Saturday, March 15, 2014

Bravo to Cardinal Dolan

The Catholic blogosphere has been pretty much apoplectic over Timothy Cardinal Dolan's comment on Meet the Press on Sunday which he made when asked about football player Michael Sam announcing he is homosexual. From nbcnewyork.com:
"Good for him," Dolan said in an interview with NBC's "Meet the Press" airing Sunday.
"I would have no sense of judgment on him," Dolan continued. "God bless ya. I don't think, look, the same Bible that tells us, that teaches us well about the virtues of chastity and the virtue of fidelity and marriage also tells us not to judge people. So I would say, 'Bravo.'"
The Catholic blogosphere, almost without exception, condemned this statement and came very close to calling Cardinal Dolan an apostate.  They say that he has basically condoned the sin of homosexuality by telling the world that there is nothing wrong with it.

Interestingly, that is not what the secular world thought at all, especially the gay community.  The Advocate, the website for the gay magazine, very matter of factly reported this statement by Cardinal Dolan with no comment.  But its readers had comments, and not one of them (with the exception of a religious zealot) felt that Cardinal Dolan was condoning the gay lifestyle:



Another gay website, washingtonblade.com,, reported on the interview in an article entitled, "N.Y. Archbishop Uncomfortable With Civil Unions." This article basically went right over the "bravo" comment, concentrating more on the part of the interview where Cardinal Dolan said he could not support civil unions. From the article:
"Dolan’s main point during his “Meet the Press” was that Francis was shrewdly adapting the message of the church in a time when public sentiment is changing, but church doctrine remains the same.

“And so Francis is reminding us, look, if we come across as some crabby, nay saying shrill, we’re not gonna win anybody. If we come across as a loving, embracing holy mother church who says, “Come on in. We love you. We need you. We want you. And once you get to know us, then maybe we can invite you to the conversion of heart that is at the core of the gospel. And then maybe we can talk about changing behavior. That’s a very effective pedagogy.”
Also from the article:
"Evan Wolfson, president of Freedom to Marry, chided Dolan for his remarks, saying they were contrary to the position of the pope.
“Since Day 1 of this papacy, Cardinal Dolan has sought to minimize the teachings of Francis and the new and welcome message of inclusion, but the Cardinal is out of step with the Pope, out of step with the great majority of American Catholics who support the freedom to marry, and out of step with the true values of love and the Golden Rule,” Wolfson said.
Wolfson has completely misrepresented Pope Francis in his rush to condemn Cardinal Dolan. However, the point is that Cardinal Dolan can't win. He gets hit by Catholics who say he is condoning homosexuality, and he gets hit by homosexuals who say he refuses to accept them.

There is no way both sides on this issue can be right. So what is the truth?

Like most people, I didn't know what to make of Cardinal Dolan's statement at first.  But I am learning that we should never be quick to judge.  Pope Francis, in the interview given to America magazine, made a very wise statement in regard to rash judgments:
I am always wary of decisions made hastily. I am always wary of the first decision, that is, the first thing that comes to my mind if I have to make a decision. This is usually the wrong thing. I have to wait and assess, looking deep into myself, taking the necessary time. The wisdom of discernment redeems the necessary ambiguity of life and helps us find the most appropriate means, which do not always coincide with what looks great and strong.
The gospels show us that our Lord was constantly misunderstood and misinterpreted. He would make a controversial statement such as "You must eat my body and drink my blood or you have no life in you," and people would become very offended and walk away from Him. They would not humbly admit that they did not understand the statement and give Our Lord a chance to explain or wait for his words to become clear. They decided for themselves that he was wrong. Isaiah 66:2 tells us: "But this is the one to whom I will look: he who is humble and contrite in spirit and trembles at my word." Part of the definition of "humble and contrite" can be found in Proverbs 3:5 - "Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding." It has been my experience that trusting in my own "understanding" will more than likely lead me to the wrong conclusions.

As I wrote above, Cardinal Dolan's statement did not sound good to me when I first heard it.  But instead of making a quick judgment on it, I gave it some thought. Cardinal Dolan, in his comment, said that the bible tells us not to judge. That made me think of the story of the woman taken in adultery and brought to Christ. From John 8:3-11:
"3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” 6 They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.
But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger.7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.
9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there.10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”
11 “No one, sir,” she said.
“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”
Most people will point out the very last line of this story when Jesus said, "Go and sin no more." They will say (and have said to me), "See, Christ rebuked her. He didn't let her get away with it." But take notice when Jesus said this. He waited until everyone had left and he was alone with the woman. Only then did he mention that she needed to change.  Neither did Jesus wait for the woman to ask for forgiveness.  He extended his forgiveness to her without any signs of repentance on her part.  And he did this without condemning her in any way.

It is interesting to note that the only ones to whom our Lord ever said any words of condemnation were the Pharisees, the religious leaders of the day who held themselves out as sinless and showed no mercy or compassion to anyone else. Never once did our Lord condemn any of those we would consider great sinners, such as this woman in the story. Our Lord did not even condemn Judas, the one who betrayed him. However, you can be sure that if Christ was walking the earth in our time and acted towards "sinners" as shown in the Gospels, the Catholic blogosphere would, in no uncertain terms, label Him as an apostate who is destroying the teachings of the church.

The Catholic blogosphere is always taking Cardinal Dolan to task for not condemning sinners. They jumped all over him when he refused to say that Governor Andrew Cuomo, a Catholic who supports abortion and homosexuality, is not a Catholic in good standing. From the New York Times:
"Cardinal Timothy M. Dolan did not intend to question Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo’s standing in the Roman Catholic Church, despite the governor’s support for abortion rights, the cardinal’s spokesman said on Wednesday.
The spokesman, Joseph Zwilling, was seeking to clarify comments the cardinal made in a radio interview on Tuesday, when the cardinal said, in response to a question about Mr. Cuomo’s standing in the church, that “that’s one of the things the governor and I talk about.”
But on Wednesday, Mr. Zwilling said that the cardinal, who is the archbishop of New York, “would not, and did not, suggest the governor might not be a Catholic in good standing going forward.”
Mr. Zwilling also said that another of Cardinal Dolan’s remarks — “That’s something that I talk turkey with him about” — was meant to address the issue of abortion, not “the governor’s faith.”
“I do realize that was part of the question he was asked, and so I do understand how the answer could have been misinterpreted,” Mr. Zwilling said in an e-mail. “But I assure you that was not what the cardinal was saying.”
I find this story very much echoing the story of the woman taken in adultery.  There is no doubt that she had committed a great sin, and at that time, she was subject to stoning under the law.  Yet, our Lord refused to condemn her.  And there is no doubt that Andrew Cuomo stands in opposition to many of the major teachings of the Catholic Church.  He supports abortion and in fact wants to expand it here in New York so that abortions can be performed right up to the time of birth.  Cuomo is also a big supporter of same sex marriage, and it was his support that drove this bill in New York State.  And in his personal life, Gov Cuomo has a live-in relationship with his girlfriend.  These are certainly not the actions of a Catholic in good standing.

So how can Cardinal Dolan make such a statement about the governor?  Cardinal Dolan has made it very clear that he is in complete opposition to the positions of Governor Cuomo.  But, like our Lord, he will not chastise Cuomo in public.  I bolded those last words because that is pertinent to understanding what His Eminence is doing and to understanding the whole message of mercy as exemplified by Jesus Christ.

I think a good example of this is shown in another supposedly "scandalous" act in which the Cardinal was involved. Vice President Joseph Biden, another Catholic supporter of abortion and homosexuality, came to Mass at St. Patrick's Cathedral last year, and received communion right under the nose of Cardinal Dolan. Michael Voris, in his usual manner, made a special Vortex episode condemning the Cardinal, which I wrote about HERE. Cardinal Dolan did not say or do anything to Biden in public. But after Mass, he and the vice president went to "coffee" for a private chat. Is it coincidence that Biden has not presented himself for communion since that time? I don't think so.

In an article from a Patheos blog, which you can read HERE, Sarah Bailey quotes from a Newsweek article about Cardinal Dolan:
Dolan insists that it’s not a fight he wanted. He arrived on the national stage with the reputation of a conciliator, one who believes that the church should not be in the business of weeding out those who dispute some of its teachings. As archbishop of Milwaukee, he disagreed with those bishops who advised punishment of politicians (by denial of holy communion or parishioners’ votes) who supported policies the church opposes. … [Dolan says,] “I would be one that would much prefer to sit down with people, to say, let’s sit down and talk about this, let me try to be a pastor first, let me try a conversion of heart.”
Our Lord did not condemn sinners in public, Pope Francis does not condemn sinners in public, and Cardinal Dolan does not condemn sinners in public.  You may say, what about Canon 915, which forbids communion to those who go against teachings of the Church.  To that I answer, why didn't Christ agree to condemn the woman taken in the act of committing adultery?  After all, there was no doubt of her guilt.  Our Lord did not condemn her, but he did admonish her IN PRIVATE to go and sin no more.  That seems to be the method that Cardinal Dolan wishes to use.

It is always easy to sit on the sidelines and see everything in black and white.  It is easy to say one thing is wrong and the other is right, and to judge every situation alike.  The problem is all people are different, all situations are different.  Thank God that He judges each one of us individually.  He looks at our particular situation and the extenuating circumstances.

Consider the woman taken in adultery in the story from the Gospels.  Maybe she lived in an abusive marriage with a husband who constantly mistreated her, and then someone came along who had shown kindness to her.  Her response was wrong, but wouldn't her circumstances mitigate some of her sin?

Michael Sam
Cardinal Dolan knew nothing about Michael Sam. He has no idea what led Michael Sam to become a homosexual. Many homosexuals enter into that lifestyle as the result of childhood abuse. Many come from extremely dysfunctional families that kept them from full emotional development. Michael Sam obviously feels that he is doing what is right for him, and there is no way he is going to listen to anyone tell him otherwise. Isn't it more likely he will respond to understanding, love and mercy than to someone telling him he is wrong, a message he has no doubt heard many times in his life?

I will give one more example from the Gospels. This concerns Christ's last moments on earth as a mortal human being. He was dying on the cross surrounded by two thieves. At the beginning of the crucifixion, both thieves mocked and insulted him. However, as the afternoon progressed, one thief, known as Dismas, had a complete change of heart. He rebuked the other thief and then reached out to the dying Christ and said, remember me when you come into your kingdom.


What brought about this complete transformation, one so complete that Christ promised Dismas he would be in heaven that day? Dismas watched as Our Lord was surrounded by those cheering on his death, and Dismas saw Christ respond not with condemnation but with love and forgiveness. And even when the thieves were mocking him, Christ did not rebuke them in any way. The only rebuke they received from Christ was the lack of condemnation. Would Dismas have repented so completely if Our Lord had instead turned to him and said, you are a sinner and you need to repent? This would have much more likely pushed him completely into his sin and he would have spiritually perished.
 
We must also take notice that the other thief was not moved at all by the show of our Lord's compassion, which says that not everyone will respond to mercy.  But that surely does not mean we should not show mercy as our Lord did.  

We all need to take the advice of Pope Francis and not be so quick to make rash judgments.  The world does not need our condemnation but needs what we have been given, which is the love, mercy and forgiveness of Jesus Christ.

“And so Francis is reminding us, look, if we come across as some crabby, nay saying shrill, we’re not gonna win anybody. If we come across as a loving, embracing holy mother church who says, “Come on in. We love you. We need you. We want you. And once you get to know us, then maybe we can invite you to the conversion of heart that is at the core of the gospel. And then maybe we can talk about changing behavior. That’s a very effective pedagogy.”
Timothy Cardinal Dolan

Posted by at 12 comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Thursday, February 13, 2014

Rejection of the Pope is Rejection of the Church

It has now been one year since Pope Benedict XVI abdicated the papacy.  The rumor mill concerning his reasons for leaving the papacy started at his announcement and has not stopped, continuing right up to this time.  Having lived my Catholic life in the world of Traditional Catholicism for the last years, I hear things mostly from their perspective.

One thing that strikes me about the perspective of Traditional Catholics is that they think that everything that happens in the Church is about them and their enemies' attempts to destroy them. (Traditionalists tend to see their enemies as anyone who is not a self-defined Traditionalist, so that includes just about everyone else in the Catholic Church.) This is most certainly true when it comes the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI. After all, he is the one who gave us Summorum Pontificum, so therefore all the modernist liberals in the church wanted him out.

This is the message that comes through loud and clear from Louie Verrecchio (who will be referred to as "LV" from this point on), a layman who has set himself up as some kind of expert on Vatican II and who writes a blog called "Harvesting the Fruit of Vatican II", with the subtitle, "Separating the fruits from the nuts by the light of tradition."  LV wrote a post entitled, "A Tale of Two Popes", found HERE, in which he speculates about the "real" reasons Pope Benedict XVI resigned, and also compares Pope Benedict to Pope Francis, showing us that pretty much everything Pope Francis says and does is liberal, modernist heresy.  It should be noted that LV, while he says there are some good things about Vatican II, for the most part has almost total condemnation of the Council.  

LV starts his post by informing us that it is based entirely on speculation:
A year has now passed since Pope Benedict XVI shocked the world by announcing his intention to abdicate the Throne of St. Peter, and what have we learned?

In concrete terms, perhaps very little as it relates to the real reasons behind his renouncement of the papacy, but circumstantially, we can infer quite a lot. With this in mind, please allow me to indulge in a bit of informed speculation.
He tries to tell us that this is "informed speculation."  Just what does he use for his basis of being "informed?"  Nothing but his own imagination.  Yet, he expects us to accept everything in his post, and sadly, many do.

LV then tells us that Pope Benedict's announcement was met with two reactions. The first was "shock". But, according to LV, some of those who expressed "shock" were actually hiding their true motivations and involvement in the pope's resignation from the rest of us:
I do not doubt for even a moment that there were any number of clerics, particularly members of the Curia, who looked straight into the television cameras to express their surprise, when in truth they had played an active role in coercing Pope Benedict to take his leave.
LV, with absolutely no proof, is accusing Cardinals, princes of the church, and more specifically, members of the Curia, of playing "an active role in coercing Pope Benedict to take his leave."  This statement alone should be enough for anyone to completely dismiss this article as nothing more than the baseless accusations of an enemy of the church.

LV then discounts and ridicules those who pointed out the humility of Pope Benedict XVI in his decision to resign, calling all such talk "blather" and "spin":
The other most common reaction coming from Rome and elsewhere, especially in less-than-traditional quarters, was a near endless stream of blather (more properly, “spin”) touting the sheer humility of this pope who courageously decided to step aside for the good of the Church.
According to LV, the "humility" displayed by Pope Benedict was a way to set us up for what LV calls the "Cirque du Humilité" of Pope Frances, whom he brazenly insults as a fraud:
In hindsight, this was but the opening act for the Cirque du Humilité that burst onto the Roman stage with the elevation of Jorge Bergoglio.
Is it merely coincidental that the suddenly “humble” abdicator’s successor immediately undertook to implement an unprecedented program of papal humility-on-display, with everything from worn out shoes to shoddy vestments, to pedestrian living quarters and compact cars serving as props?
LV then openly insults Pope Benedict by suggesting the real reason for the resignation was because he was "fleeing from the wolves".  This statement infers that Pope Benedict was afraid and ran away from the papacy in order to protect himself with little or no thought for the Church, a horrendous and libelous accusation:
Oddly enough, in the weeks following Benedict’s announcement, only a relative few were wondering aloud if perhaps he was in fact fleeing for fear of the very “wolves” he had mentioned in his inaugural homily. And yet, they had been howling at Benedict’s doorstep for quite some time.
Pope Benedict and Cardinal Bergoglio
LV then starts on a litany of accusations against Pope Francis, comparing his actions to those of Pope Benedict. It is a long list, and starts out contrasting the views of the two Popes regarding the Muslim religion. Pope BXVI was the "brave" pope, the one who gave the Regensburg Lecture on September 12, 2006 in which he criticized the prophet Mohammed.  LV cites an article in which then Cardinal Bergoglio disagreed with the statements of Pope Benedict. The article incorrectly says that the statements were made in 2005, and it makes one wonder what else is wrong in the article. We will assume, for the sake of argument, that Cardinal Bergoglio did disagree with the Regensburg address.  
LV, to contrast Pope Benedict with Pope Frances, writes:
Is it merely coincidental that the above mentioned Prince [who supposedly spoke against Pope Benedict] is now known as Pope Francis, a pope so determined to court favor with the Muslims that he even goes so far as to actively encourage them to hold fast to their false religion?
Pope Benedict praying at mosque
LV conveniently leaves out the fact that  just a few days after the Regensburg address, Pope Benedict, in a statement issued from the Vatican, humbly clarified his statements and even praised the Muslim religion.  Here is an excerpt from the statement which you can read HERE:
The Church regards with esteem also the Muslims. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all-powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth, Who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God.
LV then makes a statement which cannot be answered because it is of a general nature with no specifics whatsoever. In a court of law, this would immediately be thrown out as vague and unsubstantiated:
Pope Benedict XVI, in spite of whatever shortcomings he may have had from a traditional perspective (e.g., Assisi III, the “continuity” illusion, his failure to celebrate the traditional Mass in public even once), committed what the neo-modernist cabal in post-conciliar Rome considers an unforgiveable sin; he showed a willingness to render papal authority in the manner of a Sovereign, when clearly everyone who is anyone in the Eternal City knows darn well that the church-of-man playbook now firmly in place requires the pontiff to govern according to unwritten rule number one: collegiality.
LV contrasts and compares Pope Francis showing that he promotes collegiality, strongly implying that Pope Francis is watering down the authority of the papacy.  But this cannot be answered in any way because of the vagueness of the statements.  Therefore, these statements by LV carry no weight whatsoever and have to be dismissed.

LV then attempts to tell us what Pope Benedict XVI did "in the way of overstepping his bounds as primus inter pares (first among equals); landing himself in water so hot that he felt he had no choice but to end his days in seclusion."

From LV:
First, he issued Summorum Pontificum.
Had he simply treated the “old Mass” as a sentimental attachment to be tolerated, rather than as a gift to be propagated, his own traditional leanings in matters liturgical could have perhaps been overlooked by the wolves, but as it was, he incited their fury.
I will be the first to admit that there are those, even among the clergy and the bishops, who do not like the "Old Mass."  But I can't help but wonder if it often has something to do with the attitude displayed by people like LV?  In this statement, LV shows that he feels everything revolves around Traditionalists and the attempts by the rest of the Church to destroy them.  The traditionalists truly do not understand that they bring on much of the "persecution" that they may suffer because of their self righteous and condemning attitudes of anyone who doesn't agree with them.  

At this point, LV brings up Pope Francis' praise of the late Cardinal Martini, who is condemned by many Traditionalists.  LV gives us this statement by Cardinal Martini to show how opposed he was to Traditional Catholics, and by inference, how opposed Pope Francis is to traditionalists:
"Our culture has aged, our churches are big and empty and the church bureaucracy rises up, our rituals and our cassocks are pompous.”
What LV doesn't tell us is that in the interview in which Cardinal Martini made this statement, he followed it up with another statement with which I think most Traditionalists, who never hesitate in their criticism of the post-conciliar Church, would be in complete agreement:
“The church must admit its mistakes and begin a radical change, starting from the pope and the bishops,” he said in the interview. “The pedophilia scandals oblige us to take a journey of transformation.”
Pope Benedict and Cardinal Martini
LV also does not tell us that Pope Benedict praised Cardinal Martini.  This is from a CNS story about the death of Cardinal Martini:
The late Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini was a "generous and faithful pastor of the church," who not only studied the Bible, "but loved it intensely and made it the light of his life," Pope Benedict XVI said.
Does this somehow make Pope Benedict an enemy of Tradition?  LV doesn't touch this.

LV then gives us the second reason "Pope Benedict turned up the heat under his Throne":
Secondly, Pope Benedict turned up the heat under his Throne considerably by lifting the excommunications from the four bishops of the Society of St. Pius X, and this in the very same year that he decreed the “Heroic Virtues” of Venerable Pope Pius XII.
Both of these acts, together with Summorum Pontificum two years earlier, amounted to an anti-Semitic trifecta in the minds of many a Jew and their progressive con frères within the Church; brothers in arms in the cause of creating an institution only a Mason could love.
While much of the dust-up concerned the comments of a now former SSPX Bishop relative to the Holocaust, the entire affair was treated as an occasion to proclaim the Jewish people off-limits in terms of evangelization.
I really don't know what to say to this.  LV gives us nothing to support his contention that lifting the excommunication of the SSPX bishops brought persecution.  There can be no doubt that there were those within the Church who thought it was a mistake, but for this reason they wanted to throw Pope Benedict out of the papacy?  We need something to back up this grave accusation, and we need to know who these people are.  LV gives us nothing.

LV then segues this into a "contrast" between the views of the two pope on the Jews.   LV  takes a swipe at Pope Francis with these words:
Pope Francis raised eyebrows in saying, “We hold the Jewish people in special regard because their covenant with God has never been revoked,” (cf Evangelii Gaudium 247) as if their rejection of Christ amounts to anything less than a rejection of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
Is it merely coincidental that Pope Benedict’s successor not only boasts a history of synagogue visits and inter-worship with Jews, but has also co-authored a book with his rabbi-best-friend; the same with whom he prayed during Sukkot and Shabbat at the Vatican, a papal first?
It should be noted that Pope Benedict made several visits to synagogues to pray with the rabbis, and in the early part of his pontificate, Pope Benedict had an audience with the chief rabbi of Rome.  The following is an excerpt from his address (you can read the entire address HERE)
“The Catholic Church is close and is a friend to you. Yes, we love you and we cannot but love you, because of the Fathers: through them you are very dear and beloved brothers to us (cf. Romans 11:28b). This reciprocal esteem and trust has continued to grow since the Second Vatican Council. Fraternal and cordial contacts continued to develop and were intensified throughout the Pontificate of my venerable predecessor, John Paul II.

In Christ we participate in the same heritage of the Fathers as you, to serve Almighty God “with one accord” (Zephania 3:9), grafted onto the one holy trunk (cf. Isaiah 6:13; Romans 11: 16) of the People of God. This makes us Christians aware that, with you, we have the responsibility of cooperating for the good of all peoples, in justice and in peace, in truth and in freedom, in holiness and in love.”
LV, in his post, says the Jews' rejection of Christ also means "a rejection of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob." I submit that LV's statement amounts to a rejection of the teaching of the Catholic Church. The Catechism of the Catholic Church plainly states at #121: "The Old Testament is an indispensable part of Sacred Scripture. Its books are divinely inspired and retain a permanent value, for the Old Covenant has never been revoked." To reject Jesus Christ is most certainly wrong, but it is NOT equal to "rejecting the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob." To say this is to contradict the plain teaching of the Catholic Church.  And someone really should caution LV that he is definitely courting with antisemitism in his statements. 

LV gives us one more reason for the ouster of Pope Benedict from the papacy:
Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, Pope Benedict all but signed his own walking papers the moment he set in motion the so-called “Doctrinal Discussions” with the Society of St. Pius X.
Imagine, the Roman Pontiff suggesting that these “traditionalists,” with their attachment to the doctrine of the Faith as it was taught without confusion prior to the Council and their insistence upon the Social Kingship of Christ, have something of value to offer the Church!
Again, in the eyes of the Traditionalist, everything revolves around them.  Yes, Pope Benedict absolutely did reach out to the SSPX and tried very hard to bring them back into the fold of the Catholic Church, and I praise him for that.  But it was the SSPX, under the leadership of Bishop Fellay, who refused to sign the agreement with the Vatican in June 2012.  The SSPX said they will not accept the legitimacy of Vatican II nor the legitimacy of what they call the Novus Ordo Mass.  LV tries to praise the SSPX for their loyalty to the Church when it was anything but loyalty.  Rather, the SSPX completely rejected and turned their backs on the Magesterium of the Catholic Church and by doing so, they rejected Jesus Christ Himself and crucified Him anew.

Pope Benedict XVI showed tremendous courage in trying to reunite with the SSPX. This very act alone shows he would never "flee from the wolves." How can Louie Verrecchio or anyone else dare accuse this courageous and humble man of lack of courage and of fleeing from obedience to the Lord? I'm not sure LV even realizes he is doing this because he is so blinded by his own beliefs and prejudices.
There is more to Verrecchio's post.  Again, you can read it HERE, but it is just more of the same.

The comments to this post show just how dangerous it is.  A few examples:

  1. Theresa February 12, 2014 10:36 pm

    Pope Benedict is the Vicar of Christ…….need I say more???

    1. Biggie February 13, 2014 1:47 am

      If Pope Benedict was forced or coerced in ANY way to resign this current “pope” is invalid thus Saint Francis of Assisi’s “A man not canonically elected..” prophecy. Sorry, I know it offends many people but I call it as I see it and I’m calling Shenanigans.

      1. Andrew February 13, 2014 3:07 pm

        But wait. I believe it was an act of Providence that the Society wasn’t regularized. Clearly the Mother of God spared them from what is now happening to the Franciscans of the Immaculate.

      2. Andrew February 13, 2014 3:08 pm

        And yes if Benedict’s resignation was forced then it would be invalid, making the other bishop of Rome Antipope Francis.

      3. Taylor Hall February 13, 2014 4:11 pm

        Interestingly enough, Antonio Socci wrote an article in “Libero” arguing that Benedict’s resignation may have been invalid, thus making Francis an Antipope. A whole can of worms has just been opened.

        1. Hannah February 13, 2014 7:29 pm

          For a year, I’ve been trying to convince myself that Benedict was no longer Pope. But, I can’t. Something isn’t right, as everyone is saying here. Every so often, I hear reports that he’s doing fine, in good health, etc. Well, shouldn’t he be on his death bed? You’d think so, after the drastic abdication. It hasn’t happened in centuries and it doesn’t just happened. Why is he still wearing white and being called Pope Emeritus? He choose to still wear white himself. It just seems obvious that he’s trying to show us something yet he acts like he’s no longer Pope and acknowledges his Successor.
          If he’s still Pope, what are we supposed to do about it? That means there’s an imposter in the Chair of Peter and someone has to restore Benedict back to his rightful place, but how?
          Bl. Anne Catherine Emmerich saw when there would be a time with “two Popes” and she saw the “consequences of the false church.” She’s talking about now.
          Pray is all I can say. One of these days, God will straighten this out.

          As you can see, many of these people have in effect become sedevacantist, for all intents and purposes rejecting Pope Francis as the Vicar of Christ. Blogs like those run by Louie Verrecchio and other self-proclaimed "Traditionalists" are what one person has called ecclesiastical pornography. These blogs are occasions of sin and while pretending to show the Face of Jesus Christ, they are leading you directly away from him and into the arms of the devil. I know this is a very strong accusation, but there can be no Catholic Church without the Vicar of Christ. Therefore, anyone who tries to turn you against the Pope is an agent, wittingly or unwittingly, of the devil.

          We live in very confusing days when, more than ever, the devil appears as angel of light. We must constantly test the spirits. One sure test is the position of a person in regard to the Holy Father. Does he or she recognize and accept the Holy Father as the Vicar of Christ, Christ's true representative on earth? Does he or she accept the teachings of the Catholic Church? Many traditionalists complain about "Cafeteria Catholics", those who pick and choose what they want to believe. The sad fact is Traditionalists tend to lead the pack in picking and choosing what they want to believe, and far too often, their choices do not include accepting the Vicar of Christ. They will tell you they "pray for the Pope" in one breath, and tear him down in the next breath.  This is not supporting the Pope.

          The Venerable Fulton Sheen described it best in his biography, "Treasure in Clay".  Bishop Sheen met every pope from Pius XI to Blessed John Paul II.  This is what he wrote:
          "This close association with so many Pontiffs was only the coming to a head in my life of that experience of faith which occurred in the seminary.  I had such reverence for the Vicars of Christ because I saw in them the visible head of the Body of Christ, the Church.  It has always grieved me to see little candles spluttering in contempt at the corporate and garnered wisdom of the Church."

Posted by at 1 comment:
Labels: , , , , ,

Wednesday, February 5, 2014

The United Nations to the Catholic Church: DROP DEAD

Credit:  www.cafepress.ca
If there is anyone out there who has any doubts about the worldwide persecution of the Catholic Church and the very real attempts to destroy her, the report just released by the UN should dispel all those doubts and more. Drudge Report linked to the story on this report with the title, "UN tells Catholic Church to change its teachings on abortion." The story was on breitbart.com and entitled, "UN Committee Blasts Vatican on Sex Abuse, Abortion." You can read it HERE.

The story starts out with the following:
The Vatican "systematically" adopted policies that allowed priests to rape and molest tens of thousands of children over decades, a U.N. human rights committee said Wednesday, urging the Holy See to open its files on pedophiles and bishops who concealed their crimes.
The UN totally disregards the fact that all those involved in the actual scandal and those who tried to cover it up were all doing so in complete disobedience to the laws and canons of the Church. If the "policies" of the Church had been followed, there never would have been a pedophile scandal.

The UN also completely disregards the governmental structure of the Church in that the Holy See, i.e., the Pope, does not have jurisdiction over individual dioceses in the Church, but that the bishop of each diocese is the person responsible for what happens in his jurisdiction.   In fact, a United States Federal Court made this ruling in August, 2012.  From the New York Times in an article dated August 20, 2012:
The Vatican won a major victory on Monday in federal court, as a judge ruled that the Holy See is not the employer of molester priests. The decision by Judge Michael Mosman of United States District Court ends a six-year question in the decade-old case and could shield the Vatican from possible monetary damages. The lawsuit was filed in 2002 by a Seattle-area man who said the Rev. Andrew Ronan repeatedly molested him in the 1960s. The plaintiffs claimed that Father Ronan and all priests are employees of the Vatican, which is therefore liable for their actions. Judge Mosman made a previous decision strictly on legal theory and determined that, if all the facts in the case were true, then the Vatican would indeed employ Father Ronan. But on Monday, the judge said he looked at the facts and did not find an employer-employee relationship.
The second paragraph of the Breitbart article gives the real reason for this ruling by the United Nations:
In a devastating report hailed by abuse victims, the U.N. committee severely criticized the Holy See for its attitudes toward homosexuality, contraception and abortion and said it should change its own canon law to ensure children's rights and their access to health care are guaranteed. 
Further:
While most attention has focused on child sex abuse, the committee's recommendations extended far beyond, into issues about discrimination against children and their rights to adequate health care, matters that touch on core church teaching about life and sexual morals.
The committee, for example, urged the Vatican to amend its canon law to identify circumstances where access to abortion can be permitted for children, such as to save the life of a young mother. It urged the Holy See to ensure that sex education, including access to information about contraception and preventing HIV, is mandatory in Catholic schools. It called for the Holy See to use its moral authority to condemn discrimination against homosexual children, or children raised by same-sex couples.
Why is the UN going after the Catholic Church and for all intents and purposes, trying to destroy her by forcing her to change her 2000 year old teachings?  Are we truly to believe that the United Nations, which wholeheartedly and unreservedly supports abortion - the intentional killing of innocent children in the womb - really cares what happens to these children when they do  manage to be born despite all efforts to kill them?   It is so obvious that their goal is to destroy the Catholic Church because Holy Mother Church will never accept their immoral agenda against life.

The Breitbart article states the following:
No Catholic bishop has ever been sanctioned by the Vatican for sheltering an abusive priest, and only in 2010 did the Holy See direct bishops to report abusers to police where law enforcement requires it. Vatican officials have acknowledged that bishop accountability remains a major problem and have suggested that under Francis, things might begin to change.
Just a couple of weeks ago, a news story came out that Pope Benedict XVI "defrocked" over 400 priests in a little over two years for molesting children. You can read this story HERE.  Why isn't this fact mentioned in the UN report? Pope Benedict usurped the authority of the bishops and without any fanfare, took matters into his own hands. And this is all that we know about. How much more went on behind the scenes that we will never know?

The pedophile scandal is obviously just an easy way for the UN to condemn the Catholic Church. They act as if the Catholic Church was the only organization in which this happens. Pedophilia is a world wide epidemic. The internet is most responsible for the spread of this evil. Why doesn't the UN say something about that?

This United Nations report shows that the Catholic Church is more and more standing alone in a world that is intent on destroying itself. Every major sin has now received worldwide approval, and is not only accepted but applauded. If anyone dares to disagree, he must be destroyed, and that is most particularly true for the Catholic Church. Less than two percent of all Catholic priests were involved in the pedophilia scandal. The percentage of Protestant ministers involved in pedophilia is around ten percent. Why isn't the UN concerned about this? Simple. Protestants for the most part (Evangelicals being the exception) are not threatening the culture of death that is promoted by the United Nations.

This UN report came out of an interrogation held by the UN on January 16. Archbishop Silvano Tomasi, who headed the Vatican delegation, felt completely blindsided by this report and stated, "It seems as if the document was prepared before the committee meeting, where the Vatican gave detailed responses on various points that weren't reported in this concluding document or seem to not have been taken into consideration." Your Eminence, I think you hit the nail smack on the head.

The United Nations is a very evil organization whose main goal seems to be to stamp out Christianity and, specifically, the Catholic Church. But this evil organization is not alone. We are surrounded by evil on every side. It is in our news media, our entertainment, our government, our arts and literature, our music. Sometimes I think the only place to find peace, safety and goodness is in a Catholic Church next to the tabernacle where Our Lord and Savior resides.

But the world is trying very hard to take that away from us, and just as the Church was forced to go underground when she was born in the first century, so we may have to go underground again. There is no longer any doubt that same sex marriage will be legalized throughout the United States. It will more than likely happen before Obama leaves office in 2017. When that happens, you will hear loud and persistent calls to criminalize anyone who disagrees with it. I fully expect the Catholic Church to be outlawed in my own country, just as it was in England in the times of King Henry VIII and Elizabeth I.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia just recently made a statement that he would not be surprised if unlawful internment camps, such as those that held Japanese citizens during WWII, will once again be used in the United States.  Do you really think this is far fetched? Ask the Japanese who were interred during WWII. 

Who would be put into such camps? Those who are enemies of the state. And who are the enemies of the State? Look at the signs, my friend. My own governor, Andrew Cuomo, just recently made a comment that those who hold Christian, pro life, pro marriage positions are not welcome in New York. From Foxnews.com:
"Their problem is not me and the Democrats; their problem is themselves," he said. "Who are they? Are they these extreme conservatives who are right-to-life, pro-assault-weapon, anti-gay? Is that who they are? Because if that’s who they are and they’re the extreme conservatives, they have no place in the state of New York, because that’s not who New Yorkers are."
Credit:  a12iggymom.wordpress.com 
Cuomo tried to walk it back, but everyone knows he meant exactly what he said.  And the very fact that he thought there would be no consequences to such a hateful statement shows just how far into the depths of depravity our culture has descended.

Christendom - the reign of Christianity in the world - is dead. The devil has taken over and his agenda is to wipe out Christians and all they believe in, just as he tried to wipe out the Christ Child 2000 years ago. He didn't succeed then, and he won't succeed now. But he will inflict major damage, and unless you are ready, unless you are grounded in your faith and your Christian beliefs and are literally willing to die for what you believe in, the devil may win the battle over you personally.

I Peter 5:6-9
Humble yourselves, therefore, under God’s mighty hand, that he may lift you up in due time. Cast all your anxiety on him because he cares for you.
Be alert and of sober mind. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour. Resist him, standing firm in the faith, because you know that the family of believers throughout the world is undergoing the same kind of sufferings.

Credit: voiceofwarning.blogspot.com
Posted by at 2 comments:
Labels: , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)
Related Posts 0