The blog of a group of Filipino Catholics and their frank commentary on anything that affects their lives as a citizen of the Philippines and as a Roman Catholics.
Showing posts with label dissidents silent apostasy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label dissidents silent apostasy. Show all posts
Thursday, July 21, 2011
A time when Knighthood really matters!
Please don't ask me. I am at the end of my patience with how the Supreme Council is taking all these things sitting down.
Friday, July 15, 2011
Re-evangelization of Europe begins
Vatican City, Jul 12, 2011 / 02:39 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- The Pontifical Council for Promoting New Evangelization unveiled a new project today to re-evangelize some of Europe’s major cities.
“The goal is simple: to give a sign of unity among the diverse dioceses present in the largest European cities that have been particularly affected by secularization,” wrote Archbishop Rino Fisichella, the council’s president, in the July 12 edition of the Vatican newspaper L’Osservatore Romano.
Archbishop Fisichella chaired a summit of bishops from a range of European cities who met at the Vatican July 11 to discuss the proposed project.
The bishops came from Barcelona, Budapest, Brussels, Cologne, Dublin, Lisbon, Liverpool, Paris, Turin, Warsaw and Vienna. The scheme is being described as a “metropolitan project.” [the choice of cities is really telling.]
“At the moment, the initiative is limited to some of the larger European dioceses in order to more concretely test its effectiveness,” said Archbishop Fisichella, suggesting that it could be rolled out in other cities around the globe if it is found to be successful.
The initiative will take place in Lent 2012 and will be based at each city’s cathedral, which will host a range of activities. [Like how parish missions were done before especially after the French Revolution.]
Events planned thus far are: a continual reading of the Gospel, the local bishop teaching young people, families and those converting to Catholicism, the promotion of confession, and a charitable initiative of some form. Archbishop Fisichella also mentioned an event that will be both spiritual and cultural in character, such as reading from the Confessions of St. Augustine. [And I hope more solemn liturgical celebration and enough of those Meal / Fellowship trash!]
“These initiatives will begin in the cathedral because of its important symbolic significance, but the intention is to extend them to the parishes of the dioceses for a more direct impact in the territory,” he said.
According to Archbishop Fisichella, the metropolitan missions will be aimed at those who live the faith but often do so in a way that “lacks an awareness of how this can infuse their lifestyle.” [like some priests and nuns I know, Ha!] The missions also hope to engage those who are far from the faith, but are “nonetheless attracted by the person of Jesus Christ.” [Well, fprget the atheist. They are angier at Christ than any religious figure, like Mohammad because they are too chicken to criticize the 'prophet'. Bah!]
The Pontifical Council for Promoting the New Evangelization was established in 2010 by Pope Benedict XVI. He said he wanted it to “promote a renewed evangelization” in traditionally Christian countries which are living through a “progressive secularization of society and a sort of ‘eclipse of the sense of God.’”
***
We have blogged before how the liturgy can bring people closer to God and how it can even drive them afar.
We encounter the Divine through the Liturgy and if we just rediscover our Catholic heritage and most especially our Faith through the Liturgy (lex orandi, lex credendi), then we will see the rebirth dreamt of at the start of Vatican II.
Well, not the circus that followed it.
“The goal is simple: to give a sign of unity among the diverse dioceses present in the largest European cities that have been particularly affected by secularization,” wrote Archbishop Rino Fisichella, the council’s president, in the July 12 edition of the Vatican newspaper L’Osservatore Romano.
Archbishop Fisichella chaired a summit of bishops from a range of European cities who met at the Vatican July 11 to discuss the proposed project.
The bishops came from Barcelona, Budapest, Brussels, Cologne, Dublin, Lisbon, Liverpool, Paris, Turin, Warsaw and Vienna. The scheme is being described as a “metropolitan project.” [the choice of cities is really telling.]
“At the moment, the initiative is limited to some of the larger European dioceses in order to more concretely test its effectiveness,” said Archbishop Fisichella, suggesting that it could be rolled out in other cities around the globe if it is found to be successful.
The initiative will take place in Lent 2012 and will be based at each city’s cathedral, which will host a range of activities. [Like how parish missions were done before especially after the French Revolution.]
Events planned thus far are: a continual reading of the Gospel, the local bishop teaching young people, families and those converting to Catholicism, the promotion of confession, and a charitable initiative of some form. Archbishop Fisichella also mentioned an event that will be both spiritual and cultural in character, such as reading from the Confessions of St. Augustine. [And I hope more solemn liturgical celebration and enough of those Meal / Fellowship trash!]
“These initiatives will begin in the cathedral because of its important symbolic significance, but the intention is to extend them to the parishes of the dioceses for a more direct impact in the territory,” he said.
According to Archbishop Fisichella, the metropolitan missions will be aimed at those who live the faith but often do so in a way that “lacks an awareness of how this can infuse their lifestyle.” [like some priests and nuns I know, Ha!] The missions also hope to engage those who are far from the faith, but are “nonetheless attracted by the person of Jesus Christ.” [Well, fprget the atheist. They are angier at Christ than any religious figure, like Mohammad because they are too chicken to criticize the 'prophet'. Bah!]
The Pontifical Council for Promoting the New Evangelization was established in 2010 by Pope Benedict XVI. He said he wanted it to “promote a renewed evangelization” in traditionally Christian countries which are living through a “progressive secularization of society and a sort of ‘eclipse of the sense of God.’”
***
We have blogged before how the liturgy can bring people closer to God and how it can even drive them afar.
We encounter the Divine through the Liturgy and if we just rediscover our Catholic heritage and most especially our Faith through the Liturgy (lex orandi, lex credendi), then we will see the rebirth dreamt of at the start of Vatican II.
Well, not the circus that followed it.
Saturday, July 2, 2011
More US Episcopalians moving to the Catholic Church
From Fox News
***
The Rev. Mark Lewis now offers a prayer every Sunday morning that centuries ago would have been considered an homage to the enemy. It's a prayer for the bishop of Rome, the pope and all the Catholic bishops and priests. [Are our dissident theologians even doing this? Can't help myself. Gotta squeeze that in. Ha!]
Lewis chants, "For Benedict our Pope ... Let us prayer to the Lord."
And the congregation sings its answer, "Lord, have mercy."
The distinctly Roman Catholic offering is the outward sign of an inner spiritual journey. St. Luke's Church in Bladensburg, Md., will become later this year the first American Episcopal Parish to convert to Catholicism, Anglicanism's one-time nemesis. [And Bingo was his name-o!]
"What really drew us was the apostolic authority, the oneness of the faith of the people," Lewis said "That's what we really wanted, and I don't think you have that in Anglicanism."
Ironically, what is driving St. Luke's to Roman Catholicism is what split the church in the first place: the issue of authority. [The very same issue that theologians in MST, SVST and Euntes are raising yet the Episcopalians are being drawn to. Ironic, eh, Dr. Jose de Mesa?]
Nearly 500 years ago, Britain’s King Henry VIII broke with Rome in a dispute involving his wish to divorce his wife, Catherine of Aragon, and marry his young mistress, Anne Boleyn. [It was not an issue of authority. It was an issue of Henry wanting to produce an heir. This is not a doctrinal or moral matter. Marriage is the issue. Henry wanted divorce which is against what Christ said.]
A showdown forced England's clergy to choose sides, with the king demanding to know if the British bishops and Cardinals were more loyal to him or to the Pope. [Which is the same issue that the Communist Party in China are using against bishops and priests loyal to Rome.]
Lives and heads were literally lost in the ensuing theological and political clash. [Like Sts Thomas More and John Fisher, which ironically, the Church of England honors.] In its wake, The Church of England was born, with the sitting monarch as its head, a structure still in place today.
The American version, the Episcopal church, was the faith of many of the founding fathers, including President George Washington. [a high ranking Mason.]
Today, the Episcopal Church, with nearly 1.5 million members, is one of thousands of Christian denominations in the U.S. Its recent conflicts over the ordination of gays and women and the blessing of same-sex unions have caused some congregations to seek more conservative branches. [Issues which liberals in Europe, in America and in some quarters here in the Philippines wanted.]
But that was not an option for St. Luke's. Lewis says he felt that the same problem would persist. There was no authority concerning who would have the final interpretation of scripture over the most controversial issues the church is facing. [No final authority. Issues which these dissident theologians in MST, SVST and Euntes raise. They challenge the authority of the Pope so those who listen to them, well, will only follow their teaching. They hate the authority of the Church so they can be the AUTHORITY.]
"Anglicanism is Anglicanism," Lewis said. "So it doesn't matter if you go to a more conservative group like the Anglican Church in North America or any of the others that are around. It's still the faith of this body here. (It) doesn’t necessarily mean it's the same in Nigeria or Sierra Leone or any other outlet."
In 2009, Pope Benedict XVI created a special Ordinariate, a path through which Anglicans could reconcile with Rome and come back to the Roman Catholic flock. In some circles it's been called the religious equivalent of sheep stealing. [Did he grab them? The lost sheep went back to the fold, instead.]
The Rev. Scott Hurd, who's assisting Washington's Cardinal Donald Wuerl to create the new Anglican Ordinariate, disagrees with the implication, saying, "This initiative is a response to repeated and insistent requests from Anglican groups. So it's not a matter of stealing sheep. It's more a matter of opening the door for people who have been seeking to come in for some time." [Like what I stated.]
In the last few years, bitter legal battles over property have erupted in the American Episcopal church when conservative congregations sought to leave and be led by more orthodox Anglicans groups. But St. Luke's transition was essentially given a blessing by the Washington Diocese's Bishop John Bryson Chane.
"Christians move from one church to another with far greater frequency than in the past, sometimes as individuals, sometimes as groups," Chane said in a written statement. "I was glad to be able to meet the spiritual needs of the people and priest of St. Luke's in a way that respects the tradition and polity of both of our churches."
Under the terms of the agreement, St. Luke's congregation will have three years to either buy its current building or move elsewhere.
That especially pleases its 100 members, who are mostly West African immigrants like Gloria Deigh, from Sierra Leone.
Deigh is happy to convert, saying, "I like it. To me, it's like going home. That's where the original church was. We are all one."
Parishioner Randy King says for him the conversion brings needed certainty.
"We have a church that doesn't change. [Oh my. MST, SVST and Euntes would call this "being stuck in the past." "too medieval"...] We don't have to worry one day or the other what is going to be said from the pulpit." [This is happening also in our Masses, right? I think they'll be safe since they will be in the Ordinariate and not in any of the kumbaya parishes we have.]
Over the next few months, members of St. Luke's will attend catechism classes to learn more about the Catholic faith and the its doctrines. [This is such a blessing since we do not have this in our parishes nowadays, right? If you do, please state your name and parish and the schedule of Catechism classes.] Then in October they will be formally confirmed into the Roman Catholic Church -- what Lewis calls the return of the prodigal son. [Beautiful analogy!]
"We drifted away and now we want to come home," he said, "and I am just thankful that we have the opportunity to do so."
***
These people see the need to be with the Catholic Church, the one true fold that Christ Himself founded and left in the care of the apostles under the leadership of Peter.
And yet you hear Modernist nuns and priests telling you that you do not have to be in the Church to be saved.
Just be a good person and your done.
Much like cooking instant noodles, eh?
"Learn from me from I am humble and gentle of heart." says Christ, all for nothing since if you believe the Modernists, you just be good and do not learn from Christ Himself.
Welcome back home brothers and sisters!
Tell the dissidents in our Church about your story, and bring them back home as well.
They been drifters for way too long.
***
The Rev. Mark Lewis now offers a prayer every Sunday morning that centuries ago would have been considered an homage to the enemy. It's a prayer for the bishop of Rome, the pope and all the Catholic bishops and priests. [Are our dissident theologians even doing this? Can't help myself. Gotta squeeze that in. Ha!]
Lewis chants, "For Benedict our Pope ... Let us prayer to the Lord."
And the congregation sings its answer, "Lord, have mercy."
The distinctly Roman Catholic offering is the outward sign of an inner spiritual journey. St. Luke's Church in Bladensburg, Md., will become later this year the first American Episcopal Parish to convert to Catholicism, Anglicanism's one-time nemesis. [And Bingo was his name-o!]
"What really drew us was the apostolic authority, the oneness of the faith of the people," Lewis said "That's what we really wanted, and I don't think you have that in Anglicanism."
Ironically, what is driving St. Luke's to Roman Catholicism is what split the church in the first place: the issue of authority. [The very same issue that theologians in MST, SVST and Euntes are raising yet the Episcopalians are being drawn to. Ironic, eh, Dr. Jose de Mesa?]
Nearly 500 years ago, Britain’s King Henry VIII broke with Rome in a dispute involving his wish to divorce his wife, Catherine of Aragon, and marry his young mistress, Anne Boleyn. [It was not an issue of authority. It was an issue of Henry wanting to produce an heir. This is not a doctrinal or moral matter. Marriage is the issue. Henry wanted divorce which is against what Christ said.]
A showdown forced England's clergy to choose sides, with the king demanding to know if the British bishops and Cardinals were more loyal to him or to the Pope. [Which is the same issue that the Communist Party in China are using against bishops and priests loyal to Rome.]
Lives and heads were literally lost in the ensuing theological and political clash. [Like Sts Thomas More and John Fisher, which ironically, the Church of England honors.] In its wake, The Church of England was born, with the sitting monarch as its head, a structure still in place today.
The American version, the Episcopal church, was the faith of many of the founding fathers, including President George Washington. [a high ranking Mason.]
Today, the Episcopal Church, with nearly 1.5 million members, is one of thousands of Christian denominations in the U.S. Its recent conflicts over the ordination of gays and women and the blessing of same-sex unions have caused some congregations to seek more conservative branches. [Issues which liberals in Europe, in America and in some quarters here in the Philippines wanted.]
But that was not an option for St. Luke's. Lewis says he felt that the same problem would persist. There was no authority concerning who would have the final interpretation of scripture over the most controversial issues the church is facing. [No final authority. Issues which these dissident theologians in MST, SVST and Euntes raise. They challenge the authority of the Pope so those who listen to them, well, will only follow their teaching. They hate the authority of the Church so they can be the AUTHORITY.]
"Anglicanism is Anglicanism," Lewis said. "So it doesn't matter if you go to a more conservative group like the Anglican Church in North America or any of the others that are around. It's still the faith of this body here. (It) doesn’t necessarily mean it's the same in Nigeria or Sierra Leone or any other outlet."
In 2009, Pope Benedict XVI created a special Ordinariate, a path through which Anglicans could reconcile with Rome and come back to the Roman Catholic flock. In some circles it's been called the religious equivalent of sheep stealing. [Did he grab them? The lost sheep went back to the fold, instead.]
The Rev. Scott Hurd, who's assisting Washington's Cardinal Donald Wuerl to create the new Anglican Ordinariate, disagrees with the implication, saying, "This initiative is a response to repeated and insistent requests from Anglican groups. So it's not a matter of stealing sheep. It's more a matter of opening the door for people who have been seeking to come in for some time." [Like what I stated.]
In the last few years, bitter legal battles over property have erupted in the American Episcopal church when conservative congregations sought to leave and be led by more orthodox Anglicans groups. But St. Luke's transition was essentially given a blessing by the Washington Diocese's Bishop John Bryson Chane.
"Christians move from one church to another with far greater frequency than in the past, sometimes as individuals, sometimes as groups," Chane said in a written statement. "I was glad to be able to meet the spiritual needs of the people and priest of St. Luke's in a way that respects the tradition and polity of both of our churches."
Under the terms of the agreement, St. Luke's congregation will have three years to either buy its current building or move elsewhere.
That especially pleases its 100 members, who are mostly West African immigrants like Gloria Deigh, from Sierra Leone.
Deigh is happy to convert, saying, "I like it. To me, it's like going home. That's where the original church was. We are all one."
Parishioner Randy King says for him the conversion brings needed certainty.
"We have a church that doesn't change. [Oh my. MST, SVST and Euntes would call this "being stuck in the past." "too medieval"...] We don't have to worry one day or the other what is going to be said from the pulpit." [This is happening also in our Masses, right? I think they'll be safe since they will be in the Ordinariate and not in any of the kumbaya parishes we have.]
Over the next few months, members of St. Luke's will attend catechism classes to learn more about the Catholic faith and the its doctrines. [This is such a blessing since we do not have this in our parishes nowadays, right? If you do, please state your name and parish and the schedule of Catechism classes.] Then in October they will be formally confirmed into the Roman Catholic Church -- what Lewis calls the return of the prodigal son. [Beautiful analogy!]
"We drifted away and now we want to come home," he said, "and I am just thankful that we have the opportunity to do so."
***
These people see the need to be with the Catholic Church, the one true fold that Christ Himself founded and left in the care of the apostles under the leadership of Peter.
And yet you hear Modernist nuns and priests telling you that you do not have to be in the Church to be saved.
Just be a good person and your done.
Much like cooking instant noodles, eh?
"Learn from me from I am humble and gentle of heart." says Christ, all for nothing since if you believe the Modernists, you just be good and do not learn from Christ Himself.
Welcome back home brothers and sisters!
Tell the dissidents in our Church about your story, and bring them back home as well.
They been drifters for way too long.
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
GULP Report: What is inside is shown by the outside
You get the drift with the title.
This is the same priest who published his Christmas wishlist.
Now he published his photos of how he and a few buddies "had Mass".
These are his photos and not mine. (Like the disclaimer I did with the "Order of That Liturgist" t-shirt post I did.
You'll see other photos here. The boating trip I mean.
Remember guys that these people are PRIESTS...Roman Catholic Priests.
I am no priest but how I see this makes me wonder.
If this is how these priests dress up for the HOLY MASS, what is keeping you and me from not dressing properly for Mass? What is keeping you and me from asking Mass to be celebrated in every nook and cranny in God's green earth?
Mass in the beach? Why not?
We have blogged about various liturgical abuses in the past and we even blogged how liturgical abuse leads to a loss of Faith. See how these priests treat the Mass. Ask them if they'll show up dressed like that in front of Obama or the Queen.
"But hey TPC, those folks you mentioned are just humans. Surely Christ would not mind. He dressed simply."
Really? Christ was an obedient Jew and he observed the Judaic liturgical laws. Remember that the Holy Mass/Holy Eucharist was given to us by Christ during the Passover Meal, AND the Passover Meal is up to now, a ritualistic feast, with rigid RUBRICS not like what your liturgical hobbyist at SVST, Euntes, and MST would want you to think.
Do you remember this passage from Matthew?
This is the same priest who published his Christmas wishlist.
Now he published his photos of how he and a few buddies "had Mass".
These are his photos and not mine. (Like the disclaimer I did with the "Order of That Liturgist" t-shirt post I did.
You'll see other photos here. The boating trip I mean.
Remember guys that these people are PRIESTS...Roman Catholic Priests.
I am no priest but how I see this makes me wonder.
If this is how these priests dress up for the HOLY MASS, what is keeping you and me from not dressing properly for Mass? What is keeping you and me from asking Mass to be celebrated in every nook and cranny in God's green earth?
Mass in the beach? Why not?
We have blogged about various liturgical abuses in the past and we even blogged how liturgical abuse leads to a loss of Faith. See how these priests treat the Mass. Ask them if they'll show up dressed like that in front of Obama or the Queen.
"But hey TPC, those folks you mentioned are just humans. Surely Christ would not mind. He dressed simply."
Really? Christ was an obedient Jew and he observed the Judaic liturgical laws. Remember that the Holy Mass/Holy Eucharist was given to us by Christ during the Passover Meal, AND the Passover Meal is up to now, a ritualistic feast, with rigid RUBRICS not like what your liturgical hobbyist at SVST, Euntes, and MST would want you to think.
Do you remember this passage from Matthew?
And again Jesus spoke to them in parables, saying, "The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who gave a marriage feast for his son,and sent his servants to call those who were invited to the marriage feast;but they would not come. Again he sent other servants, saying, `Tell those who are invited, Behold, I have made ready my dinner, my oxen and my fat calves are killed, and everything is ready; come to the marriage feast.' But they made light of it and went off, one to his farm, another to his business, while the rest seized his servants, treated them shamefully, and killed them. The king was angry, and he sent his troops and destroyed those murderers and burned their city. Then he said to his servants, `The wedding is ready, but those invited were not worthy. Go therefore to the thoroughfares, and invite to the marriage feast as many as you find.' And those servants went out into the streets and gathered all whom they found, both bad and good; so the wedding hall was filled with guests. "But when the king came in to look at the guests, he saw there a man who had no wedding garment; and he said to him, `Friend, how did you get in here without a wedding garment?' And he was speechless. Then the king said to the attendants, `Bind him hand and foot, and cast him into the outer darkness; there men will weep and gnash their teeth.' For many are called, but few are chosen."
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
Pope to hear confessions at WYD 2011
"NEXT!"
VATICAN CITY, JUNE 27, 2011 (Zenit.org).- Benedict XVI will hear the confessions of several young people when he is in Madrid this August for World Youth Day. [Those who will confess have been chosen.]
The Vatican announced Saturday the official program for the Pope's activities during the Aug. 19-21 trip, including his plan to hear confessions the Saturday morning of Youth Day.
The Holy Father will arrive in Madrid at midday on Thursday, Aug. 19.
At 7:15 p.m., he will join a group of young people to go to Plaza de Cibeles where youth from all over the world will be gathered to greet him.
The next day, the Holy Father will celebrate Mass privately in the chapel of the apostolic nunciature. [TLM? :)] At 10 a.m., he will pay a courtesy visit to the Spanish king and queen. [Ah, that queen.] At 11:30 that morning, he will gather with young religious and later with university professors at the Basilica of San Lorenzo de El Escorial.
The Pontiff will lunch with youth at the apostolic nunciature. That afternoon, he will have an official meeting with Spain's prime minister, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero. [Oh, that guy.] At 7:30 p.m., the Pope will return to Plaza de Cibeles where he will preside over the Way of the Cross.
The next morning, the Holy Father will hear confessions in the Jardines del Buen Retiro and then celebrate a 10 a.m. Mass for seminarians in the Cathedral of Santa Maria la Real de la Almudena. At 5 p.m. he will meet with the WYD organizing committees and then visit the Fundación Instituto San José.
At 8:30 p.m. he will preside over a prayer vigil with young people at the airport of Cuatro Vientos.
The World Youth Day Mass will be at 9:30 on Sunday morning. After Mass, the Pope will pray the Angelus.
He will lunch with Spanish cardinals and the papal entourage back at the apostolic nunciature.
Before leaving Spain, the Pope will meet with WYD volunteers. There will be a departure ceremony at the Barajas airport before the papal plane takes off at 7 p.m.
***
I guess the pilgrims will be not the only ones who will hear a lot from the pope.
The royal couple and the prime minister will surely get a tongue lashing. hehehe.
If you are following what is going on in Spain and Europe.
Monday, June 27, 2011
Someone is in BIG trouble
This is a true account and I got this info from a friend who is a member of the Opus Dei.
The Opus Dei is celebrating the feast of their founder, St. Josemaria Escriva today in at least one church in each diocese.
So they approached this very well known church in Quezon City dedicated to a well-known image of our Lady.
On the eleventh hour, a day before the Mass, the new parish priest is asking the group to pay P10,000.00 for the use of the massive church. And he has other conditions...
The Mass for St. Josemaria today cannot be said on a regular scheduled Mass of the day. So it may be on the dead hours of the afternoon where most of the numerary and supernumerary of Opus Dei are working.
P10,000.00?!?
On any other hour except the regular Mass hours?!?
Why not just say no to the group and get done with it?
Ooops. I forgot. He cannot outright say that or he'll be reported straight to Rome where the Prelature's "headquarters" are located.
Such a pity for a member of a MENDICANT ORDER to ask for money and be coyly hostile against a group who has done nothing but good things for the Church, let alone stand against the heresies of our time. Wasn't the founder of this order the HAMMER of those heretics?
Go figure out.
***
UPDATE: The last I heard is that the name of this NEW parish priest is being sent to Rome. Guess someone has a LOT of explaining to do.
Friday, June 24, 2011
The Associated Press needs a Catholic writer.
This is not a GULP joke.
This is for real.
The caption, I mean.
Emphasis mine.
***
Huh?!?!
Now you wonder why Catholics are pro-contraception and pro-divorce?!
They all begin down there!
This is for real.
The caption, I mean.
Emphasis mine.
***
Pope Benedict XVI, behind the Corpus Christ's relic, leads the Corpus Christi procession on an open vehicle from St. John in Lateran Basilica to St. Mary Major Basilica, in Rome, Thursday, June 23, 2006. The event is dedicated to the mystery of the Eucharist and concludes the cycle of feasts following Easter. Pope Benedict celebrated the evening Mass at St. John in Lateran Basilica then traveled a short distance in a procession to St. Mary Major Basilica.
***
or maybe a time keeper? :)
***
UPDATE!!! AP Corrects itself!
CAPTION CORRECTION, CORRECTS YEAR IN CAPTION - Pope Benedict XVI, behind the Corpus Christ's relic, leads the Corpus Christi procession on an open vehicle from St. John in Lateran Basilica to St. Mary Major Basilica, in Rome, Thursday, June 23, 2011. The event is dedicated to the mystery of the Eucharist and concludes the cycle of feasts following Easter. Pope Benedict celebrated the evening Mass at St. John in Lateran Basilica then traveled a short distance in a procession to St. Mary Major Basilica.
***
But the report still says that the Eucharist is Christ's relic.
While liberals and dissenters might say "Yes, it is a relic of Christ because the true Christ lives in our hearts. He is resurrected in our hearts." Catholics who know their Catechism KNOW FOR A FACT that the Eucharist IS CHRIST HIMSELF... BODY, BLOOD, SOUL AND DIVINITY.
And not just a relic, a symbol, a representation...
That His Presence in the Eucharist begins at the words of consecration "Hoc est enim corpus meum..." and persists even after the celebration of the Mass, and as long as the appearance of bread remain.
And not like what we hear in theology schools nowadays that ;"We are Eucharist. The presence of Christ remains in the Eucharist as long as we remain as a community."
Now you wonder why Catholics are pro-contraception and pro-divorce?!
They all begin down there!
Thursday, June 16, 2011
Pinoy Bishop tells it like it is
Courtesy of CBCP for Life
***
One of the main reasons, if not the main reason, why the Catholic Church is against the House Bill 4244 (Reproductive Health Bill or Responsible Parenthood Bill) is that the bill directs the government to promote contraception and to give free contraceptives to people. According to Father Bernas, SJ (Sounding Board, Philippine Daily Inquirer, May 23, 2011), this opposition of the Church is against religious freedom. He says that, because of religious freedom, “the state should not prevent people from practicing responsible parenthood according to their beliefs nor may churchmen compel President Aquino, by whatever means, to prevent people from acting according to their religious belief.”
First of all, by opposing the RH Bill, the Catholic Church is not moving for the ban of contraceptives (the non-abortifacient ones), although she would be happy if these contraceptives were banned. At present, in the Philippines, anyone can buy contraceptives from drugstores and even from some “convenience stores”. What the Church is against, I repeat, is that government should promote contraception and provide free contraceptives to people. Therefore it is wrong to say that the Church wants the government to “prevent people from practicing responsible parenthood according to their religious belief” and that the Catholic churchmen are compelling “President Aquino, by whatever means, to prevent people from acting according to their religious beliefs.” What the church does is to try to convince President Aquino and our senators and congressmen not to enact a law that directs the government to promote contraception and provide free contraceptives to people.
It is also good to point out that the church teaching regarding contraceptives is not based on Faith or revelation, although it is confirmed by our Faith. This church teaching is based on natural law, which we know through natural reason. By studying through correct reasoning the nature of the human person, we arrive at this teaching regarding contraception. All human beings, Catholic or not, are obliged to act according to right reason. By the efforts of the Church to go against the RH Bill, the Church is not imposing her religious beliefs on others. She is trying to stop a bill which is against natural law, a law which all human beings, Catholic or not, should follow. The RH Bill, judged from the principles of natural law, is against the good of the human person and the common good. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in its “Doctrinal Note regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life” tells us that all citizens, including Catholics, have the right “to base their contribution to society and political life – through the legitimate means available to everyone in a democracy – on their particular understanding of the human person and the common good.” In a democracy, any group of citizens has the right to campaign and lobby so that what they consider to be good for the country are enacted into law and what they deem to be harmful for the country are not enacted into law.
Father Bernas says further in his column that we live in a pluralist society. This is true and, therefore, we should respect the beliefs and opinions of others. But there is a limit to this pluralism. We cannot accept an “ethical pluralism “which ignores the principles of natural ethics and yield to ephemeral cultural and moral trends, as if every outlook on life were of equal value.” (Doctrinal Note on the Participation of Catholics in Political Life)
Father Bernas also quotes the “Compendum on the Social Teaching of the Catholic Church: “Because of its historical and cultural ties to a nation, a religious community might be given special recognition on the part of the State. Such recognition must in no way create discrimination within the civil or social order for other religious groups” and “Those responsible for government are required to interpret the common good of their country not only according to the guidelines of the majority but also according to the effective good of all the members of the community, including the minority.” The Church, by opposing the HB 4244, is “interpreting the common good of the country not only according to the guidelines of the majority but also according to the effective good of all the members of the community, including the minority.” In opposing the bill the Church is interpreting the common good according to the guidelines of natural law, which is valid for all, the minority as well as the majority. Benedict XVI says that natural law must be the foundation of democracy, so that those in power are not given the chance to determine what is good or evil [Zenit.org. Vatican City, Oct. 5, 2007].
Regarding freedom, Benedict XVI said in his Address to the International Congress on Natural Law: “…yet taking into account that human freedom is always a freedom shared with others, it is clear that the harmony of freedom can be found only in what is common to all: the truth of the human being, the fundamental message of being itself, exactly the “lex naturalis.”
GABRIEL V. REYES, D.D.
Bishop of Antipolo
***
Fr. bernas getting served, big time!
***
One of the main reasons, if not the main reason, why the Catholic Church is against the House Bill 4244 (Reproductive Health Bill or Responsible Parenthood Bill) is that the bill directs the government to promote contraception and to give free contraceptives to people. According to Father Bernas, SJ (Sounding Board, Philippine Daily Inquirer, May 23, 2011), this opposition of the Church is against religious freedom. He says that, because of religious freedom, “the state should not prevent people from practicing responsible parenthood according to their beliefs nor may churchmen compel President Aquino, by whatever means, to prevent people from acting according to their religious belief.”
First of all, by opposing the RH Bill, the Catholic Church is not moving for the ban of contraceptives (the non-abortifacient ones), although she would be happy if these contraceptives were banned. At present, in the Philippines, anyone can buy contraceptives from drugstores and even from some “convenience stores”. What the Church is against, I repeat, is that government should promote contraception and provide free contraceptives to people. Therefore it is wrong to say that the Church wants the government to “prevent people from practicing responsible parenthood according to their religious belief” and that the Catholic churchmen are compelling “President Aquino, by whatever means, to prevent people from acting according to their religious beliefs.” What the church does is to try to convince President Aquino and our senators and congressmen not to enact a law that directs the government to promote contraception and provide free contraceptives to people.
It is also good to point out that the church teaching regarding contraceptives is not based on Faith or revelation, although it is confirmed by our Faith. This church teaching is based on natural law, which we know through natural reason. By studying through correct reasoning the nature of the human person, we arrive at this teaching regarding contraception. All human beings, Catholic or not, are obliged to act according to right reason. By the efforts of the Church to go against the RH Bill, the Church is not imposing her religious beliefs on others. She is trying to stop a bill which is against natural law, a law which all human beings, Catholic or not, should follow. The RH Bill, judged from the principles of natural law, is against the good of the human person and the common good. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in its “Doctrinal Note regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life” tells us that all citizens, including Catholics, have the right “to base their contribution to society and political life – through the legitimate means available to everyone in a democracy – on their particular understanding of the human person and the common good.” In a democracy, any group of citizens has the right to campaign and lobby so that what they consider to be good for the country are enacted into law and what they deem to be harmful for the country are not enacted into law.
Father Bernas says further in his column that we live in a pluralist society. This is true and, therefore, we should respect the beliefs and opinions of others. But there is a limit to this pluralism. We cannot accept an “ethical pluralism “which ignores the principles of natural ethics and yield to ephemeral cultural and moral trends, as if every outlook on life were of equal value.” (Doctrinal Note on the Participation of Catholics in Political Life)
Father Bernas also quotes the “Compendum on the Social Teaching of the Catholic Church: “Because of its historical and cultural ties to a nation, a religious community might be given special recognition on the part of the State. Such recognition must in no way create discrimination within the civil or social order for other religious groups” and “Those responsible for government are required to interpret the common good of their country not only according to the guidelines of the majority but also according to the effective good of all the members of the community, including the minority.” The Church, by opposing the HB 4244, is “interpreting the common good of the country not only according to the guidelines of the majority but also according to the effective good of all the members of the community, including the minority.” In opposing the bill the Church is interpreting the common good according to the guidelines of natural law, which is valid for all, the minority as well as the majority. Benedict XVI says that natural law must be the foundation of democracy, so that those in power are not given the chance to determine what is good or evil [Zenit.org. Vatican City, Oct. 5, 2007].
Regarding freedom, Benedict XVI said in his Address to the International Congress on Natural Law: “…yet taking into account that human freedom is always a freedom shared with others, it is clear that the harmony of freedom can be found only in what is common to all: the truth of the human being, the fundamental message of being itself, exactly the “lex naturalis.”
GABRIEL V. REYES, D.D.
Bishop of Antipolo
***
Fr. bernas getting served, big time!
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
The man Euntes, MST and SVT idolizes...
"Fr." Hans Kung
He says and I quote:
"The Pope would have an easier job than the President of the United States in adopting a change of course. He has no Congress alongside him as a legislative body nor a Supreme Court as a judiciary. He is absolute head of government, legislator and supreme judge in the church. If he wanted to, he could authorize contraception over night, permit the marriage of priests, make possible the ordination of women and allow eucharistic fellowship with this Protestant churches. What would a Pope do who acted in the spirit of Obama?"Let us then ask the reaction of Joseph Ratzinger...
Saturday, June 11, 2011
An exorcist speaks up
Here is an excerpt from the interview conducted with Fr. Gary Thomas, the exorcist whose real life story became the inspiration for the movie "The Rite." You can read the full interview here.
Velazquez is the interviewer.
***
Velasquez: Do you have any stories to tell of exorcisms?
Fr Gary: There was a situation in Rome once with a young woman who walked in speaking Italian to me, my exorcist trainer walked in and blessed her with holy water and she literally began screaming and picked up the chair, and was going to throw it at him. [If psychiatrists and Freedumbers were around they'll conclude otherwise. ] Now, they’re not all like that. There’s the man I pray over and have been exorcising for two years, there’s huge manifestations, he’s improved dramatically, but, nonetheless, he opened himself up for a bunch of reasons. I can’t detail them on the phone, it would take too long.
Velasquez: In general, what do you recommend people avoid if they don’t want to become involved with demonic activity? [now this is what every Catholic should read!]
Fr Gary: I think they should just stay away from everything that is pagan in the sense of ritual, so I recommend that people should stay away from dabbling in the occult; from dabbling in things that are idolatrous, from getting involved in things that are simply about self, and I don’t mean by that going to a club and doing physical exercise. Where people are into Wicca, earth worship of other kinds, witchcraft and spells, crystals, using metaphysical means to try and find answers to questions. [Exactly what Fr. Jojo Zerrudo, exorcist of the Diocese of Cubao said.]
Velasquez: So stay away from New Age practices?
Fr Gary: Yes, those are all the New Age practices. [teeth gnashing and nail scratching sounds coming from Euntes and SVT. Woohoo!]
Velasquez: Do you think there’s a greater need now in the Church than in previous times?
Fr Gary: I do, because there’s more Catholics involved in more paganism and idolatry. [isn't this a bit of a shock for you folks? For me, yes and no. Yes because Catholics should not be involved in paganistic rituals like Wiccan, Feng-shui and all that geomancy mumbo jumbo. No, because it all came from nuns and priests who are into New Age thingies!]
Velasquez: Fr Gabriel Amorth agrees with you, according to his books. Why do you think that there’s not enough of this ministry?
Fr Gary: I think for a long time we just relied so much on the social sciences, Psychiatry and Psychology as sort of a new religion to figure out the mysteries of human behavior. [The new gods of so-called aggiornamento Catholics. It is heavily taught in seminaries and formation houses. So what do we expect? New warlocks and witches!] I think we felt we could just depend on science, and I certainly am a proponent of using Psychiatry and Psychology, but in the same breath, I think that there’s a limit to science and there’s the realm of the spiritual we know far less about. And because of our scientific mind and orientation as a Western society, I think we put these other kinds of things we can’t figure out on the shelf. [And anything supernatural goes out of the window.]
Velasquez: So its our prejudice against a spiritual explanation for things?
Fr Gary: I think so.
***
The video below is a special coverage of CNN about "The Rite" and about Fr. Gary Thomas.
Velazquez is the interviewer.
***
Velasquez: Do you have any stories to tell of exorcisms?
Fr Gary: There was a situation in Rome once with a young woman who walked in speaking Italian to me, my exorcist trainer walked in and blessed her with holy water and she literally began screaming and picked up the chair, and was going to throw it at him. [If psychiatrists and Freedumbers were around they'll conclude otherwise. ] Now, they’re not all like that. There’s the man I pray over and have been exorcising for two years, there’s huge manifestations, he’s improved dramatically, but, nonetheless, he opened himself up for a bunch of reasons. I can’t detail them on the phone, it would take too long.
Velasquez: In general, what do you recommend people avoid if they don’t want to become involved with demonic activity? [now this is what every Catholic should read!]
Fr Gary: I think they should just stay away from everything that is pagan in the sense of ritual, so I recommend that people should stay away from dabbling in the occult; from dabbling in things that are idolatrous, from getting involved in things that are simply about self, and I don’t mean by that going to a club and doing physical exercise. Where people are into Wicca, earth worship of other kinds, witchcraft and spells, crystals, using metaphysical means to try and find answers to questions. [Exactly what Fr. Jojo Zerrudo, exorcist of the Diocese of Cubao said.]
Velasquez: So stay away from New Age practices?
Fr Gary: Yes, those are all the New Age practices. [teeth gnashing and nail scratching sounds coming from Euntes and SVT. Woohoo!]
Velasquez: Do you think there’s a greater need now in the Church than in previous times?
Fr Gary: I do, because there’s more Catholics involved in more paganism and idolatry. [isn't this a bit of a shock for you folks? For me, yes and no. Yes because Catholics should not be involved in paganistic rituals like Wiccan, Feng-shui and all that geomancy mumbo jumbo. No, because it all came from nuns and priests who are into New Age thingies!]
Velasquez: Fr Gabriel Amorth agrees with you, according to his books. Why do you think that there’s not enough of this ministry?
Fr Gary: I think for a long time we just relied so much on the social sciences, Psychiatry and Psychology as sort of a new religion to figure out the mysteries of human behavior. [The new gods of so-called aggiornamento Catholics. It is heavily taught in seminaries and formation houses. So what do we expect? New warlocks and witches!] I think we felt we could just depend on science, and I certainly am a proponent of using Psychiatry and Psychology, but in the same breath, I think that there’s a limit to science and there’s the realm of the spiritual we know far less about. And because of our scientific mind and orientation as a Western society, I think we put these other kinds of things we can’t figure out on the shelf. [And anything supernatural goes out of the window.]
Velasquez: So its our prejudice against a spiritual explanation for things?
Fr Gary: I think so.
***
The video below is a special coverage of CNN about "The Rite" and about Fr. Gary Thomas.
Friday, June 3, 2011
"I am Catholic but..."
Surprisingly, from Hell's Bible, Pinoy version.
From Minyong Ordoñez.
***
HOW CAN one say he is a Catholic and ignore the teachings of his religion? Why be a Catholic if one thinks his religion is erroneous? Is there pride and truth in being an egoistic Catholic? Are such Catholics who fill up the church and who participate in the same rituals, say the same prayers, and profess the same beliefs in both God and the Church’s commandments sincere or hypocritical? [And this goes to those Jesuits, Vincentians, PIME, CICMs, MJs, ahhhh....all those dissidents who want another brand of Catholicism and not just for Lagman and Garin.]
Pro-RH lawmakers insist they are Catholics but in the same breath disagree with the Catholic hierarchy’s rejection of the RH bill. This constitutes contradiction of the first degree.
Oneness in doctrine is one of the conditions defining Catholicism. [Remember the four marks of the Church? The first is oneness.] The second is holiness of origin, and the third is apostolic succession. Holiness means that the Church is holy because it has been established by Jesus Christ who is Himself holy and that it is guided by the Holy Spirit in the proclamation of the truth and the administration of sacraments. Apostolic means that the Church traces its authenticity and heritage to the apostles who were instructed by Jesus Christ to evangelize the world headed by the apostle Peter: “Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. To thee I will give the keys to the kingdom of Heaven and whatsoever thou shall bind on earth shall also be bound in Heaven. And whatever thou shall loose on earth shall also be loosed in Heaven.” [Do you get the feeling that those who really know their Catechism are the very same people who are faithful to the teachings of the Church and are therefore pro-life and anti-RH?]
From this awesome passage in the Holy Scripture declaring the wisdom, love and trust of God, the Church grew and prospered organizationally and doctrinally under the guidance of the Holy Spirit beginning right after Pentecost. [Oh, Manalo is furious!]
The Catholic Church is firm in its stand that the killing of the unborn is intrinsically evil, a morality issue. And that the right to life and its preservation are guaranteed by the Constitution and that Catholics are free to practice their religious beliefs. [Which constitutionalist Jesuit Bernas is trying to blur.] If enacted into law the RH bill will be coercive [booya!] for Catholics because they will be legislated to act against their faith and their will.
In the legislature, we have politicians who push for the enactment of the RH bill while proudly proclaiming that they are Catholics. [bah-hum-bug!] They become evasive and rhetorical in confronting the Catholic objection to the bill’s birth control objectives which prescribe abortion-inducing abortifacients, [which these local lawmakers and even medical professionals and health officials continue to dodge!] contraceptives and invasive means such as ligation and sterilization.
The occurrence in contemporary times of Catholics who do not share the official teachings of the Church’s magisterium is widespread in the United States, the melting pot of rights and freedom for individual thinking and judgment.
Catholics who choose what or what not to believe in the composite teachings of the Church are popularly called “cafeteria Catholics.” [I call them lost sheeps or dissidents.] Just like in a turo-turo restaurant, they choose to eat only what they like and skip those that don’t appeal to their taste. [Hey hear that Jun Mercado, Joe de Mesa and Agnes Brazal! Stop the pretense. We know what you say and teach in private! And Luis also.]
Relativism, the “ism” that spawned cafeteria Catholics, was influenced by several philosophical, economic and scientific developments that took place during the last two centuries. In Central Europe, these developments caused the shift of societies’ dependence on the Christian religion as a way of life. The change was labeled as a shift from belief to unbelief. The late Russian Nobel prize-novelist Alexander Solzhenitsyn called it anthropocentricity, with makes man the center of everything that exists. [Isn't this how the Novus Ordo Mass look like. And a little dash of inculturation and what do you have? Almost like Magellan discovered. Nature worship! Booya, EUNTES!] One religious philosopher even redefined God as a “progressive providence,” almost modifying the axiom that truth is permanent and unchangeable. [Call the devil for what it is. It is MODERNISM long condemned by St. Pius X.]
The last century featured decades of more scientific breakthroughs in medicine, food production, engineering, transportation and communication technologies. The advances in marketing and distribution gave birth to globalization of business and consumer habits, further upgrading lifestyles and multiple-choice consumerism in a pluralistic society. [The word that will make Bernas say "ooooo!" "Aaaaa!"] The politics of democracy began to manifest its righteousness in the name of freedom, emphasizing human rights as the end-all and be-all in entertaining all possible human needs in pursuit of individualistic pleasures and conveniences, dimming and deadening Christian morality in human awareness and consequent acts. [Like what Sr. Mary John Mananzan is doing, right? She founded Gabriela.]
Relativism has long encroached on the modern urban societies of the Western World, causing changes in both the political, social and religious tradition of politics and culture of the country. [And Europe is losing the native white Europeans and even more!]
Cafeteria Catholics exemplify this change from belief to unbelief in this age of modernism, affecting not only the legislation of our politics but also the behavior of our constituency. [Bingo!}
To preserve the integrity of their faith, Catholics must re-study and re-learn their religion in order to gain depth in and perspective on their faith. [You don' get taught in Catechism class like the old days. Now they teach you social justice from priests and nuns who live and spend their money as if.....uh, never mind.] They must discern not only the role of faith and reason in enhancing their adherence to the Gospel but also the doctrinal beauty and power of their catechism.
***
The logic of Cafeteria Catholics and so called Free Thinkers is this:
I am a logical being. I am born free (like the song.) And I can believe whatever I want and can do based on what I believe in.
So here is the punchline: I am Catholic but I do not believe in what my Church teaches, maybe most of it.
It's like saying: "I am Filipino but I do not believe in the taxes the government charges me with."
Now you wonder why Catholic schools don't even require their students to study the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
You wonder where this rubbish from "you decide on your own" came from.
You wonder why Catholic schools like Ateneo are the first one to publicly dissent from Church authorities claiming their birth-right to free speech when in fact this is not an issue of freedom but of whether you are indeed CATHOLIC!
Simply put, termites are eating us up from the inside.
And what do you do with termites?
You don't dialogue with them!
Because they are not rational and they do not talk.
And going back, if you don't follow the law even civil ones, what happens?
You know to this one Fr. Bernas.
From Minyong Ordoñez.
***
HOW CAN one say he is a Catholic and ignore the teachings of his religion? Why be a Catholic if one thinks his religion is erroneous? Is there pride and truth in being an egoistic Catholic? Are such Catholics who fill up the church and who participate in the same rituals, say the same prayers, and profess the same beliefs in both God and the Church’s commandments sincere or hypocritical? [And this goes to those Jesuits, Vincentians, PIME, CICMs, MJs, ahhhh....all those dissidents who want another brand of Catholicism and not just for Lagman and Garin.]
Pro-RH lawmakers insist they are Catholics but in the same breath disagree with the Catholic hierarchy’s rejection of the RH bill. This constitutes contradiction of the first degree.
Oneness in doctrine is one of the conditions defining Catholicism. [Remember the four marks of the Church? The first is oneness.] The second is holiness of origin, and the third is apostolic succession. Holiness means that the Church is holy because it has been established by Jesus Christ who is Himself holy and that it is guided by the Holy Spirit in the proclamation of the truth and the administration of sacraments. Apostolic means that the Church traces its authenticity and heritage to the apostles who were instructed by Jesus Christ to evangelize the world headed by the apostle Peter: “Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. To thee I will give the keys to the kingdom of Heaven and whatsoever thou shall bind on earth shall also be bound in Heaven. And whatever thou shall loose on earth shall also be loosed in Heaven.” [Do you get the feeling that those who really know their Catechism are the very same people who are faithful to the teachings of the Church and are therefore pro-life and anti-RH?]
From this awesome passage in the Holy Scripture declaring the wisdom, love and trust of God, the Church grew and prospered organizationally and doctrinally under the guidance of the Holy Spirit beginning right after Pentecost. [Oh, Manalo is furious!]
The Catholic Church is firm in its stand that the killing of the unborn is intrinsically evil, a morality issue. And that the right to life and its preservation are guaranteed by the Constitution and that Catholics are free to practice their religious beliefs. [Which constitutionalist Jesuit Bernas is trying to blur.] If enacted into law the RH bill will be coercive [booya!] for Catholics because they will be legislated to act against their faith and their will.
In the legislature, we have politicians who push for the enactment of the RH bill while proudly proclaiming that they are Catholics. [bah-hum-bug!] They become evasive and rhetorical in confronting the Catholic objection to the bill’s birth control objectives which prescribe abortion-inducing abortifacients, [which these local lawmakers and even medical professionals and health officials continue to dodge!] contraceptives and invasive means such as ligation and sterilization.
The occurrence in contemporary times of Catholics who do not share the official teachings of the Church’s magisterium is widespread in the United States, the melting pot of rights and freedom for individual thinking and judgment.
Catholics who choose what or what not to believe in the composite teachings of the Church are popularly called “cafeteria Catholics.” [I call them lost sheeps or dissidents.] Just like in a turo-turo restaurant, they choose to eat only what they like and skip those that don’t appeal to their taste. [Hey hear that Jun Mercado, Joe de Mesa and Agnes Brazal! Stop the pretense. We know what you say and teach in private! And Luis also.]
Relativism, the “ism” that spawned cafeteria Catholics, was influenced by several philosophical, economic and scientific developments that took place during the last two centuries. In Central Europe, these developments caused the shift of societies’ dependence on the Christian religion as a way of life. The change was labeled as a shift from belief to unbelief. The late Russian Nobel prize-novelist Alexander Solzhenitsyn called it anthropocentricity, with makes man the center of everything that exists. [Isn't this how the Novus Ordo Mass look like. And a little dash of inculturation and what do you have? Almost like Magellan discovered. Nature worship! Booya, EUNTES!] One religious philosopher even redefined God as a “progressive providence,” almost modifying the axiom that truth is permanent and unchangeable. [Call the devil for what it is. It is MODERNISM long condemned by St. Pius X.]
The last century featured decades of more scientific breakthroughs in medicine, food production, engineering, transportation and communication technologies. The advances in marketing and distribution gave birth to globalization of business and consumer habits, further upgrading lifestyles and multiple-choice consumerism in a pluralistic society. [The word that will make Bernas say "ooooo!" "Aaaaa!"] The politics of democracy began to manifest its righteousness in the name of freedom, emphasizing human rights as the end-all and be-all in entertaining all possible human needs in pursuit of individualistic pleasures and conveniences, dimming and deadening Christian morality in human awareness and consequent acts. [Like what Sr. Mary John Mananzan is doing, right? She founded Gabriela.]
Relativism has long encroached on the modern urban societies of the Western World, causing changes in both the political, social and religious tradition of politics and culture of the country. [And Europe is losing the native white Europeans and even more!]
Cafeteria Catholics exemplify this change from belief to unbelief in this age of modernism, affecting not only the legislation of our politics but also the behavior of our constituency. [Bingo!}
To preserve the integrity of their faith, Catholics must re-study and re-learn their religion in order to gain depth in and perspective on their faith. [You don' get taught in Catechism class like the old days. Now they teach you social justice from priests and nuns who live and spend their money as if.....uh, never mind.] They must discern not only the role of faith and reason in enhancing their adherence to the Gospel but also the doctrinal beauty and power of their catechism.
***
The logic of Cafeteria Catholics and so called Free Thinkers is this:
I am a logical being. I am born free (like the song.) And I can believe whatever I want and can do based on what I believe in.
So here is the punchline: I am Catholic but I do not believe in what my Church teaches, maybe most of it.
It's like saying: "I am Filipino but I do not believe in the taxes the government charges me with."
Now you wonder why Catholic schools don't even require their students to study the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
You wonder where this rubbish from "you decide on your own" came from.
You wonder why Catholic schools like Ateneo are the first one to publicly dissent from Church authorities claiming their birth-right to free speech when in fact this is not an issue of freedom but of whether you are indeed CATHOLIC!
Simply put, termites are eating us up from the inside.
And what do you do with termites?
You don't dialogue with them!
Because they are not rational and they do not talk.
And going back, if you don't follow the law even civil ones, what happens?
You know to this one Fr. Bernas.
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
The world has grown cold.
Vatican City, May 30, 2011 / 10:47 am (CNA/EWTN News).- Pope Benedict stressed the urgency of evangelizing modern society, saying that Christians today face the task of reaching a world that grows increasingly apathetic to the message of the Gospel. [Isn't the attitude of just letting Catholics do whatever they like form of priests growing lazy on the job?]
“The crisis we are living through,” he said, “carries with it signs of the exclusion of God from people's lives, a general indifference to the Christian faith, and even the intention of marginalizing it from public life.” [Now are you wondering why we have grown so cold about issues about life, marriage or even faith in the public square?]
The Pope made his remarks on May 30 to members of the Pontifical Council for Promoting New Evangelization, as they prepare for their upcoming synod in 2012. During the meeting, which will take place Oct. 7-28 next year, bishops and other participants from around the world will discuss the late Pope John Paul II's vision of proposing the Christian faith in new ways.
Pope Benedict explained that “the term 'new evangelization' recalls the need of a new way of evangelizing, especially for those who live in a situation like today's where the development of secularization has left deep marks on even traditionally Christian countries.” [No, not that inculturation trash. And neither is that Earth Worship service in Euntes, MST and SVT.]
He noted that “proclaiming Jesus Christ, the sole Savior of the world, is more complex today than in the past, but our task continues to be the same as at the beginning of our history. The mission hasn't changed, just as the enthusiasm and courage that motivated the apostles and first disciples should not change.” [And that Jesus is a real person, a historical one, who lived, died and physically rose and ascended into heaven. Not an Avatar type of Jesus that Euntes, MST and SVT is preaching. Oh, come on, don't deny it!]
The Church's message, he said, “needs to be renewed today in order to convince modern persons, who are often distracted and insensitive. That is why the new evangelization must find the ways to make the proclamation of salvation more effective, the salvation without with life is contradictory and lacking in what is essential.”
Pope Benedict observed a growing “phenomenon” of people in modern society “who wish to belong to the Church but who are strongly determined by a vision of life that is opposed to the faith is often seen.” [Are the pro-RH people and even President Aquino like this? Yes, your included Fr. Bernas.]
“It is important to make them understand that being Christian is not a type of outfit that one wears in private or on special occasions, but something living and totalizing, capable of taking all that is good in modernity.” [I guess Fr. Bernas won't agree with this unless his theologian friends say so. Ha!]
He emphasized that the entire Christian community “is called to revive the missionary spirit in order to offer the new message that persons of our times are hoping for.”
The “lifestyle of believers needs real credibility, as much more convincing as the more dramatic is the condition of the persons to whom it is addressed.” [Ouch.]
Pope Benedict expressed his desire to council members [No, it's not another Ecumenical Council.] that they outline “a plan to help the entire Church and the particular different Churches in the commitment of the new evangelization; a plan whereby the urgency of a renewed evangelization takes charge of formation, particularly that of the new generations, and is united to the proposal of concrete signs capable of making the Church's response in this particular moment clear.”
***
That is the reason why we need to stress the importance of the sacred in how we worship. We completely lost if even if we have a world-renowned liturgist in our midst.
People have grown accustomed to jokes during homilies, to dancing, to some form of surprise numbers during the Mass, to clapping! The Mass became a social event due to the over emphasis on the meal aspect of the Mass. Liturgists deliberately took away the sacrificial nature of the Mass. It is more of the "coming together" to share one another's company instead of sharing the sacrificial Lamb who shed His Blood for our salvation. IT IS HIM WHY WE COME TOGETHER. Not us coming together to make Him present!
No wonder nobody genuflects whenever they enter a church...
because they do not have a sense of the sacred anymore...
because they cannot find Christ at the center of the church and someone of something, like the Blessed Sacrament in the Tabernacle, is put to the side or an inconspicuous place, you are telling people that the thing or the person is not important. Try putting the president of the company or even of the country, during a big event, try having him seated to the side!
Why can't we do it to the Lord? Why place the priest's chair in the center and the Blessed Sacrament to the side? I just don't get it?
Well, I guess because the priest or liturgist that man is more important than God.
Well, what a great job our liturgists have done for the past 40 years!
World famous indeed!
“The crisis we are living through,” he said, “carries with it signs of the exclusion of God from people's lives, a general indifference to the Christian faith, and even the intention of marginalizing it from public life.” [Now are you wondering why we have grown so cold about issues about life, marriage or even faith in the public square?]
The Pope made his remarks on May 30 to members of the Pontifical Council for Promoting New Evangelization, as they prepare for their upcoming synod in 2012. During the meeting, which will take place Oct. 7-28 next year, bishops and other participants from around the world will discuss the late Pope John Paul II's vision of proposing the Christian faith in new ways.
Pope Benedict explained that “the term 'new evangelization' recalls the need of a new way of evangelizing, especially for those who live in a situation like today's where the development of secularization has left deep marks on even traditionally Christian countries.” [No, not that inculturation trash. And neither is that Earth Worship service in Euntes, MST and SVT.]
He noted that “proclaiming Jesus Christ, the sole Savior of the world, is more complex today than in the past, but our task continues to be the same as at the beginning of our history. The mission hasn't changed, just as the enthusiasm and courage that motivated the apostles and first disciples should not change.” [And that Jesus is a real person, a historical one, who lived, died and physically rose and ascended into heaven. Not an Avatar type of Jesus that Euntes, MST and SVT is preaching. Oh, come on, don't deny it!]
The Church's message, he said, “needs to be renewed today in order to convince modern persons, who are often distracted and insensitive. That is why the new evangelization must find the ways to make the proclamation of salvation more effective, the salvation without with life is contradictory and lacking in what is essential.”
Pope Benedict observed a growing “phenomenon” of people in modern society “who wish to belong to the Church but who are strongly determined by a vision of life that is opposed to the faith is often seen.” [Are the pro-RH people and even President Aquino like this? Yes, your included Fr. Bernas.]
“It is important to make them understand that being Christian is not a type of outfit that one wears in private or on special occasions, but something living and totalizing, capable of taking all that is good in modernity.” [I guess Fr. Bernas won't agree with this unless his theologian friends say so. Ha!]
He emphasized that the entire Christian community “is called to revive the missionary spirit in order to offer the new message that persons of our times are hoping for.”
The “lifestyle of believers needs real credibility, as much more convincing as the more dramatic is the condition of the persons to whom it is addressed.” [Ouch.]
Pope Benedict expressed his desire to council members [No, it's not another Ecumenical Council.] that they outline “a plan to help the entire Church and the particular different Churches in the commitment of the new evangelization; a plan whereby the urgency of a renewed evangelization takes charge of formation, particularly that of the new generations, and is united to the proposal of concrete signs capable of making the Church's response in this particular moment clear.”
***
That is the reason why we need to stress the importance of the sacred in how we worship. We completely lost if even if we have a world-renowned liturgist in our midst.
People have grown accustomed to jokes during homilies, to dancing, to some form of surprise numbers during the Mass, to clapping! The Mass became a social event due to the over emphasis on the meal aspect of the Mass. Liturgists deliberately took away the sacrificial nature of the Mass. It is more of the "coming together" to share one another's company instead of sharing the sacrificial Lamb who shed His Blood for our salvation. IT IS HIM WHY WE COME TOGETHER. Not us coming together to make Him present!
No wonder nobody genuflects whenever they enter a church...
because they do not have a sense of the sacred anymore...
because they cannot find Christ at the center of the church and someone of something, like the Blessed Sacrament in the Tabernacle, is put to the side or an inconspicuous place, you are telling people that the thing or the person is not important. Try putting the president of the company or even of the country, during a big event, try having him seated to the side!
Why can't we do it to the Lord? Why place the priest's chair in the center and the Blessed Sacrament to the side? I just don't get it?
Well, I guess because the priest or liturgist that man is more important than God.
Well, what a great job our liturgists have done for the past 40 years!
World famous indeed!
GULP Alert: Guess what they are doing here?
Or better yet...
Guess what Christian denomination this group is!
Guess what Christian denomination this group is!
Monday, May 30, 2011
Is Humanae Vitae infallible?
And as a follow-up to what constitutionalist Jesuit Fr. Joaquin Bernas claims as what his colleagues claim that Humanae Vitae and other teachings of the Church about artificial contraceptives, like Evangelium Vitae.
Let us see what Church AUTHORITIES have to say about this, and not some dissident Modernist theologians who rant in their little classrooms, yet are unafraid to come out and put in writing what they preach in their classes:
***
I think he might have spoken to the theologians of LST. One of them is a bishop, who is sooooooo silent about the RH Bill. He made a video about this.
As a fellow Knight shared to me his observation, being a psychologist and all that:
Need I name the bishop?
Nah.
Let us see what Church AUTHORITIES have to say about this, and not some dissident Modernist theologians who rant in their little classrooms, yet are unafraid to come out and put in writing what they preach in their classes:
In "Humanae Vitae" the Pope taught, with the divine assistance he enjoys (cf. "Lumen Gentium", n. 25a), what the Church's ordinary Magisterium had always held to be true and right, and what had been reconfirmed by the extraordinary Magisterium of Vatican II. The arguments of those who claim to pass judgment on the basis of their knowledge do not stand up against this Magisterium: between the two teachings there is a substantial difference of quality and not only of degree. The teaching of "Humanae Vitae" is Magisterium - though ordinary - which contains decisions belonging to a divinely established authority (cf. canon 331; "Lumen Gentium" nn. 18a, 20c, 22b, 23c; "Christus Dominus" n. 2a) and exercised in order to interpret and teach (as in our case) the moral norms of human conduct. If he were not the Pope, he would lose his legitimate power and the intrinsic reason for his ministry; at most he could carry out a scholarly magisterium, which, however, would not be of use to the Church and to which he has not been appointed by the Church's Founder; he would lack the supernatural "virtus" of assisting and confirming his brethren in the faith and in the moral law (cf. Lk. 22:32, Mt. 16:29; Vatican I, Dogm. Const. "Pastor Aeternus", DS 3074)...
Archbishop Vincenzo Fagiolo, President of the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts
***
I think he might have spoken to the theologians of LST. One of them is a bishop, who is sooooooo silent about the RH Bill. He made a video about this.
As a fellow Knight shared to me his observation, being a psychologist and all that:
"His expression betrays what he is saying."
Need I name the bishop?
Nah.
Why Bernas is doing more harm than good.
Finally, I can blog about this.
Don't ask me why.
***
My Stand on the RH Bill
by: Fr. Joaquin Bernas, SJ
I HAVE been following the debates on the RH Bill not just in the recent House sessions but practically since its start. [He is reminding everyone that he knows what is going on.] In the process, because of what I have said and written (where I have not joined the attack dogs against the RH Bill), [but with what you have been writing, he almost looks like a double agent, or worse!] I have been called a Judas by a high-ranking cleric, [quite frankly I agree...with the high-ranking cleric.] I am considered a heretic [he is for openly dissenting against the magisterial teaching of Humanae Vitae.] in a wealthy barangay where some members have urged that I should leave the Church (which is insane), and one of those who regularly hears my Mass in the Ateneo Chapel in Rockwell came to me disturbed by my position. I feel therefore that I owe some explanation to those who listen to me or read my writings. [I hope he clears things up.]
First, let me start by saying that I adhere to the teaching of the Church on artificial contraception [good!] even if [what?!] I am aware that the teaching on the subject is not considered infallible doctrine [It is as stated in the Responsum ad dubium by a cardinal named Joseph Ratzinger.] by those who know more theology than I do. [And there is a good chance that they know more dissent than you do, or do they?] Moreover, I am still considered a Catholic and Jesuit in good standing by my superiors, critics notwithstanding! [With your fellow Jesuits? Uhmmm....ask Fr. James Reuter. And with your superiors, including the bishops, hehehehe.]
Second (very important for me as a student of the Constitution and of church-state relations), I am very much aware of the fact that we live in a pluralist society where various religious groups have differing beliefs about the morality of artificial contraception. [No debate there.] But freedom of religion means more than just the freedom to believe. [Wow! Nice segue that leads you to relativism!] It also means the freedom to act or not to act according to what one believes. [See?] Hence, the state should not prevent people from practicing responsible parenthood according to their religious belief nor may churchmen compel President Aquino, by whatever means, to prevent people from acting according to their religious belief. [Then why do you not get what the pro-life Catholics are cryin' out loud?] As the “Compendium on the Social Teaching of the Catholic Church” says, “Because of its historical and cultural ties to a nation, a religious community might be given special recognition on the part of the State. Such recognition must in no way create discrimination within the civil or social order for other religious groups” and “Those responsible for government are required to interpret the common good of their country not only according to the guidelines of the majority but also according to the effective good of all the members of the community, including the minority.”
Third, I am dismayed by preachers telling parishioners that support for the RH Bill ipso facto is a serious sin or merits excommunication! I find this to be irresponsible. [If you publicly go up against Church teaching, what do you call these people? I think playing politics is more irresponsible for a man who is ordained a priest of the Catholic Church, for someone who is seen as an intellectual heavyweight only to end up playing the "Obama card" of finding common ground. There are simply no common ground on contraceptives in the Church. None whatsoever!]
Fourth, I have never held that the RH Bill is perfect. [Who says you did?] But if we have to have an RH law, I intend to contribute to its improvement as much as I can. [And how is that gonna be?] Because of this, I and a number of my colleagues [dissenters?] have offered ways of improving it and specifying areas that can be the subject of intelligent discussion. (Yes, there are intelligent people in our country.) [Jesuits have a knack of looking themselves as the only intellectual being in the world. As the Tagalog saying goes "Nagsabog ng katalinuhan..." You don't have the kind of Ignatius Loyola and Francis Xavier like you used to. The Jesuits we have today like to tell the whole world that they always stand up against the Pope, the bishops and the established norm. Just to make them look, uhm,...intelligent. "What does it profit a man if he gains the knowledge of the whole world but loses his soul in return...."] For that purpose we jointly prepared and I published in my column what we called “talking points” on the bill. [Which are complete baloney!]
Fifth, specifically I advocate removal of the provision on mandatory sexual education in public schools without the consent of parents. (I assume that those who send their children to Catholic schools accept the program of Catholic schools on the subject.) My reason for requiring the consent of parents is, among others, the constitutional provision which recognizes the sanctity of the human family and “the natural and primary right of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral character.” (Article II, Section 12) [He did not even bother mentioning about what the Catholic Church teaches because either he knows and he does not care or he simply does not care.]
Sixth, I am pleased that the bill reiterates the prohibition of abortion as an assault against the right to life. Abortifacient pills and devices, if there are any in the market, [and you thought he is an intellectual!] should be banned by the Food and Drug Administration. But whether or not there are such is a question of scientific fact of which I am no judge. [Huh?! Why the intellectual shyness all of a sudden? Is it a way of dodging the bullet?]
Seventh, I hold that there already is abortion any time a fertilized ovum is expelled. The Constitution commands that the life of the unborn be protected “from conception.” For me this means that sacred life begins at fertilization and not at implantation. [Ohh what a breather! I thought he'd never mention that! And I hope Angsioco, the Wiccans and FreeDumbers like Tani are reading this. But, hang on...Great Scott! He wrote in the previous paragraph there are no abortifacients in the market, yet the pills sold today are exactly doing what abortifacients do: kill the fertilized ovum! Then, why, oh why, I pray tell, did Fr. Bernas not see this fact?!?! Was it consciously done? Or he simply does not know it? But, hey, he's a Jesuit. SURE HE KNOWS IT!]
Eighth, it has already been pointed out that the obligation of employers with regard to the sexual and reproductive health of employees is already dealt with in the Labor Code. If the provision needs improvement or nuancing, let it be done through an examination of the Labor Code provision. [Uhmmm... I prefer giving me the money to buy me food, medicine and education for my kids than for the latex. No thanks!]
Ninth, there are many valuable points in the bill’s Declaration of Policy and Guiding Principles which can serve the welfare of the nation and especially of poor women who cannot afford the cost of medical service. [It does not even provide medical service for women! It only advocates contraception and gives medical help for botched abortion! For goodness sake, why not start improving our over-all health care services! Holistic health care is not constrained in the organs between your legs!] There are specific provisions which give substance to these good points. They should be saved. [Uhm, no they do not.]
Tenth, I hold that public money may be spent for the promotion of reproductive health in ways that do not violate the Constitution. [He is not speaking as a Catholic and as a priest. But can he do that? Yes he did. But is he supposed to do that? No, he should not. He is both a citizen of this country, a civil lawyer, a Catholic, a Jesuit priest and a public figure. He should have thought of this first before he opened his mouth!] Public money is neither Catholic, nor Protestant, nor Muslim or what have you and may be appropriated by Congress for the public good without violating the Constitution.
Eleventh, I leave the debate on population control to sociologists.
Finally, I am happy that the CBCP has disowned the self-destructive views of some clerics. [Well, I am not happy that you did not disown your dissent!]
***
After reading this, I won't be surprised if during the Gospel reading, Fr. Bernas begins it by saying:
"A reading from the Holy Constitution according to me!"
It seems all he cares about is the Constitution.
You are a priest for cryin' out loud!
What does the Church have to say about this?
He gave his comments about what the civil law says, but he gave a limp (no pun intended) defense of what the Church stands for in this RH debate. He did not bother to comment on issues about population control and he left it to sociologist.
He is a priest right? Why did he not comment on the moral and ethical side of the bill? Remember that we turn to the Church on issues of faith and morals. His statement about support of the Church's teaching about contraception while calling into question the infallibility of the teaching is almost like telling you to tell your kids:
"Hey, I am against pre-marital sex, but as long as you use a condom..."
Bernas says something to the effect of "I follow it even I am not required by law to do so."
***
I you want to hear what ordinary folks have to comment about this "learned" discourse from the "learned" Jesuit, click here and here.
Don't ask me why.
***
My Stand on the RH Bill
by: Fr. Joaquin Bernas, SJ
I HAVE been following the debates on the RH Bill not just in the recent House sessions but practically since its start. [He is reminding everyone that he knows what is going on.] In the process, because of what I have said and written (where I have not joined the attack dogs against the RH Bill), [but with what you have been writing, he almost looks like a double agent, or worse!] I have been called a Judas by a high-ranking cleric, [quite frankly I agree...with the high-ranking cleric.] I am considered a heretic [he is for openly dissenting against the magisterial teaching of Humanae Vitae.] in a wealthy barangay where some members have urged that I should leave the Church (which is insane), and one of those who regularly hears my Mass in the Ateneo Chapel in Rockwell came to me disturbed by my position. I feel therefore that I owe some explanation to those who listen to me or read my writings. [I hope he clears things up.]
First, let me start by saying that I adhere to the teaching of the Church on artificial contraception [good!] even if [what?!] I am aware that the teaching on the subject is not considered infallible doctrine [It is as stated in the Responsum ad dubium by a cardinal named Joseph Ratzinger.] by those who know more theology than I do. [And there is a good chance that they know more dissent than you do, or do they?] Moreover, I am still considered a Catholic and Jesuit in good standing by my superiors, critics notwithstanding! [With your fellow Jesuits? Uhmmm....ask Fr. James Reuter. And with your superiors, including the bishops, hehehehe.]
Second (very important for me as a student of the Constitution and of church-state relations), I am very much aware of the fact that we live in a pluralist society where various religious groups have differing beliefs about the morality of artificial contraception. [No debate there.] But freedom of religion means more than just the freedom to believe. [Wow! Nice segue that leads you to relativism!] It also means the freedom to act or not to act according to what one believes. [See?] Hence, the state should not prevent people from practicing responsible parenthood according to their religious belief nor may churchmen compel President Aquino, by whatever means, to prevent people from acting according to their religious belief. [Then why do you not get what the pro-life Catholics are cryin' out loud?] As the “Compendium on the Social Teaching of the Catholic Church” says, “Because of its historical and cultural ties to a nation, a religious community might be given special recognition on the part of the State. Such recognition must in no way create discrimination within the civil or social order for other religious groups” and “Those responsible for government are required to interpret the common good of their country not only according to the guidelines of the majority but also according to the effective good of all the members of the community, including the minority.”
Third, I am dismayed by preachers telling parishioners that support for the RH Bill ipso facto is a serious sin or merits excommunication! I find this to be irresponsible. [If you publicly go up against Church teaching, what do you call these people? I think playing politics is more irresponsible for a man who is ordained a priest of the Catholic Church, for someone who is seen as an intellectual heavyweight only to end up playing the "Obama card" of finding common ground. There are simply no common ground on contraceptives in the Church. None whatsoever!]
Fourth, I have never held that the RH Bill is perfect. [Who says you did?] But if we have to have an RH law, I intend to contribute to its improvement as much as I can. [And how is that gonna be?] Because of this, I and a number of my colleagues [dissenters?] have offered ways of improving it and specifying areas that can be the subject of intelligent discussion. (Yes, there are intelligent people in our country.) [Jesuits have a knack of looking themselves as the only intellectual being in the world. As the Tagalog saying goes "Nagsabog ng katalinuhan..." You don't have the kind of Ignatius Loyola and Francis Xavier like you used to. The Jesuits we have today like to tell the whole world that they always stand up against the Pope, the bishops and the established norm. Just to make them look, uhm,...intelligent. "What does it profit a man if he gains the knowledge of the whole world but loses his soul in return...."] For that purpose we jointly prepared and I published in my column what we called “talking points” on the bill. [Which are complete baloney!]
Fifth, specifically I advocate removal of the provision on mandatory sexual education in public schools without the consent of parents. (I assume that those who send their children to Catholic schools accept the program of Catholic schools on the subject.) My reason for requiring the consent of parents is, among others, the constitutional provision which recognizes the sanctity of the human family and “the natural and primary right of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral character.” (Article II, Section 12) [He did not even bother mentioning about what the Catholic Church teaches because either he knows and he does not care or he simply does not care.]
Sixth, I am pleased that the bill reiterates the prohibition of abortion as an assault against the right to life. Abortifacient pills and devices, if there are any in the market, [and you thought he is an intellectual!] should be banned by the Food and Drug Administration. But whether or not there are such is a question of scientific fact of which I am no judge. [Huh?! Why the intellectual shyness all of a sudden? Is it a way of dodging the bullet?]
Seventh, I hold that there already is abortion any time a fertilized ovum is expelled. The Constitution commands that the life of the unborn be protected “from conception.” For me this means that sacred life begins at fertilization and not at implantation. [Ohh what a breather! I thought he'd never mention that! And I hope Angsioco, the Wiccans and FreeDumbers like Tani are reading this. But, hang on...Great Scott! He wrote in the previous paragraph there are no abortifacients in the market, yet the pills sold today are exactly doing what abortifacients do: kill the fertilized ovum! Then, why, oh why, I pray tell, did Fr. Bernas not see this fact?!?! Was it consciously done? Or he simply does not know it? But, hey, he's a Jesuit. SURE HE KNOWS IT!]
Eighth, it has already been pointed out that the obligation of employers with regard to the sexual and reproductive health of employees is already dealt with in the Labor Code. If the provision needs improvement or nuancing, let it be done through an examination of the Labor Code provision. [Uhmmm... I prefer giving me the money to buy me food, medicine and education for my kids than for the latex. No thanks!]
Ninth, there are many valuable points in the bill’s Declaration of Policy and Guiding Principles which can serve the welfare of the nation and especially of poor women who cannot afford the cost of medical service. [It does not even provide medical service for women! It only advocates contraception and gives medical help for botched abortion! For goodness sake, why not start improving our over-all health care services! Holistic health care is not constrained in the organs between your legs!] There are specific provisions which give substance to these good points. They should be saved. [Uhm, no they do not.]
Tenth, I hold that public money may be spent for the promotion of reproductive health in ways that do not violate the Constitution. [He is not speaking as a Catholic and as a priest. But can he do that? Yes he did. But is he supposed to do that? No, he should not. He is both a citizen of this country, a civil lawyer, a Catholic, a Jesuit priest and a public figure. He should have thought of this first before he opened his mouth!] Public money is neither Catholic, nor Protestant, nor Muslim or what have you and may be appropriated by Congress for the public good without violating the Constitution.
Eleventh, I leave the debate on population control to sociologists.
Finally, I am happy that the CBCP has disowned the self-destructive views of some clerics. [Well, I am not happy that you did not disown your dissent!]
***
After reading this, I won't be surprised if during the Gospel reading, Fr. Bernas begins it by saying:
"A reading from the Holy Constitution according to me!"
It seems all he cares about is the Constitution.
You are a priest for cryin' out loud!
What does the Church have to say about this?
He gave his comments about what the civil law says, but he gave a limp (no pun intended) defense of what the Church stands for in this RH debate. He did not bother to comment on issues about population control and he left it to sociologist.
He is a priest right? Why did he not comment on the moral and ethical side of the bill? Remember that we turn to the Church on issues of faith and morals. His statement about support of the Church's teaching about contraception while calling into question the infallibility of the teaching is almost like telling you to tell your kids:
"Hey, I am against pre-marital sex, but as long as you use a condom..."
Bernas says something to the effect of "I follow it even I am not required by law to do so."
If you have Catholic priests like that, who needs Martin Luther?!?!
***
I you want to hear what ordinary folks have to comment about this "learned" discourse from the "learned" Jesuit, click here and here.
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Catholics for RH is NOT CATHOLIC
Finally, the CBCP comes out with a statement about this bogus group which is obviously being funded by Planned Parenthood and the Legionnaires of Eugenics!
***
MANILA, May 20, 2011— The Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) disowned a supposed ‘Catholic’ group advocating for a measure on contraceptives.
CBCP President and Tandag Bishop Nereo Odchimar has warned that the “Catholics for Reproductive Health bill” or C4RH is an organization unknown to the Church. [I was hoping her said "unsanctioned".]
“We wish to make it clear that the Church does not recognize this group to be an authentic Catholic association or group since it espouses and supports a stand contrary to the magisterial teachings of the Church,” said Odchimar in a statement. [I hope the CBCP also says the same thing to dissident theologians and teachers of Catholic schools!]
The Church, the CBCP head added, does not identify C4RH as a genuine Catholic organization in accordance with the Canon Law. [There are processes where an organization gains the recognition or approval of the Church.]
He stressed that to uphold the dignity of the person is the Church’s “uncompromising stand” [we are talking about man and woman only folks and no grey areas!] and to protect life from conception to natural death “has always been a constant teaching of the Church.” [And the bible toting INC is good at this, right? Oops. No.]
“Public espousal of measures that directly undermine these non-negotiable principles of the Catholic faith is a sharp wedge that cuts the unity of the Church,” he said. [Those words are the key words folks. Don't forget that!]
“Any Catholic who freely identifies himself or herself with this group gravely errs,” said Odchimar. (CBCPNews)
***
Uhm, I wish the CBCP came out with a stronger stance on dissidents.
In civil law, a man caught breaking the law gets his day in court.
When will these dissidents, who are so bold and passionate in their attacks of the Church and brazenly challenging the authority of the Pope and the bishops, be BRAVE ENOUGH to face a court tribunal?!
When will the CBCP discipline these people?
When?
Stay tuned.
***
MANILA, May 20, 2011— The Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) disowned a supposed ‘Catholic’ group advocating for a measure on contraceptives.
CBCP President and Tandag Bishop Nereo Odchimar has warned that the “Catholics for Reproductive Health bill” or C4RH is an organization unknown to the Church. [I was hoping her said "unsanctioned".]
“We wish to make it clear that the Church does not recognize this group to be an authentic Catholic association or group since it espouses and supports a stand contrary to the magisterial teachings of the Church,” said Odchimar in a statement. [I hope the CBCP also says the same thing to dissident theologians and teachers of Catholic schools!]
The Church, the CBCP head added, does not identify C4RH as a genuine Catholic organization in accordance with the Canon Law. [There are processes where an organization gains the recognition or approval of the Church.]
He stressed that to uphold the dignity of the person is the Church’s “uncompromising stand” [we are talking about man and woman only folks and no grey areas!] and to protect life from conception to natural death “has always been a constant teaching of the Church.” [And the bible toting INC is good at this, right? Oops. No.]
“Public espousal of measures that directly undermine these non-negotiable principles of the Catholic faith is a sharp wedge that cuts the unity of the Church,” he said. [Those words are the key words folks. Don't forget that!]
“Any Catholic who freely identifies himself or herself with this group gravely errs,” said Odchimar. (CBCPNews)
***
Uhm, I wish the CBCP came out with a stronger stance on dissidents.
In civil law, a man caught breaking the law gets his day in court.
When will these dissidents, who are so bold and passionate in their attacks of the Church and brazenly challenging the authority of the Pope and the bishops, be BRAVE ENOUGH to face a court tribunal?!
When will the CBCP discipline these people?
When?
Stay tuned.
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Catholics for RH?!?!
SAN PABLO CITY, May 17, 2011—Laguna Bishop Most Rev. Leo M. Drona has warned his Roman Catholic constituents throughout Laguna or the Diocese of San Pablo not to be misled and to avoid any involvement with a group that purportedly introduce themselves as C4RH or Catholics for Reproductive Health (RH) Bill as they directly oppose authentic Catholic teachings.
The prelate issued a Clarificatory Note dated May 10, 2011 on C4RH following recent media reports identifying a certain C4RH or Catholic for RH Bill as supporting the Reproductive Health Bill now renamed Responsible Parenthood and claiming to be a Catholic association or group. [You see the term wolves in sheep's clothing isn't cliche' anymore.]
Drona said, “we are thus compelled to issue this clarificatory note for the guidance of all Catholics so that they may not be deceived or misled by this group purporting to call itself C4RH or Catholics for Reproductive Health Bill.” [We hope that fellow Pinoy Catholics and other bishops and priests would get their guards up!]
He said, “The Church, particularly, the Diocese of San Pablo does not consider nor recognize this group to be authentically Catholic association or group since it espouses and supports a stand contrary and in direct opposition to the magisterial teachings of the Church. While we recognize an honest and sincere diversity of opinion in matters open to such legitimate differences, we must also be cognizant of the limitations of such disagreement. In faith and morals where principles are well settled, we expect unity and assent to the truths proposed by the Magisterium.” [Hear that Ateneo professors and priests? Don't call yourself Catholic if by your word and deed you are not! And if you cannot agree with the teachings of the Church, get yourself a new church!]
The prelate, through the Commission on Family and Life of the Diocese of San Pablo also clarified that “The firm and uncompromising stand of the Church to uphold the dignity of the person and to protect and respect life from conception up to natural death have always and everywhere been the constant teaching of the Holy Mother Church.” [That is the starting point of the debate about the stand of the Church against contraceptives and abortifacients. The Church is pro family planning not pro contraceptives.]
“The public espousal of measures that directly undermine these non-negotiable principles of the Catholic faith [TAKE TO HEART THOSE WORDS FOLKS!] is a sharp wedge that cuts the unity of the Church. Hence, any faithful who joins or affiliates himself or herself in the C4RH which claims to be a Catholic association, endangers his own spiritual well-being,” Drona warned. [If the bishop used the "E" word, imagine the chagrin of Celdran!]
The bishop finally reminded all catholic lay constituents including the members of the Clergy in Laguna that the “Diocese of San Pablo does not recognize the so-called Catholics for the Reproductive Health as a genuine Catholic association or organization in accordance with canonical rules. Any Catholic who freely identifies himself or herself to this group gravely errs.” (Fr. Romy O. Ponte)
***
Remember how the Democrats used the same tactic to get the so-called Catholic vote for Obama during the 2008 US Presidential election?
Weird the same thing is being used here.
Remember that Planned Parenthood, the so-called women's rights based organization, is here in the country as well supporting the group Likhaan. And PP is pro-abortion. They call abortion as part of Reproductive Health.
Learn that.
The prelate issued a Clarificatory Note dated May 10, 2011 on C4RH following recent media reports identifying a certain C4RH or Catholic for RH Bill as supporting the Reproductive Health Bill now renamed Responsible Parenthood and claiming to be a Catholic association or group. [You see the term wolves in sheep's clothing isn't cliche' anymore.]
Drona said, “we are thus compelled to issue this clarificatory note for the guidance of all Catholics so that they may not be deceived or misled by this group purporting to call itself C4RH or Catholics for Reproductive Health Bill.” [We hope that fellow Pinoy Catholics and other bishops and priests would get their guards up!]
He said, “The Church, particularly, the Diocese of San Pablo does not consider nor recognize this group to be authentically Catholic association or group since it espouses and supports a stand contrary and in direct opposition to the magisterial teachings of the Church. While we recognize an honest and sincere diversity of opinion in matters open to such legitimate differences, we must also be cognizant of the limitations of such disagreement. In faith and morals where principles are well settled, we expect unity and assent to the truths proposed by the Magisterium.” [Hear that Ateneo professors and priests? Don't call yourself Catholic if by your word and deed you are not! And if you cannot agree with the teachings of the Church, get yourself a new church!]
The prelate, through the Commission on Family and Life of the Diocese of San Pablo also clarified that “The firm and uncompromising stand of the Church to uphold the dignity of the person and to protect and respect life from conception up to natural death have always and everywhere been the constant teaching of the Holy Mother Church.” [That is the starting point of the debate about the stand of the Church against contraceptives and abortifacients. The Church is pro family planning not pro contraceptives.]
“The public espousal of measures that directly undermine these non-negotiable principles of the Catholic faith [TAKE TO HEART THOSE WORDS FOLKS!] is a sharp wedge that cuts the unity of the Church. Hence, any faithful who joins or affiliates himself or herself in the C4RH which claims to be a Catholic association, endangers his own spiritual well-being,” Drona warned. [If the bishop used the "E" word, imagine the chagrin of Celdran!]
The bishop finally reminded all catholic lay constituents including the members of the Clergy in Laguna that the “Diocese of San Pablo does not recognize the so-called Catholics for the Reproductive Health as a genuine Catholic association or organization in accordance with canonical rules. Any Catholic who freely identifies himself or herself to this group gravely errs.” (Fr. Romy O. Ponte)
***
Remember how the Democrats used the same tactic to get the so-called Catholic vote for Obama during the 2008 US Presidential election?
Weird the same thing is being used here.
Remember that Planned Parenthood, the so-called women's rights based organization, is here in the country as well supporting the group Likhaan. And PP is pro-abortion. They call abortion as part of Reproductive Health.
Learn that.
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Finally! A TRUE Jesuit stands up for the Truth and for Life!
MANILA, Philippines—Faculty members who support the Reproductive Health (RH) bill have no right to teach in Ateneo de Manila University, Jesuit priest James Reuters said, according to a Radyo Inquirer report aired Tuesday. [compare that to the lame-duck statements of his fellow Jesuits talking about conscience and common ground!]
Reuters was quoted as saying that the RH bill violates what a Catholic institution like the Ateneo stands for, because he claimed the bill promotes abortion. He said the basic law in a Catholic school is simple: follow the rule of God.
He added that freedom of speech was not absolute. [Freedom entails responsibility and I hope these Ateneo professors know the repercussions of their actions.]
The report said that Reuters had advised the Ateneo administration to investigate teachers supporting the bill. [I doubt the Ateneo administration will do anything about this.]
In 2008, a group of professors from Ateneo de Manila University threw their support for the RH bill.
For the full radio report, listen to the DZIQ 990AM voice clip.—Danica Hermogenes, INQUIRER.net
***
The agnostic Ateneo educated and Ateneo employed blogger Lisandro Claudio wrote: "On a personal level, I also really love the Jesuits; I look to them as the most forward-thinking of Catholics. It is my sincere hope that they help reinvigorate what for me is becoming an increasingly benighted Church."
Let's see what he has to say about what the revered Fr. Reuters just said. Ha!
As I have continuously blogged in the past that we cannot separate our identity as Catholics from who we are as Filipinos and from our profession. We just cannot. We carry that identity in our person.
A Catholic who teaches at a Catholic university cannot invoke academic freedom and freedom of speech by telling the whole world that "I am a Catholic but I dissent from the teachings of the Church."
You just cannot do that.
Either shape up or ship out!
Thank God we have Fr. James Reuters who has the guts to tell the Truth and be crystal clear on this issue.
And to his other fellow Jesuits who cannot do the same...
Know who you are and if you cannot do your duty as a Jesuit and as a Catholic...
Either shape up or ship out!
He added that freedom of speech was not absolute. [Freedom entails responsibility and I hope these Ateneo professors know the repercussions of their actions.]
The report said that Reuters had advised the Ateneo administration to investigate teachers supporting the bill. [I doubt the Ateneo administration will do anything about this.]
In 2008, a group of professors from Ateneo de Manila University threw their support for the RH bill.
For the full radio report, listen to the DZIQ 990AM voice clip.—Danica Hermogenes, INQUIRER.net
***
The agnostic Ateneo educated and Ateneo employed blogger Lisandro Claudio wrote: "On a personal level, I also really love the Jesuits; I look to them as the most forward-thinking of Catholics. It is my sincere hope that they help reinvigorate what for me is becoming an increasingly benighted Church."
Let's see what he has to say about what the revered Fr. Reuters just said. Ha!
As I have continuously blogged in the past that we cannot separate our identity as Catholics from who we are as Filipinos and from our profession. We just cannot. We carry that identity in our person.
A Catholic who teaches at a Catholic university cannot invoke academic freedom and freedom of speech by telling the whole world that "I am a Catholic but I dissent from the teachings of the Church."
You just cannot do that.
Either shape up or ship out!
Thank God we have Fr. James Reuters who has the guts to tell the Truth and be crystal clear on this issue.
And to his other fellow Jesuits who cannot do the same...
Know who you are and if you cannot do your duty as a Jesuit and as a Catholic...
Either shape up or ship out!
Pro-abort politician and Holy Communion
I heard about this yesterday and quite frankly am glad that the Inquirer wrote about it.
Remember that debate about Democrat Party presidential nominee "Catholic" Sen. John Kerry presenting himself for Holy Communion even if he openly supports abortion?
Now here is a news item about the renewal of marriage vows of the eccentric Miriam Santiago, who is the principal author of the Senate counterpart of the RH Bill which will force government to fund the purchase of abortifacients.
***
MANILA, Philippines--Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago isn’t worried her advocacy of the reproductive health (RH) bill will torpedo the renewal of her marital vows in a Catholic church.
The feisty former judge and former Interior Undersecretary Narciso Santiago Jr. are celebrating their 40th wedding anniversary on June 19 with a Mass at Manila Cathedral to be officiated by Manila Archbishop Gaudencio Cardinal Rosales. [Here we go!]
President Benigno Aquino III is the best man, while actress Heart Evangelista is the maid of honor.
“Cardinal Rosales on my appeal has already said he will not excommunicate me. [uhm...] Otherwise, I will risk embarrassment during my wedding anniversary when I attempt to receive communion. He’s not going to deny me. [Did the cardinal really say that?] I guess he’ll turn a blind eye. Besides I’ll be so covered with make-up, [yuvk.] I’ll be unrecognizable,” Santiago told reporters, chuckling.
As the word war between the Church and RH advocates escalates, Santiago issued this appeal to the Catholic bishops: Listen to reason. [Do ya?]
“We just have to appeal to reason because of the principle of the separation of the Church and State,” said Santiago, who, according to her website, was a candidate for a master of arts degree in religious studies at the Maryhill School of Theology in Quezon City. [Now you know where she gets all her trash!]
She said the debate over the RH bill all boiled down to the issue of “freedom of conscience.” [Indeed which in the long run would force Catholic laymen to go against their Faith and which Catholic employers like Catholic schools will be forced to provide abortifacients and contraceptives to their employees or risk getting sued! Where is freedom in that? This whole freedom junk is all from Planned Parenthood!]
“We are created in the image of God because we have freedom of conscience. So for me, seriously speaking, this is an issue of freedom of conscience. Are you free to act according to the dictates of your conscience?” she asked. [Have we properly informed the people of the consequences of their actions? Remember of how we were taught that we are free to do whatever we will. Even God Himself cannot force us to do something against our will. BUT...we have to be ready for the consequences. Holy Mother Church teaches us that the use of contraceptives and abortifacients is a grave moral evil. EVIL. Period. Do we still have to discuss about freedom to choose when you are told that that thing you are about to us is EVIL?]
While respecting the people’s right of free speech “across religious boundaries,” Santiago said she had to stand for the “principle in the democratic governance that the Church cannot dictate to the State.” [Have you told that to the Iglesia ni Manalo? Nah. I don't think so.]
“So the State, meaning to say the Congress in this instance, must always argue in favor of free speech and free conscience,” she said. [Are members of the INC free to do whatever they want? Nah! I don't think so.]
Santiago said she expected floor debates on the RH bill to begin after Mr. Aquino delivers his State of the Nation Address in late July.
“As the author of the bill in the Senate, I am prepared. I’m preparing my battle gear,” she said. [How about your medications? Ha!]
“We’re going to debate this on all fronts not only political front, but also economic, democratic, theological, and medical, meaning to say scientific … I can debate all of them on any of these topics. They can sit in one row and I can sit all alone by myself. And then defend the bill because the merits of the bill will ensure victory.”
***
Honestly, I know a kid, a high school graduate who can trump this loud mouth for all that she brags about in her Bill. That would be my dream debate.
And what about Cardinal Rosales?
Isn't he remiss in his duty as shepherd of souls in the Archdiocese of Manila? He is no ordinary bishop. He is a Cardinal and the Primate of the Philippines.
Has he forgotten this:
Folks, contraceptive pills and devices are abortifacients! They kill the one-second old human being inside what is supposed to be the safest place on earth, the womb of his very own mother!
And the guy who wrote about those statements above became pope. Click here to read more.
And the great Jesuit theologian, Avery Dulles also commented on this issue.
So what happens to this pro-abortion politician? She'll receive communion?
What do we do with a cardinal who publicly voiced opposition against the Bill but as a cleric of the Church would not prevent a public sinner from receiving Holy Communion? I think we have a term for that. SACRILEGIOUS!
Will you do what most US bishops did back in 2004 to Kerry and to Sen. Edward Kennedy before he died, Your Eminence?
Not a good example Your Eminence!
Remember that debate about Democrat Party presidential nominee "Catholic" Sen. John Kerry presenting himself for Holy Communion even if he openly supports abortion?
Now here is a news item about the renewal of marriage vows of the eccentric Miriam Santiago, who is the principal author of the Senate counterpart of the RH Bill which will force government to fund the purchase of abortifacients.
***
MANILA, Philippines--Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago isn’t worried her advocacy of the reproductive health (RH) bill will torpedo the renewal of her marital vows in a Catholic church.
The feisty former judge and former Interior Undersecretary Narciso Santiago Jr. are celebrating their 40th wedding anniversary on June 19 with a Mass at Manila Cathedral to be officiated by Manila Archbishop Gaudencio Cardinal Rosales. [Here we go!]
President Benigno Aquino III is the best man, while actress Heart Evangelista is the maid of honor.
“Cardinal Rosales on my appeal has already said he will not excommunicate me. [uhm...] Otherwise, I will risk embarrassment during my wedding anniversary when I attempt to receive communion. He’s not going to deny me. [Did the cardinal really say that?] I guess he’ll turn a blind eye. Besides I’ll be so covered with make-up, [yuvk.] I’ll be unrecognizable,” Santiago told reporters, chuckling.
As the word war between the Church and RH advocates escalates, Santiago issued this appeal to the Catholic bishops: Listen to reason. [Do ya?]
“We just have to appeal to reason because of the principle of the separation of the Church and State,” said Santiago, who, according to her website, was a candidate for a master of arts degree in religious studies at the Maryhill School of Theology in Quezon City. [Now you know where she gets all her trash!]
She said the debate over the RH bill all boiled down to the issue of “freedom of conscience.” [Indeed which in the long run would force Catholic laymen to go against their Faith and which Catholic employers like Catholic schools will be forced to provide abortifacients and contraceptives to their employees or risk getting sued! Where is freedom in that? This whole freedom junk is all from Planned Parenthood!]
“We are created in the image of God because we have freedom of conscience. So for me, seriously speaking, this is an issue of freedom of conscience. Are you free to act according to the dictates of your conscience?” she asked. [Have we properly informed the people of the consequences of their actions? Remember of how we were taught that we are free to do whatever we will. Even God Himself cannot force us to do something against our will. BUT...we have to be ready for the consequences. Holy Mother Church teaches us that the use of contraceptives and abortifacients is a grave moral evil. EVIL. Period. Do we still have to discuss about freedom to choose when you are told that that thing you are about to us is EVIL?]
While respecting the people’s right of free speech “across religious boundaries,” Santiago said she had to stand for the “principle in the democratic governance that the Church cannot dictate to the State.” [Have you told that to the Iglesia ni Manalo? Nah. I don't think so.]
“So the State, meaning to say the Congress in this instance, must always argue in favor of free speech and free conscience,” she said. [Are members of the INC free to do whatever they want? Nah! I don't think so.]
Santiago said she expected floor debates on the RH bill to begin after Mr. Aquino delivers his State of the Nation Address in late July.
“As the author of the bill in the Senate, I am prepared. I’m preparing my battle gear,” she said. [How about your medications? Ha!]
“We’re going to debate this on all fronts not only political front, but also economic, democratic, theological, and medical, meaning to say scientific … I can debate all of them on any of these topics. They can sit in one row and I can sit all alone by myself. And then defend the bill because the merits of the bill will ensure victory.”
***
Honestly, I know a kid, a high school graduate who can trump this loud mouth for all that she brags about in her Bill. That would be my dream debate.
And what about Cardinal Rosales?
Isn't he remiss in his duty as shepherd of souls in the Archdiocese of Manila? He is no ordinary bishop. He is a Cardinal and the Primate of the Philippines.
Has he forgotten this:
2. The Church teaches that abortion or euthanasia is a grave sin. The Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, with reference to judicial decisions or civil laws that authorize or promote abortion or euthanasia, states that there is a "grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. [...] In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to 'take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law or vote for it’" (no. 73). Christians have a "grave obligation of conscience not to cooperate formally in practices which, even if permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to God’s law. Indeed, from the moral standpoint, it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil. [...] This cooperation can never be justified either by invoking respect for the freedom of others or by appealing to the fact that civil law permits it or requires it" (no. 74).
5. Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.
Folks, contraceptive pills and devices are abortifacients! They kill the one-second old human being inside what is supposed to be the safest place on earth, the womb of his very own mother!
And the guy who wrote about those statements above became pope. Click here to read more.
And the great Jesuit theologian, Avery Dulles also commented on this issue.
So what happens to this pro-abortion politician? She'll receive communion?
What do we do with a cardinal who publicly voiced opposition against the Bill but as a cleric of the Church would not prevent a public sinner from receiving Holy Communion? I think we have a term for that. SACRILEGIOUS!
Will you do what most US bishops did back in 2004 to Kerry and to Sen. Edward Kennedy before he died, Your Eminence?
Not a good example Your Eminence!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)