A humanist Independence Day

"As were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of man. For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and they did not know until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of man."
 – Matthew 24:37-39

Google's 4th of July doodle

Homosexual activists complained that Google did not dedicate a doodle to them during "gay pride" month. Even though Google did sneak in the six color rainbow symbol of the LGBT movement in select search results.

But now Google has made up for that by inserting the rainbow symbol into their 4th of July doodle. Instead of an American flag hovering in the background there is... a six color rainbow. Anyone that wants to deny this direct connection has to come up with a convincing argument that the rainbow is a traditional symbol of Independence Day. It isn't. It doesn't belong in this picture anymore than snowflakes do.

As for the rest of the symbolism, I suspect that there is quite a bit of it that is relevant to the homosexual community. I may be reading too much into this, but I seem to detect quite a bit of sexual symbolism. For instance the highway that splits the center of the map of the United States.

The cities that are symbolized also seem to have significance to the homosexual community:
New York – Statue of Liberty
San Francisco – Golden Gate Bridge
Honolulu – palm tree
Washington, D.C.? – bald eagle
Key West? – guitar and orange
Austin, TX? – horse with cowboy hat
Chicago – Sears/Willis Tower

Is there any significance to the fact that the American eagle is looking to its left, instead of to its right as it does on the Great Seal of the United States?

Where are the colors "red, white and blue"? Instead we have lavender hues.

What is the symbolism of a barn and a silo, a picket fence, a corvette? Do these have any special significance to homosexuals? Of course I understand that they are symbols of the midwest and middle America, but I'm wondering if there is another hidden meaning.

Excuse me, but a horse with a cowboy hat seems sort of.... "gay". And I'm not saying that in any sort of derogatory way. I'm just pointing it out.

The godless folks at Google were only outdone by a group of atheists that chose this day of national celebration to fly banners with anti-God slogans. And the American Humanist Association thought this would be a good time to encourage "non-theist Americans to ‘come out of the closet’ and openly identify as such."

In the Bible, the rainbow is a symbol of hope; but it only appeared after God had destroyed the world because "The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." (Genesis 6:5)

Father Michael Rodriguez defends marriage

Father Michael Rodriguez

"You are a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek."
 – Psalm 110:4

Father Michael Rodriguez of El Paso, Texas defending marriage.



Father Rodriguez saying Mass.



At the webpage of San Juan Bautista (St. John the Baptist) Catholic Church in El Paso, Texas there are links to homilies by Father Michael in both English and Spanish.

There are also more videos of Father Michael at the JmjhfProductions YouTube channel. Here is a short video of San Juan Buatista Church.



God has given us some good priests. Let's be thankful for that. It is up to the Church to elevate men with the same devotion to Christ as Father Michael Rodriguez to become the bishops that lead the flock.

St. John the Baptist, you leapt in the womb at the presence of our Lord. You were his first witness. You made the path straight for him. You paid the ultimate sacrifice with your life in defense of marriage. Pray for us. Ora pro nobis.

Bishop Matthew Clark of Rochester and the issue of "homosexual marriage"

Sacred Heart Cathedral – Rochester, NY (built in 1927)

"You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free."
 – John 8:32

As I struggle to educate myself on what exactly happened in New York with regards to the Catholic Church's lack of effective opposition to "homosexual marriage", I have come across some rather disturbing Church history.

The trail starts with an article in Sunday's New York Times titled "After Backing Gay Marriage, 4 in G.O.P. Face Voters’ Verdict". I'll skip over the part about how Senator Mark J. Grisanti went to Mass just days after the vote. There is no mention in the article as to whether he received communion. I assume he did, because otherwise it would be big news. And no one in the New York Catholic Church has ever said that he should be denied communion anyway.

Where it gets interesting is with the case of James S. Alesi, "the first Republican senator to say he would support same-sex marriage this year". I wondered whether Alesi was a Catholic. The rather confusing answer came later in the article. It said "Mr. Alesi [worships at] Spiritus Christi Church, a Catholic congregation that broke with Rome in order to support gay men and lesbians, as well as women in the clergy."

As they say, "you can't make this stuff up".

Spritus Christi Church calls itself "an inclusive Catholic church where all are welcome". The "priest" of this church is a woman, Rev. Mary Ramerman. She is a former Methodist "who wished to become a [Catholic] priest" and "was encouraged by [former Catholic priest] Rev. James Callan". So she moved from California to New York to join Father Callan at Corpus Christi parish.

This happened sometime around 1983 as best as I can tell and Ramerman would have been around 28 years old at the time. With the support of Father Callan she became an associate pastor at the church where she "regularly preached, offered blessings, and stood behind the altar to raise the chalice during the consecration".

Fifteen years later, in 1998 the Bishop of Rochester, Matthew H. Clark, finally decided to take some action. Most likely he was forced into taking action by his superiors in Rome, because as we will see the Bishop had expressed some divergent views of his own in the past.

I'll let the Spiritus Christi Church tell this part of the story themselves in their own self-incriminating way:

On August 13, 1998, Bishop Matthew Clark, under pressure from Rome, removed Fr. Jim Callan as administrator after 22 years at Corpus Christi Church. The Vatican had trouble with three practices dear to the heart of Corpus Christi parishioners: the prominent role of women on the altar, the blessing of gay unions, and the offering of communion to those who were not Catholic.

Actually, Callan was just "reassigned to another parish in western New York". And Callan didn't just "bless gay unions", he "conducted same-sex weddings".

Soon afterward, associate pastor Mary Ramerman was terminated. Ramerman, who was 43 at the time and the mother of three children, said "My heart's broken. I also feel angry with the Church that it can't stand up for what it believes in."

I think we can all agree that this was a tragic situation, but not for the reasons cited by Mary Ramerman. This eventualy led to the formation of the Spiritus Christi Church which is not Roman Catholic, but still likes to call itself "catholic". Mary Ramerman was "ordained" in 2001 and is now the "priest" of the church. Jim Callan is now the associate pastor. He still refers to himself as "Father" Jim Callan although he was excommunicated in 1999.

It isn't easy to get excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church these days, but at least the Church hasn't totally given up on the practice. Actually the official statement is that he ''excommunicated himself'', for "starting his own church". Now we know what it takes to get automatically excommunicated.

Which made me begin to wonder about Rochester Bishop Matthew Clark and why he had allowed this to go on for 15 years without taking any action. I quickly learned that Clark "has been criticized for being overly tolerant of homosexuality and even challenging the Vatican's position of not allowing homosexual priests".

In March of this year in response to a statement from the Vatican banning individuals with “deep-seated” homosexual tendencies from entering the priesthood, Bishop Clark commented: "I know some magnificent gay priests.... I have always tried to be open to such candidates."

In 1997, a little over a year before the removal of the schismatic Father Callan, Bishop Clark invited the Rochester homosexual community to a Mass at Sacred Heart Cathedral. The homily he delivered was welcoming to the extreme and gave no indication whatsoever that Bishop Clark considers homosexual acts to be a sin, or that homosexuality itself is a "disorder". Here is an excerpt so that you can get a sense of his words that day:

God always calls us to become fully who God wants us to be. And to trust us enough that we will respond to that precious gift with everything that's good and noble and wonderful about us. And who at the same time, recognizing that we can be selfish and prone to sin, is always ready to reach out and to restore and to heal and to send us off again to become the wonderful person we're meant to be. I'd simply like to say this afternoon to you, dear sisters and brothers who gather here, that I hope we have a deep sense of solidarity one with the other. And that we reverence, respect and honor the freedom of one another, just as God honors those precious, God-given gifts in us.

To my brothers and sisters, gay and lesbian brothers and sisters, you have told me over years of conversations with you and you have relayed to me through friends with whom I have spoken, that far more often than not, our faith community seems forbidding; that in it you feel unwelcome; that your own struggles, issues, questions, joys, sorrows, talents, needs, gifts, are not respected as they should be. I hope I can say with confidence that this gathering this afternoon symbolizes a widespread sentiment among the people of our diocese, that we'd like to do a better job on that. And we would like to convey to you in a much more rewarding and genuine way, the respect that we have for your integrity, your goodness and your gifts. And at the same time, I hope that we could say to you with equal honesty that we are the weaker to the degree that we do not enjoy the wonderful gifts God gives you for the sake of the community.

I could certainly understand if someone sitting in one of the pews that day who was engaged in a homosexual life, could listen to the soothing words of the Bishop's homily and go home thinking that the Bishop had just endorsed their choice of sexual orientation. And that the Bishop had even gone as far as to give them his blessing in the name of the Holy Catholic Church. How confusing this must be, when we know that a homosexual life can never be in "solidarity" with the teachings of the Church.

In 1986 Cardinal Ratzinger, the current Pope, issued a letter that addressed the "pastoral care of homosexual persons". In it he specifically condemns the type of language and ideas expressed in Bishop Clark's homily of 1997.

In the discussion which followed the publication of the [1975] Declaration, however, an overly benign interpretation was given to the homosexual condition itself, some going so far as to call it neutral, or even good. Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.

Therefore special concern and pastoral attention should be directed toward those who have this condition, lest they be led to believe that the living out of this orientation in homosexual activity is a morally acceptable option. It is not.
[...]
Increasing numbers of people today, even within the Church, are bringing enormous pressure to bear on the Church to accept the homosexual condition as though it were not disordered and to condone homosexual activity. Those within the Church who argue in this fashion often have close ties with those with similar views outside it.
[...]
The Church's ministers must ensure that homosexual persons in their care will not be misled by this point of view, so profoundly opposed to the teaching of the Church. But the risk is great and there are many who seek to create confusion regarding the Church's position, and then to use that confusion to their own advantage.

The movement within the Church, which takes the form of pressure groups of various names and sizes, attempts to give the impression that it represents all homosexual persons who are Catholics. As a matter of fact, its membership is by and large restricted to those who either ignore the teaching of the Church or seek somehow to undermine it. It brings together under the aegis of Catholicism homosexual persons who have no intention of abandoning their homosexual behaviour. One tactic used is to protest that any and all criticism of or reservations about homosexual people, their activity and lifestyle, are simply diverse forms of unjust discrimination.

There is an effort in some countries to manipulate the Church by gaining the often well-intentioned support of her pastors with a view to changing civil-statutes and laws. This is done in order to conform to these pressure groups' concept that homosexuality is at least a completely harmless, if not an entirely good, thing. Even when the practice of homosexuality may seriously threaten the lives and well-being of a large number of people, its advocates remain undeterred and refuse to consider the magnitude of the risks involved.
[...]
Christians who are homosexual are called, as all of us are, to a chaste life. As they dedicate their lives to understanding the nature of God's personal call to them, they will be able to celebrate the Sacrament of Penance more faithfully and receive the Lord's grace so freely offered there in order to convert their lives more fully to his Way.
[...]
The Bishops have the particularly grave responsibility to see to it that their assistants in the ministry, above all the priests, are rightly informed and personally disposed to bring the teaching of the Church in its integrity to everyone.

The characteristic concern and good will exhibited by many clergy and religious in their pastoral care for homosexual persons is admirable, and, we hope, will not diminish. Such devoted ministers should have the confidence that they are faithfully following the will of the Lord by encouraging the homosexual person to lead a chaste life and by affirming that person's God-given dignity and worth.

With this in mind, this Congregation wishes to ask the Bishops to be especially cautious of any programmes which may seek to pressure the Church to change her teaching, even while claiming not to do so. A careful examination of their public statements and the activities they promote reveals a studied ambiguity by which they attempt to mislead the pastors and the faithful. For example, they may present the teaching of the Magisterium, but only as if it were an optional source for the formation of one's conscience. Its specific authority is not recognized. Some of these groups will use the word "Catholic" to describe either the organization or its intended members, yet they do not defend and promote the teaching of the Magisterium; indeed, they even openly attack it. While their members may claim a desire to conform their lives to the teaching of Jesus, in fact they abandon the teaching of his Church. This contradictory action should not have the support of the Bishops in any way.

We encourage the Bishops, then, to provide pastoral care in full accord with the teaching of the Church for homosexual persons of their dioceses. No authentic pastoral programme will include organizations in which homosexual persons associate with each other without clearly stating that homosexual activity is immoral. A truly pastoral approach will appreciate the need for homosexual persons to avoid the near occasions of sin.

We would heartily encourage programmes where these dangers are avoided. But we wish to make it clear that departure from the Church's teaching, or silence about it, in an effort to provide pastoral care is neither caring nor pastoral. Only what is true can ultimately be pastoral. The neglect of the Church's position prevents homosexual men and women from receiving the care they need and deserve.

All support should be withdrawn from any organizations which seek to undermine the teaching of the Church, which are ambiguous about it, or which neglect it entirely. Such support, or even the semblance of such support, can be gravely misinterpreted. Special attention should be given to the practice of scheduling religious services and to the use of Church buildings by these groups, including the facilities of Catholic schools and colleges. To some, such permission to use Church property may seem only just and charitable; but in reality it is contradictory to the purpose for which these institutions were founded, it is misleading and often scandalous.

There seems to be a pattern of Bishop Clark deliberately ignoring Church teachings that do not fit his view; specifically on the subject of homosexuality.

Another example occurred in 1997, when Bishop Clark attended a New Ways Ministry conference. This is a group that advocates for changing Catholic teaching on homosexuality. Bishop Clark should have been aware that the group's activities had been denounced in 1984 by the Archbishop of Washington James Hickey for their "lack of adherence to Church teaching on the morality of homosexual acts". Later, in 1999 they were further condemned by the Vatican.

As recently as 2010, Bishop Clark wrote an article titled "All are beloved children of God" which was reprinted with permission in the newsletter of a group called "Fortunate Families". In it he refuses to explicitly condemn homosexual acts and speaks rather ambiguously about the Church's teachings.

I will not dwell here on the well known teaching of the Catholic Church opposing same-sex marriage. It is a teaching the church has made clear, and one I understand theologically and uphold faithfully as bishop. At the same time, I lament that the "don’ts" of our teaching too often drown out the "do’s." I lament that the full teaching of the church as it concerns gay and lesbian people is either too little known, too often left unspoken or, in some cases, deliberately ignored.

Fortunate Families is a Rochester, NY based group that "serves as a resource and networking ministry with Catholic parents of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender children." This is a laudable mission as long as it does not engage in activities which are contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church. At first glance the group seems to be faithfully Catholic. But I noticed that in their document "What the Church Teaches" they chose to attack the letter which I quoted from above which was written by Cardinal Ratzinger:

It proved to be quite controversial, perceived by many lay people and clergy as harsh in tone and less than pastorally sensitive.... The purpose is not pastoral, but to state the inclination of the homosexual person is an “objective disorder.” This, he said, is “like telling someone that he or she is carrying a moral time bomb.”

They failed to mention that the author of this "harsh" and "not pastoral" letter is the current head pastor of the Catholic Church – the former Cardinal Ratzinger and the current Pope Benedict XVI.

Fortunate Families has also been allied with New Ways Ministry, the "catholic" homosexual advocacy group that I mentioned above. When the group was recently condemned again by Cardinal George in 2010, Fortunate Families came rushing to their defense:

Most of you know that New Ways has been striving for many years in its mission to be a bridge building ministry between lesbian/gay Catholics and their families and friends, and the institutional church. Yet, it's authenticity as a Catholic group has recently been challenged by Cardinal Francis George, archbishop of Chicago and president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Unfortunately, the sad truth is that Fortunate Families is not just a support group for Catholic parents of homosexual children, it is also an advocate for "homosexual marriage". In 2010 they joined in a coalition with three other "catholic" homosexual groups – New Ways Ministry, DignityUSA, and Call To Action – to promote "homosexual marriage". The coalition has been dubbed "Equally Blessed".

"Equally Blessed unites Catholic Voices for Marriage Equality, Justice" -- Four longstanding Catholic organizations announced today that they have formed Equally Blessed, a coalition of faithful Catholics who support full equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people both in the church and in civil society. “As Catholics, we believe that all human beings are beloved children of God,” said Francis DeBernardo, executive director of New Ways Ministry, an Equally Blessed member. “We are called to do our part in bringing about justice in the church and the world, and Equally Blessed will allow us to do that together.” The coalition also includes Call To Action, DignityUSA and Fortunate Families.

Why hasn't Bishop Clark condemned these efforts by Fortunate Families since they form part of his diocese and claim to be "faithful Catholics"?

Lest you think that Bishop Clark is just a "hands off" manager, there is at least one instance that I could find of him getting involved and condemning the activity of a group in his diocese with regards to the issue of homosexuality. This happened in 1997:

Bishop Matthew Clark of Rochester (NY) has imposed severe restrictions on the Catholic Physicians Guild and the Catholic Lawyers Guild in his diocese, after both groups issued statements critical of homosexuality. Bishop Clark, who has been forthright in his support of homosexuals, participated in a recent national conference sponsored by the militant pro-homosexual New Ways Ministry. Bishop Clark told the two professional groups that henceforth they cannot hold meetings or disseminate literature without his permission and accused them of undermining his authority.

There is some speculation as to what exactly caused the Bishop to accuse these groups of "undermining his authority". In the case of the "Catholic Lawyers Guild" it seems to be a notice that they published critical of the “Mass for Gay and Lesbian Catholics” which I mentioned above. The lawyers guild which is officially known as the "St. Thomas More Lawyers Guild" issued a statement which begins as follows:

On March 1, 1997, Bishop Matthew H. Clark of the Diocese of Rochester, New York presided at a “Mass for Gay and Lesbian Catholics” at Sacred Heart Cathedral. Prior to the celebration of the Mass, Bishop Clark stated that he was “going to disappoint” those Catholics who had expressed the concern that he should remind those attending the Mass that homosexual activity is sinful. According to Bishop Clark, it would have been “oppressive and manipulative” to “pound on” the sinfulness of homosexual activity. (Catholic Courier, February 27, 1997, p. 3.) The media reported that “[Bishop] Clark avoided any discussion of the official teachings of the Catholic Church” on the homosexuality issue. (Rochester Democrat & Chronicle, March 2, 1997, p. 1A.)

Because of his failure to convey the full teaching of the Catholic Church on the issue of homosexuality, his words and actions caused much confusion among the faithful, especially our youth.

I am beginning to suspect that Bishop Clark was not fully in agreement with the public stance of the New York Bishops which was against the "homosexual marriage" bill. A search for his comments on the bill during the past few weeks comes up with only one result, when he was cornered by reporters at the blessing of a cemetery. He made a pro forma statement in support of the Catholic view on marriage, but still managed to throw in enough ambiguity that one reporter wrote that the "Bishop does believe the Catholic Church will continue to evolve in various way".

"Reaching out in more effective pastoral ways, embracing however you want to put it, people who are of homosexual orientation or life practice. We don't approve of that practice but that's not to say we don't see good, loving people who go that way of life,” Bishop Clark explained. “We don't say that there is no love there at all, there is no sign of God's presence because indeed they remain God's children beloved of us all. It is more a question of how you reach that wonderful end of equality for all people and we're just arguing in this case that you don't effectively, long-term do it by redefining an institution that has served us so beautifully.”

Another reporter highlighted the Bishop's initial response when asked about the issue.

The Bishop appeared surprised to be asked about the issue.... "Oh, my heavens," Bishop Clark laughed when the topic of gay marriage first came up.

Either he was "surprised", or he was hoping that he wouldn't have to address the question directly.

Wouldn't you have expected the Bishop to make a strong statement in writing with regards to the question of "homosexual marriage" while the debate was raging in his home state? Especially given his past history with regards to the teachings of the Church on homosexuality. In this case silence is not golden. Senator Alesi, who lives in the Diocese of Rochester, is probably counting on Bishop Clark's continued silence when he comes up for reelection.

You remember Senator Alesi. He attends the schismatic "catholic" church that was formed in the Diocese of Rochester largely due to Bishop Clark's neglect of the heretical practices that went on there for so many years.

And now we see the dire consequences of the systematic denial of Church teachings regarding homosexuality. Unfortunately, these consequence could affect not just the city of Rochester or the state of New York, but could spread throughout the United States and even beyond.

Finally, I would like to say that I didn't write this article in order to attack Bishop Clark. My intention is to spread the truth of the Church's teachings about homosexuality. I hope that Bishop Clark and other bishops in New York and around the country will begin anew to dedicate themselves to the authentic teachings of the Catholic Church – and not just on homosexuality.

My prayer is that the Holy Spirit will open the hearts of Bishop Clark and the other bishops in New York and around the country so that they can guide their flocks back along the one true path that Christ has revealed to us. There are many lost sheep and lambs out there that desperately need their guidance.

St. Joseph, father of Jesus in this valley of tears, give us your guidance. Lift us up in your arms as you lifted the Child Jesus and protect us from those that would harm us. Teach us the ways of the Lord. Amen.

It's up to you New York, NY

St. Paul – Vatican statue

I did not shrink from declaring to you anything that was profitable.... I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole counsel of God.
 – Acts 20:20,27

The Archbishop of New York, Timothy Dolan, was profiled in a New York Magazine article titled "The Archbishop of Charm" when he first took over the position in 2009. In it he discusses the issue of "homosexual marriage". The tag line underneath the title of the article is very revealing: "If anyone can repair the church’s image, it’s Timothy Dolan. Except there are only so many nice ways to say no."

He is a glad-hander and a backslapper, a tall, energetic, portly Irish-Catholic lug who likes smoking cigars and sipping Jameson’s. He makes a point of saying he’d be far happier talking to me at a parish fish fry than here, jamming himself sideways into an ornate, narrow chair. And before long, Dolan is eagerly discussing some of the more controversial issues he’ll have to weigh in on—like gay marriage, blocked during the last legislative session in Albany but almost certain to be reintroduced. As early as his first week, he went on record saying he believed the union between a man and a woman was “hardwired” into us. Now, with a smile, he anticipates the question of where that leaves gay men and lesbians. “Do I hear you saying, ‘Well, if something’s hardwired into us, wouldn’t it be hardwired into them?’ ” he asks.

There is a narrow range of responses that contemporary Catholic leaders have made to a question like this—ranging from a 2006 conference of American bishops concluding that “homosexual acts … violate the true purpose of sexuality,” to the 1990 Catholic Encyclopedia’s declaration that being gay is “not a normal condition, the acts being against nature are objectively wrong.” Dolan goes in another direction. “I would say likewise hardwired into us is the desire for friendship and a desire for companionship,” he says. “And I think the church would say, ‘We must respect that.’ So we would not take that away from anybody, whatever their sexual preferences might be.”

Friendships of the sort that Dolan is describing—leaving aside any sexual component—are all right in his eyes, he explains, as long as they aren’t called a marriage. “We’re more into the defense of marriage itself,” he explains, “so that even though people would have the right to companionship, the right to marriage would only be, by its very definition, between a man and a woman.”

But now Dolan senses that he may have said something disappointing. So he strikes a conciliatory note. “It’s not that we’re saying, ‘You don’t have the right.’ We would say that if people feel that the concomitant rights of friendship and companionship are being violated—for instance, insurance coverage, or the ability of one to visit a sick partner—we would defend those rights. There are ways to ameliorate some of the disadvantages that same-sex couples feel without tampering with the very definition of marriage.”

That, I say, sounds a lot like domestic partnerships.

Dolan straightens up suddenly. “It does sound like that,” he says. “And thank you for pointing that out. Because I wouldn’t want to go there.”

I haven't highlighted any part of this excerpt because I think the whole thing needs to be read carefully and pondered on.

Personally, when I read this it made me quite sad. I don't see how Archbishop Dolan is ever going to be able to lead an effective fight against "homosexual marriage" in the state of New York while taking this type of stance. I'm beyond disappointed. I'm devastated. Keep in mind that Dolan is not just the Archbishop of New York, he is also the recently elected head of the American bishops.

If I could make one suggestion to Archbishop Dolan, it would be that he consider these words of our Holy Father Benedict XVI delivered on March 10, 2011 to a gathering of the priests of the Diocese of Rome.

We have listened to the passage from the Acts of the Apostles (20:17-38) in which St Paul speaks to the priests of Ephesus, deliberately recounted by St Luke as a testament of the Apostle, as a discourse not only intended for the priests of Ephesus but for priests in every epoch. St Paul does not only speak to those who were present in that place, he truly speaks to us. Let us, therefore, endeavour to understand a little of what he is saying to us at this moment.
[...]
We do [not] seek praise, we do not want to attract attention, it does not matter to us what may be said of us in the newspapers or elsewhere; what matters is what God says. This is true humility, not to appear before men and women but to be in God’s presence, to work humbly for God and thus really to serve humanity and men and women.

“I did not shrink from declaring to you anything that was profitable, and teaching you in public” (Acts 20:20). After a few more sentences St Paul returns to this point and says: “I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole counsel of God” (v. 27). This is important; the Apostle did not preach an “à la carte” Christianity to suit his own inclinations, he did not preach a Gospel to suit his own favourite theological ideas; he did not shrink from the commitment to proclaiming the whole of God’s will, even an inconvenient will and even topics of which he was personally not so enamoured.

It is our mission to proclaim the whole of God’s will, in its totality and ultimate simplicity. But it is important that we teach and preach — as St Paul says here — and really propose the will of God in its entirety. And I think that if the contemporary world is curious to know everything, even we ourselves must be more curious to know God’s: what could be more interesting, more important, more essential for us than knowing God’s wishes, knowing God’s will and God’s face?

Please, Archbishop. No "a la carte" Christianity. Let God's will be done.

My old man

[Jesus] answered, "Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, `For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder."
 – Matthew 19:4-6

Joni Mitchell – "Blue" album cover (1971)

My old man
He's a singer in the park
He's a walker in the rain
He's a dancer in the dark

We don't need no piece of paper
From the city hall
Keeping us tied and true
No, my old man
Keeping away my lonesome blues
 – My old man by Joni Mitchell (1970)

I hate to be the one to agree with a bigot like Rush Limbaugh, but this one time he's right. The left, the liberals, the secular humanists, the atheists, the hippies, the counter-culture or whatever you want to call it never cared about marriage until they latched on to the concept of "homosexual marriage".



In fact marriage was an institution that was totally rejected by the "progressive" thinkers of the 1960s. Everything possible was done to undermine marriage. The feminists viewed marriage as an institution created by men to imprison women. "Free sex" was the motto of the day. Sex outside of marriage was viewed as a form of liberation. The notion of getting married was considered old fashioned at best.

Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, and an advocate of "free sex" wrote in 1914 in an article titled "No Gods, No Masters":

Marriage, which is a personal agreement between a man and a woman, should be no concern of the State or of the Church.
[...]
Marriage laws abrogate the freedom of woman by enforcing upon her a continuous sexual slavery and a compulsory motherhood.

Marriage laws have been dictated and dominated by the Church always and ever upon the unquestionable grounds of the wisdom of the Bible.

A man and woman who under a natural condition avow their love for each other should be immediately qualified by this to give expression to their love or to perpetuate the race without the necessity of a public declaration.

A reciprocal, spontaneous voluntary declaration of love and mutual feelings by a man and woman is the expression of Nature’s desires. Were it not natural it would not be so and being natural it is right.

Notice that even Sanger believed that marriage was restricted to "a man and a woman". She simply argued (incorrectly) that neither "the State [nor] the Church" should be involved. This came to be the  view of marriage endorsed by the counter-cultural movement of the 1960s as expressed in the lyrics of Joni Mitchell who is an icon of that era.

And notice that Sanger bases her argument on "Nature", but what is natural about contraception and abortion? Yet that did not stop Sanger from fighting in favor of those views even more strongly than she fought against marriage.

Limbaugh asks "when did marriage become so important to liberals?" It became important when they realized that one particular form of "marriage" could be used to undermine the authority of the Church.

This answer to Limbaugh's question makes more sense when we realize that the liberal agenda has been hijacked by the secular humanists. The ultimate goal of the secular humanists movement is to destroy the Church. This follows from the fact that "humanism" is just the PC equivalent of "atheism"; in the same way that "gay" is the PC equivalent of "homosexual".

Marriage is only an important issue to the secular humanists with regards to how they can destroy it. So for them the important marriage issues in the past have been divorce, contraception, civil marriage, open marriage, etc.

Humanists were looking for a way to use the Church's stance on homosexuality in order to attack her. It was not enough to point out that the Church viewed homosexual acts as sinful, they had to somehow deliver the message that the Church was "discriminating" against homosexuals. To do this, they needed to create a confrontation between the Church and homosexuals where none had previously existed.

Humanists knew that the very notion of "homosexual marriage" was totally unacceptable to the Church, and so they decided to press this issue. Not because there was some enormous latent desire for homosexuals to marry, but because they knew they could turn this into an issue of "civil rights" which could then be used to garner public sympathy for their cause.

So far the humanist strategy with regards to "homosexual marriage" has been carried out with near perfection in the form of a public relations blitzkrieg against the Church. The attacks have come from all sides simultaneously through the newspapers, the TV stations, music, celebrities, politicians and even through sources within the Church herself.

But take heart fellow Christians. The longer this battle drags out, the more their blitzkrieg will bog down into conventional warfare. And the humanists will be forced to defend their positions. Already their use of the strategy of "civil unions" as a way to open the door to "homosexual marriage" has been exposed. And this has brought into question the ultimate goal of the humanist/homosexual coalition. More and more people are beginning to distrust assurances that churches will be protected from the effects of "homosexual marriage". As well they should.

Now if we could only get the leadership of the Catholic Church solidly behind the fight against "homosexual marriage".... Perhaps the American Catholic Church will finally be forced to take a stronger stance by a coalition of evangelical, black and hispanic church leaders who are beginning to make their voices heard on this issue.

Epilogue: What went wrong with the counter-cultural movement of the 1960s?

The funny thing about the counter-cultural movement of the 1960s is that it wasn't "counter-cultural" at all. At least not in the way that people like Joni Mitchell thought it was. They viewed themselves as rebelling against "the establishment'. But they were just echoing the views of establishment figures like Margaret Sanger, whose Planned Parenthood organization had the backing of big establishment groups like the Rockefeller Foundation and the Ford Foundation.

In fact the Rockefeller Foundation could not have come up with a better plan if they tried for indoctrinating the young people of America (and the world) in favor of "free love" and contraception. Because as anyone can easily deduce, you can't have one without the other.

And once young people began to sterilize themselves through the use of contraception in order to engage in "free sex" then the result was a decrease in the fertility rate of the population. And all this was accomplished without having to use the force of the State because young women were convinced to voluntarily administer to themselves hormonal poisons which act like human pesticides.

I think that Joni Mitchell and many others like her are in denial to this day about the role they played in moving forward the eugenic "population control" agenda of the elite.

Related articles:

• Gay "marriage": war against religion

Archbishop Dolan's omission

"Lord, to whom shall we go?"
– John 6:68

The coat of arms of Archbishop Dolan.
Motto: "AD QUEM IBIMUS" or "Lord, TO WHOM SHALL WE GO?"

The Catholic Church teaches us that there are sins of commission and sins of omission. Sins of commission are the obvious ones in which we do something wrong. Sins of omission are when we fail to do something good.

Archbishop Dolan of New York has failed in his duty to defend the faith. Not because he was unsuccessful in leading the fight against "homosexual marriage" in New York, but specifically because he has failed repeatedly to put an end to the most notorious public scandal in his archdiocese.

I'm using the word "scandal" as it is used within the context of Catholic teaching. It is a scandal that the Catholic Governor of New York has not been specifically condemned for his public support of abortion, "homosexual marriage" and contraception. It is a scandal that Governor Andrew Cuomo presents himself for communion while maintaining a very public non-marital sexual relationship.

What kind of examples do these set for the rest of the Catholics in New York? What does this tell the average Catholic about how we should practice our religion, and about how seriously we should take the teachings of the Catholic faith?

It is Archbishop Dolan's duty and responsibility to make clear the state of mortal sin of Governor Cuomo. Other bishops throughout the country have withheld communion to high-level officials under such circumstances, but Dolan has not taken any public action against Cuomo. His silence on this topic is deafening. And the message it sends to the faithful is poisonous. The message is that there is nothing wrong with publicly opposing some of the most fundamental moral teachings of the Church, while at the same time claiming to be a full-fledged member of the Catholic Church.

Archbishop Dolan is the gatekeeper; he holds the key. If he refuses to publicly use the power of his office to demonstrate his disapproval of Cuomo's actions, then what right do the rest of us have to speak out? He is the figure of authority appointed by the Church to specifically address such issues.

In this video from a local New York TV station we see Archbishop Dolan apologizing to the "gay community". Why does he need to apologize to homosexuals? Is he saying that the Catholic teaching is wrong with regards to homosexuality? The ones he needs to apologize to are faithful Catholics for not defending the Church's teachings as forcefully as he should.



Associate Press religion writer Rachel Zoll (who is known to delight in attacking conservatives within the Church) made this comment in an article titled "Bishops' message blunted in NY gay marriage vote".

New York bishops are generally more moderate, which partly explains their strategies in recent months. While Dolan has spoken out forcefully on marriage, abortion and other issues, he has never joined U.S. bishops who have publicly denied Holy Communion to dissenting Catholic lawmakers in their own dioceses.

Dolan prefers to maintain a dialogue with the legislators. There is no indication he has changed his position since the vote.

Joan Frawley Desmond of the National Catholic Register writes:

[Governor Andrew Cuomo's] open defiance of Church authority incurred no loss of political capital or moral credibility.... A denial of Communion might prompt a reassessment of this calculation, but the bishops of New York have signaled their discomfort with this approach.

"To whom shall we go?" If Archbishop Dolan of New York is "uncomfortable" with doing what is demanded by Church doctrine, then perhaps the best thing for him to do is to resign and let Rome appoint someone that is "comfortable" with doing the job entrusted to him by God and the Church. Let the chips fall where they may. Let the dogs of the media howl. But don't compromise the Catholic Church. And if this results in a huge exodus from the Church. Then so be it. Then at least we will know where people stand.

The heresy of Americanism

Happy 4th of July!

Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and for ever.
 – Hebrews 13:8

Obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls.
 – Hebrews 13:17

America. The land of the free and the home of the brave.

There is a spirit of independence that we celebrate at this time of year that distinguishes the United States of America from the rest of the world.

But there has always been a certain tension between the American spirit and the Christian spirit. The independence and freedom that we so revere are not always in keeping with the teachings of Jesus Christ who tells us that "blessed are the poor in spirit". (Matthew 5:3)

American "exceptionalism" says that what applies to other nations does not always apply to us. We consider our country to be unique; exceptional.

This "exceptionalism" has at times spilled over and created tensions with the Roman Catholic Church, which is a universal church. The tendency for the American Catholic Church to go its own way has been dubbed "Americanism". It is a heresy because if left unchecked it can lead to a schism in the Church, and result in the creation of a Catholic Church in America that is separate and distinct from the Catholic Church in the rest of the world.

Are we already seeing this? Is the Catholic Church of Governor Andrew Cuomo and Nancy Pelosi – and frankly thousands of others – the beginnings of a separate church? Do Catholics in America – including many priests and bishops – really believe in the teachings of the universal Catholic Church? And do American Catholics really believe in the authority of the Pope?

Similar questions have plagued the Catholic Church in America since at least the 1890s. In 1899 Pope Leo XIII sent an Apostolic Letter to the American Catholic Church "Concerning New Opinions, Virtue, Nature And Grace, With Regard To Americanism". This letter is also known by its Latin name "Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae" which roughly translated means something like "in witness to our benevolence" or "an expression of our good will". (Some refer to this papal letter as an encyclical, but this is not correct.)

In the letter Pope Leo XIII is highly critical of certain reported practices in the American Catholic Church and the intent of the letter is clearly to put an end to these dissident practices. But the Pope is also careful to express that his criticisms are done in the spirit of "good will"; like a loving father correcting his errant son.

Some of the practices that the Pope criticizes in 1899 are eerily familiar.

The underlying principle of these new opinions is that, in order to more easily attract those who differ from her, the Church should shape her teachings more in accord with the spirit of the age and relax some of her ancient severity and make some concessions to new opinions. Many think that these concessions should be made not only in regard to ways of living, but even in regard to doctrines which belong to the deposit of the faith. They contend that it would be opportune, in order to gain those who differ from us, to omit certain points of her teaching which are of lesser importance, and to tone down the meaning which the Church has always attached to them.

The specific issues may have been different at that time, but the principles are the same. Should the Church relax its teaching on certain controversial issues "in order to more easily attract those who differ from her"? Isn't this the same thinking that some American Catholics employ today to suggest that the Church should relax its teachings on issues such as contraception, abortion and homosexuality?

The response of Pope Leo XIII to these "new opinions" in 1899 is the same one we should have today.

Let it be far from anyone's mind to suppress for any reason any doctrine that has been handed down. Such a policy would tend rather to separate Catholics from the Church than to bring in those who differ. There is nothing closer to our heart than to have those who are separated from the fold of Christ return to it, but in no other way than the way pointed out by Christ.

In other words, it would do more harm than good for the American Church to attempt to accommodate those who have strayed away from her. And in fact we have seen that the more the Church attempts to accommodate itself to secular opinions, the more she loses members of her flock. It is by remaining faithful to the teachings of Jesus Christ and Catholic tradition that the Church has remained strong throughout the ages.

The Pope makes it clear that he perceives a dark menace behind these seemingly benevolent "new opinions".

But, beloved son, in this present matter of which we are speaking, there is even a greater danger and a more manifest opposition to Catholic doctrine and discipline in that opinion of the lovers of novelty, according to which they hold such liberty should be allowed in the Church, that her supervision and watchfulness being in some sense lessened, allowance be granted the faithful, each one to follow out more freely the leading of his own mind and the trend of his own proper activity.

Today, we see how this trend has been handed down to us, and the consequences of each one "freely [following] the leading of his own mind". There is no clearer example of the danger that Pope Leo XIII warned about than the passage of the bill on "homosexual marriage" that just took place in New York. A Catholic governor and some Catholic legislators decided that the teachings of the Church could be freely ignored, because they gave more importance to their own personal opinions shaped by the secular world.

And this mode of thinking is no longer confined just to America, but has spread throughout the world. See the following video from Ireland to see how some Irish Catholics freely interpret their faith. One wonders how much these views have been shaped by American secular culture that is spread internationally via movies, music, television shows and magazines.



Towards the end of this letter Pope Leo XIII defines what it means to be a "real Catholic".

Wherefore, if anybody wishes to be considered a real Catholic, he ought to be able to say from his heart the selfsame words which Jerome addressed to Pope Damasus: "I, acknowledging no other leader than Christ, am bound in fellowship with Your Holiness; that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that the church was built upon him as its rock, and that whosoever gathereth not with you, scattereth."

Are you listening Governor Cuomo? How about you Maureen Dowd?