A lot of people are getting worked up about H1N1, often called the swine flu. I must admit that I'm not too worried about the virus itself. However, I am worried about the vaccine.
In normal times, a drug must undergo extensive testing, often for years, before it is allowed to be sold to the public. The H1N1 vaccine, however, has gone through these approval stages like a "drive-thru". That's not some conspiracy theory I read in the National Enquirer. It came out of the mouths of Canada's top health officials.
Last week, I was watching CBC NewsWorld. There was a press conference on the vaccine being given by the federal Health Minister, Leona Aglukkaq, and Canada's Chief Public Health Officer, Dr. David Butler-Jones. They explained that the vaccine is already in mass production with the goal of being rolled out to the public at the beginning of November. Yet, they also admitted, on two separate occasions, that the vaccine has not been approved by Health Canada and that they are still awaiting some test results about this vaccine.
Does that strike you as odd? To me, it sounds like the proverbial cart before the horses. Why would you go into mass production before the vaccine is completely tested and approved? If it turns out to be a dud, are they going to trash millions of vaccines? That's our tax dollars.
I'm surprised at the lack of media interest for this issue. The journalists at the press conference didn't seem too preoccupied by the lack of testing. On the contrary, they were more interested in knowing why the vaccine wasn't made available sooner. In the absence of proper media scrutiny, the Internet has been flooded with ridiculous conspiracy theories about how this vaccine is intentionally being designed to kill zillions of people. Give me a break. Proper testing protocols may have been skipped, but let's not go off the deep end either.
Given the lack of scientific evidence, I personally will not get vaccinated. Sorry, but you won't inject me with something that hasn't been proven safe.
I'm not giving any recommendations to anybody on this issue. You make up your own mind and don't blame me for the consequences. I'm just telling you about my apprehensions.
For the record (lest I be accused of some strange backwardness), I am totally in favour of vaccination programs when a vaccine has been proven to be safe and effective. I have no moral issues with vaccination. I think vaccines are a great progress for mankind. BUT, they have to be proven safe and effective. In my humble opinion, that hasn't been done in this case.
.
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Having a Crisis Pregnancy?
If you or someone you know is going through a crisis pregnancy, please call one of the numbers below. You will be treated with warmth, respect and care.
In Canada: call 1-800-665-0570 or leave me a comment on this blog.
In the United States: click here or call 1-800-395-HELP
No matter what your situation is, you are strong enough to make it through.
Believe in yourself!
You are not alone!
Help is available!
.
In Canada: call 1-800-665-0570 or leave me a comment on this blog.
In the United States: click here or call 1-800-395-HELP
No matter what your situation is, you are strong enough to make it through.
Believe in yourself!
You are not alone!
Help is available!
.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Bizarre, unexplainable reflections of an abortionist.
I'm honestly shocked at this story. You've gotta read this. It gives you an idea of who we're dealing with.
I cannot believe that this abortionist has had such a clear internal illumination and awareness of the real life of the unborn baby that she is destroying, and that she has even experienced an emotional attachment to the baby that she is ripping apart (to the point of crying as she performs an abortion!) and yet she continues to be unapologetic in her abortion advocacy. It's unbelievable!
In some sense, she feels pain and pity for the baby she's killing, yet she continues to do it regardless. And she expresses this internal conflict quite openly.
What a bizarre and unreal state of mind. We need to pray for these people. I think this woman is on the verge of a conversion.
I cannot believe that this abortionist has had such a clear internal illumination and awareness of the real life of the unborn baby that she is destroying, and that she has even experienced an emotional attachment to the baby that she is ripping apart (to the point of crying as she performs an abortion!) and yet she continues to be unapologetic in her abortion advocacy. It's unbelievable!
In some sense, she feels pain and pity for the baby she's killing, yet she continues to do it regardless. And she expresses this internal conflict quite openly.
What a bizarre and unreal state of mind. We need to pray for these people. I think this woman is on the verge of a conversion.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Exclusive: Development and Peace approval rating at just 10%
Due to the high interest in our previous research regarding the approval rating of Fr. Rosica, Catholic Dialogue conducted an exhaustive enumeration of online articles related to the Development and Peace scandal.
The results show that only 10.1% of articles expressing an opinion on the issue were supportive of Development and Peace (D&P). The remaining 89.9% were critical of D&P. That's a staggering result. In a democracy, you can rarely get 89.9% of the people to agree on anything.
For the purposes of this enumeration, the articles published by the two main opposing parties of the debate were excluded. That meant leaving out close to 100 articles published by LifeSiteNews.com. It also meant excluding articles by D&P, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB) or individual dioceses (note: the number of articles from LifeSiteNews far exceeds the number of articles published by D&P, the CCCB or individual dioceses). The enumeration was also limited to articles published between March 12, 2009 (when the first story about the scandal broke) and October 11, 2009. Finally, only Christian sources were considered, almost all of which were Catholic. This left more than 230 articles being published by parties that were not directly involved in the dispute.
The overwhelming disapproval rate for D&P is a serious challenge that the bishops must address at their Plenary next week in Cornwall. The vast majority of these articles were written by educated Catholics, some of them being clergy members, who applied fundamental moral teachings of the Church to the mounds of evidence compiled about D&P's partners. These are not renegades, schismatics or "ultraconservatives" (whatever that means). They are mainstream Catholics who care deeply about the health of their Church.
Let's pray that the CCCB rolls up their sleeves next week and makes some major reforms to D&P.
.
The results show that only 10.1% of articles expressing an opinion on the issue were supportive of Development and Peace (D&P). The remaining 89.9% were critical of D&P. That's a staggering result. In a democracy, you can rarely get 89.9% of the people to agree on anything.
For the purposes of this enumeration, the articles published by the two main opposing parties of the debate were excluded. That meant leaving out close to 100 articles published by LifeSiteNews.com. It also meant excluding articles by D&P, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB) or individual dioceses (note: the number of articles from LifeSiteNews far exceeds the number of articles published by D&P, the CCCB or individual dioceses). The enumeration was also limited to articles published between March 12, 2009 (when the first story about the scandal broke) and October 11, 2009. Finally, only Christian sources were considered, almost all of which were Catholic. This left more than 230 articles being published by parties that were not directly involved in the dispute.
The overwhelming disapproval rate for D&P is a serious challenge that the bishops must address at their Plenary next week in Cornwall. The vast majority of these articles were written by educated Catholics, some of them being clergy members, who applied fundamental moral teachings of the Church to the mounds of evidence compiled about D&P's partners. These are not renegades, schismatics or "ultraconservatives" (whatever that means). They are mainstream Catholics who care deeply about the health of their Church.
Let's pray that the CCCB rolls up their sleeves next week and makes some major reforms to D&P.
.
Development and Peace scandal causing tangible harm
Remember that letter written by a bishop from Peru asking the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB) to stop funding pro-abortion groups in their country? The Peruvian bishop was complaining that three of Development and Peace's partners were "very committed to the pro-abortion movement" in Peru. We never got a convincing response from the CCCB on that one. Just a gallon of bleach.
John Pacheco at Socon or Bust is now reporting that a bill has been tabled before the Congress in Peru to legalize abortion under some circumstances. Read his article here.
So now we have a tangible illustration of how our donation dollars can be used to advance the Culture of Death. If this bill gets passed, unborn babies will start losing their lives in Peru. And Development and Peace will have been an accomplice.
Lord, have mercy upon all of us!
.
John Pacheco at Socon or Bust is now reporting that a bill has been tabled before the Congress in Peru to legalize abortion under some circumstances. Read his article here.
So now we have a tangible illustration of how our donation dollars can be used to advance the Culture of Death. If this bill gets passed, unborn babies will start losing their lives in Peru. And Development and Peace will have been an accomplice.
Lord, have mercy upon all of us!
.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Bishop Says Funding 'Pro-Choice' Groups Okay if Restricted to Good Projects
LifeSite published an excellent article about a bishop anonymously discussing Development and Peace's funding of pro-abortion groups. This is an interesting article for a number of reasons, mostly because this bishop admits that Development and Peace is funding groups that are pro-abortion. Finally somebody comes clean!!
Yet, he doesn't think it's a big deal as long as the money is "earmarked" for projects that don't contradict Church teaching.
This approach poses a number of problems, many of which are enumerated in the article. I'll add two additional problems not covered in the article.
First, funds given to pro-aborts can be misused in ways that are extremely difficult to anticipate or even measure. Fr. Pierre Ingram, CC, who is a systematic theologian, wrote an excellent article on this matter here. He points out, among other things, that a pro-abortion group typically has a distorted understanding of life, sexuality and other moral issues. Those distortions will likely trickle into everything they do, even the programs that are supposed to be "not morally objectionable". He also explains that Catholics must not merely avoid committing evil, but must also avoid the appearance of cooperation with evil in order to not scandalize others. His article is a must read if you want to understand your faith better.
Second, the Vatican -- which is our leader and guide -- decided to stop funding UNICEF way back in 1997 precisely because the organization was pushing abortion and contraception in developing countries. UNICEF had "earmarked" programs too, by which you could theoretically target your donations to unobjectionable causes. Yet, the Vatican, being wise and astute, realized that UNICEF was not providing sufficient accountability to ensure that donations were not being used for immoral purposes. As a result, they pulled the plug on financing UNICEF. Read the official Vatican announcement here. If it's good enough for the Vatican, it's good enough for me.
Why won't our bishops just follow the Vatican's example? That's all I'm asking. Is that too much to ask?
.
Yet, he doesn't think it's a big deal as long as the money is "earmarked" for projects that don't contradict Church teaching.
This approach poses a number of problems, many of which are enumerated in the article. I'll add two additional problems not covered in the article.
First, funds given to pro-aborts can be misused in ways that are extremely difficult to anticipate or even measure. Fr. Pierre Ingram, CC, who is a systematic theologian, wrote an excellent article on this matter here. He points out, among other things, that a pro-abortion group typically has a distorted understanding of life, sexuality and other moral issues. Those distortions will likely trickle into everything they do, even the programs that are supposed to be "not morally objectionable". He also explains that Catholics must not merely avoid committing evil, but must also avoid the appearance of cooperation with evil in order to not scandalize others. His article is a must read if you want to understand your faith better.
Second, the Vatican -- which is our leader and guide -- decided to stop funding UNICEF way back in 1997 precisely because the organization was pushing abortion and contraception in developing countries. UNICEF had "earmarked" programs too, by which you could theoretically target your donations to unobjectionable causes. Yet, the Vatican, being wise and astute, realized that UNICEF was not providing sufficient accountability to ensure that donations were not being used for immoral purposes. As a result, they pulled the plug on financing UNICEF. Read the official Vatican announcement here. If it's good enough for the Vatican, it's good enough for me.
Why won't our bishops just follow the Vatican's example? That's all I'm asking. Is that too much to ask?
.
Pro-Life Leaders From 170 Countries Praise Bishops Who Withheld Funds from Development and Peace
OTTAWA, October 13, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - As the Bishops of Canada prepare to meet for their annual Plenary Assembly in Cornwall Ontario later this month, the International Right to Life Federation (IRTL) has written the bishops a letter regarding the recent controversy over the international development arm of the Conference - the Canadian Catholic Organization for Development and Peace (D&P). Investigations over the past year have revealed that D&P has been funding dozens of organizations that support abortion and contraception, or otherwise undermine Catholic moral teaching.
The IRTL letter was sent to the Primate of Canada, Quebec City Cardinal Marc Ouellet.
Representing national pro-life organizations from over 170 countries, the IRTL thanks "the Canadian bishops who have prudently decided to withhold funds in the future from projects of the Canadian Catholic Organization for Development and Peace until it has been determined that the recipients do not promote issues contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church."
I hope the CCCB will stop denying the obvious. I only hurts their credibility with each passing day.
Michigan bishop gives a great example
It's nice to see a bishop standing up for what's right. Case in point: Bishop Alexander Sample of Marquette, Michigan, blocked another bishop from giving a lecture in his diocese. Why? Because the bishop who was going to speak has dissented from Church teaching on some very important issues.
Here's what Bishop Sample had to say:
Well done, your Grace! Stand up for the Truth!
Read the full story here.
Here's what Bishop Sample had to say:
“Given Bishop Gumbleton’s very public position on certain important matters of Catholic teaching, specifically with regard to homosexuality and the ordination of women to the priesthood, it was my judgment that his presence in Marquette would not be helpful to me in fulfilling my responsibility.”
Well done, your Grace! Stand up for the Truth!
Read the full story here.
Monday, October 12, 2009
Ottawa Citizen gets it wrong on priest sex scandals
The Ottawa Citizen recently published an article where Janice Kennedy, who describes herself as a liberal Catholic, tries to explain the true causes of the sex abuse scandals in the priesthood.
Given her liberal leaning, you won't be surprised with her conclusions. She essentially says that the problem would go away if: 1) priests were allowed to marry and; 2) if women were allowed to become priests. Quite predictable and not exactly a deep revelation.
On her first point, she argues that celibacy is unnatural and fosters uncontrollable impulses. Unfortunately, this argument does not hold water. Research has shown high rates of sexual abuse among teachers, Protestant ministers and other professionals. Do you know what these groups have in common? They're allowed to marry. Consequently, the fact of having regular sexual relations with a consenting adult does appear not "cure" anybody of their pedophile tendencies.
On her second point, about women priests, is largely irrelevant to the point being discussed. How would the existence of women priests affect men's ability to control their sexual impulses? In fact, many Protestant churches report a high incidence of harassment an sexual abuse of their women ministers by the males. Moreover, about 41 percent of all sexual abuse of children in the U.S. is done by women, so they certainly are not immune to pedophilia. Ms. Kennedy's article also contains a momentous historical inaccuracy, where she claims that women priests were common in the early Church. This is totally false and unsubstantiated.
The truth is that the priesthood and the vow of celibacy are not for everybody. Jesus himself told us so (Matt 19.12). A man who feels called to the priesthood has several years of formation and discernment in which he must ask himself if he can handle the vow of celibacy. If he cannot, he should do everybody a favour and leave the seminary. It would be imprudent to assume that some miraculous transformation will occur after his ordination and that he'll suddenly be able to manage it.
The union of man and woman in sexual intercourse is meant to imitate the union of love within the Persons of the Trinity, as well as to anticipate the intimate union we will have with God in Heaven. Although the vow of celibacy may seem unnatural from a purely worldly point of view, it is entirely natural from a spiritual point of view, since it skips the intermediate "sign" of sexual union and jumps directly to the union of the soul with God, which we all hope to enjoy in the beatific vision.
Given her liberal leaning, you won't be surprised with her conclusions. She essentially says that the problem would go away if: 1) priests were allowed to marry and; 2) if women were allowed to become priests. Quite predictable and not exactly a deep revelation.
On her first point, she argues that celibacy is unnatural and fosters uncontrollable impulses. Unfortunately, this argument does not hold water. Research has shown high rates of sexual abuse among teachers, Protestant ministers and other professionals. Do you know what these groups have in common? They're allowed to marry. Consequently, the fact of having regular sexual relations with a consenting adult does appear not "cure" anybody of their pedophile tendencies.
On her second point, about women priests, is largely irrelevant to the point being discussed. How would the existence of women priests affect men's ability to control their sexual impulses? In fact, many Protestant churches report a high incidence of harassment an sexual abuse of their women ministers by the males. Moreover, about 41 percent of all sexual abuse of children in the U.S. is done by women, so they certainly are not immune to pedophilia. Ms. Kennedy's article also contains a momentous historical inaccuracy, where she claims that women priests were common in the early Church. This is totally false and unsubstantiated.
The truth is that the priesthood and the vow of celibacy are not for everybody. Jesus himself told us so (Matt 19.12). A man who feels called to the priesthood has several years of formation and discernment in which he must ask himself if he can handle the vow of celibacy. If he cannot, he should do everybody a favour and leave the seminary. It would be imprudent to assume that some miraculous transformation will occur after his ordination and that he'll suddenly be able to manage it.
The union of man and woman in sexual intercourse is meant to imitate the union of love within the Persons of the Trinity, as well as to anticipate the intimate union we will have with God in Heaven. Although the vow of celibacy may seem unnatural from a purely worldly point of view, it is entirely natural from a spiritual point of view, since it skips the intermediate "sign" of sexual union and jumps directly to the union of the soul with God, which we all hope to enjoy in the beatific vision.
David Warren on our sexualized culture
I highly recommend that you read this excellent article by David Warren of the Ottawa Citizen. Mr. Warren is a Catholic convert and excellent writer.
.
.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Archbishop Prendergast shines again
The 40 Days for Life movement in Ottawa will hold a mid-point rally this Tuesday, October 13, at 6 pm. It will take place at Ground Zero (across from 65 Bank Street). Why don't you come and join us?
It is wonderful to hear that Archbishop Prendergast will be among us and will preside a Mass at 7 pm at St. Patrick's Basilica.
Thank you, your Grace, for standing with us. We love you dearly!
It is wonderful to hear that Archbishop Prendergast will be among us and will preside a Mass at 7 pm at St. Patrick's Basilica.
Thank you, your Grace, for standing with us. We love you dearly!
Saturday, October 10, 2009
God asked the priests to repent first
You can learn so much from a good homily. But it requires that you pay attention. It also requires that Father makes an effort to open up the Scriptures to the faithful.
On Friday, the first reading at the Mass was from Joel 1:13-15; 2:1-2. It goes like this:
Not exactly a very cheery passage, but the Church put it in the readings for a reason.
As it happened so many times in the Old Testament, the people had strayed far away from God and had to repent. In the homily, the priest pointed out that God asks the priests to repent first. This is interesting. Why the priests first? Because as leaders of the people, the priests have a huge influence on the morals of the people. As go the priests, so goes the people.
I thought this was very relevant to our current situation, where the clergy needs to get their act together. It shows that our calls for the repentance of the bishops are very biblical and very well founded. This growing movement is not rooted in some fanaticism. It is firmly grounded in Holy Scripture.
.
On Friday, the first reading at the Mass was from Joel 1:13-15; 2:1-2. It goes like this:
Put on sackcloth and lament, you priests; wail, you ministers of the altar. Come, pass the night in sackcloth, you ministers of my God! Grain-offering and drink-offering are withheld from the house of your God. Sanctify a fast, call a solemn assembly. Gather the elders and all the inhabitants of the land to the house of the Lord your God, and cry out to the Lord. Alas for the day! For the day of the Lord is near, and as destruction from the Almighty it comes.
Blow the trumpet in Zion; sound the alarm on my holy mountain! Let all the inhabitants of the land tremble, for the day of the Lord is coming, it is near— a day of darkness and gloom, a day of clouds and thick darkness! Like blackness spread upon the mountains a great and powerful army comes; their like has never been from of old, or will be again after them in ages to come.
Not exactly a very cheery passage, but the Church put it in the readings for a reason.
As it happened so many times in the Old Testament, the people had strayed far away from God and had to repent. In the homily, the priest pointed out that God asks the priests to repent first. This is interesting. Why the priests first? Because as leaders of the people, the priests have a huge influence on the morals of the people. As go the priests, so goes the people.
I thought this was very relevant to our current situation, where the clergy needs to get their act together. It shows that our calls for the repentance of the bishops are very biblical and very well founded. This growing movement is not rooted in some fanaticism. It is firmly grounded in Holy Scripture.
.
More pro-abortion advocacy from a Development and Peace partner
LifeSiteNews.com reports that one of Development and Peace's (D&P) Mexican partners has once again demonstrated its pro-abortion activism. The organization is providing us with yet another piece of incontrovertible evidence of how our hard-earned donations are being put to work for the cause of evil. I hope the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB) is paying attention.
After reading the LifeSiteNews coverage, I decided to go directly to the source, i.e. the website of the organization in question. They call themselves "Todos los Derechos Para Todos y Todas", which means "All Rights for Everyone." On their website, they just posted a document criticizing the Mexican govenrment's record on human rights. On page 10, in the sub-section called "Fighing discrimination and the rights of specific groups - Women", they denounce the lack of abortion services in some Mexican states:
In other words, the implementation of reforms to protect the unborn in 12 states is a violation of women's rights. This is typical rhetoric from the pro-abortion side. The report goes on to lament some instances of women not being allowed to have abortions in Guanajuato.
This is one of the "Original Five" Mexican groups that was first exposed way back in March 2009. The CCCB "investigated" this groups and found them to not be promoting abortion. I guess the CCCB didn't look too hard, eh?. What does that tell you about the CCCB's rigour? There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Now let me re-iterate that this is not some obscure secret document that LifeSite obtained in a back-alley meeting with some anonymous informant named "Deep Throat." This report is on the Internet for the whole world to see. Please click on the link and see for yourself. So don't let anybody deceive you into thinking that the evidence is not conclusive. IT IS UNDENIABLE. If anybody tries to deny it, including your local bishop, send them the link: http://www.redtdt.org.mx/media/descargables/observacionesEPUespanol.pdf
When LifeSite contacted the CCCB to explain this new evidence, they were told that the CCCB is conducting an ongoing review of Development and Peace. This is definitely good news. The fact that this review was not announced publicly leads me to believe that it isn't simply a PR move and that it might have been prompted by some outraged bishops who really care about what's going on. Let's pray that they will actually conduct the review with their eyes open this time and that the obvious will be acknowledged.
.
After reading the LifeSiteNews coverage, I decided to go directly to the source, i.e. the website of the organization in question. They call themselves "Todos los Derechos Para Todos y Todas", which means "All Rights for Everyone." On their website, they just posted a document criticizing the Mexican govenrment's record on human rights. On page 10, in the sub-section called "Fighing discrimination and the rights of specific groups - Women", they denounce the lack of abortion services in some Mexican states:
"The implementation of the Official Mexican Norm 046-SSA2-200519 regulates the provision of medical services to women who are victims of sexual violence and includes the procedures that health care institutions must follow to provide interruption of pregnancy services when this [the pregnancy] is the result of a rape. The implementation of the Norm has been impeded now that reforms in the constitutions of 12 federal entities have been produced, which protect the unborn in their local constitutions."
In other words, the implementation of reforms to protect the unborn in 12 states is a violation of women's rights. This is typical rhetoric from the pro-abortion side. The report goes on to lament some instances of women not being allowed to have abortions in Guanajuato.
This is one of the "Original Five" Mexican groups that was first exposed way back in March 2009. The CCCB "investigated" this groups and found them to not be promoting abortion. I guess the CCCB didn't look too hard, eh?. What does that tell you about the CCCB's rigour? There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Now let me re-iterate that this is not some obscure secret document that LifeSite obtained in a back-alley meeting with some anonymous informant named "Deep Throat." This report is on the Internet for the whole world to see. Please click on the link and see for yourself. So don't let anybody deceive you into thinking that the evidence is not conclusive. IT IS UNDENIABLE. If anybody tries to deny it, including your local bishop, send them the link: http://www.redtdt.org.mx/media/descargables/observacionesEPUespanol.pdf
When LifeSite contacted the CCCB to explain this new evidence, they were told that the CCCB is conducting an ongoing review of Development and Peace. This is definitely good news. The fact that this review was not announced publicly leads me to believe that it isn't simply a PR move and that it might have been prompted by some outraged bishops who really care about what's going on. Let's pray that they will actually conduct the review with their eyes open this time and that the obvious will be acknowledged.
.
Obama and the Nobel Peace Prize? You gotta be kidding
How can a rookie be inducted into the Hall of Fame before his rookie season is over? Obama has been in power for only 9 months. Moreover, did you know that candidates for the prize had to be submitted to the Nobel committee by February 1st? That's right, only two weeks after Obama was inaugurated as President.
There is clearly an agenda at work here, where the lefties are publicly endorsing each other like a clique. I normally wouldn't have a problem with that, except that we're dealing with the Nobel Peace Prize here. There is a huge symbolism attached to any Nobel Prize. It's like a lifetime achievement award that humanity grants to its most distinguished members. I find it very distasteful that they are manipulating this prize for politican reasons.
Distasteful isn't strong enough. I want to spit.
What's next? Will Obama be granted an honorary Gold Medal at the 100 metre dash?
Keep in mind that John Paul II, who worked so hard for peace, including helping bring down communism, was never awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
Blessed Mother Teresa won the prize 1979. If you put Obama and Blessed Mother Teresa on opposite sides of a "peace" scale, which way do you think it would tilt? Is any comparison even possible?
Of note, she is quoted as saying: "the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion." Very well said. In my book, that would rule out Obama big-time.
.
There is clearly an agenda at work here, where the lefties are publicly endorsing each other like a clique. I normally wouldn't have a problem with that, except that we're dealing with the Nobel Peace Prize here. There is a huge symbolism attached to any Nobel Prize. It's like a lifetime achievement award that humanity grants to its most distinguished members. I find it very distasteful that they are manipulating this prize for politican reasons.
Distasteful isn't strong enough. I want to spit.
What's next? Will Obama be granted an honorary Gold Medal at the 100 metre dash?
Keep in mind that John Paul II, who worked so hard for peace, including helping bring down communism, was never awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
Blessed Mother Teresa won the prize 1979. If you put Obama and Blessed Mother Teresa on opposite sides of a "peace" scale, which way do you think it would tilt? Is any comparison even possible?
Of note, she is quoted as saying: "the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion." Very well said. In my book, that would rule out Obama big-time.
.
Friday, October 9, 2009
McGill students humiliate themselves by denying free speech
Pro-abortion students at McGill University showed the true colours of the abortion movement by trying to deny authentic free speech to a pro-life speaker. As the pro-lifer was trying to give a presentation, these students invaded the speaking area and drowned out the speaker with shouts and songs. So much for "choice". They wouldn't even let the other side speak. Watch the spectacle here. Honestly, they look like school children and not adults.
In recent years, we've seen pro-abortion students at several other Canadian universities try to silence pro-lifers through coercion, so this behaviour is not surprising.
However, there is an original twist to this incident. To their credit, McGill University authorities realized that freedom of speech is essential at a university, so they called the police. A representative of the university addressed the protesters at about 3:45 of the video and asked them to let the speaker make his presentation. The police officer then politely but firmly laid down the law at about 4:15, notably by telling them that if they didn't leave in 5 minutes they would be arrested and removed.
Some students chose not to obey and the police removed them. However, the police eventually left, even though many students kept disrupting the presentation. The cops didn't fulfill their obligations fully in this case. As for the university's own security guards, they were completely useless. They were unwilling to do anything. So what's the point of these guards?
I feel sorry for these students. Their reputations are forever tarnished. If you were an employer, would you hire a person who doesn't believe in freedom of speech and decency? Do you think they would be conducive to a respectful and constructive work environment? As a manager who has done dozens of interviews over the years, I tell you that you shouldn't touch such a person with a 10-foot pole.
As for the police, I'm disappointed (but not surprised) that they chickened out.
The pro-aborts have done us a favour by showing how intolerant they are and how unsympathetic their position is. If they held a legitimate position that could be defended with reasonable arguments, do you think they'd behave like this? They know that they just can't rival pro-life arguments. They're afraid that the truth be known because then the gravity of abortion will be exposed. Consequently, their only hope is to silence debate.
As I've said before, student associations should not be involved in politics. That's not their purpose. If students like political life, they should do it outside the university like the rest of us.
Please pray for the conversion of these students.
In recent years, we've seen pro-abortion students at several other Canadian universities try to silence pro-lifers through coercion, so this behaviour is not surprising.
However, there is an original twist to this incident. To their credit, McGill University authorities realized that freedom of speech is essential at a university, so they called the police. A representative of the university addressed the protesters at about 3:45 of the video and asked them to let the speaker make his presentation. The police officer then politely but firmly laid down the law at about 4:15, notably by telling them that if they didn't leave in 5 minutes they would be arrested and removed.
Some students chose not to obey and the police removed them. However, the police eventually left, even though many students kept disrupting the presentation. The cops didn't fulfill their obligations fully in this case. As for the university's own security guards, they were completely useless. They were unwilling to do anything. So what's the point of these guards?
I feel sorry for these students. Their reputations are forever tarnished. If you were an employer, would you hire a person who doesn't believe in freedom of speech and decency? Do you think they would be conducive to a respectful and constructive work environment? As a manager who has done dozens of interviews over the years, I tell you that you shouldn't touch such a person with a 10-foot pole.
As for the police, I'm disappointed (but not surprised) that they chickened out.
The pro-aborts have done us a favour by showing how intolerant they are and how unsympathetic their position is. If they held a legitimate position that could be defended with reasonable arguments, do you think they'd behave like this? They know that they just can't rival pro-life arguments. They're afraid that the truth be known because then the gravity of abortion will be exposed. Consequently, their only hope is to silence debate.
As I've said before, student associations should not be involved in politics. That's not their purpose. If students like political life, they should do it outside the university like the rest of us.
Please pray for the conversion of these students.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Canadian bishops being too self-flattering over Lahey scandal?
I read this article in the Globe and Mail today entitled "Church vocal in face of scandal". Here are some quotes that caught my attention.
First of all, I'm very happy that the Canadian bishops have been so vocal in denouncing Archbishop Lahey's actions. This is another sad episode in the history of our Church, but the truth must be known and dealt with. There would have been no point in denying it or minimizing it.
What bugs me is that the bishops have started patting themselves on the back over how awesomely they have dealt with this issue. Their tone is quite triumphalist, at a time when there is nothing to be triumphant about. We just caught an Archbishop using child porn! Not to mention that it wasn't the bishops who brought this man to justice, but rather the police who did an excellent job. I think the bishops' attitude is severely misplaced and very premature. New facts about this case are still emerging. This is a time of repentance, investigation and accountability, not a time for self-flattery.
This is particularly true in light of the new revelations that Lahey's child pornography behaviour was known by another priest and bishop 20 years ago!
Indeed, in the National Post, we read that Father Kevin Molloy learned about Lahey's behaviour in 1989. He confronted Lahey and told him to stop these sinful deeds. He also alerted Archbishop Alphonsus Penney, who was the proper ecclesiastical authority at the time. Archbishop Penney has not spoken to the media yet concerning the Lahey scandal, so we don't know exactly what measures, if any, were taken against Lahey in 1989. But one thing is certain: Lahey's child pornography habits were obviously not overcome at that time and it would have been horribly imprudent to let him continue his ministry in that condition. Archbishop Penney owes us a darn good explanation. Until then, the bishops would be advised to hold off on their self-congratulation.
The same article in the National Post says that Lahey allegedly was in the habit of bringing some boys into his home on weekends, back in the 1980s. That's where some boys found the child pornography.
This raises the obvious question: why was Lahey allowed to continue in his functions for another 20 years after being exposed?
Keep in mind that 1989 was not so long ago. Our understanding of sexual deviancy had improved a lot since the 1950s or 1960s. Disciplinary actions for sexual deviancy in the clergy should have been stronger.
So while normal Catholics are still in shock and seeking accountability, the bishops are congratulating themselves in one of Canada's national newspapers. How does that make you feel? I'm concerned that the Canadian bishops are more worried about their public appearance over this scandal than in addressing the substance of the issue. Dealing with the issue of sexual deviancy in the clergy is difficult and requires great sacrifice. It's a lot easier to focus on the PR. But we can't let them be content with a PR campaign. We need some answers and accountability.
Reading the quote from Fr. Rosica above, you'd almost think that the Canadian Church has it all figured out and that sexual scandals are a thing of the past. Well, no. The fact that an Archbishop can still fall through the cracks tells me that there is much work left to do. We need the bishops to tell us what concrete measures they will implement to prevent this from happening again.
Is this a sign of more things to come from the CCCB's revamped communications strategy? I sure hope not.
Please pray for our bishops.
This time – with the disgrace of former bishop Raymond Lahey drenching the news media – the hierarchy of Canada's Roman Catholic Church has not stayed silent.
In what one senior church official on Thursday called a light-years' shift from a generation ago, bishops have preached in their cathedrals and written open letters about their anger and disgust with Rev. Lahey and the child pornography charges he faces.
The national Catholic television station Salt and Light TV has devoted much of its blog to the story. And the Pope's representative in Canada this week told theology students in Toronto that the Canadian church had been wounded.
(...)
The Canadian bishops were the first in the world to institute protocols, Father Rosica said. It placed them far ahead of the U.S. church and fostered a climate of transparency, rigorous investigation and instant suspension for suspected wrongdoing. Except, as the papal nuncio told theology students, the destructive power of sin can't be underestimated.
First of all, I'm very happy that the Canadian bishops have been so vocal in denouncing Archbishop Lahey's actions. This is another sad episode in the history of our Church, but the truth must be known and dealt with. There would have been no point in denying it or minimizing it.
What bugs me is that the bishops have started patting themselves on the back over how awesomely they have dealt with this issue. Their tone is quite triumphalist, at a time when there is nothing to be triumphant about. We just caught an Archbishop using child porn! Not to mention that it wasn't the bishops who brought this man to justice, but rather the police who did an excellent job. I think the bishops' attitude is severely misplaced and very premature. New facts about this case are still emerging. This is a time of repentance, investigation and accountability, not a time for self-flattery.
This is particularly true in light of the new revelations that Lahey's child pornography behaviour was known by another priest and bishop 20 years ago!
Indeed, in the National Post, we read that Father Kevin Molloy learned about Lahey's behaviour in 1989. He confronted Lahey and told him to stop these sinful deeds. He also alerted Archbishop Alphonsus Penney, who was the proper ecclesiastical authority at the time. Archbishop Penney has not spoken to the media yet concerning the Lahey scandal, so we don't know exactly what measures, if any, were taken against Lahey in 1989. But one thing is certain: Lahey's child pornography habits were obviously not overcome at that time and it would have been horribly imprudent to let him continue his ministry in that condition. Archbishop Penney owes us a darn good explanation. Until then, the bishops would be advised to hold off on their self-congratulation.
The same article in the National Post says that Lahey allegedly was in the habit of bringing some boys into his home on weekends, back in the 1980s. That's where some boys found the child pornography.
This raises the obvious question: why was Lahey allowed to continue in his functions for another 20 years after being exposed?
Keep in mind that 1989 was not so long ago. Our understanding of sexual deviancy had improved a lot since the 1950s or 1960s. Disciplinary actions for sexual deviancy in the clergy should have been stronger.
So while normal Catholics are still in shock and seeking accountability, the bishops are congratulating themselves in one of Canada's national newspapers. How does that make you feel? I'm concerned that the Canadian bishops are more worried about their public appearance over this scandal than in addressing the substance of the issue. Dealing with the issue of sexual deviancy in the clergy is difficult and requires great sacrifice. It's a lot easier to focus on the PR. But we can't let them be content with a PR campaign. We need some answers and accountability.
Reading the quote from Fr. Rosica above, you'd almost think that the Canadian Church has it all figured out and that sexual scandals are a thing of the past. Well, no. The fact that an Archbishop can still fall through the cracks tells me that there is much work left to do. We need the bishops to tell us what concrete measures they will implement to prevent this from happening again.
Is this a sign of more things to come from the CCCB's revamped communications strategy? I sure hope not.
Please pray for our bishops.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Exclusive: Father Rosica approval rating under 20%
Many of you are aware of the Father Rosica scandal that erupted over the past month. You can read about it here.
Catholic Dialogue was interested in getting a broader sense of how Internet-literate Catholics were reacting to Fr. Rosica's unexplainable outburst. To do this, we conducted extensive research on the Internet in order to see which way the wind was blowing. Today, we are presenting these exclusive results.
Clearly, Fr. Rosica is facing serious headwinds in the court of public opinion.
The research revealed that 80.5% of all the articles that expressed an opinion on the controversy were opposed to Fr. Rosica's position, while only 19.5% supported him. The methodology encompasses all online articles published on the Fr. Rosica controversy, but excludes "comments" posted on blogs, since these can easily be manipulated.
In case you're wondering, articles by LifeSiteNews represented a very small fraction of the articles published on this issue. Excluding articles from LifeSiteNews, the disapproval rating for Fr. Rosica is still 79.8%.
The disapproval of Fr. Rosica is widespread and broad-based. It includes both men and women, laity and clergy. They quote Church documents and Doctors of the Church. They refer to authoritative statements by Vatican officials. By all accounts, these are educated Catholics, well-versed in Scripture and the Catechism. They do not seek personal glory or satisfaction. They do not have any axe to grind. They are merely seeking to denounce errors and injustices so that the Church in Canada may once again submit to Rome's authority.
In theological terms, we'd say that the sensus fidelium is enabling the faithful to participate in Christ's prophetic office by denouncing error. In layman's terms, we'd say that Fr. Rosica's behaviour doesn't pass the sniff test.
This doesn't bode well for Salt and Light's ratings. But it is certainly good news in the battle for the soul of the Church, since the Internet reaches such a broader audience than a satellite cable network.
The winds of change are blowing. There is a growing sense that too many clergymen are lukewarm or outright dissenters. The discontent among the faithful will be a powerful instrument to help the Church return to authentic Magisterial teaching in union with the Vatican.
Please pray for Fr. Rosica and all clergy.
Catholic Dialogue was interested in getting a broader sense of how Internet-literate Catholics were reacting to Fr. Rosica's unexplainable outburst. To do this, we conducted extensive research on the Internet in order to see which way the wind was blowing. Today, we are presenting these exclusive results.
Clearly, Fr. Rosica is facing serious headwinds in the court of public opinion.
The research revealed that 80.5% of all the articles that expressed an opinion on the controversy were opposed to Fr. Rosica's position, while only 19.5% supported him. The methodology encompasses all online articles published on the Fr. Rosica controversy, but excludes "comments" posted on blogs, since these can easily be manipulated.
In case you're wondering, articles by LifeSiteNews represented a very small fraction of the articles published on this issue. Excluding articles from LifeSiteNews, the disapproval rating for Fr. Rosica is still 79.8%.
The disapproval of Fr. Rosica is widespread and broad-based. It includes both men and women, laity and clergy. They quote Church documents and Doctors of the Church. They refer to authoritative statements by Vatican officials. By all accounts, these are educated Catholics, well-versed in Scripture and the Catechism. They do not seek personal glory or satisfaction. They do not have any axe to grind. They are merely seeking to denounce errors and injustices so that the Church in Canada may once again submit to Rome's authority.
In theological terms, we'd say that the sensus fidelium is enabling the faithful to participate in Christ's prophetic office by denouncing error. In layman's terms, we'd say that Fr. Rosica's behaviour doesn't pass the sniff test.
This doesn't bode well for Salt and Light's ratings. But it is certainly good news in the battle for the soul of the Church, since the Internet reaches such a broader audience than a satellite cable network.
The winds of change are blowing. There is a growing sense that too many clergymen are lukewarm or outright dissenters. The discontent among the faithful will be a powerful instrument to help the Church return to authentic Magisterial teaching in union with the Vatican.
Please pray for Fr. Rosica and all clergy.
Thanks again, Archbishop Prendergast
Just a quick note to thank Archbishop Prendergast of Ottawa for participating in the Life Chain this past weekend.
We admire your dedication to the cause of life and we rejoice to have you stand by our side on the front lines.
May God bless you!
We admire your dedication to the cause of life and we rejoice to have you stand by our side on the front lines.
May God bless you!
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
The ball is in your court, your Graces
The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB) caused quite a stir when they invited a dissenter to give two talks at their plenary assembly from October 19 to 23. The outcry was so bad, that the CCCB asked the theologian in question, Richard Gaillardetz, to publicly explain the controversial views that he holds.
In a series of posts, starting with this one, John Pacheco convincingly exposes Gaillardetz's errors and his obscure attempts at deceiving people that he is a faithful Catholic. Gaillardetz's article was merely damage control, and Pacheco was not deceived. He called upon the expertise of two renowned theologians who confirm that Gaillardetz is indeed in defiance of Church teaching in many respects.
So, dear bishops, the ball is in your court. Why have you invited this man? Will you un-invite him in order to avoid confusing and scandalizing the faithful?
Dear readers: if you care about your Church and your bishops, you should ask your local bishop why they are inviting a dissenter to give them two lectures.
In a series of posts, starting with this one, John Pacheco convincingly exposes Gaillardetz's errors and his obscure attempts at deceiving people that he is a faithful Catholic. Gaillardetz's article was merely damage control, and Pacheco was not deceived. He called upon the expertise of two renowned theologians who confirm that Gaillardetz is indeed in defiance of Church teaching in many respects.
So, dear bishops, the ball is in your court. Why have you invited this man? Will you un-invite him in order to avoid confusing and scandalizing the faithful?
Dear readers: if you care about your Church and your bishops, you should ask your local bishop why they are inviting a dissenter to give them two lectures.
Monday, October 5, 2009
CCCB Declines Dialogue with LifeSite
Disturbing news from the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB). It goes like this:
1. In the spring of 2009, LifeSite and many other pro-life groups uncovered the names of about 40 pro-abortion groups in developing countries being funded by Development and Peace, the CCCB's official charity.
2. In June 2009, the CCCB issued a whitewash denial without addressing any evidence. They also chastized LifeSite for not engaging in "dialogue" with the bishops, even though LifeSite had sought to discuss the evidence with the bishops and Development and Peace before going public (they were brushed aside).
3. In July 2009, in response to the CCCB's request for more "dialogue", LifeSite offered to make a 15-minute presentation to the bishops at their plenary in mid-October.
4. On September 25, the CCCB denied LifeSite's request.
Now tell me, dear reader, how is one supposed to react to this apparently false overture for dialogue on the part of the CCCB?
The episcopacy is a fundamental institution of the Catholic Church. We cannot survive without it. However, many of the current incumbents aren't doing their job. We desperately need them to return to Rome's teaching. There are good bishops in this country. We need them to speak up, lest the flock be totally disoriented and lost.
1. In the spring of 2009, LifeSite and many other pro-life groups uncovered the names of about 40 pro-abortion groups in developing countries being funded by Development and Peace, the CCCB's official charity.
2. In June 2009, the CCCB issued a whitewash denial without addressing any evidence. They also chastized LifeSite for not engaging in "dialogue" with the bishops, even though LifeSite had sought to discuss the evidence with the bishops and Development and Peace before going public (they were brushed aside).
3. In July 2009, in response to the CCCB's request for more "dialogue", LifeSite offered to make a 15-minute presentation to the bishops at their plenary in mid-October.
4. On September 25, the CCCB denied LifeSite's request.
Now tell me, dear reader, how is one supposed to react to this apparently false overture for dialogue on the part of the CCCB?
The episcopacy is a fundamental institution of the Catholic Church. We cannot survive without it. However, many of the current incumbents aren't doing their job. We desperately need them to return to Rome's teaching. There are good bishops in this country. We need them to speak up, lest the flock be totally disoriented and lost.
Friday, October 2, 2009
Vatican Archbishop clarifies Catholic teachings on life-issues, politicians and witnessing to Truth
Archbishop Raymond Burke is the Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura. This is a position analogous to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. After the Pope, Burke holds the highest judicial office in the Roman Catholic Church. His statements carry a lot of weight. We should pay attention.
Please read his thought provoking piece here. Some interesting quotes (but you should read the whole article):
Please read his thought provoking piece here. Some interesting quotes (but you should read the whole article):
One of the ironies of the present situation is that the person who experiences scandal at the gravely sinful public actions of a fellow Catholic is accused of a lack of charity and of causing division within the unity of the Church.
(...)
A unity which is not founded on the truth of the moral law is not the unity of the Church. The Church's unity is founded on speaking the truth with love. The person who experiences scandal at public actions of Catholics, which are gravely contrary to the moral law, not only does not destroy unity but invites the Church to repair what is clearly a serious breach in Her life. Were he not to experience scandal at the public support of attacks on human life and the family, his conscience would be uninformed or dulled about the most sacred realities.
(...)
For Christians, the acceptance of others who are not of the Christian faith is not a matter of tolerance, but of love which adheres to the truths of the faith while respecting the beliefs of those who are not Christian, as long as those beliefs are coherent with the natural moral law, that is, coherent with the respect for the "inalienable rights" with which God has endowed every man. Christian love does not have its foundation in blind tolerance of others and of what they think and say and do, but rather in the profound knowledge of others and their beliefs, and the honest acknowledgment of differences of belief, especially in what may compromise the life of the nation.
(...)
We find self-professed Catholics, for example, who sustain and support the right of a woman to procure the death of the infant in her womb, or the right of two persons of the same sex to the recognition which the State gives to a man and a woman who have entered into marriage. It is not possible to be a practicing Catholic and to conduct oneself politically in this manner.
(...)
But there is also true scandal, that is, the leading of others, by our words, actions and failures to act, into confusion and error, and, therefore, into sin. Our Lord was unequivocal in his condemnation of those who would confuse or lead others into sin by their actions. In teaching His disciples about temptations, He declared:
Temptations to sin are sure to come; but woe to him by whom they come! It would be better for him if a millstone were hung round his neck and he were cast into the sea, than that he should cause one of these little ones to sin (Lk 17:1-2).
It is clear that Our Lord taught as a primary responsibility, with the gravest of consequences, the avoidance of scandal, namely, of any act or failure to act which could lead another into sin. Our Lord's words are nothing less than vehement.
(...)
The perennial discipline of the Church, for that reason among other reasons, has prohibited the giving of Holy Communion and the granting of a Church funeral to those who persist, after admonition, in the grave violation of the moral law (Code of Canon Law, cann. 915; and 1184, § 1, 3º). It is said that these disciplines which the Church has consistently observed down the centuries presume to pass a judgment on the eternal salvation of a soul, which belongs to God alone, and, therefore, should be abandoned. On the contrary, these disciplines are not a judgment on the eternal salvation of the soul in question. They are simply the acknowledgment of an objective truth, namely, that the public actions of the soul are in violation of the moral law, to his own grave harm and to the grave harm of all who are confused or led into error by his actions. The Church confides every soul to the mercy of God, which is great beyond all our imagining, but that does not excuse her from proclaiming the truth of the moral law, also by applying her age-old disciplines, for the sake of the salvation of all.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Antigonish bishop expected to surrender to police on child pornography charges
Some people refuse to believe that our clergy are dissenting from Church teaching. But gradually, the truth comes out.
Read the story from the Catholic Register.
Lord, help us! Please pray for our clergy.
Read the story from the Catholic Register.
Lord, help us! Please pray for our clergy.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
The Catholic Church's Salvation: Tell it Like it Is
A great article by Suzanne Fortin highlighting the core of the problem with the Catholic Church in Canada and our bishops. Here is a key excerpt:
Read the whole article here.
.
But the modernistic dissent doesn’t end at abortion. The weak response on the pro-life issue is symptomatic of the widespread reluctance to abide by and preach rudimentary Catholic philosophical beliefs, such as:
• The ends do not justify the means.
• The order of creation (e.g. men and women are complementary).
• The hierarchy of truths.
• The principal of non-contradiction.
• Natural Truth can be known by reason alone.
• The intrinsic evil of certain acts, and how they must always be rejected.
This has resulted in church elites distorting Catholic moral doctrine and sanctioning things like:
• Inductions for post-viability fetuses who are terminally ill.
• Legal recognition for same-sex unions.
• Leaving the issue of contraception up to “one’s own conscience.”
• Treating issues like the environment and poverty as equally important
to fetal rights.
Read the whole article here.
.
Canadian Bishops ask dissenter to give them inspiration
Have you heard? The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB) has invited a well-known dissenting theologian to give two talks at their annual plenary meeting in Cornwall in October. His name is Richard Gaillardetz.
You will find the details of his dissent in this excellent post by John Pacheco and additional details in this article by LifeSiteNews.com. Here's a brief summary of his "credentials".
1. It's possible for the Magisterium to err in matters of faith and morals.
2. He believes that an article of Faith can become tentative if it becomes “controversial."
3. The degree of “reception” of Church teaching by the faithful is a “sign” of its infallibility.
4. He says that the consensus of theologians is the determining factor for the discernment of the infallibility of the Magisterium.
5. The obstinate denial of a definitive doctrine would not necessarily place one outside the Roman Catholic communion (very self-serving, don't you think?)
Does it disturb you that the CCCB would invite this man to give two lectures at their plenary? What kind of message does it send to the faithful? What does it tell you about the bishops?
If the CCCB invited him, they clearly don't object to his dissenting views. Actually, it makes a lot of sense to me. You see, the CCCB is mostly composed of dissenters. We've observed this for many decades. Tragic, but true.
Of course, not all bishops are dissenters. We have some very good bishops in this country. However, they are few and far between. Unfortunately, their minority status means that the overall direction of the CCCB is decided by the majority of dissenters.
Gaillardetz brings a sense of legitimacy to the dissenting views of the CCCB majority, like a comforting reassurance that someone else thinks like them.
The fact that virtually all Canadian bishops dissented from Humanae Vitae in writing is entirely consistent with Gaillardetz's point #1 above, namely that the Magisterium can make mistakes and therefore that the bishops don't have to follow the Pope. This is especially true for controversial issues such as contraception, which was the main point of the dissent of the Canadian bishops more than 40 years ago. Abortion is also quickly becoming optional teaching, as we've learned from the Development and Peace scandal and the Fr. Rosica rampage. So Gaillardetz's view on #2 is also consistent with the CCCB's actions.
Point #3 is also very useful for dissenters because they are well aware that most Catholics approve of contraception. Therefore, they like Gaillardetz's theory that a rejection of Church teaching by the faithful is a sign that that teaching was not infallible. It's like giving the faithful a special veto power over the Magisterium.
Point #4 gives the bishops their own special veto power over the Magisterium, since many bishops are theologians too. Isn't that handy?
Finally, #5 makes dissenters feel comforted that they are not excluded from communion with the Roman Catholic Church for the extreme positions they've taken in points #1 to #4.
So, you see, it all makes sense. In these difficult times, where dissenting bishops are being questioned by Catholics who want to remain faithful to Rome, they have called upon a fellow dissenter for some reassurance.
Sadly, we rarely hear the good bishops speaking up these days. They must feel very frustrated. We must pray for their perseverance. I hope they will gain the courage and strength to break their silence.
That's the tragic state of our Church today. Please pray for our bishops.
You will find the details of his dissent in this excellent post by John Pacheco and additional details in this article by LifeSiteNews.com. Here's a brief summary of his "credentials".
- He says it's okay for couples to co-habitate before marriage and to use contraception if their conscience doesn't complain (sounds Winnipeg-Statement-ish)
- The ordination of women is okay.
- He teaches a distorted version of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
- Public revelation by God continues today.
- His respect for life is very suspect since he's part of President Obama's "Catholic Advisory Board," which the Catholic Civil Rights League said does not have a single member that agrees with Church teaching on life issues.
- He wonders whether the concept of divine revelation might be extended to the Islamic or Hindu scriptures (!!!!)
1. It's possible for the Magisterium to err in matters of faith and morals.
2. He believes that an article of Faith can become tentative if it becomes “controversial."
3. The degree of “reception” of Church teaching by the faithful is a “sign” of its infallibility.
4. He says that the consensus of theologians is the determining factor for the discernment of the infallibility of the Magisterium.
5. The obstinate denial of a definitive doctrine would not necessarily place one outside the Roman Catholic communion (very self-serving, don't you think?)
Does it disturb you that the CCCB would invite this man to give two lectures at their plenary? What kind of message does it send to the faithful? What does it tell you about the bishops?
If the CCCB invited him, they clearly don't object to his dissenting views. Actually, it makes a lot of sense to me. You see, the CCCB is mostly composed of dissenters. We've observed this for many decades. Tragic, but true.
Of course, not all bishops are dissenters. We have some very good bishops in this country. However, they are few and far between. Unfortunately, their minority status means that the overall direction of the CCCB is decided by the majority of dissenters.
Gaillardetz brings a sense of legitimacy to the dissenting views of the CCCB majority, like a comforting reassurance that someone else thinks like them.
The fact that virtually all Canadian bishops dissented from Humanae Vitae in writing is entirely consistent with Gaillardetz's point #1 above, namely that the Magisterium can make mistakes and therefore that the bishops don't have to follow the Pope. This is especially true for controversial issues such as contraception, which was the main point of the dissent of the Canadian bishops more than 40 years ago. Abortion is also quickly becoming optional teaching, as we've learned from the Development and Peace scandal and the Fr. Rosica rampage. So Gaillardetz's view on #2 is also consistent with the CCCB's actions.
Point #3 is also very useful for dissenters because they are well aware that most Catholics approve of contraception. Therefore, they like Gaillardetz's theory that a rejection of Church teaching by the faithful is a sign that that teaching was not infallible. It's like giving the faithful a special veto power over the Magisterium.
Point #4 gives the bishops their own special veto power over the Magisterium, since many bishops are theologians too. Isn't that handy?
Finally, #5 makes dissenters feel comforted that they are not excluded from communion with the Roman Catholic Church for the extreme positions they've taken in points #1 to #4.
So, you see, it all makes sense. In these difficult times, where dissenting bishops are being questioned by Catholics who want to remain faithful to Rome, they have called upon a fellow dissenter for some reassurance.
Sadly, we rarely hear the good bishops speaking up these days. They must feel very frustrated. We must pray for their perseverance. I hope they will gain the courage and strength to break their silence.
That's the tragic state of our Church today. Please pray for our bishops.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)