On requirement of contraception in health care coverage...

From Tom Peters, aka American Papist, at Catholic Vote:

New Poll: Americans Oppose Requiring Contraception Coverage 46%-39%, And What We Can Do

Rasmussen Reports polled Americans this week and finds they are not in favor of the Obama administration’s decision to require private health insurance companies to cover contraception:

“The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of American Adults shows that 39% believe health insurance companies should be required to cover all government approved contraceptives for women, but 46% don’t think they should be. Another 15% are undecided.”

Rasmussen did not even mention in the polling that one of the “contraceptives” covered under these new rules is actually the abortifacient pill Ella — that would surely sway even more people to oppose the new rules. As it stands, 15% remain undecided (which means we need to figure out how to reach those 15%).

Also, the poll finds that “A majority of Americans (54%) believe health insurance costs would increase if all companies covered women’s contraceptives.” People are smart — what is “free” for one person ends up being paid for by another. Namely, you and me

Continue reading...


Additional reading:

• USCCB: HHS Mandate for Contraceptive and Abortifacient Drugs Violates Conscience Rights (includes links to letter by Cardinal DiNardo)
• The horns of a health care dilemma (Father Z)

---

For interesting news items I don't have time to blog on, check out my Twitter Feed: @TeDeumBlog

Te Deum Laudamus! Home

The obedient are not held captive by Holy Mother Church; it is the disobedient who are held captive by the world!

Note: The recommended links below are automatically generated by the tool, so they are not necessarily related content.

New critique of Christopher West's ToB teachings available

Now available is an updated version of a piece I have yet to read, but have since ordered.  It is a master's thesis by author/journalist Dawn Eden entitled: "Towards a 'Climate of Chastity': Bringing Catechesis on the Theology of the Body into the Hermeneutic of Continuity." 

It is the work of  Dawn Eden who obtained a MA in Theology from the Dominican House of Studies (a solid source).  Dawn, who graduated in May, is now working toward's a doctorate in moral theology at Catholic University of America. Dawn has led an interesting life and God's grace is truly visible in where she is now (I don't know how to update Wiki's, but someone may want to update it with her MA in Theology and a note about her master's thesis).

Dawn explains the thesis:

The 80-page, heavily footnoted thesis is a critique of Christopher West's presentation that reveals the substance behind recent criticisms of his approach, contains new information (including how the fathers of Vatican II condemned the Jungian phallic interpretation of the Easter Candle ritual), and makes positive suggestions for improving instruction on the TOB.

She is offering this thesis in PDF form to anyone donating $10 to go toward's her schooling.  Priests, among others, qualify for a free copy, and "starving students" for the cost of a pizza (LOL).  Please support Dawn

West is currently on a 6-month sabbatical. He has great talents and much to offer.  But, I think his works and lectures need to comprehend the issues that have been raised. Please keep him in your prayers.

Go to Dawn Eden's post to read much more about this thesis, and to order a copy: My revised master's thesis is now available.

Veil-tip to Anna Arco on Twitter for drawing attention to this late June post by Dawn.


Te Deum Laudamus! Home

The obedient are not held captive by Holy Mother Church; it is the disobedient who are held captive by the world!

Christopher West takes a sabbatical

From LSN:

Christopher West Takes Sabbatical to Reflect on Approach

By Patrick B. Craine

EXTON, Pennsylvania, April 12, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Renowned Catholic writer and speaker Christopher West has taken a six-month sabbatical to consider his approach in presenting the Church's teaching on sexuality.


Seeking “personal and professional renewal,” West will cease teaching and has cancelled his speaking engagements for the period. The announcement came from the Theology of the Body Institute, where West serves as a research fellow and faculty member, and indicates that the decision was mutual between West and the Institute's board of directors.


The time away is intended to allow West “to reflect more deeply on fraternal and spiritual guidance he has received in order to continue developing his methodology and praxis as it relates to the promulgation of the Theology of the Body.” The announcement also indicates that West must “attend to family needs.”


While no direct reference is made to it, the sabbatical follows a controversy over an alleged lack of modesty in West's approach that began last spring....[continue reading West at LSN]

Does "anything go" as long as it is open to life?

There are certain issues that I see defended by online apologists, often citing West.  In particular, is an issue pertaining to married couples and I fall in line with Fr. Albert Lauer, now deceased.  He was the founder of Presentation Ministries - a very strong catechetical foundation still working hard today, and with an online presence.  People often say that just about anything goes as long as the marital act ends in a way that is open to life.  Taking the position of Fr. Lauer, and based on concupiscence and Original Sin, I disagree with these justifications.  I would encourage you to bookmark Presentation Ministries homepage and use it as a watering hole.  It has got some great catechesis there that falls in line with the understandings held by many Grotto goers. 

Please note that I will not be posting comments with explicit references because there are young readers.  What pertains to married couples above should be read and prayed about. 



Te Deum Laudamus! Home

The obedient are not held captive by Holy Mother Church; it is the disobedient who are held captive by the world!

Fr. Ray Blake on the Natural Law

We have to hand the quote of the week to Fr. Ray Blake on the other side of the pond in the UK. The blogging priest is the pastor of Saint Mary Magdalen in Brighton.

He fisks some coverage in the secular news of Pope Benedict's blunt and to-the-point ad limina address to Britain's bishops. 

The newsagencies seem to have ignored, the idea of "natural law", perhaps because it is not a phrase upper most in the Ecclesdon Square vocabulary. Yet for anyone concerned with "justice and peace" issues, it obviously should be.


In what sense does Ms Harman's "Equalities Legislation", which incidently is Labour's only "big idea", violate the natural law?


It bases human rights on sexual orientation, the tendency is therefore to reduce human beings to being a set of genitals attached to a person, rather than seeing first and foremost a human being a mind, a soul who has a certain sexual orientation.

Do read the entire post, which is not that long if you want to see where we are headed here in the US.  What comes after the above is an account of a very disturbing practice taking place in nursing homes and Fr. Blake rightly asks, if 11 year olds will be next.

If you liked that post, you will probably also like his post on another part of the Pope's ad limina address in which he said the bishops must recognize dissent for what it is.  Below, fellow UK priest, "His Hermeneuticalness" - Fr. Tim Finigan, holds up a copy of the UK's leading dissident Catholic rag, The Tablet.  It has a "sister" paper here in the US called The National Catholic Reporter. It has come to be known by more popular names among faithful Catholics around the world familiar with it: "The Bitter Pill", "RU-486", and most appropriately, "The Suppository".  Fr. Finigan was the target of relentless attacks by The Bitter Pill for daring to offer the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite - just one per Sunday - at his parish in Blackfen. As seen in the photo below, Fr. Finigan took it all in stride.

Te Deum Laudamus! Home

The obedient are not held captive by Holy Mother Church; it is the disobedient who are held captive by the world!

Mark Shea on why you may want to consider homeschooling. What is the NEA up to now?

You will want to check out a good post by Mark Shea:

Reason #349572193487145243954872345498 to Homeschool


Te Deum Laudamus! Home

The obedient are not held captive by Holy Mother Church; it is the disobedient who are held captive by the world!

McCullough: Why Obama's Elementary Queering Must be Stopped

Yet another disturbing appointment is taking place by the Obama administration - that of Kevin Jennings to the Department of Education. I can assure you, that if ALL of the mainstream media outlets were to release this information, the public would see just how out of step Obama is with mainstream America. This needs a floodlight on it!

Here are a few excerpts from Kevin McCullough's piece at Townhall: Why Obama's Elementary Queering Must be Stopped. It's important to note that "Elementary Queering" comes from the title of a book - "Queering Elementary" for which Kevin Jennings wrote the foreword.

I'm snipping quite a bit out here, so you may want to read the entire article. Emphases mine in bold; comments bracketed in red. McCullough says that while President Obama was in Cairo...

...his administration was carrying out an even more sinister agenda.....[snip]...he stealthily put forward a nominee who refused to report a sexual relationship where a man was molesting a school age boy, even though the law required him to do so. [We see an example of double standards. Where is the media? If this were a Catholic priest, the left would be all over it. I don't think we will see a hint of this in the Obama media outlets. Keep in mind that sexual abuse by those in school systems is reportedly 100x that of priests, and the administration wants to put someone with this guy's track record at the top of the Department of Education?]

....Kevin Jennings is not just your normal activist nominee. He is a firm advocate of mandated affirmation of approval of homosexual actions by school children, and to this end, his involvement with the GLSEN's "Day of Silence" has moved them to go beyond that to demand "Queer Proms" in the local public schools, and to lobby for legislation in each state to change the definition of marriage to make it mean something it has never meant. [And you can look for a legislative assault on homeschooling, which is increasing as these things get pushed].

Now, this part is important. It is one thing to halt harassment and violence against any class of people. What we are talking about in this article, is planting the seeds of sex and same sex attraction (SSA) into the minds of young children, who shouldn't be forced into thinking about sexuality at their age. It's bad enough that they are being robbed of their innocence with all of the sexually explicit content at grocery checkouts, billboards, TV commercials, and related. This guy wants to push sexual activity in young children.

With Jennings' support, the GLSEN chapter in Connecticut has begun pushing not just for "tolerance" or "acceptance" of those who choose to engage in homosexuality in the public schools, but they have actually created an "activity" for the school systems which pushes "positive levels of attitude" such as mandated "admiration" and "nurturance."

Have you seen enough yet? Remember, this is Obama's choice to head the Department of Education. Here's an idea of what Jennings wants your child to learn....

In his past, Jennings has left quite a swath of destructive choices as well. He authored the forward for the book titled Queering Elementary which argues for the teaching of sexual "identity" (what you could easily call "indoctrination", "initiation", or "brainwashing") to the children in the elementary education stage of life. The book is so disturbing that it reportedly includes a description of how to "properly" teach a seven year old girl to masturbate.

What? So, the new pick for Department of Education by the Obama Administration wants to teach children to perform acts that the Catechism of the Catholic Church calls objectively, gravely sinful? This says nothing of how parents rights are violated. Talk about violating the innocence of our youth! Whatever happened to the three "R's"?

That's it.... I can't take anymore of the article. I advise all concerned parents, and others, to read the entire article and start contacting news outlets and the appropriate government office, including the White House to voice your disapproval. Don't forget the media. They ought to be flooded, especially those who are providing cover for Obama and his administration's agenda, which is out of step with mainstream America.

Update at 7:30pm...An article in the Washington Times gives a little more detail about the position Jennings will take at the Dept of Education.

The Obama administration has made several efforts in recent weeks to accommodate gay Americans by making little-noticed appointments , announcements and policy changes at federal agencies. [because the mainstream media is not bothering to inform the American public of things that will drop Obama's favorability ratings. Rather, they are providing cover for Obama on things like this]

Kevin Jennings, an activist who worked to create "safe spaces" for gay students at schools, has been selected by the Obama administration to become assistant deputy secretary of the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools inside the Department of Education.

Additionally, Tony Perkins at Family Research Council writes:

We expected liberal appointments to executive positions in an Obama administration, but it was still startling to learn that Education Secretary Arne Duncan had actually appointed Kevin Jennings, founder of the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), to be Assistant Deputy Secretary for the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools. GLSEN is the chief national advocacy group promoting policies to force affirmation of homosexuality in schools, beginning in kindergarten. Jennings wrote the foreword for a book, "Queering Elementary Education," which among other things praises teaching masturbation to a 7-year-old girl. He has spoken publicly about a high school student he once counseled who was in a sexual relationship with an older man--yet Jennings never reported this abuse to the authorities, the school, or the child's parents. GLSEN makes much of eliminating name-calling and bullying toward students believed to be homosexual--but Jennings does not set a very good example in how he treats those who disagree with him. In a speech in a New York church in 2000, he declared, "We have to quit being afraid of the religious right. . . . I'm trying not to say, '[F---] 'em!' which is what I want to say, because I don't care what they think! [audience laughter] Drop dead!" This is completely inconsistent with the tone President Obama has said he wants to set, and Jennings' appointment should be withdrawn.

Further Reading

• Groups challenge Obama administration to remove Jennings (WND)
• Homosexual Activist/ Anti-Christian Bigot Appointed (Catholic Online)
  
  Te Deum Laudamus! Home
  
  
  

The obedient are not held captive by Holy Mother Church; it is the disobedient who are held captive by the world!

Archbishop Nienstedt: "The truths of the faith are not open to debate"

Each year Rainbow Sash goes to the Cathedral of St. Paul (Archdiocese of St. Paul-Minneapolis), wearing.....rainbow sashes to protest the Church's teachings on homosexuality. The Mass is often disrupted, especially at Communion.

Archbishop Nienstedt, who originates from Michigan, wrote a letter back to the group after they notified him of their intent again this year (keep in mind, that Nienstedt took the helm of the diocese from Archbishop Harry Flynn in early May 2008 about one year as co-adjutor. Hence, he has had time to warm up the throne).

I write to acknowledge your letter of May 10, 2009, alerting me to the fact that you and some fellow protesters will be wearing rainbow sashes at the noon Mass on Pentecost in the Cathedral of St. Paul. I ask yo to refrain from such a public act of dissent, especially as it so clearly shows disrespect and irreverence for the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.

Anyone wearing a “rainbow sash” will not be permitted to receive Holy Communion, since their dissent is a sign that they have publicly broken communion with the Church’s teaching. I also ask that those not wearing the sashes refrain from sharing the Holy Eucharist with those who do. Such an action is unbecoming the dignity of the sacrament.

With regard to the dialogue you request, it would first be essential that you state clearly that you hold with the conviction all that the Church teaches on matters of human sexuality. If you do not believe, then there cannot be dialogue, but only debate. The truths of our faith are not open to debate.

Again, I hope you will see how disruptive your planned protest will be for those who will gather on Pentecost to pray. I ask you to refrain from being the cause of such disruption.

Fr. Z looks closely at the archbishop's letter and comments. Of course, his very lively combox offers more reading.

H/T to Stella Borealis - the originating post.



Te Deum Laudamus! Home

The obedient are not held captive by Holy Mother Church; it is the disobedient who are held captive by the world!

USCCB Head, Cardinal George meets with Obama; releases video

A meeting took place quietly between President Obama and Cardinal George. It was so private, that it never showed up on the President's schedule. It ran about 30 minutes. On the same day, Cardinal George released this video on the USCCB's website, urging people to contact the government over the conscience protection clause.



From LSN: Head of USCCB Meets with Obama: Also Releases Video Saying Decision on Conscience Protection a Move Towards "Despotism"

By John Jalsevac

March 17, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - On the same day that Cardinal Francis George released a video expressing, on the behalf of all American bishops, his deep concern about the Obama administration's decision to rescind conscience protection regulations put in place by the Bush administration, he has met with President Obama at the White House.

News of the private, half-hour meeting between the two was only released late this afternoon. The meeting was not included in President Obama's daily schedule.

The statements from the White House and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) give few details about what the Cardinal and the President spoke about, although the timing of the release of the Cardinal's video may indicate that the conscience protection regulations were at the top of the agenda.

"The president and Cardinal George discussed a wide range of issues," stated the White House release, "including important opportunities for the government and the Catholic Church to continue their long-standing partnership to tackle some of the nation's most pressing challenges."

The statement from the USCCB said: "The meeting was private. Cardinal George and President Obama discussed the Catholic Church in the United States and its relation to the new administration."

Cardinal George, the president of the USCCB, taped the video released today after the Obama Administration announced in early March that it was rescinding the regulations which guarantee that health workers cannot be forced to provide services that violate their consciences, including abortions.

"As Catholic bishops and American citizens, we are deeply concerned that such an action on the government's part would be the first step in moving our country from democracy to despotism," says the Cardinal in the video.

"Respect for personal conscience and freedom of religion as such ensures our basic freedom from government oppression. No government should come between an individual person and God - that's what America is supposed to be about. This is the true common ground for us as Americans. We therefore need legal protection for freedom of conscience and of religion-including freedom for religious health care institutions to be true to themselves."

The Cardinal observed that the country respects conscientious objection in the case of those who object to war, "even though it's good to defend your country," and for physicians who do not want to participate in the death penalty.

"Why shouldn't our government and our legal system permit conscientious objection to a morally bad action, the killing of babies in their mother's womb?" he asks. "People understand what really happens in an abortion and in related procedures - a living member of the human family is killed - that's what it's all about - and no one should be forced by the government to act as though he or she were blind to this reality."

The Cardinal concluded by urging concerned citizens to contact the government and tell them to retain the conscience protection regulations: "I ask you please to let the government know that you want conscience protections to remain strongly in place. In particular, let the Department of Health and Human Services in Washington know that you stand for the protection of conscience, especially now for those who provide the health care services so necessary for a good society. "

A 30 day public comment period on the administration's decision to rescind the conscience protection regulations is currently underway. Comments may be submitted by email at proposedrescission@hhs.gov.

Te Deum Laudamus! Home

The obedient are not held captive by Holy Mother Church; it is the disobedient who are held captive by the world!

Guest Homily by Fr. William Kuchinsky: What should I say? What would you like me to say?

This homily was delivered on January 25 by Fr. William Kuchinsky, pastor of Our Lady of Grace in Romney, WV. It is reprinted here with Father's permission.

Hang on, dear readers! This homily contains language that some would like you to believe was banned by Vatican II. If you don't have time to read this now, bookmark it and come back to it.

I like Judie Brown's idea. When you are done reading it, consider sending a copy of it to Pope Benedict XVI with a little note that we would like men like Fr. Kuchinsky considered for bishop. Follow the link and scroll to the bottom for a "print-icon" and the Holy Father's address when done.

Jonah began his journey through the city, and had gone but a single day’s walk announcing, “Forty days more and Nineveh shall be destroyed . . .”

What should I say? What would you like me to say?

Would you like me to say that God is unaware and unconcerned that a president would sign an executive order so that, with the stroke of a pen, taxpayer money now will be used to kill babies in the womb; and your money and mine is now to be used to promote the evil of abortion throughout the world? Do you want me to tell you that the Word of God does not say the shedding of innocent blood cries out to Heaven for vengeance? It does. I cannot change that. I cannot withhold His warning.

The president promised to do this and yet many voted for him. Would you be more comfortable if I said such people are not at all complicit in the evil that has already been advanced?

When the good Lord was leading me into the priesthood, I understood something that struck me with fear. The more I immersed myself in God’s Holy Word the more knowledge I gained: His word was demanding. The closer I drew to Him, the more responsible I had to be: Because in coming to know more fully His just commands, His loving teaching, the more responsible I was to conform myself to Him. Each step forward meant I could not turn back. I felt the demands, I knew I was a sinner, I knew well the discipleship was a challenge and a burden—although a sweet one.

Archbishop Chaput said, “Most of us treat the Church the same way we treat our flesh-and-blood mothers . . . we don’t want her advice, especially when it interferes with our comfort.” I knew that if I were called to be a priest, I would have to preach the Word that had “convicted” me and in its loving challenge engaged me in the struggle to do God’s will: it was at times “uncomfortable.” It was a fearful thing to struggle with the realization that I was now called to proclaim a message to others, which would make them “uncomfortable.” I knew very early on, almost as if by instinct, that to be a priest would mean to be crucified with Christ.

In reality, all of us, by virtue of our baptism, share in the “common priesthood of believers.” Each of us are to be “crucified to ourselves” and to the world. Each of us, as proper to our common priesthood, offers prayers and sacrifices. Many of us have perhaps come to realize that Our Blessed Lord was telling the truth when He said we would be persecuted. ["The servant is not greater than his Master. If they have persecuted me, they will persecute you also"]

I long ago decided, in view of struggles I had in accepting what the Lord seemed to be calling me to, that if I became a religious priest (I’m a secular priest, not a part of a religious order) I would take the name of “Israel” – “one who wrestles with God.” But, standing here, I am glad to say that in my wrestling matches with the Almighty that it is good He always wins.

So now, after resisting the Lord, I have been “spit out” here in Romney as Jonah was from the belly of the whale. Don’t get me wrong: I like it here, I love you, you are good people.

But, what would you like me to say to those young men and women (maybe even older men and women) who exercise particular actions that are only proper to marriage? That it is okay? Should I comfort them by saying “God understands?” Yes, He understands. He understands our weakness.

He knows the power of that drive within us and how emotions can come to cloud reason; and that after the fall of man we now are faced with disordered passions which can cause us to act in a manner not in keeping with our dignity as human beings: and all the more so in our dignity as Christians.

Last week we heard from the Letter to the Corinthians: “But the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord: and the Lord for the body. Now God hath raised up the Lord and will raise us up also by his power. Know you not that your bodies are the members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them the members of a harlot? God forbid! Or know you not that he who is joined to a harlot is made one body? For they shall be, saith he, two in one flesh. But he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit. Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doth is without the body: but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.”

Would you like to hear from me that God’s Holy and inerrant Word no longer applies? Should I tell you that St. Paul was just an old fuddy-duddy who didn’t really understand human nature? Would you like to hear me argue that we’ve come a long way since then and that the Church is just locked into an outmoded and archaic morality?

I cannot do so.

And then there are those who, contrary to the teaching of Christ, decide to move in with each other and “play house.” When they come to know the heartbreak and tears that will likely arrive: am I to console them that there is nothing to learn from the pain of a broken heart and that the tears are just some strange thing that happens and are not because of the wound of their sins? Sin equals tears.

I cannot judge (so as to condemn) those who fornicate: but we can judge the behavior to be sinful. Only God knows the heart: but there is a Heaven and there is a hell. The Good Lord wants us to go to Heaven: that is why He teaches us what we in our passions might not see: It is not “okay” to have sex outside of marriage.

Now the homosexual agenda is being advanced from the highest office in our land. Even before the day of the presidential inauguration ended, the White House’s policies were posted on their web site showing it will continued to be advanced, even accelerated. Just as was promised us in the campaign.

We can love the homosexual. We can hug a daughter or son afflicted with this disorder, we can walk hand and hand with them along the way. We can comfort them as they lay dying from AIDS when family, “lovers,” and friends have deserted them . . . I worked with such dying, and I know that pretty much the only love shown them was by the strangers attending them in their hour of need.

But we cannot approve of their behavior. We cannot as a nation, condone so-called “homosexual marriage” or “unions.” We cannot call “blessed” what God has pronounced an abomination. What is the fruit of such so-called “love”? Where is the natural “complementarity” that exists between a woman and a man? We cannot allow them to visit our homes to spend the night under our roof as we would a husband and wife. We cannot do so any more than a mother and father would allow a daughter’s boyfriend to spend the night with her at home in the same room. It is not love to encourage or lead others to believe that sinful acts are permissible or acceptable.

Would you like me to say that unnatural sex acts do not “cry to Heaven for vengeance?” They do. The Bible clearly states this, the catechetical tradition of the Church retains the teaching . . . I cannot suspend the natural law or change God’s Word anymore than I can change the laws of gravity.

When I was growing up, it was a general rule that when my brother and I heard Mrs. Deal whistle down the street for her sons to come home in the evening we were to go home also, or that certainly when the street lamps came on we were to be in the house under threat of spending the night on the front porch. My folks would ask where I was going, who I was playing with. Would you like me to say that it is okay for you as a mother and father to allow your young sons and daughters unfettered access to the internet, with all the dangers and smut that lurks there?

Should I tell you it is a good thing that you have cable television to “baby sit” the kids while they sit hour after hour taking in the slim oozing out of the screen? Or, that it is okay they remain in front of that “tabernacle” of glass and plastic devoted to viewing as if in worship – while they are never encouraged to sit before Lord of love who remains unvisited, un-thought of, unloved, in the tabernacles of Catholic Churches throughout the world?

I know some parents might not know what their children are exposed to. It is hard to believe how bad things have gotten, so please take an objective look (you may well be horrified). Please check it out, just like my mom and dad would ask where I was going and would “keep tabs” on whom I hung out with. Don’t let your children hang out with an evil gang: with a media which seeks to “own” them.

Would you like me not to remind you of the words of Our Lord Jesus who said: “Whoever leads one of these little ones astray, it would be better if he had a millstone tied around his neck and be cast into the sea?” These children have been entrusted to you by God. He desires that you help Him bring them to that true home in Heaven He has prepared for us.

“I tell you, brothers and sisters, the time is running out.” [1 Corinthians 7:29]

Would you be more comfortable if I mentioned nothing of married couples using artificial contraception? Should I proclaim it “wise” for any of us mere mortals to tinker with a force that lies at the heart of the marital relationship? One that contains within it the same power that has called whole universes into existence. Would you be at ease if it weren’t pointed out, among other things, that the use of such things can more deeply wound the fallen tendency in the man in such a way that he comes to view his wife as little more than an object of gratification? Should I point out that by rejecting natural family planning, a husband can lose that discipline that could help him to more and more view his wife as an equal partner and one who possesses an inherent dignity, which is to be always honored and reverenced? Would it be a welcomed message that you are reminded that the good Lord is not indifferent to the tears and utter brokenness of the children who find themselves victims of a marriage that lies tattered because the spouses failed to listen to their good mother, the Church?

Jesus proclaimed, “This is the time of fulfillment. The kingdom of God is at hand. Repent, and believe in the gospel.” Am I to tell you “don’t worry, be happy?” Would it be helpful to you if I were to say “not to worry” – it might be another 2,000 years until we are all called to account for what we have done and what we have failed to do? I cannot do that. We need to change, we need to repent. “The Kingdom of God is at hand.”

I am a sinner. I continue to struggle to conform my mind and my heart to Jesus, and to the teaching of His Church. I have enough to be concerned about in facing the judgment of the Lord. I might fail in many things, but I cannot fail in my duty to proclaim the fullness of the Gospel from this pulpit.

Would you be more at ease if I were to say that it is all right for a person who is conscious of committing a serious sin to dare come to this altar to receive the Lord in Holy Communion? Here, at this altar the Lord comes to us, the Lord before whom the angels and saints bow down with awe in worship singing, “Holy, Holy, Holy!” While the devil and the demons shudder and flee in horror…

Would you like me to tell you that it is acceptable for even good Catholics who are not in serious sin and are free to receive the body and blood of Christ to not try to summon with all the powers of their minds and hearts the reality that it is Jesus we approach here. We are weak, the good Lord knows this, but I cannot tell you that it is a good thing that we allow ourselves to receive Him mindlessly without even trying to muster within our hearts at least a “thank you” for the bread from Heaven that has been given to us.

Are we to give up the fight for our souls even as it seems we may have already surrendered our beloved land? I don’t think so. Please God, that will never happen!

Need confession? Good. It's lent. Repent and sin no more. God loves you, but love Him back by following His laws. Vatican II didn't ban the 10 Commandments either.

Te Deum Laudamus! Home

The obedient are not held captive by Holy Mother Church; it is the disobedient who are held captive by the world!

Scranton Shepherd, Bishop Martino, calls for dissolution of Misericordia's "Diversity Institute"

Oh boy! The Times-Leader in Pennsylvania had to round up a bunch of students since they weren't consulted by Bishop Martino. Surprise! They disagree with him.


That Catholics would essentially thumb their noses at the local bishop when he clarifies Catholic teaching on faith and morals is manifest need for a more remedial kind of remedy. Perhaps Misericordia could make this the text for a required class for students and faculty, based on the same name. They might want to pay particular attention to Part 1, Chapter 1 (What it means to be Catholic) and chapter 2 (Who's who in the Catholic Church). The section on bishops and archbishops is on page 36.

---

Original Post

File Photo from the Scranton Times-Tribune

Rock on God bless you, Bishop Martino!

One thing is for certain. His Excellency is persistant and is ensuring that scandal is not happening in his diocese without a clear understanding of the Church's position. Keep in mind, there is only so much a bishop can do with Catholic institutes of higher education when they stray.

I've been making posts weekly about the actions of Bishop Martino in Scranton, PA. This is the same bishop who stood up at the USCCB's November meeting and told his brother bishops that they would one day have to account for their "collective reticence to speak to Catholic politicians who are not just reluctant, but stridently anti-life." .

Bishop Martino takes the matter of scandal very seriously. There is nothing going on at Misericordia University that is not going on at countless other institutions which are proving to be Catholic in name only. Some bishops have chosen to try to change the situation at local colleges through discrete dialogue, I'm sure with the best of intentions. However, it is a very public thing when a Catholic institution invites speakers who will very likley promote things, in the name of diversity, that are in complete conflict with basic Catholic teaching.

Bishop Martino has spoken and acted with a candor, publicly, in ways that have had pro-lifers breathing a sigh of relief and dissident Catholics rolling their eyes (see some of my earlier posts at the bottom).

In the past week, His Excellency has been firing away at Misericordia University for bringing to the school to speak, author Keith Boykin, who is the former president of a same-sex marriage advocacy group. The schools "Diversity Institute" co-sponsored the visit. Boykin was also brought to the school before, as a visiting scholar, for a week.

Now, Bishop Martino is calling on the school to dissovle it's Diversity Institute. A February 24, 2009 press release states (emphases mine, comments bracketed in red):

Bishop Asks Misericordia To Specify How Sexuality Is Taught

In response to Misericordia University’s assertion that it “is committed deeply to its Catholic mission,” Bishop Joseph F. Martino observes that the institution should convey to its alumni, and in fact to all the faithful of the Diocese of Scranton, its efforts to teach Catholic morality regarding sexuality and homosexuality.

In doing this, the Bishop believes the school should speak precisely, naming courses, content and even catalog numbers. [Good, lest more ambiguous fluff be passed off as objective, Catholic content]

Bishop Martino’s position at this time follows his “absolute disapproval” of the university’s hosting of Keith Boykin, a proponent of morality that is disturbingly opposed to Catholic teaching.

Mr. Boykin made two presentations at the school on Feb. 17. In at least one of his talks, he discussed advocacy for issues such as same sex marriage, and he addressed the intersection of religion and sexuality. The Catholic Church’s teaching on homosexuality was not presented at the event. [If any teen, university student, faculty member, or other adult does not comprehend just how basic this is - as in 101, here is a remedy]

A statement from the Diocese issued the day before the talks noted that “Mr. Boykin has authored three books and all three have been nominated for a Lambda Literary award. Lambda is a legal advocacy effort for homosexual causes. Mr. Boykin is an avid supporter of same sex marriage and is an activist for positions disturbingly opposed to Catholic moral teaching.

“Bishop Martino wants Catholics of the Diocese of Scranton to know of his absolute disapproval of Misericordia University’s hosting Mr. Boykin. By honoring this speaker through allowing his positions, so antithetical to Catholic Church teaching, to be broadcast on its campus, the University has rejected all four essential characteristics of a Catholic institution of higher learning. These are: [1]its Christian inspiration, [2]its obligation to reflect on knowledge in light of the Catholic faith, [3]its fidelity to Catholic Church teaching and [4] its commitment to serve the people of God.

“The faithful of the Diocese of Scranton, the Bishop observed, should be in no doubt that Misericordia University in this instance is seriously failing in maintaining its Catholic identity.”

Misericordia responded with a statement saying it understood the Bishop’s criticism, but “Mr. Boykin’s appearance . . . is not meant to be a forum for advocacy on any singular issue.” The statement also said the University “welcomes legitimate scholarly discussion among its students, faculty, staff and guests from diverse religious and cultural backgrounds.”

The statement also said that “Misericordia University is committed deeply to its Catholic mission.” [Do they understand the Catholic mission?!?!?]

Regarding the request for specific information from Misericordia, Bishop Martino said that students attending a Catholic institution should have a clear understanding that while all persons should be treated with dignity, homosexual activity is not condoned by the Church and should never be construed as acceptable behavior. [This is always a red-herring that Catholic dissidents try to paint this as discriminatory or uncharitable. They confuse the two issues. The Church does not hate people with SSA. She does not try to "enforce" laws made up out of thin air. Nor are these laws made up by the Pope in such a way as to change with wind direction. The Ten Commandments are clear about fornication and adultery. Christ came to fulfil the law, not abolish it so the Ten Commandments are not the 10 Suggestions. Whether one is of homosexual or heterosexual orientation, all who are not bound in sacramental marriage must observe chastity. Furthermore, Vatican II did not do away with the Old Testament, or the New Testament, or the council of Trent for that matter].

Bishop Martino is also asking Misericordia to seriously consider discontinuing its Diversity Institute, which co-sponsored Mr. Boykin’s appearance. He had previously served for a week as a visiting scholar with the Institute.

The Bishop’s rationale is that students should learn respect for all races and cultures, but that viewpoints that are in direct opposition to Catholic teaching should not be presented under the guise of “diversity.” [You gotta love this bishop]. Doing so within a formal structure sanctioned by the institution gives the impression that these viewpoints are acceptable, or that all morality is relative. [and, creates grave scandal among those so poorly catechized they don't even know what it all means].

Keep an eye on this press release page at the Diocese of Scranton.

Hat tip to LifeSiteNews: Bishop Martino Calls for Dissolution of Misericordia U's Homosexualist "Diversity" Institute

Previous posts on Bishop Martino:

• Video: Newsclip about Bishop Martino and the St. Patrick's Day Parade


• Bishop Martino threatens to close Scranton's Cathedral on St. Patrick's Day...


• Why did Bishop Martino Voice Disapproval of Talk by Keith Boykin?


• Despite Bishop Martino's Protest, Gay-Right's Speech Takes Place at Misericordia


• It's Bishop Martino....again, this time taking on Misericordia University for inviting gay-rights advocate


• Bishop Martino to Sen. Robert Casey on Formally Cooperating with Evil


• Bishop of Scranton Martino refuses communion for politicians who campaign in favor of abortion rights


• Bishop Martino of Scranton, PA: "This is madness, people!"


• Bishop Martino on the "collective reticence" of his confreres for not being more vocal about pro-abortion Catholic politicians. (from the USCCB General Asm)
  

Oh, heck....just click the Bp Martino label

Te Deum Laudamus! Home

The obedient are not held captive by Holy Mother Church; it is the disobedient who are held captive by the world!

Why did Bishop Martino Voice Disapproval of Talk by Keith Boykin?

Every now and then a comment drops into a combox that warrants a closer look. Since the post in question is not getting as much traffic as it was a few days ago, I thought I would draw your attention to it here. It comes from a woman named Leah in my post:

It's Bishop Martino....again, this time taking on Misericordia University for inviting gay-rights advocate
I'll accept comments to this post here, but I will only publish those made with the utmost of charity.

My response will come in between each paragraph. Leah says...

As a Catholic and as a student of Misericordia University, I was appalled by what the Bishop said about the school which has been so a part of my life for the past 10 years. My mother has worked at the institution and I am currently attending the university.

Leah, I'm glad that you take pride in your Catholic university. Let's look closer at some things...

What exactly did Bishop Martino say about Misericordia? Here is what he said:

“The faithful of the Diocese of Scranton, the Bishop observed, should be in no doubt that Misericordia University in this instance is seriously failing in maintaining its Catholic identity.”

Why is it seriously failing in "this instance" in it's Catholic identity?

Because it has invited a speaker who is a proponent of gay "marriage". By virtue of having a speaker at a Catholic institution who promotes something that counters Church teaching can lead others into scandal.

What is scandal? Let's look at the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

2284 Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. The person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor's tempter. He damages virtue and integrity; he may even draw his brother into spiritual death. Scandal is a grave offense if by deed or omission another is deliberately led into a grave offense.

2285 Scandal takes on a particular gravity by reason of the authority of those who cause it or the weakness of those who are scandalized. It prompted our Lord to utter this curse: "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea."85 Scandal is grave when given by those who by nature or office are obliged to teach and educate others. Jesus reproaches the scribes and Pharisees on this account: he likens them to wolves in sheep's clothing.

2286 Scandal can be provoked by laws or institutions, by fashion or opinion

Now, here is something to consider with regards to scandal. If a bishop is aware of the potential for the faithful to be scandalized into thinking that, by virtue of the fact that this man is speaking on a Catholic campus, on gay marriage, and the bishop says nothing, does he not participate in that scandal through omission?

Similarly, is not reasonable to assume that if Mr. Boykin is advancing gay marriage on a regular basis off campus, that he might promote it at Misericordia? I think it is a very reasonable assumption on the part of Bishop Martino.

Leah continues...

I wonder how many people who are commenting on this speech, actually attended it, to see for themselves what the Bishop so disapproved of. I believe when Misericordia said in their statement, "Mr. Boykin’s speech is not meant to be a forum for advocacy on any single issue," was that despite him being a homosexual, his speech was not focused on his homosexuality, or in fact, any homosexuality at all.

The 8 o'clock talk did not even mention homosexuality besides in a laundry list of groups who are discriminated against and in a question that was asked of Mr. Boykin, uninitiated. His speech was on the Obama campaign and spoke a message of perseverance and hope.

Perhaps the 8:00 talk did not mention it, but according to that video news report I provided the other day, Boykin included discussion of gay marriage (at least at the first talk). That is a secular press source.

Secondly, it doesn't matter if the talk was not a forum on any single issue. If advocacy of gay marriage was one among many topics, then that is a problem on a Catholic campus.

By no means should a professional and scholar be singled out by his sexual orientation for any reason. Knowledge is knowledge, and to censor that would be a sin in itself. If we were to go back and take away any knowledge that we gained from homosexuals, we could not be learning about the man who painted the Sistine Chapel or any of the great musical compositions of Tchaikovsky.

The Catholic Church does not condemn or single out people because of their homosexual orientation. In fact, there is an apostolate approved by the Catholic Church called Courage and they should be welcomed on every Catholic campus. But, I'm sure Misericordia and other universities which solicit talks by people known for advancing gay marriage won't be inviting Courage to give a talk and start a chapter at the school. That is because Courage helps people with same sex attraction (SSA) to live chaste lives. This is unpopular because it is counter-cultural, yet it is just this counter-cultural life that all single people must live (remember, the road is narrow and difficult, not broad and easy). I'm certain Bishop Martino would approve of a member of Courage with SSA coming to Misericordia to talk. Just ask him. Please check out Courage and ask Misericordia to invite them. I'll be glad to plug the event here on Te Deum Laudamus!

Furthermore, I am heterosexual and single. If I love God, I love his commandments and I will live a life of perfect chastity unless I enter into sacramental marriage. Those with homosexual tendencies are also called to chastity if they cannot enter sacramental marriage with a member of the opposite sex.

Keith Boykin was not singled out because of his sexual orientation. Mr. Boykin is well known for promoting gay marriage and according to that secular news source in Scranton, advanced gay marriage at Misericordia. Nothing prevents him from doing that in secular settings. It's covered under free speech. By the same standard, the Bishop not only has a right, but an obligation to speak up on matters of faith and morals. Does he not have a right to free speech, especially when it pertains to things happening on a Catholic campus in his diocese? Nothing prevents people from blowing him off, but it is totally imprudent to blow off one's bishop on such things.

Further, you bring up famous artists who were allegedly of homosexual orientation. Were they using their sexual orientation to advance their art? If it is true that these artists were homosexual, even had they been invited to speak at an event that was "not meant to be a forum for advocacy on any single issue" in their day, it most likely would not have been a problem. This is assuming that they weren't publicly advancing homosexual activity and marriage which....leads us back to that thing called scandal. There can be no scandal where there is no public knowledge of what the Church defines as immoral behavior and advocacy.

It has recently been extremely upsetting to find so many Catholics being so extremely judgmental and so extremely unchristian. With the words of Bishop Martino, I find myself ashamed of my church. Not of my faith and my religion, but of the views of my church which would so censor a school for no reason other than the personal life of the man speaking.

It is truly regrettable that Catholic teaching for the last 40 years has been so banal and misaligned that you, and many others, should have to suffer because you don't understand.

At the same time, our bishops are also suffering because people have turned a deaf ear to them. Much of this is because they are accustomed to not hearing their bishops because the bishops were not speaking. Now they are and while it is music to the ears of faithful Catholics, it is annoying to those who don't want to hear it. This does not make them mean. We have to look at what they are saying and measure it against Scripture, Tradition and Church documents, as well as the Church Fathers and Doctors.

If the bishop has the mind of the Church then it is wise to mind the bishop!

As Fr. Corapi has said, "Truth is not a something, it's a somebody and that somebody is Jesus Christ". Truth cannot change with each individual's desires any more than we can have different versions of the same Jesus. You can't have a Jesus who is for sex only inside of sacramental marriage, while at the same time having a Jesus who is for sex inside of any kind of marriage, including homosexual, polygamous, or otherwise.....or a Jesus who is for people having sex any time, any day, with anyone, or with anything. Which is of these variables is the true, objective reality? Which one matches Scripture?

Bishop Martino is right to speak out and he has done nothing unchristian. If anything, your bishop is the one you SHOULD look to on matters of faith and morals. When he speaks you ought to give pause and listen to him carefully.

The Catholic faith is not something that can be based on feelings and emotion. Our Lord simply laid out a teaching and allowed people to accept it or not. If they rejected the teaching, he did not go running after them, begging them to exercise humility, which is what He exemplified when he accepted death on a Cross.

I'm not only pround of my Catholic faith, but I'm proud of Bishop Martino for not neglecting the faithful of their right to know when there is a spiritual danger. He is responsible before God for all that he does, or does not do, to protect the faithful.

Remember your leaders who spoke the word of God to you. Consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Do not be carried away by all kinds of strange teaching. (Hebrews 13: 8-9)

If anyone else wants to join in, again...please consider that not everyone has the benefit of sound catechesis. Approach it with charity and I'll post it.

Also, I may only get to publish comments later in the evening, so don't assume I'm ignoring them. I just don't have access for much of the day while I'm at work.

Te Deum Laudamus! Home

The obedient are not held captive by Holy Mother Church; it is the disobedient who are held captive by the world!

Catholic Leaves Behind Vulgar Work Culture

This was brought to my attention by Denise over at Semper Fi Catholic:

Frank Ramirez: Porn in the workplace
05:14 PM CST on Tuesday, December 2, 2008

In the midst of an economic crisis, it would seem like nothing short of foolishness to walk away from a job, especially if one has a family to support. But I had no choice.

This is not a story about corporate callousness or abuse; it's a story about our culture's shedding of civility and common decency. I should say up front that I'm a Christian, but a tolerant one. I have become good friends with some former co-workers on the sales floor who don't share my faith or ethics. But I have boundaries. That's why I quit. Everyone at that store – managers and employees both ­ may share my planet, but we live in different worlds.

When the security officer showed me a picture on his phone of a woman who was practically naked, I looked away. When one of the temps told me he couldn't wait to get an iPhone so he could download pornography, I shook my head in disbelief. When one of my co-workers exclaimed, "You don't look at porn!?" I chuckled over how weird I must've seemed.

Sex was conversational fodder every day there. Male employees would speculate among themselves about what female customers would look like naked. Sometimes, female employees would join these conversations. Once I saw an argument between a gay male employee and a woman over which had performed the most oral sex. And so on.

You'd think I was working at a strip club! But in fact, this was a highly trafficked store in a prosperous part of town, a retail outlet selling everyday products to middle-income and upscale folks. We went to great lengths to please our customers. If only they knew what the staff was saying about them behind their backs.

After a year, I couldn't take it anymore. But understand: I don't consider this experience sexual harassment. With few exceptions, my co-workers never intentionally tried to upset me or make me feel uncomfortable. They were always welcoming.

The problem is not really that vulgar workplace. The problem is our culture.

Pornographic garbage is everywhere, and we've grown to love its stench. In the current issue of Newsweek, M.J. McMahon, who runs a trade journal tracking the adult video industry, explained the rise in workplace online porn usage by saying, "You're looking at a younger consumer who has grown up with pornography being out there in the pop culture."

It's not just young adults. I'm in my twenties, and most of my sex-obsessed co-workers were older.

When I'd had enough, I called the chain's human resources manager and told her that it was time for me to quit. She wanted to know why and – somewhat embarrassed, because men are not supposed to be offended by such things – I told her. She wanted specifics. I gave her a couple of instances, but told her that it was not a matter of what this or that person said. Rather, it was how a pornographic mentality, one with no boundaries of propriety, had taken over the minds of our store's employees.

She offered to transfer me to another location. I agreed, but never heard from her again. In retrospect, I think that once she was satisfied that I wasn't going to sue the company, she cut me loose.

"Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks," a wise man once said. Though a lawsuit might forcibly change my former co-workers' behavior, it's not going to change who they are. It's not going to change the eroticized culture that we live in, and our children are growing up in, a culture that degrades human dignity and calls it liberation.

And as the father of two daughters, that depresses me more than being unemployed.

Frank Ramirez lives in Dallas and may be contacted at traditional_culture@hotmail.com.

Source article in Dallas Morning News

Te Deum Laudamus! Home

The obedient are not held captive by Holy Mother Church; it is the disobedient who are held captive by the world!

Focus: Open Letter to Christians Voting for Obama

A couple of people have sent me emails with links to the 10-15-2008 homepage of Fr. Paul Ward, one of Assumption Grotto's associates. I believe this will move to archives when he next posts, so here is that post in it's entirety.

Fr. Paul first leads us to some great resources, some of which I've already linked to in other posts here. Secondly, he introduces us to the open letter that Fr. John Bustamante, another associate at Assumption Grotto, wrote to Christians voting for Senator Obama.

Ponder this!

Editorial (10/15/08)

Open Letter to Christians Voting for Obama

Guest Column

Today I am happy to present a letter written by Fr. John Bustamante. It was presented as a private e-mail, and I have obtained his consent to show his letter on my web site. But allow me three little comments only tangentially related, which I’d rather not wait until next week to write:

1. Before the letter, I wish to provide a link to this important video and article, documenting the ferociously violent hatred pro-abortion and pro-homosexual activists have for the Catholic Church: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=13854.

2. Second, some of you know about the Freedom of Choice Act. With typical hypocrisy, the pro-abortionists include “freedom of choice,” but the fact is, your tax dollars would provide endless abortions, mountains of aborted babies, and you would not be free to do anything about it. Several bishops have expressed objections about it, as the elections draw near, for example, Bishop Robert Finn of Kansas City, Mo., and Cardinal Justin Regali, Archbishop of Philadelphia (link opens .pdf).

3. Third, recently I mused so: if you give power to men who abort babies, then why will they stop the killing once it comes to you? Voters can be amazingly superficial.

These introductory comments bring abortion to mind, but now let us consider Fr. Bustamante’s Open Letter, (emphases in original.), as I sign off to you, Gentle Reader,

- Fr. Paul Ward

Now for the words of Fr. John Bustamante:

Open Letter to Christians Voting for Obama

By Fr. John Bustamante

I would like to ask you a question: if you were a Supreme Court Justice sitting on the bench in 1973 and your vote was one of the nine votes for or against abortion-on-demand, how would you have voted? Would you have voted for abortion-on-demand or against it? Since we are speaking hypothetically, you needn’t concern yourself with any other issues of the interpretation of the Constitution. Or the right to privacy—an argument that was acknowledged to be false in the personal diaries of the very Supreme Court Chief Justice who had handed the abortion-on-demand decision down just months before. Just base your answer on the one thing that isn’t hypothetical—your Catholic or Christian faith. Your belief in Jesus Christ. Your full knowledge that you will one day stand before him and render an accounting for what you did in the body—whether good or evil (2 Cor 5:10). How would you have voted?

The answer to that question will tell you whether you are Catholic or not. It will tell you whether you are Christian or not. It will tell you whether you believe in God—the Giver of life—or not. It will tell you whether you believe in the Fifth Commandment or not. Are you—hypothetically—going to condemn millions of unborn children to a horrific death in their mothers wombs? But more importantly—and more certainly—are you willing to stand before God as one who supported such an intrinsically evil act?

Six months ago, I was convinced that the Republican Party and Democratic Party had colluded to eliminate abortion from the November ballot. I was certain that we would have to choose between two pro-abortion presidential candidates on the November ballot. I was wrong. In fact, I was so wrong that the November ballot is exactly the opposite. The November election is nothing short of a national referendum on abortion.

In 1973, the Supreme Court short-circuited the democratic process and took the abortion issue out of the hands of voters and put it into the hands of abortionists, Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, and others who have, time and time again, shown that they treat human life like any other political issue. This year, for the first time since 1973, the American people will have the opportunity to vote on whether they agree with Roe vs. Wade or not.

John McCain has thrown down the gauntlet to America. His pro-life voting record and his naming of Sarah Palin as his Vice Presidential candidate has completely eliminated any doubt about where he stands on abortion and even what he is willing to do as President of the United States to back up his stance. Conversely, the same can be said of Barak Obama and Joe Biden. Their stand on expanding and extending abortion goes beyond what even the most virulent pro-abortion organizations like NARAL and Planned Parenthood require to give a candidate a 100% voting record.

You need not pretend you are one of the nine Justices handing down a decision in 1973. If you vote—and even if you don’t—you will be, more importantly, casting your vote before God. By voting for the Political Party of Death, you are voting for the continuation and expansion of abortion, euthanasia, the destruction of human embryos, the undermining of marriage and all the consequences that entails, the stripping of the rights of parents to educate and protect their children, and countless other immoral and even unlawful consequences. These aren’t possibilities. They are simply the track record of Democrats over the past 30 years and, moreover, they are the campaign promises made by Barak Obama and Joseph Biden.

The mortal sin of voting for the two pro-abortion candidates and further empowering their Political Party is not hypothetical. It is something for which you will answer to God.

Voting for pro-abortion candidates and further empowering their Political Party means that you will have exercised the fullest expression of participation in government that our political system gives its citizens to contribute to the deaths of even more unborn children. There is little more that you can do politically to be accountable for continuing and expanding abortion—except support the campaigns of pro-abortion candidates with lawn signs and bumper stickers and campaign contributions. Think about it: you are going to stand before God and tell Him that your conscience told you that gas prices were more important than life? That higher taxes to fund bigger government was more important than life? That the class warfare that is being incessantly waged is more important than life? I don’t think that a single pro-abortion legislator has ever performed an abortion, but they have directly enabled tens of thousands of abortionists to commit tens of millions of abortions.

Blessed Teresa of Calcutta said it is a poverty that a child must die that you may live as you wish. It is a poverty that so many Christians are voting as if there is no God. If we daily entrust the souls of the infants who were murdered by abortion to God’s Mercy, then to whom do we entrust those who took their lives? Jesus said, “Blessed are those who show mercy, mercy shall be theirs” (Matthew 5:7). May your vote in November be a vote of mercy for the unborn.

Te Deum Laudamus! Home

The obedient are not held captive by Holy Mother Church; it is the disobedient who are held captive by the world!

This day 40 years ago: Humanae Vitae - July 25, 1968

It was this day, 40 years ago, that Pope Paul VI gave to the Church one of the most prophetic encyclicals - one that would be dissented against by lay people and cleric alike. The Encyclical Letter, Humanae Vitae - on Human Life is far better understood today, and in increasing numbers followed, as people become better informed.

It was the document that clarified contraception. Why? In a nutshell, God is the author of life and when two people, joined in Sacramental Marriage engage in the marital act, it is not only unitive for them, but is procreative and must be open to life.

This document is now online at the Vatican's website and it takes just one evening to read (I was about 3/4 through in less than an hour and will probably finish it tonight). Here are some excerpts with emphasis mine in bold, added emphasis in blue, and comments in red.

Union and Procreation

12. This particular doctrine, often expounded by the magisterium of the Church, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.

The reason is that the fundamental nature of the marriage act, while uniting husband and wife in the closest intimacy, also renders them capable of generating new life—and this as a result of laws written into the actual nature of man and of woman. And if each of these essential qualities, the unitive and the procreative, is preserved, the use of marriage fully retains its sense of true mutual love and its ordination to the supreme responsibility of parenthood to which man is called. We believe that our contemporaries are particularly capable of seeing that this teaching is in harmony with human reason.

I found this interesting...

Faithfulness to God's Design

13. Men rightly observe that a conjugal act imposed on one's partner without regard to his or her condition or personal and reasonable wishes in the matter, is no true act of love, and therefore offends the moral order in its particular application to the intimate relationship of husband and wife. If they further reflect, they must also recognize that an act of mutual love which impairs the capacity to transmit life which God the Creator, through specific laws, has built into it, frustrates His design which constitutes the norm of marriage, and contradicts the will of the Author of life. Hence to use this divine gift while depriving it, even if only partially, of its meaning and purpose, is equally repugnant to the nature of man and of woman, and is consequently in opposition to the plan of God and His holy will. But to experience the gift of married love while respecting the laws of conception is to acknowledge that one is not the master of the sources of life but rather the minister of the design established by the Creator. Just as man does not have unlimited dominion over his body in general, so also, and with more particular reason, he has no such dominion over his specifically sexual faculties, for these are concerned by their very nature with the generation of life, of which God is the source. "Human life is sacred—all men must recognize that fact," Our predecessor Pope John XXIII recalled. "From its very inception it reveals the creating hand of God." (13)

Many rebelled against it, and I know of women who tell me that word circulated about which confessors they could go to who would not condemn contraception. But, at what cost was all this dissent done? When I say it was prophetic, here is just one paragraph from the encyclical:

Consequences of Artificial Methods

17. Responsible men can become more deeply convinced of the truth of the doctrine laid down by the Church on this issue if they reflect on the consequences of methods and plans for artificial birth control. Let them first consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards [we often wonder just how low those moral standards can go - I don't even think Pope Paul could fully comprehend them all back then]. Not much experience is needed to be fully aware of human weakness and to understand that human beings—and especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation—need incentives to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law. Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection.

Finally, careful consideration should be given to the danger of this power passing into the hands of those public authorities who care little for the precepts of the moral law. Who will blame a government which in its attempt to resolve the problems affecting an entire country resorts to the same measures as are regarded as lawful by married people in the solution of a particular family difficulty? Who will prevent public authorities from favoring those contraceptive methods which they consider more effective? Should they regard this as necessary, they may even impose their use on everyone. It could well happen, therefore, that when people, either individually or in family or social life, experience the inherent difficulties of the divine law and are determined to avoid them, they may give into the hands of public authorities the power to intervene in the most personal and intimate responsibility of husband and wife [thus hindering the actions of God, the author of life].

Contraception has cost millions of babies their lives. Many do not know that the pill can actually be an abortifacient. We are now fighting against things like human cloning and embryonic stem cell research which sacrifices one human being for others. Women have become mere objects of sex, and for many women, so have men. It is mere recreation in many societies today, without any due care for what is pleasing or displeasing to God. So many have sex outside of marriage, and in extra marital affiars without any thought that they are violating the most basic laws laid down in the Ten Commandments. They are now treated as nothing more than the Ten Suggestions.

More on Humanae Vitae:

• Humanae Vitae: A Generation Later...(Dr. Janet Smith at Detroit's own SHMS)
• One more soul (Janet E. Smith)
• Humanae Vitae - the Encyclical that caused an explosion of dissent in the Church: Forty Years Later
• Have Humanae Vitae's predictions come true?

Te Deum Laudamus! Home

The obedient are not held captive by Holy Mother Church; it is the disobedient who are held captive by the world!

The Internet and Impurity....

The Internet can be a good thing. We get to read Church encyclicals when they come out. We can read solid Catholic commentary on Pope Benedict XVI's visit to the US. We can participate in Catholic forums and evangelize through blogging. We can link with others who enjoy chant and sacred polyphony, and even read classics online. The list of good things is endless. But, so are the evil things, and that which tops the list is Internet pornography of all kinds.

The April 2008 issue of Homiletic and Pastoral Review is out and the lead article is entitled: Pornography, electronic media and priestly formation by Marysia Weber. I have not read the entire article yet, but it warrants some attention for lay people, seminarians, and priests alike.

We can learn many things from Judas - mainly, what not to do. Among those lessons is that even a man called by Jesus is given a free will to choose right or wrong. Judas was a priest and he made more than one bad choice - the first having to do with greed, the second with absolute pride whereby he hung himself rather than repent of his sinfulness. It is called sinful despair.

Thanks be to God the disciples in that time did not blow-off the Church instituted by Christ because a priest - Judas - committed sin by his own free will.

This article has to do with internet pornography and the lures. No one is immune to the temptation. More than likely you have already experienced that one wrong, innocent search term can lead to the most filthy of things. What matters is not that it was seen (by accident), but what you do at that point - remain there staring at it and clicking away (to get more), or shut the window and walk away. The latter is an act of virtue and temptation avoidance; the former is to put oneself in the occasion of sin, and a downright sinful choice. The person in the picture has a soul and when we choose to stare at such filth, we treat that person as an object, not a child of God.

I'm going to pull out one small part of the article and let you read the whole thing at HPR Online.

Saint Thomas Aquinas distinguishes two forms of unchastity:

1. He describes the unchastity of incontinence as a form of loss of self-control. This, he states, is less serious because the sensual urge can be reintegrated repeatedly into an order or reason that is disposed to the truth of real things. Reason corresponds to the reality made evident through faith and knowledge. In short, the person is motivated to repent and strive anew.

2. Saint Thomas characterizes the unchastity of intemperance as a deeply rooted attitude of unchastity in which the individual directs the will toward sin without much concern. The person has become habituated in what is inordinate pleasure or excesses in food, drink or sex. Desire for pleasure blinds the individual from confronting objective reality with selfless detachment, which alone makes true knowledge of the supernatural or divine possible.

The third daughter of sloth is mental torpor or sluggishness, in which the soul is lazy and indifferent to the interior struggle. This slippery slope emerges when men and women act on their passions because they no longer exercise self-discipline, neglect frequent examination of conscience, and stop praying for the grace of the Holy Spirit. At this level, emotions seduce reason and people are less amenable to reordering sensual urges, bordering on intemperance.

The fourth daughter of sloth is faintheartedness. This is a culpable disposition in which a person refuses to face up to difficult situations that can be addressed and overcome. When priests or religious are fainthearted, they refuse to make appropriate choices. The soul gives way to sins of omission and disregards graces offered by the Holy Spirit. Regular and thorough confession becomes less important or avoided. A priest or religious becomes indifferent to regular venial sins, justifies self-soothing behavior as a benefit, and becomes intemperate.

The fifth daughter of sloth includes rancor or bitter resentment and a critical spirit. People who struggle for sanctity annoy the slothful person. This is seen in the belittling of authority in the Church or the “smorgasbord” approach to the Church’s teachings. When this occurs, faith is becoming cool to cold.

The last daughter of sloth is ill-tempered antagonism or ill-will. The slothful soul makes a conscious, internal decision to commit evil for its own sake. For example, a priest or religious engages in inordinate activities including excesses in drink, food, drugs, sex or worldly interests. All of these actions neglect the promise of obedience, chastity and striving for holiness, all of which are rooted in a prime love relationship with God. This is one of the most serious sins a person can commit.

As you can see, sloth is subtle but very deadly. By nature, sloth is contrary to charity and emerges as the source from which many sins flow.

Go read Pornography, electronic media, and priestly formation at HPR Online

While I have not finished reading the article, one thing I will comment on here - again - pray for priests and seminarians. All the complaints one can muster can't compare to an hour of adoration for the benefit of our priests, religious and people discerning.

Te Deum Laudamus! Home

***Support the Dominus Est Project***