This was too good to miss.
So browsing my Sympatico homepage with tons of news and links, I was curious and clicked on one that featured a 10 things kids hate and like about school post. It's here for now at:
http://lifestyle.ca.msn.com/family-parenting/back-to-school/10-things-kids-hate-about-school-and-10-they-love#image=1
So I'm going down the List and this is what you hit at hint number 3 or 4 of the hate list:
"Ditch school jargon, kids advise. Nine-year-old Olivia Mater of Guelph, Ont., doesn’t like the “fancy words some teachers use, like ‘nutrition break’ and ‘dismissal routine.’”
HOLY BAJOONGEES BATMAN!!!! There you have it, straight from the horses mouth. And yet nanny state government premiers of provinces think it is fun to screw with education curriculums and terminologies with things like trying to make home-schooling illegal in the Prairies, and Overlord McTyrant and his education dictator Lauren Broten forcing gay stuff in schools against the Catholic faith in Ontario via Bill 13. The Kids don't want it! They hate your bull $@*# terms and want you to do the basics for their education darn it.
Also to think, if this is what kids don't want at grade 4 or 5, let's expand that to the wider and adult world. People generally hate PC terminology, so say for example .... let's take our Roman Catholic INSTITUTIONAL Church. Example: my now OLD parish is inviting the ministers for a ministry weekend. As part of that, the resident parish theologian is having a "morning workshop and reflection" that weekend and will "explore the interior source of authentic ministry in religious experience and will encourage individuals to the open-eyed control of their ongoing ministerial formation."
Now to me what this says is "let's have a kum-bay-ah session and do liberal crap that makes us see our inner chakra" and garbage. B.S! What I just quoted in the last sentence, you might have well just said out loud. Stop hiding this crap in fancy words picked from a thesaurus. If you truly want to form Catholic lay ministers, how about you bring in a priest who actually practices what is taught in the Catechism and by the Magisterium of the Holy Father, and you have that person give a lecture TIED to scripture and the documents of the Magisterium, heck even Vatican II, with maybe a little Verbum Domini for the Lectors, Ecclesia de Eucharista and Ecclesia de Mysterio for the EMHCs thrown in?
This is but one of the many reasons I'm moving on spiritually. Thank God I had the smarts to prevent myself from exposure to things that would harm my spiritual salvation.
MAIN POINT FOR TODAY: Politically/Spiritually "Correct" jargon is hated by the majority of people, ESPECIALLY KIDS!!!!
Nuff Said. Pax, YCRCM.
Showing posts with label Homosexuality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Homosexuality. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 8, 2012
Saturday, July 21, 2012
Stuff from this week: SSPX Crankypants, A Heretical Parish in Ottawa, and FSSP Priest training for Low Mass
Hello All,
I've been paying the piper at work for taking a whole weekend off and not being called in before or after a family member's wedding. So my blogging has gone by the wayside. Finally today a day off so I'm just going to post about what's been peeking my interest of my feeds.
1) Vox Cantoris exposes a gay-pride loving, liturgically sacrilegious, hedonistic and evil "catholic" parish in Ottawa called St. Joseph's in Ottawa. The post is here: http://voxcantor.blogspot.ca/2012/07/st-joes-is-vibrant-diverse-and-ever.html. WARNING!!! Some disturbing content within. If you are uber sensitive to liberal stuff and homosexual movements, you may want to take some hyperactivity-reducing and blood pressure meds because this post will get you angry and wanting to burn the heretics at the stake. They also committed a grave liturgical violation in the past by having a layperson give the homily. GIRM states no body but the deacon or higher reads the Gospel, and/or gives the homily. Somebody please alert the Bishops or better (cause they don't really care in Canada about this as they themselves are weak with heterodoxy) the Vatican. At least they every once in a while Benedict issues personal or institutional bans, like recently they stripped a Peruvian university of the words "Pontifical" and "Catholic" from the title after repeated attempts for them to play nice (see here: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/deaconsbench/2012/07/no-longer-catholic/). Oh, and did I forget to mention they have a liturgical dance team ... REALLY, FOR 20 STINKING YEARS????? "Carndinal Arinze is not amused with your amature theology," and he said "NO liturgical dance". Disgusting. I wonder how many vocations from that parish have arisen? I'd bet 0.
2) Hey all you extraordinary form people, and priests if you happen to read this too. The FSSP is issuing a cool training session in the USA for clergy who want to serve the Low form of the Mass. If you know someone who might be interested, or are a clergy member yourself interested, please pass this on. The link is here: http://fssptraining.org/index.html. Please get more priests to do this. Help restore the liturgy in the Church and give Joe Catholic something not banal to attend on Sundays or any day of the week.
3) Well, it seems the the SSPX are being a bunch of naughty idiots and Benedict will have to launch the Vatican Obliterati Sattelite Cannon in their faces. They just had their annual chapter meeting and while it seems all went well and they issued some statement that is ambiguous and as usual insults the Vatican if you read between the lines, It seems like they are going to pull a repeat of 1988 and get themselves schismatic again. Why? Well some fool (or secret saint if they really are that bad) released a "confidential" document sent by the Secretary of State for them that even said internally they weren't supposed to release this on the internet or blogs. It contains conditions, to the Vatican, where they will accept canonical status only if the top 3 are filled, with the other 3 desired.
Here's the summary of their conditions in French: http://www.riposte-catholique.fr/summorum-pontificum-blog/informations/les-conditions-de-la-fraternite-saint-pie-x
The full letter can be found in French here: http://tradinews.blogspot.fr/2012/07/abbe-thouvenot-fsspx-lettre-circulaire.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+Tradinews+(TradiNews)
Now, using the almighty Google Translator, here's what they are asking for:
"... "Finally, he stated the conditions that the Society of St. Pius X was needed in dealing with authorities Roman:
On the desirables:
1) No bloody way. Why the heck do you think you guys can have your own courts within the Church? This would be stupid. Would you persecute other Catholics not with the SSPX with them? The Church, sacramentally and politically, must maintain some semblance of order and it will not give you guys your own courts. Heck your courts (e.g. annulments) and other sacraments outside the Eucharist aren't even valid at all because you aren't under an Ordinary's/Bishops permission and jurisdiction to do so.
2) Fine. I get why you want this because many of them stink of liberalism and heterodoxy and are a smack in the face to Christ. And they sure as hell hate tradition and want to shut you down. However, you will be under someone's purview, be it diocesan, or the Pope himself, who is a bishop BTW. Even under the free-roaming ordinate structure, e.g. Anglican Use, you will still be overseen by a bishop. And hey if I were the Pope, I sure as heck would not want you guys running free and loose anyways. You`d probably cause more internal division in the Church over your `holier than thou` attitudes.
3) Hey I`m all for the pontifical commission in Rome for Tradition, but I wouldn`t want most or all the members of that to be SSPX. It`d better have a combo of a few of them, FSSP, ICKSP, and diocesan priests/bishops/Cardinals favourable to tradition with the Pope as head and final arbiter of decisions.
Now the Main points:
1) Good on everything, save the Vatican II bit. Hey I'm not favourable to it, though I still maintain that V-II was hijacked by liberals who mis-applied the documents and the true spirit of the Council. However, were the Pope to allow their "Vatican II is evil" message and acknowledge it, it could violate the order of the Church. All councils when declared are guided by the Holy Spirit right? so one wasn't? Further, if the Pope were to admit such an error, this could (a) possibly bring on criticism that he is fallible, so how can we trust the Holy Father on anything, even faith and morals? (b) if a. were to occur, this would violate the doctrine of infallibility declared at Vatican I, and (c) we'd have a free for all in the Church b/c "hey if we can chastise Vatican II, we can chastise anything theological in the Church". The Holy Father is not going to allow complete anarchy to happen in the Church just to please a small sect of practising Catholics in the huge worldwide body. Besides, Tradition is taking off without them being around and more TLMs are popping up worldwide gradually, but it's happening. They aren't essential to that cause, though it would quicken things and give another bunch of validly, CANONICAL AND LEGAL options for trad-catholics in cities and towns where the SSPX do have a foothold, and more TLM resources worldwide.
2) No Contest here. It's a simple statement with no strings attached.
3) Well ... alright. Fine I understand they want someone in their court, BUT, This reeks of 1988. It's history repeating itself. If they think they can pull this same crap again and get it the 2nd time around, if it's not a valid bishop of the "regular" Church of Benedict's choosing, they are dreaming way to high.
Honestly everyone, I'm just about to give up on the SSPX. They are now acting just as stubborn and stupid as they were back then under Lefevbre, and there's no way that Benedict, with ALL he has done and given them this time around, even more so than JPII, will easily give them what they want. Worse, now that this is out in the open, they have shot themselves in the foot. They are really now going to have to retract this and accept whatever Benedict gives them, because time is running out, and the Holy Father's patience is wearing thin. He is tired of playing games, and if they are going to continue to be a stubborn little child that won't listen to his parent, he's going to get an ass-spanking that will hurt a long time. Also, we don't know what the next pope will bring. Some people think weird things like we are going to get an anti-pope or a pope unfavourable to tradition (which is likely possible with the pool of cardinals available) and well, that pope also will likely NOT be a child of Vatican II (not born during the time or, or at the council) so will not understand things, or be further infected with the "fruits of the council". Boys or girls, if any of you see this or someone who will live, breathe, and die for these people, gets this, you'd better tell them they should accept. This is their last good offer, and if it's not now, it's likely going to be never.
However what's YCRCM's final take with them? Basically you guys are being prideful pricks, and if you want to be that pig-headed, you can take your pre-Vatican II mindset and societies, seminaries, and schools, and adherents, and leave the Church alone. Go ahead and be schismatic and separate with only 1 sacrament to deal with. I'm going to stay right here, under the Barque of Peter, receiving all 7 Sacraments validly and licitly, and going to Diocesan TLMs that I know are said by VALID AND LICIT priests so I have no doubt that I am receiving valid sacraments and participating in valid masses and my soul will be ok. As for the souls of you and your adherents, may Christ have mercy on them, cause I don't know what will happen to them come their deaths under a soon-to-be schismatic sect of Catholicism. However, if you do get canonical recognition in spite of everything, welcome home, and please save the liturgy with the TLM and give your servers and priests to us (on loans of course, never permanently) to help us grow more TLMs everywhere and make priests around you actually adhere to the Magisterium and not preach heretical teachings.
Alright. That's it for me for now. Pax. YCRCM.
P.S. I will be monitoring the combox and my e-mail. Don't try anything stupid from either side, be you on the St. Joseph's article (Vox broke the story anyways, not me) or the SSPX issue. It'll just go in my trashbin.
NEW UPDATE FROM WITNESS BLOG ON ST' JOSEPH'S EXPOSE . 3:00pm EST, July 21, 2012
HOLY SHhhhh...... well, just, damn. A convicted, diocesan-lacized priest is in residence there????? Barona at Witness found this gem, courtesy of some witch (pervert priest) hunter, Sylvia. See the post and the links here: http://torontocatholicwitness.blogspot.ca/2012/07/why-is-convicted-child-molester-on.html
I've been paying the piper at work for taking a whole weekend off and not being called in before or after a family member's wedding. So my blogging has gone by the wayside. Finally today a day off so I'm just going to post about what's been peeking my interest of my feeds.
1) Vox Cantoris exposes a gay-pride loving, liturgically sacrilegious, hedonistic and evil "catholic" parish in Ottawa called St. Joseph's in Ottawa. The post is here: http://voxcantor.blogspot.ca/2012/07/st-joes-is-vibrant-diverse-and-ever.html. WARNING!!! Some disturbing content within. If you are uber sensitive to liberal stuff and homosexual movements, you may want to take some hyperactivity-reducing and blood pressure meds because this post will get you angry and wanting to burn the heretics at the stake. They also committed a grave liturgical violation in the past by having a layperson give the homily. GIRM states no body but the deacon or higher reads the Gospel, and/or gives the homily. Somebody please alert the Bishops or better (cause they don't really care in Canada about this as they themselves are weak with heterodoxy) the Vatican. At least they every once in a while Benedict issues personal or institutional bans, like recently they stripped a Peruvian university of the words "Pontifical" and "Catholic" from the title after repeated attempts for them to play nice (see here: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/deaconsbench/2012/07/no-longer-catholic/). Oh, and did I forget to mention they have a liturgical dance team ... REALLY, FOR 20 STINKING YEARS????? "Carndinal Arinze is not amused with your amature theology," and he said "NO liturgical dance". Disgusting. I wonder how many vocations from that parish have arisen? I'd bet 0.
2) Hey all you extraordinary form people, and priests if you happen to read this too. The FSSP is issuing a cool training session in the USA for clergy who want to serve the Low form of the Mass. If you know someone who might be interested, or are a clergy member yourself interested, please pass this on. The link is here: http://fssptraining.org/index.html. Please get more priests to do this. Help restore the liturgy in the Church and give Joe Catholic something not banal to attend on Sundays or any day of the week.
3) Well, it seems the the SSPX are being a bunch of naughty idiots and Benedict will have to launch the Vatican Obliterati Sattelite Cannon in their faces. They just had their annual chapter meeting and while it seems all went well and they issued some statement that is ambiguous and as usual insults the Vatican if you read between the lines, It seems like they are going to pull a repeat of 1988 and get themselves schismatic again. Why? Well some fool (or secret saint if they really are that bad) released a "confidential" document sent by the Secretary of State for them that even said internally they weren't supposed to release this on the internet or blogs. It contains conditions, to the Vatican, where they will accept canonical status only if the top 3 are filled, with the other 3 desired.
Here's the summary of their conditions in French: http://www.riposte-catholique.fr/summorum-pontificum-blog/informations/les-conditions-de-la-fraternite-saint-pie-x
The full letter can be found in French here: http://tradinews.blogspot.fr/2012/07/abbe-thouvenot-fsspx-lettre-circulaire.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+Tradinews+(TradiNews)
Now, using the almighty Google Translator, here's what they are asking for:
"... "Finally, he stated the conditions that the Society of St. Pius X was needed in dealing with authorities Roman:
OK, there are some big ass problems here. Let's start with the desirables and go to the main course.Preconditions that the fraternity is required and it demands of the Roman authorities before considering a canonical recognition:1. Freedom to maintain, transmit and teach sound doctrine of the Magisterium of the Church constant and unchanging Truth of Tradition divine freedom to protect, correct, resume, even publicly, the makers of any errors or innovations of modernism, liberalism , Vatican II and its consequences;2. Exclusively use the liturgy of 1962. Keep the sacraments that we currently have (including: orders, confirmation, marriage);3. Guarantee of at least one bishop.Desirable conditions:1. Own ecclesiastical courts of first instance;2. Exemption of the houses of the Society of St. Pius X in relation to diocesan bishops;3. Pontifical Commission for Tradition in Rome in dependence of the Pope, with majority of members and chair for the Tradition."
On the desirables:
1) No bloody way. Why the heck do you think you guys can have your own courts within the Church? This would be stupid. Would you persecute other Catholics not with the SSPX with them? The Church, sacramentally and politically, must maintain some semblance of order and it will not give you guys your own courts. Heck your courts (e.g. annulments) and other sacraments outside the Eucharist aren't even valid at all because you aren't under an Ordinary's/Bishops permission and jurisdiction to do so.
2) Fine. I get why you want this because many of them stink of liberalism and heterodoxy and are a smack in the face to Christ. And they sure as hell hate tradition and want to shut you down. However, you will be under someone's purview, be it diocesan, or the Pope himself, who is a bishop BTW. Even under the free-roaming ordinate structure, e.g. Anglican Use, you will still be overseen by a bishop. And hey if I were the Pope, I sure as heck would not want you guys running free and loose anyways. You`d probably cause more internal division in the Church over your `holier than thou` attitudes.
3) Hey I`m all for the pontifical commission in Rome for Tradition, but I wouldn`t want most or all the members of that to be SSPX. It`d better have a combo of a few of them, FSSP, ICKSP, and diocesan priests/bishops/Cardinals favourable to tradition with the Pope as head and final arbiter of decisions.
Now the Main points:
1) Good on everything, save the Vatican II bit. Hey I'm not favourable to it, though I still maintain that V-II was hijacked by liberals who mis-applied the documents and the true spirit of the Council. However, were the Pope to allow their "Vatican II is evil" message and acknowledge it, it could violate the order of the Church. All councils when declared are guided by the Holy Spirit right? so one wasn't? Further, if the Pope were to admit such an error, this could (a) possibly bring on criticism that he is fallible, so how can we trust the Holy Father on anything, even faith and morals? (b) if a. were to occur, this would violate the doctrine of infallibility declared at Vatican I, and (c) we'd have a free for all in the Church b/c "hey if we can chastise Vatican II, we can chastise anything theological in the Church". The Holy Father is not going to allow complete anarchy to happen in the Church just to please a small sect of practising Catholics in the huge worldwide body. Besides, Tradition is taking off without them being around and more TLMs are popping up worldwide gradually, but it's happening. They aren't essential to that cause, though it would quicken things and give another bunch of validly, CANONICAL AND LEGAL options for trad-catholics in cities and towns where the SSPX do have a foothold, and more TLM resources worldwide.
2) No Contest here. It's a simple statement with no strings attached.
3) Well ... alright. Fine I understand they want someone in their court, BUT, This reeks of 1988. It's history repeating itself. If they think they can pull this same crap again and get it the 2nd time around, if it's not a valid bishop of the "regular" Church of Benedict's choosing, they are dreaming way to high.
Honestly everyone, I'm just about to give up on the SSPX. They are now acting just as stubborn and stupid as they were back then under Lefevbre, and there's no way that Benedict, with ALL he has done and given them this time around, even more so than JPII, will easily give them what they want. Worse, now that this is out in the open, they have shot themselves in the foot. They are really now going to have to retract this and accept whatever Benedict gives them, because time is running out, and the Holy Father's patience is wearing thin. He is tired of playing games, and if they are going to continue to be a stubborn little child that won't listen to his parent, he's going to get an ass-spanking that will hurt a long time. Also, we don't know what the next pope will bring. Some people think weird things like we are going to get an anti-pope or a pope unfavourable to tradition (which is likely possible with the pool of cardinals available) and well, that pope also will likely NOT be a child of Vatican II (not born during the time or, or at the council) so will not understand things, or be further infected with the "fruits of the council". Boys or girls, if any of you see this or someone who will live, breathe, and die for these people, gets this, you'd better tell them they should accept. This is their last good offer, and if it's not now, it's likely going to be never.
However what's YCRCM's final take with them? Basically you guys are being prideful pricks, and if you want to be that pig-headed, you can take your pre-Vatican II mindset and societies, seminaries, and schools, and adherents, and leave the Church alone. Go ahead and be schismatic and separate with only 1 sacrament to deal with. I'm going to stay right here, under the Barque of Peter, receiving all 7 Sacraments validly and licitly, and going to Diocesan TLMs that I know are said by VALID AND LICIT priests so I have no doubt that I am receiving valid sacraments and participating in valid masses and my soul will be ok. As for the souls of you and your adherents, may Christ have mercy on them, cause I don't know what will happen to them come their deaths under a soon-to-be schismatic sect of Catholicism. However, if you do get canonical recognition in spite of everything, welcome home, and please save the liturgy with the TLM and give your servers and priests to us (on loans of course, never permanently) to help us grow more TLMs everywhere and make priests around you actually adhere to the Magisterium and not preach heretical teachings.
Alright. That's it for me for now. Pax. YCRCM.
P.S. I will be monitoring the combox and my e-mail. Don't try anything stupid from either side, be you on the St. Joseph's article (Vox broke the story anyways, not me) or the SSPX issue. It'll just go in my trashbin.
NEW UPDATE FROM WITNESS BLOG ON ST' JOSEPH'S EXPOSE . 3:00pm EST, July 21, 2012
HOLY SHhhhh...... well, just, damn. A convicted, diocesan-lacized priest is in residence there????? Barona at Witness found this gem, courtesy of some witch (pervert priest) hunter, Sylvia. See the post and the links here: http://torontocatholicwitness.blogspot.ca/2012/07/why-is-convicted-child-molester-on.html
Friday, June 1, 2012
Part II of Canadian Bishop Finally Grows a Sack of Balls: Cardinal Collins of Toronto Speak out against Tyrannical Overlord McGuinty on Bill 13
RED FLAG WARNING!!!! Due to the nature of this posting, there will be no allowances of any yellow flagging according to my blog rules (see August 2011). Anything, mildly inflammatory from anyone will be deleted and I will try to block you from this blog. If you hate what I write so much, use those fadangled Rights and Freedoms in Canada and worldwide to write your own blogpost on your own blog. Or just walk away.
Remember that nerdy looking guy with the glasses and gray hair who looked like an aged Gilbert Lowe from Revenge of the Nerds? Yeah, that one who got the red hat from our Holy Papa Benedict the XVI? Yes. That guy.
I`m going to try and pick the meatiest parts of the statement in order to show you how he`s decided to sacrifice his comfort and prestige and may be on his way to both the Papacy, and maybe, even martyrdom if Overlord McGuinty finds a way to legally enact a 1984 scenario.
Let`s start with this:
``.... This may not always happen in a Catholic school, for we are all sinners, but we earnestly try to live up to this standard. We have a rich array of spiritual resources, and methods developed
out of our faith tradition, which not only fight bullying, but shape a school environment that is welcoming to all. Our schools also provide competent and compassionate personal support for
individuals. We also consistently have sought, and continue to seek, to work together cooperatively with the Ministry of Education to assure that Catholic schools meet and exceed all
government standards ....``
Here`s what he`s saying. Some of his detractors will say ``your schools are hypocritical and don`t teach the Gospel`` as he alluded to prior to this paragraph. HE OPENLY ADMITS that our schools have failed many a time in this regard, from the teachers to the students. This is a ``mea culpa on behalf of the liberal, watered-down catechized people if you will. He also is saying that the schools have their own, genuinely Catholic (and possible moral law abiding) methods for dealing with bullying and welcoming others. Also, the Catholic School system, aside from the religious ed courses unique to it, DO NOT teach outside of the government mandated curriculum (what teachers do in individual classes, is another story). In other words, they teach according to code. Could they be better, like Catholic private schools in their religious education? Absolutely! Remember though, the government cares only about the non-religious issues. In other words, "Our Catholic school systems render to Caesar the things that are due to Caesar, and to God that things that are God's" (cf. Mark 12:17). Also as a side note, this paragraph could contain proof that one of the four conditions are agreed upon for a just war under the Just War Theory: Consistent negotiations or means of dealing with the enemy are ineffective and have failed.
".... A "Gay-Straight Alliance" is a particular method of addressing one form of bullying, and providing personal support. The GSA model was developed in the United States in the 1980's. Because this model is so closely related to a movement with particular views concerning the human person and the issues of life, people who disagree with those views are understandably concerned that the model can serve as a means not only to address bullying, but to promote the views with which they disagree. Those who share those views will no doubt wish to use the GSA methodology. They are certainly free to do so...."
Whoa! I can`t believe this. This is old news? Collins! Why the heck aren't you writing a book or something! I can't believe GSAs have been around for a long time that I feel guilty I didn't know the history. Really this is something that should be researched. As for the bolded paragraph ... that's right Collins. It is all tied together: Contraception, Abortion, Homosexual relations, Co-habitation .... It all points back to the value of the human person and the issue of life, that all life begins at conception and the person is given the soul at it. You really think when someone is pregnant they will birth anything but a human being? Of course those anti-life/anti-human views are simply self-serving, pointing to a person's selfish desire to deny life for their own wants.
Finally from his statement, I highlight this last question of a series of questions he asks to show that the government isn't thinking about one's best interests:
5. Apart from whatever one thinks of the idea of GSAs, in any particular school is a GSA the most effective method to help students being targeted by bullies? Who makes that decision in a
local school? Is it those adults who are entrusted with responsibility for the local school community and all of its members? The new policy says that they do not. Is that wise?
Here we have the most simplistic argument right here: Is this "anti-bullying policy" going to stop bullying? Well maybe for the homosexual kids, but what about the ones with mental disorders? The ones with physical handicaps? What about little Jimmy just cause he is actually a "nice guy" and the other boys are mean jock types? Or what about little Suzy who like Jason the cool guy and he likes her back, but because Lilette and her band of gossip-jackals who are dressing in skimpy shorts and crop-tops at the ages of 12, is jealous, she start malicious cyber-bullying online and gossiping with her friends at school, lowering the self-esteem of poor Suzy and possibly, Suzy ends up killing herself? Worse, it sounds like the adults will have NO say in this matter. You don't want a GSA in schools or want to promote different type of club that can more effectively manage a kid with possible/ID'd same sex attraction in a Catholic way? TOO BAD!!! What overlord McGuinty and his general in command, Broten say, goes. Worse, if a kid actually, practically, lives out their faith and actually knows his/her catechism 2357-2359, will a kid have to violate their consciece and faith to evade the "homosexual" or "tolerance" police from suspending or expelling him/her, even their own teacher??? Will the teacher use this as an excuse to lower their grades and due to this policy the teacher gets away with it? While we're at it, what about ADULT BULLYING via the abuse of power as the "tolerant" teacher? This has a lot of far reaching implications.
Now, what about other media coverage? here's some links:
http://www.torontosun.com/videos/1660439848001
http://www.torontosun.com/2012/05/29/fight-against-gay-straight-alliances-just-warming-up
http://www.torontosun.com/2012/05/29/mcguinty-bullies-catholic-schools
http://life.nationalpost.com/2012/05/28/church-rejects-ontarios-gay-straight-club-decision-accuses-government-of-micromanagement/
http://www.catholicregister.org./component/k2/item/14592-father-of-suicide-victim-pleads-for-anti-bullying-bill-that-protects-all-students
http://www.torontosun.com/2012/05/31/liberal-hypocrisy-on-catholic-schools
While there's a lot of 2ndary media coverage out there now that Pandora's box is open, I'll only highlight certain things:
- in the National post article, it lists this correctly about our Catechism: "The Catechism of the Catholic Church says homosexual behaviour is “intrinsically disordered” and “under no circumstance can it be approved.” However, the Catechism also teaches that homosexuals “must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.” YES! Finally a mainstream media source actually gets it right and quotes/summarizes properly the Catechism's teaching. Combined with the sensitivity sentence it correctly quotes from paragraph 2357-2358. In a nutshell "love the sinner, hate the sin." Thank you National Post for finally doing this right!
- The Post also cites that the Toronto DISTRICT (Public) School board examined in a survey what the most common reason for bullying is. While the pro-gay group EGALE stated 64% of gays have been subject to bullying, the TDSB looked at bullying across the board and found: "...The most cited reason was “body image” (38% in Grades 7 to 8; 27% in Grades 9 to 12), followed by grades or marks (17% and 12% respectively), and 7% in all grades noted language as a cause.The next three categories at 5% or lower were gender, religion and income. The issue of gay bullying did not register in the study.
- The CR story about the gay kid who committed suicide has two important highlights I must comment on: 1) The father in the story would rather see the bill protect the rights of all students, even as far as a merger of 13 and 14 (I disagree with this fully. Just pass the broad-spectrum bill 14). (2) The gay kid did a one up by starting a "rainbow club." Despite the name, this club was for all types of students affected by bullying. Even this openly gay kid, knew what the heck to do and not to close off and clique. Bullying is crap, regardless of whose doing it and who's targeted. He got it, McTyrant and Broten do not. Isn't it ironic that the gay kid knows what's better in this issue than the politicians?
- Blizzard's latest posting is quite poignant with her message. Here's the juicy and important points with my Fr. Z tinted comments:
> "Yep, our fearless leader is taking on the mantle not just of secular leader of the people of this province, but also as our moral, religious and spiritual authority" "
[Exactly! He wants to tell us what to think, do, and say. It's the first step towards a real 1984 scenario here. By 1984 I'm referring to George Orwell's titled book. Excellent read, get it. My older, borrowed school library copy at the time, even had the eye in the triangle on it. Creepy no?]
> "And it’s pure hypocrisy. The premier’s four children went to Catholic school. His wife, Terri, teaches in a Catholic school. Education Minister Laurel Broten’s sons also go to Catholic school."
[ Exactly! What a stupid irony. You're screwing over the system you have put your kids in. If you really value public education McGuinty and Broteh, and you KNOW that what you are doing goes against the system, why the heck put your kids and work in the system?]
"The Catholic church isn’t a buffet. You don’t pick and choose which values you want and which you don’t. You either buy into the whole bundle — or you pull a Martin Luther and start your own religion."
[ HOLY BAT FARTS BATMAN!!!! Here's a secular media reporter who has just launched the bomb. 200% Correct! As a Catholic, when it comes to specific doctrines and dogmas, as well as central core teachings of the faith, one cannot be a Catholic and pick and choose what to believe. The same goes for those in charge of running the system. I personally think it's sad that a secular journalist gets the picture when so many liberal clergy, theologians, and laity don't. They purposely choose to ignore how the Catholic Church works. If it isn't a discipline or discussable topic, you can't reject it publicly (private discussion behind close doors, is another story). Really this is a bloody embarrassment on us. I think there's even a Ghandi quote about the average Catholic's hypocrisy too, and that I think made it into the Grade 11 World Religions textbook now used in the diocese of Toronto, the one with the Canadian Catholic perspective. And BTW, those other sects and religions did just that. They didn't like what Mean Old Rome was giving, they started their own sect of Christianity or religion]
"The Catholic system does what the public system cannot. It teaches morals and values and ethics to children. It’s able to enforce a stricter code of discipline, because it can expel students to the public system."
[ This is another good reason why people in Ontario, Canada, even if you send your kids to public school, or aren't Catholic, you should fight against the government on this. Save the union and trustee crap, This school system strives to do more than teach ABCs. People PURPOSELY put their kids in this system for these reasons. ALSO, the system is widely known for giving a kid overall a better education than its public counterparts.]
"So put up or shut up, Premier. You won the 2007 election squawking about religious schools being a horrific form of “segregation and sequestration.” So, either leave the Catholic schools alone. Or pull their funding and go with one public school system. And everyone, please. Simmer down and do us all a favour. It you don’t subscribe to Catholic beliefs, don’t put your kids in Catholic schools and don’t have family members teach in them."
[ This is one of the best closers of an editorial, ever. And this should also apply to everyone. either go do your own secular public thing and leave us alone, or if you are with us, "tolerate" the system or espouse its wholeness. It's works both ways you know. Tolerance is not unilateral.]
Now, to end off this post, I'd like to quote a few paragraphs concerning this issue of freedom of moral conscience and man, from the 1993 JPII encyclical Veritatis Splendor. These paragraphs I think are a good summary of the Church's wisdom on this matter at hand:
42. 42. Patterned on God's freedom, man's freedom is not negated by his obedience to the divine law; indeed, only through this obedience does it abide in the truth and conform to human dignity. This is clearly stated by the Council: "Human dignity requires man to act through conscious and free choice, as motivated and prompted personally from within, and not through blind internal impulse or merely external pressure. Man achieves such dignity when he frees himself from all subservience to his feelings, and in a free choice of the good, pursues his own end by effectively and assiduously marshalling the appropriate means" [The footnote for this is, believe it or not, a Vatican II document, Gaudium et Spes, paragraph 17.].
[ So Man cannot do this when an external force, such as one's social circle or his/her own government try to impose on their consceince and free will through the subversion of the civil law, which is infringing on the Natural Law that governs all humanity.]
For those who criticize the Church as a morality enforcer, as some of its critics say and will cheer McTyrant in opening the Catholic schools to be more "accepting," here's what JPII says on that: 95. ".... The Church, one hears, is lacking in understanding and compassion. But the Church's motherhood can never in fact be separated from her teaching mission, which she must always carry out as the faithful Bride of Christ, who is the Truth in person. "As Teacher, she never tires of proclaiming the moral norm .... The Church is in no way the author or the arbiter of this norm. In obedience to the truth which is Christ, whose image is reflected in the nature and dignity of the human person, the Church interprets the moral norm and proposes it to all people of good will, without concealing its demands of radicalness and perfection" [The key word is proposed. Our Holy Mother Church is not the arbiter, or in other words the enforcer of morality and rules on people. It won't lie in what it demands and you can even access the Catechism online at www.vatican.va,. Ironically McGuinty's actions support this paragraph and makes him look like the one who's enforcing things, not the Church.]
Finally, one last paragraph with no commentary from V.S. that I think pretty much sums up what Bill 13 will result in or become one of the first major steps toward :
"101. In the political sphere, it must be noted that truthfulness in the relations between those governing and those governed, openness in public administration, impartiality in the service of the body politic, respect for the rights of political adversaries, safeguarding the rights of the accused against summary trials and convictions, the just and honest use of public funds, the rejection of equivocal or illicit means in order to gain, preserve or increase power at any cost — all these are principles which are primarily rooted in, and in fact derive their singular urgency from, the transcendent value of the person and the objective moral demands of the functioning of States.160 When these principles are not observed, the very basis of political coexistence is weakened and the life of society itself is gradually jeopardized, threatened and doomed to decay (cf. Ps 14:3-4; Rev 18:2-3, 9-24). Today, when many countries have seen the fall of ideologies which bound politics to a totalitarian conception of the world — Marxism being the foremost of these — there is no less grave a danger that the fundamental rights of the human person will be denied and that the religious yearnings which arise in the heart of every human being will be absorbed once again into politics. This is the risk of an alliance between democracy and ethical relativism, which would remove any sure moral reference point from political and social life, and on a deeper level make the acknowledgement of truth impossible. Indeed, "if there is no ultimate truth to guide and direct political activity, then ideas and convictions can easily be manipulated for reasons of power. As history demonstrates, a democracy without values easily turns into open or thinly disguised totalitarianism"
Everyone, please add Cardinal Collins to you prayers. I'm sure that people are now going to rally really hard against him for what he did, both in the public sphere of society, and even in his chancery offices and dioceses. He will not have it easy from this point on, even though he was not stern and aggressive in his message. That does not matter to liberals or the immoral, even being polite counts as an affront to their selfish desires, even if they don the clerical collar or the pointy hat. Whenever someone actually proclaims the Gospel and the Good News or the true Catholic faith in this day and age, they will be "crucified" for it. I'm sure this will only intensify in future, even after bill 13 passes and 14 is likely rejected. Let's also pray if this man lives on, that perhaps he might one day lead the church as our next Holy father as a viable candidate for the Papacy.
Pax Tibi Christi, YCRCM.
IMPORTANT UPDATE, June 5, 2012
Bad news everyone. I got this from a friend in my personal e-mail:
"Regrettably, Bill 13 passed today with the support of the majority of the Liberal and NDP Members of Parliament behind it. The PC MPPS unanimously voted against it. The final vote was 65 in favor, 36 against."
"June 5, 2012
Statement from the Assembly of Catholic Bishops of Ontario
re: Accepting Schools Act (Bill 13)
Today the Ontario Legislature has passed Bill 13. The Assembly of Catholic Bishops of Ontario has expressed serious concerns regarding certain aspects of this legislation, as have numerous other individual citizens and groups.
Recognizing that the Accepting Schools Act is now the law, Catholic partners will seek, as we
have always done, in a way that is in accord with our faith, to foster safe and welcoming school
communities. Bullying, in any form, is unacceptable. At the core of our Catholic Christian
beliefs is the command to welcome every person with love and respect.
Thomas Cardinal Collins
Archbishop of Toronto
President, Assembly of Catholic Bishops of Ontario"
And back to our deal with the Bishop. Finally, in Canada, a Canadian bishop decided to grow a sack of balls and speak up on a major morality/sexual/ethics/political related issue. Nowhere in the history of the CCCB/Canadian Catholic Church since Vatican II, and my young life under 35 years of age have I witnessed such a spectacle.
Remember that nerdy looking guy with the glasses and gray hair who looked like an aged Gilbert Lowe from Revenge of the Nerds? Yeah, that one who got the red hat from our Holy Papa Benedict the XVI? Yes. That guy.
Cardinal Thomas Collins of the archdiocese of Toronto, held a press conference that was covered by a number of Toronto/Ontario major news outlets and discussed Bill 13. Unfortunately, there is no archived footage currently online on the outlets. Hopefully the diocesan website for Toronto will post up a video either on their main .com site, or their YouTube channel. Regardless, Collins has taken a stance on this issue and made a bold move doing the press conference in the public media, knowing full well this could bite him in the butt from those he works with, and also the government. In fact, he's being attacked left, right and center for doing do. Here's some examples from weblinks from the media:
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1202019--cohn-the-catholic-church-versus-the-catholic-premier --> The liberal rag and public media engine for liberals everywhere in Toronto/Ontario and the Liberal Party (unoficially, but rarely do they criticize the party in this paper).
http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/canadian-cardinal-talks-gay-straight-alliances-schools --> From a liberal catholic rag that is of theologically poor quality, espousing the "Jesus loves everybody" garbage that makes today's Church sermons suck and the "Let's be tolerant and inclusive to make the Church more welcoming and bring people back" arguments."
http://torontounderground.wordpress.com/2012/05/31/is-torontos-catholic-cardinal-collins-promoting-hate-with-his-gsa-stance/ --> Some Toronto left-wing socialist site. This is just another example of the vitrol and hate thrown our way at the Catholic church. Their latest front page article has another one of those "creepy B16" pics commonly shown to paint our Holy father in an evil light with the usual intolerance arguments by our enemies.
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1202019--cohn-the-catholic-church-versus-the-catholic-premier --> The liberal rag and public media engine for liberals everywhere in Toronto/Ontario and the Liberal Party (unoficially, but rarely do they criticize the party in this paper).
http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/canadian-cardinal-talks-gay-straight-alliances-schools --> From a liberal catholic rag that is of theologically poor quality, espousing the "Jesus loves everybody" garbage that makes today's Church sermons suck and the "Let's be tolerant and inclusive to make the Church more welcoming and bring people back" arguments."
http://torontounderground.wordpress.com/2012/05/31/is-torontos-catholic-cardinal-collins-promoting-hate-with-his-gsa-stance/ --> Some Toronto left-wing socialist site. This is just another example of the vitrol and hate thrown our way at the Catholic church. Their latest front page article has another one of those "creepy B16" pics commonly shown to paint our Holy father in an evil light with the usual intolerance arguments by our enemies.
So what was the crux of what Cardinal Collins said and what's the commentary from the media? First, THIS: A statement from Him as part of the Assembly of Catholic Bishops of Ontario on the issue:
I`m going to try and pick the meatiest parts of the statement in order to show you how he`s decided to sacrifice his comfort and prestige and may be on his way to both the Papacy, and maybe, even martyrdom if Overlord McGuinty finds a way to legally enact a 1984 scenario.
Let`s start with this:
``.... This may not always happen in a Catholic school, for we are all sinners, but we earnestly try to live up to this standard. We have a rich array of spiritual resources, and methods developed
out of our faith tradition, which not only fight bullying, but shape a school environment that is welcoming to all. Our schools also provide competent and compassionate personal support for
individuals. We also consistently have sought, and continue to seek, to work together cooperatively with the Ministry of Education to assure that Catholic schools meet and exceed all
government standards ....``
Here`s what he`s saying. Some of his detractors will say ``your schools are hypocritical and don`t teach the Gospel`` as he alluded to prior to this paragraph. HE OPENLY ADMITS that our schools have failed many a time in this regard, from the teachers to the students. This is a ``mea culpa on behalf of the liberal, watered-down catechized people if you will. He also is saying that the schools have their own, genuinely Catholic (and possible moral law abiding) methods for dealing with bullying and welcoming others. Also, the Catholic School system, aside from the religious ed courses unique to it, DO NOT teach outside of the government mandated curriculum (what teachers do in individual classes, is another story). In other words, they teach according to code. Could they be better, like Catholic private schools in their religious education? Absolutely! Remember though, the government cares only about the non-religious issues. In other words, "Our Catholic school systems render to Caesar the things that are due to Caesar, and to God that things that are God's" (cf. Mark 12:17). Also as a side note, this paragraph could contain proof that one of the four conditions are agreed upon for a just war under the Just War Theory: Consistent negotiations or means of dealing with the enemy are ineffective and have failed.
".... A "Gay-Straight Alliance" is a particular method of addressing one form of bullying, and providing personal support. The GSA model was developed in the United States in the 1980's. Because this model is so closely related to a movement with particular views concerning the human person and the issues of life, people who disagree with those views are understandably concerned that the model can serve as a means not only to address bullying, but to promote the views with which they disagree. Those who share those views will no doubt wish to use the GSA methodology. They are certainly free to do so...."
Whoa! I can`t believe this. This is old news? Collins! Why the heck aren't you writing a book or something! I can't believe GSAs have been around for a long time that I feel guilty I didn't know the history. Really this is something that should be researched. As for the bolded paragraph ... that's right Collins. It is all tied together: Contraception, Abortion, Homosexual relations, Co-habitation .... It all points back to the value of the human person and the issue of life, that all life begins at conception and the person is given the soul at it. You really think when someone is pregnant they will birth anything but a human being? Of course those anti-life/anti-human views are simply self-serving, pointing to a person's selfish desire to deny life for their own wants.
Finally from his statement, I highlight this last question of a series of questions he asks to show that the government isn't thinking about one's best interests:
5. Apart from whatever one thinks of the idea of GSAs, in any particular school is a GSA the most effective method to help students being targeted by bullies? Who makes that decision in a
local school? Is it those adults who are entrusted with responsibility for the local school community and all of its members? The new policy says that they do not. Is that wise?
Here we have the most simplistic argument right here: Is this "anti-bullying policy" going to stop bullying? Well maybe for the homosexual kids, but what about the ones with mental disorders? The ones with physical handicaps? What about little Jimmy just cause he is actually a "nice guy" and the other boys are mean jock types? Or what about little Suzy who like Jason the cool guy and he likes her back, but because Lilette and her band of gossip-jackals who are dressing in skimpy shorts and crop-tops at the ages of 12, is jealous, she start malicious cyber-bullying online and gossiping with her friends at school, lowering the self-esteem of poor Suzy and possibly, Suzy ends up killing herself? Worse, it sounds like the adults will have NO say in this matter. You don't want a GSA in schools or want to promote different type of club that can more effectively manage a kid with possible/ID'd same sex attraction in a Catholic way? TOO BAD!!! What overlord McGuinty and his general in command, Broten say, goes. Worse, if a kid actually, practically, lives out their faith and actually knows his/her catechism 2357-2359, will a kid have to violate their consciece and faith to evade the "homosexual" or "tolerance" police from suspending or expelling him/her, even their own teacher??? Will the teacher use this as an excuse to lower their grades and due to this policy the teacher gets away with it? While we're at it, what about ADULT BULLYING via the abuse of power as the "tolerant" teacher? This has a lot of far reaching implications.
Now, what about other media coverage? here's some links:
http://www.torontosun.com/2012/05/29/fight-against-gay-straight-alliances-just-warming-up
http://www.torontosun.com/2012/05/29/mcguinty-bullies-catholic-schools
http://life.nationalpost.com/2012/05/28/church-rejects-ontarios-gay-straight-club-decision-accuses-government-of-micromanagement/
http://www.catholicregister.org./component/k2/item/14592-father-of-suicide-victim-pleads-for-anti-bullying-bill-that-protects-all-students
http://www.torontosun.com/2012/05/31/liberal-hypocrisy-on-catholic-schools
While there's a lot of 2ndary media coverage out there now that Pandora's box is open, I'll only highlight certain things:
- in the National post article, it lists this correctly about our Catechism: "The Catechism of the Catholic Church says homosexual behaviour is “intrinsically disordered” and “under no circumstance can it be approved.” However, the Catechism also teaches that homosexuals “must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.” YES! Finally a mainstream media source actually gets it right and quotes/summarizes properly the Catechism's teaching. Combined with the sensitivity sentence it correctly quotes from paragraph 2357-2358. In a nutshell "love the sinner, hate the sin." Thank you National Post for finally doing this right!
- The Post also cites that the Toronto DISTRICT (Public) School board examined in a survey what the most common reason for bullying is. While the pro-gay group EGALE stated 64% of gays have been subject to bullying, the TDSB looked at bullying across the board and found: "...The most cited reason was “body image” (38% in Grades 7 to 8; 27% in Grades 9 to 12), followed by grades or marks (17% and 12% respectively), and 7% in all grades noted language as a cause.The next three categories at 5% or lower were gender, religion and income. The issue of gay bullying did not register in the study.
- The CR story about the gay kid who committed suicide has two important highlights I must comment on: 1) The father in the story would rather see the bill protect the rights of all students, even as far as a merger of 13 and 14 (I disagree with this fully. Just pass the broad-spectrum bill 14). (2) The gay kid did a one up by starting a "rainbow club." Despite the name, this club was for all types of students affected by bullying. Even this openly gay kid, knew what the heck to do and not to close off and clique. Bullying is crap, regardless of whose doing it and who's targeted. He got it, McTyrant and Broten do not. Isn't it ironic that the gay kid knows what's better in this issue than the politicians?
- Blizzard's latest posting is quite poignant with her message. Here's the juicy and important points with my Fr. Z tinted comments:
> "Yep, our fearless leader is taking on the mantle not just of secular leader of the people of this province, but also as our moral, religious and spiritual authority" "
[Exactly! He wants to tell us what to think, do, and say. It's the first step towards a real 1984 scenario here. By 1984 I'm referring to George Orwell's titled book. Excellent read, get it. My older, borrowed school library copy at the time, even had the eye in the triangle on it. Creepy no?]
> "And it’s pure hypocrisy. The premier’s four children went to Catholic school. His wife, Terri, teaches in a Catholic school. Education Minister Laurel Broten’s sons also go to Catholic school."
[ Exactly! What a stupid irony. You're screwing over the system you have put your kids in. If you really value public education McGuinty and Broteh, and you KNOW that what you are doing goes against the system, why the heck put your kids and work in the system?]
"The Catholic church isn’t a buffet. You don’t pick and choose which values you want and which you don’t. You either buy into the whole bundle — or you pull a Martin Luther and start your own religion."
[ HOLY BAT FARTS BATMAN!!!! Here's a secular media reporter who has just launched the bomb. 200% Correct! As a Catholic, when it comes to specific doctrines and dogmas, as well as central core teachings of the faith, one cannot be a Catholic and pick and choose what to believe. The same goes for those in charge of running the system. I personally think it's sad that a secular journalist gets the picture when so many liberal clergy, theologians, and laity don't. They purposely choose to ignore how the Catholic Church works. If it isn't a discipline or discussable topic, you can't reject it publicly (private discussion behind close doors, is another story). Really this is a bloody embarrassment on us. I think there's even a Ghandi quote about the average Catholic's hypocrisy too, and that I think made it into the Grade 11 World Religions textbook now used in the diocese of Toronto, the one with the Canadian Catholic perspective. And BTW, those other sects and religions did just that. They didn't like what Mean Old Rome was giving, they started their own sect of Christianity or religion]
"The Catholic system does what the public system cannot. It teaches morals and values and ethics to children. It’s able to enforce a stricter code of discipline, because it can expel students to the public system."
[ This is another good reason why people in Ontario, Canada, even if you send your kids to public school, or aren't Catholic, you should fight against the government on this. Save the union and trustee crap, This school system strives to do more than teach ABCs. People PURPOSELY put their kids in this system for these reasons. ALSO, the system is widely known for giving a kid overall a better education than its public counterparts.]
"So put up or shut up, Premier. You won the 2007 election squawking about religious schools being a horrific form of “segregation and sequestration.” So, either leave the Catholic schools alone. Or pull their funding and go with one public school system. And everyone, please. Simmer down and do us all a favour. It you don’t subscribe to Catholic beliefs, don’t put your kids in Catholic schools and don’t have family members teach in them."
[ This is one of the best closers of an editorial, ever. And this should also apply to everyone. either go do your own secular public thing and leave us alone, or if you are with us, "tolerate" the system or espouse its wholeness. It's works both ways you know. Tolerance is not unilateral.]
Now, to end off this post, I'd like to quote a few paragraphs concerning this issue of freedom of moral conscience and man, from the 1993 JPII encyclical Veritatis Splendor. These paragraphs I think are a good summary of the Church's wisdom on this matter at hand:
42. 42. Patterned on God's freedom, man's freedom is not negated by his obedience to the divine law; indeed, only through this obedience does it abide in the truth and conform to human dignity. This is clearly stated by the Council: "Human dignity requires man to act through conscious and free choice, as motivated and prompted personally from within, and not through blind internal impulse or merely external pressure. Man achieves such dignity when he frees himself from all subservience to his feelings, and in a free choice of the good, pursues his own end by effectively and assiduously marshalling the appropriate means" [The footnote for this is, believe it or not, a Vatican II document, Gaudium et Spes, paragraph 17.].
[ So Man cannot do this when an external force, such as one's social circle or his/her own government try to impose on their consceince and free will through the subversion of the civil law, which is infringing on the Natural Law that governs all humanity.]
For those who criticize the Church as a morality enforcer, as some of its critics say and will cheer McTyrant in opening the Catholic schools to be more "accepting," here's what JPII says on that: 95. ".... The Church, one hears, is lacking in understanding and compassion. But the Church's motherhood can never in fact be separated from her teaching mission, which she must always carry out as the faithful Bride of Christ, who is the Truth in person. "As Teacher, she never tires of proclaiming the moral norm .... The Church is in no way the author or the arbiter of this norm. In obedience to the truth which is Christ, whose image is reflected in the nature and dignity of the human person, the Church interprets the moral norm and proposes it to all people of good will, without concealing its demands of radicalness and perfection" [The key word is proposed. Our Holy Mother Church is not the arbiter, or in other words the enforcer of morality and rules on people. It won't lie in what it demands and you can even access the Catechism online at www.vatican.va,. Ironically McGuinty's actions support this paragraph and makes him look like the one who's enforcing things, not the Church.]
Finally, one last paragraph with no commentary from V.S. that I think pretty much sums up what Bill 13 will result in or become one of the first major steps toward :
"101. In the political sphere, it must be noted that truthfulness in the relations between those governing and those governed, openness in public administration, impartiality in the service of the body politic, respect for the rights of political adversaries, safeguarding the rights of the accused against summary trials and convictions, the just and honest use of public funds, the rejection of equivocal or illicit means in order to gain, preserve or increase power at any cost — all these are principles which are primarily rooted in, and in fact derive their singular urgency from, the transcendent value of the person and the objective moral demands of the functioning of States.160 When these principles are not observed, the very basis of political coexistence is weakened and the life of society itself is gradually jeopardized, threatened and doomed to decay (cf. Ps 14:3-4; Rev 18:2-3, 9-24). Today, when many countries have seen the fall of ideologies which bound politics to a totalitarian conception of the world — Marxism being the foremost of these — there is no less grave a danger that the fundamental rights of the human person will be denied and that the religious yearnings which arise in the heart of every human being will be absorbed once again into politics. This is the risk of an alliance between democracy and ethical relativism, which would remove any sure moral reference point from political and social life, and on a deeper level make the acknowledgement of truth impossible. Indeed, "if there is no ultimate truth to guide and direct political activity, then ideas and convictions can easily be manipulated for reasons of power. As history demonstrates, a democracy without values easily turns into open or thinly disguised totalitarianism"
Everyone, please add Cardinal Collins to you prayers. I'm sure that people are now going to rally really hard against him for what he did, both in the public sphere of society, and even in his chancery offices and dioceses. He will not have it easy from this point on, even though he was not stern and aggressive in his message. That does not matter to liberals or the immoral, even being polite counts as an affront to their selfish desires, even if they don the clerical collar or the pointy hat. Whenever someone actually proclaims the Gospel and the Good News or the true Catholic faith in this day and age, they will be "crucified" for it. I'm sure this will only intensify in future, even after bill 13 passes and 14 is likely rejected. Let's also pray if this man lives on, that perhaps he might one day lead the church as our next Holy father as a viable candidate for the Papacy.
Pax Tibi Christi, YCRCM.
IMPORTANT UPDATE, June 5, 2012
Bad news everyone. I got this from a friend in my personal e-mail:
"Regrettably, Bill 13 passed today with the support of the majority of the Liberal and NDP Members of Parliament behind it. The PC MPPS unanimously voted against it. The final vote was 65 in favor, 36 against."
Well, I am honestly not surprised. With only 1/3 of the house on our side, and with the recent chummying up of Horvath and McGuinty on the budget that was passed a month or so ago, as well as shared liberal and anti-Catholic ideologies (and an equal lust for power and wealth with no consideration for their constituents), I knew that the NDP and Lie-berals of Ontario would vote in favour. Also, with the passing of two rounds in the legislature, before many different non-Catholic and Catholic protest groups sprung into action with petitions and demonstrations, I pretty much predicted this bill was sunk. You have to cut them off before they go through even one round in parliament to make a difference.
The Diocese has made a brief press statement on the matter which can be linked here: http://www.archtoronto.org/pdf/statementbill13june512.pdf
However, because it's short, I'm pasting this in its entirety here:
Statement from the Assembly of Catholic Bishops of Ontario
re: Accepting Schools Act (Bill 13)
Today the Ontario Legislature has passed Bill 13. The Assembly of Catholic Bishops of Ontario has expressed serious concerns regarding certain aspects of this legislation, as have numerous other individual citizens and groups.
Recognizing that the Accepting Schools Act is now the law, Catholic partners will seek, as we
have always done, in a way that is in accord with our faith, to foster safe and welcoming school
communities. Bullying, in any form, is unacceptable. At the core of our Catholic Christian
beliefs is the command to welcome every person with love and respect.
Thomas Cardinal Collins
Archbishop of Toronto
President, Assembly of Catholic Bishops of Ontario"
While I was initially enamoured that Collins grew a set of balls, and my ideas in that post will not change, this statement is sadly weak and pathetic, and to me smells of cow-towing to the government. At least it's consistent with his major press release last week in terms of the language. However, this does not give me any new or growing confidence in Collins on this matter. Rather, it displays a lack of action and we'll just "do what we've always done. I think that what's really needed is an affirming statement that we'll keep on fighting for the Church, even so far as to suggest canonical penalties for Broten and McGuinty, especially excommunication for McGuinty He's got a public, sinful rap-sheet a mile wide in his public dissent from the faith as a politician, that I'm sure even a 1/2 cursory look would be ground for excommunication. I'll tell you that if Collins does that, He'll be the first bishop since Vatican II in North America, possibly worldwide, to formally excommunicate a major government figure, and may even earn him the Papal Tiara out of admiration by his fellow Cardinals.
Please Cardinal Collins, if you see this post, or your secretaries or whomever brings this to your attention, please continue fighting and please consider using this heavy handed weapon for the Faith. Please let the Cardinal Virtues of Prudence, Justice, and Fortitude reign mighty! All Catholics in the present in your diocese, and those to be born in future, need your leadership NOW, or the Faith will continue to die out. We few committed and practising laity cannot fight this political, cultural, and spiritual war alone. Don't abandon your troops. I'll be praying for you, Your Eminence.
However, there is one silver lining that might be possible. The 6 O'clock news said something along the lines that while this is assent and law, Catholic schools do not have to be forced to do exactly as the government mandates, something about constitutional rights and such. Well there are rights federally, so perhaps between those long held constitutional rights, and those of the Charter (ironically which might be able to be used for good in this instance) may allow Catholic schools to say "whatever" and continue to hold whatever Catholic-centred single sex attraction clubs, or create ones with a broader focus and incorporates those with SSA in a Catholic manner. It was a 15 second blurb, so I didn't get all of the statement.
However after a view of Toronto's only moderately conservative newspaper, http://www.torontosun.com/2012/06/05/ontario-mpps-pass-anti-bullying-bill
I found out the weapon the schools can use: ".... Campaign Life Coalition, which has rejected the entire Bill 13, claiming it is the government’s backdoor attempt to implement its controversial sex education curriculum, called on all Catholic ratepayers to encourage their school boards to invoke Section 93 which provides constitutional protection for their religious beliefs in education ...."
Regardless, all groups who speak for the rights of parents and Catholic education should continue to fight.
However after a view of Toronto's only moderately conservative newspaper, http://www.torontosun.com/2012/06/05/ontario-mpps-pass-anti-bullying-bill
I found out the weapon the schools can use: ".... Campaign Life Coalition, which has rejected the entire Bill 13, claiming it is the government’s backdoor attempt to implement its controversial sex education curriculum, called on all Catholic ratepayers to encourage their school boards to invoke Section 93 which provides constitutional protection for their religious beliefs in education ...."
Regardless, all groups who speak for the rights of parents and Catholic education should continue to fight.
However, if this continues not only in Ontario but in other provinces (e.g. Alberta's government apparently is attacking home-schoolers as well), then the Catholic schools may have to do one of two things or the families involved:
1) Sever financial ties with the government, close down a number of facilities, pour whatever remaining money exists into the leftover ones, and make Catholic education totally private, like other monotheistic religious schools if they plan to KEEP the existing framework of the catholic school boards in the provinces (but fire those damn trustees and unions. Most don't give two rat's behinds about the faith.)
OR
2a) Families might have to start banding together and homeschooling their kids or create homeschools by hiring teachers privately to instruct their kids in groups and/or send their kids to the few already existing Catholic Private boarding and day schools as well as create new ones. This is possible albeit with great financial and social sacrifices, but can be highly rewarding. I know a family personally that has accomplished this, and the kids are quite mature and way beyond their years. Conversing with the oldest kid whose almost a teen is like talking to a miniature adult! Now, If the government goes after their rights like in other provinces, then
2b) We will have to get our religious education in secret, or perhaps operate like Jewish kids do prior to their bar/bat mitzvahs: Normal day hours learning government mandated school stuff, and then privately off campus from 4-6, get parish/private religious education of the best kind. And if Catholicism becomes illegal to be taught anywhere ..... well, that's a really bad scenario but I won't go into crazy land/chastisement stuff right now.
Everyone, all I can say is continue to support your groups or join new ones, continue to invest in orthodox Catholic Novus Ordo AND extraordinary form initiatives and parishes, please get involved with your child's schools, and please pray intently and furiously. The Devil is at large and the wolves are circling the best of us, even our Holy Father.
Pax, YCRCM.
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``:
http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/bills/bills_detail.do?locale=en&Intranet=&BillID=2549
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:
"Preamble
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:
Anyways, this post is getting too long, so I`m going to do part II with the focus on the man of the hour ....
YCRCM.
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``:
http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/bills/bills_detail.do?locale=en&Intranet=&BillID=2549
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:
"Preamble
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 ....
YCRCM.
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:
http://www.cccb.ca/site/eng/media-room/statements-a-letters/3338-cccb-statement-on-raymond-lahey
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
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:
http://www.cccb.ca/site/eng/media-room/statements-a-letters/3338-cccb-statement-on-raymond-lahey
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, March 14, 2012
On The Blogosphere: Fr. Marcel Guarnizo's Reply on the Johnson Lesbian Funeral Fiasco
Hello Everyone.
Been a couple of weeks since I posted, and still doing the usual work and such. However, I'm working on something personal, slowly and incrementally, that I'll release soon and can't hold back any longer. I will warn you ahead of time, that it's going to be a very heated issue, and some of you Traditional Catholics (TCs) may not like what I am going to say, even though I am a TC and/or Traditional Practices (TPs) supporter.
Something really important came up with regard to a hot Catholic blogging topic. Those of you keeping up with the Catholic blogosphere, know that at the start of this month, A lesbian activist Buddhist Catholic (assuming valid Baptism and Confirmation early in life) by the name of Barbara Johnson (1) held a funeral for her mother at St. John Neumann Catholic Church in Gaithersburg, in Maryland (though under bishop Knestout of the Diocese of Washington) USA. She introduced herself as a lesbian (her exact words indicated she refered to her female partner as a "lover" therefore revealing her sinful obstinacy by being in a lesbian relationship) to Fr. Guarnizo before the funeral, and was physically blocked from further discussion by her lesbian partner when Fr. tried to approach her. Long story short, he denied the lesbian communion probably thinking along the lines of Canon Law 915 (many other people have covered this online so I'm not looking this law up) and as a result, the bishop of Washington has prevented the priest from performing sacramental duties (e.g. Mass, weddings and funerals,) when the lesbian went postal on him with the liberal Catholic-hating mainstream media. The only sacramental exception might be an emergency life-or-death confession (even a laicized priest could do that as a last resort with someone if no other valid canonical priest is around). That might be in Canon Law also.
You can examine the snipits of this unfolding bungle for the institutional Church in the following links:
A summary of the event with commentary by the awesome traditional priest, Fr. John Zuhlsdorf (2) is present here.
Canon Law expert on the Internet Dr. Edward Peters (unreliable only with regard to the Voris Detroit "Catholic" name removal issue due to diocesan bias but great with everything else) comments on Canon Law 915 (3) and his take on the issue in reply to an editoral in another publication here.
Diocese of Washington Bishop Knestout's reply to the situation (4) to Mrs. Johnston, here, and the letter read at all Masses this past Weekend with regard to the "incident" (5) basically smearing the good priest's name here.
Dr. Peter's take on the issue after the second letter was read at all masses (5) at the parish here (6).
Now, here's the biggest development yet to date. Finally, the priest at the heart of the controversy, has spoken out officially in writing (via CNA) offering his side of the story and also commenting on what the bishop isn't telling us. It is provided to us courtesy of the Catholic News Agency here (7), with boldface emphasis on specific parts by yours truly and I'mma gonna take a page out of Fr. Z's book and go all red with commentary. WARNING: I`m having a Fr. Z speckled filled nutty on this one:
"I would like to begin by once again sending my condolences to the Johnson family on the death of Mrs. Loetta Johnson.
I also feel obliged to answer questions from my parishioners, as well as from the public, about the incident on February 25th.
Here are the facts: On Saturday February 25th I showed up to officiate at a funeral Mass for Mrs. Loetta Johnson. The arrangements for the Mass were also not my own. I wish to clarify that Ms. Barbara Johnson (the woman who has since complained to the press), has never been a parishioner of mine. In fact I had never met her or her family until that morning. [Really? So only the mother was part of the parish or did she just happen to die in that diocese and it was the closest church? That's not clear in any of the accounts I`ve read so far. Any clarifications?]
The funeral celebration was to commence at 10:30a.m. From 9:30 to 10:20, I was assigned to hear confessions for the parish and anyone in the funeral party who would have chosen to receive the sacrament. [WHOA!!! Finally a non-EF priest outside of the EF community and specific orders in the Church or Cathedrals who gets it when it comes to worthiness to receive the Eucharist!!!]
A few minutes before the Mass began, Ms. Johnson came into the sacristy with another woman whom she announced as her “lover”. [Really? Honestly where was her common sense? She should have been well aware with her lesbian activism that the Church and homosexuality aren't exactly the closest of friends. That and not every Tom, Dick and Harry wants to hear about your personal life choices in public. Any regular person with common sense would know not to go about announcing their personal lifestyle choices around Catholics with the sexual teachings of the Catholic Church in the Catechism and such (unless they know their friends/family are liberal minded). Believe me, if you read any stats online with regards to Catholics and sexual teachings, you'd know many Catholic purposely ignore the teachings of the Church. HOWEVER, They just don't go out about saying to their parishes "Hey I'm having pre-marital sex" or "Hey I participate in an S & M leather costume society every Tuesday night." Sounds like this was pure lesbian activism in full force. If she truly wanted to tell the priest about her relationship as an ISSUE, why didn`t she sit down with the priest prior and discuss this? Better yet why the heck didn't the pastor or lay secretary/funeral arranging person not disclose this info to the priest?] Her revelation was completely unsolicited. As I attempted to follow Ms.Johnson, her lover stood in our narrow sacristy physically blocking my pathway to the door. I politely asked her to move and she refused.
I understand and agree it is the policy of the Archdiocese to assume good faith when a Catholic presents himself for communion; like most priests I am not at all eager to withhold communion. But the ideal cannot always be achieved in life.
In the past ten days, many Catholics have referenced canon 915 in regard to this specific circumstance. There are other reasons for denying communion which neither meet the threshold of canon 915 or have any explicit connection to the discipline stated in that canon.
If a Quaker, a Lutheran or a Buddhist, desiring communion had introduced himself as such, before Mass, a priest would be obligated to withhold communion. If someone had shown up in my sacristy drunk, or high on drugs, no communion would have been possible either. If a Catholic, divorced and remarried (without an annulment) would make that known in my sacristy, they too according to Catholic doctrine, would be impeded from receiving communion. This has nothing to do with canon 915. Ms. Johnson’s circumstances are precisely one of those relations which impede her access to communion according to Catholic teaching. [from a general reading of the law, I'd say that being in a homosexual relationship which is longer than the time it takes for one drunken fling with a female friend at a university frat party, is grounds for withholding the Eucharist, especially when one TELLS the priest.] Ms. Johnson was a guest in our parish, not the arbitrer of how sacraments are dispensed in the Catholic Church.
In all of the above circumstances, I would have been placed in a similar uncomfortable position. Under these circumstances, I quietly withheld communion, so quietly that even the Eucharistic Minister standing four feet from me was not aware I had done so. (In fact Ms. Johnson promptly chose to go to the Eucharistic minister to receive communion and did so.) There was no scandal, no “public reprimand” and no small lecture as some have reported.[Clearly there are innacuracies between Johnson's obviously painted "woe is me" story and the priests. She got the communion and committed a sacriledge against the Lord regardless and the priest didn't do it publically with a loudspeaker. Classy way to handle it Fr!]
Details matter. Ms. Johnson was not kneeling when she approached for communion, she did not receive the cup as the press has reported she has stated. It is the policy of St. John Neumann parish never to distribute under both species during funerals. [He said the black and did the Red people!]
During the two eulogies (nearly 25 minutes long), I quietly slipped for some minutes into the sacristy lavatory to recover from the migraine that was coming on. [No No NO!!!!! There is never to be a Eulogy at a Catholic funeral and it's in a number of diocesan policies in North America too!!! At least Fr. wasn't performing any of the eulogies] I never walked out on Mrs. Loetta Johnson’s funeral and the liturgy was carried out with the same reverence and care that I celebrate every Mass. I finished the Mass and accompanied the body of the deceased in formal procession to the hearse, which was headed to the cemetery. I am subject to occasional severe migraines, and because the pain at that point was becoming disabling, I communicated to our funeral director that I was incapacitated and he arranged one of my brother priests to be present at the cemetery to preside over the rite of burial. [Seems no different from calling sick to work and having your supervisor/co-workers arrange for a substitute/other person to take the vacancy. HE WAS RESPONSIBLE!] Furthermore as the testimony of the priest that was at the cemetery conveys, he was present when the Johnson family arrived, and in fact mentioned that being called to cover the burial rite is quite normal, as many priests for reasons much less significant than mine (rush hour traffic for example) do not make the voyage to the cemetery. He routinely covers for them. This change in plans, was also invisible to the rest of the entourage. [See discreetness again. Not a public stink] Regrets and information about my incapacitating migraine were duly conveyed to the Johnson family.
I have thanked the funeral director and the priest at the burial site, for their assistance that day. Mrs. Loetta Johnson was properly buried with every witness and ceremony a Catholic funeral can offer. I did not and would not refuse to accompany Barbara Johnson and her mother to the cemetery because she is gay or lives with a woman. I did not in any way seek to dishonor Mrs. Johnson's memory, and my homily at the funeral should have made that quite evident to all in the pews, including the Johnson family.
I would like to extend again to Ms. Johnson and her family, my sincerest condolences on her mother’s death. I would never intentionally want or seek to embarrass anyone publicly or increase anyone’s emotional distress during such a difficult time. I did not seek or contrive these circumstances.
But I am going to defend my conduct in these instances, because what happened I believe contains a warning to the church. [This should not just be a warning for those priests in the DC area. This should be for the whole Catholic Church, especially in developed countries where the bishops still hold on to that "Spirit of Vatican II" / Liberal mentality. THIS WILL HAPPEN a lot more in future, especially in Canada. Does the McGuinty government Sex education infiltration of Catholic schools ring a bell???] Such circumstances can and will be repeated multiple times over if the local church does not make clear to all Catholics that openly confessing sin is something one does to a priest in the confessional, not minutes before the Mass in which the Holy Eucharist is given.
I am confident that my own view, that I did the only thing a faithful Catholic priest could do in such an awkward situation, quietly, with no intention to hurt or embarrass, will be upheld. Otherwise any priest could-and many will-face the cruelest crisis of conscience that can be imposed. It seems to me, the lack of clarity on this most basic issue puts at risk other priests who wish to serve theCatholic Church in Washington D.C.
As to the latest allegations, I feel obliged to alleviate unnecessary suffering for the faithful at St. John Neumann and others who are following the case.
I wish to state that in conversation with Bishop Barry Knestout on the morning of March 13, he made it very clear that the whole of the case regarding the allegations of “intimidation” are circumscribed to two conversations; one with the funeral director and the other with a parish staff member present at the funeral. These conversations took place on March 7th and 8th, one day before the archdiocese’s latest decision to withdraw faculties (not suspend, since Cardinal Wuerl is not my bishop) on the 9th of March. I am fully aware of both meetings. And indeed contrary to the statement read on Sunday March 11th during all Masses at St. John Neumann, both instances have everything to do with the Eucharistic incident. There is no hidden other sin or “intimidation” allegations that they are working on, outside of these two meetings. [So the bishop was lying this whole time. How nice to lie to your faithful sheperd. If you truly can back up your claim Your Eminence, please state specifically the date and time and the content of the "other incidents" that are leading you to ban Fr. Guarnizo from your diocese. Prove him wrong, I dare you!]The meetings in question, occurred in our effort to document from people at the funeral Mass in written form a few facts about the nature of the incident. We have collected more than a few testimonies and affidavits, testifying to what really took place during the funeral liturgy.
My personal conversation with both parties in question were in my view civil, professional and in no way hostile. I respect both individuals in question and really do not know the nature of their grievance. On March 13, I asked Bishop Knestout about detail on this matter but he stated that he was not at liberty to discuss the matter. [That's political bull doo-doo speak for "Shut up" and "You damn know what this is about and I'm not letting the public know"] I would only add for the record, that the letter removing me from pastoral work in the Archdiocese of Washington, was already signed and sealed and on the table when I met with Bishop Knestout on March 9, even before he asked me the first question about the alleged clash. [That just goes to show you Fr. Was entering into a kangaroo court. He was pronounced guilty before being proven innocent. Lovely eh? Just makes you think what they'd do to a lay member of the church if Canon Law allowed it outside of the 'anyone' conditions for automatic excommunication.]
In the days to come I look forward to addressing any confusion about the above conversations if the Archdiocese or the persons involved wish to talk about it publicly or privately.
I am grateful for all the good wishes and prayers I have received. And sincerely, having lost my own mother not long ago, I again extend my condolences to the Johnson family. I finally wish for the good of the Universal Church, the archdiocese, my parish and the peace of friends and strangers around the world, that the archdiocese would cease resolving what they call internal personnel matters of which they cannot speak, through the public media.
I remain my bishop’s and my Church’s, and above all Christ Jesus’obedient servant, Very truly yours, Father Marcel Guarnizo."
Well good work bishop. You just booted one of your most faithful priests outside of the diocese. And you wonder why the moderately to traditionally faithful Catholic laity are getting sick of the bishops. You just made it now much harder for the faithful 1/4 of Catholics who still go to weekly Mass or even less than that who are truly obedient to the Church and its Magisterium. Now we have another example of hypocrisy we have to apologise (as in apologetics) against when other non-Catholics and lapsed Catholics accuse the church of being a corrupt hypocritical "organization".
It's bad enough we cannot trust our elected politicians in power who reward moral corruption and such, but when someone does something ethically or "conservative" in politics they get slammed. The politicians lie to us and waste our tax dollars. You have given further evidence to distrust the INSTIUTIONAL church and for weak or non-catechized Catholics to be validated in their misguided idea to leave the Church and that it's a hypocritical Old Boys' association. You have also, like our politicians, LIED to us just like those politicians. Did not Jesus show us to lead by example by the washing of the feet of his Apostles, of which will be retold worldwide in the Church at the Holy Thursday liturgy? Well when you don't serve Him and your flock of laity, you wonder why you bishops have no public credibility and Obama, McGuinty, etc. can walk all over the Church with abadon with regards to Catholic education or the contraception mandate south of the 44th parallel.
Finally, it was St. John Chrysostom that said that the road to Hell is paved with the skulls of bishops. And everyone wonders why he had to say that so many years ago. It`s things like this that make the saint`s statement timeless. Christ judges us all according to our vocation and profession in life including our souls`status (ordinary lay person vs. consecrated laity vs. consecrated with Holy Orders) Surely he will judge that bishop in his role as priest and bishop, and this error will be brought up in the bishop's eternal judgenemt, unless he repents in the Sacrament of Reconciliation.
Firstly, everone please get the word out now that the priest has his reply. It's clear his story differs from the lesbian activist's and the bishop's. The more this gets out, the more likely there will be action. At least this bishop may think twice the next time he pulls this stunt in future. Furthermore, please, I beg of you to increase your steadfast prayers. Please pray for Fr. Guarnizo that the virtues will continue to burn in him and that the Devil does not wear him down in this controversy. Furthermore, pray for the bishop of Washington, that he may unharden his heart, be remoreseful for what he has done and realize the spiritual crisis plaguing his Church, and that the candle of this theological and cardinal virtues will be lit brightly once again. And most importantly, please everyone add the Prayer to St. Michael, short or complete form to your daily prayers. The attacks on our most faithful priests with the advance of the Internet and in our post-modern era are ever strong. We all need the spiritual protection of Michael and his legions of angels spiritually in this increasingly dire time in our Catholic history.
Pax Tibi Christi, YCRCM.
P.S. As always, please read my blog rules in my 1st posting in August 2011 before you comment. My rules always apply.
Works Cited
1) Peters, Thomas. News Outlets Failed to Reveal Lesbian Denied Communion at Mother’s Funeral … is a Buddhist and Gay Rights Activist. 7 Mar, 2012. <http://www.catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=27899> 14 Mar 2012.
2) Zuhlsdorf, J. in Boorstein, M. Priest denies Communion to lesbian at her mother’s funeral. Anger ensues. Can. 915 hell breaks loose. 29 Feb 2012. <http://wdtprs.com/blog/2012/02/priest-denies-communion-to-lesbian-at-her-mothers-funeral-anger-ensues-can-915-hell-breaks-loose/>. 14 Mar 2012.
3) Peters, E. Remarks on the ‘Catholic Standard’ editorial on the lesbian/Communion controversy. 3 Mar 2012. <http://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2012/03/03/remarks-on-the-catholic-standard-editorial-on-the-lesbiancommunion-controvery/> 14 Mar 2012.
4) Knestout, B. "Dear Mrs. Johnson." 28 Feb 2012. <http://wp.patheos.com.s3.amazonaws.com/blogs/deaconsbench/files/2012/02/knestout-e1330551467667.jpg>. 14 Mar 2012.
5) Knestout, B. "Dear Brother Priest." 9 Mar 2012. <http://abbey-roads.blogspot.com/2012/03/fr-guarnizos-fate.html>. 14 Mar 2012.
6) Peters, E. Bp. Knestout’s March 9 letter on Fr. Guarnizo. 11 Mar 2012. <http://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2012/03/11/bp-knestouts-march-9-letter-on-fr-guarnizo/>. 14 Mar 2012.
7) Guarnizo, Marcel. Fr. Marcel Guarnizo’s Response to the Eucharistic Incident. 14 Mar 2012. <http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/priest-removal-from-ministry-was-tied-to-communion-incident/>. 14 Mar 2012.
Been a couple of weeks since I posted, and still doing the usual work and such. However, I'm working on something personal, slowly and incrementally, that I'll release soon and can't hold back any longer. I will warn you ahead of time, that it's going to be a very heated issue, and some of you Traditional Catholics (TCs) may not like what I am going to say, even though I am a TC and/or Traditional Practices (TPs) supporter.
Something really important came up with regard to a hot Catholic blogging topic. Those of you keeping up with the Catholic blogosphere, know that at the start of this month, A lesbian activist Buddhist Catholic (assuming valid Baptism and Confirmation early in life) by the name of Barbara Johnson (1) held a funeral for her mother at St. John Neumann Catholic Church in Gaithersburg, in Maryland (though under bishop Knestout of the Diocese of Washington) USA. She introduced herself as a lesbian (her exact words indicated she refered to her female partner as a "lover" therefore revealing her sinful obstinacy by being in a lesbian relationship) to Fr. Guarnizo before the funeral, and was physically blocked from further discussion by her lesbian partner when Fr. tried to approach her. Long story short, he denied the lesbian communion probably thinking along the lines of Canon Law 915 (many other people have covered this online so I'm not looking this law up) and as a result, the bishop of Washington has prevented the priest from performing sacramental duties (e.g. Mass, weddings and funerals,) when the lesbian went postal on him with the liberal Catholic-hating mainstream media. The only sacramental exception might be an emergency life-or-death confession (even a laicized priest could do that as a last resort with someone if no other valid canonical priest is around). That might be in Canon Law also.
You can examine the snipits of this unfolding bungle for the institutional Church in the following links:
A summary of the event with commentary by the awesome traditional priest, Fr. John Zuhlsdorf (2) is present here.
Canon Law expert on the Internet Dr. Edward Peters (unreliable only with regard to the Voris Detroit "Catholic" name removal issue due to diocesan bias but great with everything else) comments on Canon Law 915 (3) and his take on the issue in reply to an editoral in another publication here.
Diocese of Washington Bishop Knestout's reply to the situation (4) to Mrs. Johnston, here, and the letter read at all Masses this past Weekend with regard to the "incident" (5) basically smearing the good priest's name here.
Dr. Peter's take on the issue after the second letter was read at all masses (5) at the parish here (6).
Now, here's the biggest development yet to date. Finally, the priest at the heart of the controversy, has spoken out officially in writing (via CNA) offering his side of the story and also commenting on what the bishop isn't telling us. It is provided to us courtesy of the Catholic News Agency here (7), with boldface emphasis on specific parts by yours truly and I'mma gonna take a page out of Fr. Z's book and go all red with commentary. WARNING: I`m having a Fr. Z speckled filled nutty on this one:
"I would like to begin by once again sending my condolences to the Johnson family on the death of Mrs. Loetta Johnson.
I also feel obliged to answer questions from my parishioners, as well as from the public, about the incident on February 25th.
Here are the facts: On Saturday February 25th I showed up to officiate at a funeral Mass for Mrs. Loetta Johnson. The arrangements for the Mass were also not my own. I wish to clarify that Ms. Barbara Johnson (the woman who has since complained to the press), has never been a parishioner of mine. In fact I had never met her or her family until that morning. [Really? So only the mother was part of the parish or did she just happen to die in that diocese and it was the closest church? That's not clear in any of the accounts I`ve read so far. Any clarifications?]
The funeral celebration was to commence at 10:30a.m. From 9:30 to 10:20, I was assigned to hear confessions for the parish and anyone in the funeral party who would have chosen to receive the sacrament. [WHOA!!! Finally a non-EF priest outside of the EF community and specific orders in the Church or Cathedrals who gets it when it comes to worthiness to receive the Eucharist!!!]
A few minutes before the Mass began, Ms. Johnson came into the sacristy with another woman whom she announced as her “lover”. [Really? Honestly where was her common sense? She should have been well aware with her lesbian activism that the Church and homosexuality aren't exactly the closest of friends. That and not every Tom, Dick and Harry wants to hear about your personal life choices in public. Any regular person with common sense would know not to go about announcing their personal lifestyle choices around Catholics with the sexual teachings of the Catholic Church in the Catechism and such (unless they know their friends/family are liberal minded). Believe me, if you read any stats online with regards to Catholics and sexual teachings, you'd know many Catholic purposely ignore the teachings of the Church. HOWEVER, They just don't go out about saying to their parishes "Hey I'm having pre-marital sex" or "Hey I participate in an S & M leather costume society every Tuesday night." Sounds like this was pure lesbian activism in full force. If she truly wanted to tell the priest about her relationship as an ISSUE, why didn`t she sit down with the priest prior and discuss this? Better yet why the heck didn't the pastor or lay secretary/funeral arranging person not disclose this info to the priest?] Her revelation was completely unsolicited. As I attempted to follow Ms.Johnson, her lover stood in our narrow sacristy physically blocking my pathway to the door. I politely asked her to move and she refused.
I understand and agree it is the policy of the Archdiocese to assume good faith when a Catholic presents himself for communion; like most priests I am not at all eager to withhold communion. But the ideal cannot always be achieved in life.
In the past ten days, many Catholics have referenced canon 915 in regard to this specific circumstance. There are other reasons for denying communion which neither meet the threshold of canon 915 or have any explicit connection to the discipline stated in that canon.
If a Quaker, a Lutheran or a Buddhist, desiring communion had introduced himself as such, before Mass, a priest would be obligated to withhold communion. If someone had shown up in my sacristy drunk, or high on drugs, no communion would have been possible either. If a Catholic, divorced and remarried (without an annulment) would make that known in my sacristy, they too according to Catholic doctrine, would be impeded from receiving communion. This has nothing to do with canon 915. Ms. Johnson’s circumstances are precisely one of those relations which impede her access to communion according to Catholic teaching. [from a general reading of the law, I'd say that being in a homosexual relationship which is longer than the time it takes for one drunken fling with a female friend at a university frat party, is grounds for withholding the Eucharist, especially when one TELLS the priest.] Ms. Johnson was a guest in our parish, not the arbitrer of how sacraments are dispensed in the Catholic Church.
In all of the above circumstances, I would have been placed in a similar uncomfortable position. Under these circumstances, I quietly withheld communion, so quietly that even the Eucharistic Minister standing four feet from me was not aware I had done so. (In fact Ms. Johnson promptly chose to go to the Eucharistic minister to receive communion and did so.) There was no scandal, no “public reprimand” and no small lecture as some have reported.[Clearly there are innacuracies between Johnson's obviously painted "woe is me" story and the priests. She got the communion and committed a sacriledge against the Lord regardless and the priest didn't do it publically with a loudspeaker. Classy way to handle it Fr!]
Details matter. Ms. Johnson was not kneeling when she approached for communion, she did not receive the cup as the press has reported she has stated. It is the policy of St. John Neumann parish never to distribute under both species during funerals. [He said the black and did the Red people!]
During the two eulogies (nearly 25 minutes long), I quietly slipped for some minutes into the sacristy lavatory to recover from the migraine that was coming on. [No No NO!!!!! There is never to be a Eulogy at a Catholic funeral and it's in a number of diocesan policies in North America too!!! At least Fr. wasn't performing any of the eulogies] I never walked out on Mrs. Loetta Johnson’s funeral and the liturgy was carried out with the same reverence and care that I celebrate every Mass. I finished the Mass and accompanied the body of the deceased in formal procession to the hearse, which was headed to the cemetery. I am subject to occasional severe migraines, and because the pain at that point was becoming disabling, I communicated to our funeral director that I was incapacitated and he arranged one of my brother priests to be present at the cemetery to preside over the rite of burial. [Seems no different from calling sick to work and having your supervisor/co-workers arrange for a substitute/other person to take the vacancy. HE WAS RESPONSIBLE!] Furthermore as the testimony of the priest that was at the cemetery conveys, he was present when the Johnson family arrived, and in fact mentioned that being called to cover the burial rite is quite normal, as many priests for reasons much less significant than mine (rush hour traffic for example) do not make the voyage to the cemetery. He routinely covers for them. This change in plans, was also invisible to the rest of the entourage. [See discreetness again. Not a public stink] Regrets and information about my incapacitating migraine were duly conveyed to the Johnson family.
I have thanked the funeral director and the priest at the burial site, for their assistance that day. Mrs. Loetta Johnson was properly buried with every witness and ceremony a Catholic funeral can offer. I did not and would not refuse to accompany Barbara Johnson and her mother to the cemetery because she is gay or lives with a woman. I did not in any way seek to dishonor Mrs. Johnson's memory, and my homily at the funeral should have made that quite evident to all in the pews, including the Johnson family.
I would like to extend again to Ms. Johnson and her family, my sincerest condolences on her mother’s death. I would never intentionally want or seek to embarrass anyone publicly or increase anyone’s emotional distress during such a difficult time. I did not seek or contrive these circumstances.
But I am going to defend my conduct in these instances, because what happened I believe contains a warning to the church. [This should not just be a warning for those priests in the DC area. This should be for the whole Catholic Church, especially in developed countries where the bishops still hold on to that "Spirit of Vatican II" / Liberal mentality. THIS WILL HAPPEN a lot more in future, especially in Canada. Does the McGuinty government Sex education infiltration of Catholic schools ring a bell???] Such circumstances can and will be repeated multiple times over if the local church does not make clear to all Catholics that openly confessing sin is something one does to a priest in the confessional, not minutes before the Mass in which the Holy Eucharist is given.
I am confident that my own view, that I did the only thing a faithful Catholic priest could do in such an awkward situation, quietly, with no intention to hurt or embarrass, will be upheld. Otherwise any priest could-and many will-face the cruelest crisis of conscience that can be imposed. It seems to me, the lack of clarity on this most basic issue puts at risk other priests who wish to serve theCatholic Church in Washington D.C.
As to the latest allegations, I feel obliged to alleviate unnecessary suffering for the faithful at St. John Neumann and others who are following the case.
I wish to state that in conversation with Bishop Barry Knestout on the morning of March 13, he made it very clear that the whole of the case regarding the allegations of “intimidation” are circumscribed to two conversations; one with the funeral director and the other with a parish staff member present at the funeral. These conversations took place on March 7th and 8th, one day before the archdiocese’s latest decision to withdraw faculties (not suspend, since Cardinal Wuerl is not my bishop) on the 9th of March. I am fully aware of both meetings. And indeed contrary to the statement read on Sunday March 11th during all Masses at St. John Neumann, both instances have everything to do with the Eucharistic incident. There is no hidden other sin or “intimidation” allegations that they are working on, outside of these two meetings. [So the bishop was lying this whole time. How nice to lie to your faithful sheperd. If you truly can back up your claim Your Eminence, please state specifically the date and time and the content of the "other incidents" that are leading you to ban Fr. Guarnizo from your diocese. Prove him wrong, I dare you!]The meetings in question, occurred in our effort to document from people at the funeral Mass in written form a few facts about the nature of the incident. We have collected more than a few testimonies and affidavits, testifying to what really took place during the funeral liturgy.
My personal conversation with both parties in question were in my view civil, professional and in no way hostile. I respect both individuals in question and really do not know the nature of their grievance. On March 13, I asked Bishop Knestout about detail on this matter but he stated that he was not at liberty to discuss the matter. [That's political bull doo-doo speak for "Shut up" and "You damn know what this is about and I'm not letting the public know"] I would only add for the record, that the letter removing me from pastoral work in the Archdiocese of Washington, was already signed and sealed and on the table when I met with Bishop Knestout on March 9, even before he asked me the first question about the alleged clash. [That just goes to show you Fr. Was entering into a kangaroo court. He was pronounced guilty before being proven innocent. Lovely eh? Just makes you think what they'd do to a lay member of the church if Canon Law allowed it outside of the 'anyone' conditions for automatic excommunication.]
In the days to come I look forward to addressing any confusion about the above conversations if the Archdiocese or the persons involved wish to talk about it publicly or privately.
I am grateful for all the good wishes and prayers I have received. And sincerely, having lost my own mother not long ago, I again extend my condolences to the Johnson family. I finally wish for the good of the Universal Church, the archdiocese, my parish and the peace of friends and strangers around the world, that the archdiocese would cease resolving what they call internal personnel matters of which they cannot speak, through the public media.
I remain my bishop’s and my Church’s, and above all Christ Jesus’obedient servant, Very truly yours, Father Marcel Guarnizo."
Well good work bishop. You just booted one of your most faithful priests outside of the diocese. And you wonder why the moderately to traditionally faithful Catholic laity are getting sick of the bishops. You just made it now much harder for the faithful 1/4 of Catholics who still go to weekly Mass or even less than that who are truly obedient to the Church and its Magisterium. Now we have another example of hypocrisy we have to apologise (as in apologetics) against when other non-Catholics and lapsed Catholics accuse the church of being a corrupt hypocritical "organization".
It's bad enough we cannot trust our elected politicians in power who reward moral corruption and such, but when someone does something ethically or "conservative" in politics they get slammed. The politicians lie to us and waste our tax dollars. You have given further evidence to distrust the INSTIUTIONAL church and for weak or non-catechized Catholics to be validated in their misguided idea to leave the Church and that it's a hypocritical Old Boys' association. You have also, like our politicians, LIED to us just like those politicians. Did not Jesus show us to lead by example by the washing of the feet of his Apostles, of which will be retold worldwide in the Church at the Holy Thursday liturgy? Well when you don't serve Him and your flock of laity, you wonder why you bishops have no public credibility and Obama, McGuinty, etc. can walk all over the Church with abadon with regards to Catholic education or the contraception mandate south of the 44th parallel.
Finally, it was St. John Chrysostom that said that the road to Hell is paved with the skulls of bishops. And everyone wonders why he had to say that so many years ago. It`s things like this that make the saint`s statement timeless. Christ judges us all according to our vocation and profession in life including our souls`status (ordinary lay person vs. consecrated laity vs. consecrated with Holy Orders) Surely he will judge that bishop in his role as priest and bishop, and this error will be brought up in the bishop's eternal judgenemt, unless he repents in the Sacrament of Reconciliation.
Firstly, everone please get the word out now that the priest has his reply. It's clear his story differs from the lesbian activist's and the bishop's. The more this gets out, the more likely there will be action. At least this bishop may think twice the next time he pulls this stunt in future. Furthermore, please, I beg of you to increase your steadfast prayers. Please pray for Fr. Guarnizo that the virtues will continue to burn in him and that the Devil does not wear him down in this controversy. Furthermore, pray for the bishop of Washington, that he may unharden his heart, be remoreseful for what he has done and realize the spiritual crisis plaguing his Church, and that the candle of this theological and cardinal virtues will be lit brightly once again. And most importantly, please everyone add the Prayer to St. Michael, short or complete form to your daily prayers. The attacks on our most faithful priests with the advance of the Internet and in our post-modern era are ever strong. We all need the spiritual protection of Michael and his legions of angels spiritually in this increasingly dire time in our Catholic history.
Pax Tibi Christi, YCRCM.
P.S. As always, please read my blog rules in my 1st posting in August 2011 before you comment. My rules always apply.
Works Cited
1) Peters, Thomas. News Outlets Failed to Reveal Lesbian Denied Communion at Mother’s Funeral … is a Buddhist and Gay Rights Activist. 7 Mar, 2012. <http://www.catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=27899> 14 Mar 2012.
2) Zuhlsdorf, J. in Boorstein, M. Priest denies Communion to lesbian at her mother’s funeral. Anger ensues. Can. 915 hell breaks loose. 29 Feb 2012. <http://wdtprs.com/blog/2012/02/priest-denies-communion-to-lesbian-at-her-mothers-funeral-anger-ensues-can-915-hell-breaks-loose/>. 14 Mar 2012.
3) Peters, E. Remarks on the ‘Catholic Standard’ editorial on the lesbian/Communion controversy. 3 Mar 2012. <http://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2012/03/03/remarks-on-the-catholic-standard-editorial-on-the-lesbiancommunion-controvery/> 14 Mar 2012.
4) Knestout, B. "Dear Mrs. Johnson." 28 Feb 2012. <http://wp.patheos.com.s3.amazonaws.com/blogs/deaconsbench/files/2012/02/knestout-e1330551467667.jpg>. 14 Mar 2012.
5) Knestout, B. "Dear Brother Priest." 9 Mar 2012. <http://abbey-roads.blogspot.com/2012/03/fr-guarnizos-fate.html>. 14 Mar 2012.
6) Peters, E. Bp. Knestout’s March 9 letter on Fr. Guarnizo. 11 Mar 2012. <http://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2012/03/11/bp-knestouts-march-9-letter-on-fr-guarnizo/>. 14 Mar 2012.
7) Guarnizo, Marcel. Fr. Marcel Guarnizo’s Response to the Eucharistic Incident. 14 Mar 2012. <http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/priest-removal-from-ministry-was-tied-to-communion-incident/>. 14 Mar 2012.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)