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.

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.

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:


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,



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

Tuesday, June 09, 2015

The Political Calculus Of Too Many Catholic Bishops

"It isn't enough for a bishop, or priest for that matter, to be a privately orthodox prelate — not in the face of the evil threatening his sheep these days. He must say all that needs to be said. He needs to have the fortitude to stand in front of the sheep and say in no uncertain terms everything they don't want to hear." Michael Voris


Canada's Catholic Bishops have adopted this calculus almost universally and the result of their silence and omission has been the creation of a pseudo-catholic culture in our nation, you might even term it the rise of a "parallel" church.

Wednesday, June 03, 2015

FLASHBACK: It’s Not The Homosex, Stupid

Here’s an article I wrote in 2008, as commentary on a disturbing trend. It's still very much relevant, if not more so. You may like the way in which it accounts for the intersections of various crises in today’s culture wars. (Or you may not!)

It’s Not The Homosex, Stupid

With all due respect to savvy Mark Steyn who quipped “It’s the Demography, Stupid,” I wish Steyn would have pushed back for us the curtain of Western society’s bedroom a little further in order to give us a glimpse of the smirking elephant in the closet. Heaven knows we desperately need a paradigm shift in our thinking about sexual “freedom” in the bedroom.

Is it my imagination or do you notice that a great many “conservative” culture warriors—individuals and organizations, Christians and otherwise—have taken to lobbing grenades at those promoting and engaging in homosex, making that the defining strategy, if not obsession, of their war? According to them, among the top threats to our civilization is the “homosexual” agenda.

So let me ask you. What would you think of drivers who ignored red lights but who regularly demonized speeding drivers as the real enemies on the road? Comical? Yes, but consider this. Heterosexuals who rail against homosex, which indeed is a particularly odious variation of sterile sex, are—with strikingly few exceptions—themselves egregiously addicted to their own pleasurable variety of sterile sex. Equally comical, of course, if you consider sterile sex per se to be in a league with dangerous behaviours such as running red lights.

But please don’t jump ship at this point. Hear me out. I know that our post modern society, parroting the relativism of its enlightened pulpiteers, considers this subject settled and entirely off limits. Any suggestion to re-open it is probably constituted an offense in itself—a possible relapse to a prudish repressive sexual ethic of Victorian times.

“But we believe in real marriage, the traditional kind, one man and one woman for life, and sex only in that context. That’s the correct standard because it’s God’s standard. A married man and woman can make their own decisions in good conscience about the kind of sex they engage in. It’s nobody else’s business.”

Indeed, that’s the claim, but tragically these days it rarely goes beyond a claim. For too many conservatives, yes, and Christians also, who normally relish opportunities to expose politically correct speech, the lack of reasoned debate and evasions of the truth, a remarkable about-turn takes place when the truth concerning sexual disorders gets a little too close to home.

Whoa there! Truth? Disorders? According to who?

Can it be a shock to the reader that throughout two millennia of Western civilization—as well as nearly two millennia of Jewish thought which preceded it—the moral consensus on sterile sex could be summed up like this: All sexual activity, both heterosexual and otherwise, practiced with a view to circumvent procreation constitutes a perversion of God’s order and an abomination.

Here we could take our pick of sources, from the Early Fathers through to Martin Luther, John Calvin, or any other reputable preacher, bible scholar or theologian, right up to the early and mid 1900’s. All—without exception—considered these acts as “a most unnatural wickedness, and a grievous wrong.”

Thus we had the American and Canadian laws which prohibited the sale and distribution of devices that aided in such perversity and which were not rescinded until the 1960’s. Thus we record the witness of some of Western society’s most public figures, such as U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt, who matter-of-factly labeled the practice of birth control as “the capital sin” against civilization.

But are such ideas peculiarly Western, or even Christian? A surprising number of non-Western cultures throughout history fully squared with Christian teaching on this point. Mahatma Ghandi, a world famous reformer and Hindu, condemned sterile heterosex as a corrupter of morals, a destroyer of marriage and a further degradation of women.

But regardless, truth—the old-fashioned objective kind—is no respecter of cultures and the fallout in our society from a denial of this particular truth has been debilitating. Take note of the Anglicans, the first Christian denomination to break rank with the faith of their fathers on this major doctrine. They formalized the opening of a Pandora’s Box in 1930 by allowing certain exceptions for sterile heterosex and are now being rent asunder by the practice of sterile homosex in the bedrooms of their Bishops. Coincidence?

The extreme break with Christian tradition represented by this acculturated disorder raises serious questions about just how much hostility towards God we have harbored this past generation or two. Some say our rejection of God—played out in this sexual arena—has so cursed our Western society as to account for not only our sex-crazed degeneracy but also family and marriage deformities and breakups, the abortion holocaust, dangerously higher quotas of immigration due to falling birthrates, the growing threat of Islam, the secularization phenomenon with its evil twin Christianophobia and a mounting civilizational self-loathing.

This is a hard pill for many to swallow. But can we admit this much at least: Steyn got it perfectly right when he prophesied the death of Western society due to reproductive sterility. Not for a moment did he suggest that even ten thousand new conferences and/or books on Islam, the tyranny of homosex, the battle for marriage and the family, secular humanism or Christophobia would save us. No, very clearly he stated that it was the question of birthrate which we have refused to address. That alone will cause our society to implode. Steyn put his finger on the precise nature of the problem. Likewise the solution, if it was any closer, might jump up and bite us.

The yearning of many contemporary Christians for a cultural fix through revivalist and “biblical” calls to repentance must also take the birthrate—and sterile heterosex—into account. Though some will contest the point, it must be admitted that any conversion wrought through the preaching of a Whitefield, Finney, et al will not only demand our hearts get right with God but will necessarily reinstitute cultural prohibitions and taboos supporting the age old and exegetically superior biblical interpretation of the sin of Onanism.

The very thought makes many shudder and some to say,

Surely, God, we can instead pay women to have babies, still hold on to our hard earned sexual “freedoms” and save our future. Otherwise, God, this is really going to hurt!

The suggestion that our future hinges on the abandonment of sterile heterosex is utterly disconcerting. It’s too much to grasp—let alone admit—that old fashioned traditional Western wisdom on sexuality was spot on.

But no, it was much more than that. It truly was a civilizational bulwark.

Preachers and pundits would do well then to cease from their various crusades against homosex, Islam, etc. in order to refocus their energies and resources to formulate a new strategy which targets the real enemy. By attacking the ideology and behaviour which is directly fuelling our demographic demise, our odds of making gains in this war are markedly improved.

Another point must be raised. The defense of current phony and lethal sexual “liberties” may be worthy of the label progressive but hardly worthy of the label conservative, and certainly unworthy of the name Christian, at least historically. Such perversions of true liberty were legitimized by the victories of yesteryear’s liberals yet they currently enslave us because they are defended by today’s “conservatives.” Conservatives must seriously examine their own complicity in the sterile sex agenda—which has aided in the destruction of society and has rightly identified them as co-conspirators—and be encouraged to instead stand in defense of established Western wisdom.

Conservatives must decide what it is that they are fighting to conserve. Indeed, what else deserves conservation, other than the collective wisdom and institutions central to Western thought and civilization? Isn’t this precisely why conservatives fight unhesitatingly against abortion, attacks on marriage, disintegration of family, pornography, lowering of morals, etc? Yet why have we not been fighting the one mortal enemy which Western wisdom has explicitly warned—in loudest fashion this past 100 years—would spawn precisely such an epidemic of evils? Sterile heterosex is a beguiling demon of tremendous significance and must be opposed with all our energies and by all possible means.

Instead, we have been trying to beef up our society in order to withstand the intense battering spawned by our own endorsement of sexual license: Educate about the radical homosexual agenda. Expose the dangers and tyranny of secular humanism. Equip Canadians to confront the threat of Islam. Bolster the family and marriage and fight those who attack it.

It’s like trying to engineer more impact resistant cars rather than require drivers to stop at red lights. At this stage, it seems we have even forgotten the red light is there, or perhaps by now we have removed it entirely from the intersection. Is it any wonder the “culture war” is being lost?

So yes, it is the behaviour and specifically it’s sterile sex—of all brands. With great courage, it needs to be identified as such, properly condemned and duly proscribed.

Which again brings us back to Steyn’s famous line and his sober closing:

It's the demography, stupid. And, if they can't muster the will to change course, then "What do you leave behind?" is the only question that matters.

Sunday, May 31, 2015

In Darkest Canada And The Way Out

Is Msgr. Vincent Foy the only honest senior cleric in Canada?

Msgr. Foy, a retired priest and canon lawyer of the Archdiocese of Toronto, was born in Toronto in 1915. Over these last fifty years of moral and doctrinal chaos in the Church in Canada he has fearlessly defended the teachings of the Magisterium and pointed the path to fidelity for all to tread. Many of my blog postings over the years have referenced his articles and dogged determination.

A few days ago Msgr. Foy completed a brilliant and comprehensive landmark posting on his blog entitled Saving the Church, which included the following preface:

At the present time, in many countries the Church is in grave danger because of the contraceptive mentality and many other evils. To save the Church, many reforms are necessary. I am listing some suggestions for this purpose.

He then proceeds under several headings, such as "Build a Culture of Life", Revive Parishes", "Provide Authentic Liturgy and Sacred Architecture", "Be Faithful and Orthodox" to identify the painful failures of the hierarchy and to unfold his suggested plan to save the Church.

There is no other way to say this:

No other senior Canadian cleric and, in particular, no Bishop, has accurately diagnosed the disease and prescribed the radical remedy for the pseudo-Catholic culture entrenched in Canada's society over this past half-century as has Msgr. Vincent Foy.

Considering the depth of the crisis implied and the role every Catholic Bishop must actively play to sustain it Msgr. Foy's shocking assessment is tantamount to declaring a wilful and wholesale apostasy of an entire generation or more of senior Catholic leaders in our nation. Such a charge calls into question the honesty and integrity of virtually every Catholic Bishop in Canada. Is there even one diocese in Canada where the faithful are exposed to anything resembling Msgr. Foy's remedy?

When will Catholics be outraged enough to adopt a sufficiently militant approach? After all, they have been deceitfully robbed, through a thousand lies, of their religion.

Sunday, April 12, 2015

Fr. Paul Nicholson: The Priesthood after Vatican II

Published today to SignOfContradiction.Blogspot.ca 

Very interesting insights from Fr. Paul Nicholson in a talk given two years ago in Tulsa, Oklahoma, republished yesterday to thSensus Fidelium YouTube account.
Canadians especially will find this video enlightening. Use this video to launch further into Fr. Nicholson's preaching/teaching ministry, maybe even join the Crackerjack Club.
Support Fr. Nicholson's missionary endeavours here.

Thursday, April 09, 2015

Bishops: Mind Your Own Store First

Published today to SignOfContradiction.Blogspot.ca

"Frankly, the Bishops who are engaged in all this need to mind their own stores first. They were not consecrated bishops and  given the roles of successors of the Apostles to be engaged in partisan political struggles, especially when their more progressive approach Catholics are not bound to follow. Mind your own store first. Your parishes are a wreck, your people are woefully ignorant of the faith, your clergy are deformed, your liturgies are circuses but you'll fight like hell on the issue of illegal immigration or the death penalty. Talk about straining a gnat and swallowing a camel."---Michael Voris

Bravo, Michael.

Friday, April 03, 2015

Ye Shall Be Hated Of All Men For My Name's Sake

And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.

Image: Peter Gertner, Wikimedia Commons

Indiana And Gay Wedding Cakes at Muslim Bakeries

Published today to SignOfContradiction.Blogspot.ca

Steven Crowder does a nice job on the gay conniption fit over the recent Indiana and Arkansas bills.

Our own Premier Wynne weighed in on the controversy with a totally predictable response.

I tweeted out my call to Cardinal Collins to intervene (or will he continue his silence?)

P.S. Brian Lilley has a great summary of the state of Religious Freedom in the West, right here on this video.

Tuesday, March 31, 2015

Satan Wages War In Archdiocese Of San Francisco

"Mean old conservative priests hurt feelings of parishioners." So explains Michael Voris.

Archbishop Salvator Cordileone, a #GoToBishop who himself is facing a huge firestorm, must pass judgment on the priests accused by their parishioners.