Thursday, May 31, 2012

Part I of Canadian Bishop Finally Grows a Sack of Balls: Cardinal Collins of Toronto Speak out against Tyrannical Overlord McGuinty on Bill 13

Hello All and anyone viewing this blog entry,

Well, I'll say May 28, 2012 has been quite a day in the faith/political atmosphere of Canada. As part of the Conservative Catholic/Traditional Catholic supporting blogosphere, one of the things I see daily from the more emotionally charged and angry parts of our side of this liturgical and spiritual front, is that a number of the bloggers call the Bishops something to the effect of "spineless cowards" for not standing up for the faith and letting our Church decrease to less than 25% of all Catholics attending Mass once a week. While I do agree to a certain extent, some bloggers and internet celebrities, like to make the cowardliness of the Bishops their daily bread and butter for their  "audience" of superiorly right wing people (which I don't know how many that is), be they readers or fellow commentators. They give the impression that bishops give into novelties and the secular world, and act as power hungry individuals who sit on thrones like CEOs of companies in their dioceses, and choose not to fulfill their role as sheperds, defenders, and teachers of the faith, as well as to foster anger and disgust for those bishops. Many of those bishops have failed and when they do, those far right blogosphere guys like Michael Voris on his Vortex, or the Canadian version of Voris, John Pacheco (and Steve G, though Steve is the more prudent of the two commentators on their site, So Con or Bust) come out guns ablazing.

Hey, I agree when a bishop acts not in keeping with the faith, give em a verbal or theological cream pie to the face, though you might want to apply a different heavy-handed, but Christ-centered approach unlike those guys I mentioned above (yeah yeah go ahead and use the whip of chords on the moneychangers example. The thing is, their joyless tone drives otherwise hungry Catholics away, while other bloggers or YouTubers receive more hits). View their content if you want to see what I'm talking about.

But I have also started to see a trend in our Catholic faith. Our bishops, slowly but surely, one at a time, are starting to grow their "balls again" so to speak: the USA Bishops for the first time in decades since Vatican II were united for the first time on a central issue of the faith (the contraception mandate forced on institutions by Obama), Bishop Morlino of Plateville's attempt to reintroduce valid catechesis and liturgy to a nasty and ``Spirit of Vatican II`` possessed diocese of Plateville in the USA with priests from a traditionally-minded order, and recently, in Canada, A certain red hat and hopefully, future pope, launched a bomb (albeit one in need of more TNT in the casing).

The demon that the tyrant Overlord McGuinty, Premier of Ontario and current provincial leader of the Liberal Party, wants to enforce on kids for the sake of the homosexual vote: Bill 13. Here is the link for the bill in parliament, which is being disguised as an ``anti-bullying bill``:
Please read this in full! So why should one as a Catholic be opposed to this bill? Let's start with the preamble, my commentary in red 'Fr. Z' tinted colour with bold text as emphasis:
The people of Ontario and the Legislative Assembly:
Believe that education plays a critical role in preparing young people to grow up as productive, contributing and constructive citizens in the diverse society of Ontario; 
Believe that all students should feel safe at school and deserve a positive school climate that is inclusive and accepting, regardless of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age, marital status, family status or disability; [Yeah the usual stuff of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, that liberally constructed "thing" of that liberal fool Trudeau. Hmmm, so what do you mean by sexual orientation "safety" and "climate"???] ...."
".... Believe that students need to be equipped with the knowledge, skills, attitude and values to engage the world and others critically, which means developing a critical consciousness that allows them to take action on making their schools and communities more equitable and inclusive for all people, [In other words political activitsts for the Liberal party line or NDP party line] including LGBTTIQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered, transsexual, two-spirited, intersexed, queer and questioning) people; [So what about religious people, atheistic people, handicapped people .... etc? Seems pretty focused on a specific group of people.]
Recognize that a whole-school approach is required, and that everyone — government, educators, school staff, parents, students and the wider community — has a role to play in creating a positive school climate and preventing inappropriate behaviour, such as bullying, sexual assault, gender-based violence and incidents based on homophobia; [Of which would include forcing Catholic schools to NEVER actually teach the Catholic Fatih as outlined in the Catechism paragraphs 2357-2359 because, well saying their acts are "intrinsically disordered" and "contrary to the natural law" is a hate crime and homophobic]
Acknowledge that there is a need for stronger action [Again with the action???] to create a safe and inclusive environment in all schools, and to support all students, including both students who are impacted by and students who have engaged in inappropriate behavior, to assist them in developing healthy relationships [That is LBGTTIQ types, not heterosexual ones] , making good choices [as long as they do not constitue absolute true ethics and morals of course and are societally appropriate], continuing their learning and achieving success.

The ``recognize`` paragraph in the preamble is the start of why Catholics are not going to like when this bill gets assent after the third reading. Let's delve a little bit further shall we:

   1.  (1)  Subsection 1 (1) of the Education Act is amended by adding the following definition:
“bullying” means repeated and aggressive behaviour by a pupil where,
  (a)  the behaviour is intended by the pupil to cause, or the pupil ought to know that the behaviour would be likely to cause, harm, fear or distress to another individual, including psychological harm or harm to the individual’s reputation, and
  (b)  the behaviour occurs in a context where there is a real or perceived power imbalance between the pupil and the individual based on factors such as size, strength, age, intelligence, peer group power [including those of a specific religion], economic status, social status, religion, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, family circumstances, gender, race, disability or the receipt of special education; (“intimidation”) [This could be widely interpreted by lawmakers, judges, justices of the peace, and the Human Rights councils to include the "special education" that a Catholic child receives in their schools under instruction of the faith. So you can say bye bye to anything remotely connected to Catholicism because the "intimidation" is associated with our moral and ethical teachings.]

5.  The Act is amended by adding the following section:
Bullying Awareness and Prevention Week
   300.0.2  (1)  The week beginning on the third Sunday in November in each year is proclaimed as Bullying Awareness and Prevention Week. [So, what will this entail? Will Catholic schools be forced to bring in pro-homosexual speakers that may encourage the children anywhere from saying that these relationships are OK against the teachings of the faith, to encouraging sexual acts, and what about staging those mock pride parades in elementary school years? My point is that there is no specific outline as to what is to be promoted in these weeks and again, the law is about INTERPRETATION. If the people interpreting the law interpret it liberally, and the people in the seat of power are liberal or worse, in their minds are anti-Catholic bigots, Catholic kids, teachers, and parents can kiss their rights to a good solid Catholic education goodbye. If they ever come to a court case, they will likely lose.]
Same, purpose
   (2)  The purpose of subsection (1) is to promote awareness and understanding of bullying and its consequences in the school community. 

Section 6, subsection 3 is lengthy to post here, but if you read it, it gives way to much power to the Minister of Education to do many things such as: "...establish policies and guidelines with respect to disciplining pupils, including policies and guidelines respecting,  (a)  the use of disciplinary measures within a framework that,            (i)  identifies pupil behaviours that are inappropriate and that, without excluding less serious behaviour, include bullying, sexual assault, gender-based violence and incidents based on homophobia,...." "(d)  training for all teachers and other staff;". Also, because the Minister of Education will wield such power in the Amended Education Act, she or he can do things like: `` ... establish policies and guidelines with respect to bullying prevention and intervention in schools, including policies and guidelines respecting, (a)  training for all teachers and other staff; (b)  resources to support pupils who are impacted by bullying; (c)  the resources provided, as part of programs described in section 312, to pupils who have been suspended or expelled for bullying;   (d)  procedures that allow pupils to report incidents of bullying safely and in a way that minimizes the possibility of reprisal;   (e)  the use of disciplinary measures within the framework described in clause (6) (a) in response to bullying;  (f)  procedures for responding appropriately and in a timely manner to bullying. [Do you really comfortable with a person such as Broten weilding that much power over your child's teachers and his/her education? Worse the teachers organizations under this law will have to force their teachers to obey these policies and enact them, and if found out they are not doing so, Jimmy's miracle teacher will get the pink slip and never return to teaching if the college finds the teacher guilty of disobeing the governments' policies with regard to these rules]

I've only picked a few examples of the law to be passed for you to see that it is too vague and also too controlling to give the government and associated legal bodies that much power over your child's Catholic (and also public) education. 

Anyways, this post is getting too long, so I`m going to do part II with the focus on the man of the hour ....


Tuesday, May 29, 2012

Quickpost: Seraphic Strikes Again

Hi Everyone:

Minor business: Well, something big happened in Canada. For the first time in decades, a bishop publicly spoke out against (or more like weakly discussed) a critical social/political issue that would affect faith and morals. I'm just trying to find the video source and I need time to make the big post, which I won't get till tomorrow after night shift.

Major Business: Here's some "awesome sauce" from Dorothy Cummings McClean (a.k.a. Seraphic of Seraphic Singles) on who nice Catholic girls and nice Catholic bachelors should avoid when pursuing dating and a potential marriage

By the way, there is something seriously wrong with chastity education when all we tell girls is to look out for guys who just want sex. We should also be telling girls to look out for guys who just want a security blanket (e.g. seminarians who date), or who just want a friendly smokescreen (e.g. gay guys who date girls), or who are too cheap to pay for a therapist (e.g. cute guys who meet up so they can tell you about other girls) or who are looking for the non-sexual perks of marriage without having to get married first (e.g. guys who "need" help with their laundry/cooking/cleaning). 

And no doubt guys should be warned against NCG who aren't really interested in marriage right now as much as they are in emotional adventures and the rush of falling in love and the thrill of lover's triangles and all that powerful operatic crap girls read about in books.

Just some add-ons though Seraphic: how about NCBs avoid girls who are simply "gold diggers", superficial "hotties" and for Catholic ones devoted to their faith, to avoid lukewarm Catholics who just want the Church for theirs and their children's major milestones, and won't put in the time to truly educate, and show example to, their kids?

See the full post here:


Saturday, May 26, 2012

``Yes, Lord: You know that I love you`.` Reflection on a Gospel from a Novus Ordo Mass for Friday, Seventh Week of Easter Cycle 1/Year 1 at Lunchtime

Hello Everyone.

It's kind of exciting that I'm getting 20-50 page-views per day now. Gives me a little hope now as things aren't exactly peachy keen in my personal life.

Any ways, I decided to go on my lunch break Friday to a parish that is a 5-minute walk from my workplace. The best part is that because it is a parish whose priestly order has a charism that focuses on redemption and the offering of sacraments that was contrary to the challenges in the Church at the time of its foundation. So They offer confession before almost all their major masses and every one on Sunday (Thank the Lord! Here's an order and a parish that knows about the worthy redemption of the Sacrament of the Eucharist!!!!!).

So obviously I went for confession, but also I stayed for Mass because I wanted to offer prayers and my spiritual work of being there to the Lord concerning an  intention in a minor, but personal important spiritual conflict I am having, and feel that I know what the outcome will be based on a key statement.

The homily was given by the chaplain from my workplace. The Gospel reading for Friday, May 25 in the Novus Ordo from the CCCB lectionary for Canada, was from John 21:15-19. Nutshell version: Jesus wants Peter to be a leader and step up and spread the mission of His Church but also he hints that he will die not by his own hands or naturally (that is he will undergo the Passion, Death and Resurrection). He does a well-known reversal of when Peter denies Christ 3 times in the Passion: Christ asks him 3 times ``Do you love me?" and of course Peter says yes, but Christ replies "Feed my lambs."

The chaplain decided to focus on this famous reversal, speaking about the theme of Love. His ending on the topic was a little weak, and personally I felt that the priest could have gone a bit more into explaining about the virtue of Charity (which is also called Love) or explaining more about the highest level of Love which the trinity expressed perfectly: Divine Love, or Caritas. You can read Pope Benedict's Encyclical on that Caritas in Veritate (Love in Truth) with regard to that.

However, what struck me from that day's homily, was that he likely used a recent tragedy as a literary device in order to emphasize a point about the Love of Christ. The summation is that  a young man, who fell in love with a woman, was rejected. He then proceeded with a firearm to her, threatens her or someone else, and in the end he shot himself. I thought I heard "students" or "student" in the homily so after an internet search, this is the story that matched the most times in links. The news item is from India and it is fairly recent, having happened last week involving young university students:

After relating the story, the priest said that yes, the man "loved" the woman, but is this really love? That question, got me thinking a bit, and I can conclude that, no it's not. Love should not end in a person shooting one's self, and further love cannot be present in forcing another person to do one's bidding or express emotions not there. Instead, all that is present is submission to a more dominant person, fear, and unhappiness. The main point that I remember the priest speaking from this, is that the love of the Trinity has to be present at the core of us as Catholics (I think he used the Holy Spirit. It would make sense as some priests and a doctoral student I know has said that the Holy Spirit is Love.). If our actions are devoid of true, Christian love, well .... I cannot remember what the priest said about that, but I can say that obviously if faith without works is dead, the reverse can also be (and in Catholicism must be,) true. If part of our faith is that our Trinity expresses the most perfect form of love, Caritas, and we ourselves are vessels for the Holy Spirit from Baptism and must carry out God/Christ's Love as part of our Catholic life, then yes, Love/the Theological Virtue of Charity/Caritas must be at the very core of what we do as Catholics (how we do it, though, and how this teaching has been misapplied, is another kettle of fish).

It was a nice little piece of mind that day, concerning that conflict I had and still do on my mind. I pray and hope in that conflict that the Theological virtue of Love will be present. It was definitely my verbal spiritual nourishment, in addition to the ULTIMATE spiritual nourishment found in the Eucharist of our Blessed Lord as his Glorified body present on Earth.

Hoped you enjoyed what I have shared, Pax. YCRCM.

Tuesday, May 22, 2012

Quickpost: A fun thought from Seraphic AKA Dorothy Cummings Mclean of the Catholic Register

Here's a fun little quip I found online from a blog called Charming Disarray, in response to a post called "The Wrong Kind of Modesty" by Seraphic of her blogs (a.k.a. Dorothy Cummings Mclean of the Catholic Register):

" .... Perhaps Trad communities in the USA would profit from knowing that Trads in western Europe have less paranoid standards of female modesty. We are also laissez-faire about mantillas. We also drink hard spirits to a certain extent."

lol! Now that's my kind of TLM/EF/TC female! Where do I find a young spirited lass like that whose not taken already???

Musing and charmed, YCRCM.

Thursday, May 17, 2012

Quickpost: Fr. Z. on the Sacrament of Reconciliation Formula. PRIESTS PLEASE READ.

Cause I am anti-liturgical and anti-sacramental abuse. "Say the black and do the red" please, for the sake of our souls.


Quickpost: Finally CCCB try to stay ahead of the Curve

Here's a quick post to acknowledge my bishop's conference actually doing something right:

This is a pastoral letter about freedom of conscience, inspired by Obama's reign of political enforcement on Catholic's consciences with the contraception issue. It's also going on here in various provinces, but most well known in Ontario with McGuinty proposing his anti-Catholic Bill 13 disguised in the form of an "anti-bullying" bill or should I say a selective protection/discrimination bill.

Anyways a small round of applause to the CCCB for TRYING. However two notes:
1) This is really "dead on arrival" like the other pastoral letter to young people on sexual mores. Unless this is talked about in Joe Catholic's church pulpit by his average to somewhat liberal minded/heterodox pastor, or distributed by the parishes, this will once again have no effect on the average Catholic.

2) Mixed blessing: Pro is that they are footnoting the key Vatican II documents and a lot of JPII and B16. The bad thing is that freedom of conscience and relations with the state and governments, as well as social doctrine, has already been covered in depth by prior popes and there is not one single reference to one of those pre Vatican II popes. CMON CCCB!!!! JPII and B16 are not the ONLY good popes out there to speak on this. Really. much better research could have been done.

Regardless, READ THE DOCUMENT!!!!! SPREAD THE WORD!!!! Perhaps we, the Canadian Catholic Blogosphere can keep this thing alive a little more and put it on life support vs needing the crash cart and declaring this letter "clinically dead."


Wednesday, May 16, 2012

Quickpost: Lahey is laicized

Hello All.

Many of you have probably heard of the case of ex-bishop Raymond Lahey who was caught in Canada in possession of kiddie porn on his computer. I've mentioned it briefly in other posts when I've ranted. My country's "wonderful" bishop's conference, the CCCB, just published this:

In a nutshell, the only thing this guy can do now is administer reconciliation in dire straits of death if there is no valid priest around to do so or is heavily impeeded. THANK GOD that the virtue of justice has been held to an extent in the Catholic Church, that this guy cannot hold ANY office in the Church ever again. What he has done is irreprehensible and only fueled further the fire to the critics who lash out at our Church, saying all our priests in the Church are sexual predators.

Now, I do take some excpetion to those violated by these sick ephebophiles who used the cover of the Church and priesthood to carry out their sick homosexual tendencies. I understand the damage psycholgically that can be done in such acts and they are right to their anger at being violated in many different aspects. Worse, those who abuse the priesthood to do these acts are twisted and ruin the majority of priests who don't engage in these acts. If you are going to live a homosexual life or one with same sex attraction (SSA), DO NOT abuse a position of authority and respect to do so, on behalf of your fellow homosexuals and those in the position of power you serve (even if they aren't homosexual). 

As for the legal punishment, well I do not think there will be much justice as the liberal justice system is corrupt in Canada, between abuse of the liberally constructed (under Pierre Elliot Trudeau in the 60's as prime minister) Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and also our lax judiciary representatives, who only give out major or near maximum/max sentences for heinous crimes like sexual crimes with pedophilia and/or associated murder (e.g. the Rafferty likely rape and certain murder case of Tori Stafford). Even regular old murderers get their 1st degree sentences reduced due to "time spent in custody" and I've even heard of a stupid 2-for-1 rule for those in the Don County Jail in Toronto, Ontario, because the conditions are horrible there!

That's why I'm glad that Lahey is getting what he deserves for his crime. He has shamed the Church, shamed the priesthood, those he was serving in his Maritimes diocese, and also too, those with SSA. Yes, them too he has shamed and misrepresented and NOT shown what the Catechism teaches about them: that they too are beings created in the image of God, to be treated with the same diginity and respect as any other created human being, like those of other races, nationalities, colour, etc. Not to mention most people, likely even those with SSA, find kiddie porn and kiddie acts irreprehensible (save the minority of those involved in NAMBLA. I won't even say what that is. Go do an internet search).

All I can say henceforth now, is that we pray for a number of things:
1) To the Lord in reparation for the atrocities that we commit as a concupiscent human race, via our prayers, acts like First Fridays and rosaries and indulgences.
2) To the Lord in defence of the clergy, that the majority of those who do not do these heinous acts be protected highly from attacks by the Devil.
3) For those who have been ravaged and scandalized in any way by Lahey's actions, be it directly or as a pastor bishop of a diocese, etc.
4) For all those with same-sex attractions, that they be graced and blessed in their daily struggles in life.
5) Lastly, for ex-bishop Lahey, that he will realize the sinful devastation he has brought on to multiple parties (Church, those with SSA, his former constituents of his diocese), as well as for himself. For as a priest, his soul has been further consecrated with a 3rd indelible mark after baptism and confirmation. His judgement in the afterlife will be that much more harsh due to his status and this surely will be weighed heavily on the integrity of his soul by our Lord. May he come to a true and full repentance for his sins and by the grace of God, and find someway to function in this world with his priestly faculties stripped, in reparation for his crimes.

Sad and spent, YCRCM

Wednesday, May 9, 2012

Quickpost: FSSP in Ottawa, Ontario, moving to new parish

Hello All,

Just a quickpost right now. Here's some news from Ottawa on the Church's personal Latin Mass Ordinate, the Fraternal Society of St. Peter (FSSP), who has a parish that is moving to a new church building: