WANTED: Shepherd to lead flock

I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. He who is a hireling and not a shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees; and the wolf snatches them and scatters them.
 – John 10:11-12

The Good Shepherd

I'm confused. Archbishop Timothy Dolan says "abortion, marriage, euthanasia, lying, stealing, artificial contraception, sexual acts outside of marriage, ordination of women" are all Church doctrines.

That's not the part I'm confused about. I get it that these are Church doctrines which cannot be changed.

I am however left a little bit confused by the term "sexual acts outside of marriage" since New York State has now legalized "homosexual marriage". So when His Eminency uses the term "marriage", how are we supposed to interpret that? Is he saying it's OK for a "married" homosexual couple to engage in sex according to Church doctrine?

BTW, I wish that Abp. Dolan didn't try to play politically correct nice-ball by avoiding the term "homosexual". He seems to prefer the use of the word "gay". But isn't that offensive to the rest of the LGBTQ crowd?

This next item has me even more confused. Maybe confused isn't the right term. Maybe I should say 'dumbfounded' instead. No matter how many times I re-read this following statement I can't make sense of it:

"To be clear, yes, the Church does have some 'policies' that can be changed, for instance, abstinence of meat on Friday, fasting from food before Holy Communion, or even priestly celibacy."

"Even priestly celibacy"??? [Insert record scratch sound effect here.] Is that a typo? Is the Archbishop saying this is just a Church "policy" on the same level as the tradition of eating fish on Friday?

Is this something Dolan's been discussing with his fellow American bishops behind closed doors? Does the Vatican know that the head of American bishops thinks that priestly celibacy is optional like eating fish on Friday?

I should stop now, but there is another thing I'm confused about. What exactly does this mean?

"I would wager most bishops, priests, deacons, pastoral leaders, and maybe even the Holy Father himself has, at one time or another wished the Church could alter the teaching of Jesus that marriage is forever, and that one cannot break that sacred bond asunder."

Why would the Holy Father wish that he could change the teaching of the Church on marriage? Excuse me for saying this Archbishop, but I think you've been reading too many Maureen Dowd columns. Or have you picked up the distasteful habit of reading the National Catholic Reporter every morning?

Can't you hear your flock crying out for a shepherd to lead them?

Father Rodriguez on the crisis in the Church -- Part 2

Now war arose in heaven, Michael and his angels fighting against the dragon.
 – Revelation 12:7

Here is the second part of the interview with Father Michael Rodriguez of El Paso, Texas. In this segment he speaks extensively about the traditional Latin Mass and what it can teach us about our Catholic faith.



I think Father Rodriguez makes an important point when he says that "our Catholic faith has been compromised" by the new Mass. After seeing the latest defeat of the Catholic faith in New York with regard to the issue of "homosexual marriage" and the response from the Church leadership, I was faced with my own personal crisis of faith.

And I asked myself, "If a child is raised up in the Catholic Church as it exists today in the United States, will that child learn to love God as Christ commanded with all our heart, soul, strength and mind?" And even from a pragmatic point of view, would that child be equipped to do battle with the secular culture as is required of all Christians in this age in which we live?

What I see is the same thing that Father Michael is saying, which is that the secular culture has crept into the new Mass. And as the culture infiltrates the Mass and dilutes it, so too is our faith diluted. We become more accepting and tolerant of the secular culture in areas where it is in sharp conflict with Catholic teachings.

We have two choices. Either we can abandon the Catholic Church and find a Christian denomination that is standing up against the culture. Or we can demand that the Catholic Church in America truly defend the teachings of our faith.

One way to begin to recapture our faith is to attend the Latin Mass. This does not mean that we must totally reject the new Mass, but it means that we must demand that the Church truly accept its mission of proclaiming the Word of Christ -- especially when this goes counter to what our culture teaches.

 +++

See the first part here:
Father Michael Rodriguez on the crisis in the Church

See also:
Father Michael Rodriguez defends marriage

See the website for San Juan Bautista Catholic Church in El Paso for links to Father Rodriguez's homilies.
http://sanjuan.webhop.org

The road to Tyranny

But I have this against you, that you tolerate the woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess and is teaching and beguiling my servants to practice immorality and to eat food sacrificed to idols.
 – Revelation 2:20

Almost a year ago now, I wrote an article discussing Pope Leo XIII's 1888 encyclical on freedom. Reading over my article I don't feel that I did justice to the words of our Holy Father. In light of the events of the past year I think it's time for me to revisit his words.

The encyclical "Libertas" is a profound document. It warns of the dangers of a liberal ideology that holds up freedom as a goddess to worship above all others. Today we are seeing the consequences of this ideology when put into practice. The secular humanists have taken up this cause from the 19th century liberals, and imposed this radical ideology on America through the media, the classrooms and the courts.

I could not possibly hope to cover all of "Libertas" in one short article. Instead I will highlight a few excerpts.

The road to tyranny

(16)For, once ascribe to human reason the only authority to decide what is true and what is good, and the real distinction between good and evil is destroyed; honor and dishonor differ not in their nature, but in the opinion and judgment of each one; pleasure is the measure of what is lawful; and, given a code of morality which can have little or no power to restrain or quiet the unruly propensities of man, a way is naturally opened to universal corruption. With reference also to public affairs: authority is severed from the true and natural principle whence it derives all its efficacy for the common good; and the law determining what it is right to do and avoid doing is at the mercy of a majority. Now, this is simply a road leading straight to tyranny. The empire of God over man and civil society once repudiated, it follows that religion, as a public institution, can have no claim to exist, and that everything that belongs to religion will be treated with complete indifference.

Allow me to freely interpret this passage from Leo XIII.

1. Once we accept the principal that each person is free to decide for himself what is right and what is wrong, then we fall into moral relativism. (This is what Pope Benedict XVI calls "the dictatorship of relativism".)
2. If each individual bases his decisions on whatever "feels good" then we will fall as a society into decadence.
3. The rule of law will be undermined because there will be no moral absolutes upon which to base it. Instead it will be based purely on majority opinion which can be easily manipulated.
4. This will lead first to anarchy (mob rule) and then to dictatorship as a means of restoring order. (I'm reminded of the French Revolution which led to Napoleon becoming Emperor of France.)
5. Religious rights will be trampled upon. This follows directly from the rejection of God. If God is no longer viewed as the Supreme Ruler over society and Christian morality is no longer recognized as the basis of law, then this will ultimately lead to the persecution of Christians.

Although I'm sure that our 19th century Pope could not even have begun to imagine "homosexual marriage", it is just the sort of thing that he was warning us about. The implications that this has for religious freedom are becoming ever more clear. But Pope Leo XIII envisioned even more treacherous consequences. He warned us that a fanatical worship of "freedom" actually leads to chaos and eventually dictatorship.

Intolerance in the name of 'tolerance'

(35)And as to tolerance, it is surprising how far removed from the equity and prudence of the Church are those who profess what is called liberalism. For, in allowing that boundless license of which We have spoken, they exceed all limits, and end at last by making no apparent distinction between truth and error, honesty and dishonesty. And because the Church, the pillar and ground of truth, and the unerring teacher of morals, is forced utterly to reprobate and condemn tolerance of such an abandoned and criminal character, they calumniate her as being wanting in patience and gentleness, and thus fail to see that, in so doing, they impute to her as a fault what is in reality a matter for commendation. But, in spite of all this show of tolerance, it very often happens that, while they profess themselves ready to lavish liberty on all in the greatest profusion, they are utterly intolerant toward the Catholic Church, by refusing to allow her the liberty of being herself free.

These words hardly need clarifying since we have so many living examples right before our eyes. The issues of 'tolerance' towards abortion and homosexuality are the most obvious. We are told to stop being judgmental. We are even told that Jesus did not condemn the sinner. Actually, He did. He was quite clear that the sinners would be thrown into the fire. He only offered his forgiveness to those who repented and showed sincere regret for their sins. And He commanded them to "sin no more". Our God is a god of infinite mercy, but also a god of harsh punishment for those who refuse to accept His love and bow down before Him.

Following in the footsteps of Lucifer

(14)If when men discuss the question of liberty they were careful to grasp its true and legitimate meaning, such as reason and reasoning have just explained, they would never venture to affix such a calumny on the Church as to assert that she is the foe of individual and public liberty. But many there are who follow in the footsteps of Lucifer, and adopt as their own his rebellious cry, "I will not serve"; and consequently substitute for true liberty what is sheer and most foolish license. Such, for instance, are the men belonging to that widely spread and powerful organization, who, usurping the name of liberty, style themselves liberals.

In the introduction to "Rules for Radicals" Saul Alinsky wrote a dedication to "the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom -- Lucifer." Alinsky was a community organizer in Chicago. In fact he created the very concept of "community organizing". We now have a President who started off his political career as a community organizer in Chicago. Alinsky had passed away by the time Obama came to Chicago, but it is fair to say that Obama was following in the footsteps of Alinsky.

See also:

• Pope Leo XIII on Freedom

St. Philip the Apostle

Tomb of St. Philip

When the crowds were increasing, he began to say, "This generation is an evil generation; it seeks a sign, but no sign shall be given to it except the sign of Jonah. For as Jonah became a sign to the men of Nineveh, so will the Son of man be to this generation.... The men of Nineveh will arise at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and behold, something greater than Jonah is here."
 – Luke 11:29-32

The movie "the Exorcist" (the original 1973 one) begins with a scene where a talisman is unearthed in an archeological dig. This faithfully follows the story in the book. It's never made clear in the movie that this unleashes an evil spirit which then demonizes the young girl who is the subject of the movie.

[You can watch part of that opening sequence here. I wasn't able to embed it which may be just as well because it brought chills up my spine -- the bad kind.]

The scene takes place in Nineveh, which was once the capital of the ancient Assyrian empire. The Bible tells us that the prophet Jonah was sent by God to warn the people of Nineveh of a coming judgement. Jonah refused. That's how sinful the city was that a prophet would dare refuse a direct command from God. In fact Nineveh was a center for the worship of the goddess Ishtar, which involved sacred prostitution. There was even a god named Sin that was the mythological father of Ishtar and who was depicted as riding a winged bull.

Jonah got on a boat to flee as far away as he could. But God caused a storm to threaten the boat. Jonah finally surrendered and was cast into the ocean and swallowed by a great fish.

After the fish vomited him up on the shore, Jonah finally obeyed God and went to the city of Nineveh to warn the people. Amazingly, they all heeded his warning. They covered themselves with ashes and repented and asked forgiveness. And their city was spared.

But this salvation was only temporary because in 612 B.C. the city was totally destroyed by the Chaldeans (neo-Babylonians) and their allies and has lain in ruins ever since. The site where the city stood was completely abandoned as if a curse lay upon it. Eventually a new city was built across the Tiber river. This is the city of Mosul which we have heard so much about during the Iraq war.

[The Chaldeans were in turn conquered by the Persians in 539 B.C. Comparing this with modern nations the Assyrians can be associated with the Syrians, the Chaldeans with the Iraqis and the Persians with the Iranians.]

 +++

Recently the tomb of the Apostle Philip was uncovered in the ancient city of Hierapolis in what is now Turkey. Philip -- along with Andrew and his brother Simon Peter -- was one of the first disciples of Jesus.

“Even in Asia, great stars repose, who will rise again on the last day of the Parousia [Second Coming] of the Lord…(among these) Philip, one of the twelve apostles, who fell to his sleep in Hierapolis.” So wrote the Bishop of Ephesus, Polycratus, around the year 190, in a letter sent to the Bishop of Rome, Vittore.

Let us hope that this is a sign of good things to come. At least for those who repent. It could not have come at a time when the world needs redemption more than today. And let's not forget the lesson of Nineveh. It is not enough to repent for a short while and then return to our evil ways.

 +++

Pray for the Christians of Nineveh. They are under heavy persecution and have been forgotten. Ethnically they are Assyrians. They are members of the Chaldean Catholic Church and the Asyrrian Church of the East. Some of them still speak Aramaic the native language of Jesus Christ and many of his followers from Galilee. They have been targeted by Arabs, Turks and Kurds alike.



There is more information in this interview with the film's director, Andre Anton, whose family is from this area of Iraq. But one warning, I noticed something strange about his interview. He seems to have an Assyrian nationalistic (or ethnic) agenda. He doesn't emphasize that the people being persecuted are Christians, but rather that they are Assyrians. Notice the symbol that he uses for his film company is a winged Assyrian god which is in conflict with Christianity.



St. Philip, Apostle of the LORD, pray for us.

References:

• Book of Jonah
• Ancient Assyrians
• Nineveh
• Prophet Jonah
• Chaldean Catholic Church
• Assyrian Church of the East
• Aramaic of Jesus

Libertarian utilitarianism

See to it that no one makes a prey of you by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the universe, and not according to Christ.
 – Colossians 2:8

I was attracted to libertarian thinking for a time. It wasn't until I was warned of the dangers of utilitarianism by the Church that I realized where the seductive power of libertarianism comes from. It's no coincidence that Ayn Rand was an atheist. If you follow libertarian thinking then you logically come to the conclusion that abortion is a "choice" and "homosexual marriage" is a question of "equality".

The antithesis of libertarianism/utilitarianism is the Natural Law teaching of the Church. Most Protestants also reject libertarianism. A shining example is Michele Bachmann who voted against the debt deal, and is guided by her Christian beliefs which are very closely in line with Catholic teachings.

In the following video Chuck Colson -- another Protestant who has aligned himself with Catholic teachings -- warns Christians of the insidious danger of Ayn Rand's objectivist philosophy which is the basis for libertarian thinking.



If you're looking for some comic relief from all the bad deficit news, here's a Stephen Colbert Report on Ayn Rand. (Disclaimer: I'm not a big fan of Colbert. His show is featured on the Comedy Central channel which is Grand Central for anti-Christian ridicule.)

Father Michael Rodriguez on the crisis in the Church

Now war arose in heaven, Michael and his angels fighting against the dragon.
 – Revelation 12:7

This interview with Father Michael Rodriguez of El Paso, Texas was just posted today. As soon as part 2 of this interview becomes available, I will share it with everyone.



Related article:

• Father Michael Rodriguez defends marriage

Radical feminism's anti-Christian roots

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
 – Galatians 3:28

Soviet anti-Christian propaganda

Here is the opening statement in an article titled "The Founding of NOW" from the website of the National Organization for Women:

In 1880, Mrs. H. Griswold wrote in a letter to Susan B. Anthony: "Words fail to convey the bitter hatred I have for the foul demagogues who would take from me the freedom they claim for themselves." In 1909, Emma Goldman wrote "A New Declaration of Independence," in which she declared the self-evident truth that all human beings "irrespective of race, color, or sex" are born with equal rights. About a decade later, Margaret Sanger explained the "morality of birth control" in a speech so titled.

There is a lot that could be said about Emma Goldman (1869-1940). I am going to focus on an article which she wrote in 1913 titled "The Failure of Christianity". And I am going to compare Goldman's statements with the anti-Christian actions taken by the communist Soviet Union. I do this so we can see what happens when Goldman's atheistic philosophies are actually put into practice.

GOLDMAN: Whoever sincerely aims at a radical change in society, whoever strives to free humanity from the scourge of dependence and misery, must turn his back on Christianity, on the old as well as the present form of the same.

The Soviet Union was the first state to have as an ideological objective the elimination of religion. Toward that end, the Communist regime confiscated church property, ridiculed religion, harassed believers, and propagated atheism in the schools. It is estimated that 21 million Russian Orthodox Christians were martyred in the gulags by the Soviet government, not including torture or other Christian denominations killed.

GOLDMAN: Meekness has been the whip, which capitalism and governments have used to force man into dependency, into his slave position. The most faithful servants of the State, of wealth, of special privilege, could not preach a more convenient gospel than did Christ, the "redeemer" of the people.

Some actions against Orthodox priests and believers along with execution included torture being sent to prison camps, labour camps or mental hospitals. The result of this militant atheism was to transform the Church into a persecuted and martyred Church. In the first five years after the Bolshevik revolution, 28 bishops and 1,200 priests were executed.

GOLDMAN: The worker who knows the cause of his misery, who understands the make-up of our iniquitous social and industrial system can do more for himself and his kind than Christ and the followers of Christ have ever done for humanity; certainly more than meek patience, ignorance, and submission have done.

The main target of the anti-religious campaign in the 1920s and 1930s was the Russian Orthodox Church, which had the largest number of faithful. A very large segment of its clergy, and many of its believers, were shot or sent to labor camps. Theological schools were closed, and church publications were prohibited. In the period between 1927 and 1940, the number of Orthodox Churches in the Russian Republic fell from 29,584 to less than 500. Between 1917 and 1940, 130,000 Orthodox priests were arrested.

GOLDMAN: Much as I am opposed to every religion, much as I think them an imposition upon, and crime against, reason and progress, I yet feel that no other religion had done so much harm or has helped so much in the enslavement of man as the religion of Christ.

When church leaders demanded freedom of religion under the constitution, the Communists responded with terror. They murdered the metropolitan of Kiev and executed twenty-eight bishops and 6,775 priests. Despite mass demonstrations in support of the church, repression cowed most ecclesiastical leaders into submission.

Emma Goldman wrote of the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia that it represented "the most fundamental, far-reaching and all-embracing principles of human freedom and of economic well-being".

That was before she visited Russia in 1921 where she met with Vladimir Lenin, who assured her that government suppression of press liberties was justified. He told her: "There can be no free speech in a revolutionary period."

She later wrote of her "disillusionment with Russia". She never mentions any "disillusionment" with the brutal murder of thousands of Christians in Russia. She only laments that Communism has become "the State religion".

Similarly, today's radical feminists have no regrets over the millions of children who have died in order to meet their ideological goal of "free choice" for women. Like the Christ in the Soviet propaganda at the top of this page, the bodies of the dead children are simply tossed in the trash and forgotten.

Related article:

• They clone horses, don't they?