The Most Shameful Act in US Presidential History

The United States presidency, like any other institution populated by human beings, has had many scandals during its history.  For baby boomers like me, we automatically think of Watergate, in which President Richard Nixon was spying on American citizens and creating enemies lists and breaking into his opponents' offices, among other things.  And of course, we can't forget President Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky doing their thing in the Oval office.

But at no time has any president in our history ever sunk lower than Barack Obama did when he spoke on April 26 at a conference for Planned Parenthood, the largest provider of abortions in the United States.  According to the official "White House Blog", President Obama praised this group of ruthless baby killers for "reaffirming the core principle that has guided the organization for nearly a century: that women should be allowed to make their own decisions about their own health."  Don't you just love the euphemisms?  Killing your baby is termed "making your own decision about your health."  Below is a picture of what "making their own decisions about their own health" looks like:

I do not like to post such pictures, but sometimes there is just no other way to make a point. This picture is what Planned Parenthood is all about. The President didn't speak about this. In fact, he never even said the word "abortion" in his 12 minute speech. He deftly used the phrase "right to choose." He tried very hard to convince us that Planned Parenthood is all about providing "healthcare" to women. He got caught on this during the presidential campaign last year when he said PP does mammograms. He finally had to admit this was not true. Yes, they do certain health screen testings, but the bulk of their "business", by far, is abortions. According to a cnsnews.com article, PP performed "333,964 abortions in fiscal 2011. That averages one abortion every 94 seconds." Obama actually tries to tell us that Planned Parenthood saves lives.  That's like saying Hitler was great for Germany because he improved the economy.

Many are upset that Obama would dare to speak at Planned Parenthood in the face of the Kermit Gosnell trial which is taking place in Philadelphia. This trial, of course, is about Dr. Kermit Gosnell who ran a house of horrors called an abortion clinic. At least one woman died as a result of a botched abortion, and he is accused of aborting babies alive and then killing them afterwards. From the Grand Jury Report:

This case is about a doctor who killed babies and endangered women. What we mean is that he regularly and illegally delivered live, viable, babies in the third trimester of pregnancy – and then murdered these newborns by severing their spinal cords with scissors. The medical practice by which he carried out this business was a filthy fraud in which he overdosed his patients with dangerous drugs, spread venereal disease among them with infected instruments, perforated their wombs and bowels – and, on at least two occasions, caused their deaths.

There can be no argument that Kermit Gosnell committed monstrous acts. But as a commentary from Matt Barber of WND says:

Let’s keep it real. The only difference between what happened in Gosnell’s Philadelphia clinic and what happens every day in Planned Parenthoods across the country can be measured by a matter of inches – by the child’s proximity to her mother in the room. Whether the baby is in the womb or 12 inches removed, a dead baby is a dead baby, right? So why all the drama? Relax. You know, Roe v. Wade and all.

Does it really make any difference whether a baby is killed in the womb or outside the womb? I know that legally it is the difference between being a murderer and a "healthcare provider" as Barry Obama tells us. But it makes absolutely no difference to the defenseless baby whose life is being snuffed out. In fact, Obama actually sees no difference at all as he plainly told us when, as an Illinois State Senator, he fought against the Illinois Born Alive Infants Protection Act which would guarantee healthcare to babies who survived abortions. Obama was the only Illinois senator opposed to this bill. This is what he said at the time:

.. I just want to suggest... that this is probably not going to survive constitutional scrutiny.

Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a - child, a nine-month-old - child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. 

I mean, it - it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute. For that purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional.

So Obama actually is denying that the baby in the womb is a child, even if that "non-child" is able to survive a botched abortion. He insisted as a state senator that these aborted babies be left to die with absolutely no care whatsoever. Is he any different than Kermit Gosnell? The only difference I can see is that Gosnell immediately put these babies to death, albeit using horrendous methods, instead of throwing them in a corner and allowing them to die a slow, painful death, as then-Senator Obama would demand.

We have killed 55 million babies since 1973 in the United States alone. It is unfathomable to me that the President of the United States can actually stand up and praise the organization that has killed more of those babies than any other organization. In case you really don' t know what abortion is all about, watch this undercover video that was recorded at a large abortion clinic in The Bronx. It is one of the most chilling videos I have ever seen:

One of the reports from the Gosnell trial says that a baby was aborted into a toilet and tried to actually swim and save itself. In fact, according to the Grand Jury Report, "Other staff members confirmed that it was standard procedure for women to deliver fetuses – and viable babies – into toilets while patients and staff waited for Gosnell to arrive at the clinic." What is the difference between that and the abortion clinic counselor telling a woman that if she aborts a live baby at home, she should just "flush it." As the "counselor" tells us here, don't think about it, just do it.

Matt Barber summed it up well:

To “pro-choicers” it’s not that old Kermit did anything wrong; it’s just that he got caught doing it. He was careless. He pulled back the curtain of “reproductive freedom” to reveal abortion’s house of horrors. Kermit Gosnell is liberalism personified, and liberalism relies on deceit. The “progressive” culture is a culture of death. Moral relativism is as moral relativism does.

Speaking of moral relativism, on Friday the first sitting president in United States history gave the keynote address at a Planned Parenthood fundraiser. Nice timing. Even as the Gosnell mass-murder trial wraps up, Obama was lending the full weight of his presidency to a mass-murder celebration.

His message? All you Planned Parenthood-hating, anti-Gosnell right-wingers better listen up: “No matter how great the challenge, no matter how fierce the opposition, there’s one thing that the past few years have shown,” he promised. “That Planned Parenthood is not going anywhere. It’s not going anywhere today. It’s not going anywhere tomorrow.”

Yeah, we’ll see about that, slick.

Can there be any hope for a nation when its leader praises an organization whose main purpose is to kill unborn babies? The only reason we are still here is through the great mercy of God and the prayers of many faithful people. But I don't know how much longer our nation can survive when our president publicly and unashamedly supports the murder of babies. God have mercy on us all.

Michael Voris Declares War On Timothy Cardinal Dolan

Joseph Biden receiving communion at St. Patrick's Cathedral,
New York City

A few weeks ago, on Palm Sunday, Vice President Joe Biden attended Mass at St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York City. Cardinal Dolan was the celebrant. It is reported that Biden, an ardent abortion and same sex marriage supporter, received communion at this Mass and then had "coffee" afterwards with Cardinal Dolan.

Michael Voris, who has appointed himself the bulldog of the Catholic Church, did a "special report" concerning this incident on his website. He titled this report, "Dolan and the Dolanites," and basically declared war on Cardinal Dolan. You can watch this report here.

Voris described the incident in a very condemning tone:

What a fantastic way for a Prince of the Church to begin Holy Week .. to deliver Jesus into the hands of Judas.

That is exactly what happened in St. Patrick’s Cathedral on Palm Sunday as anti-Catholic pro-abortion pro same-sex marriage US Vice President Joe Biden strolled up the aisle and received the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ right under the nose and with full knowledge of Cardinal Timothy Dolan.

Strip away all the harsh rhetoric and these statements do represent the facts. I do agree, of course, that pro-abortion, pro-same sex marriage and in essence, anti-Catholic Catholic politicians like Joe Biden should not be receiving communion. However, that is where my agreement with Michael Voris ends. At the risk of being labeled a Dolanite by Voris and all who support him (are they "Vorisites"?), I believe Voris has gone way over the line in this video in attacking Timothy Cardinal Dolan and basically telling any Catholic who will listen that we need to jettison Cardinal Dolan out of the Church, along with anyone who dares to support him.

Pope Francis greeting US Vice President
Joseph Biden

I think it is well to remember that just one week prior to the incident at St. Patrick's Cathedral, both Joseph Biden and Nancy Pelosi received communion at the Mass Installation of Pope Francis in Rome. Neither Pope Francis nor any other cardinal, bishop or priest came flying off the altar to try to stop this. Yet Michael Voris never mentions this incident at all. Why go after Cardinal Dolan but not Pope Francis, or any one of the many other princes of the Church who were present at the Mass installation?

We don't know what Vice President Biden and Cardinal Dolan talked about after the Mass at St. Patrick's Cathedral, but it could have very well been Cardinal Dolan's displeasure with Biden for presenting himself for communion both at the Mass at St. Patrick's and the Installation Mass, and Cardinal Dolan could have given him a very strong rebuke. We don't know and we won't know. Neither Cardinal Dolan nor Biden are talking. But a statement Cardinal Dolan once made to a reporter in which he said that he prefers to try to persuade rather than impose sanctions by withholding communion from a pro-abortion politician, could give us a hint about the conversation he had with Mr. Biden.

After describing the incident in his own terms, Voris then made an ad hominem attack on Cardinal Dolan, one of many in this "special report":

Cardinal Dolan who apparently never misses the opportunity to publicly associate himself with the rich and powerful of the world .. gave Biden a big shout out from the altar.

So much for following Pope Francis’s example of detaching from the rich and powerful and associating with the poor. There was no shout out for the homeless guy in the back bench.

Cardinal Dolan distributing meals to the homeless

I live in New York City and I have personally seen Cardinal Dolan in action. I have certainly had my problems with his approach to certain things in the past, but to accuse him of snubbing the "poor" is truly disingenuous. Just this past Ash Wednesday the Cardinal was distributing meals at a breadline. He is very down to earth and easily approachable. He regularly says the 7:00 a.m. Mass every morning at St. Patrick's Cathedral. Yes, as bishop of New York and as head of the US Bishops Conference, he does often associate with the "rich and powerful", but he is just as comfortable with the average guy in the pew as well. To accuse him of snobbery and not "associating with the poor" is unfair and false.

Cardinal Dolan has also not hesitated to speak out in defense of the unborn and in the presence of pro abortion politicians. Here is an excerpt of a description of Cardinal Dolan's homily at his installation Mass in St. Patrick's as reported by Fr. Joseph F. Lorenzo, O.F.M., of the Church of St. Anthony of Padua in New York:

Later on in his homily there was an exhilarating and somewhat embarrassing moment. Archbishop Dolan reiterated the church’s traditional stand concerning human life by quoting Cardinal Terrance Cooke, who said: "Human life is no less sacred or worthy of respect because it is tiny, pre-born, poor, sick, fragile, or handicapped."

Archbishop Dolan went on to say, “Yes, the Church is a loving mother who has a zest for life and serves life everywhere, but she can become a protective "mamma bear" when the life of her innocent, helpless cubs is threatened.” The congregation erupted, first in applause and cheers, and then standing. I think every eye in the Cathedral was on the pro-abortion politicians in the front pew, who, at first, sat there, kind of stunned, and then eventually stood up without applauding. It was truly something everyone will remember for a long time.

You can read Father Joe's entire report here. One other comment Father Joe made was: "Archbishop Dolan again greeted people outside of the Cathedral, and stopped to talk to people on the street before heading back to the residence." So much for associating only with the "rich and powerful."

Back to Voris. He then coined a term, "Dolanism", to describe Cardinal Dolan and those who support him, a term which I hope will not catch on anywhere, as Voris basically accused Cardinal Dolan of apostasy:

And it’s good in one way that this happened. The lines are finally being drawn publicly and the quiet battle going on between bishops about giving Jesus Christ to murderous politicians is finally at last on show for the world to see.

What Cardinal Dolan did is a disgrace. Call this constant pandering Dolanism. There is no other way to say it. Dolanism .. the subordination of the Catholic faith to the prevailing cultural mores.

And whatever the Dolan loving quasi-conservative establishment crowd in the Church wants to say simply cannot erase this. Call them the Dolanites.

Later on in the video, Michael even uses the words "beyond disgusting and reprehensible" to describe Cardinal Dolan's actions. Voris goes on to tell those who support Cardinal Dolan:

You breathe one word in defense of his actions and you sacrifice ANYTHING you ever say about the pro-life cause again! Don’t show up at pro-life functions. Don’t write articles, give guest appearances .. appear on stage .. jump on the radio or television airwaves. Nothing.

How does Michael Voris know what was going on behind the scenes? As I stated, just one week prior to this Biden had received communion at the Installation Mass for Pope Francis. No one from the Vatican or anywhere else tried to stop Biden at that time. Does anyone wonder why?

Cardinal Dolan is the top bishop in the United States. He is the archbishop of the largest archdiocese in the United States and the head of the US Bishops Conference. Could it be that he may have been instructed by someone in the Vatican to do exactly as he did, to invite Biden to Mass at St. Patrick's, not make a scene if Biden presented himself for communion, and then give him a strong rebuke afterwards? We know for a fact that Cardinal Dolan is very pro life and against same sex marriage. Do we really believe, as Voris says, that he would sacrifice his beliefs just to hobnob with the rich and famous?

Voris then goes on to present a litany of what he perceives to be Cardinal Dolan's faults and failings, starting with a Re-dedication Mass at St. Francis Xavier Church in New York in 2010. St. Francis Xavier Church admittedly is very friendly and welcoming to homosexuals, and I would even say that they are "too welcoming" of homosexuals. This is what Michael Voris says about that Mass:

In the summer of 2010 .. he sent shock waves around the United States and beyond by openly cheering a gay club that was introduced to him during Mass at the notorious St. Francis Xavier parish in New York .. a parish widely known for its no holds barred gay liturgies and functions.

Below is a Youtube video of a report on this Mass, excerpts of which ran without the audio behind Michael Voris as he spoke in this "special report". At 5:30 to 6:00 in the video, you will see the "Catholic Lesbian Group" and "Gay Catholics Men Group" being introduced. The camera is focused on Cardinal Dolan who looks very serious. His face lightens up considerably when the speaker says, "These groups helped LGBT Catholics return to the sacraments and find an adult place in the Church of their youth." That is what Cardinal Dolan was "cheering", the fact that these men and women had returned to the sacraments, which would imply that they have left their sinful lifestyle. Right after this we see Cardinal Edward Egan, former archbishop of New York, praising St. Francis Xavier Church. Why doesn't Voris attack Cardinal Egan as well?

Michael Voris also doesn't tell us that just one week after Cardinal Dolan was "cheering a gay club" as Voris describes it, His Eminence disciplined this same church when he became the first New York prelate in 12 years to forbid them to carry the banner of the church in the notorious New York City Gay Pride Parade. You can read that story here. So please, Michael, stop with the implication that Cardinal Dolan supports sexually active homosexuals in the Church, because it just ain't so.

Voris then brings up Cardinal Dolan's reaction to same sex marriage being made law here in New York. From Voris:

Then a short while later .. he barely lifted a finger to fight .. or even speak out about gay marriage becoming law in New York.

After it passed he conveniently blamed the church’s advisors who he claimed had given him and his fellow NY bishops “bad advice”. Meanwhile .. somehow .. the entire rest of the country knew same-sex marriage was going to become law in New York.

Immediately following the midnight passage of same-sex marriage by the New York state legislature .. Dolan was mute from the pulpit the following Sunday .. saying nothing at all about it .. but did find time with the New York press crops after Mass to apologize to gays and lesbians whose feelings might have been hurt by the Church

"He barely lifted a finger to fight or even speak about gay marriage becoming law in New York," No, Michael, this is not true. Shortly before the bill was passed in New York, then Archbishop Dolan called into a local radio show to say that the "proposed legislation posed an 'ominous threat' to society" according to an article on a New York Times blog which you can read here. According to this article:

Archbishop Dolan, speaking on Fredric U. Dicker’s radio program on WGDJ-AM (1300), repeatedly made it clear that he strongly opposed gay marriage, which he called “unjust and immoral,” “detrimental for the common good” and “a violation of what we consider the natural law that’s embedded in every man and woman.”

Acknowledging that supporters of same-sex marriage need just one more vote to prevail in the Senate, Archbishop Dolan said that “we are still working for the defeat of this bill,” but that “we’re realistic to know the forces pushing this are very strong, they’re well oiled, they’re well financed.” However, he said: “It’s not a done deal. There is a good chance that this is not going to pass this year.”

Archbishop Dolan argued that the passage of same-sex marriage in other states and countries had at times led to problems for clergy and religious organizations who remained in opposition. “You’ve got couples now in England who are now told they can’t adopt children because they’re not open to same-sex marriage,” he said.

Archbishop Dolan also rued what he called “the presumptive omnipotence of the state” in considering allowing gays to marry, and decried a “new religion of secularism that feels it’s going to come to a theocracy and impose its values on society.”

As can be seen from this article, although Cardinal Dolan was his usual optimistic self that the bill could be defeated, he was also very realistic in saying that there were "strong forces" pushing for passage of the bill. Also, according to this article, His Eminence was not able to be in Albany at that time because he was in Seattle for a bishops conference, but he sent Brooklyn's Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio to Albany to fight the bill that was being voted on at that time.

I have written about this myself, very upset with Cardinal Dolan's seeming lack of resistance to this legislation. However, as shown here, Cardinal Dolan was strongly opposed to this bill and did not hesitate to voice his opinions in the media. But Michael Voris either is not aware of this fact or conveniently leaves it out of his "special report."

Voris may not feel that Cardinal Dolan is vehement enough in his opposition to homosexuality and same sex marriage, but the homosexual community does not share that opinion. Here are excerpts from a post from thenewcivilrightsmovement.com in regard to Cardinal Dolan's closing prayer at the Democratic National Convention in 2012. The article is entitled, "Archbishop Timothy Dolan’s Ugly Assault On Gay Marriage In Prayer While Guest Of DNC":

Archbishop Timothy Dolan last night launched an attack on same-sex marriage equality and abortion in his closing prayer while an “invited” guest in the Democrats’ home, the Democratic National Convention. Yes, Dolan, who initially had offered himself to deliver the opening prayer to both the Republican and the Democrats, but was gently rebuffed by the DNC, settled for delivering the closing benediction at last night’s ceremonies.

. . .

Dolan’s “happiness is found only in respecting the laws of nature and of nature’s God,” is his way of calling gay people “unnatural” and in violation of “the laws of nature and of nature’s God.” Then, to pound his point home, Dolan adds “resist the temptation,” (which is always code for “pray away the gay,”) “to remake those institutions you have given us for the nurturing of life and community,” which is code for “no gay marriage!”

Democrats had just spent the better part of a week approving language supporting same-sex marriage equality in their platform, along with supporting a woman’s right to choose, but Dolan saw fit to be not only a bad guest, but a forced guest in what was home to a celebration of women, the LGBT community, and minorities the likes of which America has never before seen on a national stage.

As can be seen above in the reaction of homosexuals to Cardinal Dolan's prayer at the DNC, Cardinal Dolan is not only unafraid to defend the Church's teachings, he goes right into the belly of the beast, as he did at the Democratic National Convention. Here is my post praising Cardinal Dolan for the prayers he gave at the Republican and Democratic conventions.

The next point in Voris' litany:

He sat on a network news show on Thanksgiving two years ago and .. in reference to God and giving him thanks he said .. “he .. or she or whatever your belief is.”

I saw this program, and was upset by it also. It was not the best choice of words by His Eminence, but let's face it, we live in a pluralistic society that sees God in many different ways. That is what Cardinal Dolan was speaking to. Even Michael Voris cannot honestly think or imply that Cardinal Dolan sees God as anything less than the Holy Trinity. What was the purpose of bringing this up? It only proves that Cardinal Dolan makes mistakes in his choice of words. It does not prove that he is not a strong defender of the faith.

Next from Voris:

In April .. he told the Wall Street Journal that he and his fellow bishops did not preach what they should have preached about the Church’s sexual teachings because they were – his words now – gun shy. Based on the deafening lack of NOW issuing those teachings – apparently he still is.

I wrote about this article last April, applauding the Cardinal for making this heartfelt admission. You can read my post here. Michael Voris is being totally disingenuous with his statement, "Based on the deafening lack of NOW issuing those teachings - apparently he still is." Cardinal Dolan has been up front and center in defending the teachings of the Church. Voris is twisting facts to suit his own arguments, and doing a great disservice to Cardinal Dolan and more importantly, to Voris' own listeners, many of whom hang on his every word and take it as gospel truth.

The next charge by Voris:

Two years ago .. he stood in front of annual Knights of Columbus dinner in Denver and openly mocked the idea that there was a crisis in the Church. He was cheered loudly by the Dolanites.

I have looked this up, and although I find references to Cardinal Dolan's speech, I cannot find the speech itself, so I can't answer this charge. But since it has been shown that Voris tends to skew his facts, I have to wonder about the truthfulness of this statement and the context in which it was made. I guarantee you that Michael Voris will never tell us.

Of course, no criticism of Cardinal Dolan would be complete without reference to the Al Smith dinner in which he invited President Obama.

Then there was the beyond the pale invitation of child-killer in chief Obama to the Al Smith dinner a couple of weeks before the presidential election where tens of thousands of Catholics all over America begged and pleaded with him to rescind the invitation and where he offered in his defense a comparison of his actions to Our Blessed Lord.

I was definitely among those voices calling for Cardinal Dolan to withdraw his invitation to President Obama. I admit that I still think it was a mistake. As I posted shortly before the dinner, it was reported that even Cardinal Dolan was having second thoughts about this decision. You can read this here. But do we follow the lead of Michael Voris and just throw Cardinal Dolan over and claim he is not fit for the job, or do we pray that His Eminence will learn from this mistake and realize that there are enemies of the Church who must be recognized and treated as such. Personally, I think Cardinal Dolan did learn from this mistake, and I don't think it will be repeated.

The next in Voris' litany:

Then there is the history before his time in New York .. where he slapped on a cheesehead .. yep .. an NFL Green Bay Packer cheesehead at his installation Mass as archbishop of Milwaukee.

None other than Father John Zuhlsdorf has defended Cardinal Dolan in this action. Yes, the same Father Z who was all set to go with Michael Voris on a Lenten cruise until the papal conclave got in the way. From Father Z in a post entitled, "I want to put a stop to something":

Back in 2002, right after he arrived in Milwaukee, the new Archbishop, very aware of the relationship people in Wisconsin have with the Green Bay Packers, momentarily put on a ‘cheesehead’ hat at the beginning of his sermon time.

He did not say Mass wearing a ‘cheesehead’ hat.

Should he have done that? I wouldn’t have. To my mind it was infra dignitatem, both for the moment, the congregation and his person.

But I am not the brand new Archbishop of Milwaukee, just arrived after years and years of mismanagement under Weakland and the scandal at the end. Facing these circumstances, he made a decision at the moment to brighten the atmosphere in a time of pain and uncertainty. It is hard to fault his reasoning.

One lives and one learns.

Even bishops have to have some on the job training. They must learn from reactions to their decisions. They make mistakes and hopefully, with grace, grow in their ministry.

So if you are really upset about the ‘cheesehead’ hat thing, I suggest that you cast your first rock at yourself.

Unless of course you have never made a mistake you eventually learned from.

Good luck to Archbishop Dolan! He’ll need both luck and prayers.

Thank you, Father Z. 'Nuff said on this one.

Voris then complains about Cardinal Dolan's "incessant carrying on about joy and laughter."

And then there is the incessant carrying on about joy and laughter .. well do forgive some of us Your Eminence if we find it hard to extricate the joy out of a situation where you are aiding in a sacrilege in your own cathedral.

And for the record .. there are many of who believe that Jesus Christ is not amused as you participate in the profaning of the body and blood of Our Lord.

Joy and laughter? Voris is actually criticizing and condemning a prelate of the Church for "too much joy and laughter"? Did I miss something or is there a canon law against laughing? I agree that there is nothing funny about profaning our Lord, but again, I must repeat that we don't know what is going on behind the scenes, and why no one tried to stopped Biden at the Pope's installation Mass, either. We also know that Cardinal Dolan is not afraid to step up to the plate to defend church teachings, despite Voris' accusations. We have to stop being so quick to sit in as judge and juror.

Then Voris gets into matters which are nothing more than hearsay. If Voris was trying to admit these facts into court, they would immediately be thrown out.

From Voris:

It is a well known issue in the Archdiocese of New York that Cardinal Dolan has no qualms whatsoever about flexing his mighty ecclesiastical muscle in private against his priests who want to say the Traditional Latin Mass.

Oh really? Is that why the Traditional Latin Mass is so easily accessible in the New York Archdiocese? "Una Voce Westchester" is a traditional group devoted to the Latin Mass. Una Voce has groups throughout the United States. On their website they have posted the following, which you can see here:

The traditional Latin Mass is offered every Sunday at 3:00 p.m. at Immaculate Conception Church in Sleepy Hollow. Una Voce Westchester offers its thanks to His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI, the Most Reverend Timothy M. Dolan, Archbishop of New York, and Monsignor Louis Mazza, Pastor.

Doesn't sound like Cardinal Dolan is fighting them on the Latin Mass.

Voris' next statement is completely out of bounds:

His well known and much feared .. but little talked-about-openly angry temper is vented with all its fury on such priests. They are threatened and brow beaten by him personally .. made to feel the lowest of the low .. all for offering the ancient Mass .. again in disobedience to the wishes of Pope Benedict.

His Eminence might be well served to vent that temper which is well known to New York Archdiocese insiders against fake Catholic politicians.

Voris gives nothing to back up this libelous statement. He is smearing the character of a prelate of the Catholic Church with no evidence whatsoever. Voris not only needs to apologize for this outrageous statement, but he needs to take it into the confessional as well. This is gossip, pure and simple, and this is what our Holy Father, Pope Francis, recently said in regard to gossip:

“When we prefer to gossip, gossip about others, criticize others- these are everyday things that happen to everyone, including me – these are the temptations of the evil one who does not want the Spirit to come to us and bring about peace and meekness in the Christian community."

Who is Michael Voris really serving when he makes such slanderous statements? I'm sure he thinks he is serving God, but maybe he needs to think about it a little more.

Voris sums up this "special report" with these harshly critical statements which skirt the truth at best:

Who could seriously look at Cardinal Dolan and even entertain the thought that this man is serious about the Faith. He puts on a cheesehead during Mass. He defies canon law along with many of his brother bishops .. a majority of whom elected him to the head of their bishops’ conference.

He scandalizes the faithful by continued association with murderous politicians who in addition to spilling the blood of innocents have aimed their guns at the Church herself.

He further scandalizes the faithful by aiding and abetting in sacrilege. What exactly does he not understand? How is any of this defensible by anyone in the Church?

Cardinal Dolan is quickly becoming the poster boy for all that is wrong with Church leadership these days – an almost wistful disregard for the solemnity of the Mass .. a refusal to buck the trends of a secularist culture not by filing lawsuits claiming infringement on legal rights .. but by announcing the EVIL of the object of the law itself.

Dolanism .. the subordination of the Catholic faith to the prevailing cultural mores.

Why does Michael Voris think he has a right to sit in judgment of arguably the most preeminent bishop of the United States? I think Michael Voris is stating exactly how he feels, but he is not serving the Church by putting out such scandalous statements. And yes, I do label them as scandalous because they cause division both inside and outside the Church.

If you do a web search, you will find many Catholics who are cheering Michael Voris and his slander of Cardinal Dolan. Here are just a couple of reactions:

"Thank God for the courageous and honest analysis of Michael Voris and ChurchMilitant.TV"  http://philotheaonphire.blogspot.com

"This report is not "bishop-bashing"; it is an act of charity."  freerepublic.com

"I have been saying many of these things about Cardinal Dolan for quite some time now. He is not the answer." http://makingthingsvisible.blogspot.com

"The Cardinal Dolan cheerleaders and fan club need to re-think everything."  http://johnlaws.wordpress.com

And how is this being perceived outside of the Church? This is from an Anglican blog called Reformed Anglicanism which shows the dangerous consequences from Catholics attacking Catholics, especially the leaders of the Church:

If you are a Roman Catholic who disagrees with Voris, you are a "Dolanite." Ironically, Voris' own bishop has forbidden him from using the term "Catholic" to describe his own activities.

Voris tries to appeal to Pope Francis' supposedly hard line against pro-abortion politicians, but Biden was also given communion at Pope Francis' inaugural mass together with Nancy Pelosi.

And the folks at "Called to Communion" want me to join this communion with the supposed benefit being visible unity? No thanks.

Timothy Cardinal Dolan is not perfect. He makes mistakes. But so do all of us, even Michael Voris, although he never seems to admit to any. When I was still a "Vorisite", I had the same kind of judgmental attitude displayed in this "special report", and this judgmental attitude unfortunately shows in many of my past posts, especially those concerning Cardinal Dolan. Michael Voris and I and all other Catholics need to heed the words of St. Paul from Galatians 5:15: "But if you bite and devour one another; take heed you be not consumed one of another."

Michael Voris' main shtick is attacking the Church. What? Michael Voris, self proclaimed loyal Catholic to the death, attacks the Catholic Church? He most definitely has some very good Catholic teaching on his website, and says beautiful things about the Catholic Church. But what good is that when he, in effect, sets about to destroy loyalty and unity in the Church by presenting slanted, one-side "special reports" as we see here. He seems to feel no qualms whatsoever about attacking the ordained leaders of the church and calling them out as apostates and heretics. And as can be seen from this post, he tells the truth very selectively. He is excellent at what he does, unfortunately, and has seduced many good Catholics (including yours truly) into following his lead, which is basically pitting the laity against the authority of the Church.

These are undoubtedly some of the main reasons why the bishop of Detroit, Archbishop Allen H. Vigneron, forced Voris to remove the word "Catholic" from his organization. At the time, I thought this was nothing more than persecution. I sadly realize now that Archbishop Vigneron was absolutely correct in his decision.

As I have stated before, we live in very evil times, and the Catholic Church is under major assault. Cardinal Dolan and the other prelates of the Catholic Church are not just another guy in the pew. They have been specially ordained to lead the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ. They deserve respect, and even more importantly, they deserve and need our prayer. They are on the front lines of the church and are being constantly attacked, both by the physical world and the spiritual world. We need to prayerfully support and stand behind them, and unless it's a matter of blatant and unequivocal apostasy, we shouldn't be going on the worldwide internet to denounce them and stand as their judge and juror. I am saying this to myself as much as to anyone else because I have most definitely been guilty of this. We should certainly not be listening to and supporting spurious attacks such as this one by Michael Voris.

Always look at the entire picture, and don't let others tell you what to think. "Be ye wise as serpents and harmless as doves." People have a way of painting the truth to fit their point of view, and it can be very misleading.

Meditation on the Second Luminous Mystery: The Miracle at the Wedding of Cana

Today, Saturday, April 6, is the First Saturday of the Month. The First Saturday Devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary was first mentioned by Our Lady of Fatima on July 13, 1917. After showing the three children a vision of hell she said, "You have seen hell where the souls of poor sinners go. To save them, God wishes to establish in the world devotion to my Immaculate Heart. If what I say to you is done, many souls will be saved and there will be peace... I shall come to ask for... the Communion of reparation on the first Saturdays..." The First Saturday devotion is as follows:

It consists in going to Confession, receiving Communion, reciting five decades of the Rosary and meditating for a quarter of an hour on the mysteries of the Rosary on the first Saturday of five consecutive months. The Confession may be made during the eight days preceding or following the first Saturday of each month, provided that Holy Communion be received in the state of grace. Should one forget to form the intention of making reparation to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, it may be formed at the next Confession, occasion to go to confession being taken at the first opportunity.

The Mystery I have chosen this month on which to share a meditation is the Second Luminous Mystery - the miracle at the wedding of Cana.  I'm going to do some plagiarizing with this one.  I am right now reading one of the deepest and most enlightening books on the life of Christ that I have personally come across.  It is called, amazingly enough, "Life of Christ" by Venerable Fulton Sheen.  I was very young and even stupider than I am now when Bishop Sheen was alive, and I never had any appreciation for him at all, but I have since come to a great appreciation for this most wonderful, holy priest.

Since coming back to the Church, I have been listening to Bishop Sheen's TV program, "Life is Worth Living", and to sermons and retreats that he gave, many of which can be found on YouTube, and I've started reading many of the things he wrote.  I am completely blown away by his sanctity and depth of thought.  Since he lived here in NYC, I have met people who personally knew him, and they have told me he was most definitely the real deal.  He spent an hour every day, despite his unbelievably busy schedule, in prayer in front of the Blessed Sacrament.  At one point someone let him stay in a very large, luxurious apartment in the city.  He confined himself to two small rooms. He always had time for anyone and everyone.  He was responsible for the conversion and re-conversion of untold numbers of people.  He is someone every Catholic should still get to know through his writings and TV program.

Venerable Fulton J. Sheen

The Luminous Mysteries of the Rosary, of course, were not given to us by Blessed John Paul II until long after Bishop Sheen's death, but I have no doubt that the good Bishop would have encouraged their use. The cover of his book, "Life of Christ", as you can see above, pictures the first Luminous Mystery - the baptism of our Lord.

In this same book, Bishop Sheen devotes a chapter to what is now the second Luminous Mystery - the miracle of the Wedding at Cana in which Christ changed water into wine. He entitled this chapter, "The Beginning of 'The Hour'". As Bishop Sheen explained, whenever the term "The Hour" is mentioned in the Gospels, it is referring to Christ's death. As Bishop Sheen further explains, the miracle at the Wedding of Cana was the start of Jesus' public ministry.

At this point in Jesus' life, He had been baptized by John the Baptist and He had chosen 5 of his 12 apostles: John, Andrew, Peter, Philip and Nathanael, but He had not yet formally begun His public ministry. Jesus and his mother, Mary, had been invited to a wedding feast in Cana, and Jesus brought his five new apostles with Him to the feast. In those days, wedding feasts would last for eight days. At one point the wine gave out. Bishop Sheen submits that one of the probable reasons for the wine running out was that Our Lord had brought in so many uninvited guests.

As Bishop Sheen explains in his book, Mary was the instrument of Christ's "first miracle, or sign, that He was what He claimed to be, the Son of God." Bishop Sheen tells us in his book that "In the temple [when Christ was presented as a baby to God] and in the Jordan [when He was baptized], Our Lord received His Father's blessing and sanction to begin His work of Redemption. At Cana, He received the assent of His human parent."

Mary, the mother of Jesus, noticed the dwindling supply of wine before anyone else. Without a second thought, she turned to the One Person she knew could help: Her Son. She said to Him, "They have no wine left." (John 2:3). Bishop Sheen wrote:

"It was not a personal request; she was already a mediatrix for all who were seeking the fullness of joy. She has never been just a spectator, but a full participant willingly involving herself in the needs of others. The mother used the special power which she had as a mother over her Son, a power generated by mutual love."

Christ answered his mother's request with what almost seems like a rebuke and on the surface, even disrespectful and uncaring (John 2:4)

Woman, what is that to Me and to thee?
My Hour is not yet come.

As mentioned above, anytime Jesus uses the words "My Hour", He is speaking of His Passion, death and glory. Bishop Sheen writes:

The "Hour," therefore, referred to His glorification through His Crucifixion, Resurrection and Ascension. At Cana, Our Lord was referring to Calvary and saying that the time appointed for beginning the task of Redemption was not yet at hand. His mother was asking for a miracle; He was implying that a miracle worked as a sign of His Divinity would be the beginning of His Death. The moment He showed Himself before men as the Son of God, He would draw upon Himself their hatred, for evil can tolerate mediocrity, but not supreme goodness. The miracle she was asking for would be unmistakably related to His Redemption.

Bishop Sheen points out that there were two times in Christ's life when He seemed to balk at what was asked of him:

"In the Garden, He asked His Father it it be possible to take away His chalice of woe. . .The same apparent reluctance was also manifested in the face of the will of His mother. Cana was a rehearsal for Golgotha. He was not questioning the wisdom of beginning His Public Life and going to death at this particular point in time; it was rather a question of submitting His reluctant human nature to obedience to the Cross. There is a striking parallel between His Father's bidding Him to His public death and His mother's bidding Him to His public life."

Christ in the Garden of Olives, 1827 by Eugene Delacroix

As we know, Christ submitted to the will of His Mother at Cana and the Will of his Heavenly Father in the Garden. But as Bishop Sheen says, when Mary asked Jesus to perform His first public miracle:

"she was virtually pronouncing a sentence of death over Him. Few are the mothers who send their sons to battlefields; but here was one who was actually hastening the hour of her Son's mortal conflict with the forces of evil. If He agreed to her request, He would be beginning His hour of death and glorification. To the Cross He would go with double commission, one from His Father in heaven, the other from His mother on earth."

Bishop Sheen tells us that "now that He was launched on the work of Redemption, she would no longer be just His Mother, but also the mother of all His human brethren whom He would redeem."  As St. Louis Marie de Montfort said, "The Son of God became man for our salvation but only in Mary and through Mary."  This is why Christ now referred to Mary not as "Mother" but as "Woman."  From Bishop Sheen:

"The 'Woman" did have a seed, and it was her Seed that was standing now at the marriage feast, the Seed that would fall to the ground and die and then spring forth into new life. . .If He was to be the new Adam, the founder of a redeemed humanity, she would be the new Eve and the mother of that new humanity."

I find it interesting that Bishop Sheen refers to Mary as "the mother of all His human brethren whom He would redeem."  God is the Father of all humanity, but Mary is mother only to the "redeemed."  This would explain why only those in the Catholic Church - the only Church founded by Jesus Christ - recognize Mary as their mother.  The rest of the world does not recognize our Lady as their mother because she is not their mother.  She becomes our mother only when we stand with her at the foot of the Cross as the Apostle John did, and thus are redeemed by the Cross.  Bishop Sheen writes:  "On the Cross, He consoled His mother by giving her another son, John, and with him the whole of redeemed humanity" [my emphasis].

When our Blessed Mother asked Jesus to reveal who He was by performing this first miracle at the wedding at Cana, she was in effect giving Him to us as our Sacrifice, and also sealing her own fate in this Sacrifice.  Bishop Sheen explains:

"At Cana, the prophecy that Simeon made to her in the temple was confirmed: henceforth, whatever involved her Son would involve her, too; whatever happened to Him would happen to her. If He was destined to go to the Cross, so was she; and if He was now beginning His Public Life, then she would begin a new life too, no longer just as the mother of Jesus, but as the mother of all whom Jesus the Savior would redeem . . . Just as she was at His side as He began that Hour, so would she be at His side at its climactic finish. When she took Him away from the temple as a boy of twelve, it was because she sensed that His Hour had not yet come; He obeyed her then and returned to Nazareth with her. Now, He told her that His Hour had not yet come, but she bade Him begin it, and He obeyed. At Cana, she gave Him as a Savior to sinners; on the Cross He gave her as a refuge to sinners."

Mary willingly and with great love gave her Son to the world to be our Redemptive Sacrifice, and as Bishop Sheen explains, went to the Cross with Him.  Does this not explain why St. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori said:

'Mary having co-operated in our redemption with so much glory to God and so much love for us, Our Lord ordained that no one shall obtain salvation except through her intercession.'

Bishop Sheen compares Mary's request to Satan's temptations in the wilderness:

Thus [Jesus] did at a marriage feast what He would not do in a desert; He worked in the full gaze of men what He had refused to do before Satan.  Satan asked Him to turn stones into bread in order that He might become an economic Messias; His mother asked Him to change water into wine that He might become a Savior.  Satan tempted Him from death; Mary 'tempted' Him to death and Resurrection.  Satan tried to lead Him from the Cross; Mary sent Him toward it.  Later on, He would take hold of the bread that Satan had said men needed, and the wine that His mother had said the wedding guests needed, and He would change them both into the memorial of His Passion and His death.  

As Venerable Fulton Sheen explained to us, the miracle of the Wedding at Cana is the beginning of Christ's "Hour": the time of his Passion, Resurrection and Glory. We see that his Blessed Mother was an integral part of this. Arnold of Bonneval, a Medieval author and a Benedictine monk who was a great friend and biographer of St. Bernard of Clairvaux, said that on Calvary "there could certainly be seen two altars: one in the heart of Mary, the other in the body of Christ. Christ was immolating His flesh, Mary her spirit."

Our Lord and his Mother gave everything for us:  unhesitantly, willingly and with great love.  It is Christ's sacrifice that saves us from our sin, but it was Mary who presented Him at the altar of Calvary.    

Blessed William Joseph Chaminade, a French Catholic priest who lived during the French revolution and founded the Society of Mary, also known as the Marianists, said:  "The honor of Mary is so intimately connected with the honor and glory of Jesus that to deny the one is at the same time a denial of the other."

“May the Mother of Jesus and our Mother, always smile on your spirit, obtaining for it, from her Most Holy Son, every heavenly blessing.”

--Saint Padre Pio

Are Traditionalists Becoming the Pharisees of Our Time?

I unabashedly and without apology love traditional Catholicism. I love Gregorian chant, all the old devotions, reading the fathers and saints, and I especially love the Traditional Latin Mass. I feel that the Traditional Latin Mass is as close to experiencing heaven as we can get on this earth. The beauty and solemnity - even of a low Mass where the priest prays silently at the altar and there is no singing - is an overwhelming experience, maybe because of the silence. It is not hard to imagine the altar being surrounded by the angels and saints and our Blessed Mother. Every Mass - if properly attended - can be a truly life changing experience. If I have a chance of choosing between the Ordinary Form of the Mass next door to me or traveling 25 miles to the Latin Mass, I'm on the road without question.

Lately, though, especially since the election of Pope Francis, I have not been feeling too good about my fellow "traddies." I have already written a couple of posts about this, and it's not getting any better, as can be seen on traditional Catholic blogs. It isn't so much the bloggers themselves, although some of them are kind of scary, but more what you find in their comboxes.

Father Z has made some attempts to reign in negative comments about Pope Francis on his blog, but he still lets a lot of them go. On the other hand, he has also posted things which, while certainly not attacking the Holy Father in any way, leave room for his readers to do so. An example of this was a post that was a textbook example of a left handed compliment to Pope Francis, which you can read here. He opined that the the Pope's flaunting of the liturgical laws in regard to foot washing at the Holy Thursday service will actually drive people to the Latin Mass where the rubrics cannot be tampered with, and therefore Pope Francis has done more in two weeks to push the cause of Summorum Pontificum than Pope Benedict XVI did in his entire papacy. Here are just a few of the comments.

In this first comment. Father Z shows his disapproval (in red), but yet still lets the comment stand.

allan500 says:30 March 2013 at 9:55 pm

Fr. Z, I think the most important thing you observed is that “War-weary Catholics are back in the trenches.” We have no choice but to fight. It appears that Pope Francis is looking for a fight. Why? Could it be that he is not the humble man of peace he pretends to be, but a cunning fake? He knows exactly what he is doing when he ignores rubrics. He knows what he is doing when he greets every motley group of heretic and heathen but refuses to acknowledge the SSPX. Surely then are no further from the heart of the church than Muslims. He seems to be the classic bully doing what he wants–in disregard of people’s feelings and lawful aspirations– just because he can. Humble men don’t act like that.

[I won't write here what I think of suggestions like this in my combox.] 

Why doesn't Father Z let us know what he thinks of this comment?  I think he has a responsibility to either delete it or answer it.  To respond with something as vague as this is to invite others to agree with the comment.

Here's another one (typos were in the original), with no comeback from Father Z:

Potato2 says:30 March 2013 at 4:42 pm 

Nice try Fr. Z
I’m not buying it.
Just like I don’t buy it when political conservatives thank obama for amking them stronger. He doesn’t make them stronger. He pushes his agenda. same here.
You know it don’t you? 

There is, of course, the usual denigration of Vatican II, which Father Z seldom challenges:

Parasum says:
30 March 2013 at 9:05 pm 

“In two weeks Pope Francis has done more to promote Summorum Pontificum than Pope Benedict did since the day he promulgated it.”
## So true. His scandalous behaviour is a powerful indication of the new rite’s capacity for being abused. It is a room in a half-way house between the True Faith in its beauty, and the abominations of heresy. Despite himself, he proves by his abuses that Vatican II was built on shifting sand, and cannot last. For that at least he can be thanked.

And one more really scary comment, again with no rebuttal from Father Z:

Nan says:30 March 2013 at 4:32 pm

Magpie, I’m still weeping because the church has lost its foundation. For me, the temple veil is now torn and the church doesn’t lead to salvation. 

When Father Z lets comments like this stand with no rebuttal, he is giving tacit approval to them whether that is what he intends or not.  He is a priest with priestly authority, not just some non-entity like me blogging our own opinions.   He has a responsibility to either answer such heretical statements or delete them from his blog.

The most disturbing aspect of these comments is that they are coming from people who consider themselves good loyal Catholics and who supposedly put Christ and His church at the center of their existence. Yet they talk with tones of despair and defeatism. We are in the midst of Easter, the most positive liturgical season of the year as we celebrate Christ's victory over death and sin, and these "traditional Catholics" talk as if the Church was on the verge of self destruction. Did our Lord die for nothing? Did His promises that "the gates of hell will never prevail" against the Church and that He will be with us always mean nothing? It would seem so according to many of those who comment on Father Z's blog.

The very worst of the Traditional Catholic blogs, in my opinion, has been Rorate-caeli. This is a highly respected blog among Catholic traditionalists which has contributions from a number of people. In fact, Father Z links to this blog as one that he follows. Rorate posted one article about Pope Francis and the washing of feet on Holy Thursday, which as we all know, included women and non-Catholics. You can read the posting here. While they lament the actions of Pope Francis, they don't specifically condemn His Holiness. However, many of those who left comments see this act as the end of the world and do not hesitate to criticize the Pope and even question how truly Catholic he is.

The first comment is made by a reader who is rejoicing at what he sees as the destruction of the "conciliar" church and what he further sees as the Pope's role in that destruction. Also note that this person refers to His Holiness as "Bergoglio", a sign of ultra disrespect for the Vicar of Christ:

Francis in Ma said...
Yes, this modernist garbage (in this case washing the feet of women) has been going on in the Novus Ordo churches for a while now. While that of course is bad it is truly scandalous for the bishop of Rome to publicly wash the feet of pagans and women; inside a prison no less while trying to promote "humility"!! The leftwing and secular "media" is eating this garbage up. Bergoglio is taking the conciliar church deeper into the abyss of worldly relativism, modernism, humanism, syncretism and indifferentism. Which can only help to move along the conciliar church's demise. Yes, it will take a while, but looking at it positively Bergoglio may be helping the church that Vatican II built into oblivion.
28 March, 2013 20:36

Here is a post comparing the divinely appointed Vicar of Christ to those who crucified Christ on Calvary. Interestingly, the birth of the Church occurred when Christ was pierced with the spear after his death. The writer here does not appear to be aware of that fact:

M said...
Wonder why he didn't wait until tomorrow to stick a spear into the side of the Bride of Christ?
Good grief! Don't tell me he has something worse in mind for Good Friday!
28 March, 2013 20:39

Here is just one of many posts basically accusing Pope Francis of self will and false humility:

Petrus Radii said...
In mediaeval times, the Pope originally did in fact wash the feet of twelve paupers (all male, of course). If memory serves, local bishops who practised the custom would either wash the feet of paupers or of their clergy. The original monastic custom was for the abbot to wash the feet of *all* the community.
However, the present Pope's behaviour is nothing so much as archaeologism tainted with feminism, and one might wish to argue that his proclaimed "humility" is more likely self-will. Libera nos, Deus!
28 March, 2013 20:40

Here is a comment implying that Pope Francis is basically destroying the Papacy:

lee said...
A pope once suppressed the Jesuits (clement xiv);
so naturally a jesuit appears to be suppressing the papacy.
28 March, 2013 21:21

Here is one comment fundamentally accusing the Pope of being a heretic and praising the Society of St. Pius X, which is in schism right now:

Jan said...
As far as I am concerned, this was outright disobedience by Francis of Church law, even though it was done at a Novus Ordo Mass. Francis has set the tone for disobedience and, in doing so, has undermined his own authority.
As regards the SSPX, the only safety for anyone's soul is within the Church. As it is, they can do nothing to help the Church because they have no standing in canon law. I too believe they should have accepted Pope Benedict's offer. I don't believe the Church would have sunk down as far if they had not left in the first place. When that happened there were few left to battle against the modernism that has led to the election of Francis who appears by his own actions to be rejecting the papacy himself. Once he was just a disobedient Cardinal, now he sets the example for all to be disobedient to him.
28 March, 2013 21:26

Here is one comment actually urging Catholics to leave the Church and join the SSPX:

Dominic said...
At this point, anyone not already attending an SSPX chapel should seriously consider joining. It's only going to go downhill from here. The second great western schism is about to happen soon.
28 March, 2013 21:48

Following is one comment calling our Holy Father diabolical and a "monster" and using Scripture to back up his point:

The Viking said...
2 Thessalonians 2:14
Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.
If it is true that Il Papa Francesco washed the feet of 2 non-believing women, then his disdain for the Traditions of the Church have reached the level of diabolical. So much for Peter honoring the actions of Our Lord Jesus Christ and his Apostles on this the day which commemorates the institution of the Priesthood and the Mass. 
... WHAT AN ABSOLUTE SIGN WHICH GOD HAS ALLOWED
Lex orandi, lex credendi--the law of prayer is the law of belief. So a man acts liturgically, so he believes in his head. Dear God have mercy on the earth because Jorge Mario Bergoglio is a monster making a mockery of the Petrine Office to the glee of the entire world and most importantly, to the enemies of God's church.
28 March, 2013 23:02

One last comment from someone who has no idea what to do and is also thinking of jumping ship to the SSPX:

Unknown said...
I am so confused. I want to believe that the Church is going to be restored & survive. I thought Pope Benedict was re-constructing & that the elderly Pope Francis had some means of bringing us back to tradition. He's pro-life at least. why am I so grateful for a few crumbs of goodness from him? Pretty sure going back to the SSPX & giving up on the Mainstream church is the only option. Very sad and afraid. How are we supposed to know what to do??????
28 March, 2013 23:38

How are we suppose to know what to do? How about listening to the words of our founder, Jesus Christ?

All of these comments I have posted above sound to me like they would come right out of the mouths of the Pharisees in the time of Christ. The Pharisees were constantly attacking Jesus because he did not conform to the traditions which they held so dearly:

1. Christ "broke" the Sabbath by healing
2. Christ "broke" by the Sabbath by allowing his apostles to pick and eat corn on that day
3. Christ and his apostles did not ceremonially wash their hands before eating as commanded by Moses
4. Christ associated with known sinners, including prostitutes and tax collectors
5. The Pharisees accused Jesus of healing and driving out demons out by demonic power.

Our Lord scandalized the average man and woman when He made the statement that we must eat His Body and drink His Blood. No one understood the meaning of this because no one had any concept of the Eucharist, which had not been introduced yet. As far as everyone who heard this was concerned, Jesus was suggesting cannibalism.

From John 6:

53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.”

66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

The mindset of many of the current Catholic Traditionalists criticizing Pope Francis seems to be exactly the same as the Pharisees at the time of Christ. While so many accuse Pope Francis of false humility, they show no humility at all. They know exactly what the Church needs and what is right and wrong, and no one - certainly not any upstart Pope - is going to tell them differently. Their statements all show tremendous pride and self righteousness.

They who claim to be so knowledgeable about the teachings of the Church seem to have completely forgotten that the Pope is the divinely chosen Vicar of Christ. He is the direct successor to St. Peter and has been given the keys to the Kingdom. What he has loosed on earth will be loosed in heaven and what he binds on earth shall be bound in heaven. This statement applies to the Pope and only the Pope. Our Lord has in effect told us that we have no right to judge any actions of the Pope in his capacity as Pope. The only one allowed to stand in judgment of the Holy Father is Jesus Christ.

Yes, it did go against the rubrics to wash the feet of women and non-Catholics at the Holy Thursday service. I have trouble understanding it. But I'm not the Pope! And this is hardly a heretical act. If he had given communion to non-Catholics, then we would definitely have a problem. But washing their feet? Oh, I know the arguments, just as we read in the comments. Because the pope "disobeyed", now no one needs to obey.

The Pope is not just any man. One would think Traditional Catholics above all would be aware of this fact. He is not bound as we are by such laws as whose feet to wash. He is the one who gets to do the "loosening and binding," remember? The Church is not a democracy, we don't get to decide if he is right or wrong.

I am not one of those liberals who hate traditionalists. I'm one of you! But first and foremost, I am Catholic, and as such, I am a papist. Pope Francis is my Pope, no matter what my personal feelings are. As I have written previously on this blog, I have a firm promise from my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, that His Vicar will never mislead me. I don't have to understand everything he does and says, just as the Apostles did not understand everything Christ said and did. In fact, before his death, the apostles understood next to nothing of what Christ said and did. But as Peter said to Christ (John 6:68):

Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.

As I mentioned at the top of this post, I love the Traditional Latin Mass. You need only to look around at my blog to realize that. I believe like many Traditionalists do that the Mass is the salvation of the world. But if we start using the Sacrifice of the Mass to judge the Holy Father, then we have, as impossible as it may seem, made an idol of the Mass. Many Traditionalists are afraid of losing the Mass, and are actually willing to attack the Vicar of Christ over it.

St. Teresa of Avila gave us a beautiful example of obedience. She had been having visions of Christ, and when she told her confessor, he told her it was a demon and she should reject the visions:

For three years, while Father Balthasar was her director, she suffered from the disapproval of those around her; and for two years, from extreme desolation of soul. She was censured for her austerities and ridiculed as a victim of delusion or a hypocrite. A confessor to whom she went during Father Balthasar's absence said that her very prayer was an illusion, and commanded her, when she saw any vision, to make the sign of the cross and repel it as if it were an evil spirit. But Teresa tells us that the visions now brought with them their own evidence of authenticity, so that it was impossible to doubt they were from God. Nevertheless, she obeyed this order of her confessor. Pope Gregory XV, in his bull of canonization, commends her obedience in these words: "She was wont to say that she might be deceived in discerning visions and revelations, but could not be in obeying superiors."

St. Teresa of Avila actually rejected Christ out of obedience to her superiors and was commended for it.  We, too, must submit ourselves to the obedience of the Pope, whether we understand it or not.  If we truly believe the Holy Father is being misled, then we need to pray for him.  But we should not be on the Internet which is read around the world telling everyone that the Vicar of Christ is a heretic and of the devil.  When we do that, we are playing directly into the hands of the devil who wants to destroy the Church.

Remember what our Lord said as recorded in Matthew 12:36:

But I say to you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.

Pray for our Holy Father.  Don't judge him.