Tuesday, 11 August 2015

Is the Pope Catholic?

The Times of London published a startling item today, revealing that Pope John Paul II was in fact Catholic. We greet this news with great joy and anxiously await the day when dissenters, rebels and revolutionaries of all stripes reach the same conclusion about Pope Francis.
CORRECTIONS AND CLARIFICATIONS: August 11, 2015

Karol Wojtyla was referred to in Saturday’s Credo column as “the first non-Catholic pope for 450 years”. This should, of course, have read “non-Italian”. We apologise for the error.

Please note that the opinions expressed in this post are those of the author and not necessarily those of any other contributor.

Sunday, 9 August 2015

Corporate donations to Planned Parenthood manifests the moral degeneracy of Capitalist America

The Venerable Pope Pius XII
We must repeat with the utmost energy in these times of social and intellectual anarchy when everyone takes it upon himself to teach as a teacher and lawmaker - the City cannot be built otherwise than as God has built it; society cannot be setup unless the Church lays the foundations and supervises the work..."
Pope Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique

I am neither a socialist nor a capitalist. I am a Catholic. The Catholic Church has firmly denounced various messianic materialist economic systems that take no account of Our Lord Jesus Christ.  Various holy Popes such as Pius X (c.f. Notre Charge Apostolique, Pius XI (c.f. Quadragesimo Anno) and Pius XII (c.f. Le Pelerinage de Lourdes) have warned, denounced and exposed the evils of materialism and liberalism. The following list of capitalist supporters of Planned Parenthood in northern California, is just one illustrative example of how capitalism does the work of the devil. Capitalism is but liberalism applied to economics. 

Pius XII, in an address in 1957, denounced in no uncertain terms the evils of an economic system detached from true morality. The holy Pope wrote:

This materialism is not confined to that condemned philosophy which dictates the policies and economy of a large segment of mankind. It rages also in a love of money which creates ever greater havoc as modern enterprises expand, and which, unfortunately, determines many of the decisions which weigh heavy on the life of the people. It finds expression in the cult of the body, in excessive desire for comforts, and in flight from all the austerities of life. It encourages scorn for human life, even for life which is destroyed before seeing the light of day.

This materialism is present in the unrestrained search for pleasure, which flaunts itself shamelessly and tries, through reading matter and entertainments, to seduce souls which are still pure. It shows itself in lack of interest in one's brother, in selfishness which crushes him, in justice which deprives him of his rights -- in a word, in that concept of life which regulates everything exclusively in terms of material prosperity and earthly satisfactions.

"And I will say to my soul. the rich man said, Soul, thou hast many good things laid up for many years; take thy ease, eat, drink, be merry. But God said to him, Thou fool, this night do they demand thy soul of thee."

  1. 3Com Corporation
  2. Abbott Laboratories Fund
  3. Adaptec, Inc.
  4. Adobe Systems, Inc.
  5. ALZA Corporation
  6. AMD – Advanced Micro Devices
  7. American Express Corporation
  8. Amgen Corporation
  9. Aon Corporation
  10. Aspect Global Giving Program
  11. Autodesk, Inc.
  12. Bakar Foundation, Gerson
  13. Bank of America
  14. Barclays Global Investors
  15. Baxter International
  16. Becton Dickinson & Company
  17. Birkenstock Footprint Sandals, Inc.
  18. Brobeck Charitable Foundation
  19. Cadence Design System, Inc.
  20. California HealthCare
  21. California Wellness
  22. Capital Group Companies
  23. Charles Schwab
  24. Chase Manhattan
  25. ChevronTexaco
  26. Chubb & Son, Inc.
  27. Cisco Systems
  28. Citigroup
  29. CMP Media, Inc.
  30. Compton Foundation, Inc.
  31. Computer Associates Int’l, Inc.
  32. Cowell Foundation, S.H.
  33. Del Monte Foods
  34. eBay
  35. Electronic Arts, Inc.
  36. Fannie Mae
  37. Federated Department Stores, Inc.
  38. First Data Corporation
  39. Fleet
  40. Flora Family Foundation
  41. Fremont Group
  42. Gallagher Foundation, Arthur J.
  43. Gap
  44. Genentech, Inc.
  45. General Physics Corporation
  46. General Re Corporation
  47. Georgia-Pacific Corporation
  48. Grainger, Inc.
  49. Haas Fund, Evelyn and Walter Jr.
  50. Hanson, Bridgett, Marcus, Vlahos and Rudy LLP
  51. Harcourt, Inc.
  52. Hewlett Foundation, William & Flora
  53. Household International
  54. IBM
  55. IKON Office Solutions
  56. Illinois Tool Works
  57. Infocom Group
  58. International Data Group, Inc.
  59. Irvine Foundation, James
  60. Joseph Seagram and Sons
  61. Johnson & Johnson
  62. JP Morgan
  63. Kaiser Family Foundation, Henry J.
  64. Lam Research Corporation
  65. Levi Strauss
  66. Macromedia
  67. Macworld Communications, Inc.
  68. Mastercard International
  69. McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
  70. Merck Company
  71. Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc.
  72. Microsoft Corporation
  73. Millipore
  74. Monsanto Fund
  75. Moore Foundation, Gordon & Betty
  76. Morgan Chase
  77. Morrison & Foerster
  78. National Semiconductor Corp.
  79. Network Associates
  80. Nokia
  81. Northern Trust Company
  82. Olin Corporation
  83. Oracle Corporation
  84. Packard Foundation, David & Lucille
  85. PCW Communications, Inc.
  86. Peninsula Community Foundation
  87. PepsiCo
  88. Pfizer
  89. Providian Financial
  90. Prudential
  91. Quaker Oats
  92. Qualcomm Inc.
  93. RBC Dain Rauscher
  94. Rockefeller Foundation
  95. Rosendin Electric, Inc.
  96. San Jose Mercury News
  97. SBC
  98. Schwab Corporation
  99. Schudder Kemper In
  100. vestments, Inc.
  101. Starbucks
  102. Stuart Foundation
  103. Sun Microsystems
  104. Synopsis
  105. Tandy Corporation
  106. Tenet Healthcare
  107. U.S. Bancorp
  108. UBS Realty Investors LLC
  109. Washington Mutual
  110. West Group
  111. Working Assets Funding Service
  112. Xinet
  113. Yahoo!

Thursday, 6 August 2015

The 2015 Election for the Disenfranchised

I have been dreading this election for some time now. Unfortunately the state of party politics and the complete marginalization of backbenchers means that even if an MP has a functioning Catholic conscience, no free vote will be permitted on serious moral issues. Justin Trudeau has made it abundantly clear that Catholics who adhere to the Church's position on life issues are not welcome in the Liberal Party. The situation is the same for the NDP. 
NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair said “In the NDP, no MP is ever going to vote against the woman’s right to choose. No one will be allowed to run for the NDP if they don’t believe that it is a right in our society for women to make their own choices on their reproductive health. Period.”
Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau said his party will not accept anti-abortion candidates, although current Liberal MPs who are anti-abortion can remain in caucus, he said. “It is not for any government to legislate what a woman chooses to do with her body, and that is the bottom line,” Trudeau told reporters on Parliament Hill.

I cannot vote for a party which places restrictions on its MPs that are in direct opposition to Catholic moral teaching advocating actions which are objectively wrong. There is no room in either of these parties for an MP with a a functioning Catholic conscience.

What of Stephen Harper and the Conservatives? Mr. Harper has a long history of opposing free votes in the house. Moreover he has made it plain that although he will allow pro-life candidates and MPs, he is absolutely opposed to opening debate on the abortion issue in Commons. His MPs are permitted to have a conscience but he will permit them no opportunity to act on it.

Moreover, I am worried that some of the provisions in the recently passed security bill C-51 could easily be turned against Catholics who protest abortion or oppose same sex marriage. This has already happened in Great Britian, according to this Catholic Herald article. 

MP calls for anti-terror powers to prevent Christians from teaching gay marriage is wrong

We have already seen people subjected to the extra judicial procedures of Human Rights Tribunals. I simply have no wish to support a leader who crafts legislation that could easily be used to declare Mary Wagner or Linda Gibbons as dangerous extremists who are opposed to Canadian values.

Unfortunately there are no candidates in the upcoming election for whom I can vote in good conscience. The option of refusing my ballot is not even available in federal elections. Unless some serious reforms are enacted limiting the number of whipped votes in the House of Commons, allowing backbench MPs to vote their conscience unfettered by party platforms, I will continue to be disenfranchised.

"The first move will be to privatize religion, to move it off the public stage... 
The second move is the secular state will go after those practices of ours and teachings of ours that it finds repugnant."
Cardinal Francis George

Catechism of the Catholic Church
2242 The citizen is obliged in conscience not to follow the directives of civil authorities when they are contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel. Refusing obedience to civil authorities, when their demands are contrary to those of an upright conscience, finds its justification in the distinction between serving God and serving the political community. "Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." "We must obey God rather than men":

When citizens are under the oppression of a public authority which oversteps its competence, they should still not refuse to give or to do what is objectively demanded of them by the common good; but it is legitimate for them to defend their own rights and those of their fellow citizens against the abuse of this authority within the limits of the natural law and the Law of the Gospel. 

Doctrinal Note: On Some Questions Regarding the Participation of Catholics in  Political Life
As John Paul II has taught in his Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae regarding the situation in which it is not possible to overturn or completely repeal a law allowing abortion which is already in force or coming up for a vote, "an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality".

In this context, it must be noted also that a well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals. The Christian faith is an integral unity, and thus it is incoherent to isolate some particular element to the detriment of the whole of Catholic doctrine. A political commitment to a single isolated aspect of the Church’s social doctrine does not exhaust one’s responsibility towards the common good. Nor can a Catholic think of delegating his Christian responsibility to others; rather, the Gospel of Jesus Christ gives him this task, so that the truth about man and the world might be proclaimed and put into action.

The Anniversary of the death of Pope Paul VI on the Feast of the Transfiguration: "if you want peace, defend life"


Christ is our Peace 
(Ephesians 2, 11)

Today marks the 37th anniversary of the now Blessed Paul VI. The Pope had these words to say about abortion, in his 1977 Message for Peace, that we would do well to pray upon. 


But it is not only war that kills Peace. Every crime against life is a blow to Peace, especially if it strikes at the moral conduct of the people, as often happens today, with horrible and often legal ease, as in the case of the suppression of incipient life, by abortion. Reasons such as the following are brought forward to justify abortion: abortion seeks to slow down the troublesome increase of the population, to eliminate beings condemned to malformation, social dishonour, proletarian misery, and so on; it seems rather to favour Peace than to harm it. But it is not so. The suppression of an incipient life, or one that is already born, violates above all the sacrosanct moral principle to which the concept of human existence must always have reference: human life is sacred from the first moment of its conception and until the last instant of its natural survival in time. It is sacred; what does this mean? It means that life must be exempt from any arbitrary power to suppress it; it must not be touched; it is worthy of all respect, all care, all dutiful sacrifice.

For those who believe in God, it is spontaneous and instinctive and indeed a duty through the law of religion. And even for those who do not have this good fortune of admitting the protecting and vindicating hand of God upon all human beings, this same sense of the sacred - that is, the untouchable and inviolable element proper to a living human existence - is and must be something sensed by virtue of human dignity. Those who have had the misfortune, the implacable guilt, the ever renewed remorse at having deliberately suppressed a life know this and feel this. The voice of innocent blood cries out with heartrending insistence in the heart of the person who killed it. Inner Peace is not possible through selfish sophistries! And even if it is, a blow at Peace - that is, at the general system that protects order, safe living in society, in a word, at Peace - has been perpetrated: the individual Life and Peace in general are always linked by an unbreakable relationship. If we wish progressive social order to be based upon intangible principles, let us not offend against it in the heart of its essential system: respect for human life. Even under this aspect Peace and Life are closely bound together at the basis of order and civilization.

Wednesday, 5 August 2015

Pope Francis: remarriage is not possible, as it contradicts the teachings of the Church




"The Church knows well that such a situation contradicts the Christian sacrament".
 (on second "unions", Angelus Address, August 5, 2015)
Pope Francis 

Pope Francis has spoken out on the issue of marriage and divorce. But there are two dramas here: firstly, he referenced Familiaris Consortio No.84. This particular reference means that  the Pope was addressing the unchangeable teaching on divorce and "remarriage", the impossibility to receive the Holy Eucharist while living in grave sin. As I have been arguing for a long time, the doctrine and the practice will not be changing. 

The second drama is this: the innovators are still at work; if not to overturn doctrine, perhaps alter practice, certainly undermining the Church through a de facto schismatic attitude. It is very noticeable that the Holy See Press Office in the English and French versions (those that I checked) deliberately  omitted any reference to Familiaris Consortio, thereby giving us a false version of the Pope, and subtly trying to deceive Catholics about the truth of the indissolubility of marriage. The HSPOs continued manipulation of the words and writings of the Holy Father is very disturbing. Let us ask ourselves: what type of Press Office issues false, different and even contradictory statements? For whom is the HSPO working?

Familiaris Consortio: 

84. Daily experience unfortunately shows that people who have obtained a divorce usually intend to enter into a new union, obviously not with a Catholic religious ceremony. Since this is an evil that, like the others, is affecting more and more Catholics as well, the problem must be faced with resolution and without delay. The Synod Fathers studied it expressly. The Church, which was set up to lead to salvation all people and especially the baptized, cannot abandon to their own devices those who have been previously bound by sacramental marriage and who have attempted a second marriage. The Church will therefore make untiring efforts to put at their disposal her means of salvation.

Pastors must know that, for the sake of truth, they are obliged to exercise careful discernment of situations. There is in fact a difference between those who have sincerely tried to save their first marriage and have been unjustly abandoned, and those who through their own grave fault have destroyed a canonically valid marriage. Finally, there are those who have entered into a second union for the sake of the children's upbringing, and who are sometimes subjectively certain in conscience that their previous and irreparably destroyed marriage had never been valid.

Together with the Synod, I earnestly call upon pastors and the whole community of the faithful to help the divorced, and with solicitous care to make sure that they do not consider themselves as separated from the Church, for as baptized persons they can, and indeed must, share in her life. They should be encouraged to listen to the word of God, to attend the Sacrifice of the Mass, to persevere in prayer, to contribute to works of charity and to community efforts in favor of justice, to bring up their children in the Christian faith, to cultivate the spirit and practice of penance and thus implore, day by day, God's grace. Let the Church pray for them, encourage them and show herself a merciful mother, and thus sustain them in faith and hope.

However, the Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried. They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist. Besides this, there is another special pastoral reason: if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church's teaching about the indissolubility of marriage.

Reconciliation in the sacrament of Penance which would open the way to the Eucharist, can only be granted to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage. This means, in practice, that when, for serious reasons, such as for example the children's upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they "take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples."

Similarly, the respect due to the sacrament of Matrimony, to the couples themselves and their families, and also to the community of the faithful, forbids any pastor, for whatever reason or pretext even of a pastoral nature, to perform ceremonies of any kind for divorced people who remarry. Such ceremonies would give the impression of the celebration of a new sacramentally valid marriage, and would thus lead people into error concerning the indissolubility of a validly contracted marriage.

By acting in this way, the Church professes her own fidelity to Christ and to His truth. At the same time she shows motherly concern for these children of hers, especially those who, through no fault of their own, have been abandoned by their legitimate partner.

With firm confidence she believes that those who have rejected the Lord's command and are still living in this state will be able to obtain from God the grace of conversion and salvation, provided that they have persevered in prayer, penance and charity.

Tuesday, 4 August 2015

Pope Francis wishes us to be more compassionate in a world gravely wounded with consumerism and materialism


On July 9th, Pope Francis met with clergy, religious and seminarians in Bolivia. Naturally, the media were obsessed with the eccentricities of the President of that country and his "gift" for the Pope. If only they had devoted a small part of their energies to what the Pope actually said. 

The Pope had soem very serious words for the clergy, which equally apply to all those who strive to be Christ's disciples. The entire address is well worth serious reading and reflection. Is it not true, and  so many times, we - each one of us - falls short of manifesting compassion towards a suffering brother or sister? The world, with its incessant "self-fulfillment", its clamour for messianic materialism and consumerism strongly encourages us to "pass by" a suffering person. But this is not what Our Lord taught, nor what He did. "Come to me all ye who labour, and I shall give you rest...". 


There were three responses to the cry of the blind man and today these three responses are also relevant. We can describe them with three phrases taken from the Gospel: “pass by”, “be quiet”, “take heart and get up”.

1. “They passed by”. Some of those who passed by did not even hear his shouting. They were with Jesus, they looked at Jesus, they wanted to hear him. But they were not listening. Passing by is the response of indifference, of avoiding other people’s problems because they do not affect us. It is not my problem. We do not hear them, we do not recognize them. Deafness. Here we have the temptation to see suffering as something natural, to take injustice for granted. And yes, there are people like that: I am here with God, with my consecrated life, chosen by God for ministry and yes, it is normal that there are those who are sick, poor, suffering, and it is so normal that I no longer notice the cry for help. To become accustomed. We say to ourselves, “This is nothing unusual; this were always like this, as long as it does not affect me”. It is the response born of a blind, closed heart, a heart which has lost the ability to be touched and hence the possibility to change. How many of us followers of Christ run the risk of losing our ability to be astonished, even with the Lord? That wonder we had on the first encounter seems to diminish, and it can happen to anyone. Indeed it happened to the first Pope: “Whom shall we go to Lord? You have the words of eternal life”. And then they betray him, they deny him, the wonder fades away. It happens when we get accustomed to things. The heart is blinded. A heart used to passing by without letting itself be touched; a life which passes from one thing to the next, without ever sinking roots in the lives of the people around us, simply because it is part of the elite who follow the Lord....

...You may say to me, “But those people in the Gospel were following the Master, they were busy listening to his words. They were intent on him.” I think that this is one of the most challenging things about Christian spirituality. The Evangelist John tells us, “How can you love God, whom you do not see, if you do not love your brother whom you do see?” (1 Jn 4:20). They believed that they were listening to the Master, but they also made their own interpretation, and the words of the Master are distilled by their blinded hearts. One of the great temptations we encounter on the path as we follow Jesus is to separate these two things, listening to God and listening to our brothers and sisters, both of which belong together. We need to be aware of this. The way we listen to God the Father is how we should listen to his faithful people. If we do not listen in the same way, with the same heart, then something has gone wrong.

To pass by, without hearing the pain of our people, without sinking roots in their lives and in their world, is like listening to the word of God without letting it take root and bear fruit in our hearts. Like a tree, a life without roots is one which withers and dies.

2. The second phrase: “Be quiet”. This is the second response to Bartimaeus’ cry: “Keep quiet, don’t bother us, leave us alone, for we are praying as a community, we are in heightened state of spirituality. Don’t bother us. Unlike the first response, this one hears, acknowledges, and makes contact with the cry of another person. It recognizes that he or she is there, but reacts simply by scolding. It is the bishops, priests, sisters, popes, who point their finger threateningly. In Argentina we say of teachers who point their fingers in this way: “This is like the teacher from the time of the Yrigoyen who used particularly strict methods”. And the poor faithful people of God, how often are they tested, either by the bad temper or the personal situation of a follower of Christ. It is the attitude of some leaders of God’s people; they continually scold others, hurl reproaches at them, tell them to be quiet. Please embrace them, listen to them, tell them that Jesus loves them. “No, you can’t do that”. “Madam, take your crying child out of the church as I am preaching”. As if the cries of a child were not a sublime homily.

This is the drama of the isolated consciousness, of those disciples who think that the life of Jesus is only for those who deserve it. There is an underlying contempt for the faithful people of God: “This blind man who has to interfere with everything, let him stay where he is”. They seem to believe there is only room for the “worthy”, for the “better people”, and little by little they separate themselves, become distinct, from the others. They have made their identity a badge of superiority. That identity which makes itself superior, is no longer proper to the pastor but rather to a foreman: “I made it here, now you wait in line”. Such persons no longer listen; they look, but they cannot see...

...They hear, but they don’t listen. They deliver a sermon, but look without seeing. The need to show that they are different has closed their heart. Their need to tell themselves, consciously or subconsciously, “I am not like that person, like those people”, not only cuts them off from the cry of their people, from their tears, but most of all from their reasons for rejoicing. Laughing with those who laugh, weeping with those who weep; all this is part of the mystery of a priestly heart and the heart of a consecrated person. Sometimes there are elite groups that are created by not listening and seeing, and we distance ourselves...

3. The third word: “Take heart and get up”. This is the third response. It is not so much a direct response to the cry of Bartimaeus as a reaction of people who saw how Jesus responded to the pleading of the blind beggar. In other words, those who gave no importance to the beggar, those who did not let him pass, or those who told him to be quiet… when they see Jesus’ reaction they change their attitude: “Get up, he is calling you”. In those who told him to take heart and get up, the beggar’s cry issued in a word, an invitation, a new and changed way of responding to God’s holy and faithful People.

Unlike those who simply passed by, the Gospel says that Jesus stopped and asked what was happening. “What is happening here?” “Who is making noise?” He stopped when someone cried out to him. Jesus singled him out from the nameless crowd and got involved in his life. And far from ordering him to keep quiet, he asked him, “Tell me, what do you want me to do for you?” Jesus didn’t have to show that he was different, somehow apart, and he didn’t give the beggar a sermon; he didn’t decide whether Bartimaeus was worthy or not before speaking to him. He simply asked him a question, looked at him and sought to come into his life, to share his lot. And by doing this he gradually restored the man’s lost dignity, the man who was on the side of the path and blind; Jesus included him. Far from looking down on him, Jesus was moved to identify with the man’s problems and thus to show the transforming power of mercy. There can be no compassion – and I mean compassion and not pity – without stopping. If you do not stop, you do not suffer with him, you do not have divine compassion....

...This is the logic of discipleship, it is what the Holy Spirit does with us and in us. We are witnesses of this. One day Jesus saw us on the side of the road, wallowing in our own pain and misery, our indifference. Each one knows his or her past. He did not close his ear to our cries. He stopped, drew near and asked what he could do for us. And thanks to many witnesses, who told us, “Take heart; get up”, gradually we experienced this merciful love, this transforming love, which enabled us to see the light. We are witnesses not of an ideology, of a recipe, of a particular theology. We are not witnesses of that. We are witnesses to the healing and merciful love of Jesus. We are witnesses of his working in the lives of our communities.

And this is the pedagogy of the Master, this is the pedagogy which God uses with his people. It leads us to passing from distracted zapping to the point where we can say to others: “Take heart; get up. The Master is calling you” (Mk 10:49). Not so that we can be special, not so that we can be better than others, not so that we can be God’s functionaries, but only because we are grateful witnesses to the mercy which changed us. When we live like this, there is joy and delight, and we can identify ourselves with the testimony given by the religious sister who made her own Saint Augustine’s counsel, “Sing and walk”. This is the joy that comes from witnessing to the mercy that transforms.