Wednesday, June 29, 2016

When Bishops Betray: Court Decrees 40M Bubble Zone Outside St. John's Abortuary

Pseudo-catholic Rolanda Ryan, owner of child killing centre, 
with her lawyer in Supreme Court
A health clinic in St. John's has reached a deal with anti-abortion activists to ban protests within a 40 metres radius of its building. 
The Athena Health Clinic finalized the decision at the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador on Tuesday.
Would this be the same "health clinic" run by the same pseudo-catholic as I exposed in this blog posting in 2014? In fact, yes, it would be.
Now this entire tragedy spells S-C-A-N-D-A-L in a multitude of ways: scandalous that someone raised Catholic could ever contemplate facilitating or assisting in the murder of unborn children, let alone protesting in public a woman’s “right” to murder her children; scandalous that fellow Catholics could sit in pews and watch known baby killers join in the Communion line to desecrate the Holy Eucharist without rushing to protect the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ from sacrilege; scandalous that priests can’t/won’t/don’t stop it; scandalous that Bishops seem indifferent or powerless to address such abominations. 
These are some of the tweets I sent out in response to this disturbing development:




You see, when God's people stubbornly and consistently defend the lives of pre-born children threatened by abortion—as these pro-life heroes have done in St. John's, NL for decades—eventually the devil gets enraged and stirs up his minions, the champions of death, to push back and protect his territory. Because, you see, legal abortion is perhaps his greatest bloody achievement in the war against God and His Creation.

And when Catholic Bishops are indifferent, on a daily basis, to the evil of child killing taking place in their very backyards and, worse still, can't be bothered to intervene when peaceful, prayerful and loving pro-lifers themselves are under direct attack, you may expect the devil to make huge gains in advancing  Why wouldn't he expect a great victory in a spiritual offensive when his enemies are weak, apathetic and oblivious to the power granted them by their Lord and Master?

Imagine if Archbishop Martin Currie of St. John's, had taken to heart the scandal exposed in my posting of 2014. Imagine we had seen serious action such as I proposed:
...a front page notice in the local newspaper or the Archdiocesan website lamenting the fact that so-called Catholics who run the local abortion centre received Holy Communion inadvertently last Sunday at St. Teresa's parish? Did we hear that local Catholics were so outraged to discover this that they demanded from the Archbishop assurances that such a thing might never happen again? Did we subsequently see on the Archdiocesan website or the Archbishop's blog a statement from Archbishop Currie that such a disgrace would never happen in his Archdiocese a second time?
Imagine the Archbishop had arranged a meeting with the Ryan sisters to advise them of their standing in the Catholic Church in accordance with Canon Law and their automatic excommunication for their support and facilitation of abortion. Imagine he had impressed upon them the seriousness of their actions before Almighty God and the absolute impossibility of receiving Jesus Christ in the Eucharist whilst living in such a separated, wretched and sinful state. Imagine he had, with godly earnest, perhaps even with tears, implored these sisters to immediately repent of their sins and be reconciled to Christ who loved them so. Imagine what a different outcome than the one we saw take place today in the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Failing in his direct appeal to and discipline of the pro-abortion Catholic sisters, and every other reasonable effort to distance Holy Mother Church from the evil actions of renegade Catholics, the Archbishop might likely be forced into the most extreme Christ-like course of action required: joining the pro-life warriors in prayer and protest outside the killing centre and defying the intimidating tactics of the court. Of course this programme of self-sacrifice might ultimately lead the Archbishop to a night in jail but who in the province would ever thereafter doubt the Church's staunch opposition to the killing of innocents? Would even the courts dare pursue the Archbishop's prosecution?

But alas, we know only too well that Catholic Bishops have seldom, if ever, displayed such conviction or offered such sacrifice. And so it is that abortion continues to rob our nation of God's precious gifts. 

And so also, it would appear that we are one court case closer to the tragedy of a Canada where those opposed to the murder of children in the womb face immediate jail time for their public show of resistance.


Monday, June 13, 2016

The Overwhelming Rejection Of The Faith Among Catholics

Michael Voris hammers away. I couldn't agree more.
The reason why, in the final analysis, is fear. The bishops need to hear that what they are doing is wrong. They need to be told point blank that they are completely out of touch. They are steering the Church over the cliff, that they are being unfaithful and disobedient, that their "managing the decline" approach to evangelization is ridiculous, that substituting watered-down "hugs and kisses" catechesis for actual doctrine will cost them dearly when they die and approach their Lord and Master.




Friday, June 10, 2016

Pseudo-Catholic Liberal MP Celina Caesar-Chavannes Receiving Communion At Whitby Parish

Allow me to clarify: A pro-abortion, pro-sodomy, pro-same sex marriage, and pro-euthanasia “Catholic” politician in our Archdiocese regularly attends Mass and is served the Sacred Body and Blood of Jesus Christ by the parish priest.

So what’s the big deal? A majority of Canada’s Catholics qualify for the label pseudo-catholic and yet they are still offered Holy Communion in their parishes (it’s still sacrilege though).

True. But here I’m talking about a Catholic who has high public visibility, an elected Member of Canada’s Parliament who represents the Whitby riding. It’s technically safe to call her, in Catholic parlance, a public sinner.
Who is Celina Caesar-Chavannes?

Celina R. Caesar-Chavannes MP is a Canadian Liberal politician, who was elected to represent the riding of Whitby in the House of Commons of Canada in the 2015 federal election. Wikipedia

She is also Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister. Yes, correct, that Prime Minister, pseudo-catholic Justin Trudeau. Take note then, she has been appointed to speak on behalf of Justin Trudeau! (Is there any chance he would have chosen a secretary to speak for him who has views contrary to his on crucial messaging?) In fact, she gives every evidence of being a veritable clone of our current PM.


I will refer to Ms. Caesar-Chavannes for the remainder of this posting as CRCC.

CRCC attends Holy Family Parish in Whitby, ON. She regularly presents for Holy Communion.
What are the political facts about CRCC?

Pro-abortion

She is a Liberal MP in Justin Trudeau’s cabinet and all his MP’s are under a mandate to vote pro-choice.  In May 2014, a year prior to CRCC’s election victory, Trudeau said, “Candidates who oppose abortion are barred from running in the Liberal Party’s ‘open’ nominations for the 2015 federal election.” We can only assume CRCC votes in favour of the status quo on abortion in Canada. She supports a woman’s “right” to kill her unborn child.

Pro-sodomy
On June 1, 2016, CRCC posted the following on her Facebook page:

I was honoured to join Prime Minister Justin Trudeau today as he raised the Pride flag on Parliament Hill. He reminded us that there is still much work to do to - and that we are all responsible for doing our part.

She included the link to the CBC story Prime Minister Justin Trudeau raises a Pride flag on Parliament Hill for the first time in Canadian history as well as embedding the CBC video on her timeline.

Pro-transgenderism

On May 17, 2016, CRCC posted the following on her Facebook page:

Today is about hope, change, & the understanding that as Canadians we should all feel safe to be ourselves. Very proud of our government and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau today, and thankful to the countless people who continue to work hard to eliminate homophobia and transphobia.


Pro-euthanasia

On May 3, 2016, CRCC posted the following on her Facebook page:

Last night I spoke in the House about Bill C-14, Medical Assistance in Dying. It was an honour to stand up in support of this important legislation. This bill has amplified the discourse about life and about death. I am thankful to all who participated in the preparation and tabling of this document.

She featured a video of her speech in the House of Commons (also posted same, with text, on her official MP website) summarizing the government’s position on Bill C-14, noting particularly that she was “proud” of the government bill. She even touted her bona fides as a “person of faith” in assessing the positive nature of the new suicide paradigm (sounds familiar), also citing her meeting with St. John the Evangelist Catholic parish in Whitby over concerns about conscience rights of physicians. Of course, she insisted, her government would never trample conscience rights! (except when it came to MP’s voting pro-choice!) She waxed eloquent about how the work on C-14 “challenges us all to examine our fundamental beliefs about life and about death.”

Pro-same-sex “marriage”

There was no direct reference that I could find on CRCC’s Facebook page to support the conclusion that she is in favour of sodo-marriage. However, given her very close position as spokesperson for PM Justin Trudeau, her membership in the Liberal Party of Canada—the party that pushed through this insult to God and marriage—and her other publicly stated positions on homosexuality and LGBT rights, it is only reasonable to assume she supports same-sex “marriage” as well. Of course if I am wrong on this point I will certainly amend this paragraph with an update to that effect.
What is CRCC’s status as a Catholic parishioner?

I do not know this woman personally and so I rely heavily on my sources. She is a regular parishioner at Holy Family Parish in Whitby, ON. She regularly participates in the celebration of Holy Eucharist, publicly receiving Jesus Christ without restriction or censure. She has been questioned at times about her political affiliation and her support of policies and positions identified by the Catholic Church as grave evils. Rather than engaging in any reasoned discussion, she provides no explanation whatever for her public dissent but instead insists that judging is contrary to the Bible.  

The parish priest is well aware of the concerns that faithful Catholics have in regard to CRCC’s dissent from Catholic teachings and the scandal generated thereby. He is also aware of the strong objections that some have to CRCC partaking of the Holy Eucharist while obstinately persisting publicly in a condition of grave sin. (Canon 915 of the Catholic Code of Canon Law insists that such public sinners are NOT TO BE ADMITTED to Holy Communion.) Perhaps the priest, like CRCC herself, believes in the mantra that “we should never judge others” or perhaps he believes in the heresy that has infected CanChurch since the Catholic Bishops’ 1968 Winnipeg Statement, that of “conscience rights.”

No doubt it would be a bombshell going off in his parish and in his personal career if he decided to deny Holy Communion to such a high profile politician. Is that why he continues to ignore Canon 915 or is it because the status quo in the Archdiocese is to never seriously address any grave evils in the lives of the faithful in respect of administering Holy Communion, let alone that of public sinners. This appears, increasingly, to be the modus operandi of Cardinal Collins. Why then would any of his priests bother to make grave sin an issue or to protect the Lord Jesus Christ from sacrilege?

But the fallout from such cowardice and betrayal is of nuclear proportions. Faithful Catholics are so scandalized by repeatedly witnessing such sacrileges that the Holy Spirit within them becomes vexed and grieved and they see no alternative but to leave their parishes. But where do they go to find a community of true believing Catholics?  They can easily become overcome by doubt and cynicism and cease Church-going and their public worship.

Even now the scandal at Holy Family parish in Whitby is taking an extreme toll on serious minded Catholics and some are already preparing to leave.
What does the future possibly hold for CRCC?

CRCC is a very savvy politician. I would describe her as one who has a sixth sense about her job. Her political instincts are sharp, powerful and quite competitive. She is a gifted communicator and is extremely effective with social media and getting her message across. The feedback she receives from constituents and interested parties in general is almost universally positive and even extraordinary. In short, if they don’t love her they at least regard her as a very impressive, committed and authentic politician, one possessed of great compassion and care for her community.  

I hasten to add here that any gifts that CRCC possesses in regard to serving her fellow man are gifts given to her by God through the Holy Spirit at her confirmation. She is obligated, again by that same Holy Spirit, to use those gifts in accord with the laws and statutes of Christ’s Holy Catholic Church. She has NO freedom to use them as she pleases. In this connection we see the great sin of Canada’s Catholic Bishops who refuse to teach the fullness of the Catholic faith and to properly form the consciences of the faithful. Their omission to do so, and their refusal to discipline wayward and renegade souls, particularly Catholic politicians and other influential public figures, has resulted directly in the creation of a false counter-church—a pseudo-catholic culture—within the bowels of Canada’s true Catholic Church.   

In a recent interview with CRCC, Global TV broached the subject of a possible future run for Prime Minister by the rookie politician. We learn from that interview (and others) that CRCC recovered from a very low turning point in her life when she cried out in prayer and with tears to God for help. She credits her future in politics, at least partly, with the unfolding of God’s answer to her prayer. Unfortunately God is not the only one battling for souls and the problem is if the Bishops don’t address their failures in forming the minds and hearts of CRCC and the rest of Canada’s faithful, we may very well be watching the making of another pseudo-catholic Prime Minister.
It’s all on the Bishops

Some of us could see it coming with Justin Trudeau for many years. The Bishops apparently couldn’t or simply didn’t care (sufficiently). Through their denial of Canon law and other select Church teachings we see they prefer to do crisis management and now those that seem to care are running mad and scared.

God equips His people with great and fearful gifts, in order that His Body might be built up and Christ glorified in our world as King. Then He passes these souls over to the Bishops in order that they might be trained and put into His Service. When the Bishops fail in their responsibilities then Satan wins by default. Through the indoctrination of culture and the world and through the weakness of human flesh, Satan already has a stupendous foothold in the lives of every individual not on a steady path of daily conversion to Christ. Catholics like CRCC and Justin Trudeau, although very likely culpably ignorant, believe they are doing the best they can for their families, others, and the nation but too many are actually in the service of their father the devil. Unfortunately, priests and their Bishops, immobilized by fear and confusion, are doing little to correct them on their deadly path, and, may one day join them in Hell.
The failure of Archbishop Prendergast to redress scandal

Renegade “Catholic” politicians, as well as scores of key public officials, like CRCC could be saved from the destructive path of dismantling the moral fabric of Canada if only Archbishop Prendergast would take seriously the charge he has from Jesus Christ and His Church. Canon law demands that public sinners be denied Holy Communion for just such a reason as we currently see in the CRCC scandal. If the Archbishop were to PUBLICLY apply—as indeed the spirit of the canon demands and as I have argued he ought to—the censure of Canon 915 with respect to the most powerful antichrist “Catholic” in Canadian politics, our very own PM Justin Trudeau, it would be a powerful antidote, and rebuke, to other pseudo-catholics like CRCC and cause them to think very carefully and seriously about not following in the same path. It would also embolden the local priests to follow his example and apply some much needed discipline to the lives of the most rebellious public sinners in their parishes.   

Instead of idolizing and cozying up to the most notorious pseudo-catholics in Canadian history, wayward Catholics might be more inclined to shun them altogether, to the eternal good of their souls.



Sunday, May 29, 2016

Faithful Catholic Teachers in Toronto Persecuted With Full Knowledge of Cardinal Collins

It's happening and it`s vicious. That's all I'm going to say.

Sharing details will only further jeopardize the futures of the teachers already humiliated and victimized.

Why is it happening? In order to silence the Truth of Catholic teaching on contraception, homosexuality, Islam, etc., in order to shut out He Who is the Way, the Truth and the Life, from an evil, counterfeit, make-believe copy of the One True Religion.

Pseudo-catholic administrators are now entirely in charge of the “catholic” school system.

Maybe some investigative journalist can expose the whole sordid mess of religious persecution in our own backyard.

Scandalous beyond measure.

Tuesday, May 17, 2016

I Demand That Canada's Catholic Bishops Protect Me From Justin Trudeau

I WILL NOT share the same cup with Justin Trudeau.
You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; you cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. I Corinthians 10:21
When he attends my parish for a funeral Mass or other occasion I want to know for certain that I will not be drinking the same cup from which this pseudo-catholic devil drinks.

Yesterday our gallant PM attended a funeral Mass in Cape Breton. Nobody seems to know whether he stepped forward for the Body and Blood of Christ. We can say almost of a certainty this means he did present for Holy Communion, otherwise would it not have been a point of interest in somebody's report? On Easter Sunday past the PM attended Mass on Fog Island, NL: same uncertainty with respect to Holy Eucharist.

Right now there are rumours and questions swirling about whether Trudeau currently partakes of Holy Communion. Some have said he does not since his conversation with Archbishop Prendergast of Ottawa. But we don't know and the establishment Catholic media (including LifeSiteNews) are too busy covering for this Archbishop to bother sending an investigative team to answer the question.

There should be no doubt. There ought to be certainty. The Church makes clear provision, as she always has, for dealing with public sinners. Canon 915 is the prescription for Justin Trudeau's behaviour, He has created great scandal and Bishops have refused to address his public sin and the sacrilege that accompanies it every time he partakes of Holy Communion, to say nothing of the great danger to his own soul.

A closed door meeting with Justin Trudeau is not a sufficient response. An entire nation of Catholics needs to know whether this awful scandal has been redressed and whether Justin Trudeau, who holds the highest political office in the nation, is above the law of Christ's Church. Otherwise souls will continue to be scandalized, some might even give up on the Church and lose their souls.

It is past time for Ottawa Archbishop Prendergast to #CanonizeJustinTrudeau: Implement Canon 915 such that all Canadians know he has been properly judged and proscribed by the Church.

If ever I shared the same Mass with this catholic imposter I would never step forward at that Mass to drink from the same cup. This is the stuff of which schisms are made.

Sunday, May 15, 2016

The Best of Canada's Catholic Bishops: Actively Betraying The Faithful For Decades

Back in early March of this year Catholic theologian (and blogger) Dr. Colin Kerr announced that my blog Contra|Diction had been banned from his Society of Canadian Catholic Bloggers. I promptly left a comment on his blog posting and then issued my own short posting in response. Colin’s posting generated a good number of interesting comments, as did mine, and these comments taken as a whole provide both a range of insight as well as a share of ad hominem attack. I initially planned to publish a more detailed critique of Colin’s decision to oust my blog as well as of the confused rationale which he had expressed in his posting but I soon realized it simply would have consumed more time and energy than it was worth. It would have been quite unrealistic to expect that yet more argumentation could override his strong emotional connections to Archbishop Prendergast particularly, but also to Cardinal Collins.

Fast forward to last week when Vox Cantoris blog posted Pervert Priest and the Canadian bishops that covered him up, so-to-speak. The Vox links to a shocking post at Sylvia’s Site detailing the cover up in the 1960`s and 1970`s of infamous sexual predator Father John Sullivan by a host of Canadian Bishops. Go ahead and read the revolting details in order to appreciate the depravity and duplicity of the (Best) Bishops involved.

For most of 29 years that man – this wolf in sheep’s clothing, a child molester – was permitted to hear confessions, offer up the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and continue to prey on innocent young boys.

Is it really possible that several Bishops participated in such a heinous cover-up? Yes indeed and not only several, but several very powerful Bishops, those who, at the time, were considered to be the best of Canada`s Bishops.

Bishop Alexander Carter was one of the influential Gang of Five, a group of Canadian bishops who, as I once said elsewhere,  were fast friends who wielded an inordinate influence  upon their fellow Canadian bishops and hence upon the face of Roman Catholicism in Canada and indeed upon the face of the nation period.

Would anyone dispute the claim that a great many good Catholics of that time period, much like Dr. Colin Kerr today, were delighted to count these men as exemplary stewards of God? Likely they would have defended them to the death, not being fully persuaded of the mystery of iniquity. Yet were these Bishops not deeply infected with an evil that led to immense suffering for many innocent persons? Imagine the scorn and abuse that might have been heaped upon the fellow Catholic who had the temerity in those days to suggest that these Bishops were complicit in protecting a priest who serial-raped young boys. Perhaps Sylvia’s site can provide us with just such an illustration?

Bishop Alexander Carter – and others – knew that Carter was a sexual predator, and, what did he/they do?  Nothing!  Well, no, not really nothing.  In truth, the bishop (s) enabled Sullivan.  It was, after all, thanks to Carter that Sullivan was permitted to continue to masquerade as a priest and continue his sacrilegious romp from one sanctuary to another, and, yes, it was thanks to the bishop(s) that parents throughout the diocese were wilfully deceived, children were wilfully placed at risk, – and Sullivan was free to rape the souls of countless other young boys. Sad to say, and I would suggest, not surprisingly, Sullivan did just that. Until 1979!

Read the full posting, see the list of Bishop`s names and do a little homework. Lo, many of these *best* Bishops were architects and supporters of the Winnipeg Statement! History has issued its verdict on that act of defiance, and now also on the cover-up surrounding Father Sullivan.

Could there be a more a cunning, scandalous, evil and depraved betrayal of the flock by the shepherds?  I am at a loss for words.

Incidentally, ask yourself, what is worse: the cover up of sexual abuse or the mass spiritual destruction of souls? (Be sure you answer that question before leaving this page.) Forty or fifty years ago, Bishops were covering up the perverse sins of priests; now they find it convenient to cover up the sins of Catholics who regularly practice intrinsically evil behaviours, believing and pretending there’s really nothing to see here. “Let’s move along now folks, nothing to see here.” The common thread though is a blatant disregard for the welfare of souls, a de facto denial of sin and evil as well as judgment for personal sin. The scandal extends to pseudo-catholics—like PM Justin Trudeau—who infect all strata of society and who, like a huge colony of ants, are busy incrementally dismantling every moral safeguard of society and the common good. As long as Bishops don’t expect or require Catholics to live like Catholics our nation will continue to disintegrate into chaos. Which then is the worse evil?

Bishops who are not actively promoting and defending the fullness of Catholic truth, along with correcting the grievous and pervasive errors of the day, are tolerating much greater evils that are not apparent to the eye. As part of a strategy to cover up for these evils such Bishops downplay or even ignore the concerns that the faithful bring repeatedly to the fore.

But didn’t these Bishops who enabled Fr. Sullivan appear to be sincere, dedicated and enthusiastic servants of the Lord? You betcha. Were they bad, devious, un-Christian people? I doubt anyone would characterize them as such, even their critics. Were they well loved and respected by many, many Catholics? Of course they were. Learn then a lesson here: Those who discreetly, or otherwise, disrespect and undermine the teaching and discipline of the Church do not come dressed in red costumes with horns and tails but appear rather as angels of light and servants of righteousness. Blinded by their pride and arrogance they are not always aware of their own treachery nor do they always recognize rebellion in their selective silence and omissions.

Would we—should we—pray for the downfall [scroll to the end of linked posting] of such men, the “best” pastors of the Church? I imagine the answer depends on whether we can admit to, or rather grasp, the depth of evil at work in our midst. Souls are being lost, the Faith is undermined, the nation is reeling, all due to sin and scandal while too many Bishops veritably preside over the meltdown. Certainly we ought to call first for the conversion [scroll to the end of linked posting] of such men so that the Church and our society might be saved from the devil’s worst plans. But how strongly can we condemn the wayward prelate while at the same time respecting his office?

St. Paul urged the Corinthians to judge those in the Church who were guilty of sin, indicating their responsibility to put away from among themselves the wicked person. He indicated they must “deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.” Surely if St. Paul could counsel the local parish to expel or excommunicate one of the brothers we may ask St. Joseph to intercede on our behalf, beseeching the Lord to convert the heart of a renegade or hireling Bishop, finally bringing to bear divine judgments of many kinds if necessary, or even the removal of said Bishop so that a worthy replacement might be had.

But shouldn’t we constrain ourselves in our struggle to see justice and order restored in the Church of Christ? Shouldn’t we come to grips with the fact that these Bishops—like all men—are not perfect, and that realistically any replacement is unlikely to be better and quite likely to be worse? GOD FORBID!! If we cannot envision and work with all our might towards a Church that is truly purged of known evil and made a holy instrument of God, then we may as well give up on our own personal call to holiness!

But again, does our condemnation constitute lack of reverence for these pastors of the Church?  Are we being presumptuous? Would we be guilty of an offense against charity? Would we be presenting a one-sided negative account of the matter? Would we be rushing to conclusions? Look at the example set by Jesus Christ Himself. These were exceedingly strong criticisms of the religious leaders of his day! Do any of the woes pronounced therein apply to the Bishops who shielded Father Sullivan? Do any of the woes apply to Bishops who consign millions of souls to hell because they fail to warn rank and file Catholics of their sinful behaviours and sacrilegious Communions? Do any of the woes apply to Bishops who neglect their duty to discipline public sinners who scandalize the faithful and corrupt the morals of a nation?

In fostering these great evils, i.e. confirming the faithful in their sin, obstinacy, heresy and sacrilege, the “best” Bishops are at one with the worst, and will suffer similar judgment with the worst if they do not return to the Lord.

Wednesday, May 11, 2016

Catholic Resistance Movement Counters PseudoCatholic Lies In Oshawa



Outside St. Gertrude's Catholic Church in Oshawa before the vigil Mass on Sunday past there was a great deal of traffic. Many hundreds of people were impacted by the signs. For more info on this campaign see this posting and this one too.

It seems more and more Catholics are calling for some kind of Catholic resistance movement. God bless them all, it's about time! But if these programs don't get to the heart of the problem on the local level of EVERY parish in a diocese, I suspect they'll amount to all heat and no light. Anyone who wishes to undertake such an ambitious project had better be prepared for huge backlash including personal attacks, character assassination and loss of income stream. Really, at the stage we find ourselves, only those who have worked hard to make their personal situations relatively invulnerable will be in a position to offer effective resistance. Nevertheless, even that person must be prepared for the likelihood of a serious hit.

By the way, I'm looking for someone who might be willing to carry signs (ground level signs can also be used) and conduct other resistance efforts in the diocese of Ottawa. I can provide full details if you'd like to email me or direct message me on Twitter. Email me at the following address:







Wednesday, May 04, 2016

Ambiguity And Artful Disingenuousness

What role does ambiguity play in the current crisis of faith experienced in the Roman Catholic Church? A very significant one, particularly since Vatican II, in my opinion.

______________________________________________

AMBIGUITY

D.Q. McInerny, Professor of Philosophy
Our Lady of Guadalupe Seminary
February 2016

The wizened and wily tyrant, King Ambidexterius III, was on his deathbed.  He called for his son, the heir to the throne, to give him some last minute advice as to how he should conduct his reign. Among the things he said to the young man, soon to become Ambidexterius IV, was the following: "My son, always speak with a forked tongue when addressing the people. Let all your proclamations be fairly awash in ambiguity. It is through ambiguity—ah, glorious ambiguity!—that you will be able to keep the people in a state of debilitating doubt and uncertainty, and thus safely out of reach of the truth.  Remember, my son, in ambiguity is our strength, for truth is our enemy, and ambiguity suffocates truth.” History does not provide us with the particulars as to how Ambidexterius IV followed his father's advice, but followed it he must have, for we do know that he was every bit the tyrant as was his father.

Ambiguity is a linguistic disease of a peculiarly virulent kind. It does indeed, as Ambidexterius III knew well, have a suffocating effect on truth. Just what are we dealing with here? Let us begin with some etymology, which is always illuminating.  Our word ambiguity has its roots in the Latin noun ambiguus, which means "uncertain,” which in turn is rooted in the verb ambigere, meaning "to wander about." That nicely describes just the way ambiguous language works: it wanders about aimlessly, never managing to arrive at a definite, clearly identifiable and comprehensible destination.

The typical effect of ambiguous language on those who are exposed to it is a general blurring of the mind.  Doubt and uncertainty reign. You know, or at least you strongly suspect, that the language is intended to convey some potentially detectable ideas, but, if so, those ideas are so thickly fog-bound that no amount of determined squinting on your part will allow you to make them out. After a while, out of fatigue or frustration, you may choose simply to give up the effort, which could prove to have unfortunate consequences, if it was your initial understanding that the message addressed to you had to do with some really serious matters.

The doubt  and uncertainty which is engendered  by ambiguous language, because of its equivocal, double-dealing nature, is of course clearly disadvantageous to the individual, for each of us, as rational creatures, is made to know the truth,  and doubt and uncertainty stand as formidable obstacles to the truth. But the negative effects of ambiguity assume a larger, communal dimension as well. Language is the highest form of communication, for it is the discourse of rational creatures. The root of the word communication (Latin communis = "common") is the same for the word community. When communication among a people breaks down, as the result of a surfeit of ambiguous language, and the suffocation of truth it brings with it, then the community to which those people belong begins to disintegrate. Common adherence to fundamental truths, which is the bond which ensures the integrity and coherence of any community, begins to weaken as doubt and uncertainty pervades the entire atmosphere.

There are two causes of ambiguity—carelessness and calculation. We are all liable at time to traffic in ambiguous language, in our speech and in our writing, simply because we are not giving to language the constant monitoring attention it demands. But if we are in general properly conscientious about our language, once we are made aware of the fact that we are not being clear and unambiguous in what we say and write, we usually will promptly take measures to correct the situation. We should always be prepared to take ambiguity seriously, as did the author E. B. White.  In a bright little book called The Elements of Style he wrote that ambiguous language "is not merely a disturber of prose, it is a destroyer of life, of hope."

The second cause of ambiguity is calculation. Here ambiguous language is not accidental, not the result of inattention; it is quite deliberate. People who use ambiguous language in a calculating manner know exactly what they are doing. Their modus operandi is one of artful disingenuousness. They want to inculcate doubt and uncertainty in the minds of those who hear what they say and read what they write. They are not friends of truth; in fact, it is precisely the truth they wish to undermine, but they know that were they to attempt to do so in a clear, straightforward manner they could not gain their objective, for people would immediately see what they were up to and the alarm bells would go off. So, in order to accomplish their plan of substituting falsity for truth, they advert to ambiguity.

In doing this they take a two-pronged approach. First, they never explicitly state, much less emphasize, what they know to be the truth, but leave it unspoken so that it is not in the forefront of the minds of their auditors or readers. Thus they set the stage for confusion. Secondly, they focus on the falsity which they want to promote, but they do so in a subtle, indirect manner. Let us say that X is what they know to be the truth—which, if they were responsible, they should be defending—while Y is the falsity which they are promoting. They will not come right out and say, "X is clearly the truth and we must adhere to it tenaciously." Nor will they say, "Y is the new truth which we must now all assent to." That would be too blunt an approach, and would only backfire on them. Rather, they invite their auditors or readers to be open and flexible in their thinking, receptive to new possibilities, so that they might see in Y something worth serious consideration. "Yes, of course," they would say, "we have always in the past considered Y to  be false, and, mind you, we are not exactly saying that it is true now, but, after all, times are changing, and we must be prepared to make accommodations  in order to keep up with the progressive advance of human  history." And they might, quite irrelevantly, throw in the idea that we all have to strive to be caring and compassionate.

Those on the receiving end of this calculated use of ambiguity are left in a state of perplexity. Having not heard the truth which is X explicitly stated, while having been presented with the falsity which is Y as something which, so they are left to suppose, is a negotiable matter, and even as something they are perhaps under moral obligation to regard as an acceptable alternative to what they previously believed to be true, they do not quite know where they stand. "What is the truth?" they ask themselves. And now, given their confused frame of mind, there is the danger that eventually they may wonder if there is any objectively determinable truth at all to be recognized in the matter. Perhaps, they think, it is simply up to each individual to decide, "following his conscience." Enter moral relativism.

Our Lord admonished us to be clear and direct in our language, saying Yes, Yes, or No, No. The raspy voice of ambiguity, for its part, says, Maybe Yes, Yes; Maybe No, No. 


Tuesday, May 03, 2016

Cardinal Robert Sarah: An Eclipse Of God

An Eclipse Of God

by Cardinal Robert Sarah


Inasmuch as God has lost his primacy among man’s preoccupations, inasmuch as man himself gets in the way of God, we are experiencing an eclipse of God. Consequently, there is increasing obscurity and incomprehension as to the true nature of man, for he is defined only in relation to God. We no longer know who man is once he detaches himself from his Creator. Man intends to recreate himself; he rejects the laws of his nature, which become contingent. Man’s rupture with God obscures his way of looking at creation. Blinded by his technological successes, his world view disfigures the world: things no longer possess ontological truth or goodness but, rather, are neutral, and man is the one who must give them meaning. This is why it is urgent to emphasize that the abandonment of God by contemporary societies, especially in the West, affects not only the teaching of the Church but also the foundations of anthropology. [Source]

Tuesday, April 19, 2016

Bewildered Faith Leaders Pleading To Caesar For Protection From Euthanasia

The horse has bolted the barn (the latch has been off the door for years) and now "faith leaders" have given up on getting the animal back in the barn. They are instead asking for "conscience protection" so they don't have to feel they are a part of the evil coming down the tracks.

Guess what? Their faith communities acquiesced a long time ago to the evil and today's result was inevitable. Of course these leaders don't really understand what's happening round about them anyway. They are at an extreme disadvantage. (BTW, doesn't this scene look similar to many we saw just before same sex "marriage" was legalized in Canada?)

Their communities don't possess the fullness of truth but rather a shadow of, or an imperfect, truth. On the other hand, the Cardinal Archbishop of Toronto, a Successor of the Apostles of Jesus Christ, has all the resources of heaven behind him, along with all requisite authority. He has been anointed to not only save souls and defend his flock from evil but to identify demons and defeat them altogether in the name of Jesus Christ,
And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. Matt.28:18-20
Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven. Matt. 18:18
Did any of these leaders strike a note of Christ and His supreme victory in their interventions?  Of course many criticize my outlook on the Catholic Church and her mission, accusing me of promoting a narrow minded triumphalism (BTW, guilty as charged).

But did any of these leaders mention today the salvation offered to the world by and through Jesus Christ? Did any warn the Prime Minister or Parliament or individual politicians of the grave consequences to their souls should they enshrine in man's law that which is forbidden by God's law? Or were they simply pleading with and begging the powers of this world to please be considerate of the "values" and concerns of religious people?

Cardinal Collins, won't you please step up to the podium?

Sunday, April 17, 2016

Lou Iacobelli Ponders The Failure Of Hireling Bishops

I've made the case (in a multitude of posts over time) that possibly ALL of Canada's current crop of Catholic Bishops have disqualified themselves as good shepherds of Christ's flock, and may aptly be described as “hireling” Bishops. I realize this claim will be seen by many respected Catholics as a fantastic one and yet I expect still more disdain to come my way from too many overly sensitive and deluded souls.

Recently I made the following statement in a blog posting pertaining to two of those Bishops who are said to be “the best of us.”

Well let’s just call a spade a spade. The Cardinal—and the Archbishop—simply don’t believe these realities. That is why I call them both hireling Bishops. It’s not that they are in it for the money; it’s just that they are not in it for Christ and His kingdom. They simply do not believe in the kingdom of God and the salvation of souls; at least not in the traditional age old sense held by the Church.  I don't see how any other argument can line up with the abundance of facts facing us.

It appears to me that slowly but surely—and perhaps too late—more Catholics will have to face the exceedingly painful truth about our “shepherds”. Lou Iacobelli notes,

In my parish, these issues are never mentioned and so the passive acceptance of abortion and other mortal sins is becoming the new normal.

Indeed. But this is a decades old phenomenon. Could any Catholic in his wildest imaginations dream that a parish with Christ as the Pastor would allow for such indifference and disintegration, both of which lead souls into Hell? Would not such an outcome be more expected if the Father of Lies were in charge?
______________________________________________


There's a reflection for this Sunday's Gospel reading about the Good Shepherd from St. John (10:27-30) by Sr. Aemiliana that is worth reading, praying, studying and putting into action. Let's read it first and then make some observations that apply to us today. Here it is:

The notion of shepherd calls forth strong and manly qualities. He must have courage in the pastures of the Orient. Wild beasts often attacked his herds. When Saul doubts his strength, David says to him: 'Thy servant kept his father’s herds at pasture, and often a lion or a bear came and snatched a lamb from the midst of it; and I went out after him and struck him, and took the animal from his mouth.'

This image of the brave young shepherd well suits Christ, the victor of Eastertide who stands amongst us today and says, 'I give my life for my sheep.' In it all the images of the good shepherd from the Old Testament are fulfilled. He tells us that he is the fulfillment of the promise 'I am the good shepherd.' And now it is clear as well why this image of the shepherd belongs above all to Eastertime. It has often shown full of promise on the long road of the Pasch, from the beginning of the fasting season to the great week of suffering. But it was first the Passion which revealed the Lord properly as the good shepherd of his sheep. A hired shepherd whose sheep are not his own has not love’s courage to risk death for them. The Lord says, 'He has no con­cern for the sheep.' When he sees the wolf come he leaves the sheep alone and runs off. His only concern is for his pay, not for the beasts themselves. Evil shep­herds such as these were the leaders of Israel whom the prophet Ezechiel accuses, and whom Christ found in places of authority when he came to visit his flock.

Christ is the good shepherd, the real shepherd. The sheep belong to him; he has created them. He is God’s Logos through whom all things are made. All things are his; they have fallen from him, and yet he loves them. He comes as a shepherd and wounds himself for this miserable flock. He fights with the wild beasts, with hell and sin, and death, to snatch these sheep, led astray, from Satan’s mouth. He does more than any human shepherd does. He throws himself to the attackers, so to speak, in place of the sheep.

(Sister Aemiliana Lohr, O.S. B. († 1972) was a German Benedictine nun who wrote about the liturgy. Magnificat, April 2016, pages 264-265)

Sr. Aemiliana has no romantic notion of shepherds. They were strong, brave and ready to defend the sheep with their lives. Shepherds must lead by example even when there is suffering and death. The Good Shepherd fights with his life. "He fights with the wild beasts, with hell and sin, and death, to snatch these sheep, led astray, from Satan’s mouth. He does more than any human shepherd does. He throws himself to the attackers, so to speak, in place of the sheep."

However, the sad reality in Canada is that we have over the decades pretty much gradually accepted many evils. The wolves have taken over much of the country. We can begin with abortion, "same-sex marriage," a radical sex curriculum for children and now the culture of death is expanding with the legalization of euthanasia. When you can kill an innocent child in the womb, all paid for by the state health care system, does anybody then believe that we can protect the old, the disabled, the depressed and the "unwanted” from being killed? Statements and press releases from our shepherds against killing other Canadians are good, but they are hardly good enough to keep away the wolves.

Statements alone no matter how well intentioned will not stop the daily deaths in our abortuaries. The faith communities, including Catholics, have failed to develop a plan to fight the anti-life evils. We have not put faith into example and action. In my parish, these issues are never mentioned and so the passive acceptance of abortion and other mortal sins is becoming the new normal. When faith no longer protects life, the ultimate gift given to us by God, faith too will soon die with each unborn child killed in the womb and every person euthanasized in the false name of "mercy." When faith is gone, what good will it do us that we kept our charitable status and got the "blessing" from secular governments instead of the Good Shepherd who willingly "throws himself to the attackers, so to speak, in place of the sheep." May God help us!

Friday, April 15, 2016

Note to Catholic Bishops: The Relevance of Abortion In Euthanasia Debate

I have noticed that the Catholic Bishops of Canada seem quite worked up about the euthanasia mandate. Yet I can't recall one recent statement from them on euthanasia lamenting also the regime of the insufferable killing of preborn children. (Or even asserting the eternal consequences for a soul that kills a fellow human being). Perhaps they choose purposely not to state the obvious because euthanasia is the matter at hand. Why complicate the issue, eh? But what has been their excuse for silence for the past four decades?
In the euthanasia debate one can hardly overlook the relevance of abortion, and not only as regards the question of referral. (Which isn’t really a question: it is obviously illogical to refer for abortion and not for euthanasia.)  Insofar as our society thinks it morally acceptable to kill babies in the womb, it is certain to think that it is acceptable to kill the terminally ill, for it has already decided (i) that human life is disposable and (ii) that eliminating suffering or even inconvenience is a legitimate reason for its disposal. Such a society, note well, is equally certain to go beyond the notion that any suffering person may be killed if they wish to be killed, a form of violence that does not even rise to the level of abortion. It will come eventually to think that it is fine to kill those whom it determines are lacking any real justification for living, perhaps even those whose lives it deems inconvenient, whether or not they are willing. For that is the logic of abortion, a logic already well entrenched in high places. – Dr. Douglas Farrow [Source]
Why then are the Bishops huffing and puffing about euthanasia? We've all seen it coming for years and years. The best way to have stemmed euthanasia would have been to fight abortion tooth and nail, maybe even for a Bishop and Priest here and there to spend a night in the slammer along with little ladies and grandmothers.

Dr. Farrow has offered some advice to the Bishops recently:
Farrow also urged the bishops to clearly state that “formal cooperation with suicide or euthanasia, by analogy with abortion, entails excommunication latae sententiae” and to “inform Catholic officials that anyone who votes to create a euthanasia regime or to liberalize one” should “not present himself for communion and is subject to a just penalty,” even, “if need be” excommunication.
Of course the Bishops haven't done this on even one occasion in the last fifty years for pro-choice Catholic Prime Ministers, let alone rank and file Catholic politicians, who blatantly call for the destruction of unborn children in the name of a "woman's right to choose." Why would they do it now in the case of euthanasia, "a form of violence that does not even rise to the level of abortion"?

Much too little, much too late. God help your weak and cowering souls!


Wednesday, April 13, 2016

FLASHBACK: Canada's Catholic Bishops Place Low Priority on Amnesty’s Threat to Unborn Children

In light of the controversy erupting in Ireland over Amnesty International's sad abortion campaign, I remind readers that our own Catholic Bishops here in Canada did little if anything to push back on Amnesty International when it announced its new evil agenda several years ago. View the short video dealing with Ireland's challenge and then read the press release below.



---------------------------------------------------------

Vote Life, Canada! Reviews Annual Plenary Report of Canada’s Catholic Bishops—Threat to Unborn Children by Amnesty International Still Rates Low on Priority List

Toronto, ON November 7, 2007/Christian Newswire—“Tragically, news reports confirm Amnesty International (AI) has commenced abortion advocacy internationally,” laments Eric Alcock, President of Vote Life, Canada!“ but Canada’s Bishops maintain their laissez-faire attitude.”

In an August press releaseVote Life, Canada! complained that ominous indicators of AI’s plans, like threatening letters from terrorists, surfaced early in 2006. Yet this new global threat elicited simply a ho-hum “We’ll be disappointed” comment posted on the CCCB website in July 2006.

A short three months after posting this comment the Bishops held their 2006 Plenary Assembly which, insists Alcock, “should have been a beehive of strategic thinking for the Bishops to spearhead a powerful and effective mobilization of Catholics against the Amnesty move.

Yet official documents released after the 2006 Plenary Assembly indicate no discussion whatever of the Amnesty threat. Alcock is at a loss to explain “the tragic blindness and indifference of the Bishops to this worldwide threat to unborn children.” He notes this astounding failure was further compounded by the prolonged silence of the Bishops throughout 2007.

Incredibly, reports Alcock, “even since AI announced its official new policy in Mexico City in August past—while Bishops elsewhere in the world have been severing connections with AI—the Bishops of Canada have been silent on the matter.”

“Their silence still prevails, as it did in Canada nearly forty years ago when the abortion door cracked open in Canada.” Alcock claims the persistent call from Vote Life, Canada! has been the only voice on record in Canada holding Bishops accountable for their negligence in the AI affair.

Finally, last month’s 2007 Plenary Assembly announced the AI issue as an agenda item. Yet, exclaims Alcock, “The Bishops seem to be allergic to action when it comes to defending the Unborn. The item did not garner sufficient concern and consensus from the totality of Bishops at the Plenary and was referred to the Permanent Council for later decision!”

Referring to Amnesty International, the CCCB President was quoted as saying, “What a paradox that the smallest of human beings – unborn children – are now being put at risk by those who should be their defenders.”

“Paradox indeed but the irony of this statement obviously escaped the Bishop,” exclaims Alcock. “Who more than the Bishops of Christ’s Church are called to defend human life with all their might and influence? And what of those who take no action—or ineffective action—to stop the killers?”

Tuesday, April 12, 2016

Winnipeg Statement: Canadian Bishops, September 1968

Here's the text of the infamous "Winnipeg Statement" published two months after the release of Pope Paul VI's encyclical Humanae Vitae. Paragraphs #17, 25, 26 and 34 are considered problematic, with paragraph #26 taking center stage.

26. Counsellors may meet others who, accepting the teaching of the Holy Father, find that because of particular circumstances they are involved in what seems to them a clear conflict of duties, e.g., the reconciling of conjugal love and responsible parenthood with the education of children already born or with the health of the mother. In accord with the accepted principles of moral theology, if these persons have tried sincerely but without success to pursue a line of conduct in keeping with the given directives, they may be safely assure that, whoever honestly chooses that course which seems right to him does so in good conscience.

RELATED POSTING Amoris Laetitia Will Bolster Canadian Bishops’ False And Deadly Appeal To Conscience

Here's a sample of the thinking behind the Winnipeg Statement which was said to be "an honest pastoral attempt" to "maintain unity in the Canadian Church."
Supporters contend that the Canadian Bishops were merely trying to defend those who had not matured sufficiently in their faith, and that they were simply upholding the established doctrine expressed in Dignitatis humanae, the Vatican II Declaration on Religious Freedom. They argue that it was this document which compelled the bishops "to support the need for personal freedom when dealing with the Church's rejection of artificial contraception... [and to insist] that married couples could only form their consciences in an atmosphere free of coercion." [Source]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CANADIAN BISHOPS' STATEMENT ON THE ENCYCLICAL "HUMANAE VITAE''
Plenary Assembly, St. Boniface-Winnipeg
Roman Catholic Bishops of Canada
September 27, 1968


1. Pope Paul VI in his recent encyclical "On Human Life" has spoken on a profound human problem as is clearly evidenced by the immediate and universal reaction to his message. It is evident that he has written out of concern and love, and in a spirit of service to all mankind. Conscious of the current controversy and deep differences of opinion as to how to harmonize married love and the responsible transmission of life, we, the Canadian bishops, offer our help to the priests and Catholic people believing it to be their pastoral duty.

I - Solidarity with the Pope

2. We are in accord with the teaching of the Holy Father concerning the dignity of married life, and the necessity of a truly Christian relationship between conjugal love and responsible parenthood. We share the pastoral concern which has led him to offer counsel and direction in an area which, while controverted, could hardly be more important to human happiness.
3. By divine commission clarification of these difficult problems of morality is required from the teaching authority of the Church (1). The Canadian Bishops will endeavor to discharge their obligation to the best of their ability. In this pursuit we are acting consistently with our recent submissions to the federal government on contraception, divorce and abortion, nor is there anything in those submissions which does not harmonize with the encyclical.

II - Solidarity with the Faithful

4. In the same spirit of solidarity we declare ourselves one with the People of God in the difficulties they experience in understanding, making their own, and living this teaching.
5. In accord with the teaching of the Second Vatican Council, the recent encyclical(2) recognizes the nobility of conjugal love which is "uniquely expressed and perfected through the marital act" (3). Many married people experience a truly agonizing difficulty in reconciling the need to express conjugal love with the responsible transmission of human life. (4)
6. This difficulty is recognized in deep sympathy and is shared by bishops and priests as counselors and confessors in their service of the faithful. We know that we are unable to provide easy answers to this difficult problem made more acute by the great variety of solutions proposed in an open society.
7. A clearer understanding of these problems and progress toward their solution will result from a common effort in dialogue, research and study on the part of all, laity, priests and bishops, guided by faith and sustained by grace. To this undertaking the Canadian bishops pledge themselves.

III - Christian Conscience and Divine Law

8. Of recent years many have entertained doubts about the validity of arguments proposed to forbid any positive intervention which would prevent the transmission of human life. As a result there have arisen opinions and practices contrary to traditional moral theology. Because of this many had been expecting official confirmation of their views. This helps to explain the negative reaction the encyclical received in many quarters. Many Catholics face a grave problem of conscience.
9. Christian theology regarding conscience has its roots in the teaching of St. Paul (5). This has been echoed in our day by Vatican II: "Conscience is the most secret core and sanctuary of man. There he is alone with God, whose voice echoes in his depths." (6) "On his part man acknowledges the imperatives of the divine law through the mediation of conscience. In all his activity a man is bound to follow his conscience faithfully, in order that he may come to God for whom he was created" (7). The dignity of man consists precisely in his ability to achieve his fulfillment in God through the exercise of a knowing and free choice.
10. However this does not exempt a man from the responsibility of forming his conscience according to truly Christian values and principles. This implies a spirit of openness to the teaching of the church which is an essential aspect of the Christian's baptismal vocation. It likewise implies sound personal motivation free from selfishness and undue external pressure which are incompatible with the spirit of Christ. Nor will he succeed in this difficult task without the help of God. Man is prone to sin and evil and unless he humbly asks and gratefully receives the grace of God this basic freedom will inevitably lead to abuse.

IV - Teaching Office of the Church

11. Belief in the Church which is the prolongation of Christ in the world, belief in the Incarnation, demands a cheerful readiness to hear that Church to whose first apostles Christ said: "He who hears you hears me" (8). True freedom of conscience does not consist, then, in the freedom to do as one likes, but rather to do as a responsible conscience directs.
12. Vatican Council II applies this concept forcefully. Christians "Therefore must always be governed according to a conscience dutifully conformed to the divine law itself and should be submissive towards the Church's teaching office which authentically interprets that law in the light of the gospel. That divine law reveals and protects the integral meaning of conjugal love and impels it towards truly human fulfillment." (9).
13. Today, the Holy Father has spoken on the question of morally acceptable means to harmonize conjugal love and responsible parenthood. Christians must examine in all honesty their reaction to what he has said.
14. The Church is competent to hand on the truth contained in the revealed word of God and to interpret its meaning. But its role is not limited to this function. In his pilgrimage to salvation, man achieves final happiness by all his human conduct and his whole moral life. Since the Church is man's guide in this pilgrimage, she is called upon to exercise her role as teacher, even in those matters which do not demand the absolute assent of faith.
15. Of this sort of teaching Vatican II wrote: "This religious submission of will and of mind must be shown in a special way to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra. That is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme teaching service is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will" (10).
16. It follows that those who have been commissioned by the Church to teach in her name will recognize their responsibility to refrain from public opposition to the encyclical; to do otherwise would compound confusion and be a source of scandal to God's people. However, this must not be interpreted as a restriction on the legitimate and recognized freedom of theologians to pursue loyally and conscientiously their research with a view to greater depth and clarity in the teaching of the Church.
17. It is a fact that a certain number of Catholics, although admittedly subject to the teaching of the encyclical, find it either extremely difficult or even impossible to make their own all elements of this doctrine. In particular, the argumentation and rational foundation of the encyclical, which are only briefly indicated, have failed in some cases to win the assent of men of science, or indeed of some men of culture and education who share in the contemporary empirical and scientific mode of thought. We must appreciate the difficulty experienced by contemporary man in understanding and appropriating some of the points of this encyclical, and we must make every effort to learn from the insights of Catholic scientists and intellectuals, who are of undoubted loyalty to Christian truth, to the Church and to the authority of the Holy See. Since they are not denying any point of divine and Catholic faith nor rejecting the teaching authority of the Church, these Catholics should not be considered or consider themselves, shut off from the body of the faithful. But they should remember that their good faith will be dependent on a sincere self-examination to determine the true motives and grounds for such suspension of assent and on continued effort to understand and deepen their knowledge of the teaching of the Church.
18. The difficulties of this situation have been felt by the priests of the Church, and by many others. We have been requested to provide guidelines to assist them. This we will endeavor to accomplish in a subsequent document. We are conscious that continuing dialogue, study and reflection will be required by all members of the Church in order to meet as best we can the complexities and exigencies of the problem.
19. We point out that the particular norms which we may offer will prove of little value unless they are placed in the context of man's human and Christian vocation and all of the values of Christian marriage. This formation of conscience and this education in true love will be achieved only by a well balanced pastoral insistence upon the primary importance of love which is human, total, faithful and exclusive as well as generously faithful (11).

V - Preliminary Pastoral Guidance

20. For the moment, in conformity with traditional Christian morality, we request priests and all who may be called to guide or counsel the consciences of others to give their attention to the following considerations.
21. The pastoral directives given by Pope Paul VI in the encyclical are inspired by a positive sacramental approach. The Eucharist is always the great expression of Christian love and union. Married couples will always find in this celebration a meeting place with the Lord which will never fail to strengthen their own mutual love. With regard to the sacrament of penance the spirit is one of encouragement both for penitents and confessor and avoids both extremes of laxity and rigorism.
22. The encyclical suggests an attitude towards the sacrament of penance which is at once less juridical, more pastoral and more respectful of persons. There is real concern for their growth, however slow at times, and for the hope of the future.
23. Confession should never be envisaged under the cloud of agonizing fear or severity. It should be an exercise in confidence and respect of consciences. Paul VI invited married couples to "....have recourse with humble perseverance to the mere; of God, which is poured forth in the Sacrament of Penance' (12). Confession is a meeting between a sincere conscience and Christ Our Lord who was "indeed intransigent with evil, but merciful towards individuals" (13)
24. Such is the general atmosphere in which the confessor and counsellor must work. We complete the concept with a few more particular applications.
25. In the situation we described earlier in this statement (par. 17) the confessor or counsellor must show sympathetic understanding and reverence for the sincere good faith of those who fall in their effort to accept some point of the encyclical.
26. Counsellors may meet others who, accepting the teaching of the Holy Father, find that because of particular circumstances they are involved in what seems to them a clear conflict of duties, e.g., the reconciling of conjugal love and responsible parenthood with the education of children already born or with the health of the mother. In accord with the accepted principles of moral theology, if these persons have tried sincerely but without success to pursue a line of conduct in keeping with the given directives, they may be safely assure that, whoever honestly chooses that course which seems right to him does so in good conscience.
27. Good pastoral practice for other and perhaps more difficult cases will be developed in continuing communication among bishops, priests and laity, and in particular in the document we have promised to prepare. In the meantime we earnestly solicit the help of medical scientists and biologists in their research into human fertility. While it would be an illusion to hope for the solution of all human problems through scientific technology, such research can bring effective help to the alleviation and solution of problems of conscience in this area.

VI - Invitation to Social Pastoral Action

28. The whole world is conscious of the growing preoccupation with the social impact of all men's thoughts, words and actions. Sexuality in all its aspects is obviously an area of the greatest human and social impact. The norms and values which govern this so vital human concern merit the attention and cooperation of all. Our world evolves at a frightening rate, creating at once a vivid sense of unity and a set of conflicting forces which could destroy us.
29. This concern will be fruitful only if it leads all of us to recognize our true human worth in the possession of our inner powers by which we are distinctively ourselves with the full recognition of our complementary sexual differences on the physical, the psychological and the spiritual plane. Only in this manner will we achieve marriages that are truly unions of love in the service of life.
30. To this end there must be brought into play all the positive forces of the family, the school, the state, the Church. No one may stand aloof, nor are there really national boundaries in a matter of such universal application. With this in mind we call on all members of the Church to realize on every level from the very youngest to the various possibilities of adult education.
31. Without wishing to specify in detail we single out for special mention a few aspects which may have richer possibilities. We place first the dialogue and cooperation, which have been so encouraging, among all members of the Church and, through the ecumenical movement with other Churches.
32. We note with deep satisfaction the spread and strength of so many activities calculated to prepare for marriage or to deepen the appreciation of married persons of this sublime state. For example, marriage preparation courses, family apostolates, discussion groups, etc.
33. Educators, too, are to be commended for their growing attention to the question. Everywhere the problem of sex education and family life is being studied. And this education is happily being deepened by scientific research and diffused through the creative use of mass media. Nothing less than this mobilization of all human forces will suffice to meet the challenge of divisive and destructive forces which begin deep in the willful selfishness of man and inhibit the true expression of his love. We pledge ourselves to the pastoral priority of encouraging and promoting these programs whenever and wherever possible.
34. We conclude by asking all to pray fervently that the Holy Spirit will continue to guide his Church through all darkness and suffering. We, the People of God, cannot escape this hour of crisis but there is no reason to believe that it will create division and despair. The unity of the Church does not consist in a bland conformity in all ideas, but rather in a union of faith and heart, in submission to God's will and a humble but honest and ongoing search for the truth. That unity of love and faith is founded in Christ and as long as we are true to Him nothing can separate us. We stand in union with the Bishop of Rome the successor of Peter, the sign and contributing cause of our unity with Christ and with one another. But this very union postulates such a love of the Church that we can do no less than to place all of our love and all of our intelligence at its service. If this sometimes means that in our desire to make the Church more intelligible and more beautiful we must, as pilgrims do, falter in the way or differ as to the way, no one should conclude that our common faith is lost or our loving purpose blunted. The great Cardinal Newman once wrote: "Lead kindly light amidst the encircling gloom." We believe that the Kindly Light will lead us to a greater understanding of the ways of God and the love of man.

FOOTNOTES

(1) On Human Life, n. 4 & 18
(2) On Human Life, n. 8
(3) The Church Today, n. 49
(4) The Church Today, n. 51
(5) Rom. 14:23 and I Cor. 10
(6) The Church Today, n. 16
(7) On Religious Freedom, n. 3; the Church Today, nn. 16, 17
(8) Luke 10:16 (9) Const. on the Church, n. 50
(10) Constitution on the Church, n. 25
(11) On Human Life, n. 9
(12) On Human Life, n. 25
(13) On Human Life, n. 29