Catholic Monitor

Monday, February 18, 2019

The Bizzaro World of Francis’s Sex Abuse Synod

In Superman comics there is a bizarro world where everything is inverted or “the exact opposite” of reality:

“[G]ood is bad, wrong is right,.. insanity is sane, liberty is tyranny.”
(Urban Dictionary, “bizarro world”)

We recently saw the bizarro world with the left and the leftist media directing their hatred at the calm Catholic pro-life Covington kids because they smiled:

At a liar who was with one of two racist lunatic groups who were publicly verbally shouting things leftists usually denounce such as racist and homophobic bigotry at the Covington kids.

Now, as the Twightlight Zone music plays, we are about to enter the bizarro world of Pope Francis’s sex abuse synod.

Journalist Hilary White on her blog reported that Pope Francis’s head of the upcoming sex abuse synod Cardinal Blasé Cupich at a press conference said it “remain[s] at the level, of hypothesis” responding to the question:

“On the “hypothesis” that the culture of cover-up comes from priests and bishops being themselves involved in illicit sexual activity”?

In the bizarro world of Cupich apparently it is only a hypothesis that being involved in for example illicit murder or illicit sex or any illicit activity it might possibly in some hypothetical strange inverted world bring about a culture of cover-up.

In Francis’s bizarro world his chief Vatican sex abuse investigator Archbishop Charles Scicluna at the same press conference to the above question given to Cupich said “I haven’t investigated [sex abuse] cover-ups” according to White.

In the Francis inverted world his chief sex abuse investigator doesn’t “investigate [sex abuse] cover-ups.”

Scicluna to the question by journalist Edward Pentin on in the light of the McCarrick homosexual abuse of seminarians will the synod address gay abuse of adults:

Francis’s sex abuse investigator gave a long non-response.

Moreover, in a Crux article today called “Church’s leading reformer on sex abuse warns of more McCarricks,” Scicluna when asked if there are other McCarricks out there said:

“If we haven’t found them yet, it means that we don’t know where they are.”

It appears in the bizarro world the Church’s leading reformer and investigator needs help finding other McCarricks.

Here are a few leads for him:

Francis’s longtime spiritual son the McCarrick-like Bishop Gustavo Zanchetta was recently exposed by a AP exclusive as a allegedly sex abusing bishop.

Apparently, everyone, but Scicluna knows that there is a long list of close collaborators of Francis from his closest adviser Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga called the vice-pope to his Vatican top doctrine chief Luis Ladaria Ferrer who are accused of sex abuse cover-up.

However, in the bizarro world of Francis’s top sex abuse investigator Scicluna in his own words he says he doesn’t “investigate [sex abuse] cover-ups” so only Zanchetta need worry, but of course he “doesn’t know where they [or the McCarrick-like Zanchetta] are.”

If he needs help finding the McCarrick-like bishop maybe he can read the AP exposé which says Francis’s spiritual son was recently working at the Vatican. He apparently lives in the same Vatican residence as Francis.

But, Scicluna has to hurry to investigate Francis’s “close personal friend” at the pope’s home before Argentinean prosecutors get to the McCarrick-like bishop according to LifeSiteNews:

“Argentinean prosecutors have opened a criminal investigation for alleged sexual abuse against a bishop and close personal friend appointed and protected by Pope Francis, according to the attorney general’s office of Salta, Argentina.”

“The target of the investigation is Gustavo Zanchetta… [who] came to live in Casa Santa Marta, where Francis himself resides.”
(LifeSiteNews, “Vatican sex abuse cover-up unravels as prosecutors home in on bishop protected by Pope Francis,” February 18, 2019)

The Twightlight Zone music can end now as we are leaving the bizzaro world of Francis’s sex abuse synod.

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.

Fred Martinez at 10:26 AM

Excellent News! The Most Reverend Daniel R. Jenky, C.S.C., D.D., Bishop of Peoria, Illinois, just last week published a wonderful letter “to the priests, deacons, seminarians, religious, teachers, catechists, sponsors, parish leaders, our Catholic movements and organizations, and all the faithful of the Catholic Diocese of Peoria.”

He wrote in response to the results of an August 5th Pew Research Center poll with the headline: “Just one-third of U.S. Catholics agree with their church that Eucharist is body, blood of Christ.” 

What heartbreaking news, but read on and see how Bishop Jenky clearly responds: 

…Being grounded in true doctrine is therefore absolutely necessary for living our precious Faith. …Yet today, we are forced to admit that for several generations, the Church may not have effectively passed on even some core elements of Catholic Christianity to those whom may now constitute the majority of our members. A shocking example is evidenced by a recent opinion poll that indicates that in the United States, more than half of today’s Catholics may no longer believe in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Holy Eucharist. …So as your bishop, I believe it is a grave personal obligation for me to try to state as clearly as I am able some basic truths about the Blessed Sacrament. 

VERY CLEAR TEACHING OF THE TRUTH
He then clearly teaches what Catholics must believe (emphasis mine):

It is a defined dogma of the Catholic Church, revealed by the Holy Spirit and [therefore] preserved from any possibility of error, that the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ are truly and substantially present in the Most Holy Eucharist. 

So clear! CLICK HERE NOW to encourage and THANK Bishop Jenky.

This is not an opinion to be measured against any opinion poll but rather Divine Revelation as expressed by the absolute authority of Scripture and Tradition. The Lord once said: Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood shall live forever, and I will raise him up on the last day. (John 6:54) So for any Catholic to deny the Real Presence is, in a certain sense, to deny Jesus and place themselves outside of the convictions of our Faith. The clergy and faithful therefore share a perennial responsibility before Almighty God to pass on Divine truth to future generations, in season and out of season, uncompromised and undiminished.

And further in he states:

It is Catholic doctrine that the Most Blessed Sacrament is at all times to be given the latria [official worship] of the Church, because through the power of the Holy Spirit, the consecrated Bread and Wine truly become the glorified Body and Blood of Christ. We therefore rightly recognize and adore the Most Blessed Sacrament as our Lord and our God.

So clear! CLICK HERE NOW to encourage and THANK Bishop Jenky.

A VERY INTERESTING CONCLUSION
Finally, he touches on how he thinks this lack of belief by Catholics in the Real Presence has become so widespread (again, emphasis mine):

I rather suspect that it was not so much our teaching about the Real Presence that has changed during some recent decades but instead a noticeable decline in our ritual reverence and recognition. What had once been universal practice in any Catholic church regarding attentive silence and a whole bundle of other rituals such as genuflecting, blessing with holy water, the Sign of the Cross, kneeling, intentional architecture, the location of the Tabernacle, multiple candles, bells rung during the Liturgy, carefully prepared sacristies and sanctuaries, the care of sacred vessels and linens, prayers before and after Mass…encouraged a kind of shared awe before something experienced as numinous and wondrous.Contemporary American culture tends to be relentlessly informal and sometimes our churches may seem more like hotel lobbies than an awesome House of God. 

Catholic Monitor

Friday, September 27, 2019

The Francis Creed

“I believe in Francis and that it is infallible dogma that he is pope no matter what evidence shows that he violated the Pope John Paul II constitution that governed the validity or invalidity of the 2013 conclave. He suffered under Bishop Rene Gracida who classified the evidence that the constitution was violated and called the cardinals to investigate. He descended into the Vatican gay lobby. He ascended to the papal throne where he sits surrounded by the gay lobby cardinals from where he shall judge the teachings of Jesus Christ, the Ten Commandments and all the infallible Catholic teachings.”

“I believe in Amoris Laetitia, the Communion of adulterers, Francis’s representation of globalist teachings which embodies the Soros gospel of unlimited mass immigration, climate change, a one-world government and the goddess Mother Earth everlasting.”

I wrote this ecumenical creed with the hope that it will help all the Francis traditionalists and the Francis liberals to unite in their common communion with Francis.

After all, isn’t it true that recently the leftist Mark Shea Catholics have joined hands with their Francis traditionalist brothers in using the Steve Skojec and Taylor Marshall talking points of “schismatic” and “sedevacantist” against all Catholics who present evidence that the 2013 conclave Pope John Paul constitution was violated including Bishop Gracida and even Cardinal Raymond Burke for daring to imply that the Francis conclave could be invalid and that Francis’s Communion for adulterers could be heretical.

While it is well know that Skojec, Marshall and all the Francis traditionalists feel uncomfortable with the Soros gospel part of the Francis creed, they must endure this temporary discomfort.

They must remember that they do agree with the Francis liberals in the part of the creed that says it is a infallible dogma that Francis is a valid pope no matter what the evidence shows and moreover they must stay in communion with him even when by his “authentic Magisterium” authority he teaches Communion for adulterers without committing obstinate heresy.

They must never forget that they are in union with the Francis liberals in believing that he cannot be corrected nor can he as Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales proclaimed be “deprived… of his Apostlic See” for being “explicitly a heretic”:

“The Pope… when he is explicitly a heretic… the Church must either deprive him or as some say declare him deprived of his Apostlic See.”
(The Catholic Controversy by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306)

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.

Fred Martinez at 6:59 PM

SEPTEMBER 27, 2019

The U.N. Has Never Had a Pro-Life Champion Like Trump

AUSTIN RUSE

Crisis Magazine

By their own admission, the United Nations plan to impose abortion—which it calls “reproductive health”—on the whole world. It’s a project 25 years in the making, beginning no later than 1994 at the International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo. (It was here that Catholics and Evangelicals were awakened by Pope St. John Paul II.)

This week, the United States officially joined the pro-life resistance. President Donald Trump told the U.N. General Assembly that “Americans will never tire of defending innocent life. We are aware that many United Nations projects have attempted to assert a global right to taxpayer-funded abortion on demand—right up until the moment of delivery. Global bureaucrats have absolutely no business attacking the sovereignty of nations that wish to protect innocent life.”

Trump gets this exactly right. His statement was so on-the-money that I wish I could say I wrote it myself. All of us at the Center for Family and Human Rights have been making this argument at the United Nations for more than 20 years. I can tell you for a fact that not even George W. Bush ever gave such a passionate appeal to defend the unborn.

Less widely reported upon, but perhaps even more important, was a letter organized by President Trump and signed by 19 governments. The letter announced they will not even accept coded abortion language like “reproductive health” in an important new global document on health. 

It should be noted that “reproductive health” entered into a hard-law treaty for the first time ever under Dubya’s watch. This was a disaster—perhaps the most significant pro-life loss at the U.N. ever. Gentleman George could have stopped it, but he didn’t. Trump, the so-called vulgarian, would’ve killed it dead.

❧

We’re told ad nauseam by our moral, intellectual, and political betters that we ought to shun Mr. Trump. They tell us we have sold our souls for a bowl of pottage.

Evangelical policy mavens Michael Gerson and Peter Wehner are basically recycling the same Trump-bashing column over and over. National Review’s David French regularly joins in the anti-Trump fray. He’s astonished Christians could support Trump and says that, by our support for the President, we’ve utterly ruined the pro-life and conservative movements for a generation or more.

Note that Gerson and Wehner spent time in the George W. Bush administration; Wehner also served under Papa Bush and Reagan. I’ll say it again, because this is crucial: no American president has made as strong a pro-life statement as Donald Trump did this week at the U.N.—not Bush I, not Bush II, and not even Reagan.

Remember, Trump is basically going it alone here. Pro-lifers at the U.N. face stiff opposition from elements within the U.S. government (particularly the State Department) that view abortion as a sacrament. President Trump has had a hard time getting the bureaucracy to do what he wants. The much-ballyhooed pro-lifer Nikki Haley didn’t do a darn thing for the cause when she was our ambassador to the U.N. She went there to punch a foreign policy ticket and steered clear of the abortion debate.

What’s more, pro-lifers had to do battle with some of her staff and others in the State Department. One assertive pro-lifer, who had a top spot at the State Department, was chased out by permanent bureaucrats who ganged up on her. Yet another critical person at USAID was excoriated by the left-wing press for saying, “this is a pro-life administration.” How did the left-wing media learn of this faux pas? It was leaked by this woman’s colleagues, who are after her scalp.

❧

Given the heated reaction to Trump’s anti-abortion language, even within our own government, it’s even more remarkable that Trump has pressed the issue this far. Even us veteran pro-life advocates at the U.N. are surprised by how far he has gone. These aren’t the actions of a politician who’s merely pandering to religious conservatives: Trump is a true believer.

Consider what we’ve been given in the past. GOP officeholders mouth support for the pro-life cause; then, when push comes to shove, they’re all too happy to sacrifice the unborn to a cause nearer their hearts (regime change in Iraq, for instance). I suspect that Nikki Haley is one such “pragmatic” pro-lifer—just pro-life enough to get our votes, but not enough to rankle the foreign policy establishment.

Trump, on the other hand, is defying both the U.S. and U.N. bureaucracies on behalf of the pro-life cause. Who saw that coming? Indeed, not a bunch of Catholic intellectuals (most of them friends of mine) who tried mightily to convince us it wasn’t the “Catholic thing” to support then-candidate Trump. I’m still waiting for some of them to admit that, perhaps, their calculations were wrong.

What happens next at the U.N.? The battle continues. No one thinks pro-abortion forces at the United Nations, State Department, USAID, and even the White House are going to pack their kit-bags and move along. Our opponents will only redouble their efforts. But, as we saw this week, pro-lifers have a resolved and unequivocal ally in the Leader of the Free World. Who would’ve thought,

The U.N. Has Never Had a Pro-Life Champion Like Trump

Newman and Dulles: Two Witnesses to Christ

Fr. Robert P. Imbelli

THE CATHOLIC THING

SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 2019

Note: This is the sixth column in our series about Cardinal Newman, who will be canonized on October 13. The previous columns on this subject may be read by clicking here, here, here, here, and here.  – Robert Royal

In the book of essays he compiled shortly before he died (Evangelization for the Third Millennium), Cardinal Avery Dulles issued a caution against a growing “soteriological pluralism” in contemporary theology. He was challenging the contention that, though Christ may be, in some sense, normative for Christian salvation, such a claim should not be made normative for adherents of other religious traditions.

Dulles had also written a fine study entitled John Henry Newman. Though Dulles modestly disclaimed being “a Newman expert,” he confessed that he had read Newman “over many decades” and had been “greatly influenced by his method and teaching.”

A key area of convergence was that both advocated a critical stance toward what Newman called “Liberalism.”  In the famous speech which Newman gave in Rome in 1879, on the occasion of his being made a Cardinal, he declared: “Liberalism in religion is the doctrine that there is no positive truth in religion, that one creed is as good as another. . . .It teaches that all are to be tolerated, for all are matters of opinion. Revealed religion is not a truth, but a sentiment and a taste.”

In explicit contrast to this, Newman, throughout his life, both as an Anglican and as a Catholic, espoused what he called “the principle of dogma.” He meant by this that revealed religion enunciates truths that are objective, not mere sentiments, nor the fanciful wishes of individuals, but the fruit of real encounters with God as witnessed in the Scriptures and the Christian tradition.

For both Newman and Dulles, the Incarnation of the Eternal Word of God in Jesus Christ is the anchor of their faith and the abiding point of reference for spiritual life, preaching, and authentically Catholic theology.

In “The Influence of Natural and Revealed Religion Respectively,” the second of his Oxford University Sermons, Newman speaks of God’s economy of revelation as the “method of personation.” He declares that all the abstract principles of philosophy, Word, Light, Life, Truth, Wisdom, become personalized in Christ.

What otherwise can remain merely “notional” becomes “real” in him – concrete, vivid, enkindling affection and inspiring imitation. Newman sums up his persuasion in these words, with which Dulles would heartily concur: “It is the Incarnation of the Son of God rather than any doctrine drawn from a partial view of Scripture (however true and momentous it may be) which is the article of a standing or a falling Church.”

Thus Newman speaks of “the Idea of the Incarnation” as the heart of the Christian faith vision. But he means by “Idea” not merely a concept in the mind, but a living and life-giving image that nourishes the heart and imagination as well.

And that concept and image is the reality of Jesus presented in the Gospels. As he insists in his (perhaps most profound theological work), Lectures on the Doctrine of Justification: “The true preaching of the Gospel is to preach Christ.”

For Newman, Jesus Christ is both utterly concrete and universally significant. In his late work, A Grammar of Assent, he declares: “All the providences of God centre in Christ.” And in Lectures on Justification, Newman declares: “Christ came for this very purpose, to gather together in one all the elements of good dispersed throughout the world, to make them his own, to illuminate them with Himself, to reform and refashion them into Himself. He came to make a new and better beginning of all things than Adam had been, and to be a fountain-head from which all good henceforth might flow.”

And this not only for Christians, but for all humanity.

For Newman Christ is present not absent: he may be absent in the flesh, but he is truly present, through his Spirit, in faith. In his sermon on “The Spiritual Presence of Christ in the Church” (Parochial and Plain Sermons, VI, 10), Newman asks: “but why has the Spirit come? to supply Christ’s absence, or to accomplish His presence?”

And he responds: “Surely to make Him present. Let us not for a moment suppose that God the Holy Ghost comes in such sense that God the Son remains away. No; [the Spirit] has not so come that Christ does not come, but rather He comes that Christ may come in His coming.” And he concludes: “Thus the Spirit does not take the place of Christ in the soul, but secures that place to Christ.”

For both Newman and Dulles, this real and continuing Presence of Jesus Christ finds its fullest expression in the Eucharist. If their minds led each to acknowledge the fullness of Apostolic faith in the Roman Catholic Church, their hearts found fulfillment of their ardent desire and affection in the Blessed Sacrament reserved in the humblest of Catholic churches and chapels.

Christ’s Eucharistic presence is the paradigmatic instance of “heart speaking to heart” (Newman’s Cardinalatial motto): the heart of Christ addressing the heart of each disciple whom he calls by name.

In a letter to a correspondent after becoming Catholic, Newman spoke of “the surpassing privilege of having a Chapel under the very roof in which I live and Christ in it.” And he rejoiced in “the extreme, ineffable comfort of being in the same house with Him who cured the sick and taught His disciples, as we read of Him in the Gospels, in the days of His flesh.”

Avery Dulles took as his own Cardinalatial motto: “I know him in whom I have believed,” Christ, whom Dulles called, in his last McGinley lecture, “the Pearl of great price.” For both Newman and Dulles the Incarnation of God’s Eternal Word in Jesus Christ and Christ’s universal salvific significance is, indeed, the article of faith upon which the Church stands or falls.

Given the turmoil and creedal confusion in the Church today, their conjoint personal and theological witness to Jesus Christ, as unique and universal Savior, is both gift and challenge. For our pressing peril may be less schism than it is apostasy from “the faith once and definitively delivered to the Saints.”

Newman and Dulles: Two Witnesses to Christ

Fr. Robert P. Imbelli

SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 2019

Note: This is the sixth column in our series about Cardinal Newman, who will be canonized on October 13. The previous columns on this subject may be read by clicking here, here, here, here, and here.  – Robert Royal

In the book of essays he compiled shortly before he died (Evangelization for the Third Millennium), Cardinal Avery Dulles issued a caution against a growing “soteriological pluralism” in contemporary theology. He was challenging the contention that, though Christ may be, in some sense, normative for Christian salvation, such a claim should not be made normative for adherents of other religious traditions.

Dulles had also written a fine study entitled John Henry Newman. Though Dulles modestly disclaimed being “a Newman expert,” he confessed that he had read Newman “over many decades” and had been “greatly influenced by his method and teaching.”

A key area of convergence was that both advocated a critical stance toward what Newman called “Liberalism.”  In the famous speech which Newman gave in Rome in 1879, on the occasion of his being made a Cardinal, he declared: “Liberalism in religion is the doctrine that there is no positive truth in religion, that one creed is as good as another. . . .It teaches that all are to be tolerated, for all are matters of opinion. Revealed religion is not a truth, but a sentiment and a taste.”

In explicit contrast to this, Newman, throughout his life, both as an Anglican and as a Catholic, espoused what he called “the principle of dogma.” He meant by this that revealed religion enunciates truths that are objective, not mere sentiments, nor the fanciful wishes of individuals, but the fruit of real encounters with God as witnessed in the Scriptures and the Christian tradition.

For both Newman and Dulles, the Incarnation of the Eternal Word of God in Jesus Christ is the anchor of their faith and the abiding point of reference for spiritual life, preaching, and authentically Catholic theology.

In “The Influence of Natural and Revealed Religion Respectively,” the second of his Oxford University Sermons, Newman speaks of God’s economy of revelation as the “method of personation.” He declares that all the abstract principles of philosophy, Word, Light, Life, Truth, Wisdom, become personalized in Christ.

What otherwise can remain merely “notional” becomes “real” in him – concrete, vivid, enkindling affection and inspiring imitation. Newman sums up his persuasion in these words, with which Dulles would heartily concur: “It is the Incarnation of the Son of God rather than any doctrine drawn from a partial view of Scripture (however true and momentous it may be) which is the article of a standing or a falling Church.”

Thus Newman speaks of “the Idea of the Incarnation” as the heart of the Christian faith vision. But he means by “Idea” not merely a concept in the mind, but a living and life-giving image that nourishes the heart and imagination as well.

And that concept and image is the reality of Jesus presented in the Gospels. As he insists in his (perhaps most profound theological work), Lectures on the Doctrine of Justification: “The true preaching of the Gospel is to preach Christ.”

For Newman, Jesus Christ is both utterly concrete and universally significant. In his late work, A Grammar of Assent, he declares: “All the providences of God centre in Christ.” And in Lectures on Justification, Newman declares: “Christ came for this very purpose, to gather together in one all the elements of good dispersed throughout the world, to make them his own, to illuminate them with Himself, to reform and refashion them into Himself. He came to make a new and better beginning of all things than Adam had been, and to be a fountain-head from which all good henceforth might flow.”

And this not only for Christians, but for all humanity.

For Newman Christ is present not absent: he may be absent in the flesh, but he is truly present, through his Spirit, in faith. In his sermon on “The Spiritual Presence of Christ in the Church” (Parochial and Plain Sermons, VI, 10), Newman asks: “but why has the Spirit come? to supply Christ’s absence, or to accomplish His presence?”

And he responds: “Surely to make Him present. Let us not for a moment suppose that God the Holy Ghost comes in such sense that God the Son remains away. No; [the Spirit] has not so come that Christ does not come, but rather He comes that Christ may come in His coming.” And he concludes: “Thus the Spirit does not take the place of Christ in the soul, but secures that place to Christ.”

For both Newman and Dulles, this real and continuing Presence of Jesus Christ finds its fullest expression in the Eucharist. If their minds led each to acknowledge the fullness of Apostolic faith in the Roman Catholic Church, their hearts found fulfillment of their ardent desire and affection in the Blessed Sacrament reserved in the humblest of Catholic churches and chapels.

Christ’s Eucharistic presence is the paradigmatic instance of “heart speaking to heart” (Newman’s Cardinalatial motto): the heart of Christ addressing the heart of each disciple whom he calls by name.

In a letter to a correspondent after becoming Catholic, Newman spoke of “the surpassing privilege of having a Chapel under the very roof in which I live and Christ in it.” And he rejoiced in “the extreme, ineffable comfort of being in the same house with Him who cured the sick and taught His disciples, as we read of Him in the Gospels, in the days of His flesh.”

Avery Dulles took as his own Cardinalatial motto: “I know him in whom I have believed,” Christ, whom Dulles called, in his last McGinley lecture, “the Pearl of great price.” For both Newman and Dulles the Incarnation of God’s Eternal Word in Jesus Christ and Christ’s universal salvific significance is, indeed, the article of faith upon which the Church stands or falls.

Given the turmoil and creedal confusion in the Church today, their conjoint personal and theological witness to Jesus Christ, as unique and universal Savior, is both gift and challenge. For our pressing peril may be less schism than it is apostasy from “the faith once and definitively delivered to the Saints.”

Share this:

Share this:

Fr. Rutler’s Weekly ColumnSeptember 28, 2019

In thinking of angels, you need humility, for a couple of reasons. First of all, a cynical culture mocks anyone who believes that angels exist in any way that is real rather than sentimental. Secondly, since angels, who were created before humans, are intelligent beyond any material measurement, that means they are smarter than any human. And so, by comparison we must seem very stupid.    But angels are humble too, although for a different reason. They can actually see God, so they are perpetually aware of their inferiority. In their perfect humility, they rejoice in that fact, and their subservience to their Creator makes them shine in glory. Chesterton rallied symbolic language to say that angels can fly because they take themselves lightly.   At each Mass, angels gather at the altar. This Sunday in our church there will be a special kind of holy commotion because it is our parish’s patronal feast, with our patron never failing to be present. Saint Michael, as an archangel along with Gabriel and Raphael, has a symbolic name. (Michael means “Who is like God?”.) Surely it was by some inspiration, when the parish was established in 1857 with boundaries originally from 28th to 38th Streets and from 6th Avenue to the banks of the Hudson River, that Saint Michael, who casts “into hell Satan and all the other evil spirits who prowl through the world,” was made protector of what the police would come to call “Hell’s Kitchen.”   While crime and dereliction are still around (after a recent Vigil Mass there was a brawl in front of the church, but a dozen policemen quickly came to help us), our streets are much different now. There are new hotels, fine restaurants and elegant shops. We are at the center of the biggest real estate development in the history of the United States. A few years ago, the future of our church building itself was at risk. While maintenance costs continue at a level that could seem daunting, the burden does not weigh heavily considering what can be accomplished. In that sense, we can reach new heights if, like the angels, we take ourselves lightly.    Now the challenge is to bring those who are out on the street into God’s House. There is a daily stream of tourists stopping in to visit. The silent witness of our own people at prayer throughout the day can be, and in many instances already has been, an effective work of evangelism, turning picture-taking into worship.   To have such potential is a big responsibility. “From everyone to whom much is given, much will be required” (Luke 12:48). The hulking skyscrapers rising all around here may seem intimidating, but through the intercession of Saint Michael the Archangel, they can also be like Jacob’s ladder, on which the angels move up and down, connecting our temporal lives with life eternal.

Who Will Restore the Church?

Stephen P. White

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 2019

Mass attendance is down. Financial contributions at the parish and diocesan levels are down. Catholic marriages and infant baptisms have been plummeting for years. Most of these trends did not begin with the abuse crisis, but anecdotal evidence from the last year suggests that the crisis has accelerated these trends.

Who will restore the Church? Where will the renewal we all know is needed – and which we all long to see – come from? From the bishops? From Rome? I have said many times: If it is to come at all, authentic reform in the Church will come through and with the bishop of Rome and the bishops in communion with him. For those with faith, this is little less than a tautology. It just doesn’t get us very far.

Trusting that the Lord will preserve his Church doesn’t require us to believe or expect that reform will spring from Rome or begin at the initiative of one of the successors of the Apostles. History tells us that most great ecclesial reforms have not begun with the pope. Most great reforms have not begun with bishops. The pattern, always, is that renewal begins with sanctity, wherever it is found.

Sanctity is not the province of the clergy. Let me rephrase that: sanctity is not only for those in holy orders. The call to sanctity is universal, extending to all the baptized, indeed to all humanity. I was once at a conference where someone was commenting on something Pope Francis had said about holiness. A prominent social justice activist sitting beside me scoffed: “I’ve never thought about holiness a single day in my life.” I was inclined to believe her.

And why not? There is a lot of good work to be done in this vale of tears and a lot of that good work doesn’t require even a smidgen of holiness. Being a decent person doesn’t require us to strive to be perfect as our Father in heaven is perfect. But we’re called to more, much more.

In his very first homily as pope, Francis warned the men who had just elected him against the futility of good works that don’t proclaim Christ:

We can build many things, but if we do not profess Jesus Christ, things go wrong. We may become a charitable NGO, but not the Church, the Bride of the Lord. When we are not walking, we stop moving. When we are not building on the stones, what happens? The same thing that happens to children on the beach when they build sandcastles: everything is swept away, there is no solidity.

If we forget this – if our efforts, however well intentioned, become separated from the proclamation of the Good News – then our efforts will not fail, they will be make things worse: “When we do not profess Jesus Christ,” Pope Francis says, “we profess the worldliness of the devil, a demonic worldliness.”

The point is this: the work of restoring the Church – addressing the urgent needs of the moment, earnestly seeking justice, restoring the battered Body of Christ – does not come before the work of proclaiming the Gospel. These works are one and the same. Now, in this moment of crisis, is not the time to set aside the work of evangelization in order to deal with seemingly more pressing problems: “Let the dead bury their own dead. You go and proclaim the Kingdom of God.”

Archbishop Charles Chaput of Philadelphia put it beautifully. His words were spoken in 2012, but seem perfectly suited for today:

Sin is part of the human terrain and a daily challenge to our discipleship. And if our hearts are cold, if our minds are closed, if our spirits are fat and acquisitive, curled up on a pile of our possessions, then the Church in this country will wither. It’s happened before in other times and places, and it can happen here. We can’t change the world by ourselves. And we can’t reinvent the Church. But we can help God change us. We can live our faith with zeal and conviction – and then God will take care of the rest.

The Lord is purifying his Church. Good, we say. It’s about time, we say. But are we willing to let Him purify us? Can we really expect the Church to undergo purification and at the same time expect that we, who are part of the Church, should be spared the pain and anguish of that purification?

Who will restore the Church? He will. And if we are willing, he will accomplish great things through us. All it will cost is everything – which in the end, is nothing.

Take, Lord, and receive all my liberty, my memory, my understanding, and my entire will, All I have and call my own. You have given all to me. To you, Lord, I return it. Everything is yours; do with it what you will. Give me only your love and your grace, that is enough for me. (A Prayer of St. Ignatius of Loyola)

*Image: The Vale of Tears (La Vallée de larmes) by Gustave Doré, 1883 [Musée du Petit Palais, Paris]

© 2019 The Catholic Thing. All rights reserved. For reprint rights, write to: info@frinstitute.orgThe Catholic Thing is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own.

Stephen P. White

Stephen P. White is a fellow in Catholic Studies at the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington.

COMMENTARY 

THE WESTERN JOURNAL

NYT Reporters Say Blasey Ford Accusations Still Credible by Citing Witness’ Substance Abuse Issues

NYT Doubles Down on Kavanaugh Accusations with Sickening Character Attack

Volume 0% 

By Cade Almond

Published September 23, 2019 at 3:54pm

Embattled New York Times reporters Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly have dug themselves in a hole with the release of their book, “The Education of Brett Kavanaugh: An Investigation.” But rather than scrambling to get out, they just dig themselves deeper.

With each piece of evidence that calls into question the unfounded accusations against the Supreme Court justice, the reporters have only dug in their heels.

Most recently, during an appearance Sunday on CNN’s ironically-named “Reliable Sources,” the co-authors tried to discredit the testimony of Leland Keyser, a childhood friend of Kavanaugh accuser Christine Blasey Ford who was in the media spotlight last year. Despite being named by Ford as one of the people at the party where Kavanaugh allegedly sexually assaulted her, Keyser said she did not know Kavanaugh and had no memory of the party or of any attempted sexual misconduct.

Advertisement – story continues below

You might notice that a common theme in the entire Kavanaugh sexual assault saga is that very few people seem to remember any of it — but that hasn’t deterred Pogrebin and Kelly.

The reporters came under fire last week for publishing another sexual misconduct allegation against Kavanaugh in their book, only to omit a key fact in their subsequent Times article that the woman had no memory of the incident.x

Pogrebin and Kelly have since claimed the extraction was simply an editorial oversight. They also attempted to discredit the woman who was allegedly assaulted by suggesting she didn’t remember because she was drunk.

“I mean, let’s remember this was a drunken party and it’s conceivable that people don’t always remember what happens in a situation like that. A lot of drunken people, you know, Brett was taken over to her by his friends. They were drunk, she was drunk,” Pogrebin told CNN’s Alisyn Camerota last week.

Advertisement – story continues below

Now, the two reporters are trying to discredit Keyser — another person who refuses to cooperate with their narrative.

As reported by The Federalist, “Buried at the end of their new book ‘The Education of Brett Kavanaugh: An Investigation,’ reporters Robin Pogebrin and Kate Kelly quietly admit that Christine Blasey Ford’s lifelong friend Leland Keyser did not believe her friend’s tale of a sexual assault at a party they both supposedly attended. Keyser was named by Ford as a witness, one of four who denied any knowledge of the event in question.”

Do you think these accusations are credible?

Yes No 
Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. 

Kelly told CNN host Brian Stelter that they “still find Christine Blasey Ford credible in the end and if you read our book you will see why.”

“Keyser’s claims don’t rebut Blasey Ford’s claims, and also, Keyser has memory issues that are discussed in the book as well, which relate to the way memory functions for all of us, and also because she has a history of substance abuse, which she acknowledges.”

Advertisement – story continues below

So if your star witness doesn’t believe the accusation, and pressuring her to lie fails as well, just blame it on substance abuse.

RELATED: Authors of New Kavanaugh Book Call Out Democrats’ ‘Rush to Judgment’

Substance abuse or not, this in no way proves that Ford is credible.

It’s a fact that Ford doesn’t remember where or when the alleged event happened.

Advertisement – story continues below

It’s a fact that nobody she named could corroborate her story.

It’s a fact that she frequently flew despite claiming a fear of flying.

It’s a fact that her testimony netted her nearly $1 million and book offers.

It’s a fact that her lawyer believed she may have had a political motivation.

Advertisement – story continues below

It’s also a fact that whenever The Times happens to have an egregious “editorial oversight,” it always seems to slant in a certain direction.

This circus needs to stop.

Papal Standards – and Questions

Fr. Gerald E. Murray

MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 2019

Papal Standards – and Questions

THE CATHOLIC THING

Papal Standards – and Questions

We know that Pope Francis is a believer in the value of criticism from his extensive remarks on the plane ride back from his recent apostolic visit to Africa. He said: “First of all, criticism always helps, always. When someone receives criticism, that person needs to do a self-critique right away and say: is this true or not? To what point? And I always benefit from criticism. Sometimes it makes you angry. . . . But there are advantages.”

He wants critics to come forward with their arguments and be ready for a dialogue aimed at arriving at the truth: “I do not like it when criticism stays under the table: they smile at you letting you see their teeth and then they stab you in the back. That is not fair, it is not human. Criticism is a component in construction, and if your criticism is unjust, be prepared to receive a response, and get into dialogue, and arrive to the right conclusion. This is the dynamic of true criticism.”

He also spoke of those who criticize what he himself has said or done: “Regarding the case of the pope: I don’t like this aspect of the pope, I criticize him, I speak about him, I write an article and ask him to respond, this is fair.” He wants to hear from his critics: “This is clear: a fair criticism is always well received, at least by me.”

With this in mind, we should consider what Pope Francis said to bishops in his homily on September 20 in the chapel of the Domus Sanctae Marthae: “You must love first the one who is closest, who are your priests and your deacons. . . . It’s sad when a bishop forgets those close to him. It’s sad to hear the complaints of priests, who tell you: ‘I called the bishop; I needed a meeting to tell him something, and the secretary told me that everything is full for three months . . . . When a priest calls, the bishop must return his call [at the] latest the following day, “because he has the right to know that he has a father.”

With this in mind, I put this blunt but respectful question: Holy Father, the standard you set for other bishops is good and reasonable, but does it apply to you? Your closest collaborators are the members of the College of Cardinals. They have the particular duty of assisting you in promoting the mission of the Universal Church.

Holy Father, it is three years since four cardinals sent you the Dubia concerning certain statements in Amoris Laetitia [AL]. Their request to meet with you and to receive a response has gone unanswered.  Why? The Dubia cardinals simply brought to your attention the concerns and critiques of a significant number of perplexed Catholics who do not see how various statements in AL do not constitute a rejection of Catholic doctrine, especially in contested matters authoritatively dealt with by your two immediate predecessors.

You tell reporters that you want to hear criticisms, and then ignore those criticisms from your closest collaborators? You tell bishops not to close their ears and doors to priests who want to discuss matters with them, when you have turned away for three years cardinals who exercised the Gospel frankness (parrhesia) you so often call for.

In a similar vein, you have not called an extraordinary consistory of the College of Cardinals to consult with the all the members on matters concerning the good of the Church since February 2015. At that meeting, you asked cardinals to collaborate with you in reforming the Roman Curia, “With this spirit of collaboration our meeting begins, which will be fecund thanks to the contribution each of us will be able to express with parresia, fidelity to the Magisterium and conscientiousness for all which is concordant with the supreme law, that is with the salus animarum.”

Holy Father, on the plane back from Africa you also said this:

There’s the ideology of the primacy of a sterile morality regarding the morality of the people of God. The pastors must lead their flock between grace and sin, because this is evangelical morality. Instead, a morality based on such a Pelagian ideology leads you to rigidity, and today we have many schools of rigidity within the Church, which are not schisms, but pseudo-schismatic Christian developments that will end badly. When you see rigid Christians, bishops, priests, there are problems behind that, not Gospel holiness. So, we need to be gentle with those who are tempted by these attacks, they are going through a tough time, we must accompany them gently.

Herein may lie the reason you refuse to answer the Dubia cardinals, and have decided not to call a meeting of the College of Cardinals at which the two remaining Dubia cardinals would have the opportunity to ask questions in an open discussion.

You display no intention of dialoguing with those you find to be the ideological proponents of a “rigid,” “sterile,” “Pelagian morality” that leads to pseudo-schismatic developments that are the fruit of personal problems, not Gospel holiness. You will “accompany” them gently, but you will not discuss their points. You have already judged their arguments as springing from psychological deficiencies.

Holy Father, you should extend the benefit of the doubt to those who have great difficulty understanding how some of your teachings square with teachings they have serenely believed and taught their whole lives. Is it not more reasonable to assume that they are normal men, truly motivated by a love for Christ, His Church, and her doctrine – and are not insecure and troubled men?

Ignoring them is unacceptable behavior that you rightly reject when done by other bishops. Giving them a hearing and answering their doubts is not a gentle concession to people who are going through a tough time, but rather a duty of office for the chief shepherd, charged by Our Lord with strengthening the brethren.

CONCEALING A LIE IN THE TRUTH

A devilish ploy.

September 23, 2019  

CHURCH MILITANT

Thanks to constant coverage by Church Militant and others regarding Fr. James Martin’s homoheresy and constant personal appearances on Church property, some U.S. bishops are finally beginning to speak.

This was occasioned by Martin’s talk last week at St. Joseph’s University in Philadelphia, a Jesuit property.

The archbishop of Philadelphia, Charles Chaput, issued a statement after Martin had left town cautioning Catholics about what Martin says.

That is at least a start, but the statement could be classified as a day late — literally — and a dollar short. More on that in a moment, but first, Chaput was not alone among bishops with words about Martin.

Springfield, Illinois, Bp. Thomas Paprocki issued a much more succinct and to-the-point statement about Martin’s ramblings, talking about things like “sin,” “scandal” and “immorality.”

And even Knoxville Bp. Richard Stika jumped on social media to join his voice to others warning about Martin.

These are all good starts, no doubt, but when it comes to a person like James Martin, who some on social media have taken to calling “Brokeback Martin” for his advocacy of homosexuality’s acceptance, the warnings and cautions need to be considerably stronger.

In fact, Chaput’s statement cautioning Catholics about Martin had enough ambiguity, in part, that Martin initially expressed gratitude for Chaput’s “thoughtful response.”

Martin was able to split hairs with Chaput’s initial statement because, frankly, Chaput’s initial statement allowed for it.

Various clerics when speaking about Martin publicly always come out and first thank him and heap all kinds of kind words on him for his “ministry.” They do this as a kind of way of backing into the discussion — a kind of “you are a nice guy, but” type of approach.

Only some point later do they begin to approach his errors, and only then very delicately.

First, Martin deserves exactly zero praise or applause for his “ministry.” His occasional use of truth should not be praised or even acknowledged.

Martin does, here and there, let words fall from his lips that are arranged in such a way as to convey a true thought. But he uses that truth merely as a vehicle to smuggle in the great lie.

For example, he says he has never challenged Church teaching. That’s about as hair-slicing, technically “true” as a person could get. What he always deftly avoids, however, is not saying he doesn’t challenge the teaching, but if he actually believes it. That is an entirely different issue.

Martin is about as skilled a practitioner of wordsmithing as you will find. For example, he routinely acknowledges what the Church teaches — big deal.

Satan acknowledges what the Church teaches. Every enemy of the Church acknowledges what the Church teaches. Planned Parenthood acknowledges what the Church teaches.

Just because someone says something that is true should not carry with it some automatic praise for the person. 

By that standard, Our Blessed Lord should have turned around to the devil during their desert encounter and praised him for accurately, truthfully quoting Scripture. Satan spoke the truth, in so far as he was simply restating Scripture.

But Our Lord didn’t praise him, He condemned him because the intent in saying truthful words was to introduce evil just nicely packaged up. Martin is also extremely deceptive by constantly appealing to the fact that he has never challenged Church teaching.

That’s because he’s too slick to reveal his full hand; that would be Building a Bridge too far. Instead, he simply gives public approval of other things and people who challenge Church teaching.

He posts in support of Pride Month, a homosexual cultural corruption specifically envisioned to normalize sodomy and same-sex relationships.

He uses the term “LGBT” in reference to same-sex attracted Catholics non-stop, adopting the language specifically so as to condone it.

He states LGBT Catholic couples should kiss in Mass during the sign of peace.

He retweets other people’s posts supportive of homosexual marriage. He sits on stage with civilly married homosexual men, praising their fidelity and support for each other.

Nowhere on record has James Martin ever actually affirmed the Church’s teaching.

Simply stating it is not enough. A profession of faith from Martin himself needs to be elicited not saying he knows what the Church teaches but rather that he believes what the Church teaches, that homosexual acts are disordered, that marriage can only be between one man and one woman — that for same-sex individuals, their condition is a cross which must be borne by them, just as everyone who attains Heaven must bear his or her own cross in their own individual lives.

Martin wraps lies up in truth and then relies on a cowardly episcopate to not get to the actual heart of the matter. It’s a clever strategy, and one that needs its mask ripped off.

At press time of this Vortex, a war of words, it might be called, was brewing between Chaput and Martin as Martin issued another response to Chaput, then Chaput responded to Martin’s response.

Stay tuned for more on that as it no doubt develops further, but in the meantime, while we are speaking of things left unsaid, notice how terribly few U.S. bishops have jumped in on this — again, as of press time, as far as we can tell, only three.

Martin publicly states that he is grateful to Chaput for beginning a dialogue on this topic.

So, good, let’s have a dialogue. The U.S. bishops are constantly tripping all over themselves babbling on about dialogue and the need for dialogue and dialoguing about dialogue.

So, here you go, bishops. Let’s start dialoguing.

First question in the dialogue: Fr. Martin, do you believe, affirm and accept the teachings of the Catholic Church regarding homosexuality?