are stable elements, the political teaching reacts to the world around us: the disappearance of monarchies, the rise of democracies, capitalism and the world economy, the threat of communism, and increased secularism. Today, we would also add the effect of technology and communication, as well as the rise of fundamentalist Islam and their lack of tolerance toward the Church. The Church is seeking for ways to grow and arguing for its right to exist, no matter how societies might change.

Some critics contend that the “post-Vatican II Church” is apparently afraid to sanction those teaching heresy or promoting immorality; however, it is quick to enforce “disciplinary rules.” They resent that Archbishop Lefebvre was disciplined for consecrating bishops without a papal mandate while heretical priests remain in “good standing” to teach heresy and to actively dissent. I would argue that it is no less scandalous for traditionalists to dismiss the guidance of the Holy See. More than discipline is at stake but a fundamental view regarding ecclesiology and divinely appointed authority. The scandal is worse for those who feign fidelity to the Holy See while failing truly to obey the successor of St. Peter. No one expects fidelity from the liberal dissenters. Their only deceit is that they might still claim to be Catholic; but that is a shallow lie through which all but the most ignorant can penetrate. I would also argue for a heavier hand by the Church but I am neither a bishop nor the pope. I am sure the shepherds have their reasons for what they do. I suspect that the most liberal dissenters just do not respond to sanctions. The issue is not whether leftist dissenters have been properly punished; but, rather have breakaway traditionalists displayed sufficient contrition to have the last of their sanctions removed? I would place the highest gravity or wrong with the SSPX. They should have known better. Who knows what good their presence within the Church would have merited these past forty years? Instead, they abandoned her and circled the wagons. The consecration of bishops against the will of the Holy See threatened a parallel church. It is no minor crime. It deserves penance prior to absolution. I think this is the ultimate holdup. They can quickly find fault in Rome but wrongly imagine that they are immaculate and had no other recourse. What they did was wrong. It was a grievous sin. The Pope removed their excommunication, not out of justice but from charity. Pope Benedict XVI is a gentle man where I would have given them ultimatums. I am not convinced that the SSPX will ever return to juridical unity. That is my opinion and I hope I am wrong. Those who too closely align themselves with them, even if just for an anachronistic love of the old liturgy, may find themselves ultimately outside the lawful Catholic Church. They will join the Orthodox churches of the East in their schism from Peter, the ROCK of the Church and Vicar of Christ.

Certainly the license to teach theology has been stripped from numerous liberal theologians. Many have faced discipline and censure, such as: Fr. Leonardo Boff, Fr. Charles Curran, Fr. Matthew Fox, Fr. Hans Kung, Sister Margaret Farley, and Sister Elizabeth Johnson. The latter two were quite recent and Sister Johnson was my academic advisor many years ago in seminary. I have read all her books and concur with the evaluation of the U.S. bishops about the improper use of metaphor. It is so peculiar that liberal dissenters grieve about their treatment from the “right-wing” Holy See and yet certain arrogant traditionalists cry like babies that they are the only ones getting rough treatment. I would give them all a swift kick in the pants!

While there is much talk about a silent schism and a liberal fifth column of bishops who oppose Rome while weak bishops look on passively, I would include all four of the SSPX bishops as still another column opposed to the Magisterial teaching office and the living Pope. Those who castigate the council and Rome will become sedevacantists, mark my words. Liberal bishops are dying off and yet many of them would still bend the knee to Rome. The SSPX bishops have made themselves autonomous and the arbiters of all things Catholic. They want Rome to bend to them! Only the Magisterium under the Pope has the authority to interpret past Magisterial documents. The wolves are coming from every side; yes even some of the so-called sheep-dogs may revert to their wolfish ancestry. Defenders of the SSPX are wrong to say that four bishops (who are even fighting among themselves) can trump the Pope and 5,000 bishops who teach and minister in union with him! Sorry, but they are very much mistaken.

Addressing traditionalists, the Pope has given you the freedom to worship with the Tridentine Mass. You should be satisfied with that, say your prayers, raise your families, and steer clear of critiquing a lawful council of Holy Mother Church and the Holy See. Do not join the renegades, no matter what pretense to holiness or devotion they might exhibit.

I love our traditions. I see continuity in our faith. There is no pre-Vatican II Church. There is no post-Vatican II Church. There are various disciplines and rites, but old or new, there is only the Mass— the sacrifice of Calvary from which we receive the “bread of life” and the chalice of salvation”— the real presence of the risen Lord.

But I have no stomach for trouble-makers on the left or right. Pope Benedict XVI is the Pope. He is Peter. He is the Vicar of Christ. If you want to be saved, be subject to him and to those bishops in union with him— period.

Filed under: Apologetics, Bishops, Catholic, Church, Faith, Fortnight for Freedom, Magisterium, Morality, Politics, Pope, Religion, Religious Liberty, Sin, Social Justice | 10 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 »

Catholic Church Under Attack in U.S.

Posted on March 8, 2009 by Father Joe

Do we see here the latest faces of evil? While a certain anti-Catholicism has long been fashionable in the U.S., these bigots pull no punches in attacking the divinely instituted hierarchical structure of the Catholic Church: Rep. Michael Lawlor and Sen. Andrew McDonald of Connecticut. Why? It is because these gay men hate the Church for her position against same-sex civil unions. More about this below.

DIOCESE OF BRIDGEPORT VERSUS CONNECTICUT LEGISLATORS

Watch the video with Bishop William Lori where he warns of the crisis.

TEXT OF RAISED BILL IN JUDICIARY COMMITTEE #1098

A Bill that would strip Bishops of their authority over parishes!

KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS ALERT!!!

Catholics must stand together against this attack upon the nature of the Church!

The latest and most intrusive step so far against the Catholic Church is in Connecticut. True Catholics must pray and support the Bishop of Bridgeport, Connecticut. Bishop Bill Lori, formerly a priest of my archdiocese, Washington, DC, is headed for the fight of his life. What happens there will have repercussions for the Church throughout the entire nation. Fortunately, he is up to the fight and is also Supreme Chaplain to the KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS.

This is not Red China with its puppet “patriotic” Catholic Church; but that is precisely what certain legislators in Connecticut must think. A bill has been put forward that would directly interfere with the internal activities and structure of the Catholic Church. Other churches, synagogues, mosques, and temples are ignored; the Catholic Church alone (at least for now) has been targeted by name. Bill 1098 would strip Catholic bishops of their direct oversight over their parishes. The state would force the bishops to hand their jurisdiction to an elected board of directors. Clergy would not be allowed on this board, only laymen and laywomen. The bishop or his representative could sit with the 7 to 13 members, but he would have NO VOTE.

The overall authority of bishops over their priests and congregations comes from the apostles and the charge given them by Jesus. This legislation rejects the Catholic stance and forces a reformed Protestant form of government upon the Catholic Church. The Church rejected boards of controlling trustees over parishes after the Revolutionary War. Only the Protestant reformers, and not all of them, suggested that the bishops be stripped of their authority. Such a measure would reduce bishops to figureheads, good for periodic Confirmations but nothing more. Pastors would be hired, fired and treated as employees by these boards. Pastors would no longer be true pastors at all. I am sure the Vatican would never have any of it. But what would happen then, a forced schism where the legitimate bishops would govern from exile and their priests minister under tents while the state flunkies took over Church properties and changed policies? Such a view by which the laity rules the Church has been condemned as heretical by the Magisterium. We each have our role to play and the bishops should not be stripped of theirs. How could anyone in government dare think they could rewrite the system of governance for the Catholic Church? This is an obscenity to the freedom of religion!

The diocese of Bridgeport has explained the situation as follows:

“This past Thursday, March 5, the Judiciary Committee of the Connecticut State Legislature, which is chaired by Sen. Andrew McDonald of Stamford and Rep. Michael Lawlor of East Haven, introduced a bill that directly attacks the Roman Catholic Church and our Faith.

This bill violates the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. It forces a radical reorganization of the legal, financial, and administrative structure of our parishes. This is contrary to the Apostolic nature of the Catholic Church because it disconnects parishes from their Pastors and their Bishop. Parishes would be run by boards from which Pastors and the Bishop would be effectively excluded.

This bill, moreover, is a thinly-veiled attempt to silence the Catholic Church on the important issues of the day, such as same-sex marriage.

The State has no right to interfere in the internal affairs and structure of the Catholic Church. This bill is directed only at the Catholic Church but could someday be forced on other denominations. The State has no business controlling religion.

The Pastors of our Diocese are doing an exemplary job of sound stewardship and financial accountability, in full cooperation with their parishioners.

For the State Legislature — which has not reversed a $1 billion deficit in this fiscal year — to try to manage the Catholic Church makes no sense. The Catholic Church not only lives within her means but stretches her resources to provide more social, charitable, and educational services than any other private institution in the State. This bill threatens those services at a time when the State is cutting services. The Catholic Church is needed now more than ever.

We reject this irrational, unlawful, and bigoted bill that jeopardizes the religious liberty of our Church. We urge you to call and e-mail Sen. McDonald and Rep. Lawlor:

Senator Andrew McDonald:
Capitol phone: (800) 842-1420; Home phone: (203) 348-7439
E-mail: McDonald@senatedems.ct.gov

Representative Michael Lawlor:
Capitol phone: (800) 842-8267; Home phone: (203) 469-9725
E-mail: MLawlor99@juno.com

We also ask you to come to Hartford this Wednesday, March 11, to be present at the public hearing. Details on bus transportation will be available on Monday. If you would like to attend, contact your Pastor.

It is up to us to stop this unbridled abuse of governmental power.

It is time for us to defend our First Amendment rights.
It is time for us to defend our Church!”

The First Amendment to the US Constitution is found in what is properly called the “Bill of Rights”. It contains these clear words: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

This bill violates the rights of the Catholic Church and the faith of her good people. It is also unconstitutional and we can only hope that good sense prevails. But, even if we win this one; what about the next attack or the one after that? The Church has a hierarchical structure that comes down to us from Christ’s institution. This legislation is anti-Catholic bigotry at its best. Note that we alone are singled-out for such treatment. It is to be forced upon us because the Church refuses to be silent about such evils as same-sex unions and abortion. Do not think for one moment that these boards would be composed of good practicing Catholics who kiss the hands of their priest each Sunday. No, these would be the dissenters taking charge.

No doubt the scandal of a few bad priests and allegations of abuse weighs in the background for many people, but the rationale given here is that the bishops and Church cannot manage their own financial house. Bishop Lori rightly finds this reasoning quite fantastic, given their high degree of accountability and good management. By contrast, the State of Connecticut cannot close a one billion dollar deficit and the full story will never be told upon the government waste and corruption. The real reason for this Bill is hatred of the Catholic Church and resentment about the tough moral stands she has taken. It is no accident that the day before it was submitted, the same-sex marriage Bill was to be heard. This Bill which focuses on the juridical structure of the Catholic Church is only a thinly veiled attempt to silence our voice. Note that other churches are not targeted for such take-over. The two main proponents are radically involved with the homosexual agenda and hate the Church for refusing to pander to perversity. There can be no doubt, these men are out to destroy the Catholic Church as we know her.

Imagine for a moment what these boards might quickly put on the agenda if they should take charge:

Their first objective would be achieved: approval of same-sex couples, blessings over them and wedding ceremonies.
Next would come condom and pill distribution from Catholic Charities and training sessions for CCD kids and parish youth groups.
Parish pro-life groups would be disowned and replaced with Planned Parenthood or NARAL promoters.
Married priests would be invited back, especially after orthodox celibates are fired.
In short order, women would be ordained and received as priests in the parishes.
Divorce and remarriage would be permitted.
The Protestant “open” communion table would be established, welcoming everyone for communion, even your Buddhist friends.
ACT-UP and Dignity would operate so-called gay-friendly activities using parish funds and property.

MIKE LAWLOR ATTACKS CATHOLICISM AT GAY MARRIAGE HEARING:

The late Pope John Paul II told the young people at World Youth Day that they had to remain strong in the faith. He prophesied that many of them would face great persecution and maybe even suffer martyrdom. While he worked for a better tomorrow and reconciliation with groups which had historic grievances with Catholicism; nevertheless, when asked about the future he said he had a vision of BLOOD.

Many people assert that here in America we are safe to worship as we please. However, religion is about more than ritual, it is also about ideas and activism. Already there are politicians and organizations who oppose basic ideas and activities which touch core tenets of Catholicism. The question of the war aside, the Bush Administration was a momentary respite, an oasis in a storm that was looming ever closer and closer. Now that Obama is president, I suspect we shall find the ark of Peter frequently assailed and with few earthly friends to lend assistance. Catholics in the pews have grown timid to defend and help. They must be awakened from their moral slumber. As in many nations, certain Catholics have become the Church’s worst enemies. Even here in the United States, many Catholic pro-abortion politicians in the House of Representatives, the Senate and in the Executive branch oppose the Church’s efforts for the Gospel of Life. State governments are also turning against us. Many of these efforts are fueled by the big money that organizations like Planned Parenthood can muster. Add to this the general enmity that the ACLU and other such entities have against us, and well, this fight is going to have casualties.

Pretty much every year there is an effort here in Maryland to force Catholic hospitals to do abortion referrals and to distribute contraception, even if abortifacient. So far we have been on the winning side, but for how much longer? Maryland bishops have said they would close the hospitals before allowing any collaboration in murder and sin. The Church in Los Angeles took heat about their insurance plans for employees and was pressured to add same-sex partners to the mix. There is also growing insistence that artificial contraception be included in health plans, despite the Church’s view that such practices constitute mortal sin. The Church in Boston had to shut down their adoption program operated through Catholic Charities because the authorities insisted that they would also have to adopt children out to homosexual couples. No one thought the Archbishop would take such a step, but he had the courage to make the right move. The new president has made no secret that he opposes any “conscience clause” for doctors, nurses and pharmacists who want nothing to do with abortion, embryonic destruction and artificial contraception. Stripped of legal protection, many pro-life professionals and Catholics will have their licenses stripped and be removed from their jobs.

Discussion About the Topic

REALIST:

You are certifiably crazy, and are scaring people away from the Church. The proposals you have made should this law pass are INSANE. Ridiculous! I’m ashamed you are still a priest. Have some honor and speak about the issues rationally instead of just spewing anti-Obama hatred. More flies with honey…

FATHER JOE:

I would rather be a fool for Christ and have you think I am crazy than to be you on the Judgment Day. I will pray for your immortal soul.

And by the way, I do not hate Obama; I am just upset that his administration is so set on destroying the unborn. Did you hear the news today? He is reversing Bush’s policies on the use of embryos for research. Of course, I doubt you care, except as another proponent for murder and perversion. Yes, I suspect you will be very happy with this administration.

MICHAEL:

Fr. Joe, on the subject of the Church and the government, I wanted to ask a question about the tax exemption status and the Catholic Church. There has been a black minister on You Tube. He has been openly and severely critical of Obama before and after the election. I was unable to find his email address, because I wanted to send a message asking him if his church lost its tax exemption status as a result of his many verbal tirades. According to IRS regulations, tax-exempt organizations are not permitted to engage in partisan politics, including endorsing candidates or political parties or helping a candidate win an election. To me, tax exemption status makes the church political when she should be entirely spiritual. Priests shouldn’t be afraid to mention names before or after an election IF those in question commit to harming society in any way. We can’t continue to allow our government to tell us how to evangelize or to tell us to shut up in the face of wrongdoing. The church is God’s living voice on Earth. I wonder how our Catholic brothers and sisters in other parts of the world deal with this issue?

FATHER JOE:

It is argued that many black churches are in the hip pocket of the Democrat party. There is no denying that candidates and politicians even speak at services and are endorsed from the pulpit. The so-called political RIGHT is castigated as Republican and is often challenged on their political efforts. Catholic churches are frequently threatened and for the most part remain silenced out of fear that tax exemption and other favors might be lost. We are allowed to talk about issues, but not candidates or politicians. Meanwhile, everyone votes for Obama. There seems a disconnect with moral issues and religious liberty.

JIM OF BOWIE:

Father, thank you so much for speaking out on this; we need to wake up the people as to what is going on in Washington and in many state capitals. The Church is under attack and it is only going to get worse. I have only seen this issue covered on yours and Father Z’s blog. Hopefully more blogs, priests and bishops will speak out. Laura Ingraham did a report on her radio show today with Raymond Arroyo. So maybe EWTN will be on top of it. Let us pray for Bishop Lori.

KAY:

As I read about proposed legislation like this, I am inclined to think that it is so bizarre, so un-American, and so bigoted, that it surely would not be taken seriously. However, more and more often in this country, we are seeing just this kind of craziness get voted into law. Maybe it is an insidious movement to propose the bizarre without much hope that it can be passed. But the publicity surrounding the effort causes more and more people to become desensitized and eventually the bizarre and un-American seems perfectly logical and desirable. It is so sad to see this happening to our country. Thank God for prayer as a resource because I think that is our only hope.

DON:

The smoke of Satan is mixed with the roar of lions over at the coliseum. Lent is a good time to pick up your crosses and follow Christ (to the State Capitol) all you Ct voters (only the ones that didn’t vote for the pro-infanticide president please.)

A WASHINGTON CATHOLIC:

Unfortunately, those who voted for Obama and the Democratic Party only encourage this sort of behavior. They have been seduced by style over substance.

We can expect more of this stuff. They have unlimited resources. They have the resources of the government. They will do this until we are bled dry and finally give up.

KARL:

This legislation seems to me to be an open and shut hate crime and should be prosecuted as such using the state’s own laws. It would simply take a prosecutor with some chutzpah. It should not be a surprise, however, that the Catholic Church is under such withering attack; she belongs to Christ, even in her sinfulness. Perhaps those who claim Catholicism unworthily will come to their senses or leave it, making who are left more faithful.

A WASHINGTON CATHOLIC:

The attorney who has encouraged this (Tom Galagher) is not only a Knight of Columbus, but is affiliated w/ VOTF. Talk about your 5th Columns!

FATHER JOE:

Tom Gallagher is not only a Knight of Columbus, but also belongs to the Order of Malta and the Knights of the Holy Sepulcher. These guys have taken and run with his ideas, but did he intend to so thoroughly cut the bishop out of the equation?

LADY GODLESS:

I’ve found some info about SB 1098 from the article in the Stamford Advocate… this proposal was previously introduced by a Republican at the behest of a citizen named Tom Gallagher, one of the people who asked McDonald and Lawlor to submit the proposal this time around:

“Democrats have crossed the line between church and state,” GOP Chairman Christopher Healy said.

“But last year a Republican, former Rep. Dolly Powers of Greenwich, pursued similar legislation. Powers said she submitted a proposal on behalf of constituent Tom Gallagher, a driving force behind the bill now pending before the Judiciary Committee.”

“If a constituent has an issue and they bring it to any legislator, that’s part of your job,” Powers said.

McDonald and Lawlor point out that they have submitted this idea for discussion on behalf of a group of their constituents, but they themselves do not necessarily advocate adopting the proposed legislation.

SB 1098 is the result of a real and bitter conflict ‘within’ the Catholic Church, and is not the result of a conflict between the Catholic Church and outsiders:

“Sen. Andrew McDonald, D-Stamford, co-chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said he scheduled the bill for a public hearing Wednesday because he was asked to do so by southwestern Connecticut Catholics, including members of Darien and Greenwich churches where large sums of money have disappeared.”

“At St. John, the Rev. Michael Jude Fay, who’s serving a three-year prison term, stole $1.4 million from 1999 to 2006 to finance a luxury lifestyle, including a Florida condo, he shared with his gay lover.”

“At St. Michael two years ago, the Rev. Michael Moynihan quit as pastor in a financial scandal. About $2.1 million in parish contributions was taken off the books in two accounts and at least $400,000 was diverted to the priest for his personal use, according to the diocese.”

Connecticut already has corporate law that applies specifically to the Catholic Church, and the current statute has been in place since the 1950s. This is not a new thing. Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal says that the currently existing law may have constitutional problems itself.

http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/localnews/ci_11874848

MICHAEL:

http://www.bridgeportdiocese.com/Fight_1098.shtml

Please keep this in your prayers. Also remember the promise of our Lord to St. Peter that the gates of hell will NEVER prevail against His Church.

Make no mistake about it. It’s not going to happen in Bridgeport or in any other diocese anywhere in the world. History has proven this true time and time again within the last two thousand years. Every attempt has always ended in failure. The Roman Empire tried repeatedly to destroy the Catholic Church and failed miserably each and every time. This time will be NO DIFFERENT.

GHOST:

McDonald says he introduced the bill at the request of members of St. John Church on the Post Road in Darien because their former pastor, Rev. Michael Jude Fay, stole over a period of years as much as $1.4 million from funds donated by parishioners. Rev. Fay was convicted in 2007. He used the money to fund a life of luxury with his boyfriend. He rented limousines for himself and his mother (totaling $130,000 in costs) but also drove a Jaguar, stayed at elegant hotels (like the Ritz Carlton, Hotel de Paris and Four Seasons), bought expensive jewelry (from Cartier) and imported Italian clothing. He also had membership at a sports club and shopped at Bergdorf Goodman, Saks Fifth Avenue and Nordstrom. Tens of thousands of dollars were spent on home furnishings and meals. More than $20,000 was spent to mark his 25th anniversary of ordination. The robber priest even spent the money on a Florida condo where he would hang out with his boyfriend. Diocesan auditors discovered the scandal. Half the money was hidden in a secret bank account. In Greenwich, another priest, Rev. Michael Moynihan, resigned in January after an initial audit uncovered a half million dollars in church spending for which he could not account. It is not anti-Catholic to want parish money to be applied to the proper ends for which it is donated. However, the remedy is not to strip the bishops and pastors of their juridical standing and responsibilities.

Both Tom Galagher and Fr. Paul Lakeland, S.J. are progressives and arguably dissenters from accepted Catholic ecclesiology. It makes no difference that Galagher is a Knight, former parish trustee and missionary. As for Rev. Lakeland, our suffering Church knows many rebel priests, oops, excuse me, he is an ex-priest who broke his vows to get married. Lakeland is a defender of the theologian Roger Haight whose Christology was condemned by the Holy See and who has his credentials to teach as a Catholic theologian removed. He would promote religious indifferentism and minimize the unique redemptive work of Christ for all humanity. Height would strip Christ of his authority and Lakeland would do something similar for the Catholic Church. Lakeland espouses both women priests and a Church operated by the laity (see his books, CATHOLICISM AT THE CROSSROADS and THE LIBERATION OF THE LAITY). The beans are spilt about Galagher over at TOPIX COMMENTS. No Spin Personality writes: “Let it be known that as a member of St. Mary Parish, Greenwich, Mr. Gallagher did not ‘step down as a Trustee in 1999’ he was terminated by the pastor. Secondly, let it be known the ‘difference of opinion’ was with the junior priest with the pastor as a witness where Mr. Gallagher provoked the priest with insults at a meeting. It is quite doubtful when Mr. Gallagher states that the encounter with the priest was an ‘incredibly rewarding experience that inspired his current efforts at Church reform’. Please know that Mr. Gallagher has been after Church reform long before that incident and is divisive at all levels of the church’s business and undoubtedly is anti-clerical most likely with an unconscious desire to be a priest himself and eventually become the Bishop of the Diocese of Bridgeport.”

Both Galagher and Lakeland are members of VOTF, an organization that often finds itself at odds with the Church and has a perspective on Church structure and the priesthood which conflicts with the Magisterium, particularly with the view of Pope Benedict XVI. What revisionists are not admitting publicly is that Church finances and administration often reflect the Church’s doctrinal views and moral positions. The person who controls the purse strings ultimately controls the whole show.

MICHAEL: (March 11, 2009)

It was pulled, glory be to God!

http://cloudoffire.blogspot.com/

LADY GODLESS:

Tom Gallagher is a registered Republican. He’s one of you.

The impetus for SB 1098 comes from within Catholicism.

In other words, all those Democrats, Protestants, liberals, secularists, and gays that many people automatically started fulminating against are ~not~ the force behind this proposal.

Nor does SB 1098 indicate that blood is in the offing, or that anyone is out to martyr you, or that you will now be pressured to display portraits of Jesus that resemble President Obama instead of the currently preferred likeness of Kenny Loggins. What SB 1098 does indicate is that parishioners in certain Connecticut parishes feel that they’ve been cheated, and that they want redress.

http://www.greenwichtime.com/ci_11882379

MARY O:

Lady Godless said, “Tom Gallagher is a registered Republican. He’s one of you. The impetus for SB 1098 comes from within Catholicism. ”

I am NOT a Republican and right now I am ashamed to admit that both Gallagher and I are attorneys. Maybe though, he was sick the day they studied the First Amendment in first year law school Constitutional Law class. Gallagher may believe himself to be a devout Catholic, but if so, his knowledge of Catholicism is even more deficient than his knowledge of Constitutional Law.

I am outraged that because he cannot convince the Church that his way is “the Way,” Gallagher apparently decided to ask Big Brother to step in and remake the Church so that it would be more to the liking of Gallagher and his ilk.

Are we not to be concerned because this is just a “tiny” infringement of the First Amendment? Perhaps we should just chill until the government decides that the First Amendment needs to be done away with as not “progressive” enough.

As for Gallagher, “confession is good for the soul.”

NEED ANI PHONE:

Here is why we should be pro-choice: It is only for women that pregnancy may represent a health risk. It is only women’s career, which is put on hold, that pregnancy and the ensuing maternity leave affect. There are important questions to be debated, such as whether a pregnant woman in a significantly bad health condition should carry the unwanted pregnancy to term, or whether only healthy women in their child-bearing prime should anti-abortion legislation be targeted at.

FATHER JOE:

Pregnancy might be a health risk, but it is not unnatural or a disease. It is the perfectly natural result of having sexual intercourse.

The business about careers is false. I know men who changed their goals and took the jobs that immediately paid the bills for their children.

A woman might be ill, but if every sick mother killed her children to preserve her mental and physical health, we would not only have a lot of abortions but drowned and shot children as well.

If a healthy woman in her prime does not want her children, then give them up for adoption. I have a list of parents who would take them with no hesitation.

The bottom line has not changed. You can only say what you do because you do not believe the unborn child is a human being. Only fiendish monsters would argue that it is okay to murder children.

But wait a minute, maybe I am wrong about what you believe? After all, President Obama believes that living babies can be allowed to die from exposure and neglect after surviving an abortion… hum?

ANON:

With the exception of rape, the woman puts herself in the position of creating the “unwanted pregnancy.”

It is simply selfishness that is operative here.

Don’t make the false argument that “anti-abortion” legislation “targets” women. Face the truth that abortion is an excuse for selfish sexual gratification for women and IT TARGETS innocent children.

The important question that needs debate is whether you can keep that dime between your knees, sister and your partner in sexual satisfaction can have enough other interests to keep his mind off his own private parts and yours, as well.

Don’t blame the child, whom you created, for your lust.

I guess your precious job is more important than the job of the Catholic or other life-affirming person who will lose theirs because you had to have your abortifacients and they will not supply you with it!

You are no different, or less responsible, than the American with powdered nares whose demand for cocaine, to GET THEM OFF, provides the REASON for the drug cartel hit man to kill another border patrol agent, who gets in THEIR way of protecting THEIR “JOB”!

You are not PRO-CHOICE. You are a selfish brat who never learned self-control or the efficacy of placing the NEEDS of another over your WANTS!

LADY GODLESS:

Huh? Who are you talking to?

BOB:

I believe that “Anon” needs to DRASTICALLY cut back on the coffee!

ANON:

I have six children. The first child I had was the result of a relationship I had in college, before I was married. My plans were definitely put on hold. At that time in my life, I was encouraged by many to consider my “options.” After he was born, the measure of guilt I felt of actually considering those options effectively made me ill, and what is normally 3 day hospital stay for women who have given birth turned into a five day stay for me.

Once a child is created, there is no “choice” any longer, and those who believe that and act on it are in for true heartache.

Additionally, when I was pregnant with my 5th child, I was very ill. I had a condition which required surgery, which my doctors wanted to perform in my first trimester. My OB warned me about the potential harm to the baby and told me there was a very real possibility that the procedure could induce a miscarriage. Again, I was counseled by many to consider my “options.” If I knowingly did something that could produce a miscarriage, to me, that was a clean way of saying I might be choosing abortion. The 2nd trimester was safer for the baby, and though my plans were, again, interrupted by staying in the hospital for a prolonged period of time, I have an amazingly beautiful daughter who is healthy and well (and so am I).

God gives us children as a blessing- NOT A CURSE! As with everything else in life, sometimes those unexpected blessings require us to pick up our cross.

Abortion touches a chord with me, although I see the Church as paying more attention to abortion than it should, when more of its efforts should be towards marriages. Nevertheless, the post was directed towards NEED ANI PHONE who is typical of those who think of themselves first, their irresponsibility for creating the pregnancy, except in rape(which is STILL a wrong that cannot be answered with another (worse) wrong being pushed upon those who they DEMAND, join them in their crimes.

Her position and the defense of abortion is absurd. She should keep that dime between her legs and have the guy arrested and prosecuted who forces himself on her. Good riddance to him. To call him a pig would insult our hammy friends.

LADY DEE:

I am so grateful that such information is brought to the attention of the masses – good on you Father Joe! They say that what happens in America usually repeats itself in the United Kingdom up to 10 years later. Forewarned is forearmed! I truly believe that there are invidious persons buried deep inside our institutions – both religious and other – whose purpose is to take down anything which bands people together.

Why can’t Mr. Galagher, if he is so disaffected, count his true support by setting up his own group and fighting fairly and openly instead of using such poor fools as those named (McDonald and ?).

Filed under: Anti-Catholicism, Catholic, Homosexuality, Politics, Religious Liberty, Sexuality, Sin, Social Justice | 4 Comments »

China, Business & Human Rights

Posted on January 31, 2006 by Father Joe

Laura Walker runs a great BLOG. I commented on her post, “Let Them Do Their Business.” I made a few comments of my own.

For the whole thread visit her site at http://www.laurawalker.org:

Am I missing something fundamental? How does Chris Smith justify interfering in Google’s business?

The decision by Chris Smith, a Republican congressman from New Jersey who chairs a House subcommittee on Human Rights, to call for a February 16 hearing to examine the operating procedures of US internet companies in China, represents the first signs of what could become a serious backlash against Google and other internet companies in Washington that are perceived as capitulating to the Chinese government.

What are the hearings supposed to accomplish? Why not let Google incur the righteous wrath of the global market? Why should the government get involved?

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 heard him speak many times and have had several personal conversations with him, even on the steps of the Capitol (two women I know work in his office). He reminds me of Jimmy Stewart’s MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON.

If he ran for President, I would probably vote for him.

Chris Smith is a wonderful pro-life politician who is very concerned about the issue of human rights. He wants to send a sign to the Internet business community that it 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 has created software to exclude content not approved by the Chinese government.

Although not mentioned here, Chris Smith no doubt also wants to send a message to Microsoft (MSN) that they are not exempt from such an investigation either. They also censor their search engine for the Chinese and have even taken down Chinese BLOGs deemed political by the government. I read of one case recently where the information provided about the identity of the Blogger was used by the Chinese government to prosecute the man responsible. That means that collaboration with the Communists by Internet companies in the U.S. could lead 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.

Of course, it was our government that has permitted trade with China, despite human rights concerns … and Chris Smith is only one man.

NOTES:

CHINESE TRADE
Smith, who is chairman of the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights, continued, “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
“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,” said Smith, who has been a leading human rights advocate since being elected to Congress. “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; they should have been given 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 out rightly 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, what 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. 70% of the 1.3 billion population are peasants who earn 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 itself 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. When Prell Shampoo a few years ago was purportedly adding human fetal material to shampoo as “animal protein”– individuals, organizations and government got involved and asked questions. 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 U.S. are manufactured in China. Few Chinese children will ever play with such toys. Autom Catholic Religious Goods catalogues 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.

Critics are right, while it would cost us, the U.S. could flex its business muscle for the sake of human rights. But each year the interdependence seems to become more pervasive. There may come a day when such an action would be too costly.

To illustrate how things have so rapidly changed, it was only in the 1980’s that the last television set wholly manufactured in the U.S. was produced (ZENITH). Japan, Hong Kong, Korea and now also China produce 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 U.S. 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 an expose some years ago about Walmart where reporters followed shirts and pants from China sweatshops to the U.S. 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 the newest 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 do have problems with Google installing censorship software at the behest of the Chinese government that blocks 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. We should not be helping them in this. It is a criminal act, at least in the eyes of God.

DISCUSSION

FATHER JOE:

I am not an isolationist. What one critic said to me was correct; we 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 its 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 that 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.

ERIN:

I don’t disagree with the things you’ve posted either; in fact, I agree strongly with the statement that we should stand up for human rights, individually and as a country. However, I think if Google can get a working window to the internet into China, even with severe restrictions and censorship in place, isn’t it better than nothing? It’s a start – a way for the poor people of China to start looking around and seeing the possibilities of the internet. And hey, if the porn sites can so creatively sneak around our own censorship models and find ways to get their sites seen, can’t the Underground movements of China and other oppressed areas find ways to speak out and communicate with one another and the outside world?

FATHER JOE:

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: Conscience, Discipleship, Morality, News, Philosophy, Politics, Religious Liberty, Sin, Social Justice | Leave a comment »