This edition of CF NEWS No.2240 posted at 12.50 pm on Sunday, July 1st, 2018. VATICAN WATCH Francis adds four new 'cardinal bishops' to College of Cardinals : Rome Symposium shines light on religious persecution : Cardinal Müller says many Catholics feel 'abandoned and betrayed' bt their shepherds PARENTS AS PRIMARY EDUCATORS, PROTECTORS Speak out to protect the role of parents HUMANAE VITAE Humanae Vitae Conference UNITED NATIONS U.S. redlines humanitarian abortion at UN CHINA SUPPLEMENT Pope talks to Reuters about the 'dialogue with China' : Cardinal Zen's 'scare' has its good reasons NEWS FROM AROUND THE WORLD CANADA Bishop Schneider on the Church's primary mission : GERMANY Intercommunion : LATIN AMERICA Homelands and social doctrines : UK Cardinal Nichols: 'The Church must not try to hide major failings' : UK Heterosexual couple win legal bid for right to have civil partnership : UK Assisted suicide case read more : UKRAINE Why is Rome side-lining the Ukrainian Catholics? : USA Bishops knew about McCarrick but stayed silent : USA Cupich removes faculties from priest accused of misconduct but found innocent : INTERNATIONAL Some jihad headlines of the week : Savonarola Voris : gloria.tv.news : The World Over with Raymond Arroyo NEWMAN Conscience and obedience MEDIA Facebook's censorship has gotten worse. A lot worse. : What happened when a priest watched Love Island COMMENT FROM THE INTERNET St Thomas Aquinas on Conscience : Vatican II and the Liturgical Collapse: Ignoring the Obvious : PayPal, Apple, Amazon,Google Gay: Are we obligated to boycott them all? : Catholic Border Wars: St. Thomas Aquinas vs. Fr. James Martin, SJ : Cor Orans ~ another evil spirit of Vatican II : Cardinal McCarrick : Modernism . . .


Vatican watch

Francis adds four new 'cardinal bishops' to College of Cardinals    read more >>>
Rome Symposium shines light on religious persecution
   VIDEO    read more >>>
Cardinal Müller says many Catholics feel 'abandoned and betrayed' bt their shepherds read more >>>

Parents as primary educators, protectors

Speak out to protect the role of parents    read more >>>

Humanae Vitae

Humanae Vitae Conference    read more >>>

United Nations

U.S. redlines humanitarian abortion at UN   read more >>>

China supplement

Pope talks to Reuters about the 'dialogue with China' read more >>>
Cardinal Zen's 'scare' has its good reasons read more >>>

News from around the world

CANADA Bishop Schneider on the Church's primary mission    read more >>>
GERMANY Intercommunion
    VIDEO  read more >>>
LATIN AMERICA Homelands and social doctrines
   read more >>>
UK Cardinal Nichols: 'The Church must not try to hide major failings'
   read more >>>
UK Heterosexual couple win legal bid for right to have civil partnership
   read more >
UK Assisted suicide case
  read more >>>
UKRAINE Why is Rome side-lining the Ukrainian Catholics?
   read more >>>
USA Bishops knew about McCarrick but stayed silent read more >>>
USA Cupich removes faculties from priest accused of misconduct but found innocent    read more >>>
INTERNATIONAL Some jihad headlines of the week
   read more >>>
INTERNATIONAL Savonarola Voris
   VIDEO    read more >>>
INTERNATIONAL gloria.tv.news
   VIDEO  read more >>>
INTERNATIONAL The World Over with Raymond Arroyo
   VIDEO    read more >>>


Conscience and obedience    VIDEO    read more >>>

Facebook's censorship has gotten worse. A lot worse.
   read more >>>
What happened when a priest watched Love Island
   read more >>>

Comment from the internet

St Thomas Aquinas on Conscience    VIDEO    read more >>>
Vatican II and the Liturgical Collapse: Ignoring the Obvious read more >>>
PayPal, Apple, Amazon,Google Gay: Are we obligated to boycott them all?
   VIDEO    read more >>>
Catholic Border Wars: St. Thomas Aquinas vs. Fr. James Martin, SJ
   read more >>>
Cor Orans ~ another evil spirit of Vatican II read more >>>
Cardinal McCarrick    VIDEO   read more >>>
Modernism read more >>>

Our Catholic Heritage

Drogheda    VIDEO   read more >>>
Saint of the Day
   read more >>>
Sancte Deus
   read more >>>


Nicholas of Cusa    read more >>>

By courtesy of Canon 212




To TRANSLATE this bulletin,Click here and then enter the URL
http://www.cfnews.org.uk/CF_News 2240.htm

Recent editions

For last edition of CF News click here

EWTN live television coverage

For UK / Ireland click here
For Asia / Pacific click here
For Africa / Asia click here





















Vatican watch




Francis adds four new 'cardinal bishops' to College of Cardinals

POPE FRANCIS has signed a rescript adding four more members to the group of cardinal bishops in the College of Cardinals.

They are: Italian Cardinal Pietro Parolin, 63, Vatican secretary of state; Argentine Cardinal Leonardo Sandri, 74, prefect of the Congregation for Eastern Churches; Canadian Cardinal Marc Ouellet, 74, prefect of the Congregation for Bishops; and Italian Cardinal Fernando Filoni, 72, prefect of the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples.

[Crux] 2240.1



















Rome Symposium shines light on religious persecution

Aid to the Church in Need and the Sant'Egidio Community co-sponsored the symposium

EDWARD PENTIN reports for the National Catholic Register : ''It's a dangerous time to be a person of faith,' said Ambassador Callista Gingrich. 'We are at a critical moment. We can and must do more.'

Addressing a Rome symposium on Monday on 'Defending International Religious Freedom: Partnership and Action,' the U.S. ambassador to the Holy See drew stressed that 'repression, violence and discrimination are daily realities for millions of believers in every region of the world' and that in 'many cases' their human rights 'are limited or restricted entirely.'

The ambassador was one of several speakers to highlight both the plight of a great number of people of faith as well as underscore the importance of cooperation to secure religious freedom as a universal human right.

Other speakers included Salwa Khalaf Rasho, a 20-year-old Yazidi girl from Sinjar, Iraq, who testified to the magnitude of the persecution faced by Yazidis and other vulnerable communities in Iraq and Syria.

Salwa noted that the Yazidis have faced 74 genocidal campaigns in their history. In Iraq, she recalled how more than 6,000 women and girls of her community were kidnapped by ISIS, and subjected to 'all types of sexual and physical abuse and violence.'

'I myself spent eight months in the grip of the Islamic State, and during this period I was subjected to unthinkable practices,' she said. 'I finally had the chance to escape from their grip, but other women and girls did not.'

She said more than 3,000 of them are still missing, hundreds of thousands of Yazidis are displaced and facing other dangers in refugee camps. Salwa also reported an increase in suicides, as well as psychological and health problems. She revealed that 'about 60 mass graves' have been found in Sinjar.

Salwa called on the diplomats, Church leaders and NGO representatives present to 'imagine yourselves in my position and understand the scale of our suffering and pain,' and urged that a series of steps be taken. These comprised reconstruction, uncovering the 3,000 still missing, protection of the mass graves so they can be investigated, protecting Yazidis internationally, helping set up a war crimes trial, and opening the door for persecuted refugees seeking asylum.

'If this action is not taken, our existence, identity and culture will be wiped out - fulfilling the aim of the Islamic State,' she warned.

Cardinal Leonardo Sandri, prefect of the Congregation for Oriental Churches, reflected on religious freedom in the Middle East. In particular, he spoke of the importance of Lebanon and warned that if it is destabilized, 'the whole of the Middle East will definitively collapse,' and also remove security for Israel.

In Pakistan, although a separation of religion and state was promised at the time of independence, that is by no means the case now, according to Cardinal-designate Joseph Coutts, Archbishop of Karachi, Pakistan.

The archbishop, who will be elevated to the College of Cardinals on Friday, noted how religious extremism has become such an emotive issue in the country that even the government has felt coerced by extremists. It's not so much fundamentalism that is the problem, he said, but 'extremist thinking largely based on emotions.'

He recalled Asia Bibi, a Pakistani Christian mother facing a death sentence under the country's blasphemy law since 2010 because of an argument with Muslim women. He said the government is 'even afraid to take the case forward' because it is concerned about an 'emotional reaction' by extremists.

He also recalled Shahbaz Bhatti, the former minister of religious minorities, who was gunned down in 2011 for trying to change the blasphemy law, and a local governor who suffered the same fate. The source of the atrocities, he said, is the extremist Sunni Islamic sect of Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia. 'Our government is not strong enough to control this extremism,' he said. 'So we're suffering as Christians,' and so, too, are 'our Muslims brethren.'

Other speakers included Ziear Khan,a Rohingya Community Activist, who shared details of the atrocities committed against the Islamic Rohingya minority in Burma. Similar to Salwa, Khan called for international help and cooperation. He compared the situation to Rwanda and Bosnia in the 1990s and said there were 'clear signs of ethnic cleansing and genocide.' Khan, a Muslim, said he would 'hate to be silent when God asks what we did when these atrocities were taking place.'

Mark Riedemann, public affairs director of Aid to the Church in Need, gave an overview of the challenges religious minorities are facing, especially in Iraq and Syria. In particular, he singled out the United Nations for criticism, and stressed that when most embassies leave, the Church never does. But that, coupled with sanctions, means great weight is thrown onto the shoulders of the Church.

Marco Impagliazzo, president of the Sant'Egidio lay community, stressed how dialogue must continue but that also means action, not only talking. Interreligious dialogue, he said, is a 'preferable' way to prevent 'radicalization of conflicts.'

At the conference, Iraq's ambassador to the Holy See, Omar Ahmed kerim Berzinji, spoke of the importance of dialogue but omitted to mention the need for all Iraqis to be treated as equal citizens before the law.

A criticism of the Iraqi government has been that, despite the Iraqi Constitution stating that all minorities be treated equally, that does not happen in reality.

Full respect for the rule of law and equality before the law was also stressed by Cardinal Pietro Parolin, Vatican Secretary of State, in his remarks which closed the symposium.

He also spoke of the importance of building trust and cooperation between governments, religious leaders and international organisations to secure religious freedom, as well as the urgency to 'overcome political indifference.' The cardinal also underscored the need for 'proper education' and a unanimous 'no' to every form of violence carried out in God's name.

Monday's symposium, co-sponsored by Aid to the Church in Need and the Sant'Egidio Community, was aimed at helping to 'inform and enhance' the first-ever Ministerial to Advance Religious Freedom, to be convened July 25-26, in Washington, D.C. by U.S. Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo.

The meeting will aim to identify concrete ways to restrain persecution and ensure greater religious freedom.

Iraqi Testimonies

During my visit to Iraq last month, three students from the predominantly Christian town of Qaraqosh - Sally Salim, Rahma Jacob and Rashel Garo - shared their views on the challenges facing the Northern Iraqi city since it was liberated from ISIS in 2016 (see video below).

The students, currently studying at the Catholic University in Erbil, also gave a rendition at the end of the Lord's Prayer in Aramaic, the language Jesus spoke.



Testimonies of Three Iraqi Students from Qaraqosh

[NCRegister] 2240.2



















Cardinal Gerhard Müller says many Catholics feel 'abandoned and betrayed' by their shepherds

CARDINAL Gerhard Müller said this week that many bishops today are involved in “a blatant process of Protestantizing” the Catholic Church, leaving many of the faithful confused and disoriented. 

In a powerful interview published Tuesday in Catholic World Report, the former prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith had particularly strong words for his fellow German bishops. A group of these bishops, led by the president of the German Bishops’ Conference, Cardinal Reinhard Marx, “see themselves as trendsetters of the Catholic Church on the march into modernity,” Müller warned.

These German bishops “consider the secularization and de-Christianization of Europe as an irreversible development,” he said, and for this reason have abandoned the “New Evangelization,” since it is in their view “a battle against the objective course of history, resembling Don Quixote’s battle against the windmills.”

Having succumbed to modernity and defeatism, these German bishops believe that “all the doctrines of the faith that are opposed to the ‘mainstream,’ the societal consensus, must be reformed,” he added.

The doctrines requiring reform encompass blessing for homosexual couples, intercommunion with Protestants, relativizing the indissolubility of sacramental marriage, the abolition of priestly celibacy, and approval for sexual relations before and outside of marriage, he said.

Meanwhile, “the faithful who take Catholic doctrine seriously are branded as conservative and pushed out of the Church, and exposed to the defamation campaign of the liberal and anti-Catholic media,” he said.

The cardinal described the present situation as a crisis of faith, where many no longer believe in the transformative power of the gospel.

For many bishops, Catholic doctrine “is just one more variable in intra-ecclesial power politics,” the cardinal lamented.

“All told, we are dealing with a blatant process of Protestantizing” and watering down the faith, he said.

Müller went on to say that there are many Christians who live out their faith and love Christ but who now feel alone and deserted by their pastors.

Among the faithful, “there are quite a few who feel abandoned and betrayed by their shepherds,” the cardinal said, who often care more about being popular in public opinion than tending their flock.

“We are experiencing conversion to the world, instead of to God,” he said, but this is the wrong path, since only authentic Christianity moves hearts.

There is “no future at all for ‘Christianity Lite,’” he said.

[Breitbart] 2240.2a



















Parents as primary
educators, protectors


Baby's hand


Speak out to protect the role of parents

THE GOVERNMENT is holding a call for evidence on home education. It seems minded to introduce a mandatory register for parents who home school. This undermines the principle in English law that parents, not the state, are ultimately responsible for educating their children. A register effectively becomes a licensing scheme where parents have to get permission from the state to home educate their children.

At present the decision is up to parents, but a register puts this fundamental principle at risk. The call for evidence closes tomorrow, on Monday, July 2nd.

You can respond online at www.bit.ly/eherespond

The call for evidence document is at www.bit.ly/ehercall

• A mandatory register would give te state unwarranted power over parents

• There is no evidence that a mandatory register would be effective, or is necessary

• Such a register would be a worrying sign of increased state interference in family life.

• Administrating such a register would be a waste of local authorities' already limited resources

• The call for evidence admits that there is no evidence that home education increases risk of radicalisation, and local authorities already have substantial power to intervene where they suspect home-education if failing. •

• Home schooling is being unfairly linked with unregistered or illegal schools which is quite a different matter

For more guidance go to https://he-byte.uk/eng-cons/

[CF News] 2240.3



















Humanae Vitae


Humanae Vitae Conference

BRADLEY ELI, M.Div., reports for ChurchMilitant : During Church Militant's recent Humanae Vitae Conference, Michael Voris continues to warn Catholics they should prepare for martyrdom.

The conference in Sterling Heights, Michigan was headlined by Michael Voris, Alan Keyes, Christine Niles and Simon Rafe. During his morning talk, Voris told Catholics that society may be at a point of no return. 'On a natural level,' Voris said, 'I don't know how any of this gets turned around.'

He added that Cdl. Raymond Burke, former chief of the Vatican's highest court, along with others are all pointing to an impending martyrdom: 'If you believe this, then you should be prepared to be martyred,' he said.

This very point came up at a talk in Rome titled 'Martyrdom for the Faith,' where, in 2016, Cdl. Burke quoted Servant of God Fr. John Hardon, S.J.:

Catholicism is in the throes of the worst crisis in its entire history. Unless true and loyal Catholics have the zeal and the spirit of the early Christians, unless they are willing to do what they did and to pay the price that they paid, the days of America are numbered.

The cardinal went on to point out that, besides learning their faith, the second response of the laity is witnessing to their faith by the way they live their lives. The 'preeminent form' of martyrdom, as per Fr. Hardon, Cdl. Burke reiterated, is the 'witness of catechesis in the home, while traveling, at work, doing business, exercising a profession, in whatever arena of human endeavor a Catholic is involved.'

Speaking to those concerned about present confusion in the Church, Cdl. Burke proclaimed,

I urge them to deepen their understanding of the constant teaching and discipline of the Church and to make their voices heard, so that the shepherds of the flock may understand the urgent need to announce again with clarity and courage the truths of the Faith and to apply again with charity and firmness the discipline needed to safeguard the same truths.

As for the martyrdom of persecution, the cardinal explained,

A totally secularized government makes legal and even promotes the most grievous violations of the moral law, for example, procured abortion, euthanasia, so-called 'same-sex marriage,' human cloning and the wholesale destruction of human embryos for the sake of research, and now is trying to force Catholics and other persons of good will to cooperate formally in evil acts to the total violation of their conscience.

Cardinal Burke commented that this type of martyrdom may require from us government harassment, imprisonment, a loss of goods and even a 'loss of tax exemption, with its disastrous effects on many apostolates of the Church, which may be the necessary result of holding true to our faith and the moral law.'

[CMTV] 2240.4




















United Nations

UN logo


U.S. redlines humanitarian abortion

STEFANO GENNARINI, J.D. and LISA CORRENTI report for C-FAM : 'A disagreement over abortion between the Trump administration and European governments has set the stage for a showdown in the UN General Assembly this fall.

At issue is the inclusion of various phrases used to support abortion in an annual UN resolution on humanitarian assistance.

In a prepared statement at the end of the debate on Friday, U.S. Ambassador Kelly Currie said, “The United States cannot accept the inclusion of ‘sexual and reproductive health services’ and ‘sexual and reproductive health’ in the resolution.” She said, “the terms have been used to promote abortion, and the right to abortion.”

While the U.S. did not call for a vote to delete the terms, the U.S. position against abortion on the floor of recent UN meetings sets up the possibility that such a vote may happen this fall and next spring when the UN is again expected to adopt humanitarian agreements to guide UN agencies and programs in areas affected by war and natural disasters.

While the United States joined the agreement, it withdrew support from two paragraphs in the resolution that mention “sexual and reproductive health.” The European backers of UN humanitarian efforts refused to delete this term despite insistent requests from U.S. diplomats and others. Nigeria, Sudan, and the Holy See made similar reservations.

The U.S. Mission to the UN headed by Ambassador Nikki Haley has followed the lead of the Trump administration, which has succeeded in keeping “sexual and reproductive health” out of recent agreements at the G7, G20, World Health Assembly, and the Organization of American States. The same result is proving more difficult in New York. But the latest statement from the U.S. Mission signals U.S. diplomats may be getting ready for a vote on abortion in humanitarian settings.

At issue is whether UN humanitarian efforts will include “sexual and reproductive health.” If they do, UN agencies will continue to fund the same pro-abortion organizations defunded by the Trump administration when it expanded so-called Mexico City Policy which forbids certain American money from going to such groups. Mexico City Policy does not touch money given by the U.S. to UN agencies.

While unsuccessful in blocking abortion language in the document, the U.S. was successful in blocking an endorsement of the “Minimum Initial Service Package for sexual and reproductive health” (MISP), which is an initiative between UN agencies and abortion groups that ensures abortion access in humanitarian emergencies.

Endorsing the MISP would have all but guaranteed that abortion be considered a basic humanitarian necessity, paving the way for a humanitarian right to abortion, and ensuring that abortion groups get financial support through humanitarian expenditures.

The MISP ignores caveats in UN agreements that exclude the possibility of abortion being considered a humanitarian right, ignores conscience protections for humanitarian workers, and directly challenges U.S. funding restrictions on abortion.

This is the second time in a year that MISP has been rejected in a UN negotiation, which signals members states may no longer consider it “agreed-upon language.”

The United States has leverage over such initiatives since it is the largest donor to global humanitarian efforts, contributing more than $8 billion annually. European nations who support abortion in humanitarian efforts have tried to undermine the 1973 Helms amendment, a law that bans U.S. funding for abortions overseas. In 2015, they even claimed the law violates the Geneva Conventions.

[C-FAM] 2240.UN1




















China supplement



Pope talks to Reuters about the 'dialogue with China'. Cardinal Zen taught theology in patriotic seminaries. I think he's a little scared. Perhaps age might have some influence

Pope Francis is hopeful about relations with China, which are not just based on diplomatic talks but also on cultural exchanges and friendship. For him, Card Zen is "a little scared".

POPE FRANCIS was interviewed by Philip Pullella of Reuters. In the tête-à-tête, the pontiff said that with respect to the dialogue with China, "We are at a good point". In addition to diplomatic channels there are friendships and cultural exchanges. The Chinese people are "very wise" and know how to wait. By kind permission, we publish here a translation of an excerpt from the registration of the interview between the Holy Father and the journalist two days ago.

Q: How is the rapprochement with China?

R. We are at a good point, but relations with China follow three different paths. First of all, there is the official one. The Chinese delegation comes here, takes part in meetings, and then the Vatican delegation goes to China. Relations are good and we have managed to do good things. This is the official dialogue.

Then there is a second dialogue, of everyone and with everyone. "I am a cousin of the minister so and so who sent me to say that . . .". There is always an answer. "Yes, all right, let's go forward.” These side channels are open, let’s say, at a human level, and we do not want to burn them. We can see goodwill, both from the Holy See and the Chinese government.

The third path, which for me is the most important in the rapprochement with China, is cultural. Some priests work at Chinese universities. Then there is also culture, like the exhibit that was put on in the Vatican and in China. [1] This is the traditional path, like those of the great ones, like Matteo Ricci.

I like to think about relations with China as, multifaceted, based not only the official diplomatic one, because the other two are very enriching. I think things are going well. In your question, you mentioned two steps forward and one step backward. I think the Chinese deserve the Nobel Prize for patience, because they are good, they know how to wait, time is theirs and they have centuries of culture . . . They are a wise people, very wise. I respect China a lot.

Q: How do you respond to concerns such as those of Cardinal Zen?

A: Cardinal Zen taught theology in patriotic seminaries. I think he's a little scared. Perhaps age might have some influence. He is a good man. He came to talk to me. I received him, but he's a bit scared. Dialogue is a risk, but I prefer the risk to the sure defeat of not talking. With respect to time, someone mentioned Chinese time. I think it is God's time, forward, calm.

[Reuters] 2240.CS1




















Cardinal Zen’s "scare" has its good reasons

SANDRO MAGISTER blogs from Rome: ‘In his recent interview with Philip Pullella of Reuters, (above) Pope Francis was also asked about China and about what cardinal secretary of state Pietro Parolin had said about it, according to whom “dialogue moves forward with successes and failures, two steps forward and one back.” 

Francis expressed confidence in an agreement between the Holy See and the Chinese authorities, even if this does not come soon:

"I think the Chinese deserve the Nobel Prize for patience, because they are good, they know how to wait, time is theirs and they have centuries of culture…They are a wise people, very wise. I respect China a lot. […] With respect to time, someone mentioned Chinese time. I think it is God's time, forward, calm."

And as for the criticisms of Cardinal Joseph Giuseppe Zen Zekiun, bishop emeritus of Hong Kong, he downplayed them:

"I think he's a little scared. Perhaps age might have some influence. He is a good man. He came to talk to me. I received him, but he's a bit scared. Dialogue is a risk, but I prefer the risk to the sure defeat of not talking."

Lately, however, the news from China has not been encouraging at all. In May, Settimo Cielo reported on an upswing of anti-Christian repression, and the flimsy justifications set forth by the supporters of an agreement at any cost were worthless.

On June 19, the highly informative website “Bitter Winter,” which deals with religious freedom in China, founded and directed by Massimo Introvigne, reported on a textbook episode of the terrible climate surrounding the negotiations:
'Catholic Priest Detained for Plans to Discuss Proposed China-Vatican Agreement in Hong Kong'

The protagonist of the episode is a priest named Yan Lixin, 55, of Guangping in the province of Hebei, the leader of several communities of what is referred to as the “underground” Church, meaning that it is run by bishops who are appointed by Rome but not recognized by the Chinese authorities.

In April, the bishop of Hong Kong, Michael Yeung Ming-cheung - recognized by both Rome and Beijing, who a few days ago, on June 23, was on an “ad limina” visit with the pope - had invited Fr. Yan to his city for a public discussion precisely on the negotiations underway over the procedure for appointing future Chinese bishops.

Fr. Yan booked the flight to Hong Kong on his cellphone. And on April 9, with the same phone, he got in contact with a Japanese journalist who was also invited to the same discussion. But his phone was under surveillance, so that same evening a dozen police officers descended on his home.

The priest was arrested and held at a hotel in Handan, where he was subjected to incessant interrogation. After seven days they moved him to a different hotel, in Guangping, still under arrest. And the interrogation continued, with the main objective of forcing Fr. Yan to enroll in the Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association.

This goal is not a trivial matter. Far from it. In the 2007 letter from Benedict XVI to Chinese Catholics - which is still viewed even by Pope Francis as the “magna carta” of the Church in China - the Patriotic Association is considered the foremost of those “entities that have been imposed as the principal determinants of the life of the Catholic community,” membership in which “is the criterion for declaring a community, a person or a religious place legal and therefore ‘official,’” but whose “declared purpose to implement ‘the principles of independence and autonomy, self-management and democratic administration of the Church’ is incompatible with Catholic doctrine.”

So then, in full fidelity to the Church, Fr. Yan refused to yield. And after twenty days in custody, on April 28, he was released, but under the requirement not to leave his region and to be traceable at all times.

Since then he has been living under strict surveillance and has had to reduce the frequency of his celebration of Mass with his communities, to avoid as much as possible putting this too in danger.

The most impatient proponents of the agreement between the Vatican and China - which would assign the designation of future bishops to the Chinese authorities, while reserving for the pope the prerogative of accepting or rejecting this - maintain that the ban on membership in the Patriotic Association is “obsolete,” and that on the contrary this should be encouraged in order to overcome any discrepancy between “official” and “underground,” and to guarantee government recognition for the latter of these as well.

But in reality, this question continues to be a serious stumbling block on the road to an agreement.

It should be sufficient to consider the unresolved case of Shanghai bishop Thaddeus Ma Daqin. Made a bishop with the approval of both Rome and Beijing, on the day of his ordination, July 7 2012, he revoked his previous membership in the Patriotic Association. For this he was arrested that same day. And he remained in custody even after he retracted his dissociation in 2015 and professed public submission to the regime.

And yet, incredibly, La Civiltà Cattolica”- the magazine directed by the Jesuit Antonio Spadaro, every issue of which is printed with the pope’s authorization - recently called the episode of Ma Daqin an exemplary model of “reconciliation between the Church in China and the Chinese government.”

If this is the “reconciliation” to which the much-vaunted agreement is supposed to lead, then the criticisms of Cardinal Zen are motivated by reasons much more serious than senile fright, as he tried to explain to his Chinese readers on his blog, in a brief reply to the pope’s words, ending with a prayer that God may “not let him fall into the hands of his enemies.”

[http://magister.blogautore.espresso.repubblica.it] 2240.CS2





















News from around the world


Canada Bishop Schneider on the Church's primary mission: the proclamation of truth

AS previously reported by One Peter Five and LifeSiteNews, His Excellency Bishop Athanasius Schneider was in Winnipeg recently (May 30th) to receive the Regina Sacratissimi Rosarii award from the Society of St. Dominic at the Hotel Fort Garry's Crystal Ballroom, and to offer two Pontifical Masses at St. Anthony of Padua Catholic Church. The Master of Ceremonies for the dinner award evening was Mr. Alex Begin and the award was presented to His Excellency, on the Society's behalf, by 1P5 contributor Dr. Peter Kwasniewski. Bishop Schneider delivered an address following the presentation of the award that emphasized the defense of the faith on this 2018 50th anniversary year of Humanae Vitae which followed the 100th anniversary year of Our Lady of Fatima in 2017. What follows is the authorized transcript of the evening's address by Bishop Schneider.

The Church's primary mission: the proclamation of the truth, Most Reverend Athanasius Schneider, Auxiliary Bishop of Mary Most Holy in Astana, Kazakhstan. Presentation of the Regina Sacratissimi Rosarii Award Society of St. Dominic -- Winnipeg, May 30, 2018

THE CURRENT YEAR is marked by the memorable event of the 50th anniversary of the encyclical Humanae vitae, in which Blessed Paul VI confirmed the teaching of the constant Magisterium of the Church regarding the transmission of human life. This is a favorable occasion in order to honor the memory and the enduring importance of this encyclical. We are today in the same building, in which fifty years ago the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops issued the so called 'Winnipeg statement', which essentially dissented from the teaching of the encyclical Humanae vitae. Therefore, it benefits all of us to recall the timeless teaching as we can learn it in the encyclical Humanae vitae and in the documents of other Roman Pontiffs.

Pope Paul VI stated this basic duty of the teaching Church in his prophetical and epochal encyclical Humanae vitae: 'The Church in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life.' (n. 11).

An important witness of the constant and immutable teaching of the Church on the theme of human procreation is Pope Pius XI, who taught: 'No difficulty can arise that justifies the putting aside of the law of God which forbids all acts intrinsically evil. There is no possible circumstance in which husband and wife cannot, strengthened by the grace of God, fulfill faithfully their duties and preserve in wedlock their chastity unspotted. This truth of Christian Faith is expressed by the teaching of the Council of Trent. 'Let no one be so rash as to assert that which the Fathers of the Council have placed under anathema, namely, that there are precepts of God impossible for the just to observe. God does not ask the impossible, but by His commands, instructs you to do what you are able, to pray for what you are not able that He may help you' (Conc. Trid., Sess. VI, cap. 11)' (Encyclical Casti connubii, 61).

Pope John Paul II reproposed strongly and without any ambiguity the immutable and constant teaching of all times, saying: 'There can be no contradiction between the divine law concerning the transmission of human life and true conjugal love (cf. II Vatican Council, Gaudium et Spes, 51). To speak of a 'conflict of values or goods' and of the consequent need to 'balance' them, choosing one and rejecting the other, is not morally correct and only generates confusion in the conscience of the spouses. The grace of Christ gives spouses the real capacity to fulfill the whole 'truth' of their conjugal love. The first, and in a certain sense the most serious difficulty, is that also in the Christian community, voices have been heard and are heard that call into question the truth of the Church's teaching. … What the Church teaches about contraception is not a matter of free discussion among theologians. Teaching the contrary is tantamount to inducing the moral conscience of the spouses into error. … Many think that the Christian teaching, although true, is nonetheless unfeasible, at least in some circumstances. As the Tradition of the Church has constantly taught, God does not command the impossible but every commandment also entails a gift of grace which helps human freedom to fulfill it. Yet constant prayer, frequent recourse to the sacraments and the exercise of conjugal chastity are needed. Today more than yesterday, man is again beginning to feel the need for truth and right reason in his daily experience. Always be ready to say, without ambiguity, the truth about the good and evil regarding man and the family' (Address to participants in a study meeting on responsible procreation, June 5, 1987).

'When the spouses through contraception deprive the exercise of their conjugal sexuality of its potential procreative capacity, they attribute to themselves a power which belongs to God alone: the power to decide in the last instance the coming to existence of a human person. They attribute to themselves the qualification of being not the cooperators of the creative power of God, but the ultimate holders of the source of the human life. From this perspective, contraception is to be objectively judged to such an extent illicit, that it could never, for any reason, be justified. To think or to speak the contrary, equals to hold that in human life there could be given situations in which it would be licit not to recognize God as God'. (Address to Participants of a study seminar on Responsible Procreation, September 17, 1983).

'To opine that there exist situations in which it would be in fact not possible for the spouses to be faithful to all the exigencies of the truth of the conjugal love, would equal to forget this event of grace which characterizes the New Covenant: namely that the grace of the Holy Spirit makes possible what is impossible to man, left alone to his own forces. It is therefore necessary to support the spouses in their spiritual life, inviting them to a frequent use of the sacraments of Confession and of the Eucharist for a continuous return, for a permanent conversion to the truth of their conjugal love.' (Address to Participants of a study seminar on Responsible Procreation, September 17, 1983).

Benedict XVI taught about the perennial value and the unchanging meaning of Humanae vitae:

'Humanae Vitae reasserts the continuity of the Church's doctrine and tradition. … This teaching not only expresses its unchanged truth but also reveals the farsightedness with which the problem is treated. In fact, conjugal love is described within a global process that does not stop at the division between soul and body and is not subjected to mere sentiment, often transient and precarious, but rather takes charge of the person's unity and the total sharing of the spouses. How can such love remain closed to the gift of life? What was true yesterday, is true also today. The truth expressed in Humanae Vitae does not change (Address to participants in the International Congress on the 40th Anniversary of the Encyclical Humanae vitae, May 10, 2008).

The Church has to fulfill her primary mission of proclaiming the truth bearing in mind that she will be always persecuted. Blessed John Henry Newman left us the following far-sighted reflections:

'We have been so accustomed to hear of the persecutions of the Church, both from the New Testament and from the history of Christianity, that it is much if we have not at length come to regard the account of them as words of course, to speak of them without understanding what we say, and to receive no practical benefit from having been told of them; much less are we likely to take them for what they really are, a characteristic mark of Christ's Church. They are not indeed the necessary lot of the Church, but at least one of her appropriate badges; so that, on the whole, looking at the course of history, you might set down persecution as one of the peculiarities by which you recognize her. And our Lord seems to intimate how becoming, how natural persecution is to the Church, by placing it among His Beatitudes. 'Blessed are they who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven;' giving it the same high and honourable rank in the assemblage of evangelical graces, which the Sabbath holds among the Ten Commandments,-I mean, as a sort of sign and token of His followers, and, as such, placed in the moral code, though in itself external to it.

'He seems to show us this in another way, viz., by intimating to us the fact, that in persecution the Church begins and in persecution she ends. He left her in persecution, and He will find her in persecution. He recognizes her as His own,-He framed, and He will claim her,-as a persecuted Church, bearing His Cross. And that awful relic of Him which He gave her, and which she is found possessed of at the end, she cannot have lost by the way.

'…After all, perhaps it may not be a persecution of blood and death, but of craft and subtlety only-not of miracles, but of natural wonders and powers of human skill, human acquirements in the hands of the devil. Satan may adopt the more alarming weapons of deceit-he may hide himself-he may attempt to seduce us in little things, and so to move Christians, not all at once, but by little and little from their true position. We know he has done much in this way in the course of the last centuries. It is his policy to split us up and divide us, to dislodge us gradually from off our rock of strength. And if there is to be a persecution, perhaps it will be then; then, perhaps, when we are all of us in all parts of Christendom so divided, and so reduced, so full of schism, so close upon heresy. When we have cast ourselves upon the world, and depend for protection upon it, and have given up our independence and our strength, then he may burst upon us in fury, as far as God allows him. (Lecture 4. The Persecution of Antichrist, preached by John Henry Newman in the form of Sermons in Advent, 1835.)

These reflections of Blessed John Henry Newman are illustrated by the following remarkable passage in a letter of Bishop Horsley:

'The Church of God on earth will be greatly reduced, as we may well imagine, in its apparent numbers, in the times of Antichrist, by the open desertion of the powers of the world. This desertion will begin in a professed indifference to any particular form of Christianity, under the pretense of universal toleration; which toleration will proceed from no true spirit of charity and forbearance, but from a design to undermine Christianity, by multiplying and encouraging sectaries. The pretended toleration will go far beyond a just toleration, even as it regards the different sects of Christians. For governments will pretend an indifference to all, and will give a protection in preference to none. All establishments will be laid aside. From the toleration of the most pestilent heresies, they will proceed to the toleration of Mahometanism, Atheism, and at last to a positive persecution of the truth of Christianity. In these times the Temple of God will be reduced almost to the Holy Place, that is, to the small number of real Christians who worship the Father in spirit and in truth, and regulate their doctrine and their worship, and their whole conduct, strictly by the word of God. The merely nominal Christians will all desert the profession of the truth, when the powers of the world desert it. And this tragic event I take to be typified by the order to St. John to measure the Temple and the Altar, and leave the outer court (national Churches) to be trodden under foot by the Gentiles. The property of the clergy will be pillaged, the public worship insulted and vilified by these deserters of the faith they once professed, who are not called apostates because they never were in earnest in their profession. Their profession was nothing more than a compliance with fashion and public authority. In principle they were always, what they now appear to be, Gentiles. When this general desertion of the faith takes place, then will commence the sackcloth ministry of the witnesses … There will be nothing of splendour in the external appearance of their churches; they will have no support from governments, no honours, no emoluments, no immunities, no authority, but that which no earthly power can take away, which they derived from Him, who commissioned them to be His witnesses. (British Magazine, May, 1834.)

Blessed John Henry Newman saw the special peril of the future times in the spread of the plague of infidelity and unbelief. In a sermon from 1873 he says:

'Christianity is superhuman in its origin, it differs from all other religions. As man differs from quadruped, bird or reptile, so does Christianity differ from the superstitions, heresies, and philosophies which are around it. It has a theology and an ethical system of its own. This is its indestructible idea. How are we to secure and perpetuate in this world that gift from above? How are we to preserve to the Christian people this gift, so special, so divine, so easily hid or lost amid the imposing falsehoods with which the world abounds?

'All times have their special trials which others have not. And so far I will admit that there were certain specific dangers to Christians at certain other times, which do not exist in this time. Doubtless, but still admitting this, still I think that the trials which lie before us are such as would appall and make dizzy even such courageous hearts as St. Athanasius, St. Gregory I, or St. Gregory VII. And they would confess that dark as the prospect of their own day was to them severally, ours has a darkness different in kind from any that has been before it.

The special peril of the time before us is the spread of that plague of infidelity, that the Apostles and our Lord Himself have predicted as the worst calamity of the last times of the Church. And at least a shadow, a typical image of the last times is coming over the world. I do not mean to presume to say that this is the last time, but that it has had the evil prerogative of being like that more terrible season, when it is said that the elect themselves will be in danger of falling away.

A sound, accurate, complete knowledge of Catholic theology is the best weapon (after a good life) in controversy. Any child, well instructed in the catechism, is, without intending it, a real missioner. And why? Because the world is full of doubtings and uncertainty, and of inconsistent doctrine-a clear consistent idea of revealed truth, on the contrary, cannot be found outside of the Catholic Church. Consistency, completeness, is a persuasive argument for a system being true. Certainly if it be inconsistent, it is not truth'. (Sermon 9. The Infidelity of the Future, Opening of St. Bernard's Seminary, 2nd October 1873.)

Hilaire Belloc presented already in 1938 an almost prophetical analysis of the current situation which Christianity and specifically the Catholic Church has to face and in which her mission of proclaiming the truth reveal its primary importance:

'The Modern Attack,' is a wholesale assault upon the fundamentals of the Faith, upon the very existence of the Faith. And the enemy now advancing against us is increasingly conscious of the fact that there can be no question of neutrality. The forces now opposed to the Faith design to destroy. The battle is henceforward engaged upon a definite line of cleavage, involving the survival or destruction of the Catholic Church. And all - not a portion of its philosophy. We know, of course, that the Catholic Church cannot be destroyed. … The truth is becoming every day so much more obvious that within a few years it will be universally admitted. I do not entitle the modern attack 'anti-Christ' though in my heart I believe that to be the true term for it: No, I do not give it that name because it would seem for the moment exaggerated. But the name doesn't matter. Whether we call it 'The Modern Attack' or 'anti-Christ' it is all one; there is a clear issue now joined between the retention of Catholic morals, tradition, and authority on the one side, and the active effort to destroy them on the other. The modern attack will not tolerate us. It will attempt to destroy us. Nor can we tolerate it. … That great Modern Attack (which is more than a heresy) is indifferent to self-contradiction. It merely affirms. It advances like an animal, counting on strength alone. Indeed, it may be remarked in passing that this may well be the cause of its final defeat; for hitherto reason has always overcome its opponents; and man is the master of the beast through reason. … The Modern Attack on the Catholic Church, the most universal that she has suffered since her foundation, has so far progressed that it has already produced social, intellectual and moral forms which combined give it the savour of a religion. But reason today is everywhere decried. The ancient process of conviction by argument and proof is replaced by reiterated affirmation; and almost all the terms which were the glory of reason carry with them now an atmosphere of contempt. See what has happened for instance to the word 'logic,' to the word 'controversy'; note such popular phrases as 'No one yet was ever convinced by argument,' or again, 'Anything may be proved,' or 'That may be all right in logic, but in practice it is very different.' The speech of men is becoming saturated with expressions which everywhere connote contempt for the use of the intelligence. … When reason is dethroned, not only is Faith dethroned (the two subversions go together) but every moral and legitimate activity of the human soul is dethroned at the same time. There is no God. So the words 'God is Truth' which the mind of Christian Europe used as a postulate in all it did, cease to have meaning. None can analyze the rightful authority of government nor set bounds to it. In the absence of reason, political authority reposing on mere force is boundless. And reason is thus made a victim because Humanity itself is what the Modern Attack is destroying in its false religion of humanity. Reason being the crown of man and at the same time his distinguishing mark, the Anarchs march against reason as their principle enemy. … either we of the Faith shall become a small persecuted neglected island amid mankind, or we shall be able to lift at the end of the struggle the old battle-cry, 'Christus Imperat!' Lastly there is this very important and perhaps decisive consideration: though the social strength of Catholicism, in numbers certainly, and in most other factors as well, is declining throughout the world; the issue, as between Catholicism and the completely new pagan thing (the destruction of all tradition, the breaking with our inheritance), is now clearly marked. (The Great Heresies, Reprint San Francisco 2017, pp. 175ff.)

Archbishop Fulton Sheen made the following remarkable statement:

'If I were not a Catholic, and were looking for the true Church in the world today, I would look for the one Church which did not get along well with the world; in other words, I would look for the Church which the world hates. My reason for doing this would be, that if Christ is in any one of the churches of the world today, He must still be hated as He was when He was on earth in the flesh. If you would find Christ today, then find the Church that does not get along with the world. Look for the Church that is hated by the world, as Christ was hated by the world. Look for the Church, which the world rejects because it claims it is infallible, as Pilate rejected Christ because he called Himself the Truth. If the Church is unpopular with the spirit of the world, then it is unworldly, and if it is unworldly, it is other-worldly. Since it is other-worldly, it is infinitely loved and infinitely hated as was Christ Himself'. (Taken from Radio Replies, Vol. 1, p. 9, Rumble & Carty, Tan Publishing, 2015.)

Juan Donoso Cortes, a Spanish Catholic writer and apologist from the nineteenth century, explained perspicaciously the unique mission by God given to the Church, which makes her indestructible:

'The Catholic Church, considered as a religious institution, has exercised the same influence on society, that Catholicity, considered as a doctrine, has on the world-the same that our Lord Jesus Christ has exercised on man. This consists in the fact that our Lord Jesus Christ, His doctrine, and His Church, are but three different manifestations of one and the same thing, that is, of the divine action operating supernaturally and substantially on man and all his powers, on society and all its institutions. Our Lord Jesus Christ, Catholicity, and the Catholic Church, are one and the same word-the word of God, perpetually resounding on high.

Her doctrine is marvelous and true, because it is the doctrine taught by the great Master of all truth, and the great Worker of all wonders; and yet the world studies in the halls of error, and lends an attentive ear to the vain eloquence of miserable sophists and obscure clowns. She received from her divine Founder the power of working miracles, and she works them, she herself being a perpetual miracle; and yet the world calls her a vain and shameful superstition, and she is made a spectacle to men and nations. Her own children, beloved with such love, raise their sacrilegious hands against their tender mother, and abandon the holy hearth which protected their infancy, and seek in a new family and at a new hearth gross delights and impure loves.

Suppress for a moment in imagination that life, those truths, those prodigies, and invincible testimonies of the Church, and you shall have at one stroke suppressed all her tribulations, all her tears, all her misfortunes, and all her woes. In the truths she proclaims lies the mystery of her tribulation; in the supernatural strength she possesses lies the mystery of her victory; and those two things together explain at once her victories and her tribulations.

Ancient and modern institutions are only the expression of two different societies, because they are the expression of two different humanities. Hence, when Catholic societies prevaricate and fall, paganism immediately invades them, and ideas, customs, institutions, and the societies themselves, become pagan.

The Church acted on society in a manner analogous to that of the other political and social elements, and, besides, in a manner peculiarly her own. Considered as an institution born in time and localised in space, her influence was visible and limited, like that of other institutions localised in space and offsprings of time. Considered as a divine institution, she had in her an immense supernatural power, which, uninfluenced by the laws of time and space, acted on all and in all directions at once, quietly, secretly, and supernaturally. So true is this, that, in the critical confusion of all social elements, the Church gave something exclusively her own to all the others, while she herself preserved her absolute identity intact.

Roman society, on coming into contact with her, became, without ceasing to be Roman, something it had not been before-it became Catholic. The German peoples, without ceasing to be German, became something they had not been before-they became Catholic. Political and social institutions, without losing their proper nature, took one which was foreign to them-the Catholic nature.

In the common mass of European civilisation, which, like all other civilisations, and more than other civilisations, is unity and variety at one and the same time, all other elements combined and united constituted it various, while the Church alone made it one, and, by making it one, gave it its essential character-gave it that from which is taken what is most essential in an institution-its name. European civilisation was not called German, or Roman, or absolute, or feudal; it was and is called Catholic civilisation.

That something supernatural, divine, and impalpable, is what has subjugated the world to truth taught by the Church, surmounted the most invincible obstacles for her, brought into subjection to her, rebel intellects and proud hearts, elevated her above human vicissitudes and secured her influence over tribes and nations. No one who does not keep in view the sovereign and divine virtue of the Church, will ever comprehend her influence, her victories, or her tribulations' (Juan Donoso Cortes, Essays on Catholicism, Liberalism, and Socialism, Considered in their Fundamental Principles, Gornahoor Press 2010, pp. 23-25.)

'True progress consists in submitting the human element which corrupts liberty, to the divine element which purifies it. Society has followed a different path in looking upon the empire of faith as dead; and in proclaiming the empire of reason and the will of man, it has made evil, which was only relative, contingent and exceptional, absolute, universal, and necessary. This period of rapid retrogression commenced in Europe with the restoration of pagan literature, which has brought about successively the restoration of pagan philosophy, religious paganism, and political paganism. At the present time the world is on the eve of the last of these restorations, - that of pagan socialism.' (Juan Donoso Cortes, Letter to Montalembert, June 4, 1849, quoted by Jean Joseph Gaume, Paganism in Education. London: Charles Dolman, 1852, p. 206.)

'It follows from this that the Church alone has the right to affirm and deny, and that there is no right outside her to affirm what she denies, or to deny what she affirms. The day when society, forgetting her doctrinal decisions, has asked the press and the tribune, news writers and assemblies, what is truth and what is error, on that day error and truth are confounded in all intellects, society enters on the regions of shadows, and falls under the empire of fictions' (Juan Donoso Cortes, Essays on Catholicism, Liberalism and Socialism, Considered in their Fundamental Principles, tr. William McDonald. Dublin: M.H. Gill & Son, 1879.).

'The doctrinal intolerance of the Church has saved the world from chaos. Her doctrinal intolerance has placed beyond question political, domestic, social, and religious, truths- primitive and holy truths, which are not subject to discussion, because they are the foundation of all discussions; truths which cannot be called into doubt for a moment without the understanding on that moment oscillating, lost between truth and error, and the clear mirror of human reason becoming soiled and obscured'. (Ibid.).

Pope Saint Pius X stressed very realistically the necessity of the Church of the modern times to resist the false prophets:

'The implacable enemy of humankind never sleeps; according to the circumstances of the time and the occurring of events he changes tactically the language, yet always ready to fight. In fact, the more the error, persecuted by the truth, is condemned to hide himself, the more one has to fear the dangerous ambushes behind which he does not hesitate to reestablish his ever fatal artillery units. Thus, we must never abandon ourselves to a false security, otherwise we will be liable to condemnations pronounced against the false prophets, who announced peace, where it wasn't and who sang victory where all was calling us to the battle. It is therefore necessary in all times, and specially in this time, in which there is a great conspiracy instigated directly against Our Lord Jesus Christ and against His supernatural and revealed religion, to denounce the false masters of the people, who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, seducing many intelligences, who are yielding to any wind of doctrine. We believe, therefore, that the time has come to speak'. (Archivio Segreto Vaticano, Epistolae ad principes. Positiones et minutuae 157, 1907/1908, fascicolo 35.

[1P5] 2240.5


















Germany Intercommunion

THE GERMAN BISHOPS have released their handout promoting intercommunion after being forbidden to do so by the CDF by simply saying it’s not an official document of their episcopal conference.



Intercommunion ~ Canonist says Pope has made a 'complete mess'

MAIKE HICKSON reports for OnePeterFive : 'The 21 June papal remarks concerning the German bishops' handout allowing some Protestant spouses of Catholics to receive Holy Communion have caused a strong reaction from several parties, including a German canonist/ Professor Thomas Schüller, a professor of canon law at the University of Münster, says that the Pope and his dicasteries have created a 'pastoral patchwork' and a 'complete mess.'

As we reported earlier this month, Pope Francis, on his flight back from Geneva to Rome, claimed that the German handout is problematic, not due to its content, but because it is not in accord with current canon law (can. 844). This canon does not permit a bishops' conference to rule over matters such as the question of what constitutes the 'emergency situation' which this canon indicates would allow some Protestant spouses of Catholics to receive Holy Communion. (Here, we remind our readers that Cardinal Walter Brandmüller and others have shown that the Pope is wrong in this claim.) Pope Francis also said that were a bishops' conference to rule over such a question it would immediately become 'universal.' Pope Francis nevertheless praised the German document as being 'well done.'

As the German newspaper Frankfurter Rundschau reported on 22 June, Professor Schüller is now 'astonished at the flying messages of the Pope.' According to Schüller, who teaches canon law at the University of Münster, the papal words are 'ambiguous and partially cryptic.' He also told the newspaper that the papal claim that each decision of a bishops' conference would become 'immediately universal' is not only false, according to canon law, but it is also contrary to the Pope's own intention to delegate competences to the national level. Schüller comments as follows:

'…obviously, Francis wants to appease the conflict of the German bishops by letting everybody do what he wishes. For the progressives, about whom the Pope said that they have 'done' their job 'well,' there remains much scope with regard to the content'.

Schüller appears to have grave reservations about this papal laxity with regard to Holy Communion for Protestant spouses. He says that, should it come to solutions in individual cases which differ from diocese to diocese, there would then be created in Germany a 'pastoral patchwork - which is an absurd situation, because the ecumenical situation with mixed marriages is, after all, pretty much the same everywhere.' The German professor can only shake his head that, in order to reach such a result, the Pope and his dicasteries have 'created' such a 'complete mess.'

Professor Schüller is not the only one who opposes a liberalizing interpretation of canon 844 CIC and of a laxer approach to Communion for non-Catholics as the German bishops have now taken it.

Another German canon lawyer and priest, Professor Christoph Ohly of Trier, said in a 21 May interview with the German Catholic newspaper Die Tagespost that the Pope has a limited authority in this matter because his authority 'is submitted to Divine Law.' He cannot, Ohly adds, go beyond it or change it. 'The conviction that ecclesial unity and sacramental unity belong together' makes, in Ohly's view, 'any such change impossible.' Only in light of grave emergency situations or in immediate danger of death, he explains with reference to can. 844§4 CIC, may a Protestant Christian receive Holy Communion. 'Faith, Church Law, and pastoral care are inseparable,' as Ohly explains earlier in his interview. He insists, too, that this question of Communion for Protestant spouses belongs in the hands of the Universal Church and not of any national bishops' conference.

Marianne Schlosser, Professor of Theology at the University of Vienna, Austria, and a member of the Vatican's International Theological Commission, warns against the danger of 'relativism' with regard to this current sacramental debate. In an interview with Domradio.de, the radio station of the Diocese of Cologne, Schlosser points to the danger of an increased pressure toward intercommunion, once Protestant spouses of Catholics are permitted to receive Holy Communion. 'Will a moral pressure not be created to take the last supper at the Protestant service,' she asks, referring to the long-existing invitation to the last supper for Catholics as openly stated by Protestants. Additionally, Schlosser also wonders why those Protestants who desire to receive Holy Communion would not also have 'an urgent desire to receive the Sacrament of Penance and the Sacrament of Extreme Unction.'

Professor Schlosser also stresses that the expression 'emergency situation' as mentioned in can 844 CIC refers to situations that are caused by 'external circumstances,' such as the impossibility to reach one's own minister. 'The principal connection between Church membership and licit participation in the Sacraments is thereby not removed,' she explains.

Professor Schlosser is the second member of the International Theological Commission to raise objections against the German pastoral handout concerning Communion for Protestant spouses, a handout which has just recently been praised by Pope Francis. The first objecting member was Professor Karl-Heinz Menke. Menke had called this handout both 'theologically defective' and 'unwise,' and he even claimed that the two-thirds approval of this document by the German bishops was 'unlawful.'

Thus, these two members are acting in accord with the International Theological Commission's task which is 'that of helping the Holy See and primarily the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in examining doctrinal questions of major importance.'

It would be good if the Pope himself were attentively to heed such advice.

Pope Francis would also do well to listen to the more high-ranking voices of opposition to the German intercommunion handout. Not only did Cardinal Willem Eijk strongly object, but also Cardinal Walter Brandmüller and Cardinal Gerhard Müller, Cardinal Paul Josef Cordes, Archbishop Charles Chaput, and Bishop Athanasius Schneider, to name but a few. Cardinal Cordes said in April of 2018, for example, that the German intercommunion handout is 'not theologically backed.'

Cardinal Müller, in a new statement written for the July issue of the German journal Herder Korrespondenz, also opposed the German pastoral innovation with regard to Protestant spouses and Holy Communion. He regrets the 'anti-dogmatic climate' in the Catholic Church as well as the 'sick word battles' concerning the German pastoral handout. He also calls the initial advice of the Pope, namely that the German bishops should somehow come to a 'unanimous decision,' a 'diffuse intervention.' Cardinal Müller reminds us that 'the Pope is not a mediator in the struggle between parties,' but, rather, 'a witness of the truth which unites the Church in Christ.'

Moreover, the German cardinal and former Prefect of the Congregation for Doctrine warns that 'that which is dogmatically wrong will become destructive for the salvation of souls when it is to be found in a pastoral care which is led by principles that are opposed to the faith.' One may not, explains the prelate, purportedly 'leave the teaching externally untouched [i.e., not change its words],' but, at the same time, actually give it 'a completely different or even contradictory meaning.'

Importantly, Cardinal Müller quotes in his intervention several texts from the early history of the Church - such as St. Justin and St. Ignatius of Antioch - which make it clear that the reception of the Sacrament of Penance and the full acceptance of the Church's teaching, as well as a life according to Christ's laws, are preconditions for the reception of Holy Communion. The link between the Holy Eucharist and the acceptance of the authority of the Catholic bishop is also to be stressed. Thus, says the cardinal, the Holy Eucharist is a 'means unto eternal life' and not 'a medicine against psychological distress and difficulties in the life of a married couple.' The Holy Eucharist thus 'cannot restore the lost ecclesial community' in a physical way, without that 'the supernatural unity is first being reached with the help of a common Creed, the Seven Sacraments, and the visible unity with the Pope and the bishops.' To call non-Catholics to Holy Communion is in his eyes only a 'seeming generosity' and such an act 'reveals, in reality, a disdain for the revealed Faith, which has been only entrusted to the Catholic Church.' [emphasis added]

Even the Cardinal-designate Archbishop Luis Ladaria, Cardinal Müller's successor at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, said just today at a press conference in Rome that, for the German bishops to make a decision on its own about a point so central to the Faith 'can create a bit of confusion. It concerns the Universal Church,' he added. A solution should be found 'for the whole Church.'

It is to be hoped that Pope Francis himself will be attentive to his own Prefect, to his own theological counselors, to his cardinals, as well as to the voice of a well-formed conscience.


Cardinal Burke, Bishop Schneider respond to Pope
Francis’ inflight intercommunion comments


DIANE MONTAGN reports for LifeSiteNews : 'The reception of Holy Communion in the Catholic Church — even in exceptional cases — by a Protestant or other non-Catholic constitutes a “lie” that betrays the Apostolic tradition and the Church’s constant practice for over two thousand years.

According to Bishop Athanasius Schneider, auxiliary of Astana, Kazakhstan, the reception of Holy Communion by a non-Catholic would be a falsehood because Eucharistic Communion is meant to manifest the “perfect union” of the Church’s members. Admitting a non-Catholic who does not accept the integrity of the Catholic Faith (e.g. the papacy, the Marian dogmas, etc) and who continues visibly to adhere to his own community’s beliefs, therefore contradicts the “visible unity of the Church” and the “interior sacramental reality” of the Eucharist.

Bishop Schneider also said canon 844 of the Code of Canon Law (on the administration of certain sacraments to non-Catholic Christians in situations of emergency or danger of death) contains a “problematic and contradictory principle.” He added that the problems being created by the German bishops through their intercommunion proposal are “only the logical consequence of the problematic concessions formulated by canon 844.”

His comments were echoed by those of U.S. Cardinal Raymond Burke, patron of the Order of Malta, who told LifeSiteNews: “Receiving Holy Communion means that you accept all that the Catholic Church teaches. That is why it is a contradiction to permit non-Catholics to receive Holy Communion on a general basis.”

Burke said canon 844, paragraph 4, “needs to be revised because of its lack of clarity which has led to many contradictory practices in the matter of ‘intercommunion.’”

Their comments come a day after the German bishops’ published their controversial pastoral handout on allowing some Protestant spouses to receive Holy Communion, despite concerns about the text from both within the German episcopate and senior Vatican officials.

In a statement on Wednesday the permanent council of the German bishops said they discussed the matter this week at a June 25-26 meeting and described the handout as an “orientation” aid to individual bishops rather than an official document of the bishops’ conference (despite having its origins in the conference where it was overwhelmingly approved).

In their statement yesterday, the German bishops expressed their wish “to provide spiritual assistance for those facing questions of conscience in individual cases who receive pastoral care for inter-denominational married couples who have a grave spiritual need to receive the Eucharist.

They add that such couples “have a very close mutual bond resulting from baptism, faith and the sacrament of marriage, and they share their entire lives.”

On his return flight from Geneva last week (see video here), Pope Francis said the difficulty he has with the handout is “not so much the content,” but that if approved but the bishops’ conference, it “immediately becomes universal.” He said it falls to the diocesan bishop to ascertain whether a Protestant spouse who is married to a Catholic may receive the Holy Eucharist.

Francis also said he thought a “guiding document” would be formulated to help diocesan bishops “handle particular cases.”

The Pope’s comments seem to contradict a May 25 letter sent by Archbishop Luis Ladaria, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, to the German bishops. In the letter, Ladaria said the proposed handout is not ready to be published because it “raises a number of significant issues,” “touches on the faith of the Church,” and effects both ecumenical relations and the interpretation of Church law.

Respected Vatican journalist Edward Pentin summed up the machinations of the German bishops over the last month, tweeting: ' Edward Pentin @EdwardPentin To sum up: the Vatican blocked the German bishops' conference handout May 25, saying it wasn't ready for publication. The bishops published effectively the same handout yesterday simply by removing any indication it was published by the bishops' conference http://www.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/german-bishops …

11:20 AM - Jun 28, 2018




Francis’ Scarlet Letter: A little “F” from Francis gives
the schismatic German bishops everything yhey want

CHRISTOPHER A. FERRARA writes for Fatima Perspectives : 'In my skeptical column of June 5 on the Vatican’s supposed “rejection” of the corrupt German hierarchy’s plan to distribute Holy Communion to Protestants (opposed by a few members who still have the Faith), I noted the obvious: the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) had not rejected the plan as such, but only its implementation by the German bishops’ conference as a whole. The CDF’s letter, however, clearly implies that this mass sacrilege could be perpetrated by each local bishop, interpreting Canon 844 to permit intercommunion for “grave reasons” in his particular diocese. In other words, destroy the Church the right way: one diocese at a time, as is being done with the admission of public adulterers in “second marriages” to Holy Communion.

Now we have written confirmation of Francis’ intention. As Maike Hickson at One Peter Five reports, during his meeting with German bishops at the Vatican on June 12, stacked in favor of Cardinal Marx and other advocates of the plan, Francis signed a note agreed to at the meeting according to which the CDF has not forbidden anything, but merely “‘gives some recommendations,’ and ‘does not give instructions’ to the German bishops.” Moreover, while the text cannot be published as a document of the German bishops’ conference, it can be used as “an ‘orientation guide’ for bishops who ‘wish in their diocese to work out criteria in accord with can. 844 CIC’” and can also “be made public for the use of the bishops.”

Here is how Pope Francis’ “signature,” now being touted as a papal authority by Cardinal Marx, appears on the note: “F 12-6-18”. That is, Francis wished to green light the sacrilege, diocese by diocese, but did not wish to sign his entire name to the document unleashing it, evidently because of an instinctive refusal to commit fully the authority of the papacy to this incredible act of ecclesial destruction. In accordance with his general modus operandi, Francis prefers the wink and the nod to an explicit papal endorsement of heresy and sacrilege. A little “F” will do to signify his agreement to let each bishop do what he cannot authorize as Pope, but wishes to give the impression he has authorized.

Father Gruner never ceased to denounce the fakery by which the entire Church has been subverted since Vatican II: the false appearance of a command where none has actually been given and none can be given because no command destructive of the Faith can be anything but void ab initio, no matter what a piece of paper may say. So it was with the non-existent “banning” of the Latin Mass — a fraud exposed by Benedict XVI in Summorum Pontificum. So it was with the “Papal Rescript” that Francis authorized Secretary of State Pietro Parolin to issue, stating that the “intrinsically impossible” permission to administer Holy Communion to public adulterers is “authentic Magisterium.”

And so it is with the Scarlet Letter of Francis, the little “F” — “F” for fraud — that earns him another page in the annals of infamy that will be written someday about this disastrous pontificate, if there is anyone left on the earth to write the history of this time after the divine chastisement that seems more likely with each passing day.

[1P5 / FP] 2240.6


















Latin America Homelands and social doctrines

G WeigelGEORGE WEIGEL writes for First Things : 'With hundreds of bishops coming to the Vatican for a synod in October 2001, I decided to spend that month in Rome conducting interviews for what would eventually become the sequel to Witness to Hope and the second volume of my John Paul II biography, The End and the Beginning. During my conversations, I found a striking similarity among bishops from Latin America, each of whom I asked to name the greatest challenge his local Church faced in implementing Catholic social doctrine in the twenty-first century. Without exception as to country, and no matter where the bishop in question fell on the spectrum of Catholic opinion, each gave the same, one-word answer: 'Corruption.'

That got my attention, because fostering cultures of honesty and trust would seem to be right in the Catholic Church's wheelhouse, and the Church had been present in Latin America for some 500 years at that point. Yet one by one, the bishops told me that personal corruption, leading to systemic and culturally reinforced economic and political corruption, was the greatest challenge they faced in the new century. It was an answer that helped explain some otherwise puzzling phenomena: like Argentina's collapse from being one of the world's ten wealthiest countries in 1900 to being a perennial political and economic basket case; like Brazil's inability to realize its potential as a great economic power. There was serious Catholic failure here, and the bishops with whom I spoke were honest enough to admit it.

I remembered those conversations when reading a recent essay in America magazine by San Diego's Bishop Robert McElroy, 'Pope Francis brings a new lens to poverty, peace, and the planet.' In that essay, the bishop had this to say about comparative pontificates:

This new lens reflects in a fundamental way the experience of the Church in Latin America. Critics of Pope Francis point to this as a limitation, a bias that prevents the pope from seeing the central issues of economic justice, war and peace and the environment in the context of the universal Church. But St. John Paul II certainly enriched key aspects of Catholic social teaching from a perspective profoundly rooted in the experience of the Eastern European Church under communism. Contemporary critics of Pope Francis voiced no objections to that regional and historical perspective.

I've no idea who these 'critics' are, but perhaps a few refreshers on John Paul II's social doctrine would help further the discussion.

First, KarolWojty?a was steeped in the classic social doctrine tradition of Leo XIII and Pius XI, which he taught at the Silesian seminary in Cracow in the 1950s and which provided the intellectual scaffolding for his own social magisterium when he became pope.

Second, it's true that John Paul II's most important contribution to the twenty-first-century discussion of the free and virtuous society-his insistence on a vibrant public moral culture as the key to living freedom nobly and well, in both political and economic life-reflected the experience of a Poland that remained alive through its culture when its independent statehood was eliminated between 1795 and 1918. But it's also true that this 'culture-first' theme was thoroughly baked into the classic social doctrine, beginning with Leo XIII.

Third, John Paul II's recognition of the dynamics of post-Cold War economies was not drawn from his Polish experience-the man never had a checkbook and lived largely 'outside' the economy-but from intense conversations with Western scholars who knew how post-industrial economies work (and don't), and from whom he was both smart enough and humble enough to learn.

And finally, John Paul II's social doctrine took failure seriously and tried to learn from it: specifically, the failure of the Weimar Republic in interwar Germany, where an ably designed political and economic system eventually produced a totalitarian regime, because its moral and cultural foundations were too shaky to support the institutions of freedom when the crunch of the Great Depression came.

So it seems to me that, with John Paul II, a distinctive personal experience refined and extended the classic social doctrine tradition. John Paul was not imposing an idiosyncratic view on the world Church-which is in fact something no pope should do, because the Bishop of Rome is the custodian of a universal tradition, not an intellectual free agent.

[George Weigel is Distinguished Senior Fellow of Washington, D.C.'s Ethics and Public Policy Center, where he holds the William E. Simon Chair in Catholic Studies.]

[First Things] 2240.7



















United Kingdom Cardinal Nichols says the Church 'must not try to hide major failings'

CARDINAL Vincent Nichols, Archbishop of Westminster, admitted failings in the Catholic Church in a pastoral letter released on Sunday.

'There is no hiding our mistakes and faults,' the cardinal said in the letter, that was read out in the diocese's parishes on June 24.

'Indeed, we have learned painfully, that trying to hide major failures, especially in relation to the most vulnerable, seriously compounds the failures and betrayals that so damage our shared mission.

'Today I express my sorrow at our failings and I ask for your patience, forbearance and, indeed, forgiveness.'

The cardinal previously noted that 'over the centuries a marvellous tradition has remained of genuine love for priests and a readiness to support them, through thick and thin,' and asked parishioners to pray for all priests, and in particular, six new priests to be ordained in Westminster Cathedral next Saturday.

Cardinal Nichols began the address by paying tribute to St John Southworth, an English Catholic martyr whose feast day is celebrated on June 27. St John Southworth was ordained at the English College in Douai, northern France, which celebrates its 450th anniversary this year.

'The College is a crucial part of Catholic survival and heritage, succeeded first by St Edmund's College in Ware, Hertfordshire, and then by Allen Hall, our own diocesan seminary,' Cardinal Nichols said.

'In the months ahead, remembering Douai College and so many martyr priests, we will be striving to renew our priestly mission and purpose.'

[Catholic Herald] 2240.8



















United Kingdom Heterosexual couple win legal bid for right to have civil partnership instead marriage

A HETROSEXUAL couple have won their legal bid for the right to have a civil partnership instead of a marriage.

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favour of Rebecca Steinfeld, 37, and Charles Keidan, 41, from London.

The court said the Civil Partnership Act 2004 - which only applies to same-sex couples - is incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.

Campaigners urged the government to 'seize this opportunity' and allow all people to access civil partnerships.

In a civil partnership, a couple is entitled to the same legal treatment in terms of inheritance, tax, pensions and next-of-kin arrangements as marriage.

The couple said the 'legacy of marriage' - which 'treated women as property for centuries' - was not an option for them.

Since March 2014, same sex-couples can chose whether to enter a civil partnership or to marry. This has not been possible for mixed-sex couples which led Ms Steinfeld and Mr Keidan to argue that the law was discriminatory.

[BBC] 2240.9





















United Kingdom Assisted suicide case

THE COURT OF APPEAL this week dismissed the appeal brought by Mr Noel Conway who argued unsuccessfully that the present state of the law on assisted suicide violated the European Convention on Human rights.

Humanists UK intervened in the case to support Mr Conway. The Not Dead Yet and Care Not Killing Alliance intervened on the opposite side. The Catholic Union also supports and participates in the Care Not Killing Alliance.

The judgment itself, a summary of the judgment and an article and press release from Care Not Killing are set out in the links below but here are a few key points:

The Conway case follows a case called Nicklinson in 2014 where the Supreme Court decided that, in principle, Parliament was a better forum for determining the issue of assisted suicide than the courts. The Court of Appeal was not bound by Nicklinson because that case focused on long term suffering whereas Mr Conway proposed a new scheme for those suffering from a terminal illness and within six months of death.

The Court of Appeal held that the case raised a number of important moral and ethical issues on which society is divided and many people hold passionate but opposing views, including the competing values as between the concept of the sanctity of life and the right to personal autonomy.

The Court said that the law had imposed a limit on personal autonomy to reflect wider moral, ethical and practical issues which include but are not limited to the protection of the weak and vulnerable.

The Court of Appeal considered the recent Supreme Court judgment about abortion in Northern Ireland but said that the present case was different because the issue of assisted dying is more difficult and controversial in terms of its moral and religious dimensions and that the UK's approach to assisted dying largely reflects the approach over almost the whole of Europe, whereas the abortion laws in Northern Ireland were almost alone in their strictness.

The Court rejected the argument of the Humanists UK that weighing the views of Parliament heavily in the balance in this case was an abdication of the Court's responsibility to consider the merits of the arguments on either side in relation to Article 8(2) of the European Convention.

[Catholic Union] 2240.9a




















Ukraine Why is Rome side-lining the Ukrainian Catholics?

FR RAYMOND DE SOUZA writes for the Catholic Herald : 'Recent events show growing resentment within the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church

Relations between the largest of the eastern Catholic Churches, the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church (UGCC), and the Holy See have been frayed in recent years, as the former has found the latter's support lacking in the face of Russian aggression against Ukraine in general and the UGCC in particular.

Ukrainian Catholics believe that the Holy See wants to maintain good relations with the Russian Orthodox Church, which is strongly allied with Russian President Vladimir Putin. The consequence is that the Holy See does not protest too strongly against Putin's aggression in Ukraine.

Two events in May suggest that those frayed relations are not going to be repaired soon.

First, there was the consistory for new cardinals announced on Pentecost Sunday. Leading the list of 11 new cardinal electors was Louis Raphaël I Sako, Patriarch of Babylon and head of the Chaldean Church, Iraq's principal eastern Catholic Church. Creating the patriarch a cardinal was widely seen as sign of solidarity with the suffering Iraqi Catholics.

In 2016, Pope Francis did a similar thing for Syria, though that time he did not choose an actual Syrian bishop for cardinal, but rather the Italian serving as nuncio in Damascus.

Yet in five consistories for the creation of new cardinals, Pope Francis has passed over Sviatoslav Shevchuk, head of the UGCC and major archbishop of Kiev. Shevchuk's predecessors have all been cardinals dating back to time when the UGCC - liquidated by Stalin - was the largest underground Church in the world.

Pope Francis is charting a new course in the selection of cardinals, but even given the idiosyncratic nature of his choices, it is evident that suffering Churches and suffering peoples are favoured with cardinals. That Ukraine has been overlooked now five times in five years suggests that Ukrainian suffering resonates less in Rome than the objections of the Russian Orthodox, who regard the very existence of the UGCC as an affront.

The second sign that UGCC-Holy See relations are not on the mend took place when Pope Francis received a delegation of the Russian Orthodox Church, led by Metropolitan Hilarion, the representative of Kirill, Patriarch of Moscow, for relations with other Churches. During the meeting, Pope Francis gave an address that was warmly received and promoted by the Russian Orthodox.

'I would like to reiterate that the Catholic Church will never allow an attitude of division to arise from her people,' Pope Francis said. 'We will never allow ourselves to do this, I do not want it. In Moscow - in Russia - there is only one patriarchate: yours.'

In Ukraine there is an effort to establish a new Orthodox patriarchate that is independent from Moscow. It is a complex tale, ably described in these pages last week by Fr Mark Drew. It is supported by the Ukrainian government and has support among many Ukrainians who resent that their religious authority - the Moscow Patriarchate - staunchly defends their political oppressor, Putin.

The UGCC supports the efforts to have a new unified Ukrainian Orthodox patriarch, autonomous and independent of Moscow. That enrages the Russian Orthodox, so they were most pleased to hear the Holy Father - to their ears, at least - take their side.

'The Catholic Church, the Catholic Churches must not get involved in internal matters of the Russian Orthodox Church, nor in political issues,' Pope Francis said. 'This is my attitude, and the attitude of the Holy See today. And those who meddle do not obey the Holy See.'

Who could Pope Francis have in mind? The Russian Orthodox certainly concluded that the Holy Father was speaking about the UGCC and Shevchuk. It is hard to think of any other plausible candidate given the current circumstances.

In recent years, Vatican slights toward the UGCC, or toleration of attacks upon the UGCC from the Russian Orthodox, were thought to be part of the price demanded by the Moscow Patriarchate for a meeting with Pope Francis - something long denied to St John Paul II. That historic meeting took place in Havana in February 2016.

The question is whether the new relationship between the Holy See and the Russian Orthodox will require ongoing strained relations between Catholics, namely the Holy See and the eastern Catholics of the UGCC. Recent events suggest that it will.

[Fr Raymond J de Souza is a priest of the Archdiocese of Kingston, Ontario, and editor-in-chief of convivium.ca]

[CH] 2240.10




















United States Bishops admit they knew Cardinal McCarrick was an abuser but stayed silent

ELIZABETH YORE reports for LifeSiteNews : ' Now-disgraced retired cardinal of Washington, DC Theodore McCarrick was permitted to live out his role as a bishop over the past thirty years despite the fact that some bishops knew him to be guilty of sexually abusing seminarians.

Since this past week’s McCarrick revelations by the Archdioceses of New York and Newark, that McCarrick was found to have credible allegations of sexual predation against a minor, and two adult males, there can be little doubt that the American hierarchy was aware of allegations of his past salacious and sexually exploitative misconduct.

Why did Newark Cardinal Joseph Tobin and Bishop James F. Checchio, of Metuchen, New Jersey, not release the decades-old McCarrick settlement information immediately to protect potential victims? Joseph Tobin has been Cardinal of Newark since January 2017, and Bishop Checchio has been Bishop of Metuchen since May 2016. The first obligation of a Cardinal and bishop is to review the clergy abuse settlements and claims to ensure the safety of Catholics. Surely, complaints against Cardinal McCarrick would have drawn their immediate attention!

Yet, Cardinal Ted McCarrick rose to the highest levels of the Catholic hierarchy and, apparently none of his brother Bishops or Cardinals stepped forward as a whistleblower to protect unsuspecting boys and young males.

During the day, as Cardinal of the powerful Washington, D.C. archdiocese, Cardinal McCarrick rubbed shoulders with the political power elite. He celebrated the prestigious Red Mass where members of the U.S. Supreme Court, Congress, and political elites attended every year. Cardinal Ted McCarrick concelebrated funeral masses for the rich and politically famous, like Sen. Ted Kennedy and Beau Biden, Vice President Joe Biden’s son. He was the go-to Cardinal for the rich and powerful.

His days were busy cultivating contacts, doing favors for the rich and powerful of business, government and politics. He traveled around the world for Catholic Relief Services. “Uncle Ted” McCarrick was the ultimate insider Prince of the Church. It’s no wonder that an “influential Italian gentleman” urged him to lobby for Pope Francis' election, as McCarrick himself related in an October 2013 talk at Villanova University.

For years, the McCarrick misconduct stories surfaced and, then, seemingly retreated into oblivion. Yet, one theme prevailed in the persistent allegations: prelates and people were informed, and no one in power did anything. The DC power brokers, New York elite, and mainstream media colluded with the Catholic hierarchy in a conspiracy of silence to protect McCarrick for nearly half a century. No one spoke about the credible findings and settlements with McCarrick victims.

Despite his abuse of seminarians, Cardinal McCarrick continued to have regular access to them, even staying in the seminary while visiting Rome. In his Villanova speech, Cardinal McCarrick reveals that during the conclave he stayed at the North American College (NAC) Seminary in Rome.

McCarrick residing at the seminary dormitory is like the fox guarding the chicken coup. Rod Dreher highlights McCarrick’s risk to seminarians and that the Vatican was repeatedly warned about him. In his article, "Cardinal McCarrick is a Molester", Dreher describes the allegations surrounding McCarrick’s sexual predatory modus operandi:

It had been rumored at the time that Theodore McCarrick, the Archbishop of Newark, was going to be moved to Washington, DC, and to be made a cardinal. This group traveled to Rome to warn the Vatican that McCarrick was a sexual harasser of seminarians. The story this priest shared with me was that McCarrick had a habit of compelling seminarians to share his bed for cuddling. These allegations did not involve sexual molestation, but were clearly about unwanted sexual harassment.

Over the decades, many others alleged and warned about McCarrick’s predatory predilection for seminarians. The prominent sociologist and clergy abuse expert and author, Richard Sipe, wrote a passionate plea to Pope Benedict about McCarrick’s alleged predatory sexual conduct. Read Richard Sipe's April 24, 2008 letter to Pope Benedict which the Vatican acknowledged receipt of in a letter by the Papal Nuncio Pietro Sambi on May 5, 2008. Sambi acknowledged that Sipe’s letter was delivered to the Vatican via the papal diplomatic pouch. The Vatican knew full well about the danger of McCarrick to young seminarians.

Sipe wrote the following to Pope Benedict:

'While I was Adjunct Professor at a Pontifical Seminary, St. Mary’s Baltimore (1972-1984) a number of seminarians came to me with concerns about the behavior of Theodore E. McCarrick, then bishop of Metuchen, New Jersey. It has been widely known for several decades that Bishop/Archbishop now Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick took seminarians and young priests to a shore home in New Jersey, sites in New York, and other places and slept with some of them. He established a coterie of young seminarians and priests that he encouraged to call him “Uncle Ted.” I have his correspondence where he referred to these men as being “cousins” with each other'.

Clergy sex abuse investigative researcher, Randy Engel describes in her important tome, The Rite of Sodomy, that “New York insiders glibly refer to McCarrick by his feminine name 'Blanche' and Vatican officials have long been aware of his penchant for young handsome seminarians” (page 758).

Did any Church official bar him from their seminaries?

Did any Church officials report him to law enforcement?

Why would the rector of the North American College (NAC) Seminary even permit Cardinal McCarrick to stay there and subject his seminarian students to his possible predation in light of the Metuchen settlements?

Why didn’t Cardinal Donald Wuerl, the present Archbishop of Washington, D.C. restrict McCarrick’s access to young males and altar boys while residing in his Archdiocese? After all, Wuerl is the spiritual shepherd of the diocese and has authority over the care and protection of his spiritual flock.

[Elizabeth Yore is an international child advocate attorney who has investigated numerous clerical child sex abuse cases].

[And see 'McCarrick' below]

[LSN] 2240.10a


















United States Cardinal Cupich removes faculties from traditional priest accused of misconduct but found innocent

LISA BOURNE reports for LifeSiteNews : 'A Chicago Catholic priest heading a traditional parish community removed by Cardinal Blasé Cupich in March will not be allowed to return to his parish or religious order, despite his exoneration for alleged misconduct.

Cupich, made a cardinal by Pope Francis in 2016, had removed Father Frank Phillips, CR, as pastor of St. John Cantius Church and superior of the Canons Regular of St. John Cantius, for 'credible allegations of improper conduct with adult men,' according to the cardinal's signed letter read to parishioners at Mass the weekend of March 17-18.

However last week an independent group of Father Phillips' parishioners and supporters announced via its Protect Our Priests website that Father Phillips had been exonerated.

'The Review Board has concluded that Fr. Phillips has not violated any secular criminal, civil or canon law,' the group's June 20 statement said.

'Fr. Phillips, having been exonerated thusly, and this in turn confirmed by the votum of The Rt. Rev. Gene Szarek, C.R., Ph.D. Provincial Superior of the Congregation of the Resurrection upon receipt of the Review Board Report. We now prayerfully await the response of His Eminence, Blase Cardinal Cupich, Archbishop of Chicago, for the return of our pastor,' the group stated.

Since Father Phillips is a member of the Congregation of the Resurrection, the investigation was assigned to his religious community, which appointed an independent panel to hear and consider evidence.

The panel was then to prepare a written decision for the appropriate canonical authority, in this case, Cupich.

The review board's conclusion came May 26, the Protect Our Priests site said, after taking hundreds of hours of testimony from the accusers, people who knew the accusers, and others who had come forward to defend Father Phillips. The Protect Our Priests site is not officially associated with St. John Cantius, the Resurrectionist Congregation or the Canons Regular of St. John Cantius.

'We accept the Archdiocese's decision'

Despite the review board's findings that Father Phillips had not violated any secular criminal, civil or canon law, his priestly faculties will not be returned and he remains removed from St. Cantius Parish and the Canons Regular of St. John Cantius.

A June 24 letter from Father Gene Szarek, Provincial Superior for the Congregation of the Resurrection placed in parish bulletins this past weekend and posted on St. Cantius' website informed parishioners that the archdiocese had decided to keep Father Phillips withdrawn from public ministry.

LifeSiteNews did not hear back on an inquiry to the Archdiocese as to why Cardinal Cupich is keeping Father Phillips from performing priestly ministry.

Renew America's Matt Abbott wrote at One Peter Five about Father Phillips' being blocked from returning, including Spalding's observations that there'd been no statements issued by the Archdiocese, the Resurrectionists or the Canons Regular of St. John Cantius, and Spalding's assertion that the effort to suppress Father Phillip went beyond Cardinal Cupich.

'Has Cupich silenced everyone involved?' Abbott wrote.' Stay tuned.'

The news of Father Phillips' removal was a shock to St. John Cantius parishioners and others, as the order and Father Phillips are held in high regard by parishioners and tradition-friendly Catholic priests around the U.S.

'We do not know nearly enough to make a judgment about the situation,' Steve Skojec wrote at OnePeterFive of the March announcement, 'but it has long been expected - ever since Cupich took over America's third-largest diocese - that he would follow his earlier track record as a bishop hostile to Tradition and make a move against St. John Cantius.'

'Remember,' Skojec said, 'this is a man who, as Bishop of Rapid City, South Dakota, physically locked the doors of a traditional parish in full communion with the diocese during the Easter Triduum to keep them from worshiping God in the way they believed was most pleasing to Him.'

'I hope for a swift resolution to this especially because I don't believe the allegation. I just don't,' Father John Zuhlsdorf had written on his blog. 'Given that Phillips seems not to have broken any civil laws the move against him seems pretty sudden and draconian, but I guess that's what they do around there.'

The way in which Cupich removed Father Phillips went beyond what is recommended by the U.S. Bishops' Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People pertaining to the handling of allegations involving adults, retired Corpus Christi Bishop Rene Henry Gracida said.

'I was stunned by the news,' Gracida wrote on his blog.

'What I find so disturbing in the news about the removal of Father Phillips is that the public way in which Cardinal Cupich removed Father Phillips was so uncalled for,' Bishop Gracida said.

'Every bishop at one time or another is faced with the sexual misbehavior of a priest with a man or a woman who is not a minor,' he continued. 'In the case of minors the Dallas Charter demands rapid and harsh measures by the bishop in handling the case. In the case of adults, such measures are not only not required but are inadvisable because of the scandal of the weak, which results. Instead, the priest is suspended and quietly removed from office and no public announcement by the Ordinary is necessary, a simple discrete letter to the people of the parish is sufficient.'

St. John Cantius parishioner Nick Chapello had told Church Militant, 'I find it very hard to believe these accusations that have been put forth against him...Fr. Phillips is a man that I can trust with the care of my wife, my children and, yes, my very soul.'

Spalding had written as well upon the March announcement of Father Phillips's removal that this was odd given it is standard procedure even when a priest is accused of abusing a minor to place the priest on administrative leave while the investigation is being conducted.

Spalding said in March he expected Father Phillips would not be coming back.

The Canons Regular of St. John Cantius religious order offers Mass in both the Extraordinary and Ordinary Forms. Father Phillips founded the order in 1998 with the approval of Cardinal Francis Cardinal George, and the approval of the Congregation of the Resurrection.

According to the order's website, the mission of the Canons Regular of St. John Cantius is to help Catholics rediscover a profound sense of the sacred through solemn liturgies, devotions, sacred art and sacred music, as well as instruction in Church heritage, catechesis and Catholic culture in the context of parish ministry. The order's members live in community under the vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience, following the rule of St. Augustine.

A red flag went up for traditional Catholics and others when Cupich removed Father Phillips given the cardinal's record of hostility toward Traditional Catholicism - stemming from Cupich's locking a traditional parish community out of its church during the Easter Triduum in 2002 as bishop of Rapid City, South Dakota, to prevent the Traditional Latin Mass from being celebrated.

Cupich had said his move was to seek an opportunity 'for us to all worship together, for one moment of unity as a Catholic Church.'

As a result, the Traditional Catholic community was forced to conduct its Good Friday liturgies on the sidewalk outside.


Mahound's Paradise has obtained a letter written by canon lawyer Alan R. Kershaw to Cardinal Blase Cupich on behalf of Fr. Phillips. The letter is dated April 29th, six weeks after the initial decision by Cupich to remove him from public ministry, but six weeks before the recent additional determination by the Archdiocese.

Alan R. Kershaw, Ph.B., J.U.D., J.D.

Advocate of the Apostolic Tribunal of the Roman Rota Practicing in the Supreme Court of Cassation

Rome, 29th April 2018

H.E . Blase J. Card. Cupich Archbishop of Chicago 835 North Rush Street Chicago, IL 60611-2030 U.S.A.

Re: Rev. C. Frank Phillips, C.R.

Your Eminence,

Greetings in the Risen Christ!

I have been retained by Fr. C. Frank Phillips, C.R., to defend him in the canonical forum. Attached herewith is a copy of the mandate of appointment. Should you require an original of the mandate, kindly let me know and I will have one delivered to your offices.

Fr. Phillips has instructed me to contact you with regard to his current status in the Archdiocese of Chicago, and as the Founder of the Canons Regular of St. John Cantius.

Before proceeding, indubitably it is salutary to recall certain recent, salient, and undisputable events.

February 26, 2018 Fr. C. Frank Phillips was called by Fr. Dennis Lyle and Fr. Jeremy Thomas of the Priest Vicar Board, informing him that accusations of improper conduct had been made against him.

The afternoon of March 2nd Fr. Phillips, accompanied by his civil lawyer, met at the Chancery with Fr. Dennis Lyle, Fr. Jeremy Thomas, and Sr. Joan McGlinchey. Also present was Fr. Gene Szarek, C.R., in his capacity as Provincial General of the Congregation of the Resurrection. Fr. Phillips did not respond to the allegations, nor, as you know, was he legally obliged to.

Ten days later, on March 12th You announced your decision 'to remove the faculties of Reverend C. Frank Phillips, C.R., which means he can no longer remain as the pastor of St. John Cantius and the superior of the Canons Regular'.

On March 16th you wrote to the 'Parishioners, Staff and Friends of Saint John Cantius Parish', informing them: 'that I have had to withdraw Reverend C. Frank Phillips' faculties to minister in the Archdiocese of Chicago', and that you 'took this step after learning of credible allegations of improper conduct involving adult men'.

The news of Fr. Phillips' removal was soon in the local, State, national and international media: 'In a statement to parishioners, Cardinal Blase Cupich explained that he had made the decision to " withdraw " Phillips after learning " of credible allegations of improper conduct involving adult men ". Anne Maselli, a spokeswoman for the archdiocese, said in an email that the allegations do not involve minors.' (Chicago Tribune, March 19, 2018; amongst others see also: Newsweek, March 19, 2018; Crux, March 20, 2018).

Within the time limits foreseen by canon law, on March 26th Fr. Phillips formally petitioned you to 'either revoke or emend your decree' (can. 1734), and to 'engage in a process of mediation which can resolve this issue without further canonical action' (can. 1733, §1).

The Saturday following Easter you met with the members of the Canons Regular, and during the course of the meeting, with reference to Fr. Phillips, you reportedly expressed to those present that the investigation of the diocese indicates that he is guilty. It is also my understanding, that you strongly recommended to the members of the Canons Regular to not give witness testimony before the Review Board.

On the 10th and 12th days of April the 'Review Board', or investigative panel constituted by the Superior of the Congregation of the Resurrection, Rev. Fr. Gene Szarek, interviewed Fr. Phillips' detractors, and other persons, including Fr. Phillips, who was accompanied by his civil lawyer. Not surprisingly, Fr. Phillips denied the allegations, just as all innocent people refuse to confess to illicit actions they did not commit. To date, the Panel's final report has not been presented, but it is forthcoming.

* * * * *

As Your Eminence knows, canon 1717 CJC recites: '§1. Whenever an ordinary has knowledge, which at least seems true, of a delict, he is carefully to inquire personally or through another suitable person about the facts, circumstances, and imputability, unless such an inquiry seems entirely superfluous. §2. Care must be taken so that the good name of anyone is not endangered from this investigation.'

In your letter/decree of March 12, 2018 to Fr. Gene Szarek, C.R., you generically signify: 'Considering the complaints of inappropriate conduct recently brought against the Reverend C. Frank Phillips, CR […] I hereby withdraw all of his faculties to engage in any ecclesiastical ministry in the Archdiocese of Chicago, and remove him of pastor of St. John Cantius Church'; therefore: 'I will appoint a parish administrator until the matter currently under investigation is resolved', and, 'I will appoint someone to serve as superior of the Canons Regular on an interim basis'.

Furthermore, you express the presumption 'that an investigation will be undertaken by your office into the allegations made against Fr. Phillips and the exact nature of his conduct. I ask that you keep me apprised of your progress and the ultimate outcome of your inquiries', and close with your 'prayer for a swift resolution to this matter'.

Also worthy of note is your appointment of Reverend Scott Thelander, SJC, also done on March 12th, 'as administrator of St. John Cantius Parish and Superior ad interim', and you convey your assurances 'to visit with the Canons Regular as soon as I can to ask your suggestions and recommendations for moving forward with a permanent arrangement for the position of Superior'.

* * * * *

Primo ictu oculi your decree, the singular administrative act dated March 12, 2018, is ipso jure null and void under canon law. Attentive study of the facts and related documents further confirms this conclusion.

Canon 1717 explicitly mandates: " §1. Quoties Ordinarius notitiam, saltem veri similem, habet de delicto, caute inquirat ".

Præprimis, in Fr. Phillips' case there does not appear to be any canonical 'delict' to speak of.

Second, although there was no apparent or discernable " notitia delicti " you reportedly asserted to the members of the Canons Regular on Saturday, April 7th that the investigation of the diocese indicates that 'Fr. Phillips is guilty'. If this corresponds to the truth, then a precipitous judgment was expressed, or better reiterated by your good self, albeit in absence of a delict and without a preventive " inquisitio circa facta et circumstantia et circa imputabilitatem ".

Canon 1717 also explicitly mandates: " §2. Cavendum est ne ex hac investigatione bonum cuiusquam nomen in discrimen vocetur ".

Prescinding momentarily from whether you ordered an " investigatio prævia " into the allegations of non-existent " delicta ", on March 12th you asked Fr. Gene Szarek, C.R., to 'keep me apprised of your progress and the ultimate outcome of your inquiries', on the presumption 'that an investigation will be undertaken by your office into the allegations made against Fr. Phillips and the exact nature of his conduct'. Therefore, prior to the completion of any investigation, whether diocesan or by the religious order, you proceeded to inform the media of your decisions as set forth in your March 12th decree. This, Your Eminence, blatantly constitutes a violation of Fr. Phillips' privacy and all rights relative to the preservation of his good name; a clear manifestation, in the minds of many Christifideles, of either an animus against Fr. Phillips, or a high level of suspicion and a low level of skepticism was present during the decision making phase, or, perhaps, a mixture of both; which reprovingly gives way to a reversed burden of proof, i.e. Fr. Phillips must prove his innocence rather than the reprobate accusers having to prove his culpability. To be clear, this is not simply an opinion, or a defense tactic of the undersigned patrocinium, but rather an easily verifiable current of valuation widely shared amongst the faithful, in particular by those who personally know Fr. Phillips, together with all those who are familiar with and participate in the good works of the Canons Regular SJC in Chicago, and elsewhere.

Canon 193, §1, CJC clearly establishes: 'A person cannot be removed from an office conferred for an indefinite period of time except for grave causes and according to the manner of proceeding defined by law'.

Thereby, with regard to Fr. Phillips' case, one legitimately queries: Where is the 'grave cause'? And, why was the requisite 'manner of proceeding defined by law' set aside, and not followed as prescribed by the Codex?

Ad rem, given the facts outlined herein it is indubitable that your March 12th decree is irreparably vitiated sive in procedendo sive in decernendo.

Ultimately, in the exercise of his priestly ministry Fr. Phillips has acted in accordance with canon 529, §§ 1-2, CJC, and has conducted himself in an exemplary fashion, reflecting the Magisterium and exhortations of Pope Francis; that is to be selfless and reach out to help others, regardless of their status, to be compassionate and always act with brotherly love especially towards those who find themselves in difficulty on the path of life.

If Your Eminence, as Ordinary of the Archdiocese of Chicago, prior to giving the March 12th decree had conducted a preliminary investigation, prompting the restrictions, scilicet the canonical sanctions, imposed on Fr. Phillips, then it can only be valuated as superficial and incomplete. Hence, your decree is lacking factual foundation (Cfr. canons 48-51 CJC).

What is more, the verbiage of your decree and other public writings appear contradictory, and unfounded in canon law. Hence, this perceived lack of clarity and linearity - also in reference to the erroneous application of the dictates of the prescribed canon law process - gives way to, and even further provokes profound confusion amongst the faithful, causing unnecessary scandal and division.

* * * * *

In light of the arguments heretofore articulated sive in jure sive in facto, on behalf of Fr. Phillips and in defense of his person and interests, You are hereby respectfully petitioned to revoke your March 12th decree in its entirety and, to said effect, restore Fr. Phillips' status quo ante as Pastor of St. John Cantius and Superior of the Canons Regular SJC.

As a final resolution of the entire, baseless matter, this could prove persuasive to avoid litigation that potentially would involve the Archdiocese in the secular courts.

Indubitably, Fr. Phillips has been egregiously defamed by his reprobate detractors, including those who have 'jumped on the band wagon' ostensibly hoping to have found an opportunity for fraudulent monetary gain.

The damage to Fr. Phillips' reputation has indeed been compounded by those same wide reaching media reports which have caused and continue to consternation and astonishment amongst the Christifideles. Hence, it is left to Rev. Fr. Phillips to discern if and what further action should be taken to restore his good name.

On this point, Fr. Phillips suggests and would appreciate drafting any eventual joint communication to the faithful in the Archdiocese, regarding the positive resolution of all contrasts and his status.

However, should Your Eminence not deem the above arguments to carry sufficient weight for the reasonable and justifiable revocation of your March 12th decree, then by these presents Fr. Phillips makes formal hierarchical administrative recourse against your decree of March 12, 2018.

In closing, I take the opportunity to quote the words of His Holiness, Pope Francis, expressed in his recent letter to the Chilean bishops, wherein he asked forgiveness, acknowledging 'that I have made serious mistakes in the assessment and perception of the situation, especially because of the lack of truthful and balanced information'.

From a professional perspective, and with legitima suspicione, I ask myself whether Your Eminence too has been misled by a deplorable 'lack of truthful and balanced information'. Should this prove to be the case, then to the mind of Fr. Phillips' supporters the moment to rectify matters must be seized immediately to underscore the fact that 'zero tolerance' is not merely a one-way policy.

With a prayer for a positive resolution of all issues, I look forward to your reply.

In Domino addictissimus,

Alan R. Kershaw, R.R.Adv.

[LSN / http://mahoundsparadise.blogspot] 2240.11




















International Some jihad headlines of the week


Austria : Children at Catholic elementary school punished if they don't learn Islamic songs

France : Captured ISIS fighter reveals plot to attack nuclear power plant

Netherlands : Muslims scream 'Allahu akbar" to celebrate Erdogan's victory

Nigeria : Muslims murder 200 Christians in series of attacks, burn 50 houses

UAE : Singer on trial for inulting Islam by pointing at mosque with her left han

UK : Former ISIS London operative: 'I could jump off at pretty much any stop of the 77 bus and find a like-minded militant'.

UK : Peer asks if mosques will be monitored for 'hate speech'; for asking is threatened with prosecution for "hate speech"



[CF News] 2240.12




















International Savonarola Voris



[CMTV] 2240.13




















International gloria.tv.news


[gloria.tv] 2240.14




















International The World Over with Raymond Arroyo




[EWTN] 2240.15
























Conscience and obedience. Matthew McCusker's talk at the Rome Life Forum, May 2018



[Voice of the Family] 2240.16






















Pregnant woman


Facebook's censorship has gotten worse. A lot worse

STEVE JALSEVAC writes for LifeSiteNews : 'You're not going to believe what Facebook is doing to LifeSite now.

During our last fundraising campaign I told you that Facebook censorship was causing our campaign to struggle. Many readers were shocked over what I wrote in that letter.

Well, since then the problem has gotten worse. A lot worse.

Recently Facebook announced a sweeping new policy that bans all so-called 'political advertising,' except under stringent conditions (more about that below). Well, guess what issues Facebook considers 'political?'

You guessed it! 'Abortion,' and (get this!) 'values.' In other words, everything that LifeSite reports on. (See Facebook's list of 'political' topics).

After rolling out that new policy, Facebook immediately began blocking almost all of our ads. That includes the ads we usually run during our fundraising campaigns asking for donations from our Facebook fans.

Facebook is preventing us from telling our nearly 1 million Facebook followers about the summer campaign. A significant number of these people regularly donate to our campaigns.

The reasons they have given are, truly, Orwellian.

Before I share with you the shocking e-mails we have received from Facebook, I must remind you that there are only days left in our summer fundraising campaign. With $144,749 left to raise to reach our goal, and with our fundraising ads being actively blocked by Facebook, we need your help more than ever.



So, what reason did Facebook give us for blocking our ads? Well, take a look at that photo at the top of this article. Facebook told us that that photo was too 'political.' Seriously. They said the same thing about the four photos in the collage below. Do you see anything 'political' about those images? Me neither.

Here is the text of an actual response we received from Facebook. It took us weeks of communications to finally receive even this response, thanks to the persistence of Rebekah Roberts, our director of digital marketing:

'… I believe what is causing the Ad Disapproval is the actual photo itself for the Ads you were wanting to run.

'While you have access to be able to run political Ads, the Policy team did indicate that the images were not able to be used. Since that is still a hot topic for some users, it may be offensive for Facebook to show on their end, or allow to be shown. I do see that the Ad has a fetus and while it involves your Ad text and topic, it may be viewed too strong for Facebook to allow to show.

'I hope you understand that I am not able to change that on my end. My best recommendation would be to use different images. If that still comes back disapproved, then it may be deemed not able to be used for Ads on Facebook.'

When pushed for additional information on why beautiful photos of pregnant mamas, babies, and ultrasounds of preborn babies were causing our ads to be blocked, LifeSite received the following:

'I would consider using different images. If those are still disapproved, then perhaps the topic might not be able to be used. I can't say specifically in this case as I am not on the Policy team.

'It may be that the topic of choice for your Ads is what is being disapproved…

'I definitely understand what you are referring to, but more than likely the topic you are speaking of may offend some, or Facebook finds they would rather not allow that type of Advertising at this time. Perhaps Facebook would rather remain neutral as they would not want to offend either side. While you do have authorization to run Ads, perhaps this topic might be the cause of those disapproval.'

The topic, by inference, was the 'political' topic of abortion, which Facebook was concerned would 'offend some.' What about the hundreds of thousands of LifeSite readers who would be rightly offended by this totalitarian censorship?

Is Facebook really being 'neutral' by now prohibiting ads and articles of a type that we were able to post for years, enabling us to reach all the people who choose to receive our articles by following our Facebook pages? Would any of them be offended by the ads and other articles?

No. But I bet they are offended that Facebook is choosing what they can or can't read.

Many people access LifeSite reports only through Facebook - literally by the millions. LifeSite publishes four Facebook pages. They are,

We Can End Abortion - 596,000 followers

LifeSiteNews - 185,000 followers

We Can Defend Marriage - 138,000 followers

Catholics Restoring Culture - 42,763 followers

That means there are 962,000 people who chose to receive our updates on Facebook. These people also in turn frequently share LifeSite's articles with their own friends on Facebook. That often leads to millions of people reading many of our stories. Some go viral on Facebook.

We have put much time, money, and effort into building those pages over the past several years. However, Facebook has recently made unexpectedly dramatic changes to its 'terms of service.'

As far as we can determine, Facebook itself has chosen to become highly political by implementing this gross discrimination against conservative websites and individuals.

Adding insult to injury, in January Facebook announced that they would be prioritizing posts from 'trusted' publishers. And who might those 'trusted' publishers be? You guessed it: giant liberal publishers like CNN and the New York Times.

Facebook used to genuinely be a 'platform for all ideas.' In his recent responses during Senate hearings, Zuckerberg even claimed it still is. But in reality, Facebook has become a platform now heavily biased in favor of progressive or liberal media, organizations and persons.

I say Facebook is a political actor because the worst of these changes have happened since the election of President Donald Trump, which the social media giants horrifyingly realized was facilitated by conservatives very effectively using their services.

Their response has been to take an hysterically broad swipe against ALL conservatives and to categorize almost every single issue that LifeSite, and other similar publishers, cover as being 'political.'

After over two weeks of correspondence, we were finally able to get some of our ads accepted by qualifying as a 'political' advertiser on Facebook. To do that, Rebekah (our social media manager) had to provide Facebook with proof of her US residency by submitting to them her personal home address, driver license, and the last 4 digits of her Social Security number.

However, the cost per donation received for these 'political' categorized promotions (ads) doubled. From the usual average of $5.95, they went to $12 per donation click. Yikes! That is, spending any money promoting our summer campaign this way is way too costly.

We have been trying to find out from Facebook why this has been happening. More correspondence, waiting, emailing again, waiting.

In the meantime, we have now also been unable to get additional 'political' ads approved by Facebook even though we now qualify for 'political' advertising. That is, we wanted to try different ads to see if the cost per donation click could be made far more reasonable. No dice. Not approved again.

Here is the response last Friday from Facebook,

'As we mentioned on our call, we will send the issue with the Political to our team to see why you are having issues with running political Ads even though you have gone through the full authorization process. We also went over the issue you are having with creating new Ads…'

While all this has been going on we have joined a coalition of over 60 organizations and prominent individual working to stop the social media censorship of conservative views.

Thankfully, we have a substantial email list and large numbers of people coming directly to LifeSite, or via Google search and Google News. Many others are sharing our reports and bringing other new readers to LifeSite.

As well, although our Facebook numbers have been dropping significantly, there are some loyal Facebook LifeSite readers who have followed the 3 special steps to ensure that they continue to see our Facebook posts.

Those steps are:

1. Visit our Facebook page

2. Click 'Following'

3. Click 'See First'

[LSN] 2240.17




















What happened when a priest watched Love Island

FR ALEXANDER LUCIE-SMITH writes for LifeSiteNews : 'Everyone is talking about it - but what does that say about us?

Last year the television critic of this magazine turned his gaze towards Love Island. A year on, Love Island is one of the most popular shows on television. I am assured by friends that 'everyone is watching it' and that young people talk of little else. Anecdotal evidence tells me that one could be forgiven for thinking that this is true. Meanwhile, the Daily Mail has commissioned some slightly crusty academics and writers to watch Love Island and tell us what they think of it, which you can read here. Unsurprisingly, most of them seemed not to like it.

I decided to see Love Island for myself, so that comment from me on this cultural phenomenon might not seem presumptuous. But, and it is a serious but, you do not have to watch Love Island for long to know what it is about, just as you do not have to have read Conan Doyle in depth to know about Sherlock Holmes, or PG Wodehouse to know who Jeeves is. For just as those characters were emblematic of their age, so is Love Island of ours.

Like the formidable Dr Germaine Greer on the subject of Beyoncé, I want to know why the contestants in this game show are almost always scantily clad. That is my first reaction.

I think I know the answer, but the question is serious. I mean, if I were invited on television and told that I could only wear skimpy clothing, I would smell a rat. Yes, it would be absurd for someone of my age to be asked to dress like that, but surely what would be absurd for me is surely absurd for all? Professional swimmers in the Olympic games wear Speedos, we all know, but that is fine in that context. The Love Islanders' costumes reveal not just their muscular torsos (in the case of the men) and almost the entirety of their buttocks (in the case of the women) but something about their role: they are there to titivate. (The same goes for the tans, the hair styles and the make-up.) Love Island is a form of soft porn. As such it degrades the contestants, it degrades the viewers, and it degrades our culture. The episode I watched culminated with various couples making love in dim lighting. In one case, it seemed that an act of sexual intercourse was in progress. This was not shocking, only depressing. As for the Islanders themselves, they are not stupid, they are banal, which is worse.

Love Island, it seems to me, is a symptom of the pornification of our culture, a topic ably covered by authors such as Matt Fradd, whose book, the Porn Myth, I have recommended before. Pornography, it seems to me, does not just remain online, but seeps into mainstream television, into the newspapers, and into daily life and human interaction at all levels. Pornography commodifies sex, and Love Island is the retail end of such commodification. Because sexuality is such an integral part of being human, porn degrades us all. People who 'use' porn (or rather are used by it) start to act and dress like commodified human beings. Porn is dangerous because it has the potential to change the human character, if we are not careful. The Love Islanders are examples of this: they are members of Generation Porn, the generation that sees porn as the new normal.

Meanwhile, I continue to be amazed by the way people react to the proliferation of porn online. Sometimes they simply do not want to talk about it: but ignoring things is not the best way to deal with danger. Or else they deny it is a danger at all, and claim, which no serious expert would ever do, that porn is harmless, or that the dangers are exaggerated, or that porn is somehow justified as a legitimate form of human self-expression. They often raise the bogeyman of censorship.

Do we want censorship? No form of censorship is ideal. What we want is a society in which people would recoil from taking part in a game show like Love Island and recoil from watching it. That doesn't necessarily mean becoming like Iran or Saudi Arabia. But it does mean raising ourselves a little from our current low obsessions. Jesus described his own contemporaries as 'a wicked and adulterous generation.' (Matthew 12:39). The same words certainly apply to us.

[LSN] 2240.18




















Comment from the internet


St Thomas Aquinas on Conscience. Fr Thomas Crean O.P., at the Rome Life Forum 2018



[Voice of the Family] 2240.19




















Vatican II and the liturgical collapse ~ Ignoring the obvious

CHRISTOPHER A. FERRARA writes for Fatima Perspectives : 'One Father Bill Peckman, a diocesan priest from Missouri, recites the grim statistic that there are 74.3 million Catholics in the US, plus “30 million who self identify as former Catholics.” Among the 74 million who still consider themselves Catholics, “only 23% go to Mass on any kind of regular basis.” That would be a mere 17 million Catholics, out of a total of 104 million present and former Catholics, who make any effort to obey the fundamental law of the Church respecting attendance at Mass on the Sabbath.

In short, the picture is one of mass apostasy, concerning which Father Peckman concludes “something has gone wrong.” Something? Confronting this “something” that has gone wrong, Father Peckman writes: “Some want to blame Vatican II. It is a cop out. It allows us to play the ‘if only’ game.”

Just a moment. Who said anything about Vatican II? If the Council is utterly blameless for the collapse of faith and discipline that followed it immediately, why bring it up? Indeed, why does anyone tie the Council to the collapse? Is not the obvious and immediate temporal connection alone, putting aside the mountain of other evidence, reason to suspect that the Council had something to do with this mass apostasy?

Commentators who want to absolve the Council of any complicity in the ecclesial collapse, but who keep bringing it up anyway, are like the neighbor of the victim of a deadly home invasion who tells the police: “Some want to blame Smith just because he was seen near that house last night, but that would be a copout.” To which any sensible detective would reply: “Smith? Who said anything about Smith? We need to question Smith.”

Father Peckman admits what we have seen since the Council is “tossing most any transcendence from Mass,” which “has had grave consequences,” but this disaster, says he, was “not call [ed] for by Vatican II or in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal…”

On the contrary, the Council’s liturgy constitution and the General Instruction were both the work of the infamous Annibale Bugnini and, after the Council, his Consilium, and it was precisely on the pretext of “obedience to the Council” that Pope Paul VI, approving Bugnini’s radical deconstruction and vernacularization of the Roman Rite, declared on November 26, 1969, in perhaps the single most astonishing address ever given by a Roman Pontiff:

“No longer Latin, but the spoken language will be the principal language of the Mass. The introduction of the vernacular will certainly be a great sacrifice for those who know the beauty, the power and the expressive sacrality of Latin. We are parting with the speech of the Christian centuries; we are becoming like profane intruders in the literary preserve of sacred utterance. We will lose a great part of that stupendous and incomparable artistic and spiritual thing, the Gregorian chant.

“We have reason indeed for regret, reason almost for bewilderment. What can we put in the place of that language of the angels? We are giving up something of priceless worth. But why? What is more precious than these loftiest of our Church’s values?”

Bugnini was sacked and sent off to Iran after Paul VI, by Bugnini’s own admission, was presented with a dossier on his Masonic affiliation (which he denied), following which Bugnini’s entire liturgical congregation was dissolved. Too late, however, to undo his veritable destruction of the Roman Rite, as Msgr. Klaus Gamber described the outcome with the approval of the future Pope Benedict XVI, who wrote the French language preface to Gamber’s Reform of the Roman Liturgy wherein Gamber declares:

“ [T]he traditional Roman rite, more than one thousand years old and until now the heart of the Church, was destroyed. The real destruction of the traditional Mass, of the traditional Roman Rite with a history of more than one thousand years, is the wholesale destruction of the faith on which it was based, a faith that had been the source of our piety and of our courage to bear witness to Christ and His Church… Many Catholics agonize over the question: what can be done about the loss of our faith and of our liturgy?”

Ignoring the role of the Council and the Pope who approved its disastrous liturgical implementation, Father Peckman instead lays the blame on “the tyranny of relativism,” “liberal clergy who knew better,” and “people who say that they are Catholic but are okay with abortion, artificial birth control, not going to Mass, and so on.” Yet in the same piece he clearly links the loss of faith to a loss of transcendence in the liturgy: “Parishes would do well to at least start doing Mass as the Church intends. You would be surprised at how few do. Transcendence needs to find its home again.”

Yes, parishes would do well “to at least start doing Mass as the Church intends.” That is, the Church of all time, not the Church of Bugnini and the conflicted Pope who approved his ruinous invention and unleashed it upon the faithful, only to lament that: “The smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God through some crack: doubt, incertitude, dissension, worry, discontent, and conflict are plain to see….”

To Father Peckman I would say: Bring the traditional Latin Mass back to your parish. Then watch it grow again. People are drawn to majesty and sacredness and thus to the Mass that inculcates the Faith it presents. But when confronted with bathos and banality in the liturgy, the people, perceiving nothing of any great importance, vote with their feet and wander away. For as the future Pope Benedict XVI once observed: “But if in the liturgy the communion of faith no longer appears, nor the universal unity of the Church and of her history, nor the mystery of the living Christ, where is it that the Church still appears in her spiritual substance?”

Where indeed?

[FP] 2240.19c




















PayPal, Apple, Amazon, and Google Gay ~ are we obligated to boycott them all?

MICHAEL MATT, editor of The Remnant, writes : 'Who else is tired of Gay Pride Month? While every business that's not Chick-Fil-A falls all over themselves to celebrate the world's most privileged lifestyle in America, I'm sitting here deleting email promotions for the new 'gay-friendly' apps from Apple's App Store. There's an app for that?

# App Stores. LongStory. Not all stories are girl-meets-boy. That's why we love LongStory.The inclusive choose-your-own-adventure lets users pick their own pronouns and their crush. Be who you are >

But, wait there's more! Apple is positively blowing up my phone with this stuff today:

#Misterb&b. Connect with the gay community when you are traveling. Rent welcoming and affordable places in over 135 countries. For LGBTQ+ and allies too. Stay like a gay local >

They really have arrived; gays, that is. Homosexuality has been accepted across the board, and instead of being content with that, they're still protesting like it's 1969, still segregating themselves (even when they vacation), getting their own day at Disneyworld, still throwing giant parades for themselves and demanding their own apps, their own bars-even their own designated days to use public lakes and rivers as they're doing here in Minnesota this weekend, with the full cooperation of the DNR.

If the whole agenda was simply to integrate into normal society, they're failing at it. 'Treat me normally, dammit! Now get off the public property, it's MY DAY to kayak!'

If they want to be normal members of society, why do they act like the most elitist club in history?

The Remnant is considering alternatives to the increasingly Christophobic giant PayPal, since this month the company changed its social media avatar to a rainbow. It's clear where this brand's loyalties lie. However, a larger discussion needs to happen among serious Christians, because PayPal is certainly not alone.

So the bigger question is, how far do you go with this? You can quit PayPal, but by that logic you should probably quit all Apple products, also Microsoft, also most email providers and grocery stores. Yes and most food in the grocery stores, too, because the majority of those brands support things which we, as good Christians, can't support.

Is that Starbucks you're drinking? How could you!

Is that an iPhone you're using to follow along on the 1962 Ordo app at the TLM on Sundays? Shocking!

I hope that's not a Ford you're driving. And you call yourself a Christian?

Amazon.com? Really? You're buying Catholic books from one of the most powerful promoters of gay marriage in the world today?

And when you fired off that angry email to your favorite Catholic blogger because he still uses PayPal, I wonder if you noticed that your own email account is hosted by Gmail? That's right, Google...as pro-LGBT as it gets.

Not everyone can live off-grid and shop local farmers' markets (half the hippies there are majoring in women's studies, anyway). So, I'm not actually sure what to do, but the time may have come for Catholics to 'come out from among them,' as St. Paul said, or at least to start the conversation. But what does 'coming out from among them' mean in the here and now, especially in our age of technology? What's it look like? How do we do it? And more importantly, are we obligated before God to do it in the first place?

Somehow, we need to distinguish ourselves from the masses with their: #WeAreThe99%, #MeToo, #Triggered, #Pride...but how?

We all say we need to stand out but how many of us are willing to stand alone, with no cell phone, no Internet access, no retail stores to shop in, no online sprees, not even a coffee from the local coffee shop barista?

More realistically, what should this look like? This was the theme of my talk in London at the Family Life International Conference last month. Maybe listening to it will help get this conversation started.

I'm not saying I have all the answers, but I certainly have a lot of questions. And I don't believe that simply boycotting PayPal and shopping at Walmart (instead of Target) settles the matter



[Remnant] 2240.20




















The Catholic Border Wars: Saint Thomas Aquinas versus Father James Martin, SJ

JESSE RUSSELL, Ph.D., writes for The Remnant: 'On November 14, 1996, Cardinal Joseph Bernardin passed from this world into the next. The loss of Cardinal Bernardin in the mid-90s, as John Paul II's popularity was reaching its zenith, marked not simply the end of a powerful man, but the end of an era. As the more politically conservative New York Cardinal Francis Spellman was the generation before, Cardinal Bernardin was the most powerful man during the heyday of the Vatican II aggiornamento in the Catholic Church in America.

In many ways, in addition to being the rainmaker for American bishops in the 1980s, Joseph Bernardin was a brilliant manipulator of public opinion, who was able to overcome a lifetime of accusations of misconduct--directed both against His imminence and a slew of personal friends and priests under Bernardin's care.

However, Bernardin's most successful coup was his 'seamless garment' or 'consistent ethic of life' argument, encapsulated in his famous 1983 Gannon Lecture at Fordham University. From the blueprint of his speech, in which he folded the horrific issue of abortion into a catalogue of other questionable 'life issues,' Bernardin was simultaneously able to sabotage the prolife movement as well as ensure continued Catholic voting for prochoice Democrats who advocated for higher minimum wages, arms control, or universal health care.

One of the key issues in the seamless garment ethic that has grown in prominence, as Democrats have become less interested in being antiwar and have largely abandoned the ethnic Catholic working class, is immigration.

Indeed, immigration is a slam dunk for liberal Catholics, which, as Bill Clinton's civil rights efforts did during the Lewinsky Affair, provide a 'balance' to their endorsement of infanticide and sexual degeneracy.

Liberal Catholics can make the argument that the Holy Family, who briefly moved from Roman Palestine to Roman Egypt (and then went back home), are similar in character to the now millions of immigrants who have forced their way into the West.

In the minds of seamless garment Catholics, support for illegal immigrants even appears to have a Biblical precedent.

While they have to perform tortuous mental gymnastics to explain away the repeated condemnation of homosexuality in the Bible, liberal Catholics can draw from a host of statements in the Bible in which Our Lord calls for care of the sick and outcast and then proudly trumpet that these statements translate to open border (at least for Western countries).

In fact, our friend, Fr. James Martin, himself a veritable reincarnation of Cardinal Bernardin's method and ethos, in addition to appearing on MSNBC , has recently resurrected a video the Jesuit priest created last year during the height of the migrant invasion of Europe.

In his video, Fr. Martin's argument is, in effect, that a literal and faithful reading of the Bible reveals that a Christian is obligated to allow any number of migrants and refugees to come into his or her country, and to quote Fr. Martin's paraphrase of the Bible, a Christian is forced to 'answer any need that a migrant or refugee has' regardless of the effect upon the common good of the host country.

Fr. Martin's selective quotations and garbling of Holy Scripture are typical not only of left wing clergy, carrying on the Bernardin tradition, but also a new generation of neoconservative clerics who attempt to get the Bible to service political policies that are entirely contrary to the tradition of the Church.

The proper method of scriptural exegesis is to look first at how the Church traditionally has interpreted a specific passage of scripture and see if one's own reading is consonant with the Church's tradition.

The issue of what the Bible says about immigration has been broached in the past. In fact, the Universal Doctor of the Catholic Church, St. Thomas Aquinas, in the Summa Theologica, tackles some of the very same Old Testament passages that Fr. James Martin marshals in support of welcoming refugees and migrants.

In Article 3 of Question 105 of the First Part of the Second Part of the Summa, St. Thomas asks, 'Whether the judicial precepts regarding foreigners [in the Old Law] were framed in a suitable manner?

St. Thomas's answer is, of course, yes, and the Angelic doctor explains that the Bible does not argue for Fr. Martin's blind acceptance of immigrants.

St. Thomas explains that in the Old Law only those nations that 'had close relations with the Jews' were allowed to settle among the Hebrews, and, even then, those people had to wait for three years before being 'admitted to the fellowship of the people' (S.T., I-II, q. 105, a. 3). Moreover, there were some tribes such as the Ammonites and Moabites who had 'hostile relations' with the Hebrews' and thus 'were never to be admitted to citizenship' (S.T., I-II, q. 105, a. 3). Finally, the Angelic Doctor explains that there are some people such as the Amalekites who 'had no fellowship of kindred' with the Hebrews and 'were to be held as foes in perpetuity' (S.T., I-II, q. 105, a. 3). Aquinas's statements here could not be any clearer: There are some people, due to religious and even ethnic reasons, that cannot assimilate to another people's culture or political community.

Thus, not simply St. Thomas's thirteenth century commentary, but even the Bible itself says that one is not obligated to welcome immigrants if they are incompatible with a nation's character.

Something is not right here.

Fr. James Martin is either ignorant of the words of Sacred Scripture and the Church's traditional teaching, or he is being dishonest.

Maybe he is simply overcome with kindness and love for refugees the world over.

Yet, perhaps, the leadership of the Church in America has other motivations for welcoming in millions of immigrants, many of whom appear incompatible with the American people and the American way of life.

As The Remnant's own Elizabeth Yore noted last year, and as talk show host Laura Ingraham recently tweeted, many Catholic organizations receive money--a lot of money--to welcome immigrants into the United States.

This petty love of mammon, in the end, leaves us with an interesting thought: Is it just a coincidence that Fr. James Martin is carted around national television to cheer on every George Soros-approved attack on the natural law and upon American national sovereignty?

Are there any other 'tit for tat' arrangements Catholic leadership both in America and aboard has with governmental organizations or NGOs in which money (and perhaps blackmail) is exchanged for Catholic support for globalist policies?

Is there something else going on here?

Perhaps the answer lies buried with Cardinal Joseph Bernardin.

[Remnant] 2240.21



















Cor Orans ~ another evil spirit of Vatican II

Pope to purge what's left of Catholic nuns

HILARY WHITE writes for The Remnant : 'More evidence keeps pouring into my email inbox that the current administration of the Congregation for Religious [1] is planning on using the provisions of Cor orans to totally rewrite the nature of contemplative women’s religious life, particularly the “conservative” and traditional communities, in the name of the “New Paradigm” of VaticanTwoism. [Remnant Editor’s Note:"Cor Orans" (“Praying Heart”) is the title of an April 1, 2018 document that Implements instructions on how to apply Pope Francis’ 2016 Apostolic Constitution – “Vultum Dei Quaerere” (“Seek the Face of God”) addressed to Catholic women religious in contemplative communities. MJM]

As I have written many times elsewhere, the one uniform characteristic of the current pontificate is the purge. It is clear now that Jorge Bergoglio was elected by a group of 1960s progressives to bring about the final removal of the last elements within Catholicism that have resisted the Vatican II revolution. After 50 years of ambiguity, of the two implacably opposed “paradigms” living in an uneasy truce within the same institution, those few recalcitrants left who refused to accept the new liturgical forms, new theological “formulations,” the new disciplines are being forced either to conform or leave.

In all Catholic institutions the so-called “conservative” middle ground, the safe and reasonable compromise position that was allowed to exist under the last two pontificates has evaporated. As Amoris Laetitia will have the effect of forcing out priests and seminarians who refuse to desecrate the Holy Eucharist by giving it to unrepentant adulterers, so Cor orans will be used to remove “conservative” contemplative nuns who have refused to adopt the full Vatican II programme of “renewal” of religious life.

We must never forget the appeasement of LCWR by the Congregation for Religious after Pope Francis’ election. The new prefect [2], Cardinal Joao Braz de Aviz, effectively apologised to the world’s most notoriously heretical organisation of modernist religious, soothing feathers that had been ruffled by his predecessor’s abortive attempt at bringing them back to Catholicity. Contrast this with the ruthless suppression by that office of the Franciscan Friars and Sisters of the Immaculate at the same time, and the programme becomes obvious.

This week I received another a document that included extensive quotes from a 2015 speech given by the Congregation’s Secretary, Jose Rodrigues Carballo, in which he darkly implied that traditional forms of Catholic religious life had “served their purpose” and must be allowed to die out so that something as yet undefined, but assuredly new and wonderful, could replace them.

At a meeting of religious formators in April 2015 in Rome, Carballo said quite clearly that it is Vatican II that must take precedence over the classical charisms of religious life.

“With this explicit reference to the Second Vatican Council, we point to our profound conviction that the council is the point of reference, non-negotiable, in the formation to the consecrated life.”

In his speech in Avila [3], Spain a month later, Carballo spoke even more plainly, denouncing the “many fundamentalist groups” in the religious life, saying, “This is not of the Spirit.” “Vatican II is our compass” he said, adding that the pope “takes his lead from Vatican II.”

Carballo said that with the collapse of vocations over the last 50 years, it is clear that the forms of religious life that have been known through the last 20 centuries have “done their task in the Church.” This, he said is a time of “purification” for the religious life. He called “some forms” of religious life “antiquated” and claimed that they “say hardly anything to people today.” These, he said “will not remain even though they have [had] a certain success.” [emphasis added.]

vintage nun“As with the Gospel,” Carballo said, the charisms of religious life “are on-going,” they “develop” and “continue to grow over time.” He said, “Some forms are dying out. But new forms are rising.”

With regard to the living of their charism, “The church asks us not only for fidelity but for creative fidelity,” he said.

He asked the assembled Carmelites, friars and nuns, “What does Teresa want now?” and “we don’t want to walk as we did 500 years ago.” The charism “goes forward.” He denounced those who respond “We have always done it this way,” saying that “even good people need changes,” and being “faithful does not mean staying the same.”

As is usual with Catholic progressives, he went on to spin the total collapse of religious life since Vatican II as a positive, comparing the current “chaos” in religious life with the conditions before Creation, urging those present to “think of Genesis” and to imagine “a new creation” that is coming soon.

Speeches and documents from the Congregation for Religious often employ the phrase “creative fidelity” or “dynamic fidelity” when speaking of the ancient orders or charisms. At this meeting, Carballo clarified this, saying it means that being “faithful does not mean staying the same.”

This “updating”, he said, will be brought about through formation. “Only formation transforms the heart and mind.”

Given these hints, what Cor orans tells us is that with regard to the female contemplative life, the progressives, who expected the “chaos” of the post-conciliar upheaval they engineered to bring to birth a “new church,” are tired of waiting.

With this pope they have been given a mandate to crush the remaining hold-outs and, instead of “singing,” to bluntly force “the new church into being.” Cor orans’ language, put together with Carballo’s clear messages in his various speeches, has made it unmistakable; this is a purge.

And the document is equally clear about its status as a piece of legislation. It isn’t a suggestion; superiors are already reporting receiving messages from Rome, and the existing federations and associations, that they are to implement it “immediately”. It mandates membership in a federation, with that body’s president and council having unprecedented powers over finances, new foundations, formation and, crucially, decisions about the suppression of monasteries.

And the religious orders themselves are already on board. A document from the same meeting, the 2015 General Chapter of the Discalced Carmelites, blamed the imminent collapse of the order on the failure of the religious to get with the Vatican II programme.

“Despite the renewal required by Vatican II, our place in society has remained essentially unchanged compared to fifty years ago: we cater for the same people, we use roughly the same methods of communication, and our clerical-religious status is the very same. During these fifty years, however, society has changed dramatically at every level, economic, social, cultural, moral and religious. the consequence is that our ‘ecological niche’ has been progressively reduced,” the Chapter’s final document said.

“The freedom to change…really is the first thing we stand in need of, and it is the condition needed to undertake a new route: to be free, detached from the structures and from the habits of the past but searching for new wineskins that can hold new wine.”

I think most faithful laypeople don’t have a very firm idea of what cloistered monastic religious life is like in our time. We tend to develop a romantic and rosy picture, mostly derived from hagiography, movies and photos, and assume that a cloistered nun is someone who doesn’t go out of the monastery for any reason other than medical appointments, or perhaps to vote. We believe this is, at least, the ideal which cloistered nuns are aiming for.

vintage nun 3Most of us assume that monastic cloister is taken seriously, that formation of nuns carries on serenely in-house, organised by the monastery’s council, approved by the abbess and guided by a mistress of novices according to the community’s constitutions, who takes loving charge of postulants after they enter. We picture classes that include reading from the writing of the foundress, Biblical studies and the theology of prayer, study of Patristics and the ancient sources. We picture silence, steady and calm labour about the house and garden and happy hours of recreation together. Above all, we think of it being separate from the outside world, a place where concentration on prayer – the communing with the Beloved Spouse – is not subject to external interference.

And I expect most people who love the cloistered, contemplative religious life, who consider it the highest expression of Catholic life in this world and an absolute necessity for the Church’s survival, also consider a return to this ideal as the way forward, perhaps, indeed, its only hope [4]. But if we think that the people currently in charge of the religious life in Rome share this opinion and have the slightest interest in preserving religious life as we have known it, we are failing to grasp the current realities.

The information I’ve been receiving from all around the US and Europe is that the image we have of cloistered life is almost extinct already. Perishingly few monasteries of any charism are even trying to retain it. Nearly all monastics – most of whom are governed by superiors formed in the 1970s-‘90s – have already fully internalized the foundational ideas of the Cor orans New Paradigm.

Most monasteries are already governed by federations and associations, all of which expect their members to attend meetings and formation sessions outside the monastic enclosure. The mandate of Cor orans for shared “ongoing formation,” programmes – that Carballo above made clear was the means by which the New Paradigm would be imposed – have already been adopted by the majority of monasteries and cloistered convents. And the pressure on the few remaining holdouts who prefer to form their own novices and junior professed, is reportedly intense and constant.

vintage nun 4The emphasis of the federations and associations is for more and more interconnectedness – in reality, more and more centralisation and dependence on the association. Shared formation programmes, as Cor orans mandates, are prepared not by the monasteries’ own novices mistresses, but by “professionals” chosen by the association leadership. These “experts” are people with university degrees in “pastoral psychology” and the like. And this has been going on for decades [5].

Nuns, even those who might be considered “conservative,” in full habits etc., routinely leave their monasteries, often traveling great distances to attend meetings of their Associations. Novices and juniors are expected to attend these “formation courses,” and pressure is put on a monastery that declines to participate. These courses appear to be structured like an academic conference at which the novices from many monasteries gather at a hotel conference room to hear speakers and then “break into small groups” to talk about what they’ve heard. It seems that the techniques of modern corporate management have become the working model for monastic life, with very little resistance.

And it’s not just novices. All nuns in “initial formation” are expected to attend, which includes those in temporary vows. And they don’t leave you alone to get on with your monastic life in peace even after final vows. The “invitation” to attend these ongoing formation sessions is extended to novice mistresses and prioresses, as well as any nun who has made her vows within the last ten years. One nun wrote to me, “It’s as if they think just living the life isn’t sufficient formation.”

I asked her why she thought the nuns are being particularly targeted. She said, “As you well know, we are dealing with a lot of [Spanish] European and South American and Mexican men.” Due to her location, she said, she has dealt with such men most of her religious life and has “experienced their lack of respect (this is an understatement) toward women.”

“The men in Rome have always had the attitude that the male religious orders can take care of themselves because they are men. We need a lot of help and rules because we are women. This is the South American dictator mentality.

This tone indeed came out in Carballo’s talk in Avila, when he chastised the religious for their fears that the Congregation was going to impose unwanted changes, particularly to their enclosure. “The church loves your life. If we promote change it is for your good.” He added that he would not consider issuing another questionnaire, saying only “I ask you to have trust and pass along this trust in the Church. The Congregation is not going to destroy but to promote religious life in an adequate renewal fitting with today’s circumstances.”

My nun-correspondent added: “We do not mind having rules. We need rules. We do not need 289 rules. The Carmelite Rule is one of the simplest in the Church, yet it contains everything necessary. This life is very simple. Cor orans will strangle Carmel to death. We just want to focus on our Spouse.”



[1] Formally, the “Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life” whose acronym, CICLSAL is unironically nicknamed “sickle cell,” after the blood disease, by some religious.

[2] Appointed by Benedict XVI, not Francis.

[3] It’s maybe worth noting that Carballo’s speech was reportedly three hours long.

[4] It is.

[5] I recall visiting a Poor Clare monastery near Vancouver in the early ‘90s and discovering that they do not receive postulants directly from the world at all. A young woman showing an interest in joining was sent across the country to spend a year or two living in Madonna House, a strange lay community in the woods near Combermere Ontario. Even at the time – I was 23 – I thought this shipping off of potential candidates was bizarre and I couldn’t understand how it would help prepare someone for the specific life of a Poor Clare.

[Remnant] 2240.21a



















Cardinal McCarrick



Four generations of clerical sexual predators : when enough is enough

RANDY ENGELS writes for akacatholic.com : 'It’s been an “open secret,” for almost 100 years, that the American hierarchy has been plagued by homosexual/pederast predators within its ranks.

That’s the bad news.

The good news is that the current debacle over the revelations of homosexual tricks turned over by Cardinal “call-me-Uncle Teddy” McCarrick has provided an albeit totally unexpected but welcome opportunity for the handful of decent prelates who still have their religious and moral miters on straight to demonstrate to the long-suffering Catholic laity that they are both willing and able to take the lead in lancing and draining the infectious carbuncles of perversity and immorality that threaten the entire Body and Soul of the Catholic Church, not only in our nation, but around the world.

I think that the Catholic faithful sense that there is much more to the McCarrick case than has yet been revealed by either the Catholic or secular press. And they are correct .

What is the McCarrick Case About?

Clearly, this is not just a story of one isolated prelate’s fall from grace.

It’s the story of an institutionalized and systemic crisis which the Holy See has permitted to fester in the very bosom of Holy Mother Church since the early part of the 20th century.

The McCarrick case is about four generations of homosexual/pederast Catholic bishops and cardinals in AmChurch – McCarrick being part of the third generation, and the homosexual bishops he has consecrated, the fourth generation.

Historically speaking, McCarrick got in on the near ground floor of one of largest and most influential homosexual networks in the Church in modern times – the Cardinal Francis Spellman Network.

There’s an old saying that “the Devil is in the details.” This certainly is true of the McCarrick case, both literally and figuratively.

Let’s review a short but not so sweet summary of McCarrick’s meteoric rise up the clerical ladder which the Catholic and secular news services have, thus far, failed to report.

I have attached a postscript to this article for readers who wish additional information on the Cardinal McCarrick’s background.

The McCarrick Case in Four Sound