“Does the Birth Control Pill Cause Abortions” & “Weaken… the Immune System” due to Side Effects?
“Early Church writers (Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Irenaeus, Tertulli-an, Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus, Origen, Cyprian, Lactantius, Epiphanius, Jerome, Augustine, and others) reviled contraception and abortion while extolling sexual purity and God’s procreation plan through marriage. They esteemed celibacy when committed to God’s service (as Apostle Paul taught), while marriage, by virtue of the union, required an openness to children as God willed. Believing God foreknew and chose each child who is conceived, they deemed contraceptive use a form of murder, however unintended.” – The Church Poem [file:///C:/Users/Fred/AppData/Local/Temp/Church%20Poem.pdf]
It appears that the path to abortion and hurting your own body is the Pill according to lawyer and researcher Andrew Flusche:
This constant presence of powerful steroids is not healthy, and there are side effects when using the pill.
How does the pill work?
The birth control pill can work in one of three ways:
1. It can prevent ovulation (releasing an egg from the ovary) 2. It can cause the mucus in the cervix to change so that if sperm reach the cervix, they are not allowed to enter, and 3. It can irritate the lining of the uterus so that if the first two actions fail, and the woman does become pregnant, the tiny baby boy or girl will die before he or she can actually attach to the lining of the uterus.
In other words, if the third action occurs, the woman’s body rejects the tiny baby and he or she will die. This is called a chemical abortion.
Abortion is an act of direct killing that takes the life of a tiny human being-a life that begins at fertilization.
Is the pill safe?
No! If you are not using the pill, don’t start. If you are on the pill now, take out the patient package insert that should be with the pills and read it.
If you are not using the pill, don’t start. If you are on the pill now, take out the patient package insert that should be with the pills and read it. Here are some of the side effects:
* bacterial infections (because the pill weakens the immune system.) * more susceptible to the AIDS virus (HIV) because the pill weakens the immune system * pelvic inflammatory disease-an infection of the fallopian tubes that can cause sickness or sterility * infertility-unable to ever bear children * cervical cancer * ectopic pregnancy * shrinking of the womb (endometrial atrophy) * mood swings and depression * breast cancer * blood clots * birth defects in children conceived while women are on the pill * tender breasts * stroke * weight gain [ http://www.all.org/newsroom_allblog.php, “The consequences of birth control; Birth Control Mutates Our Fish,” https://www.thefredmartinezreport.com/2008/02/birth-control-mutates-our-fish.html%5D
Moreover, Catholic Exchange found that there is “resistance to recognizing the abortifacient quality of the pill comes from the Christian community”:
In his booklet, titled Does the Birth Control Pill Cause Abortions?, Randy Alcorn states: “The question of whether it causes abortions has direct bearing on untold millions of Christians, many of them pro-life, who use and recommend it. For those who believe God is the Creator of each person and the giver and taker of human life, this is a question with profound moral implications.”
Alcorn was a Protestant pastor who not only used the pill in his married life, but also counseled other married couples to do so. He had a vested interest in not recognizing the pill as an abortifactient. But when confronted with the facts through his own research, it demanded changes in his own behavior and philosophy. His booklet was written in 1998 to inform others of the truth.
Alcorn’s booklet has met some opposition. According to him: “Despite evidence, some pro-life physicians state that the likelihood of the Pill having an abortifacient effect is infinitesimally low, or nonexistent.
Though I would very much like to believe this, the scientific evidence does not permit me to do so.” Alcorn, surprisingly, found that the greatest resistance to recognizing the abortifacient quality of the pill comes from the Christian community. “Dr. Walt Larimore has told me that whenever he has presented this evidence to audiences of secular physicians, there has been little or no resistance to it. But when he has presented it to Christian physicians there has been substantial resistance. Since secular physicians do not care whether the Pill prevents implantation, they tend to be objective in interpreting the evidence.
After all, they have little or nothing at stake either way. Christian physicians, however, very much do not want to believe the Pill causes early abortions. Therefore, I believe, they tend to resist the evidence. This is certainly understandable. Nonetheless, we should not permit what we want to believe to distract us from what the evidence indicates we should believe.”
It’s easier to be pro-life when we limit the discussion to the abortion industry. The inclusion of artificial birth control complicates and confuses people. With so many opinions even among Catholics, how is a person to know what to believe? I understand the confusion. While living in Montana, I had a doctor who was also a priest, who told me it was not realistic to expect a couple to follow the Catholic teaching on birth control. He prescribed birth control pills to many of his female patients. So, is it any surprise there are many Catholics, ones like me, ignorant of the true teaching? [http://www.catholicexchange.com/node/69551]
Stop for a moment of silence, ask Jesus Christ what He want you to do now and next. In this silence remember God, Father, Son and Holy Ghost – Three Divine Persons yet One God, has an ordered universe where you can know truth and falsehood as well as never forget that He wants you to have eternal happiness with Him as his son or daughter by grace. Make this a practice. By doing this you are doing more good than reading anything here or anywhere else on the Internet.
Francis Notes:
– Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales totally confirmed beyond any doubt the possibility of a heretical pope and what must be done by the Church in such a situation:
“[T]he Pope… WHEN he is EXPLICITLY a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church MUST either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See.” (The Catholic Controversy, by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306)
– LifeSiteNews, “Confusion explodes as Pope Francis throws magisterial weight behind communion for adulterers,” December 4, 2017:
The AAS guidelines explicitly allows “sexually active adulterous couples facing ‘complex circumstances’ to ‘access the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist.'”
– On February 2018, in Rorate Caeli, Catholic theologian Dr. John Lamont:
“The AAS statement… establishes that Pope Francis in Amoris Laetitia has affirmed propositions that are heretical in the strict sense.”
– On December 2, 2017, Bishop Rene Gracida:
“Francis’ heterodoxy is now official. He has published his letter to the Argentina bishops in Acta Apostlica Series making those letters magisterial documents.”
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church by the bishops by the grace of God.
Health Business/AdministrationBy: Maurice KillemanJune 8, 2021 The term “vaccine hesitancy “ is a derogatory term being used by compulsory vaccination advocates all over the world to stigmatize those who believe they should have the right to decide what is or is not injected into their body, and into the bodies of their children. A term that has been picked up and spread like a pandemic in recent years by vaccine profiteers, multinational organizations, and corporations seeking to take away our freedom, while simultaneously increasing their profits, under the guise of protecting the health of the public. In a free society, if we don’t have the freedom to decide what is or is not injected into our bodies, then all we have is an illusion of freedom. Today, as these same advocates of compulsory vaccination censor free speech and stifle debate, they are attempting to mandate emergency use authorization COVID-19 vaccines that: ● have not been evaluated for long term adverse reactions, ● have not been evaluated for carcinogenesis, ● have not been evaluated for mutagenesis, ● have not been evaluated for long term effects on fertility, ● have not been evaluated in pregnancy, ● have not been evaluated for mutagenicity, while simultaneously telling the world these experimental EUA COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective. Safety and effectiveness are one thing. Liberty and the freedom to decide what is or is not injected into our bodies is another. Choose Freedom! Your body, your choice. Don’t let ANYONE take away your freedom under the guise of a public health crisis. Otherwise, your freedom will never be returned. Freedom is not something that can be given. Freedom must be taken! TAKE YOUR FREEDOM!
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on AMERICA IS STILL A FREE COUNTRY, BUT OUR FREEDOMS ARE BEING LOST OR DIMINISHED AT AN ALARMING RATE
June 11, 2021 Good News Friday !! Dear Patriots: It is all too easy to run across”bad news” especially if you rely upon The Left’s Drive By Media.
We will give you The Good News to take you into a summer weekend.Whether it be on the election fraud/audit front, or the Covid-CCP lies, or just in general, there is plenty of Good News to be found.
Remember when the fake news media peddled (another) fake narrative regarding Trump? More accurately, the rather dramatic outcry against Trump presumably tear-gassing “peaceful protestors” for a photo op?
NPR, for instance, made the following remarks on Trump’s supposedly awful behavior on June 1, 2020.
“Police in Washington, D.C. used tear gas and rubber bullets on peaceful protesters to clear them away from St. John’s church, which suffered a small fire Sunday night, near the White House … President Trump then walked to the church for a photo op.” [Source: The Daily Wire]
Of course, Biden apparently bothered to “campaign” (slightly) after the total lies broke in the media, and he instantly sided with the media.
Then again, the media basically handed him the election with its absurd, untruthful reporting, yet it still gives Biden absolutely no excuse to openly lie to the American public.
“He’s using the American military against the American people. He tear-gassed peaceful protesters and fired rubber bullets. For a photo. For our children, for the very soul of our country, we must defeat him. But I mean it when I say this: we can only do it together.” [Source: The Daily Wire]
“Together,” huh? Kind of like how “together” the nation is now?
Spare us all. Please.
Moreover, unfortunately for the professional liars that masquerade as “journalists” (and, even worse, professional liars that masquerade as “representatives,” including in the highest echelons of the current government), the truth has been revealed, just over a year later.
And, unsurprisingly, the truth is on Trump’s side.
As it often is and has been since the very start, which is precisely why Facebook’s now 2-year ban and Twitter’s apparently indefinite ban of Trump still cannot silence him, as the truth rarely remains silenced for long.
Especially truths that are rather easy to uncover with a truly objective investigation, which is precisely what just occurred regarding Trump’s supposed tear gassing of “peaceful protestors.”
As it turns out, nothing of the sort occurred, as just confirmed by a report from the U.S. Department of the Interior’s Inspector General Report, which the Biden administration clearly was unable to suffocate or otherwise hide from the public (who knows what else they’re hiding, however).
This report indisputably concludes that Trump never even remotely engaged in the tear gassing; instead, protestors were cleared for an entirely different reason.
And, predictably, the reason was massive obstruction. As it almost always is.
“This report presents a thorough, independent examination of that evidence to assess the [U.S. Park Police]’s decision making and operations, including a detailed timeline of relevant actions and an analysis of whether the USPP’s actions complied with governing policies. The evidence we reviewed showed that the USPP cleared the park to allow a contractor to safely install anti-scale fencing in response to destruction of Federal property and injury to officers that occurred on May 30 and May 31 …
Moreover, the evidence established that relevant USPP officials had made those decisions and had begun implementing the operational plan several hours before they knew of a potential Presidential visit to the park, which occurred later that day. As such, we determined that the evidence did not support a finding that the USPP cleared the park on June 1, 2020, so that then President Trump could enter the park.” [Source: The Daily Wire]
Well then.
Take a wild stab in the dark as to who caused “destruction of Federal property and injury to officers” in the days leading up to Trump’s visit.
Betcha a dollar that 100 percent of criminals that did so all voted for Biden in 2020.
Apparently, “peaceful protestors” don’t understand that causing massive havoc in others’ days is not the greatest way to go about achieving “peace.”
Then again, that’s operating on the massive assumption that the “protestors” ever want peace in the first place. Either that, or their idea of “peace” is about the same as Biden’s idea of “unity.”
Regardless, Trump was more than satisfied with the release of the report, as he should be.
“[Thank you] for Completely and Totally exonerating me in the clearing of Lafayette Park!” [Source: Townhall]
And with Biden apparently forgetting that he’s president, one can only hope Trump will sail right back into his rightful place in 2024.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on TRUMP EXONERATED !!!!!!!!!
Italian documentary links Pope Francis to Masonic ‘St. Gallen Mafia’
ROME (ChurchMilitant.com) – The Holy See Press Office conspired to coordinate mistranslations of Benedict’s Latin Declaratio, the declaration of his resignation, an explosive Italian documentary is alleging.
The 40-minute Italian film, The Message in the Bottle, is reigniting the heated debate surrounding the canonical validity of Benedict XVI’s resignation from the papacy on Feb. 11, 2013 and Francis’ subsequent election to the See of St. Peter.
Released Friday, the production links the papal election of Cdl. Jorge Mario Bergoglio to the so-called St. Gallen Mafia in Switzerland and the Freemasonic agenda and genealogy of cardinals belonging to the controversial group.
The film explores the controversy surrounding canon 332 §2 of the Code of Canon Law (1983), which states that for a papal resignation to be valid, the resignation must be “made freely” and “properly manifested” (ritemanifestatur).
Several notable canon lawyers and commentators have already pointed out that Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation may not have been “properly manifested” because of a major error in the formula of resignation.
Terminology Conspiracy?
The formula errs in Benedict XVI using the Latin term ministerium (ministry) rather than munus (mandate) to resign his Petrine mandate, scholars argue. Benedict XVI even acknowledges retaining his role — the munus petrinum — in the first sentence of his Declaratio, they say.
Hence, he has not renounced the munus and the resignation is ambiguous at best.
The Message in the Bottle goes a step further in alleging that the Holy See Press Office gave “the whole world vernacular translations” that were deliberately mistranslated.
“As a translator I know that is a malicious conspiracy because you cannot coordinate the work of six different translators unless they are being told how to translate it by the same authority,” Franciscan friar Alexis Bugnolo remarks in the documentary.
“A possible mistake by Pope Benedict seems hard to believe. Besides being one of the finest Latinists, he took part directly along with Pope John Paul II in the modification of canon law and over the years he published articles about the introduction of the word ‘munus,'” the film’s narrator emphasizes.
With regards to Benedict using the term “renounce,” the object munus is replaced by ministerium, the film observes. “Ministerium is not the duty you receive from the king, it’s the execution of that,” Bugnolo explains.
The documentary explores how the media ran with the resignation story after ANSA’s Vatican correspondent Giovanna Chirri tweeted the news of Benedict’s resignation as she understood the Latin reading of the Declaratio, Chirri says in the film.
The tweet, according to the film, was authorized by Fr. Federico Lombardi, the Jesuit former director of the Holy See Press Office. But the words “resigned” and “pontificate” were not in Benedict’s statement,” Bro. Bugnolo notes. “Chirri’s tweet added meaning to it [resignation] that it didn’t have.”
Italian documentary with English subtitles: The Message in the Bottle
The Holy See then released the official translations and “I found undeniable signs of a conspiracy beginning in the end of February 2013 and going all the way to April for the publication of every translation,” Bugnolo states.
“You have six languages — if you look at those languages you would expect that if they are a faithful translation, every variation of terminology in the Latin would show up in the translation.”
Was there someone who wanted to manipulate his announcement?GabTweet
But irrespective of whether Benedict mentions munus or ministerium, it is translated as “ministry,” Bugnolo explains.
Because Benedict was always talking about “his ministry” and because the translations mistranslate the papal munus as “ministry,” the media is given the impression that Benedict resigned his papacy, he adds.
The Vatican website has the original Latin text and translations in eight languages, but “was Pope Benedict aware of the manipulation?” asks the narrator in the film. “Was there someone who wanted to manipulate his announcement?” and “wanted him to resign?”
St. Gallen Mafia: Modernist Takeover via Francis?
According to the film, the secret lobby of progressive cardinals known as the “Group of St. Gallen” led by liberal Belgian Cdl. Godfried Danneels were behind the conspiracy to dethrone Benedict and appoint a modernist pope who would implement their agenda.
Danneels admits in the film: “We liked to call ourselves ‘the Mafia.'” In his autobiography, he reveals the group discussed the Church’s acceptance of homosexuality, divorced and re-married couples, women’s ordination and secularism. For Pope Francis’ first appearance as pope, Danneels stood next to the new pontiff on the loggia.
The cardinals of the St. Gallen group trace their Masonic genealogy to the pro-Freemason Cdl. Mariano Rampolla del Tindaro, whose election by the conclave of 1903 was vetoed by Austrian Emperor Francis Joseph I, leading to the election of Giuseppe Sarto as Pope Pius X — a staunch opponent of modernism and Freemasonry.
“Bergoglio became a member of the group by moving 70 million euro out of archdiocesan funds to the Vatican bank … in 2000 or 2002,” and became the head of the group, says Bugnolo, arguing Bergoglio was recruited as he was seen to be an ally of Pope John Paul II.
A possible mistake by Pope Benedict seems hard to believe.GabTweet
Experts interviewed in the documentary include the acclaimed philosopher Professor Francesco Lamendola, a faithful Catholic and prolific author who explains the philosophical underpinning of Freemasonry, its historical enmity with Catholicism and its agenda to impose a New World Order.
Church Militant has learned that the producer/director chose to remain anonymous for fear of repercussions from the Freemasons.
An Easy Fact-Check?
Italian critic and historian Andrea Cionci alerted Church Militant to the possibility that skeptics would dismiss the film as “conspiracy theory.”
“But if a viewer wants to check out the truth of the documentary’s claims, all it takes is a click, since most of the material cited is available on Vatican sites and credible newspapers,” Cionci said.
“The highlight of the documentary is Benedict XVI’s Declaratio, which, out of curious ‘carelessness,’ involves canons 124, 332 § 2, 188, 17 of the Code of Canon Law which, according to many experts, render the resignation completely null and void,” he observed.
Cionci noted the real difficulty was “in focusing on and debating the real magna quaestio, that is, the invalidity of Ratzinger’s renunciation. Bergoglio’s election is entirely secondary. If Benedict did not abdicate, everything else never existed.”
Thousands of Italians have watched the production on social media and Cionci’s review in the Milanese secular newspaper Libero Quotidiano is commending the documentary as “well done and based on obvious facts.”
Church Militant contacted Matteo Bruni, director of the Holy See Press Office for a response, but did not receive a reply.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on AN EXPLOSIVE 40-MINUTE ITALIAN FILM “THE MESSAGE IN THE BOTTLE” IS REIGNITING THE HEATED DEBATE SURROUNDING THE CANONICAL VALIDITY OF POPE BENEDICT’S RESIGNATION FROM THE PAPACY ON FEBRUARY 11, 2013 AND JORGE BERGOLIO’S SUBSEQUENT ‘ELECTION’ TO THE SEE OF SAINT PETER.
Yesterday the Church celebrated the Solemnity of the Sacred Heart of Jesus; today, the Immaculate Heart of Mary. The two feasts are not situated alongside one another by coincidence, but by the careful plan of the Church. The heart of Jesus began beating beneath the heart of His Blessed Mother; her heart, in turn, took form from the creative Word and Power of the Heart of God. Two hearts beating as one.
The heart is a symbol with a rich biblical lineage. In Hebrew, both the heart and the bowels represent the very depths of a person – where the cognitive and the affective meet in unity and harmony. Hence, we find passages in the Bible which speak thus: “My heart is overwhelmed, my pity is stirred.” (Hos 11:8) Far more than an organ of the body, then, the heart suggests the source of compassion, tenderness, kindness – in short, what we call “mercy.”
An interesting piece of Biblical trivia: A quick survey of a Biblical concordance reveals that the word “mercy” is used more than 200 times in the Sacred Scriptures, while the word “heart” appears over 600 times. No surprise, then, that St. Augustine, playing with the origins of the Latin word for mercy (misericordia), tells us that God’s grace moves us “a miseria ad misericordiam” (“from misery to mercy”). “Misericordia,” you see, comes from two words which combine to mean “having a heart for the miserable.”
It’s worth noting, however, that the Bible – unlike many today, even in the Church – can speak frequently and passionately about the “heart” and the virtue of “mercy” without being in the least bit soft or unclear on what constitutes truth and justice. Indeed, as we know only too well, contemporary talk about “mercy” (when it even arises) seems to consider truth and justice as somehow obstacles to mercy. That’s simply false and a substitution of feeling for reality.
*
Shakespeare rhapsodized on the beauty and glory of mercy, precisely because of the truth that we are all sinners and therefore need mercy to temper strict justice, when he had Portia exclaim:
The quality of mercy is not strain’d, It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven Upon the place beneath: It is twice bless’d; It blesseth him that gives and him that takes: ‘Tis mightiest in the mightiest; It becomes The throned monarch better than his crown; His sceptre shows the force of temporal power, The attribute to awe and majesty, Wherein doth sit the dread and fear of kings; But mercy is above this sceptred sway, It is enthroned in the hearts of kings, It is an attribute to God Himself, And earthly power doth then show likest God’s When mercy seasons justice. Therefore, Jew, Though justice be thy plea, consider this, That in the course of justice none of us Should see salvation: We do pray for mercy, And that same prayer doth teach us all to render The deeds of mercy.
As beautiful as that soliloquy is, as one commentator has observed, “before Shakespeare wrote it, God was it!”
Indeed, God became Mercy Incarnate within the spotless womb of the Virgin Mary. And she understood it all so well that she broke forth into her canticle of praise, the Magnificat: “Et misericordia eius a progenie in progenies timentibus eum.” (“And His mercy is from age to age on those who fear Him’). Our Lady was not teaching theology from a textbook but from her own experience of life. God had touched her so profoundly by His mercy that she became what the Church’s lovely night prayer to her rightly calls her – “Mater misericordiae,” (“Mother of Mercy”).
God the Father sought the young maiden’s cooperation with His eternal plan of mercy; God the Holy Spirit overshadowed her with His merciful wings; she became the very seat of Mercy, the Mother of the One who is “dives in misericordia” (“rich in mercy”), as the title of Pope John Paul II’s encyclical reminds us.
Our world needs to hear the message of mercy perhaps as no other age before. A culture of violence, death, destruction and despair can be healed only by mercy. You and I, like Saint Faustina before us, must count ourselves among the apostles of mercy. But first we must be convinced that mercy has been granted us; otherwise, our words will ring hollow.
The result of knowing mercy (which comes from the very core or heart of the Being of God) means being grabbed at the very core or heart of our own being – and that gives birth to the emotion (both divine and human) of joy. Of course, that also presupposes that we believe that we need mercy! Our Lady leads the way as she sings out: “Exsultavit spiritus meus in Deo Salvatore meo” (“My spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior”). Where mercy gives birth to joy, melancholy, fear and death are definitively banished.
May the Mother of Mercy show us the blessed fruit of her womb, who is none other than the compassionate face of God, Mercy-in-the-Flesh.
*Image:Madonna della Misericordia by Piero della Francesca ,1460-62 [Museo Civico, Sansepolcro, Italy]. This is the center panel of the Polyptych of the Misericordia:
Father Peter Stravinskas holds doctorates in school administration and theology. He is the founding editor of The Catholic Response and publisher of Newman House Press. Most recently, he launched a graduate program in Catholic school administration through Pontifex University.
Amoris Laetitia’s Lutheran Sin of Presumption vs. Sacred Heart of Jesus Devotion of Reparation
“[T]he original doctrine of Luther presumed to be certain of salvation without the necessity of contrition.” – Theologian Dr. Lawrence Feingold
“At first blush, the new [Amoris Laetitia] Jansenism sounds encouraging—none are guilty, all are saved! In truth, however, a pessimism that would canonize all is only a shade less pessimistic than one that would condemn all to hell. As St. Thomas notes, both despair and presumption are sins against hope.” – Theologian Jessica Murdoch
Has Francis fallen into presumption?
Francis by his apparent Lutheran/Calvinist Amoris Laetitiadenial of free will seems to affirm the semi-Protestant heresy of Jansenism which denied love for “love under compulsion is hardly love.” It appears that Francis “removes the very essence of love—freedom.” Theologian Jessica Murdoch, an associate professor of fundamental and dogmatic theology, explains:
“Thus the Jansenists reduced morality to meaninglessness. There is no hope here—one inescapably acts according to a delectation that does not in any way correspond to one’s free will. Both merit and damnation are possible without true freedom.”
“By rendering the will passive, Jansenius removes the very essence of love—freedom.For love under compulsion is hardly love. In the view of Jansenius, our storm-tossed souls merely crest and fall with no possibility of self-control. The upshot: Sin is ultimately God’s fault, rather than ours, because God could place the irresistible love of virtue in our souls, yet chooses not to.”
“… But [Francis’s Amoris Laetitia Lutheran/Calvinist and Jansenist] moral and anthropological pessimismdo not do justice to God’s mercy. For God’s superabundant mercy extends to redemption in Christ, who takes on our very nature in the hypostatic union and truly sanctifies our nature interiorly. By sanctifying us in a startlingly intimate way, the merciful God creates love in us—makes us lovable, draws our hearts into his own, and makes us fully free and capable of living the Christian life with vigor and joy. The moral norms of the Church are grounded, therefore, in what we might call a supernatural realism. Contrary to the sentiments of our age, realism is not found in an anthropological pessimism that settles for the ‘grey’ of continually ‘missing the mark’ and denies God’s transformative love. Rather, through faith we know that God’s grace makes us capable of virtue, even at times heroic virtue, as we see in the lives of the saints, who we might say are the most real among us.”
“We are, indeed, plagued by a new sort of Jansenism, one rooted in presumption rather than despair. The ‘old’ Jansenism arose from both anthropological and theological despair—the Catholic absorption of total depravity, and the loss of hope in the possibility of salvation. Ironically, those who criticize the four cardinals—and anyone who believes that Amoris Laetitia is in need of clarification—often fall into a new form of Jansenism.This ‘new’ Jansenism is marked by a similar pessimism with respect to human nature—total depravity under a new name, whether ‘weakness’ or ‘woundedness’ or ‘greyness.’ And like what preceded it, the new Jansenism articulates a loss of hope in the power of grace to regenerate the soul. The difference is that the new Jansenism tends towards presumption. Whereas the Jansenism of old despaired that anyone could really be loved by God, be good enough to receive Holy Communion, or be saved, its newer version has so little faith in the power of God to change hearts that it presumes God does not care for something so insignificant as the human heart. No, God is too busy to care about my paltry sins. None are loved personally as they are, but rather all are loved in a great, amorphous mass of humanity that could not but be saved. One need not be in a state of grace to receive Holy Eucharist, because the state of grace is not a real possibility for most people.”
“At first blush, the new Jansenism sounds encouraging—none are guilty, all are saved! In truth, however, a pessimism that would canonize all is only a shade less pessimistic than one that would condemn all to hell. As St. Thomas notes, both despair and presumption are sins against hope.” [https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2017/02/the-new-jansenism]
Is it possible the Jansenistic pessimism against receiving Holy Communion frequently has infected Francis Trads and Francis conservatives? Remember that Murdoch in writing the above said she thought that the Francis document “Amoris Laetitia… often fall[s] into a new form of Jansenism”:
“At first blush, the new Jansenism sounds encouraging – none are guilty, all are saved! In truth, however, a new pessimism that would canonize all is only a shade less pessimistic than one that would condemn all to hell. As, St. Thomas noted, both despair and presumption are sins against hope.”
Theologian Dr. Lawrence Feingold explains the Lutheran sin against the theological virtue of Hope which is presumption:
“[T]he original doctrine of Luther presumed to be certain of salvation without the necessity of contrition.” (Course Notes for Fundamental Moral Theology, December 2009, Page 160)
The Sacred Heart of Jesus devotion is a battle cry to spiritual combat against the soft wimpy mercy of Francis that “preaches that we can expect an unconditional mercy with no price to be paid whatsoever, with no obligations whatsoever.” Catholics who want to do real spiritual combat for must do the Great Triad of the Sacred Heart of Jesus devotion of reparation to Jesus and for “mercy for sinners” instead of the wimpy mercy of Francis that “preaches that we can expect an unconditional mercy with no price to be paid whatsoever, with no obligations whatsoever”:
– The weekly Holy Hour – The monthly First Friday – The annual Feast of the Sacred Heart
Jesus told St. Margaret Mary:
“[R]emain prostate with me an hour, not only to appease the divine anger by begging mercy of sinners, but also to mitigate in some way the bitterness which I felt at that time on finding Myself abandoned by My apostles.” (The Autobiography of St. Margaret Mary Alacoque, Page 57)
1 – Personally consecrate oneself to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, and recite the Consecration Prayer daily [and reparation prayer] – For One Fold and One Shepherd.
2 – Participate in the Holy Mass and receive Holy Communion daily, if possible – For Reparation.
3 – Offer a Holy Hour once a week – For Reparation; and encourage others to do the same. (“Holy Hour of Reparation for One Fold and One Shepherd for Reparation for Sinners for Thanksgiving and for a Just Peace,” Copyright 1945, Back inside cover)
Tradition in Action revealed that the Sacred Heart of Jesus is about spiritual combat and real combat:
“The Sacred Heart revealed to Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque that He wanted His Sacred Heart “to reign in the King’s palace, to be painted on his standards and engraved on his arms, in order to render him victorious over all his enemies”. (5) In a later letter to her Mother Superior, Sister Margaret Mary revealed that the Divine Heart wished “to be the protector and defender of his sacred person [Louis XIV] against all his enemies visible and invisible. By means of this devotion He wants to defend him and make his salvation sure. … He will make all his undertakings redound to His glory by granting happy success to his armies.”
“Our Lord did not hesitate to ask that the symbol of His great love for man be painted on the arms of Catholic warriors. This is quite different from a number of today’s ecumenical ecclesiastics who never tire of asking pardon of the enemies of the Church for the use of Catholic arms in defense of the Faith. How would they explain that Our Lord even went so far as to guarantee His participation in the battles that the King of France should wage in the religious wars of the epoch and to request that His Heart be painted on the arms themselves? He promised victory to those Catholic warriors, offering His Heart as a support like a General who brings his troops an invincible new strategic weapon.”
“Unfortunately, Louis XIV did not attend to the requests of Our Lord. Yet others did. These were the chouans, those glorious peasants of the Vendée and Bretagne who rose up against the French Revolution in 1793 to fight for the restoration of the Monarchy. On their arms they painted the Sacred Heart of Jesus and on their bodies they bore the badge of the Sacred Heart, popularized by St. John Eudes. Likewise, the Carlists with their red berets and battle cry of “Viva Christo Rey” in the Spanish Civil War of the 1930s put the emblem of the Sacred Heart on their rifles, revolvers, heavy arms and even their tanks.” [https://www.traditioninaction.org/religious/a001rp.htm]
Again, this is a battle cry to spiritual combat against the soft wimpy mercy of Francis that “preaches that we can expect an unconditional mercy with no price to be paid whatsoever, with no obligations whatsoever.”
Make the first Friday of reparation for the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart of Jesus andagainst the Satanic tyranny presently represented by COVID hysteria lockdowns:
Tradition in Action explains that Jesus is merciful, but also because of original sin and when after baptism we sin which is an infinite crime He had to redeemed us by his infinite sacrifice on Good Friday. However, He requires that we in grace unite to His Redemption by doing penance and reparation for forgiveness of our sins and for others:
“In the images of the Sacred Heart, He points to this symbolic font of love and mercy for us. The devotions to the Sacred Heart always suppose reparation for our sins. We are sinners, we must make reparation. Despite the promises from Our Lord and the fact that He paid an infinite price for our Redemption, we must make reparation. We should always do penance for our sins and make various kinds of reparation.”
“… the error of the [extreme Francis] Divine Mercy devotion. It preaches that we can expect an unconditional mercy with no price to be paid whatsoever, with no obligations whatsoever. This is not the message of Christ.”
“Christ is merciful. Time and time again, His mercy pardons our repeated sins in the Sacrament of Penance, always taking us back no matter how bad our sins are. And what happens in the Sacrament of Penance? The very name of the Sacrament tells us exactly what happens: to be effective the Sacrament supposes penance. Not only are you there at the Sacrament recognizing your full submission to the Church and your dependence on the Sacraments for forgiveness, but you walk out of the confessional with an imposed penance.”[https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f072_DivMercy.htm]
Say this reparation prayer every Friday:
O sweetest Jesus, whose overflowing charity towards men is most ungratefully repaid by such great forgetfulness, neglect and contempt, see, prostrate before Thy altars, we strive by special honor to make amends for the wicked coldness of men and the contumely with which Thy most loving Heart is everywhere treated.
At the same time, mindful of the fact that we too have sometimes not been free from unworthiness, and moved therefore with most vehement sorrow, in the first place we implore Thy mercy on us, being prepared by voluntary expiation to make amends for the sins we have ourselves committed, and also for the sins of those who wander far from the way of salvation, whether because, being obstinate in their unbelief, they refuse to follow Thee as their shepherd and leader, or because, spurning the promises of their Baptism, they have cast off the most sweet yoke of Thy law.
We now endeavor to expiate all these lamentable crimes together, and it is also our purpose to make amends for each one of them severally: for the want of modesty in life and dress, for impurities, for so many snares set for the minds of the innocent, for the violation of feast days, for the horrid blasphemies against Thee and Thy saints, for the insults offered to Thy Vicar and to the priestly order, for the neglect of the Sacrament of Divine love or its profanation by horrible sacrileges, and lastly for the public sins of nations which resist the rights and the teaching authority of the Church which Thou hast instituted. Would that we could wash away these crimes with our own blood!
And now, to make amends for the outrage offered to the Divine honor, we offer to Thee the same satisfaction which Thou didst once offer to Thy Father on the Cross and which Thou dost continually renew on our altars, we offer this conjoined with the expiations of the Virgin Mother and of all the Saints, and of all pious Christians, promising from our heart that so far as in us lies, with the help of Thy grace, we will make amends for our own past sins, and for the sins of others, and for the neglect of Thy boundless love, by firm faith, by a pure way of life, and by a perfect observance of the Gospel law, especially that of charity;
we will also strive with all our strength to prevent injuries being offered to Thee, and gather as many as we can to become Thy followers.
Receive, we beseech Thee, O most benign Jesus, by the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Reparatress, the voluntary homage of this expiation, and vouchsafe, by that great gift of final perseverance, to keep us most faithful until death in our duty and in Thy service, so that at length we may all come to that fatherland, where Thou with the Father and the Holy Spirit livest and reignest God for ever and ever. Amen. [https://immaculate.one/act-of-reparation-to-the-most-sacred-heart-of-jesus-composted-by-pope-pius-xi]
Stop for a moment of silence, ask Jesus Christ what He want you to do now and next. In this silence remember God, Father, Son and Holy Ghost – Three Divine Persons yet One God, has an ordered universe where you can know truth and falsehood as well as never forget that He wants you to have eternal happiness with Him as his son or daughter by grace. Make this a practice. By doing this you are doing more good than reading anything here or anywhere else on the Internet.
Francis Notes:
– Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales totally confirmed beyond any doubt the possibility of a heretical pope and what must be done by the Church in such a situation:
“[T]he Pope… WHEN he is EXPLICITLY a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church MUST either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See.” (The Catholic Controversy, by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306)
– LifeSiteNews, “Confusion explodes as Pope Francis throws magisterial weight behind communion for adulterers,” December 4, 2017:
The AAS guidelines explicitly allows “sexually active adulterous couples facing ‘complex circumstances’ to ‘access the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist.'”
– On February 2018, in Rorate Caeli, Catholic theologian Dr. John Lamont:
“The AAS statement… establishes that Pope Francis in Amoris Laetitia has affirmed propositions that are heretical in the strict sense.”
– On December 2, 2017, Bishop Rene Gracida:
“Francis’ heterodoxy is now official. He has published his letter to the Argentina bishops in Acta Apostlica Series making those letters magisterial documents.”
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church by the bishops by the grace of God.
Every single important statutory law, federal regulation, and constitutional invention in my lifetime that has borne upon the structure, the promotion, and the protection of the natural family – married father and mother, with children – has been destructive. Along with them have come the ceaseless assaults mounted by schools at all levels, mass entertainment, and the mass media.
It appears that I am doomed to hear the word “systemic” for the rest of my life. Properly used, it should describe the workings of a system, and a system is such by virtue of reasonably identifiable parts that work in concert to produce a foreseeable result. The system does not have to have been established as such from its inception, with either good or ill will. Man is a creature of habit, and, though he does not reason very well, still in his practice if he does one thing, he will end up doing the nearby thing that it implies.
So you want a system? Let me give you a system.
Let us call it systematic family destruction, subheading inguinal.
Every single important statutory law, federal regulation, and constitutional invention in my lifetime that has borne upon the structure, the promotion, and the protection of the natural family – married father and mother, with children – has been destructive. Along with them have come the ceaseless assaults mounted by schools at all levels, mass entertainment, and the mass media.
Then we have the churches, mostly either absent without leave, or working for the other side. Have I mentioned pornography? Have I mentioned the contempt in which boys in particular are held, sometimes by design, as teachers give them lessons precisely to crush their masculine spirits, so that they stand hardly a chance of being ready to marry before they are thirty years old?
Suppose for a moment that racism in the United States were as manifestly systemic as family destruction (subheading inguinal) is. We would be celebrating June as Jim Crow Month, and holding up for admiration not the pederast Harvey Milk, but the likes of Bull Connor and Orval Faubus. We would have new and improved laws against racial miscegenation, forbidding what is natural and perfectly possible, as we now have laws promoting – and God help you, small businessman, if you do not play along – what is unnatural and quite impossible, that a man can marry another man.
We would not have struck gold in the constitutional vein, finding the right to kill in utero the child you have made in doing the child-making thing. We would have struck it instead by recovering and celebrating Justice Roger Taney, maybe with a catchy slogan: “Every Slave a Wanted Slave!”
Turn on the television, and what do you see? Name one current show in which it is considered prudent at least, and nobly beautiful at best, that the child-making thing should be reserved for a man and woman in marriage. Name one. Name one book your children will be reading in school which teaches it – without being malevolently undermined, as lesson plans do to Shakespeare, Dickens, and Hawthorne.
*
By contrast, what you see, what you read will not only fail to promote the right. It will champion the wrong with flying colors. We are not talking about forgivable and unintentionally offensive tics in Doctors Seuss and Doolittle. We are talking about intentional, aggressive, flagrant, and insistent offense, not chastened by the slightest self-doubt, or the moral warnings that haunted Rudyard Kipling when he thought about the India he loved. Imagine Hollywood wholly given over to the instructive lash of the slave-master, as it is now wholly given over to the whips and lashes of lust.
And the professions? Are they also crankshafts in the engine? Surely the medical profession is. Our hospitals are searching for people to assume the Mengele Chair of Child Mutilation – in the service of lust rather than racism. Which is worse? Let God sort that out, or the devils in hell. Countless physicians are overseers in the system: they who prescribe carcinogens to women to fool the body into a state of permanent false pregnancy; they who push drugs on teenagers because they know they are going to be sex junkies; they who dismember children in the womb.
The “human resource” profession – ghastly name for a metastatic thing – also is. Imagine daring to say, at work, “White people have a lot to answer for, in their shabby treatment of blacks,” with these results. You are haled immediately to the human resource authorities. You have one chance to retract your offense. When you decline, you are held up to public ridicule. You become an image of regression, anti-scientific thinking, hatred of right order, wickedness, and stupidity. You may lose your job.
Or consider the legal profession – a hundred sharks in a tank of piranhas. “Family law” has as much right to its title as “racial equity law” would have, if the latter were written and administered by people to make John Calhoun look like William Wilberforce. The juggernaut rolls on, and crushes the family beneath it.
Show me a single court in this land that will hold an adulterous spouse to his or her marriage vow, or deny to the unrepentant adulterer both alimony and custody of the children. Show me a court that will hold a bored and irritable spouse to his or her vow. Show me a court that takes the marriage vow as seriously as it takes smut.
Marriages come and go, but Belial is forever.
The scholars? Try, just try to say to your dissertation director in sociology, anthropology, biology, or history, “I wish to study the universal differences between men and women, both physical and psychological, to relish their beauty, and to pursue ways to heal the current rift between the sexes.” You will be kicked to the curb and shot. Queer Studies – everywhere. But studies to instruct us in the beauty of manliness and womanliness? Or of marriage? Or of the urgent need for children to have a married mother and father?
Imagine recommending, to an unredeemed George Wallace to the tenth power, a course on the poetry of the Harlem Renaissance. Goodbye, career.
And the churches? More on that in another column.
*Image: The Dunce by Harold Copping, 1886 [Russell-Cotes Art Gallery and Museum,
The signers of a May 13 letter which pressed the U.S. bishops’ conference to suspend its conversation on “Eucharistic coherence” include 47 diocesan bishops, five of whom are cardinals, along with 21 auxiliary bishops. Cardinal Wilton Gregory of Washington. CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain.
The letter and signatory list, sent May 13 to bishops’ conference president Archbishop Jose Gomez, urged that “all Conference wide discussion and committee work on the topic of Eucharistic worthiness and other issues raised by the Holy See be postponed until the full body of bishops is able to meet in person.”
“The serious nature of these issues — especially the imperative to forgo substantive unity — makes it impossible to address them productively in the fractured and isolated setting of a distance meeting,” the letter’s signatories wrote.
The text of the letter, obtained by The Pillar, together with the list of signatories, was independently confirmed by sources at the Vatican Secretariat of State and in the chanceries of several U.S. dioceses. It was transmitted to Gomez by email.
The letter addressed a vote scheduled for the USCCB’s upcoming June virtual assembly on the possibility of drafting a teaching document on “Eucharistic coherence.” If the bishops vote that a committee should draft the document, its actual text would be up for a vote of approval at a future meeting of the USCCB, at the earliest in November 2021.
The document has been expected to address, among other things, the question of whether Catholic politicians who support abortion and other policies at odds with Catholic doctrine should receive the Eucharist. That issue has long been the subject of public debate and controversy among the U.S. bishops, which has heated up since the election as U.S. president of Catholic Joe Biden, who supports expanded legal protection and public funding for abortion.
The letter was sent to Gomez on letterhead from the Archdiocese of Washington. Washington’s archbishop, Cardinal Wilton Gregory, is reportedly among the letter’s principal authors, as is Cardinal Blase Cupich of Chicago. All seven of the Archdiocese of Chicago’s auxiliary bishops are identified as signatories to the letter, as are both of the auxiliary bishops for the Archdiocese of Washington.
While some have said the letter is an effort to ensure a full and open discussion on a controversial issue, others have criticized the letter as an attempt to stall a conversation its signatories oppose.
If the bishops do not vote this month that a document should be drafted, any eventual document is unlikely to be released before late 2022 or early 2023, and only then if a motion to draft a text comes up at a future meeting — most likely in November — for a vote.
Archbishop Gomez has given no indication that he intends to withdraw the vote from the agenda of the bishops’ June 16-18 agenda. In fact, in a May 22 memo to bishops, Gomez emphasized that the question was placed on the agenda through the ordinary process of approval by the conference’s administrative committee.
In the same memo, Gomez also emphasized that he envisions the document on “Eucharistic coherence” as a broad text, addressing the role of the Eucharist as the “source and summit of the Christian life, and urging greater faith in Catholic doctrine that the Eucharist is the real presence of Jesus Christ. The archbishop included a working outline of the proposed text with his memo.
While the Gomez memo indicated that questions about appropriate reception of Holy Communion would be included, they were not framed as the focus of the document.
Nevertheless, because the idea of a statement on “Eucharistic coherence” began to germinate within a USCCB working group on the Biden presidential administration, it has been framed mostly as a referendum on whether politicians who support legal protection for abortion should receive the Eucharist.
“The administrative committee voted overwhelmingly to put this on the agenda for the June meeting,” Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone of San Franciso told The Pillar in May. “I know Archbishop Gomez is committed to following the procedures as we agreed on them. I think this is totally unacceptable.”
Some bishops and conference staffers have told The Pillar in recent weeks they expect there could be a floor motion during the June virtual meeting to suspend discussion of the issue, or to move the discussion into the conference’s executive session, which is not open to the public or the media. It is unclear how many bishops would support such motions.
The May 13 letter made reference to a letter from Cardinal Louis Ladaria to Archbishop Gomez
Ladaria is head of the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
Ladaria urged the U.S. bishops to hold a “serene and exhaustive” discussion on the subject, and encouraged them to ensure that the subject of Eucharistic coherence was treated as a whole, and the debate was not allowed to focus on one topic or class of person, like politicians.
Addressing the controversial issue of admitting to Communion pro-abortion politicians, Ladaria advised Gomez “that dialogue among the bishops be undertaken to preserve the unity of the episcopal conference in the face of disagreements over this controversial topic.”
“The effective development of a policy in this area requires that dialogue occurs in two stages: first among the bishops themselves, and then between bishops and Catholic pro-choice politicians within their jurisdictions.”
Ladaria’s May 7 letter urged that “dialogue…take place among the bishops so that they could agree as a Conference that support of pro-choice legislation is not compatible with Catholic teaching.”
But the bishops who signed the May 13 letter said that “high standard of consensus among ourselves and of maintaining unity with the Holy See and the Universal Church as set forth by Cardinal Ladaria is far from being achieved in the present moment.”
There are 196 archdioceses, dioceses, ordinariates, and Eastern Catholic eparchies in the United States, 34 of which are led by metropolitan archbishops or archeparchs
Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York was initially identified as a signatory to the letter, and his name appears on the letter’s list of signatories . But a spokesman for the Archdiocese of New York told The Pillar in May that Dolan eventually requested that his name be removed as a signer. The spokesman declined to answer additional questions about Dolan’s involvement in the matter.
After The Pillar obtained the letter’s complete list of signatories, Bishop William Joensen of Des Moines issued a statement to The Pillar saying that “In my internal communication among bishops, I want to ensure that a well-considered process is pursued that will advance our communal commitment to the Eucharist and all it entails as well as strengthen our unity among our episcopal conference on this vital subject—and also respect the counsel from Cardinal Ladaria of CDF.”
“I support the process by which the Committee on Doctrine will continue to draft a document that will be taken up by bishops in plenary, in-person meeting this November,” Joensen said.
If you think reporting like this is important, consider subscribing to The Pillar.
May 13 letter’s list of signatories
Diocesan Bishops
Cardinal Blase Cupich of Chicago
Cardinal Timothy Dolan* of New York
Cardinal Wilton Gregory of Washington
Cardinal Sean O’Malley, OFM Cap., of Boston
Cardinal Joseph Tobin, CSsR, of Newark
Archbishop Andrew Bellisario, CM, of Anchorage-Juneau
Bishop James T. McHugh – The Forgotten Man in the McCarrick Equation
June 7, 2021
By: Randy Engel
[Editor’s Note: Today we begin publication of a five-part series of articles on the legacy of Bishop James T. McHugh, written by renowned investigative journalist Randy Engel. The first three parts were originally written and published in the Catholic Inquisitor prior to the Vatican’s issuance of the long-awaited McCarrick Report.
Though the McCarrick Report does mention at least one event concerning Bishop McHugh’s firsthand knowledge of McCarrick’s homo-deviant activities, which he chose to keep secret, Randy Engel’s exposé, as expected, delves into much greater detail, revealing the anti-life legacy of a cleric who managed to bring death to millions of our nation’s unborn children.]
Part I: Bishop James T. McHugh, Cardinal McCarrick, Clerical Sodomy & Their Impact on the Prolife Movement
Introduction
As Catholics await the long-overdue Vatican Final Report on the Cardinal Theodore McCarrick scandal from Rome, there is one significant figure who has managed to escape public scrutiny – that of Bishop James T. McHugh, one of McCarrick’s earliest sexual protégés and the primary architect of AmChurch’s disastrous “prolife” policies and strategies for more than 30 years.
This omission needs to be rectified now, before the McCarrick Report is released by the Holy See, for a number of reasons.
Firstly, because the blood of hundreds of thousands of unborn children in our nation who have been murdered in their mother’s womb, or destroyed in the spic and span hell of IVF clinics, or killed by abortifacient devices or chemicals, DEMANDS a historical accounting of the role played by homosexual prelates in the furtherance of legalized abortion.
Secondly, because most of our early prolife heroes like Notre Dame Professor Charles Rice; Father Paul Marx, Founder of Human Life International; March for Life Founder Nellie Gray; Child and Family editor Dr. Herbert Ratner; U.S. Coalition for Life UN/NGO representative Marge Garvey; Long Island Coalition for Life grassroots leaders John Mawn and John Short, and countless other great Catholic souls have long since gone to their reward. There are not many of us left to tell the story of how the hidden hand of clerical sodomy in AmChurch operated as a Trojan horse for many years in the nascent prolife camp. And how, with the cooperation of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops/U.S. Catholic Conference, this homosexual clique continued to snatch defeat after defeat from the jaws of almost certain prolife victories in these early years.
Thirdly, because it is more than likely that when the McCarrick Report is made public, there will not be any reference to the anti-life role that McCarrick and McHugh – and other homosexual members of the American hierarchy – played in the blindsiding and undermining of the early Prolife Movement.
Obviously, it would be grossly inaccurate and unfair to suggest that McHugh, and his primary protector, McCarrick, were the first generation of American Catholic homosexual prelates to be involved in political maneuvering that was harmful to Catholic morals, politics, and pro-life strategies. That dubious honor would most likely go to the late Francis Cardinal Spellman of New York and to Spellman’s successor Terence Cardinal Cooke, former personal secretary to Spellman, and the Chairman of the Catholic Bishops’ Committee for Pro-Life Activities for ten years.[1]
McCarrick, who had served as homosexual Cardinal Cooke’s private secretary was a third-generation homosexual in the Spellman line, which made McHugh a fourth generation homosexual bishop. So, while McHugh alone could not be blamed for the long litany of losses suffered by the emerging Prolife Movement prior to and immediately after Roe vs Wade on January 22, 1973, his role was nevertheless pivotal, and in the end, definitive.
The McHugh Chronicles[2] Documents McHugh’s Anti-Life Record
This writer is certain that not every Catholic layman or cleric or bishop will appreciate my public airing of this tragic saga of the hierarchial enemies of Life within AmChurch.
I say certain because when my book, The McHugh Chronicles was released in 1997, it met with considerable opposition – not from rank and file prolifers, but from paid “prolife” careerists connected to the NCCB/USCC.
In fact, opposition to the Chronicles continues even until today, 23 years later, the latest critic being none other than the recently retired Archbishop of Philadelphia, Charles Joseph Chaput, O.F.M. Cap. who called the promotion of the Chronicles “a sin.”[3] I trust the reader will decide for himself whether the archbishop’s criticism is valid or not.
The McHugh Chronicles – Who Betrayed the Prolife Movement? charged the USCC’s Family Life Director Msgr. James T. McHugh, with:
Promoting sex initiation programs, aka sex education, in parochial schools – programs which are anti-child, anti-education, anti-family, anti-civilized and anti-human, and pro-contraception, pro-abortion and pro-homosexual.
Creating a false and controlled anti-abortion movement in the Church while sabotaging legitimate efforts within the grassroots Prolife Movement to stop the slaughter of innocent preborn children.
Undermining the Catholic Church’s magisterial teachings on contraception, divorce, abortion by curette, chemical or device, non-therapeutic prenatal diagnosis, eugenics, and in vitro fertilization and serving as a damage control agent for the Eugenic Establishment (including the National Foundation/March of Dimes) in the United States and as an agent provocateur for the Population Control Establishment on the international scene.[4]
The only charge against McHugh that I withheld at the time was the charge that he was a closeted homosexual cleric. By 1997, when the Chronicles were published, I was already in my tenth year of research on The Rite of Sodomy. I had a long running list of homosexual prelates on file, including Spellman, Cooke, McCarrick and Bernardin. However, as regards McHugh, although I was aware that McCarrick had gotten him his bishopric, I was not prepared to make the charge of homosexuality against McHugh outside of the context of the extensive NCCB/USCC homosexual network – a charge that I did document nine years later in The Rite of Sodomy.[5]
Nevertheless, in the Preface to the McHugh Chronicles, I did note the following:
… Throughout his clerical career, McHugh has demonstrated an uncanny ability not only to survive one pro-life debacle after another, but to move quickly up the ecclesiastical ladder from monsignor and papal chamberlain (1972), to Auxiliary Bishop of Newark (1988), to Bishop of Camden (1989).[6]
In comparison to some of his contemporaries from the USCC Family Life Office years, including the deceased apostate priest, Father Walter Imbiorski, and the late Father George Hagmaier, C.S.P. who committed suicide, McHugh has continued to lead an extraordinarily charmed life.
It is common knowledge that since his earliest years at the Bishops’ Secretariat in Washington, DC, McHugh has enjoyed the patronage and protection of a number of high-ranking American prelates including the late Terence Cardinal Cooke, Chairman of the Bishops’ Committee for Pro-Life Activities; Archbishop Theodore E. McCarrick of the Archdiocese of Newark, where McHugh served briefly as an auxiliary bishop; and most importantly, the powerful, and now deceased, Joseph Cardinal Bernardin, Archdiocese of Chicago, who was a key player on the elitist New York-based Council on Foreign Relations, founded in 1921 to advance the cause of a one-world government (dictatorship).[7]
Pre-Conciliar Bishops Supported Traditional Catholic Morality
It is difficult, I think, for many faithful Catholics today to understand how far our post-Conciliar bishops (with rare exceptions) had fallen in terms of candor, courage and moral fortitude by the time the NCCB/USCC bureaucracy was formed in 1965-1966 under the dual-leadership of Cardinal John Dearden of Detroit and the young homosexual Bishop Joseph Bernardin.
One measure would be to compare the statements on Catholic morality made by AmChurch’s predecessors including the National Catholic Welfare Council, with the formal statements and collective positions made by the NCCB/USCC following the Second Vatican Council.
Here are a selection of formal pastoral letters and statements made in the name of the American hierarchy on key moral issues dating back to 1829:
Yes! the characteristics of the child, as St. John Chrysostom well observes, are the characteristic of the saint…God has made you the guardians of those children to lead them to His service on earth, that they might become saints in Heaven. “What will it avail them to gain the whole world if they lose their souls?”… Woe to him that shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were tied around his neck, and that he were drowned in the depths of the sea?
[Pastoral Letter to the Laity, 17 October 1829]
We deplore the enormous scandal of some who, having already contracted marriage, enter into new engagements during the lifetime of their lawful consorts.
[On Divorce, Pastoral Letter, 1843]
…The selfishness which leads to race suicide with or without the Pretext of bettering the species, is, in God’s sight, “a detestable thing.” It is the crime of individuals for which, eventually, the nation must suffer. The harm which it does cannot be repaired by social service, nor offset by pretending economic or domestic advantage. On the contrary, there is joy in the hope of offspring, for “the inheritance of the Lord are children; and His reward, the fruit of the womb.” The bond of love is strengthened, fresh stimulus is given to thrift and industrious effort, and the very sacrifices which are called for become sources of blessing.
[On Onanism, Birth Control and Eugenics, Pastoral Letter, 1919][8]
The destruction or serious impairment of home life has brought about a selfish, and inhuman propaganda of birth prevention…. May our Catholic families courageously and with firm trust in God reject the modern paganism, and seek the priceless riches of large, happy, and blessed families!
[Undermining the Home: Pastoral Letter, 25 April 1933]
We voice a grave warning against the propaganda of so-called planned parenthood, which violates the moral law, robs the family of its nobility and high social purpose, and weakens the physical and moral fiber of the nation.
[Neopagan Views of Marriage, 11 November 1943]
Fathers and mothers have a natural competence to instruct their children with regard to sex. False modesty should not deter them from doing their duty in this regard… We protest in the strongest possible terms against the introduction of sex instruction into the schools to be of benefit. Such instruction must be far broader than the imparting of information, and must be given individually… It [sex] can be fully and properly appreciated only within a religious and moral context. If treated otherwise, the child will see it apart from the controlling purpose of his life, which is service to God.
[The Child: Citizen of Two Worlds, 17 November 1950]
United States Catholics believe that the promotion of artificial birth prevention is a morally, humanly, psychologically, and politically disastrous approach to the population problem …They will not, however, support any public assistance, either at home or abroad, to promote artificial birth prevention, abortion, or sterilization whether through direct aid or by means of international organizations.
[Explosion or Backfire? 19 November 1959]
The above quotations cover a span of over 130 years. Thy clearly reflect the high degree of concern that our Catholic bishops collectively expressed for the burning moral issues of the day. This concern was directed not only toward Catholic families, most especially the children entrusted to their care, but also toward the Common Good (the bonun commune).
All in all, from the time of the First Provincial Council of Baltimore in 1829, the American bishops performed exceedingly well in their public defense of Catholic marriage and family life. Immigrant Catholic families, sheltered in their ethnic ghettos, initially were able to resist the worst excesses of American secularism under the protection of their Ordinary and their pastors, together with the support of their ethnic parishes and various Catholic services and charities.
Cracks in the Dam at the NCWC
By the mid-1960s, however, serious moral cracks were developing in the structure of the American bishops’ bureaucracy at the National Catholic Welfare Conference (NCWC) in Washington, D.C.
For example, the NCWC’s Family Life Bureau invited Planned Parenthood-World Population, to be in attendance at its official functions. The scuttlebutt was that Family Life officials were interested in obtaining federally financed birth control research grants from the National Institute of Health that would lead to an improvement of the “rhythm” method.
In anticipation of a reversal of the Roman Catholic Church’s magisterial teaching on the intrinsic evil of contraception, influential members of the American hierarchy, including Cardinals Francis Spellman of New York, Richard Cushing of Boston, John Cody of Chicago, John Dearden of Detroit and John Krol of Philadelphia made their own private “arrangements” to accommodate state-sponsored birth control programs. These back-door affairs often followed a well-staged and heavily publicized show of opposition to government population control programs for the “benefit” of Catholics in the pews.
As a group, these five American bishops were heavily influenced in their views on the issue of birth prevention as public policy by John Courtney Murray, S.J., principle architect of Church-State affairs for the NCWC, Cardinal Spellman’s personal peritus at the Second Vatican Council, and Cardinal Cushing’s chief advisor on contraception and “religious freedom.”
Father Murray had little stomach for anything resembling the Comstock Law which he viciously attacked. Such laws, Murray insisted, made “a public crime out of a private sin,” confused “morality with legality,” and were “unenforceable without a police invasion of the bedroom.”[9] Tragically, it would be his mythical “police-state” theory on the alleged dangers of anti-birth control legislation (the same legislation kept Planned Parenthood-World Population from opening up birth control clinics), that would lead to the equally mythical “constitutional right to privacy”’ in the Supreme Court birth control case Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) and later in Roe v. Wade (1973).[10]
In favor of the public promotion and sale of contraceptives, Murray also leaned toward legalizing abortion.[11] In a June 21, 1967, letter written to answer a question posed by a Mrs. James Moran as to “what a baby is,” Murray wrote the following incredible response: “The question that you ask – what is a baby – is certainly a valid one. But I am not one to judge what the answer should be.”[12] This from a priest advising the American bishops on questions of Catholic doctrine and morals!
“Catholic” Universities Join the Malthusian Parade
Additional pressure on the American hierarchy to accept massive government subsidized birth prevention programs was applied by several Church-related institutions of higher learning including the University of Notre Dame, Catholic University of America, and Georgetown University. These Catholic universities had received large financial grants and gifts from the Rockefeller, Ford, and Carnegie Foundations. Entrance into the foundation interlock guaranteed them power, money, and secular status.[13]
NCCB Surrenders to Federal Birth Control Programs
On November 14, 1966, the National Conference of Catholic Bishops issued a corporate statement titled “On the Government and Birth Control,” [14] in which the drafters of the document defended certain freedoms of families and called upon government to foster good social and economic conditions for family life. They then warned against the dangers of government birth control programs in connection with threats to rights to privacy, to personal and familial freedom, and they called for “a clear and unqualified separation of welfare assistance from birth control considerations.” They noted that, “government activities increasingly seek to persuade and even coerce the underprivileged to practice birth control.” They also reminded government officials that “birth control is not a universal obligation.” In the end they called for vigorous popular action, especially by Catholics, to oppose birth control programs at every level of government. [15]
In 1968, Constitutional lawyer William Bentley Ball, a long-time Catholic prolifer, explained what happened after the NCCB/USCC issued its statement – NOTHING:
This statement [dangers of government birth control] was an argument, complete in itself, but by virtue of its assertions it plainly opened the door to a national debate. This debate was never forthcoming. The statement was at once taken under fire, with volleys of questions and accusations being directed to the bishops following November 14. The public – and specially the Catholic public – having been called to “oppose vigorously and by every democratic means,” state and federal promotion of birth control – WERE LEFT WITH NOTHING BUT THE DYING ECHO OF THE TRUMPET CALL. Far from being provided with any sort of detailed information on the issues by the statement’s authors who had raised them, or guidelines to the action sought, THE CATHOLIC LAITY OF THE UNITED STATES NEVER HEARD A WORD ABOUT THE WHOLE SUBJECT. [Emphasis added]
This surprising refusal or neglect to make the bishops’ case before the American public was unfortunate in two ways: while default in the defense of the statement went far to permit discrediting of what the bishops had said on the government birth control issue, it also unnecessarily created the impression that having “laid down the law” and hurled a threat in the teeth of public administrators who were programming birth control, nothing more need be said. Eloquent though the statement had been, a case of ipse dixit would attach to it unless an effort were carried out in forums of opinion and broadly in the community to attempt to persuade the public of the reasonableness of the statement’s assertions. Such an attempt would not have added fuel to the flames: good argument usually reduces anger and dilutes bitterness. It is the fiat – unexplained and unknown in terms of what political threats it may conceal – that triggers the fears which trigger wrath.
It should have been realized that some explanatory follow-through was peculiarly demanded in this situation since birth control, as a private practice, is most popular, and since the new governmental activities promoting birth control growingly enjoy a presumption of beneficence in the United States. …
It can at any rate now [1968] be concluded that the default of the Catholic Church (or of Church staff officials whose duty it was to carry forward policy [USCC]) on the subject of government birth control programming may prove to have been of historic moment BECAUSE THE CATHOLC CHURCH ALONE, AMONG ALL THE BODIES IN THE AMERICAN SOCIETY, PROBABLY POSSESSED THE MEANS TO BRING GOVERNMENT BIRTH CONTROL INTO PUBLIC QUESTION AND TO CAUSE ITS PROPONENTS TO ATTEMPT TO MAKE THEIR CASE FOR IT [Emphasis added]. Without regard to the issue of whether the programs in question are for ill or good, the result of such inquiry and such shifting of the burden of proof, so to speak, might have been a rejection of the program by the public, or a careful circumscription thereof. As matters stand now, it will be seen that what began as a plea by pro-government-birth control forces simply to “make available” (through government help) birth control services “to those who need them but can’t afford to pay for them” may result in something far different and little dreamt of social consequences.[16]
Among those “little dreamt social consequences” resulting from the inaction of the American bishops (NCCB) and its lobbying arm, the U.S. Catholic Conference, to publicly lead the Catholic battle against federal and state birth control programs were:
The promulgation of the U.S. Government’s first multi-billion-dollar Five-Year Plan for Population Control and Family Planning and the opening of the Federal Office of Population Affairs under the direction of abortionist Dr. Louis Hellman, friend and confident of Alan Guttmacher of Planned Barrenhood fame. It was Hellman who promoted the “Stop the Stork” campaign out of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare – a program that included mass sterilization of indigent women.
The funding of National Institute of Health “contraceptive research” program promoted by R.T. Ravenholt, head of the Population Control Office of the Agency for International Development (USAID). Ravenholt, who celebrated Our Lord’s birth by hanging abortifacient IUDs on his office Christmas tree and celebrated the Fourth of July by ordering the producing of red, white and blue condoms for foreign distribution, was intent on developing a once-a-month pill that would insure the non-pregnant state of a woman at the end of every cycle.
The establishment of teen birth control and abortion referral services like Teen Scene of Chicago where youngsters as young as twelve could obtain contraceptive devices and pills without their parents’ knowledge or consent.
And finally, by their inaction, the American bishops and their bureaucrats ushered in Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that opened the door to surgical abortion at all stages of pregnancy up until birth, and which under the guise of “contraception” permitted the wide-spread distribution of abortifacient devices and pills whose death toll would be incalculable over the next half-century.
So it was, that within seven years of their “Statement on the Government and Birth Control,” all formal organized opposition by the American bishops and their bureaucracy to Federal domestic and foreign birth control/population control programs had collapsed – the Abortion Establishment had come to the fore to make the case for child murder for “faulty or omitted contraception,” – and the Prolife Grassroots Movement was born.
[In Part 2, Randy Engel takes a closer look at McHugh’s hand in some of the early pro-life movement’s “unknown obstacles”]
CLICK the above image for more information on The McHugh Chronicles and other titles from Randy Engel.
ENDNOTES
[1] Randy Engel, The Rite of Sodomy, New Engel Publishing, PA, 2006, pp. 662-675.
[2] Randy Engel, The McHugh Chronicles, 1997, Export, PA. p. ii. . Available in paperback at www.newengelpublishing.com, and in Kindle format at:
[3] On January 21, 2020, author Randy Engel was scheduled to appear on Steve Koob’s radio show, One More Soul broadcast by Radio Maria USA, to discuss The McHugh Chronicles and the history of the Prolife Movement. Shortly before the program was to air, Steven Bozza, a former employee of Bishop McHugh and current employee of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia under Archbishop Charles J. Chaput, contacted Mr. Koob and demanded the program be cancelled. Bozza charged that the Chronicles were “a hit peace” (sic) on McHugh and the USCCB. A copy of the email was cc. to Archbishop Chaput, who immediately responded: “I FULLY AGREE with Steve Bozza. One More Soul has lost any and all support here. This is a sinful action on the part of those responsible for promoting the book.” Mr. Koob rejected the intimidation effort and the hour-long program aired at noon, one day before the infamous Supreme Court abortion decision of January 22, 1973.
[5] Engel, The Rite of Sodomy, pp.564-566, 673, 675, 894-895.
[6] On December 7, 1998, McHugh was appointed Coadjutor Bishop of Rockville Centre, New York. He died in office only 11 months after he formally took over the Rockville Diocese, one of the richest in the nation, on January 2, 2000. Date of death was December 11, 2000.
[7] See James Perloff, The Shadows of Power: The Council on Foreign Relations and the American Decline, Western Islands, Appleton, WI, 1988.
[8] That many bishops and the Vatican were aware as early as the late 1920s of the dangers of birth control is evidenced by the following Memorandum written by Professor John M. Cooper of Catholic University in 1927 to the U.S. Apostolic Delegate in Washington, D.C. : … It is generally recognized by the Catholic clergy, and by Catholic and non-Catholic lay students of the problem, that contraceptive practices are very widespread among our Catholics in the United States….perhaps up to 75% or at least 50% among the well-to-do and educated … although the numbers decreased among the foreign-born Catholics and the working class…we are destined almost inevitably to see a great increase in the prevalence of the practice among Catholics in this country within the next generation.
[13] See E. Michael Jones, “John D. Rockefeller, 3rd, Theodore M. Hesburgh, and the Contraceptive Revolution: How the Church’s Teaching Almost Got Changed,” Fidelity, November 1993, p. 14.
[14] After the formation of the NCCB/USCC statements representing the American bishops were no longer signed so we don’t know who actually drafted the document.
[15] NCCB, “Statement on the Government and Birth Control,” Pastoral Letters of the United States Catholic Bishops, Hugh J. Nolan, Editor, Vol. III 1962-1974, Washington, D.C., 1983pp. 69-73.
[16] See William B. Ball, “Population Control – Civic and Constitutional Concerns,” Religion and the Public Order, Donald A. Grannella, Editor, Cornell University Press, No. 4, 1968, pp.5-7. Complete text available at no cost by the U.S. Coalition for Life at http://uscl.info/edoc/doc.php?doc_id=39&action=inline.
ABYSSUS ABYSSUM INVOCAT / DEEP CALLS TO DEEP 
You must be logged in to post a comment.