Saturday, July 25, 2015

Does Toronto Cardinal Thomas Collins Really Hate His Flock That Much?

Published today to SignOfContradiction.Blogspot.ca

​It's a noble goal to find ways for a parish to more effectively communicate online. But I'll wager not a penny of the more than $100 million dollars raised will be spent to alert the Cardinal's flock, whether online or by any other means, to the greatest everyday (hidden) (mortal) threat to their souls.

--------------------------------------
Progress on "Project Connect" continues as parishes like St. Jerome's (shown above) work with archdiocesan staff to launch new websites. The Family of Faith campaign is funding this project, which helps all parishes in the archdiocese to more effectively communicate online.​
The Family of Faith campaign recently passed $100 million in fundraising. Read more about the campaign success in The Catholic Register.

Friday, July 24, 2015

Conference Of Catholic Bishops Has Interdict On Canon 915

The following quote pertains to The United States' Bishops Conference but it is not much of a reach to assume it also applies to the Canadian Bishops. For the Canadian prelates would it surprise anyone to think that there's also a silent interdict on the teaching of contraception?
But, then again, most of the blanket excommunications (very rightfully made) were well before the unleashing of modernist secular humanism in the Church starting in 1958.  It is widely believed that the USCCB presently has a secret, unpublished policy to ostracize any member who enforces Canon 915 against a Catholic politician, for instance.  I would tend to imagine there are also blanket "prohibitions" against interdicting other anti-Catholic organizations - just like Banned Parenthood
Excerpted from:
When Will Bishops Excommunicate Planned Barrenhood Members/Employees/Supporters?

Wednesday, July 22, 2015

Conduct Of Toronto Cardinal Thomas Collins Not "Worthy Of A Christian"


Within the body of the Church Herself is a “perverse lust for self-destruction” according to retired Vatican Cardinal Walter Brandmueller. The Cardinal recently gave an interview in Germany and spoke candidly about the widespread dissent of Germany's Catholic Bishops. Perhaps one of our intrepid Canadian Catholic media could engage our own Cardinal Collins in a similar conversation about Canada's schismatic Bishops.

The Vatican Cardinal’s remarks zeroed in on the agenda of too many Bishops of "undermining the procreation of life in different ways and in putting into question the natural sexual identity of man and woman." Clearly this is a direct reference to decades old opposition to the Church's teaching on contraception vis a vis Humanae Vitae with its consequent epidemic of abortion, divorce, homosexuality and gender ideology. 

It is well known that the Catholic Bishops of Germany have from the very beginning laid siege to that watershed 1968 papal encyclical. But unfortunately an unofficial schism took place not only in Germany as a result of such rebellion. In Canada it played out likewise in mirror fashion—and in time. The same playbook was used, that of the autonomy of conscience.  

A policy of adherence to "political correctness"—rather than doctrine—by the Catholic Bishops has become predominant in Canada, just exactly as Cardinal Brandmueller describes, because of the risk of "execution by the Media." [Or was it perhaps also due to cowardice in facing the huge numbers of rank and file Catholics practicing the intrinsic evil of contraception?] Our own Cardinal Collins fits well into this PC scheme, although he does fancy—and often likes to portray—himself as an orthodox prelate.

But in fact Cardinal Collins has slipped into that same “dynamic of silence" which characterizes the majority of Bishops referenced by Cardinal Brandmueller, as they "silently watch the execution" taking place. Apparently the Vatican Cardinal holds to the same opinion as do I, that no one can claim “such conduct is worthy of a Christian...especially when dealing with fundamental questions concerning the teaching of Faith and Morals of the Gospel of Christ.”

He explains further by way of questioning: “For what purpose did we [Bishops] receive the Sacrament of Confirmation?” and again, “...did not the Bishops at their consecration promise that they would proclaim faithfully the Gospel of Christ and would preserve, pure and entire, the Deposit of the Faith according to the Tradition as held by the Church, always and everywhere?”

Why then does Cardinal Collins—as well as possibly every other Bishop in Canada—maintain such a silence about Humanae Vitae in his current Toronto Diocese and in his former Diocese of Edmonton? Why, in the midst of such a "self-destructive crisis" as Cardinal Brandmueller describes, would Cardinal Collins hold his peace, never issuing even so much as a pastoral letter to his sheep on this linchpin issue of chastity in similar fashion to other conscientious and truly orthodox Western Bishops who have made efforts to curb the crisis and protect the souls of those under their care? 

If the Cardinal’s courage be lacking, then why would he not simply and very briefly include the clear truth of Catholic teaching regarding the intrinsic evil of this practice on an Examination of Conscience brochure which the Diocese already publishes for his flagship Day of Confessions? Or why, during a recent exercise of lectio divina, on the subject of marriage and children, would he not expound on the Church's position, failing to make even one direct reference to Humanae Vitae and warn of the evils of contraception? Or why would he be seen to be a slacker on protecting Catholic children from "sex-ed," one of the evil fruits of the sexual revolution, even to the extent of stonewalling parents and cooperating with governing sexual perverts in the dissemination of ever-more evil programs to destroy chastity? It appears that Protestants must lead the charge to expose this evil.

It strains the imagination to come to any explanation other than the one proposed by Cardinal Brandmueller who went yet further and called for a “de-secularization” of the Church, demanding a flight from worldly thinking and contrivances to instead “follow the Truth of the Faith.”  Insisting that Bishops be a sign of contradiction to the culture at large rather than “preaching ‘Christianity light’...we should have the courage to demand a program which is in firm contrast to the societal mainstream of today and lives out fully” the commandments.

In a final exhortation, ready-made for Toronto's failing prelate, Cardinal Brandmueller exclaimed, “The Church can and must proclaim the Natural Moral Law which has been perfected by the Gospels and which is understandable for the man of good will...Thereby, the Church should not allow herself to be deflected by the [growing] resistance against her message.”

Cardinal Collins must repent of his failures publicly, make amends and immediately undertake a reformation of his Diocese in order to turn back the effects of this "self-destructive" rebellion of which he continues to be a part. Either that or RESIGN and make way for a worthy prelate who will undertake a reconstruction of an authentic Catholicism in Toronto diocese.

Tuesday, July 21, 2015

Roman Catholic Church Infiltrated By Marxists And Homosexuals

In a lengthy interview published yesterday on YouTube by USA Survival Michael Hichborn of the Lepanto Institute discusses his investigative findings on infiltration in the Roman Catholic Church by Marxists and homosexuals. It's worth a watch since it helps form the bigger picture of the Church in crisis.




Saturday, July 11, 2015

Population Growth Dramatically Slows But U.N. Keeps Hyping It

Received this newsletter today from Steven Mosher of PRI.
-----------------------------------------

Never Say “Die”

Even as Population Growth Dramatically Slows, the U.N. Keeps Hyping “World Population Day”
                                    
By Steven Mosher

On July 11th, the United Nations will celebrate its 26th World Population Day. The point of this annual exercise is to raise money to promote abortion, sterilization and contraception among poor and vulnerable women by alarming us about the dangers of global population growth.

The problem with this narrative is that, in many regions of the world, the population is declining, not growing. About half the world’s population lives in “low-fertility” countries, where women have fewer than 2.1 children on average over their lifetimes. Low-fertility countries now include all of Europe (except Iceland), the Americas (17 countries), and most of Asia (19 countries). The list of low-fertility countries include China, the United StatesBrazil, the Russian FederationJapan and Viet Nam.

 In other words, growth rates have dramatically declined from the late 1960s when the global population grew at a rate of 2.1% each year. That rate is now about 1% a year. The UN’s low variant projection (historically the most accurate) indicates that it will peak at around 8.3 billion in 2050. Even the medium variant projection shows population growth slowing to 0.1% by the century’s end, and turning negative beyond 2100. In either case, the population of the world will never double again.


As these numbers suggest, fertility rates have dipped to all-time lows. The U.N.’s medium variant  projection estimates that women are now averaging 2.45 children over their reproductive lifetime, while the low variant pegs this at only 2.05. The global average was 4.97 just 60 years ago. Under either variant, this number will be well under replacement by century’s end. After all, global replacement fertility—the rate needed to replace the current generation and prevent population decline—is 2.23 children per woman over her reproductive lifetime.

Read the rest here.


Friday, July 10, 2015

Wynne's Sex Ed Curriculum Inadequate: Should Be Withdrawn, Doctor Says

From Teresa Pierre of PAFE
___________________________

July 9, 2015                          


                               Our Teens Deserve the Real Facts of Life

Dr. Nadine Nyhus is a psychiatrist who presented to the Waterloo board in support of Trustee Cindy Watson's recent motion asking for presentations on the s/x ed curriculum to be made to parents in September.  Dr. Nyhus strongly criticized the curriculum's failure to present the harms of early teen sexual activity and its numerous distortions or omissions of scientific fact.  In addition to presenting to the board and contacting her MPP, Dr. Nyhus wrote an article for the Kitchener Record which we strongly encourage you to read.  It is copied below.  Please "Share" the article on your Facebook, Twitter and other social media!

Best regards,

Teresa Pierre

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

Opinion: Sex ed curriculum inadequate and should be withdrawn, doctor says

Waterloo Region Record
By Nadine Nyhus

As a medical doctor and psychiatrist, I am struck by the lack of accurate information in the province of Ontario's new sexual education curriculum.

Ethical practice of medicine requires that risks and benefits be communicated. I believe the same should be true for talking to our teens about sex.

1. Our teens have a right to know the truth about sexually transmitted infections:

-the human papillomavirus (HPV) is the main cause of cervical, anal and esophageal cancer;

-our HPV vaccine only protects against four types of the virus (30 per cent of cancers are not protected against);

-you can contract HPV at your first experience of intercourse while using a condom;

-anal intercourse carries the greatest risk of sexually transmitted infections;

-silent chlamydia infection can cause infertility.

The curriculum is silent on all this.

The curriculum is misleading about HIV (the human immunodeficiency virus), saying "with treatment, the damage that HIV does to the body's immune system can be slowed or prevented," and that with early treatment, people with HIV "have the opportunity to live a near-to-normal lifespan."

2. Our teens have a right to know that if you are infected with HIV:

-you should never have intercourse without a condom for the rest of your life;

-you may have to adopt children;

-if female, you will not be able to breast feed;

-your ability to live in other countries will be restricted;

-you will have to take strong medications (two to four at a time) for the rest of your life;

-missed doses can result in treatment failure (viral resistant) so your life will be regimented;

-the medication can damage organs.

This curriculum significantly minimizes the reality of HIV infection. This kind of vaguely optimistic information is perhaps part of the reason for some evidence that condom use is down and the HIV infection rate is rising again among teens.

3. Our teens have a right to know the research on the value of delaying sex:

-the risk of depression and suicide attempts go up three times in teens who are sexually active;

-skin of the cervix is more vulnerable to infection in teens (so there's a greater risk of sexually transmitted infections);

-70 per cent of teens aged 15 to 17 are not sexually active (so not everyone is doing it);

-oxytocin released with sex establishes an intense bonding that will impair one's ability to make a rational decision about whether a person is a healthy partner.

4. Our teens have a right to know about the risks of pornography. It is associated with:

-increased sexual aggression/offences and acceptance of rape myths (for instance, that females like or cause rape);

-decreased condom use and increased number of sexual partners.

We need to be aware that pornography in 2015 is different than it was 20 or even 10 years ago — it is more aggressive and degrading to women. I would hope that the "experts" writing a curriculum for our children would be more concerned about children than about supporting the image that pornography is fine.

5. Our teens have a right to know that an October 2013 RCMP assessment of sex trafficking reports:

-the vast majority of trafficked victims are Canadian citizens, from all walks of life;

-girls from age 14 to 22 are at greatest risk of being trafficked (so this information should be started at Grade 7).

The curriculum, which is supposed to be all about safety, does not mention this risk.

The research is clear that trafficking increases where prostitution is legal.

Premier Kathleen Wynne says she has concerns about the new federal anti-prostitution law, and she has asked Ontario's attorney general to review it.

6. Our teens have a right to be exposed to different world views.

They need to understand that this curriculum is written from a worldview that seems to present purpose as irrelevant and pleasure as primary. Our teens need to consider that many hold a teleological worldview, one which understands things to have a purpose. For example, the scientific documentation of oxytocin release with sexual intercourse would have the purpose of enhancing bonding in a partnership that will increase the stability of the basic family unit so children have a safe place to grow up.

A new curriculum requires transparency and true collaboration. The government needs to be honest about the complete inadequacy of this curriculum and withdraw it.


Nadine Nyhus, of Cambridge, has been a medical doctor and psychiatrist for 20 years and is a mother of two.


Thursday, July 09, 2015

Four Canadian Bishops To Attend Synod Of The Family In October 2015

Blogger Lou Iacobelli recently blogged on the CCCB's announcement that the Vatican has chosen four Canadian Bishops who will attend the Synod of the Family in October. He shares the announcement in the context of the current battle in Ontario between parents and Premier Kathleen Wynne's Sex Ed plans for the fall of 2015.
The fact that the Vatican has chosen four Canadian bishops to attend the Synod of the Family is of little comfort to parents battling in a number of provinces educational policies and government laws that undermine Catholic teaching. This is bad enough. However, when the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB) fails to publicly stand up against anti-Catholic thinking and governing it makes the situation even worse.
...
School board trustees in the province have had no say regarding the proposed new curriculum. Unless major changes are made, Catholic trustees should reject the curriculum because it contradicts the teaching of the Church on human sexuality, the family and marriage. Catholic teachers have the right to refuse to teach the curriculum and Catholic parents have the right to outright reject it. Our children must be physically, spiritually and morally protected.
From the comments section of the above posting comes a link to another very interesting entry by Iacobelli on the failure of Bishops to take appropriate action. Worth the read.

From all reports it appears that Cardinal Thomas Collins is meekly going along with Wynne`s sex-ed plans and is even stonewalling those in his flock who are sufficiently exercised to speak out. So much for Vatican II and the voice of the laity. To top it all off, we hear the general secretary of  the Ontario bishops’ conference has been actively supporting Wynne’s child abusive sex-ed program. And we wonder why there is so much indifference in the Catholic community.

But couldn`t Cardinal Collins do something about the Wynne sex-ed scandal? Of course he could, if he had the will and the courage. He has authority from God to bind spiritual powers (demons) on earth. But he clearly lacks the faith in God to exercise that authority. Perhaps if the 70,000 Catholic parents who had the courage to protest in public over Wynne`s pet project had instead camped out in front of the Cardinal`s residence, loudly insisting on his favorable intervention, His Eminence might have received a reminder of his weighty role as a Successor to the Apostles. But alas, these days Catholics themselves have little faith in such a notion.

How then shall we #WakeUpBishops in pseudo-catholic Canada?

Wednesday, July 08, 2015

Portrait of Canadian Dissident Fr. Andre Guindon

Further to my recent posting of an older article on the "sad history of apostasy amongst the Canadian Bishops" I offer another similar article by Joe Woodard.

--------------------------------------------------
Portrait of a Canadian Dissident

by Joseph K. Woodard

from Alberta Report, July 8, 1996


Suddenly, on October 20, 1993, Andre Guindon, age 60, priest Oblate of Mary Immaculate, theologian and professor of ethics, suffered a heart attack. His body was found seated in a chair, his cold hand gripping a book. And as he went to meet his maker, his more traditionalist critics suspected that he would have some explaining to do.

Like the American priest-theologian Charles Curran, the Swiss Hans Kung, and the American Gregory Baum, Father Guindon spent his life teaching young Catholic seminarians to spurn his Church’s moral teachings, particularly its “hang-ups” on human sexuality. He remained on the Church’s payroll, protected and even promoted by his superiors (like Ottawa Archbishop Marcel Gervais). Like his fellow liberals, Fr. Guindon eventually attracted the attention of the Vatican. But unlike them, he was saved the embarrassment of being stripped of the title of “Catholic” theologian.

Ten months prior to Fr. Guindon’s death, Rome’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith published a “note” on his 1986 book, The Sexual Creators, criticizing his positions on premarital sex, homosexuality and contraception. Among other things, the Vatican requested that he clarify his assertion that “the moral journey in the sexual lives of spouses, parents, sons and daughters, lesbians and gays, does not differ substantially from one lifestyle to another.” He then defended himself by saying that he had not been discussing homosexual acts, and that the Church must update its moral teachings. At the time of his death, he was awaiting a Vatican response.

“Traditional Catholics are fixated on sex,” said Father Guindon in a 1986 interview with the Ottawa Citizen. “You could kill your neighbour, and that was a sin, but as soon as someone touched his wee-wee, God Almighty would fall right down.”

Andre Guindon was born in Hull in 1933. He joined the Oblates at 20, and studied in Rome and Toulouse. He was ordained at 27, and a year later, in 1961, he was appointed moral theologian at Ottawa’s St. Paul University (which includes the diocesan seminary). Between 1978 and 1984, he served as dean of theology. With the 1986 publication of The Sexual Creators, lay traditionalists, annoyed by his incongruous assertion that homosexual love is superior to natural love, began agitating for his removal. But until his death, his superiors in the national hierarchy protected him.

“A woman does not make love to another woman, or a man to another man, because that is what is expected from everyone; or because that is what must be done to get a provider or a homemaker, or because that is how babies are made,” the teacher wrote in “Sexual Creators.” “Healthy gay persons are sexually active because they wish to express their affection to someone to whom they are attracted.”

Colleague Richard Hardy, a professor of spirituality at St. Paul University, is uncertain of Father Guindon’s legacy. “The Bishops were fairly quiet on [Bill C-33], but I don’t know if Andre had any lasting influence on them,” he says. “Still, he had a tremendous effect on our school. He was ahead of his time, and he was very disappointed that the Vatican never understood his work.” Whatever Fr. Guindon’s influence, however, the seminary’s declining enrolment is now forcing it to close its doors.

Port Colbourne, Ont., parish priest Paul McDonald, a professor of ethics at Niagara University, finds Fr. Guindon’s “sexual liberation” somewhat self-contradictory. “Is it the Church that’s been obsessed with sex, or is it fallen man?” he asks. “The sexual revolution has been obsessed with everything self-centred in sex. Father Guindon was right to say that the Church must adjust its teaching to the times; but she must always stress just those things that the times don’t want to hear. Today, we don’t want to hear that the purposes of sex are found in children and marriage.”
_____________________________________________

Link to Vatican archives (Link added by this blogger)

Tuesday, July 07, 2015

Michael Voris Backs Me Up On My Recent Posting

A few days ago I posted on the subject of a recent Talking Points Memo by Bill O'Reilly. Today I notice Michael Voris of ChurchMilitant.TV cites the incident in a larger and more insightful context.

The Church of Nice apologists are constantly saying Church Militant is mean and not kind and sweet and lollipops because we say things like "The bishops are not doing their job and the country is going to Hell because of it, not to mention millions of Catholics as well" — not that most of the Church of Nice gives Hell a second thought anyway, but that's beside the point. And yet here we have not one but two glaring examples from not us but the secular media saying the exact same thing because they are observing the exact same thing.




Short And Interesting Read On Modernism

Tantumblogo has an interesting post over at A Blog for Dallas Area Catholics asking:

How is it that modernism came back so forcefully from St. Pius X’s crushing of it?

Some interesting points brought to light here.

Another long-time query I've had, is how is it that modernism, which a good number of very solid historians and current-day commenters (for that time) were convinced had been completely shattered by the intervention of Pope Saint Pius X, came roaring back to be basically ascendant in all non-episcopal levers of power by the mid-1940s?
...
 Lack of vigilance.  Lack of faith. Convenience.  Conditioning.  And a firm belief that the Holy See, even in a “prudential Council,” could do no wrong?

Read the rest here.

Michael Davies wrote a good account of this subject. You can also download some interesting talks from Keep The Faith.



Friday, July 03, 2015

Sterile Sex: Trojan Horse of Modern Christian Societies


"Like my Christian counterparts of old, I maintain that the demonic plan of wreaking havoc on mankind will continue to be greatly aided as long as Christians favour or sympathize with the current contraceptive mentality of our society."
That's a quote from an article I wrote in 2007, the article that appears below. When I wrote the article I was thinking more  along the lines of an apologetic for modern day Christians, both Catholic and Protestant, who accept contraception almost universally. I also hoped to show the connection between contraception and its evil twin abortion.

What I didn't focus on in that article was the connection between the rise of contraceptive practice in society and the rise of homosexual practice. Both are unnatural, sinful practices and have been regarded as so for two millenia by the Christian religion. Since both practices were liberalized (i.e. legalized) in our society in the 1960's they have been at the heart of the culture wars, legal contraception leading quickly to legal abortion and now legalized homosexuality leading eventually to the hijacking of Christian marriage. Both evils may also be considered an evil twin under the umbrella term #SterileSex and have degraded our society immensely in the last 50 years. Taken together they may prove to be the actual undoing of our civilization.

Clearly we can see that God's first command to man is to be taken with deadly seriousness:
"Be fruitful and multiply..." 

Take a couple minutes and read this related summary from the Catechism: ARTICLE 6 

____________________________________________________

Contraception: Trojan Horse of Modern Christian Societies

There is a way which seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death. Proverbs 14:12

Very early in my Christian experience I began to learn the significance of these words from Proverbs. Things were simply not as I thought they were!

I had been duped in so many ways by the world and by “the ways of man.” Having converted from atheism to Christ in an evangelical church at twenty eight years of age, I realized I had indeed passed from “death unto life” and purposed from that day forward to be skeptical of the wrong thinking of man. Little did I realize though at that early stage how much transformation and renewal God had in mind!

I propose in this little exposé to make a simple case for how modern day Christians have been thoroughly deceived on the subject of contraception, to the grim detriment of all Christian societies.
The reader may immediately tune out, exclaiming, “Ah, I see where you’re coming from. I noticed in your blogger profile that in 2004 you became a Roman Catholic. That accounts for your views on contraception.”

But I reply, “Not entirely so, and if you give me a few more minutes, I think I can give a convincing argument for the fact that, in the ENTIRE HISTORY of the Christian Church, NOT ONE credible pastor, priest, bishop, theologian, or scholar before roughly 1930-1950 believed contraception to be anything other than a damnable doctrine of the devil.”

Think about it. If you’re wrong on the subject, you’ll face God as a fifty or sixty year old Christian, historically, rather than as a two thousand year old Christian, and won’t it seem very strange why you chose to discount nearly two millennia of Christian thinking and practice? Could you explain to God why you supported a practice regarded universally and historically by Christians as “worse than sodomy, incest and adultery,” “a most unnatural wickedness, and a grievous wrong,” and “hostile to national welfare?”

There is a way which seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death.

Has the reader’s thinking been led in a way which only seems right but which is, in fact, contrary to the ways of God? Is it possible the reader has been deceived?

Like my Christian counterparts of old, I maintain that the demonic plan of wreaking havoc on mankind will continue to be greatly aided as long as Christians favour or sympathize with the current contraceptive mentality of our society.

I will offer ten fairly brief quotes of interest which span the gamut of Christian, specifically Reformation, history and then I will refer the reader to links of reasonably short articles which effectively make my case. [The reader is advised to take note especially of the recurrent connection between contraception and abortion.]

1. Martin Luther, Martin Luther’s Works, Volume Seven 1522
[The] exceedingly foul deed of Onan, the basest of wretches follows [Genesis 38:9, 10]. Onan must have been a malicious and incorrigible scoundrel. This is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest and adultery. We call it unchastity; yes, a Sodomitic sin. For Onan goes in to her; that is, he lies with her and copulates; and, when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed.

2. John Calvin, Commentary on Genesis 1554
Besides [Onan] not only defrauded his brother of the right due him, but also preferred his semen to putrify on the ground, rather than to beget a son in his brother's name.... I will contend myself with briefly mentioning [Onan's act], as far as the sense of shame allows to discuss it. It is a horrible thing to pour out seed besides the intercourse of man and woman. Deliberately avoiding the intercourse, so that the seed drops on the ground, is double horrible. For this means that one quenches the hope of his family, and kills the son, which could be expected, before he is born. This wickedness is now as severely as is possible condemned by the Spirit, through Moses, that Onan, as it were, through a violent and untimely birth, tore away the seed of his brother out the womb, and as cruel as shamefully has thrown on the earth. Moreover he thus has, as much as was in his power, tried to destroy a part of the human race. When a woman in some way drives away the seed out the womb, through aids, then this is rightly seen as an unforgivable crime. Onan was guilty of a similar crime, by defiling the earth with his seed, so that Tamar would not receive a future inheritor.

3. Matthew Poole, 1624-1679, Presbyterian and Puritan Biblical scholar
Onan's "sin itself...is...particularly described by the Holy Ghost, that men might be instructed concerning the nature and the great evil of this sin of self-pollution, which is such that it brought upon the actor of it the extraordinary vengeance of God, and which is condemned not only by Scripture but even by the light of nature and the judgement of heathens who have expressly censured it as a great sin, and as a kind of murder.... Whereby we may sufficiently understand how wicked and abominable a practice this is amongst Christians, and in the light of the gospel which lays greater and stricter obligations upon us to purity and severely forbids all pollution both of flesh and spirit."

4. John Wesley, Commentary on Genesis 1755
Onan, though he consented to marry the widow, yet to the great abuse of his own body, of the wife he had married, and the memory of his brother that was gone, he refused to raise up seed unto his brother. Those sins that dishonour the body are very displeasing to God, and the evidence of vile actions. Observe, the thing which he did displeased the Lord--And it is to be feared, thousands, especially of single persons, by this very thing, still displease the Lord, and destroy their own souls.

5. Johann Peter Lange, Reformed German scholar, author of Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (24 Volumes) 1850. [A work praised by C.H. Spurgeon: “We have nothing equal to them as a series.”]
Contraception is “a most unnatural wickedness, and a grievous wrong. This sin . . . is [as] destructive as a pestilence that walketh in darkness, destroying directly the body and the soul of the young.”

6. Lutheran Church/Missouri Synod, 1923, in its official magazine “The Witness” accused the Birth Control Federation of America of spattering “this country with slime” and labeled birth-control advocate Margaret Sanger a “she devil.” Pastor Walter Maier, founding preacher of the long-running Lutheran Hour radio program, called contraceptives “the most repugnant of modern aberrations, representing a twentieth-century renewal of pagan bankruptcy.”

7. Oldenburger, Teunis, 1934, Reformed scholar & author, Birth Control for Saints and Sinners
There is no other exegesis of Scripture possible but to place contraception in the same category with prostitution, free love, homosexuality, coitus interruptus...and all other forms of unnatural coition that are indulged in simply for the purpose of play, against which both the laws of the land and those of the Church have with varying severity been enforced, beginning with Onan in Chapter 38 of Genesis and extending to our own day among all civilized countries.

8. Lewis, C. S., The Abolition of Man 1943
As regards contraceptives, there is a paradoxical, negative sense in which all possible future generations are the patients or subjects of a power wielded by those already alive. By contraception simply, they are denied existence; by contraception used as a means of selective breeding, they are, without their concurring voice, made to be what one generation, for its own reasons, may choose to prefer. From this point of view, what we call Man’s power over Nature turns out to be a power exercised by some men over other men with Nature as its instrument.

9. Dr. John R. Rice, Baptist evangelist and one of the key figures in 20th century fundamentalism. The Home; A Bible Manual of 22 Chapters 1946
The use of contraceptive devices to prevent the conception and birth of children is wrong because it goes against the clear tenor of Bible teaching…The Bible teaches that to have large families is a positive good, a blessing from God…If it is a virtue to have large families, then it is a lack of virtue to limit the family to less than what it would be if God had His way and gave the children that He wants to give to a home. Since married couples are commanded to “multiply and replenish the earth” (Gen 1:28, 9:1), then not to multiply is a sin…It seems also that we may properly infer from the general tenor of the Scripture that to want less children than God would give without human rebellion and contraceptive devices is likewise a sin.

10. A.W. Tozer, The Waning Authority of Christ in the Churches 1963
We sing of Him and preach about Him, but He must not interfere; we worship our way, and it must be right because we have always done it that way, as have the other churches in our group....What Christian when faced with a moral problem goes straight to the Sermon on the Mount or other New Testament Scripture for an authoritative answer? Who lets the words of Christ be final on giving, birth control, the bringing up of a family, personal habits, tithing, entertainment, buying, selling and other such important matters?

For further reading and insight, consult these [mostly brief] articles online.

Allan Carlson, a Lutheran historian and author, writes a short & surprising history of Protestantism & contraception

Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr., president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, makes the case that evangelicals are rethinking the issue of birth control, mostly due to implications arising out of the abortion revolution.

Pastor Matt Trewhella, pastor of Mercy Seat Christian Church in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, explains the radical restructuring of his beliefs which convinced him to get a vasectomy reversal.

When someone told Jill Stanek, Protestant, high profile pro-lifer and blogger, that the Pope had said that contraception is the root cause of abortion, she thought that it was a pretty big statement to make. She began to wonder, does the Bible say anything about contraception?

One man’s reflections about God the Father, His infinite goodness and love, and the incredible privilege bestowed on married couples of having a role in the creation of new persons.

Nate Wilson, pastor and church planter, says that too many Christian couples hear the arguments in favor of birth control and make their decision without ever having heard that there might be reasons not to practice birth control.

A lengthy article from the New York Times on the anti-contraceptive movement, mostly in the context of the USA, but insightful and well written.

From the June 2003 issues of “Chronicles—A Magazine of American Culture.” A strong appeal to Protestants to return to their former condemnation of contraception which was firmly based on the Scriptures and natural law. [opens a pdf file… scroll to p.19]

A lengthy article on the “Quiverfull” movement of evangelical Christians who refuse any attempt to regulate pregnancy. They argue that God, as the "Great Physician" and sole "Birth Controller," opens and closes the womb on a case-by-case basis. Women's attempts to control their own bodies -- the Lord's temple -- are a seizure of divine power.

Rev. Donald Sensing is pastor of the Trinity United Methodist Church in Franklin, Tennessee and in this article he argues that same-sex marriage will not cause the degeneration of the institution of marriage; it is the result of a degeneration, one that started with modern birth control.

This is an argument against contraception in strictly list format—a long list of Scripture verses and passages from the Early Church Fathers.

Dr. Donald DeMarco provides an excellent survey, useful for Catholics as well as Protestants, of the Catholic Church’s consistent and historical teaching on contraception.

Humanae Vitae
Humanae Vitae (Latin "Of Human Life") is an encyclical letter written by Pope Paul VI and published in 1968. Subtitled "On the Regulation of Birth", it re-affirms the traditional teaching of the Roman Catholic Church regarding abortion, contraception, and other issues pertaining to human life.

Canadian Law on Contraception 1892-1969

"Everyone is guilty of an indictable offense and liable to two years' imprisonment who knowingly, without lawful excuse of justification, offers to sell, advertises, publishes an advertisement of or has for sale or disposal of any medicine, drug or article intended or represented as a means of preventing conception or causing an abortion." (Section 179c of the 1892 Canadian Criminal Code)

Birth control was said to be obscene, "tending to corrupt morals." Unless an accused could prove that its advocacy had been "for the public good," he or she was liable to serve a 2-year jail sentence. Contraception was opposed by pro-natalist business, religious, and political interest groups. This law remained in effect until 1969, the same year that Canada legalized abortion.

American Law on Contraception 1873 to 1964

The "Comstock" Law, US Federal Law, passed unanimously in the United States Congress in 1873
"All persons are prohibited from importing into the United States, from any foreign country, any obscene book, pamphlet, paper, writing, advertisement, circular, print, picture, drawing, or other representation, figure, or image on or of paper or other material, or any cast, instrument, or other article of an immoral nature, or any drug or medicine, or any article whatever, for the prevention of conception, or for causing unlawful abortion. No invoice or package whatever, or any part of one, in which any such articles are contained shall be admitted to entry; and all invoices and packages whereof any such articles shall compose a part are liable to be proceeded against, seized, and forfeited by due course of law. All such prohibited articles in the course of importation shall be detained by the officer of customs, and proceedings taken against the same as prescribed in the following section: Provided, That the drugs hereinbefore mentioned, when imported in bulk and not put up for any of the purposes hereinbefore specified, are excepted from the operation of this section."

This was standing law of the United States of America until rejected by the Supreme Court in 1964, just eight years before Roe v. Wade.

Thursday, July 02, 2015

O'Reilly Factor Exposes Betrayal & Incompetence of US Catholic Bishops

Last evening I watched the O'Reilly Factor and at the beginning of the show Bill O'Reilly lead off as usual with his talking points. He revealed that Catholic Bishops were given multiple opportunities over time to come on his show and discuss the traditional case for marriage in light of the same sex "marriage" case before the Supreme Court.

Not one Bishop was willing to come on the program to defend God's plan and purpose for marriage.

Unbelievable. Just unbelievable.

UPDATE: Check my follow up posting on a subsequent related video by Michael Voris.



Wednesday, July 01, 2015

Gay Apostasy Subverts And Paralyzes The Canadian Catholic Church

Ottawa homosexual priest & U of Ottawa prof André Samson
Published today to SignOfContradiction.Blogspot.ca

In light of my last posting, readers may find the following article, now almost 20 years old, to be quite illuminating. It is simply another small piece of a very large puzzle picturing a sad history of apostasy amongst the Canadian Bishops. It could be an accompanying piece to Michael Voris' recent Vortex entitled Gay Knights and Damned Bishops.

P.S. Ottawa priest Andre Samson, pictured on left, recently caused scandal with his criticism of Cardinal Burke.

UPDATED: The Vox expands on and updates this posting. Interesting commentary.
_____________________________________________________

Treason Of The Clerics 
Subtitled: Gay Apostasy Subverts And Paralyzes The Canadian Catholic Church

By Joseph K. Woodard
w/ permission

Alberta Report, July 8, 1996


One of the mysteries surrounding the speedy passage of Bill C-33, the "sexual orientation" clause to the Canada Human Rights Act, is the near-silence of the Canadian Catholic Church in the debate. The Vatican defines homosexual behaviour as an "objective moral disorder" and has opposed repeatedly the very idea of "gay rights." The Church's silence in 1996 was a marked change from 1994, when the robust opposition of Ontario bishops was instrumental in defeating the NDP provincial government's own homosexual rights bill. Now a possible--and shocking--explanation has surfaced. It is now known that the Canadian Catholic hierarchy made its own peace with the radical homosexual agenda in 1992, when in a settlement of sexual abuse claims made against Ontario monks, it recognized homosexual "spousal benefits."

Despite Justice Minister Allan Rock's assurances to the contrary, C-33 will soon result in the complete elimination of legal distinctions heterosexual marriages and homosexual liaisons. And so the relative uninterest of the Canadian bishops in this crippling blow to the legitimacy of the traditional family has not gone unnoticed. Indeed, Bishop James Wingle of Yarmouth, a C-33 opponent, has condemned the "false impression" that his colleagues had actually supported the legislation.

It is true that no Canadian bishop actually endorsed C-33. But of the more than 50 Anglophone bishops, only a handful stood firmly against the bill. And when representatives of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB)--the church bureaucracy--appeared before the House Justice Committee on May 2, they effectively sabotaged what little opposition Canada's prelates had mustered.

When C-33 was announced, Vancouver Archbishop Adam Exner issued a statement demanding the law continue to protect "the conscience rights of Canadians morally opposed to homosexual behaviour," and "allow employers to make non-practice of homosexual activity a bona fide occupational qualification." Yet on May 2, when homosexual MP Svend Robinson questioned CCCB general-secretary Doug Crosby about that statement, the priest could only stammer an incoherent denial of Bishop Exner's position. The CCCB delegation also repudiated the Vatican's 1992 statement on homosexuality. (See story, page 31.)

"It was pathetic," objects Sylvia MacEachern, of Ottawa's traditionalist St. Brigid's Association. "Here was Canada's most infamous gay MP, the only one quoting the Church's teaching, and when he asked the representatives of the Canadian Church whether they agreed with it, they were tongue-tied." In her response to Mr. Robinson, Father Crosby's colleague, Jennifer Leddy, could only beg him, as a "serious advocate for human rights," to "give us a chance to participate constructively," since "we want to participate."

Apologists for the Canadian Catholic hierarchy say the speed with which C-33 was rammed through Parliament made any strong resistance impossible. But the capitulation of the Catholic bureaucracy to the gay rights agenda was in April, when New Brunswick Senator Noel Kinsella introduced his "sexual orientation" Bill S-2. The CCCB was offered the opportunity to make a submission against it to the Senate but declined.

Furthermore, the Liberal government has been promising to bring in such legislation since 1993, and renewed its promise last winter. Yet the national church office did nothing.

National bishops' conferences are a modern innovation. In 1964, when episcopal collegiality was discussed at the Second Vatican Council, the venerable Cardinal Oddi quipped that he could find only one biblical citation for the notion, the time during Christ's passion when "they all fled." By 1985, Vatican theology watchdog Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger was warning of the "burdensome bureaucratic structures" of the national offices. They have "no theological basis" and "do not belong to the structure of the church," he insisted. Each bishop has complete authority in his diocese and is subject only to the pope. But the national conferences, however, allow the majority of the bishops to hide in anonymity.

The CCCB's General Secretariat employs just under 100 people in a half-dozen commissions, with a budget of roughly $4.5 million. Its functionaries deal directly with their opposite numbers in the local dioceses, and thus they control information flow in the Canadian Church. The secretariat is under the nominal governance of an executive committee--this year led by Kingston Archbishop Francis Spence. But the election of full-time directors falls to its periodic "plenary sessions," dependent on the "guidance" of the existing directors.

"Individual bishops have great difficulty in freeing themselves from the national conference," says Monsignor Vincent Foy, a Toronto canon lawyer. "They're afraid their authority can be undercut at any moment. It's a great burden on the Church. But the Holy See is now preparing a document on the problem."

While lack of accountability is the "iron rule" of bureaucracy, the CCCB's "gay-friendliness" is the result of personalities. In the 1980s, Father Doug Crosby, who was appointed CCCB general-secretary, was pastor of Ottawa's St. Joseph's Church. This parish was jocularly referred to "St. Joe's by the Whirlpool," because of the party tub in its rectory. St. Joseph's became home to the Ottawa chapter of Dignity, the homosexual fifth column within the Catholic Church. Special pews were reserved for Dignity members at the church's noon masses.

Gay or gay-sympathetic priests tend to form a solid, cohesive block within the church, observes Michael McCarthy, a retired priest from the diocese of Saskatoon. "They have such an enormous potential to create embarrassment with their dirty little secrets, the bishops won't stand up to them."

While the number of homosexuals in the Canadian Catholic priesthood is unknown, it is known they have a particular interest in seminaries, where new priests are formed. On the eve of Pope John Paul II's visit to Canada in 1984, Emmett Cardinal Carter, then-archbishop of Toronto, ordered a clean-up of his St. Augustine's Seminary. "Students in the residence could hear other seminarians padding up and down the halls at night, and everybody knew what was going on," says one Toronto-area priest, who wishes to remain anonymous. The obvious theological dissidents were fired, but the previous graduates were already worming their way through the Canadian hierarchy.

An investigation into St. Augustine's found no evidence of homosexual behaviour. That investigation, however, was led by the then-bishop of London, Ont., Marcel Gervais. Bishop Gervais subsequent career has revealed him to be one of Canada's foremost gay-friendly clerics. He has since become Archbishop of Ottawa, sometime president of the CCCB, grand chancellor of Ottawa's dissident St. Peter's Seminary, and the ultimate superior--and protector--of its heterodox sexual ethicist, Fr. Andre Guindon. (See story, page 30.)

A just-published book, Who's in the Seminary, suggests that Canadian seminaries are still hothouses of homosexuality. St. Paul University professor Martin Rovers sent out 455 questionnaires to students at Canada's three major seminaries (St. Augustine's, London's St. Peter's, and Edmonton's St. Joseph's). Fully 25% of the 203 respondents claimed they were either gay, bisexual or unsure of their orientation. As with most self-reported surveys, the accuracy of Prof. Rovers data is open to question, yet it is certain that homosexual representation in Canadian seminaries is many times higher than the now-accepted figure of 1.5% to 3% for the population at large.

"The Catholic Church had a major problem with the retention of priests through the 1970s," says Pennsylvania State University sociologist Philip Jenkins, author of the major new study, Pedophiles and Priests. "So they let in a lot of guys they ought not to have." Many thousands of priests had left the North American churches after the tumultuous changes ushered in by the Second Vatican Council. Desperate for new vocations, seminaries relaxed intellectual and moral standards. According to Prof. Jenkins, many homosexuals have been ordained since then, resulting in "the gay movement becoming solidly entrenched in the Canadian hierarchy." He cautions, however, not to confuse the issues of homosexuality and pedophilia. "If you look dispassionately at the figures, priestly pedophiles run maybe two per thousand, about the same as the rest of the population," says Prof. Jenkins, an Episcopalian.

The perception of a pedophilia crisis was created both by a hostile media and by the division between conservative and liberal Catholics, says Prof. Jenkins. The former blamed homosexuality, and the latter, celibacy. "In fact, the figures indicate that there is no Catholic pedophilia problem, so it's not caused by celibacy." Most of the recent school and choir scandals have not been pedophilia, with prepubescent victims. Rather, they've involved 14-or 15-year-old boys--which is classic homosexuality. That problem, Prof. Jenkins repeats, arose from poor recruiting and later, subversive networking among gay priests.

Ironically, it is the worst homosexual scandal in Canadian history that has cemented the power of gay network within the Church. The Christian Brothers, a lay Catholic order, was for decades under contract to the government of Ontario to run reform schools at Alfred, near Ottawa, and Uxbridge, near Toronto. These schools may have seen some 500 to 1000 cases of physical and sexual abuse, from the 1960s through the early 1980s. When this abuse became public in 1990, a victim's group, Helpline, hired Toronto lawyer Roger Tucker to pursue their claims. Mr. Tucker approached long-time liberal-Catholic functionary Doug Roche, to mediate. Mr. Roche, a powerful Church fixer for three decades, was the founding editor of the Western Catholic Reporter, and a former MP and Canadian disarmament ambassador. He was then also Mr. Tucker's father-in-law. His mediation proved agreeable to the Ottawa Christian Brothers and the Toronto and Ottawa archdioceses. (The Toronto Christian Brothers have refused to endorse Mr. Tucker's efforts. They are pursuing a separate compensation arrangement with abuse survivors).

By 1992, Mr. Roche had completed an agreement whereby validated abuse claimants would receive some $20,000 each and keep silent about their abusers' identities. Yet by 1996, says negotiator Mike Watters, the claimants had received an average of only $12,000 each, Mr. Tucker had pocketed $750,000, and more than $10 million had been spent in administrative costs. Mr. Roche's fee remained secret. Even more interesting, Mr. Roche or one of his colleagues slipped a curious little clause into the agreement, one that was not noticed until years later.

"If you want to know why the bishops didn't fight Bill C-33 and argue the case against gay marriages, check out the reform school agreement," says journalist Michael Harris, author of Unholy Orders, an account of the Mount Cashel Orphanage scandal. The agreement with the Christian Brothers' victims provides for dental, medical, educational, and counselling benefits to victims, their family members, and those "in a close personal relationship that others recognize is of primary importance in both persons' lives." This, claims Mr. Harris, constitutes the Canadian Catholic Church's recognition of gay spousal benefits.

It is unclear whether Ottawa's Bishop Gervais or Toronto's Bishop Ambrozic knew about the "personal relationship" clause in 1994, when both vocally opposed the Ontario gay rights bill. But by 1996, "I think the bishops knew it was there, and Svend [Robinson] knew it was there," suggests Mr. Harris. Bishop Gervais remained silent during the C-33 debate, and Bishop Ambrozic, normally the "pit bull" of the conservative Canadian bishops, merely distributed a summary of the lacklustre CCCB statement.

For whatever reason, dissident former priest and theologian Gregory Baum is glad the Canadian bishops ducked Bill C-33. "I don't think the Church has any business saying this is okay or this isn't okay." he says. "This was not a church wedding the government was debating, but a human right."

While Canada's Catholic heretics are pleased with the C-33 resolution, the orthodox are appalled. "The Catholic Church isn't a foreign institution," says Toronto lawyer David Brown, vice-president of the Catholic Civil Rights League. "Canada is founded upon a vision of the human being, grounded in religion. And if the country loses that vision, it risks self-destruction."



Tuesday, June 30, 2015

March For Life Gives Cover for Charlatans

Published today to SignOfContradiction.Blogspot.ca

It’s been a signal week watching the intersection of religion and politics taking place. I’m referring specifically to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on so-called “gay” so-called “marriage” as well as Pope Francis’ encyclical “Laudato Si.” These two landmark events have left many traditional minded Christians feeling hopeless and apprehensive about the future.

Whether we recognize it or not the actions or inactions of the Successors of Christ’s Apostles have a predominant effect on the direction of world affairs and the human attainment of abundant living.
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. Matthew 18:18
In May past I attended the March For Life in Ottawa. For me it bordered on surreal. On the one hand a crowd of 25,000 protestors is immensely impressive. I’m normally used to only one protestor when I go out with my signage, so it was quite overwhelming to be swallowed up by an ocean of like-minded pro-lifers. On the other hand it’s an event which takes place only once a year in a nation comprised of about 35 million souls. About 23 million of these are Christians, comprising about 13 million self-identified Catholics and the remainder Protestants.

Even if we leave the Protestants (as well as an equal number of non-Christians) altogether out of the equation, a shocking picture begins to emerge. Catholic teaching affirms abortion to be nothing less than the premeditated murder of the most vulnerable and innocent members of Canadian society and that makes it to be an altogether heinous crime, all the more inconceivable when we reflect on the scale of its everyday practice in Canada. It seems a very poor annual showing indeed for a group representing 13 million people who are convinced that defenceless human beings are slaughtered daily in cities across Canada with the sanction of government. If you’ve got only one day per year to let your voice be heard by government, this year’s March For Life represents a pitiful yelp rather than a roaring stampede, statistically at least.

What explains this depressing and altogether inadequate display of indifference? What must the little victims of this Canada wide holocaust think of this insufferable national response?

Unquestionably, the answer lies with the moral character of our national leaders and the spiritual formation of their flocks. I focus on the Catholic leadership, specifically the Bishops, because they are ordained the salt (according to Christ Himself) of their society to accomplish the works of God, the prime directive being the salvation of souls and adherence to the laws and commands of Christ.
"You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt has become tasteless, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled under foot by men. Matthew 5:13
During more than forty years of state sanctioned murder they have utterly failed to salt the consciences of their people with the commands of Christ and the teachings of His Church. They have thereby failed to salt society in righteousness and as a consequence failed also to protect the lives of the least of their brethren.
Then He will answer them, 'Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.' Matthew 25:45
And yet, prolife organizers and marchers celebrate the few Bishops who show up at the March each year, showering them with respect and admiration for their bold stand for life. Do they deserve such praise?

I say, emphatically, “No” if they have proved themselves to be charlatans. And charlatans they are, quite possibly down to the last man. These are the men who have overseen the rise of a false religion these last fifty years, replacing the one true Faith with a counterfeit and schismatic version, one based upon their “magical” version of the Eucharist, rather than upon the mystery of the Eucharist as defined by Mother Church.
Thanks to the negligence, or perhaps simply the spiritual darkness, of too many Canadian Bishops, regardless of the moral conduct or spiritual disposition of vast numbers of renegade "Catholics", attendance at Mass and mere reception of Holy Communion is assumed to magically confer absolution for even the gravest sins and satisfy all of God's significant imperatives for the Catholic. [Open Letter to the Catholic Bishops of Canada]
This is a shocking statement indeed, but let me be clear: In saying this I make no attack upon the Eucharist. It is the Bishops whose actions bring not only disgrace but violence as well to the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. If indeed the Eucharist is the source and summit of the Christian life—which it is—then any perversion or corruption of it constitutes the most egregious and contemptible of offences.

Bishops have failed to warn or teach sinners to be circumspect in regard to their spiritual disposition before reception of Holy Communion. As a natural consequence, or at least simultaneously, the sacrament of Confession has “conveniently” fallen into disuse.
Along these same lines, the Catechism of the Catholic Church rightly stipulates that “anyone conscious of a grave sin must receive the sacrament of Reconciliation before coming to communion”. I therefore desire to reaffirm that in the Church there remains in force, now and in the future, the rule by which the Council of Trent gave concrete expression to the Apostle Paul's stern warning when it affirmed that, in order to receive the Eucharist in a worthy manner, “one must first confess one's sins, when one is aware of mortal sin”. ECCLESIA DE EUCHARISTIA
Yes, in Canada, with few exceptions, any and all may join the Communion line and receive the King of Kings regardless of the objective condition of their souls. No counsel is provided to protect those in grave sin from God’s judgment or our Lord Jesus Christ from sacrilege and profanation. Nor is any effort made by clergy to curb this outrage; no timely mention or definition of grave (mortal) sin is provided at the correct moment during the Mass, either by oral or written word. In too many cases no mention of grave sin occurs in any Church setting whatever. Conveniently, no conscience can be pricked by sin in a vacuum.

It seems an unbelievable failure but simple observation confirms the truth. In practice, being baptized and showing up at Mass appear to be the all-sufficient criteria for reception of the Eucharist. Clearly, the Bishops do not believe in warning the sinner of danger, perhaps because they themselves believe there is no danger. Whatever the reason, this is a dangerous denial of the truth of Sacred Scripture and Tradition. Because the Bishops make no distinction in sin it means no one has to judge what is serious sin and what is not. And since all moral judgments, and especially judgments respecting sin, are suspended, Bishops and Priests are freed entirely from having to deal with the messy subject of personal sins, contraception particularly.

What are some of the consequences for such thinking? If sin is ultimately not an obstacle to Holy Communion wouldn’t everybody get to go to heaven? If the right to Communion ultimately depends on my good intentions or my claim to be Catholic or my "clear" conscience then it does not depend on my obedience to Christ: “If ye love me keep my commandments.” Ultimately then it must not depend on any objective criteria (e.g. the Magisterium) outside of myself. Such dangerous thinking is a heresy and equivalent to the Protestant practice of “private judgment.” Imagine the consequences to a local community when a parish contributes a regular diet of such pseudo-catholic leaven.

On rare occasions when Bishops do highlight and provide guidelines for Confession, only a short form examination of conscience is provided and such guidelines conveniently ignore some of the most profound and pervasive sins of the day, most especially the practice of contraception, but also divorce, cohabitation, premarital sex, masturbation, adultery, sodomy, pornography, etc. Once again, Catholics are left to assume the best about the condition of their souls because their shepherds raise no red flags at all. This is spiritual formation by omission and neglect and it is downright evil.

These charlatans are content to remain silent while they watch Catholics rise from their seats in wave after wave, knowing full well that according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, a great many of them who are living in an objective state of mortal sin due to regular participation in intrinsically evil behaviour and perversions are about to partake of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. It is impossible to consider these men anything but wolves and hirelings. It is impossible to believe that any priest in union with the Holy Trinity and witnessing such an imminent sacrilege could be anything other than horrified and compelled immediately to shout out a warning to all present, even if so doing put his life at risk. Yet Mass after Mass, day after day, year after year, Bishops and their Priests remain silent while “he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself…” A few wise words at the right moment could save the souls of countless Catholics yet traitorous tongues remain silent. The only explanation for such behaviour is that unbelief and the lies of demons have overtaken the hearts of these unworthy leaders.

Certainly Catholic Bishops have no right whatsoever, by design or default, to engineer such repeated abuse and desecration of the Eucharist. But they certainly do have a duty to protect the Eucharist at every opportunity. May we defend their actions with the argument for prudential judgment? Not unless we can also justify contempt for Jesus Christ and hatred towards fellow human beings. Such an argument would be an obfuscation and entirely disingenuous.  Indeed, God calls upon all men to practice prudence particularly in the weightier decisions they are called upon to make. I think most all Catholics are willing to, and in fact do, give their clergy the benefit of the doubt in this regard. However in the name of prudential judgment Bishops simply do not have the freedom to deny or distort Catholic teaching or Canon law.

Shockingly these pseudo-catholic leaders persist in an adversarial relationship with the Catechism of the Catholic Church (and with much of Catholic tradition) and it suits their pick-and-choose fashion to allow the covers of that priceless book to gather as much dust as possible. In the name of “conscience” and “kindness” they prefer to embrace “alternate views” and “more nuanced” teachings on many matters treated by the Catechism. This may explain why you’ve probably never heard the Catechism referenced in a homily by a priest or Bishop or never actually seen a copy of the Catechism lying about your Church building. If, perchance, any of our current hierarchy in Canada are innocent of the charges of heresy they will surely find hell to be only very slightly cooler than their slightly more evil brethren because not one of them to my knowledge has summoned the courage to break ranks and warn sinners accordingly or defend the Eucharist from regular desecration. On the other hand, when an orthodox voice is raised the Bishops act quickly to silence the truth when they have the power to do so.   

Strictly on the basis of such criminal activity as described, the Bishops of Canada are guilty of a gross perversion of the true Catholic faith and have corrupted their heavenly calling as Successors of the Apostles.

This grave misrepresentation of the Catholic faith not only dishonors faithful Catholics but scandalizes the entire Christian community in Canada, many of whom are forced to conclude that Catholicism is but another cultish enemy of the true Christian faith.

Faithful Catholics—and by that term I mean those Catholics whose aim is to live fully in the light of the Magisterium, i.e. the teachings of Christ—may not fully appreciate the scandalous effects that the lifestyles of renegade Catholics have upon other serious minded Christians. When I refer to “serious minded” I mean those that believe in a conversion experience with Christ and who treat sin as the very serious issue their tradition demands. Generally speaking these Christians would self describe as Evangelicals.

Why then would such Christians see the Catholic faith as a cultish enemy? Because they immediately recognize that the pseudo-catholic cult sustained by the Bishops is a misrepresentation of the Christian concepts of sin and grace. Sin has been turned on its head since the nature and consequences of sin are made to be of little significance. God’s judgment for sin was the death of His sinless Son yet Catholics may approach and commune with Christ regardless of sin’s mark upon the soul. Grace is cheapened and personal accountability washes away in this antinomian perversion. Instead of a Christian’s maturing hatred for sin there is an increased tolerance for sin. Ungodly, even devilish behaviour, is rewarded with the blessing of God through affirmation of the Bishops. The Christian’s call to constant conversion and to perfection is short circuited. The line between good and evil, heaven and hell is hopelessly blurred.

In fact, the Bishops have unleashed upon Canada a formidable army of pseudo-catholic renegades, missionaries of a parallel church, sending them into every corner and level of society, leavening Canada with a worldview antithetical to the Gospel and to the common good. Tragically these misguided and confused souls, including politicians, lawyers, professors, educators, etc. do tremendous damage to society while being confirmed in their actions by a lifetime of "faithfully" receiving the Holy Eucharist. In concert with the dissenting, heretical Bishops of our day, these renegade “catholics” have been on the front lines for decades foisting legal recognition of divorce, contraception, abortion, homosexuality and same sex “marriage” upon the rest of society.

Thus have the Bishops shown a callous disregard for the souls under their care and an entire nation has been led astray by the example of renegade Catholics who, though largely ignorant of the Moral Law of God, have advanced to prominent roles and led the charge to secularize Canadian society. The salt has become tasteless. “It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled under foot by men.” Our Bishops have entirely disqualified themselves from ministry and ought to resign immediately.

Granted the Bishops were hard hit by the priestly sex abuse scandals. No doubt many of them feel that they have lost their moral authority. But that is no reason or excuse whatever for abdication or compromising their role and responsibility as Successors of Christ. Leading their flocks to the abyss of hell is a far greater crime than even the sexual abuse of minors. Govern, teach, and sanctify as ordained by God or RESIGN and make way for worthy bishops.

This massive scandal exposes a grave flaw also in the thinking and strategies of the pro-life movement in Canada. The “pro-life” cause is, and always has been, an integral component of a Christian defense of the dignity and rights of all human beings and this movement is centred, not in the laity, but in the calling of the Apostles to teach and preach the whole counsel of God. The laity courageously picked it up when Bishops and their Priests laid it down yet it is a work which cannot be successful in any significant measure under the primary leadership of laity. I believe time has borne out this truth. It is past time for laity to channel their outrage not only at fellow Canadians on Parliament Hill once a year but every day in front of chanceries and cathedrals throughout our nation insisting:

EITHER…

that Bishops confess their sins, adhere in word and practice completely to the Oath of Fidelity, remain open to the judgment of laity in this regard, and undertake a drastic change of program in catechesis aimed at spiritual formation of the faithful in total conformity with the Church's teaching,

OR…

RESIGN.              

Bishops must (re)discover that the laity are qualified to speak in this area and that Bishops will be held responsible for their failures and infidelities (and not only by a blogger here and there on the Internet). Ideally, some body of laity must serve as a watchdog to the Bishops; a group that could muster significant credibility and one that has one or more Bishops on side. This is a crucial strategy for pro-lifers and Catholic laity in general and they must lock arms only with Bishops who prove themselves to be authentic Apostles of Christ. “Nice guy” Bishops who are willing once a year to accept accolades for showing up at a March for Life while constantly failing in their duties throughout the year must not be given a platform.  

_____________________________________________

Some related postings from Contra|Diction blog:

Local Women Who Run Baby Killing Centre Received Eucharist At St. Teresa's Parish