"The gay banner superimposed over Our Lord's Cross, a symbol of Our Lord's Passion, had to go."

Those are the words of Fr. John Paul Kalchik of Resurrection Church in Avondale, IL.

Pope Paul VI famously said that “the smoke of Satan had entered the Temple of God.”

1) The rainbow banner celebrates sodomy.
2) Sodomy is sin.
3) Appropriating the Cross of Christ onto a banner that celebrates sin is blasphemous.
4) Hanging a blasphemous banner in the Temple of God is the smoke of Satan His Holiness saw.

So the Chicago-area parishioners have done their part in dispelling the smoke of Satan. Bless them!

Excerpt, from Church Militant:

Chicago Priest Explains Why Parish Burned Rainbow Flag

As events have unfolded over the last month, we find the Church engulfed in a great battle. Many cardinals, bishops and even the Pope seem to be living double lives. They, at times, speak eloquently about the Faith and present themselves as men striving for holiness. But then the records show they are either living very sinful lives or have covered up for others who do so, leaving them to prey on more victims.

And also, when asked to speak about the abuse, they play it down; they are more concerned with global warming, migrant issues and fake homophobia than their real mission of saving souls. Thusly, many of the faithful have found themselves shaken, deeply disturbed, because the institutional Church has been revealed to be a sham. The Church is at war, but this war is anything but civil.

A week ago, I was threatened with removal of my faculties to serve as a priest by those in charge at the archdiocese. They told me in no uncertain terms that we could not burn a rainbow banner as it would be offensive to the gay community.

A week ago, I was threatened with removal of my faculties to serve as a priest by those in charge at the archdiocese.

This does not scare me. Over the course of my life, I have been to Hell and back a couple times over. I recognize what is evil and have vowed to God to take steps to thwart that evil. God grants authority, and I follow my conscience, formed by His law. The gay banner superimposed over Our Lord's Cross, a symbol of Our Lord's Passion, had to go....

Thanks, Holy Father....But....

Good Pope Francis (and not for the first time)  nailed the insanity of 'gender ideology' in his address to the Bishops of Poland at World Youth Day:

"In Europe, America, Latin America, Africa, and in some countries of Asia, there are genuine forms of ideological colonization taking place. And one of these - I will call it clearly by its name – is [the ideology of] 'gender'. Today children – children! – are taught in school that everyone can choose his or her sex. Why are they teaching this? Because the books are provided by the persons and institutions that give you money. These forms of ideological colonization are also supported by influential countries. And this terrible!

In a conversation with Pope Benedict, who is in good health and very perceptive, he said to me: 'Holiness, this is the age of sin against God the Creator'. He is very perceptive. God created man and woman; God created the world in a certain way… and we are doing the exact opposite."

Thank you, Holy Father, for introducing some sanity into our world. And you are right about the ideological colonization pushed around the world by wealthy and well-connected wackos.

BUT...that same colonization is taking place in Catholic schools. Holiness, these schools are under YOUR authority. The right guidance of those young souls is ultimatly YOUR responsibily. 

See here for just a few examples within the Archdiocese of San Francisco:

'Transgendered' Teacher not the Only Problem at Mercy

Gay Totalitarianism at Schools of the Sacred Heart, San Francisco

'Queer Bohemian' Chairs Theology Department at Woodside Priory School

LGBT Activist Leads Retreat at Notre Dame de Namur

'Our Mother who is within us'

Holiness, our good Archbishop is working to address this problem. You've identified the problem: I humbly beg you to assert your authority in solving it.

Your son in Christ,

Gibbons

Cardinal Sarah’s Synod: Who was Pope when Athanasius was Bishop?

The recent Synod on the Family will eventually be recognized as an event of supreme importance. The Synod revealed fault lines between Bishops faithful to Jesus Christ, and those whose faith has become distorted through a prism of ideology. That ideology is a heresy of the dying West. It primarily, though not exclusively, infects certain bishops and cardinals from Europe and the Americas.

For a Synod on the Family, the focus of these clergy on divorce (not to mention homosexuality) is both odd and suggestive. I’ll suggest that their concern about divorce is a case of psychological projection: the infected bishops are projecting their unconscious, not-even-to-be-considered fear that they, leaders of the Church, the bride of Christ, have already divorced their bridegroom.

They are masking their feelings of guilt at dumping Jesus Christ by professing concern for laity who have divorced their spouses. Their putative effort to bring these members of the laity “back into the church” indicates a suppressed, un-faceable desire to bring themselves back into communion. But to clearly articulate this reality would bring it into conscious awareness, and would be too painful. Hence the incoherence of focusing on divorce in a Synod on the Family.

The Synod included another event of supreme importance that has been noted by many—the emergence of the sub-Saharan African Church. There is a stark contrast between the incoherence of the infected bishops and the simple and assured clarity of the African bishops. A number of examples could be given, but one will suffice for this article: the masterful Intervention of Cardinal Robert Sarah.

First, Cardinal Sarah noted the infection had reached the highest levels of the Church. Excerpt:

“I say frankly that in the previous Synod, on various issues one sensed the temptation to yield to the mentality of the secularized world and individualistic West. Recognizing the so-called ‘realities of life’ as a locus theologicus means giving up hope in the transforming power of faith and the Gospel. The Gospel that once transformed cultures is now in danger of being transformed by them. Furthermore, some of the procedures used did not seem aimed at enriching discussion and communion as much as they did to promote a way of seeing typical of certain fringe groups of the wealthiest churches. This is contrary to a poor Church, a joyously evangelical and prophetic sign of contradiction to worldliness.”

His Eminence also insisted on a ‘Discernment of History and Spirits.’ He then discerned: 

“A second hope: that the Synod honor its historic mission and not limit itself to speaking only about certain pastoral issues (such as the possible communion for divorced and remarried) but help the Holy Father to enunciate clearly truths and real guidance on a global level. For there are new challenges with respect to the synod celebrated in 1980. A theological discernment enables us to see in our time two unexpected threats (almost like two “apocalyptic beasts”) located on opposite poles: on the one hand, the idolatry of Western freedom; on the other, Islamic fundamentalism: atheistic secularism versus religious fanaticism. To use a slogan, we find ourselves between “gender ideology and ISIS”. Islamic massacres and libertarian demands regularly contend for the front page of the newspapers. (Let us remember what happened last June 26!). From these two radicalizations arise the two major threats to the family: its subjectivist disintegration in the secularized West through quick and easy divorce, abortion, homosexual unions, euthanasia etc. (cf. Gender theory, the ‘Femen’, the LGBT lobby, IPPF …). On the other hand, the pseudo-family of ideologized Islam which legitimizes polygamy, female subservience, sexual slavery, child marriage etc.

Several clues enable us to intuit the same demonic origin of these two movements. Unlike the Spirit of Truth that promotes communion in the distinction (perichoresis), these encourage confusion (homo-gamy) or subordination (poly-gamy). Furthermore, they demand a universal and totalitarian rule, are violently intolerant, destroyers of families, society and the Church, and are openly Christianophobic.”

Cardinal Sarah then insisted that the duty of the Church is first and always fidelity to her bridegroom, Jesus Christ, which in the context of a Synod on the Family means not to make room for divorce, about which Christ has already uttered the last word, but rather to “Proclaim and serve the beauty of Monogamy and the Family’:

“Faced with these two deadly and unprecedented challenges (‘homo-gamy’ and ‘poly-gamy’) the Church must promote a true ‘epiphany of the Family.’ To this both the Pope (as spokesman of the Church) may contribute, and individual Bishops and Pastors of the Christian flock: that is, ‘the Church of God, which he has obtained with his own blood’ (Acts: 20:28).

We must proclaim the truth without fear, i.e. the Plan of God, which is monogamy in conjugal love open to life. Bearing in mind the historical situation just recalled, it is urgent that the Church, at its summit, definitively declare the will of the Creator for marriage. How many people of good will and common sense would join in this luminous act of courage carried out by the Church!

Together with a strong and clear Word of the Supreme Magisterium, Pastors have the mission of helping our contemporaries to discover the beauty of the Christian family. To do this, it must first promote all that represents a true Christian Initiation of adults, for the marriage crisis is essentially a crisis of God, but also a crisis of faith, and this is an infantile Christian initiation. Then we must discern those realities that the Holy Spirit is already raising up to reveal the Truth of the Family as an intimate communion in diversity (man and woman) that is generous in the gift of life. We bishops have the urgent duty to recognize and promote the charisms, movements, and ecclesial realities in which the Family is truly revealed, this prodigy of harmony, love of life and hope in Eternity, this cradle of faith and school charity…”

On October 15, 2014, Zenit published an interview in which Cardinal Walter Kasper, the leader of the divorced faction, who said that the African Cardinals “should not tell us too much what we have to do” and questioned whether they were listened to outside of Africa. It turns out His Eminence was expressing more a wish than an observation. 

The First Council of Nicaea, in 325 AD, was another Church event of supreme importance. Yet who, outside of a church historian, can even recall the name of the Pope at the time of the Nicaea? The pivotal figure at Nicaea was not the then-Pope, but Bishop Athanasius. And any Catholic with even a slight knowledge of the faith, not to mention people outside the faith, knows of Athanasius. Hos Holiness Pope Francis called the Synod on the Family. But a thousand years from now it may well be remembered as Cardinal Sarah’s Synod.

Pope Francis tells Kim Davis "Stay strong!"

Bless his heart! The Holy Father stands with marriage and the brave Kentucky clerk Kim Davis, who went to jail rather than support counterfeit marriage.

Bless both their hearts!

From Reuters:

The Davis couple traveled to Washington and met the pope at the Vatican embassy last Thursday, ABC News and CBS News reported.

"It was really very humbling to even think that he would want to, you know, meet me or know me," Davis told ABC. "I put my hand out, and he grabbed it, and I hugged him, and he hugged me and he said, 'Thank you for your courage'."

"He told me before he left, he said, 'Stay strong.' That was a great encouragement," Davis said.

Davis said knowing that the pope agreed with what she was doing "kind of validates everything."

ABC said the pope gave Davis a rosary, which she plans to give to her Catholic parents.

The pope, speaking to reporters as he returned home from his 10-day trip to the United States and Cuba on Monday, said government officials had a "human right" to refuse to discharge a duty if they felt it violated their conscience.

Davis was jailed for five days in September for refusing to comply with a judge's order to issue the licenses in line with a U.S. Supreme Court ruling.

Congratulations, Spokane! Bishop Daly Heads North

Congratulations to the good Catholics of Spokane! Pope Francis has sent them a wonderful San Francisco boy: Bishop Thomas Daly. He is young, dynamic, orthodox, and fearless. While we in the Bay Area will miss him, it is good for the Church for him to be in charge of a diocese.

Congratulations, Spokane and congratulations, Bishop Daly!

Anti-Family, Anti-Catholic Activists hosted at Most Holy Redeemer

Today's California Catholic Daily reports on SF's Most Holy Redeemer Church's January 22 hosting of a town hall meeting for the LGBT political action group Equality California. The article is aptly titled "Is this a Catholic Church?"

Of all the anti-Catholic events hosted at MHR, and there have been many (drag show, obscene bingo, years of sado-masochistic gatherings, etc.) this is the most obscene and the most anti-Catholic. No group that MHR has hosted, not the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, or the S/m Golden Gate Guards or the Inter-Club Fund are worse than EQCA.

The meeting was sold as focusing on access to health care. But that took up only a small part of the meeting. The majority of the discussion covered Equality California's broadening political agenda. That political and legislative agenda is diametrically opposed to the Catholic Church, That agenda will also target individual Catholics and Christians who attempt to uphold the truth of the faith.

The transcripts of some of the items under discussion, taken from the California Catholic Daily article are reproduced below in red. The speaker is Executive Director Rick Zbur.

On EQCA's opposition to religious exemptions to laws that the Catholic Church and its members could not obey without violating their faith, the moderator asked: "Do you see some of these religious liberty laws they’ve tried to get started in other states over the last year or so? And they did have an effort in California that I don’t think went anywhere. Do you see this happening again in the legislative session, and if so will Equality California oppose that?"

“Well, we definitely would oppose it. You know, I haven’t heard very much about them doing that, I think they’re focus is on unraveling AB 1266, that’s what we we’re hearing their focus is, but in California I haven’t heard anything recently, but obviously we would oppose it. The thrust really though, I think is at the federal level with the version of ENDA that passed the Senate that included a broad religious exemption that we were very very uncomfortable about, and most of the LGBT organizations that weighed in expressed a lot of nervousness about the decision to pass it with that broad religious exemption, and so we’ve already spoken out against that. 

“I think the thing that makes me nervous is the fact that it passed with that version and we’ve got a lot of states now that I don’t think that the next phase of us earning civil rights protection is going to happen at the federal level with Republicans in control of both houses of Congress. It’s really going to happen, as it has in California, in the states that don’t have that. So I’m really nervous about this religious exemption being used to sort of weaken civil rights laws that pass in the states. So that’s, we’ll continue engaging on that where we see it.”

This means EQCA opposes an exemption for, say, a photographer or a baker who refuses to participate in a same-sex 'wedding.'  They will work to prevent a Catholic from being faithful to the Church. They are announcing this intention in what calls itself a Catholic Church.

Note that in his answer, Mr. Zbur brought up AB 1266. The California Catholic Bishops were very clear about that bill: "If signed into law by the governor, AB 1266 will require public schools to allow a child of any age 'to participate in sex-segregated school programs and activities, including athletic teams and competitions, and use facilities consistent with his or her gender identity, irrespective of the gender listed on the pupil’s records.'"

What the bill means is that if a second grade girl (who is biologically a female) decides she wants to be a boy, she can use the boys’ bathroom if she chooses. She can insist on being called 'he' instead of 'she'. If a twelve year old boy (who is biologically a male) self-identifies as a girl, he—or 'she'—must be allowed to play on the girls’ softball team and share the locker room with the girls.

Explain that to your eight or ten year old, or your six year old."

The moderator followed up: "You just mentioned AB 1266, which is the law that went into effect last January, that provides that all students have access to the same facilities [bathrooms], including transgender students too, athletics and other things too. What do you see in different parts of the state around implementing that and how can Equality California help with that. You did mention earlier you were working on some school issues." Zbur responded:

“We’ve been partnering with other LGBT organizations, not us alone. The ACLU, one of our partners, has been really taking a lot of leadership on this. For example, I think it’s next week we are participating in a pretty big convening meeting in the Coachella Valley in which I think there is something like 8 or 9 smaller school districts that the ACLU and Equality California are helping provide some training for members of the school district and administrators and the school board on AB 1266 implementation. 

“What we’re finding is implementation is spotty, that a lot of districts really don’t want to do it, that AB 1266 is one of those laws that there is a fair amount of controversy on. We saw a member of the California Assembly who lost re-election in Orange County and one of the key issues that was raised in her political campaign was the fact that she voted for AB 1266. So I think our opponents know that is an area where the public, where there is a lack of full understanding among the public. And they’re using that as a bit of a wedge issue.

“So we think that we need to really engage in education ahead of a potential ballot measure that they may very well try to put back on the ballot in the 2016 election cycle. They did try to gather signatures for 2014 and just fell short in gathering enough signatures to get on the ballot but we’re hearing that they are going to try again and so that’s an issue that we’ll be working on with the Transgender Law Center & the ACLU & National Center for Lesbian Rights and all of our partners”

AB 1266 is a vastly unpopular law, certainly opposed by a majority of Californians. As Zbur admits even "a lot of (public school) districts really don't want to do it." And we repeat: it was publicly opposed by the California Catholic Bishops. But EQCA announces, in what calls itself a Catholic Church, that, working with the ACLU, will be forcing compliance with this idiotic and immoral law in direct opposition to the Catholic Church.

EQCA's actions corrupt the minds of California's children by teaching them that it is simply their decision which determines whether they are a boy or a girl. But AB 1266 is not the only attack EQCA is making on children, the family, and reason in the public schools.  The moderator asked Mr. Zbur what EQCA's priorities were for the coming year. Zbur listed three, one of which was:

“We are talking to the ACLU about co-sponsoring a bill that would update sex-education criteria that are imposed in the schools, and there are requirements now that sex education programs in a very general way address and educate kids about the diversity of what a family looks like and because the standards are so general most school districts don’t really do what was intended by the existing legislation. So that the curriculum is being updated, the ACLU really wants more standards than that, so we’re really going to be focused on that as well.”

So the propaganda that goes under the name of 'sex education' in the public schools does not go far enough in Mr. Zbur's (or the ACLU's) opinion. To 'educate kids about the diversity of what a family looks like' is simply propaganda against the family, what Pope Francis himself called on January 16 the 'new ideological colonization that tries to destroy the family.'

Once again, Zbur announces that he will attack the fundamental teaching of the Church (exemplified by Pope Francis words) on the reality of man and woman and the family. Once again he announces his attack on the faith, (and the Pope), in what calls itself a Catholic Church.

Mr. Zbur is also seeking clerical allies in castrating the Churches. (He has two--two priest were in attendance at the meeting, probably Frs. McClure and Link of MHR). He unveiled EQCA's 'Faith Initiative'--apparently made public for the first time, at Most Holy Redeemer.

The moderator asked: "I know that when we talked you had mentioned something about Equality California planning a faith initiative. What would that entail?"

Mr. Zbur: “So we’ll be announcing the details, but I’ll give you a little bit of a preview. We’ve been in discussions with a group of faith leaders throughout the state who’ve actually already been engaging in work to both educate and outreach to the faith communities about the LGBT community and to advance LGBT equality and acceptance in the faith community, talking with them about providing a home and support for that and part of their ministry. 

“The group of faith leaders are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, includes a large group or them, so for us it recognizes the fact that some of achieving our goal of full acceptance of LGBT people will require us I think to have more outreach and education within faith communities and so that’s a priority for us and we are hoping that this new initiative is completed, but we’re hoping soon to announce the details of the faith initiative that is sort of really aimed at more outreach in the faith communities in California. 

“I think that other than that what makes me really excited is that you look at where the opponents of full equality are coming from, they’re using faith based arguments and religious exemptions to try and carve away the legal rights that we have already earned here in California and in other parts of the country, so having a group of faith leaders who are standing with us in our fight for full equality and acceptance, I think will be something that’s going to be important for us all as we engage in the political advocacy that we need and in the public education to sort of protect the rights that we have already earned.”

Equality California is at war with the Catholic Church. Inexplicably, the Archdiocese of San Francisco provided them with a beachhead. That Most Holy Redeemer would provide aid and comfort to the enemies of the Church will surprise no one who has been paying attention. As far back as August 28, 2007, in the post 'MHR and how it got that way,'  I argued that, existentially, Most Holy Redeemer is not a Catholic Church, it is a gay spiritual institution. I wrote at that time:

"The moral credibility of the Catholic Church, then, will be determined (by the members of MHR) by the extent to which it supports, or fails to support, the community-forming experience of the gay community. If...the sexuality is experienced as more important than the doctrines of the Catholic Church, one would expect the doctrines of the Church to be discarded when they come into conflict with the community-forming experience. And this is exactly what happens...And this leads to the acceptance of blasphemy in an ostensibly Catholic Church. But such events will not be experienced by the parishioners as blasphemous, because they validate the community-forming experience...Indeed, at this point, what will be experienced by the parishioners as blasphemous is that which denies the value of the community-forming experience." Such as the teaching that marriage is only between one man and one woman.

I also wrote at that time that the fault does not lie with MHR but with the Archdiocese.

Holy Father Condemns Gay 'Marriages' as effort to 'destroy the family'

Today the Supreme Court decided it will hear another same-sex "marriage" case. The news comes on the same day that Pope Francis has once again condemned "gay marriage."

Photo: Alan Holdren, Catholic News Agency

Catholic News Agency reports on the Holy Father's words in the Philippines:

"Remarking on Pope Francis' strong words against the threats which 'ideological colonization' poses to the family, the Vatican's spokesman told journalists Friday that same-sex marriage falls within this category.

In an  address to more than 1,000 Filipino families in Manila on Jan. 16, Pope Francis decried the 'new ideological colonization that tries to destroy the family.'

The Pope also warned against increasing efforts 'to redefine the very institution of marriage, by relativism, by the culture of the ephemeral, by a lack of openness to life.'

The Holy Father made similar statements in defense of marriage earlier in the day, as he said Mass in Manila's cathedral: 'Proclaim the beauty and truth of the Christian message to a society which is tempted by confusing presentations of sexuality, marriage and the family.'”

Later, Father Federico Lombardi, the head of the Vatican's press office elaborating on the Holy Father's words  "confirmed to  journalists that this 'colonization' of which Pope Francis spoke refers in part to gay marriage.

'I think that it is well-known that the perspective of the Church about the family is that the family is based on the union of the marriage of a man and a woman.'

For Catholics, the family is 'the union of the man and the woman, and the children that come from this union,' the spokesman added. 'If there are persons that desire to have community in other ways… this is not for us a family.'"

We pray our Supreme Court does not join those attempting to destroy the family.

Great News! Papal Nuncio to bring message from Pope Francis to Walk for Life West Coast!

Valerie Schmalz has the story in today's Catholic San Francisco:

Papal nuncio to bring message from Pope Francis to Walk for Life Jan. 24

January 14th, 2015
By Valerie Schmalz

The pope’s diplomatic representative to the U.S. will read a message of support from Pope Francis at the Walk for Life West Coast Jan. 24.

Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, apostolic nuncio to the United States, will attend the Walk for Life this year, according to the office of San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore J. Cordileone.

“What an honor! We are so excited—this is the next best thing to having the Holy Father himself with us!” said Eva Muntean, a co-founder of the walk. Archbishop Viganò, appointed on Oct. 19, 2011, the feast of the North American Martyrs, is the 14th papal representative to the United States. The diplomatic post was established in 1893.

Archbishop Viganò will read Pope Francis’ greeting, said Karen McLaughlin, executive assistant to Archbishop Cordileone.

Pope Francis also sent greetings to the Walk for Life in 2014. Archbishop Viganò first attended the walk in 2013 where he told participants: “You can’t imagine how happy I am to be here with you today. To see so many people love life … You are the best of the United States of America!” 

Read the whole thing.

For all information about the Walk, visit http://www.walkforlifewc.com/

Catastrophic Catholic Fall-Off in Latin America

Yesterday, Pew Research released a new study which documents the catastrophic fall-off among Catholics in Latin America (via Rorate):

Latin America is home to more than 425 million Catholics – nearly 40% of the world’s total Catholic population – and the Roman Catholic Church now has a Latin American pope for the first time in its history. Yet identification with Catholicism has declined throughout the region, according to a major new Pew Research Center survey that examines religious affiliations, beliefs and practices in 18 countries and one U.S. territory (Puerto Rico) across Latin America and the Caribbean.

Historical data suggest that for most of the 20th century, from 1900 through the 1960s, at least 90% of Latin America’s population was Catholic (See History of Religious Change). Today, the Pew Research survey shows, 69% of adults across the region identify as Catholic. Emphasis added.

The worst fall off is in Honduras, where, since 1970, Catholics have fallen from 94% to 46% of the population. Honduras is home to our Salesian Cardinal Rodriguez Maradiaga. His Eminence has been a bishop in Tegucigalpa, Honduras' capitol, since 1978. If he is not already, he needs to do some reflecting on why this is happening. The author at Rorate opines that the falling away is the result of the Second Vatican Council. I think that is right. He also notes that while the increase in secularism during that time "...would explain the collapse in Western Europe, North America, and Australia. But in Latin America (where the current pope studied to be a priest during the 1960s, being ordained in December 1969), what happened instead during the same period was an intense religious revival."

Except it was not a Catholic revival, but one among the various Protestant denominations. The fall-off is not from religion, but from whatever it is that the Church in Latin America is offering. Reflection and soul-searching are in order--that is, if the Latin American hierarchy considers this to be a problem. If they don't consider this to be a problem, that is a real problem.

"Everyone has to undergo his own exodus"

From Pope Benedict:

"When it comes down to it, everyone has to undergo his own exodus.  He not only has to leave the place that nurtured him and become independent, but has to come out of his own reserved self.  He must leave himself behind, transcend his own limits; only then will he reach the Promised Land, so to speak — the sphere of freedom, in which he plays his part in creation.


We have come to recognize this fundamental law of transcendence as being the essence of love..."

Pope Benedict XVI. "Transcendence vs. Isolation." from God and the World: Believing and Living in Our Time (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 2002).

Posted on Catholic Education Resource Center.

Pope Francis: The Devil Wants to Destroy the Family

All on the same page...

In our last post, Bishop Paul Loverde quoted Pope Francis on the defense of marriage and the family. And here is what the Holy Father said on June 1 to 52,000 Catholics in Rome, from Vatican Insider:

Francis at Rome’s Olympic Stadium: “The devil wants to destroy the family”

"'Married couples are sinners just like everyone else, but they want to continue with love, in all its fecundity. They continue in the faith, bearing children.' This was Francis’ response to the words pronounced by a young bride who greeted Francis on behalf of all families. 'Let us pray to the Lord and ask him to protect the family in the crisis with which the devil wants to destroy it,' the Pope said. 'Families are the domestic church where Jesus grows in the love of a married couple, in the lives of their children. This is why the devil attacks the family so much,' Francis explained. The devil doesn’t want it and tries to destroy it. The devil tries to make love disappear from there.'”

The family is the image of the Blessed Trinity. We've all heard that at many homilies. That's why the devil hates it so much. He can't do anything about the Trinity, so he tries to destroy it's image, the family. And Pope Francis has been very clear from the beginning on the demonic nature of counterfeit, same-sex "marriage." Remember what he said in 2010, when same-sex "marriage" was being debated in Argentina:

"In the coming weeks, the Argentine people will face a situation whose outcome can seriously harm the family…At stake is the identity and survival of the family: father, mother and children. At stake are the lives of many children who will be discriminated against in advance, and deprived of their human development given by a father and a mother and willed by God. At stake is the total rejection of God’s law engraved in our hearts.”

Cardinal Bergoglio continued: “Let us not be naive: this is not simply a political struggle, but it is an attempt to destroy God’s plan. It is not just a bill (a mere instrument) but a ‘move’ of the father of lies who seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God.”

People don't like to hear that, it hurts, but it is true, despite those who have attempted to spin his "who am I to judge" statement. Let's also remember that in 2009, a year before then-Cardinal Bergoglio's statement our own good Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone (then-Bishop of Oakland) said:

"'The ultimate attack of the Evil One is the attack on marriage,' he said. 'If you take marriage apart, everything comes unraveled. It's been frayed at the edges, and now moving more and more toward the center. But you take marriage out, it all comes unraveled. It all comes tumbling down. And again, the evangelicals, they understand that. They understand this is an attack of the Evil One at the core institution.'"

Pope Francis, Archbishop Cordileone, Bishop Loverde, Archbishop Chaput, Bishop Paprocki...they're all on the same page.

CDF Cracks Down on LCWR

And about time. Fr. Z reports that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has laid the smackdown on the Leadership Conference of Women Religious.

The letter, from Cardinal Gerhard Muller, is excellent. We have reproduced it in full. All emphases are ours. Today, there are in the Church groups of people whose highest synthesizing orientation is not Catholicism--as his Eminence says, in the context of the LCWR, "religious moving beyond the Church or even beyond Jesus."  We discussed exactly this attitude  (or tried to) in our 2007 review of Fr. Donal Godfrey's book Gays and Grays.


Meeting of the Superiors of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
with the Presidency of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious(LCWR)

April 30, 2014

Opening Remarks
By Cardinal Gerhard Müller

I am happy to welcome once again the Presidency of the LCWR to Rome and to the Congregation. It is a happy occasion that your visit coincides with the Canonization of Pope John Paul II and Pope John XXIII, two great figures important for the Church in our times. I am grateful as well for the presence and participation of the Delegate for the implementation of the LCWR Doctrinal Assessment, Archbishop Peter Sartain.

As in past meetings, I would like to begin by making some introductory observations which I believe will be a helpful way of framing our discussion.

First, I would like to acknowledge with gratitude the progress that has been made in the implementation of the Doctrinal Assessment. Archbishop Sartain has kept the Congregation appraised on the work regarding the revision of the LCWR Statutes and civil by-laws. We are glad to see that work continue and remain particularly interested that these foundational documents reflect more explicitly the mission of a Conference of Major Superiors as something centered on Jesus Christ and grounded in the Church’s teaching about Consecrated Life. For that collaboration, I thank you.

Two further introductory comments I would like to frame around what could be called objections to the Doctrinal Assessment raised by your predecessors during past meetings here at the Congregation and in public statements by LCWR officers. We are aware that, from the beginning, LCWR Officers judged the Doctrinal Assessment to be “flawed and the findings based on unsubstantiated accusations” and that the so-called “sanctions” were “disproportionate to the concerns raised and compromised the organization’s ability to fulfill its mission.” This principal objection, I note, was repeated most recently in the preface of the collection of LCWR Presidential Addresses you have just published. It is my intention in discussing these things frankly and openly with you to offer an explanation of why it is that we believe the conclusions of the Doctrinal Assessment are accurate and the path of reform it lays before the LCWR remains necessary so that religious life might continue to flourish in the United States.

Let me begin with the notion of “disproportionate sanctions.” One of the more contentious aspects of the Mandate—though one that has not yet been put into force—is the provision that speakers and presenters at major programs will be subject to approval by the Delegate. This provision has been portrayed as heavy-handed interference in the day-to-day activities of the Conference. For its part, the Holy See would not understand this as a “sanction,” but rather as a point of dialogue and discernment. It allows the Holy See’s Delegate to be involved in the discussion first of all in order to avoid difficult and embarrassing situations wherein speakers use an LCWR forum to advance positions at odds with the teaching of the Church. Further, this is meant as an assistance to you, the Presidency, so as to anticipate better the issues that will further complicate the relationship of the LCWR with the Holy See.

An example may help at this point. It saddens me to learn that you have decided to give the Outstanding Leadership Award during this year’s Assembly to a theologian criticized by the Bishops of the United States because of the gravity of the doctrinal errors in that theologian’s writings. This is a decision that will be seen as a rather open provocation against the Holy See and the Doctrinal Assessment. Not only that, but it further alienates the LCWR from the Bishops as well.

I realize I am speaking rather bluntly about this, but I do so out of an awareness that there is no other interpretive lens, within and outside the Church, through which the decision to confer this honor will be viewed. It is my understanding that Archbishop Sartain was informed of the selection of the honoree only after the decision had been made. Had he been involved in the conversation as the Mandate envisions, I am confident that he would have added an important element to the discernment which then may have gone in a different direction. The decision taken by the LCWR during the ongoing implementation of the Doctrinal Assessment is indeed regrettable and demonstrates clearly the necessity of the Mandate’s provision that speakers and presenters at major programs will be subject to approval by the Delegate. I must therefore inform you that this provision is to be considered fully in force. I do understand that the selection of honorees results from a process, but this case suggests that the process is itself in need of reexamination. I also understand that plans for this year’s Assembly are already at a very advanced stage and I do not see the need to interrupt them. However, following the August Assembly, it will be the expectation of the Holy See that Archbishop Sartain have an active role in the discussion about invited speakers and honorees.

Let me address a second objection, namely that the findings of the Doctrinal Assessment are unsubstantiated. The phrase in the Doctrinal Assessment most often cited as overreaching or unsubstantiated is when it talks about religious moving beyond the Church or even beyond Jesus. Yes, this is hard language and I can imagine it sounded harsh in the ears of thousands of faithful religious. I regret that, because the last thing in the world the Congregation would want to do is call into question the eloquent, even prophetic witness of so many faithful religious women. And yet, the issues raised in the Assessment are so central and so foundational, there is no other way of discussing them except as constituting a movement away from the ecclesial center of faith in Christ Jesus the Lord.

For the last several years, the Congregation has been following with increasing concern a focalizing of attention within the LCWR around the concept of Conscious Evolution. Since Barbara Marx Hubbard addressed the Assembly on this topic two years ago, every issue of your newsletter has discussed Conscious Evolution in some way. Issues of Occasional Papers have been devoted to it. We have even seen some religious Institutes modify their directional statements to incorporate concepts and undeveloped terms from Conscious Evolution.

Again, I apologize if this seems blunt, but what I must say is too important to dress up in flowery language. The fundamental theses of Conscious Evolution are opposed to Christian Revelation and, when taken unreflectively, lead almost necessarily to fundamental errors regarding the omnipotence of God, the Incarnation of Christ, the reality of Original Sin, the necessity of salvation and the definitive nature of the salvific action of Christ in the Paschal Mystery.

My concern is whether such an intense focus on new ideas such as Conscious Evolution has robbed religious of the ability truly to sentire cum Ecclesia. To phrase it as a question, do the many religious listening to addresses on this topic or reading expositions of it even hear the divergences from the Christian faith present?

This concern is even deeper than the Doctrinal Assessment’s criticism of the LCWR for not providing a counter-point during presentations and Assemblies when speakers diverge from Church teaching. The Assessment is concerned with positive errors of doctrine seen in the light of the LCWR’s responsibility to support a vision of religious life in harmony with that of the Church and to promote a solid doctrinal basis for religious life. I am worried that the uncritical acceptance of things such as Conscious Evolution seemingly without any awareness that it offers a vision of God, the cosmos, and the human person divergent from or opposed to Revelation evidences that a de facto movement beyond the Church and sound Christian faith has already occurred.

I do not think I overstate the point when I say that the futuristic ideas advanced by the proponents of Conscious Evolution are not actually new. The Gnostic tradition is filled with similar affirmations and we have seen again and again in the history of the Church the tragic results of partaking of this bitter fruit. Conscious Evolution does not offer anything which will nourish religious life as a privileged and prophetic witness rooted in Christ revealing divine love to a wounded world. It does not present the treasure beyond price for which new generations of young women will leave all to follow Christ. The Gospel does! Selfless service to the poor and marginalized in the name of Jesus Christ does!

It is in this context that we can understand Pope Francis’ remarks to the Plenary Assembly of the International Union of Superiors General in May of 2013. What the Holy Father proposes is a vision of religious life and particularly of the role of conferences of major superiors which in many ways is a positive articulation of issues which come across as concerns in the Doctrinal Assessment. I urge you to reread the Holy Father’s remarks and to make them a point of discussion with members of your Board as well.

I have raised several points in these remarks, so I will stop here. I owe an incalculable debt to the women religious who have long been a part of my life. They were the ones who instilled in me a love for the Lord and for the Church and encouraged me to follow the vocation to which the Lord was calling me. The things I have said today are therefore born of great love. The Holy See and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith deeply desire religious life to thrive and that the LCWR will be an effective instrument supporting its growth. In the end, the point is this: the Holy See believes that the charismatic vitality of religious life can only flourish within the ecclesial faith of the Church. The LCWR, as a canonical entity dependent on the Holy See, has a profound obligation to the promotion of that faith as the essential foundation of religious life. Canonical status and ecclesial vision go hand-in-hand, and at this phase of the implementation of the Doctrinal Assessment, we are looking for a clearer expression of that ecclesial vision and more substantive signs of collaboration.

Will the Holy Father be called a bigot? You bet.

By the disordered standards of this day and time, the Holy Father is a bigot. Why? Because he thinks it best that a child be raised by a mother and a father:

"Pope Francis also spoke about the importance of defending children's right 'to grow in a family with a mother and father able to create a healthy environment for their growth and affective maturity,' which includes 'maturing in relationship to the masculinity and femininity of a father and a mother.'"

It's called reality. His Holiness also took aim at the indoctrination of children in government run (and, scandalously "Catholic") schools:

"Parents have a right to determine the appropriate 'moral and religious education' of their children, he said, and should not be subject to school curriculums that are thinly veiled courses of indoctrination into whatever ideology is strongest at the moment.

The pope said he wonders sometimes whether parents are 'sending a child to school or to a re-education camp' like those run by dictatorial governments."

I don't think he really "wonders" if that's the case. He knows it is, he's just choosing a nice way to say it.

He also reiterated Catholic/Natural Law teaching on abortion, calling it an unspeakable crime:

"Pope Francis on Friday reiterated human life is sacred and inviolable during a meeting with Italy’s Pro-Life Movement (Movimento per la Vita), adding every civil right is based on the 'first and most fundamental right,' the right to life: which is not subordinate to any condition, neither qualitative, nor economic, much less ideological.

The Holy Father said one of the most serious risks of the present age is the divorce between economics and morality, so that as the market gives us every technical innovation, it neglects more and more elementary ethical standards.

'It is must be therefore reiterated the strongest opposition to any direct attack on life, especially innocent and defenseless life, and the unborn child in the womb is the most concrete example of innocence,' said Pope Francis. 'Let us remember the words of the Second Vatican Council: From the moment of its conception, life must be guarded with the greatest care while abortion and infanticide are unspeakable crimes.' ( Gaudium et Spes, 51).

Pope Francis on Marriage, Dictatorship of Relativism

Speaking of good news (and good Jesuits), our Holy Father Pope Francis recently hosted a group of Bishops from Poland. Catholic World News reports on the visit (excerpts):

"The Pope said reports from the Polish bishops had included many positive reflections on the life of the Church in that country. But there was also 'a certain decline in various aspects of Christian life,' he said. One major cause of that decline, the Pope continued, is 'the idea of freedom without limits, hostile tolerance or indeed distrust of the truth, or resistance to the Church's legitimate opposition to dominant relativism.' He encouraged the bishops to combat that tendency vigorously.

His Holiness sounds as if he is channeling our good Pope-Emeritus Benedict on the "dictatorship of relativism" but of course he's not channeling anybody, just giving eternal Church teaching.

"Turning next to marriage and family life, the Pontiff observed with regret that 'nowadays marriage tends to be viewed as a form of mere emotional satisfaction that can be constructed in any way or modified at will.' That attitude has infected Christians, he said, and resulted in a decline of marital unity. He urged the bishops to oppose this tendency, too, particularly by better preparation of young people entering marriage. At the same time he asked them to make extra efforts to provide pastoral care for those who are separated or divorced, 'so that they are not excluded from God’s mercy.'”

Same-sex "marriage" is not the only variety of counterfeit marriage going around. Marriage conceived as a  "form of mere emotional satisfaction that can be constructed in any way or modified at will" is certainly not restricted to, nor did it originate with, same-sex attracted persons. It was that attitude among sexually normal people which made same-sex "marriage" thinkable.

“Massive and Diverse”...Walk for Life West Coast Continues to Grow

On Saturday, January 25, the 10th Annual Walk for Life West Coast was held at San Francisco’s Civic Center Plaza. The event, the second-largest pro-life event in the United States, was the biggest yet. Life News headlined its coverage “60,000 pro-lifers line the Streets of San Francisco During West Coast Walk for Life.” Although organizers of the Walk did not give a numerical estimate of attendance, co-chair Eva Muntean said "We are so proud to have the largest number of people and the largest number of youth showing the pro-life face of the West Coast.” The Associated Press reported “San Francisco police did not immediately provide an official crowd estimate, but at one point marchers stretched across more than a mile of Market Street, the liberal city’s main thoroughfare.”

One photo of the Walk (below) was taken from a high-rise building in the area of Civic Center Plaza and posted on the San Jose Mercury News “social media reaction” page. It showed two city blocks around the plaza still densely packed with those waiting to start, while the body of the Walk stretched beyond visual range down Market Street towards the Walk’s end at the Ferry Building.

The day began with 17 Catholic Bishops joining San Francisco’s Archbishop Salvatore in concelebrating a special Mass at 9:30 AM at St. Mary’s Cathedral. The cathedral was filled to overflowing. At the pre-Walk rally, speakers included "October Baby" actress Shari Rigby, Lamb of God Maternity Home founder Grace Dulaney, and Monica Snyder of Secular Pro-Life. Ms. Snyder, introduced by Fr. Frank Pavone of Priests for Life, said “This is a debate about life and death. When you peel away the glossy wrappers, the pro-choice movement is about death." The final speaker was Walk for Life West Coast mainstay the Reverend Clenard Childress, Director of LEARN and founder of Blackgenocide.org, who told the crowd, by then overflowing the Plaza: “Never surrender conscience, even if the state demands it. This walk sends a message to the state, to the government, to Washington, D.C.—I will not surrender conscience."

In honor of the Walk’s 10th Anniversary, nineteen speakers from previous years were in attendance, including Father Pavone, former Planned Parenthood director Abby Johnson, Frank Lee of Asian Americans Pro-Life, and San Francisco Hispanic pro-life activist Alfredo Abarca.

San Francisco's Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone read a letter from Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, the Papal Ambassador to the United States, sending "the affectionate greetings and spiritual closeness of Pope Francis" and continuing "Indeed, the Holy Father is most grateful to you for your readiness to show solidarity with the most innocent and vulnerable members of the human family."

In an effort to pull and end-run around the media’s habitual failure to give the Walk the coverage its magnitude deserves, organizers decided this year to launch a twitter campaign in the week before the Walk to “End the Media Blackout.” The idea, well-tailored to the Walk’s youthful demographic, was the brainchild of a young employee at the Archdiocese. Joanna Dasteel reported in LifeSiteNews: “So this year, when 50,000 smart-phone-toting pro-life activists descend upon the city, organizers will be asking them to tweet pictures of the events with the official event hashtag #WalkForLife and to include @CNN, @FoxNews, @USAToday, and local news outlets @sfchronicle, @abc7newsBayArea, @nbcbayarea, and @KTVU.”

The campaign may have worked. On the morning of the Walk, the Associated Press ran a wire service story about the event, and followed that with another from the Walk, quoted above. The wire service story was picked up by ABC News, NBC News, NPR, Yahoo News, the Washington Post, and scores of other outlets. From the story: “A massive and diverse crowd of protesters rallied in front of City Hall before marching down Market Street to Justin Herman Plaza for the 10th annual ‘Walk for Life West Coast’…San Francisco police did not immediately provide an official crowd estimate, but at one point marchers stretched across more than a mile of Market Street, the liberal city’s main thoroughfare.” The San Francisco Chronicle picked up the AP story, but its own coverage of this major event in its own city consisted of a large photograph with a caption.

This year’s Walk was enlivened by the response of San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors to the Walk’s “Abortion Hurts Women” banners which lined Market Street in the month prior to the event. A pro-abortion group had labeled the banners “hate speech” and asked San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee to have them removed. He declined, citing the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. However, on January 14, the Board introduced a resolution in opposition to the banners. But the Board may have bitten off more than they could chew. Their action gained national attention, and even the Chronicle expressed opposition to the resolution. The ensuing publicity did nothing to harm the Walk.

The weekend of the Walk has turned into one of the busiest Catholic weekends of the year in the Bay Area. Special masses in both the Novus Ordo and Extraordinary Form were celebrated, special adoration vigils observed. There was also a youth rally with the Sisters of Life, the Law of Life Legal Summit, a training session for sidewalk counselors, and the first ever West Coast Students for Life Conference held at the Cathedral.

The Walk began in 2005 with 7,500 participants. It seems to be growing at about 15-20% annually. A writer at the New Feminism blog commented “The air literally sizzled with joy, happiness and gratitude.” Walk co-chair Dolores Meehan had a similar take: "It's great to see so many joyous people bringing love and peace to the streets of the city of St. Francis."

Some “Obsession” required: Hispanic abortion rate shows more episcopal leadership needed

On September 19, 2013, the New York Times reported that Pope Francis, the first Hispanic Pope, had said “that the church had grown 'obsessed' with abortion.” On December 4, 2013 Life News reported on the latest abortion statistics from the Center for Disease Control. The article began with “good” news—3% fewer children were killed in 2010 than were in 2009, but noted the astronomical rates in the Black and Hispanic communities:

"The new report from the Centers for Disease Control had good numbers across the nation when it came to abortion — with abortions declining three percent in 2010 after a five percent decrease in 2009. But they also contained shocking figures showing abortion targets blacks and Hispanics.

The CDC Abortion Surveillance Report dated November 29, 2013 reveals that in 2010, 56.7% of abortions reported to the CDC nationwide were done on Hispanic and Black women.

According to the report, there were 415,479 abortions for known ethnicity reported for selected states in 2010 and 153,045 (or 36.8 percent) were non-Hispanic white babies, 148,261 (or 35.7 percent) were non-Hispanic black babies, 87,240 (or 21.0 percent) were Hispanic babies, and 26,933 (or 6.5 percent) were babies of other races or ethnicities.”

According to the 2010 census, Hispanics comprise 16.3% of the U.S. population. The 21% of US abortions that are Hispanic babies thus significantly exceeds the Hispanic percentage of the population. Since most Hispanics identify as Catholic, this indicates a serious lack of catechesis. In the African-American community, which has been targeted by Planned Parenthood from that organization’s beginning, Protestant clergy such as California’s own Pastor Walter Hoye and the Reverend Clenard Childress of New Jersey have devoted their lives to fighting the nightmarish rate of black abortion. As the same trends are now afflicting the Hispanic communities, equivalent leadership in that community is needed.

One does not need to look far to see Hispanic Catholic clergy whose available resources (except for courage and determination) dwarf those of men like Hoye and Childress. I refer to the Hispanic Bishops. In California such men include the newly-elected leader of the California Catholic Conference, Bishop Jaime Soto of Sacramento; Bishop Rutilio del Riego of San Bernardino; and above all, Archbishop Jose Gomez of Los Angeles, by far the largest Catholic Archdiocese in the country. There is no question about these Bishops’ pro-life beliefs: they have led pro-life vigils, attended 40 Days For Life events, and del Riego and Soto have been annual attendees at San Francisco’s Walk for Life West Coast. But as the numbers of Hispanic babies being killed shows, a far more systematic, day-to-day, and inflexible approach is needed, and needed now. Planned Parenthood, for one, is not waiting. According to the U.S. Census, San Francisco's population in 1990 was 10.9% African Americans and 13.3% Hispanic. By 2010 those numbers had shifted to 6.1% African American and 15.1% Hispanic. In 2011 Planned Parenthood Golden closed their abortion business on Eddy Street, right on the edge of one of the largest concentration of African Americans in the city and re-opened on Valencia Street, right on the edge of the largest concentration of Hispanics in the city.

“Obsession” over abortion is mandatory. If one accepts the Catholic teaching that murder is wrong, coupled with the scientific fact that each human life begins at conception, to not be “obsessed” at legal abortion is to be irrational, immoral, and anti-Christian.

Pope Francis on an Ethical Approach to Economics

In the first Apostolic Exhortation of his Pontificate, “Evangelii Gaudium” (Joy of the Gospel), Pope Francis writes about a just economy. His thoughts included this:

“54. In this context, some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about great­er justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system. ..” Emphases added.

I think that is correct, and well in line with what previous Popes have said, especially with the qualification "inevitably" properly understood. But what do we do about it? The Holy Father, quite rightly, does not offer specifics. Four sections later he writes

“58. A financial reform open to such ethical considerations would require a vigorous change of approach on the part of political leaders. I urge them to face this challenge with determi­nation and an eye to the future, while not ignor­ing, of course, the specifics of each case. Money must serve, not rule! The Pope loves everyone, rich and poor alike, but he is obliged in the name of Christ to remind all that the rich must help, respect and promote the poor. I exhort you to generous solidarity and to the return of econom­ics and finance to an ethical approach which fa­vours human beings.”

Certainly. But the practical question of how we get to this “ethical approach” remains. The Holy Father is “urging…political leaders… to face this challenge.” That the state should guard the interests of the people is correct. But how do you do that without unfettering the government? Who guards the guardians? Let’s remember the Holy Fathers warning against having “a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic (read: political) power.” It’s the oldest conundrum in political philosophy: Who fetters the fetterers?

The scandal of “capitalism” is that, economically, it seems to work. An economic system that encourages men to look after number one, has managed, in spite of itself, to produce a surplus of goods. That these goods are not always distributed justly is another question—and it is the one that concerns the Holy Father--but the surplus is created. One problem, for a Christian, is that an economic system that encourages men to look after number one is quite likely to encourage behaviors that can prevent people from going to Heaven. And the related conundrum for the Church is: an economic system that is quite likely to prevent at least some people from going to Heaven also seems to be the best available means for enacting the “preferential option for the poor”—if by that is meant moving the poor out of material poverty. Before you can give to the poor, you need to have something to give. Despite what the Holy Father wrote, the argument that a “capitalist” economy produces more and better goods than a “socialist” economy seems to me to be empirically verifiable. “Capitalism” although with the enormous glaring flaw just described, seems to work, economically, while “Socialism,” beautifully moral in principle, does not. There is also no evidence that socialism, theoretically moral though it may be, produces more morally upright people. To believe so, to paraphrase the Holy Father, would require “a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic (read: political) power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic (read: political) system.” The crimes of socialist regimes when in power: the U.S.S.R., China, the Third Reich, Cambodia are to well known to need repeating.

Towards the beginning of his essay on Charles Dickens, George Orwell writes “…Nadezhda Krupskaya, in her little book on Lenin, relates that towards the end of his life Lenin went to see a dramatized version of The Cricket on the Hearth, and found Dickens's 'middle-class sentimentality' so intolerable that he walked out in the middle of a scene.” A little further on, Orwell gives a hint as to why a man like Lenin would find Dickens intolerable “The truth is that Dickens's criticism of society is almost exclusively moral. Hence the utter lack of any constructive suggestion anywhere in his work. He attacks the law, parliamentary government, the educational system and so forth, without ever clearly suggesting what he would put in their places…There is no clear sign that he wants the existing order to be overthrown, or that he believes it would make very much difference if it WERE overthrown. For in reality his target is not so much society as 'human nature'. It would be difficult to point anywhere in his books to a passage suggesting that the economic system is wrong AS A SYSTEM. Nowhere, for instance, does he make any attack on private enterprise or private property… His whole 'message' is one that at first glance looks like an enormous platitude: If men would behave decently the world would be decent.” Emphases in the original.

Pages later, after describing the horrors of industrial age England, Orwell writes that there is always a new tyrant waiting to take over from the old tyrant, and comes to the conclusion “The central problem–how to prevent power from being abused–remains unsolved. Dickens, who had not the vision to see that private property is an obstructive nuisance, had the vision to see that. 'If men would behave decently the world would be decent' is not such a platitude as it sounds.’” Emphasis added.

So we’re back to where we started, where Plato started where Juvenal started: How do we get men to behave decently without exchanging one set of fetters for another, fetters more permanent because claiming justification and the right to use force from the will of the people. There is not a systemic solution to this, not a capitalist solution, not a socialist solution, because it is a problem at the level of the person. Engaging that problem, the problem of you and me, is exactly the job of the Church.

"It is not “progressive” to try to resolve problems by eliminating a human life"

In the first Apostolic Exhortation of his Pontificate, “Evangelii Gaudium” (Joy of the Gospel, Pope Francis writes about abortion:

"Among the vulnerable for whom the Church wishes to care with particular love and concern are unborn children, the most defenceless and innocent among us. Nowadays efforts are made to deny them their human dignity and to do with them whatever one pleases, taking their lives and passing laws preventing anyone from standing in the way of this. Frequently, as a way of ridiculing the Church’s effort to defend their lives, attempts are made to present her position as ideological, obscurantist and conservative. Yet this defence of unborn life is closely linked to the defence of each and every other human right. It involves the conviction that a human being is always sacred and inviolable, in any situation and at every stage of development. Human beings are ends in themselves and never a means of resolving other problems. Once this conviction disappears, so do solid and lasting foundations for the defence of human rights, which would always be subject to the passing whims of the powers that be. Reason alone is sufficient to recognize the inviolable value of each single human life, but if we also look at the issue from the standpoint of faith, “every violation of the personal dignity of the human being cries out in vengeance to God and is an offence against the creator of the individual”.

Precisely because this involves the internal consistency of our message about the value of the human person, the Church cannot be expected to change her position on this question. I want to be completely honest in this regard. This is not something subject to alleged reforms or “modernizations”. It is not “progressive” to try to resolve problems by eliminating a human life. On the other hand, it is also true that we have done little to adequately accompany women in very difficult situations, where abortion appears as a quick solution to their profound anguish, especially when the life developing within them is the result of rape or a situation of extreme poverty. Who can remain unmoved before such painful situations?"

Pope Francis, Archbishop Cordileone, and Michael Sean Winters

 National Catholic Reporter blogger deliberately misinforms

On Monday, November 11, at the General Assembly of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone of San Francisco spoke to the press. His Excellency chairs the USCCB’s Subcommittee on the Promotion and Defense of Marriage. His Excellency lamented the recent Supreme Court decision on DOMA, and its lack of a decision on the Proposition 8 case. About Proposition 8 he noted the abdication of responsibility, when it suits them, by public officials charged with enforcing laws: "Increasingly we are witnessing public officials placing their opinions over the laws they are charged to Defend…In the area of marriage this has happened in a striking way with DOMA, Proposition 8, and in other jurisdictions with respect to marriage laws."

The Archbishop’s statement provoked a response by Michael Sean Winters, of the National Catholic Reporter. Mr. Winters wrote:

“The Church is a big ship, and she does not turn quickly. So, perhaps it would be expecting too much for the bishops to get with a new program too quickly. This morning, Archbishop Vigano said, "he [the pope] made a special point of saying that he wants 'pastoral' bishops, not bishops who profess or follow a particular ideology." Now, I am listening to Archbishop Sal Cordileone discuss the "defense of marriage. It is not clear to me why the archbishop thinks it is vital that photography studios be able to discriminate against gay couples. His reading of the politicallandscape if even more strange. +Cordileone is still at the barricades in the culture wars. This summer the pope, when asked about a gay monsignor, said, ‘who am I to judge?’ This was widely reported. Apparently, albeit unreported, the Holy Father intended to leave judgment to +Cordileone.”

Since the subject under discussion was same-sex “marriage” it might first be instructive to compare the positions of Archbishop Cordileone and the Holy Father on the issue. In 2009, Archbishop Cordileone told the East Bay Express:

"The ultimate attack of the Evil One is the attack on marriage," he said. "If you take marriage apart, everything comes unraveled. It's been frayed at the edges, and now moving more and more toward the center. But you take marriage out, it all comes unraveled. It all comes tumbling down. And again, the evangelicals, they understand that. They understand this is an attack of the Evil One at the core institution."

The next year, 2010, when faced with a similar situation, legislation for same-sex “marriage” in Argentina, the Holy Father, then-Cardinal Bergoglio, said:

“Let us not be naive: this is not simply a political struggle, but it is an attempt to destroy God’s plan. It is not just a bill (a mere instrument) but a ‘move’ of the father of lies who seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God.”

Far from being at odds, it sounds like Cardinal Bergoglio was channeling the recent statement of Bishop Cordileone. In fact, both prelates were repeating the teaching of the Church.

Mr. Winters then offers the conventional and deliberate misunderstanding of the Pope’s “Airplane Statement.” He writes “This summer the pope, when asked about a gay monsignor, said, ‘who am I to judge?’”

That is a deliberate misunderstanding, and it is stupid, because the Pope’s words are easily found. The Holy Father was answering a question from journalist Inez Scamparini, about Monsignor Battista Ricca. The Holy Father discussed Ricca, and then said:

“..you spoke about the gay lobby. So much is written about the gay lobby. I still haven’t found anyone with an identity card in the Vatican with “gay” on it. They say there are some there. I believe that when you are dealing with such a person, you must distinguish between the fact of a person being gay and the fact of someone forming a lobby, because not all lobbies are good. This one is not good. If someone is gay and is searching for the Lord and has good will, then who am I to judge him? The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains this in a beautiful way, saying ... wait a moment, how does it say it ... it says: “no one should marginalize these people for this, they must be integrated into society”. The problem is not having this tendency, no, we must be brothers and sisters to one another, and there is this one and there is that one. The problem is in making a lobby of this tendency: a lobby of misers, a lobby of politicians, a lobby of masons, so many lobbies. For me, this is the greater problem.”

Mr. Winters ignores, to the point of deception, a number of things in this statement. He writes that the Holy Father says “who am I to judge?” when the actual sentence reads “If someone is gay and is searching for the Lord and has good will, then who am I to judge him?” First, that “if” is a very big “if.” Second, the Holy Father is discussing a “someone,” a particular person, and, in the previous sentence specifically says “you must distinguish between the fact of a person being gay and the fact of someone forming a lobby, because not all lobbies are good.” Third, the “gay lobby” that the Holy Father was condemning—judging--obviously includes those who would lobby for same-sex “marriage”—precisely the issue Archbishop Cordileone was addressing. Simply put, the Holy Father’s “Airplane Statement” not only does not contradict the Archbishop’s position, it validates it.

It is revealing that Mr. Winters, and others, seek to deliberately misunderstand what the Pope was so obviously saying. They are deliberately fooling themselves and seeking to fool others. It indicates they don’t care about what he actually said, only about how they can spin it to push a particular agenda. On a deeper level it indicates that they don’t believe reality is important, but only that what people think about reality is important.

Charming (and Serious) Comments on Marriage from the Holy Father

LifeSiteNews reports on Pope Francis's talk with young people in Assisi, where he made clear what marriage is and what it is not, (which, you'll notice, has not received the breathless press coverage accorded to some of his other conversations). His Holiness also stressed the great adventure of family life:

'Pope Francis urged youth today to have the 'courage' to get married and have children despite a culture that emphasizes “individual rights' over family.

The pope made the remarks in Assisi during an energetic question and answer session with a number of young people.

'Don't be afraid of taking definitive steps, like that of marriage,' the pope told the crowds assembled in the square outside the Basilica of St. Mary of the Angels, according to CNS.

The pope pointed out that marriage is a 'real vocation, just like priesthood and religious life are. Two Christians who marry each other have recognized in their love story the Lord's call, the vocation to form one flesh, one life from the two, male and female.' 

The pope told the story of a woman who told him she had a son who was in his 30s who had a girlfriend, but wouldn’t get married. 'I told her, 'Ma'am, stop ironing his shirts,'' the pope said to laughter.

'It takes courage to start a family,' he said, adding that the world will put obstacles in the way of those who want to do so, by 'privileging individual rights rather than the family.'

He criticized the culture of divorce, saying: 'You know that marriage is for a lifetime? 'Yes, we love each other, but we'll stay together as long as love lasts. When it's over, we go our separate ways.' That is selfishness.'

The pope also shared a reflection on his own parents and previous generations, saying that while they faced significant economic hardships and war, they knew with 'certainty that the Lord was with them, that their family was blessed by God with the sacrament of matrimony and that their mission of bringing children into the world and raising them also was blessed.'

The pope urged couples never to end the day angry. 'Argue as much as you like, even if the plates fly that is fine, but never end the day without making peace,' he said jokingly."