Monday, February 23, 2009

Lourdes Chaplain Stands up to Pro-Abortion "Catholic" Politicians

John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi and the rest won’t receive Holy Communion from this Lourdes Chaplain: "Not on your life!" says Père Georges David Byers, Chapelain des Sanctuaires Notre-Dame de Lourdes.


"I would rather die first. Unless, of course, they publicly repented and went to Confession."

Whether or not the liturgies in the Lourdes grotto are televised 24/7 (and there may be politicians who use this for their own publicity from time to time), no pro-death “Catholic” politicians will be receiving Holy Communion from this Lourdes Chaplain. Some American bishops weakly ask such pro-death people to refrain from receiving Holy Communion. But the Church says that it is necessary for all ministers of Holy Communion publicly to refuse Holy Communion to such pro-death people, even if they haven’t had a chance to speak with them first. I suppose that there are some who would be significantly offended should they read this little post because someone printed it out for them before they made their pilgrimage here to Lourdes (since pretty much everyone comes here). I want such people to know how insanely stupid it would be to give Holy Communion to pro-death politicians: Holy Communion is the Son of the Immaculate Conception. He, the Author of life, was in her womb for nine months. Get it? She called herself the Immaculate Conception. Get it? Christ said that what you’ve done to the least of these you’ve done to me. Get it? Ripping kids apart in their mother’s womb isn’t consonant with receiving the Son of the Immaculate Conception in Holy Communion. Some “Catholic” journalists might think that I’m being partisan. But I’m just being Catholic, that is, universal. Universal does not mean partisan. I’m for everyone coming to know the truth instead of being enslaved by the tyranny of relativism. I’m being a priest. And a papist. I’m proud of that.

UPDATE: I mean, look. It’s not rocket science. I know Nancy’s views well enough to get a hearing at the Holy Office on one of her pro-death policies. And, as far as John Kerry’s views go. I know them first hand. I talked with him for twenty minutes in the Vatican Gardens a while back about “Catholic” pro-abort politicians receiving Holy Communion. Anyway, anyone can know their views. Their views are notorious. That means that one does not have to depend on a bishop’s views about the matter. It’s publicly known fact.

The question: What if they are in error and just simply don’t know the evil they are doing?

The answer: Error does not justify, and error has no rights.

New York's New Archbishop

Today, February 23, 2009, the Holy Father has accepted the resignation of Edward Cardinal Egan in conformity with canon 401 § 1 of the Code of Canon Law.

The Pope has named S.E. Mons. Timothy M. DOLAN, as Archbishop, until now Archbishop of Milwaukee.

Archbishop Dolan Appointed Archbishop of New York Retirement of Cardinal Egan Accepted
February 23, 2009

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: February 23, 2009

His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI, has appointed His Excellency, Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan, Archbishop of Milwaukee, to the Archdiocese of New York. Archbishop Dolan has served as the Archbishop of Milwaukee since 2002. He will be the 13th Bishop and 10th Archbishop of the See of New York. He succeeds His Eminence, Edward Cardinal Egan, who submitted his letter of retirement upon reaching the age of 75 on April 2, 2007.

Cardinal Egan has been named Apostolic Administrator of the Archdiocese of New York until the Installation of Archbishop Dolan. The Archbishop will be installed by His Excellency, Archbishop Pietro Sambi, Apostolic Nuncio to the United States at Saint Patrick's Cathedral on April 15, 2009.

In a statement, Archbishop Dolan addressed New Yorkers, saying, "My brother bishops, priests, religious women and men, seminarians, committed Catholics of this wonderful Church, I pledge to you my love, my life, my heart, and I can tell you already that I love you, I need so much your prayers and support, I am so honored, humbled, and happy to serve as your pastor."

Born in 1950, the oldest of five children to Robert and Shirley Dolan, Archbishop Dolan's education began at Holy Infant Grade School in Ballwin, Missouri, and continued at St. Louis Preparatory Seminary, Cardinal Glennon College, and the Pontifical North American College, in Rome.

Ordained a priest for the Archdiocese of St. Louis on June 19, 1976, Father Dolan then served as a parish priest, earned his doctorate in Church History at The Catholic University of America in Washington, D. C., worked at the Apostolic Nunciature (Vatican Embassy) in Washington, D.C., served on the faculty at Kenrick-Glennon Seminary in St. Louis, and returned to Rome as rector of the Pontifical North American College.

He came back to the Archdiocese of St. Louis as auxiliary bishop in June 2001, to be appointed Archbishop of Milwaukee a year later.

Cursus Vitae:

S.E. Mons. Timothy Michael Dolan was born 2/6/ 1950 in Saint Louis (Missouri).
From 1964 to 1968 student at "St. Louis Preparatory Seminary South"
He received a BA in Philosophy afrom "Cardinal Glennon College"
He was sent to Rome in 1972 to the North American College and earned a Masters in Theology at the Angelicum.
He was ordained a priest June 19, 1976
-parochial of "Immacolata Parish" at Richmond Heights
-confessor to the Carmelite Sisters (1976-1979)
-further studies in Ecclesiastical history at CUA 1979-1983).
-parochial vicar at "Curé of Ars Parish" in Shrewsbury (1983-1985); "Little Flower Parish" in Richmond Heights (1985-1987);
-worked for Nunziatura Apostolica in Washington, D.C. (1987-1992);
-Vice-Rettore at the Major Seminary "Kenrick-Glennon" of Saint Louis;
-Rettore of the North American College in Rome (1994-2001)
-Named Auxiliary bishop [titular of Natchez] of Saint Louis June 19, 2001 and ordained August 15, 2001
-Named Archbishop of Milwaukee June 25, 2002

Thursday, February 19, 2009

Anti-Catholic Media Hates Pope Pius XII

Papal Postulator Relates Vicious Media Bias against Catholic Church
By Hilary White, Rome correspondent

ROME, February 13, 2009 ( - In a meeting with a US Orthodox rabbi, a renowned historian related his experiences with the mainstream media in his work as the "postulator" or investigator for the Vatican of the cause for canonisation of Pope Pius XII. Fr. Peter Gumpel SJ said that in his experience of hundreds of interviews and debates, he has experienced first hand the open hostility to the Catholic Church of the liberal mainstream media.

He relates what he said was a routine experience with the media: "I was once asked by a newspaper in Rome, I gave a long interview, but they never published it. Apparently they were deadly set against Pius XII so of course, I didn't accept all their statements. It was in itself a friendly discussion, but it was never published."

The elderly, soft-spoken German priest, received as a guest at his offices near St. Peter's Basilica during a meeting with Rabbi Yehuda Levin, the US Orthodox rabbi who was in Rome at the end of January to discuss the relations of the Orthodox Jews with the Catholic Church.

After over thirty years of investigation, Fr. Gumpel has concluded that Pius was holy man who did everything possible to help save the Jews. But this picture conflicts with the message of the secular media, and some sections of the Catholic academic world, committed to portraying the pope as an anti-Semitic dupe, or even collaborator, of the Nazi's genocide of Europe's Jews.

"If you see the German documents of the time, you will see that the Nazis hated him," Fr. Gumpel said of Pope Pius. But this history, he said, is being blocked by a consciously anti-Catholic media determined to keep it from the public.

Fr. Gumpel said that although books have been written clarifying the record in other languages, "nowadays to find a publisher who is intending to publish something in favour of the Roman Catholic Church in the English speaking world, be it in England, be it in the United States is not that simple."

Rabbi Levin spoke with Fr. Gumpel about the widespread belief of many Jews, and heavily disseminated by the Catholic left, that what is termed the "silence" of Pope Pius led to the deaths of greater numbers of Jews in Europe in the Nazi genocide. But Fr. Gumpel maintains that the impression of the Pope's "indifference" is one that has been created by a broadly anti-Catholic secular media and is not upheld by the historical record.

"I have given hundreds of interviews in six different languages on television, radio, newspapers, etcetera. I am not someone who would defend this man against my better conscience. If I have defended somebody I do so because I am convinced that he merits to be defended."

The attacks on Pope Pius have come only since the publication in the early 1960s of a play, called The Deputy, in which he was depicted as an anti-Semite and a dupe of the Nazi regime. In the lifetime of Pius, however, the pope was enthusiastically thanked, applauded and honoured by the leadership of the Jewish world for his efforts to save Jews during the war.

Fr. Gumpel, a German, is one of the academic community's most respected historians whose family suffered under the Nazi regime. In his more than thirty years of study and investigation into the Pope's life, Fr. Gumpel has been no stranger to the hostility of the mainstream secular media for his defence of Pius.

"I remember some years ago I was called by a leading editor of a daily newspaper in the United States who point blank asked me 'Professor, is it true that you were a member of the Hitler Youth and a member of the SS?'

"Now, since my family suffered greatly from the Nazis, at first I was taken a little bit aback. And then I said, laughingly to him, it is very interesting for me to get to know certain things about my own life from a journalist of which so far, I have never known anything.

"And then he said, 'please father, understand that I was not thinking this, but I am put under terrible pressure to publish this. But since I am afraid that I may end up with a process for libel and calumny, I wanted to be sure'. These are the things that have been happening."

He relates: "Certain people in the US of a leading weekly telephoned me to my residence asking whether I had ever been condemned for criminal activities or that my family were full of criminals."

He takes a stoic, philosophical attitude toward these problems, however, saying, "We try to do what we can. And with considerable success in many instances even though it means that you may be attacked the next time as a fool or anti-Jewish or anti-Semitic."

Wednesday, February 18, 2009

The Pope Teaches Pelosi How to Be a Catholic


Following the General Audience the Holy Father briefly greeted Mrs Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, together with her entourage.

His Holiness took the opportunity to speak of the requirements of the natural moral law and the Church’s consistent teaching on the dignity of human life from conception to natural death which enjoin all Catholics, and especially legislators, jurists and those responsible for the common good of society, to work in cooperation with all men and women of good will in creating a just system of laws capable of protecting human life at all stages of its development.

Let's see how "ardent" her Catholicism is now. In the story of Lazarus and Dives (the richman in Hell), Abraham tells Dives that if Moses and the prophets were not enough to get Dives' living brothers to repent and aovid Hell no one would convince them. Pelosi has already rejected Church teaching on the right to life when presented to her by Arcbishop Niederauer just a little over a week ago. If the Pelosi does not accept the Pope's words, then she will be in the same boat. I hope she has a change of heart, for her own eternal welfare and for the present edification of other lapsed Catholics like herself.

Tuesday, February 17, 2009

Alex Rodriguez's Steroids and Birth Control

At a press conference today in Tampa, Florida, New York Yankees third baseman Alex Rodriguez today tried to explain his use of performance-enhancing drugs and offer an apology of sorts. The following carry the story:

Rodriguez Answers Questions About His Drug Use -New York Times

Alex Rodriguez's Yankee steroids confession show - New York Daily News

Rodriguez Cites Naivety, Curiosity for Use - Washington Post

Alex Rodriguez press conference live blog - USA Today

Major League Baseball has a big problem on its hands and it has not dealt well with it so far. But, I point to this issue because of the hypocrisy rampant in the media. While auferanobis would never condone the use of performance enhancing steriods, this blog would like to point out that each day government funded organizations such as Planned Parenthood work to put steriods (i.e. chemical forms of birth control such as synthetic progestagens and estrogens, which are two of the five major classes of steroid hormones, in addition to the androgens, mineralocorticoids, and glucocorticoids) into the hands of little girls all in the name of freedom of choice.

And so, while a double standard is perhaps better than no standard, we see the innate hypocrisy of those who are all for steroids for little girls and women so that men can use them for sex without "consequences," but are worried about little boys and men harming themselves by taking steroids!

Don't hold your breath until the media asks why our sex-obsessed society is also misogynistic?

And since this is a Catholic blog, I ask you to recall the prophetic words of Pope Paul VI in 1968 when he issued Humanae Vitae (#17):

1. Let them first consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards.

2. Not much experience is needed to be fully aware of human weakness and to understand that human beings—and especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation—need incentives to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law.

3. Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection.

4. Finally, careful consideration should be given to the danger of this power passing into the hands of those public authorities who care little for the precepts of the moral law. Who will blame a government which in its attempt to resolve the problems affecting an entire country resorts to the same measures as are regarded as lawful by married people in the solution of a particular family difficulty? Who will prevent public authorities from favoring those contraceptive methods which they consider more effective? Should they regard this as necessary, they may even impose their use on everyone. It could well happen, therefore, that when people, either individually or in family or social life, experience the inherent difficulties of the divine law and are determined to avoid them, they may give into the hands of public authorities the power to intervene in the most personal and intimate responsibility of husband and wife.

Thursday, February 12, 2009

St. Augustine of Hippo on Ad Orientem

From Commentary on the Sermon on the Mount (Bk 2 ch 5):

17. Let the new people, therefore, who are called to an eternal inheritance, use the word of the New Testament, and say, Our Father who art in heaven, i.e. in the holy and the just. For God is not contained in space. For the heavens are indeed the higher material bodies of the world, but yet material, and therefore cannot exist except in some definite place; but if God's place is believed to be in the heavens, as meaning the higher parts of the world, the birds are of greater value than we, for their life is nearer to God. But it is not written, The Lord is nigh unto tall men, or unto those who dwell on mountains; but it is written, The Lord is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart, which refers rather to humility. But as a sinner is called earth, when it is said to him, Earth you are, and unto earth shall you return; so, on the other hand, a righteous man may be called heaven. For it is said to the righteous, For the temple of God is holy, which temple you are. And therefore, if God dwells in His temple, and the saints are His temple, the expression which art in heaven is rightly used in the sense, which art in the saints. And most suitable is such a similitude, so that spiritually there may be seen to be as great a difference between the righteous and sinners, as there is materially between heaven and earth.

18. And for the purpose of showing this, when we stand at prayer, we turn to the east, whence the heaven rises: not as if God also were dwelling there, in the sense that He who is everywhere present, not as occupying space, but by the power of His majesty, had forsaken the other parts of the world; but in order that the mind may be admonished to turn to a more excellent nature, i.e. to God, when its own body, which is earthly, is turned to a more excellent body, i.e. to a heavenly one. It is also suitable for the different stages of religion, and expedient in the highest degree, that in the minds of all, both small and great, there should be cherished worthy conceptions of God. And therefore, as regards those who as yet are taken up with the beauties that are seen, and cannot think of anything incorporeal, inasmuch as they must necessarily prefer heaven to earth, their opinion is more tolerable, if they believe God, whom as yet they think of after a corporeal fashion, to be in heaven rather than upon earth: so that when at any future time they have learned that the dignity of the soul exceeds even a celestial body, they may seek Him in the soul rather than in a celestial body even; and when they have learned how great a distance there is between the souls of sinners and of the righteous, just as they did not venture, when as yet they were wise only after a carnal fashion, to place Him on earth, but in heaven, so afterwards with better faith or intelligence they may seek Him again in the souls of the righteous rather than in those of sinners. Hence, when it is said, Our Father which art in heaven, it is rightly understood to mean in the hearts of the righteous, as it were in His holy temple. And at the same time, in such a way that he who prays wishes Him whom he invokes to dwell in himself also; and when he strives after this, practises righteousness—a kind of service by which God is attracted to dwell in the soul.

Also see:
-Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 7.17.43
-Origen, Contra Celsum 8.67
-Tertullian, Ad Mat. 1.3; Apolog. 16
-St. Gregory of Nyssa, On the Lord's Prayer PG 44:1183
-St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae II-II q. 74 a. 3

Wednesday, February 11, 2009

Church Teaching with Bishop Tobin

Q & A with Bishop Tobin:
Catholic teachings on homosexuality

A conversation between the Most Rev. Thomas J. Tobin, bishop of the Catholic Diocese
of Providence, and Providence Journal Staff Writer Mark Arsenault.

Does God create homosexuals?

God creates people, and some people have a heterosexual orientation and some people have a homosexual orientation. [Note he does not ascribe a homosexual orientation to God. As is well-known, homosexuality was regarded by the Medical Establishment (including Freud) as a disorder until the early 1970's.]

Does God determine which orientation someone has?

That gets to the question of whether it's nature or nurture. If it's based in nature, sure there's some determination there. Much like you're born with any other inclination, orientation or disposition. The question of orientation is not in itself a question of morality. The church is very clear about saying that homosexual people are indeed children of God. They deserve all the dignity and respect and love that everybody else receives. [More could be said. Human nature is fallen and, thus, disordered by original sin. Therefore, not ever inclination is ordered correctly to its proper end. For example, the alcoholic seeks to excess the pleasure of wine or beer.]
Where, of course, we have the difficulty is [with] questions of behavior. Even if someone has an inclination or orientation, we don't believe that predisposes them to act out a certain way. So even if someone is predisposed to homosexual activity, we believe that as human beings they have the spiritual freedom and the moral freedom to make certain choices. Much like, as a heterosexual, that does not give me license to any sexual activity I would like. I have to have some measure of control and discipline. That's true for homosexuals, exactly as it is for heterosexuals.

After Attorney General Lynch issued an opinion that same-sex marriages performed in Massachusetts would be valid in Rhode Island, you said he had been affected by a "relentless gay agenda." What did you mean by that term?

I think at least some people in our culture, some people in our society, are really pushing this agenda on society, on culture in general; actively and relentlessly pushing the concepts of gay marriage or civil unions. Trying to — at least in my view — trying to impose that option.

You speak against unjust discrimination of homosexuals. What is unjust discrimination?

Homosexual people, like heterosexual people, should have access to housing and health care, and credit and whatever else you need.

Those rights were assured by state legislation in 1995, after a 12-year political battle. Would you have supported the gay civil rights bill?

Yeah, I would have supported that because it does not involve the approbation of — the affirmation of — immoral behavior.
Now if they want to use marriage as a vehicle, that presumes there's going to be what we believe to be immoral and unnatural sexual activity. And as soon as you start getting into that realm, that becomes problematic. [The bishop is laudable for calling immoral behavior as such. He might also point out that "homosexual marriage" is also a purely arbitrary union with no basis in reality and no more benefit to society than man-dog unions or marriages of brother and sister.]

What is the importance of love in marriage?

Love is critical in marriage, as in life. We believe that when God instituted marriage He did so for two reasons. For the unity of husband and wife — that's the component of love — but also to generate and create new life.

Gay couples married in Massachusetts say they are in love, and that their weddings brought them joy. Are those emotions real?

I'm sure they're very real. [Here a definition of love would be useful, but the bishop gives a good understandable answer.] And I love all sorts of people I can't have sex with. So, yeah, the feelings can be very real and the emotions can be very intense. That does not give me the right to have sex with people because I love them, whether heterosexual or homosexual. [He is very right to point out that the homosexual agenda is excessively focused on sexual activity. When homosexuals declare themselves as such they are essentially saying they find the same sex sexually attractive. Moreover, homosexual parades are infamously notorious for their lewd sexual content.]

There's no denying the feelings, but as soon as we get to the area of immoral sexual behavior, that's where it gets problematic.

Are those emotions wrong?

No. There's nothing wrong with the emotions. Nothing wrong with joy [per se]. Nothing wrong with love [per se], obviously. That does not give people the right to act out in immoral sexual activity. Two teenagers in passionate love can have lots of joy and love .… That does not give them the right to act out sexually.
You agree that church teachings on homosexuality are not well understood. Why is that?

The teachings of the church on sexuality are pretty highly nuanced. They don't lend themselves easily to black and white headlines. For example, when we say that homosexual activity is immoral, a lot of times people will say, ‘Well, the church is homophobic.' And that's not at all true. But I can understand why people would confuse that. When we speak out against gay marriage, that's not intended to be a persecution of gay people. I think some of those distinctions get lost because they are delicate and nuanced and not often explained well. That's not unusual for Catholic Church teaching. Our teachings are often highly refined and nuanced and they don't always play well in society. [Great answer, bishop!]

Why was Jesus silent on homosexuality?

Probably because it wasn't a burning social issue of the time. It's also important to note that Jesus, while he was silent on that particular topic, he was very clear on the nature of marriage being between a man and a woman. He was very clear about condemning other sexual sins, such as fornication and adultery. [Another succinct and clear answer!]

Many people cite scripture to show that homosexuality is immoral. But few quote Deuteronomy 22:11, which commands: "Thou shalt not wear a garment of diverse sort, as of woolen and linen together." There are also prohibitions against planting two kinds of seed in the same field. Why are some lines in scripture followed, and others ignored?

There are tons of things in the Bible that have to be taken in context. We believe it's the church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, that is properly equipped to interpret the Bible. We need to make the distinction between things that are — how should I say it? — essential moral norms, and those things that are purely accidental, related to a specific time and culture. Who does that? The church does that. We do it in the context of our 2,000-year tradition; we do it, we believe, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. You cannot take everything in the Bible literally. The church has to sort that out. [Perhaps it would have been too involved, but refering to St. Thomas Aquinas, the bishop could have pointed out that the Old Testament provides moral laws, judicial laws, and ceremonial laws. The foremermost still bind, the judicial do not per se but can be repromulgated when based on the moral, and the ceremonial laws have been fuflfilled and, thus, abrogated by Jesus Christ.]

What would you like to add to this conversation?

I think my role as a bishop is to be a teacher, and sometimes teaching involves difficult issues. [Amen!] Sometimes we take positions that we think are important. It's not intended to offend people, but to teach and challenge.

Tuesday, February 10, 2009

Richard Cohen: anti-Catholic Bigot?

Check the Opinion page of the Washington Post or as some affectionately call it, "The Compost" and you'll find Richard Cohen expressing his outrage at the denial of the Holocaust by Society of Saint Pius X bishop Williamson. With justified sarcasm Cohen points idiocy and malevolence of Williamson's assertions by positing irrefutable evidence that should silence any Holocaust denier. It is, therefore, saddening that the same Cohen displays unpardonable ignorance while referring to the Catholic Church. His using Williamson and blatantly incorrect facts as a springboard to attack the Pope seem to demonstrate that Cohen is brain dead to his own promotion of the politically correct bigotry of anti-Catholicism. If only Cohen would learn from the evil of politically correct anti-Semitism of the Nazi regime, perhaps he would open his own eyes to see that his own words put him in the camp of anti-Catholic bigots.

Dithering Before A Denier
By Richard Cohen
Tuesday, February 10, 2009;
Washinton Post Page A17

Shush. Do not call. Do not e-mail. I am on pins and needles. The newly reinstated Roman Catholic bishop [A bad and disingenuous start. Cohen hasn't done his homework and this allows him to begin his anti-Catholic rant almost implying a conspiracy. Of course, anti-Catholic bigots love this stuff, but a for a man who claims outrage at anti-Semitism, this is inexcusable. A man of good would have done research to learn that lifting an excommunication does not "reinstate" someone from whom the penalty was lifted. For example, Pope Paul VI, who signed Nostra Aetate, lifted the excommunication on the Patriarch of Constantinople in 1967. That did not mean the Patriarch of Constantinople was "reinstated," nor that Pope Paul VI agreed with the Patriarch's public or private statements. Now, Pope Benedict lifted the excommunication on the four bishops of the Society who were illicitly ordained in 1988. Nevertheless, these bishops are still suspended. Because of the Church's doctrine about Holy Orders, they are validly ordained, but still irregular. They have no jurisdiction and no right to function or pass themselves off as legitimate Catholic bishops.] who has been ordered by the pope to recant his statements denying the Holocaust now concedes that "many honest and intelligent people" disagree with him, so he's going to look into the matter and see if he has been wrong. With virtually unbearable anticipation, I await his findings.

Bishop Richard Williamson, installed in the schismatic Society of St. Pius X and invited back into the church [Imprecise language. Bigots and scoundrels like imprecision.] by Pope Benedict XVI just last month, [on January 25th] said his examination of the evidence will have its limits. "I will not go to Auschwitz," he told the German newsmagazine Der Spiegel via e-mail. No matter. People with his mind-set have already been there.

Still, he could go to Treblinka, also in Poland, or any of the other Polish camps -- Sobibor, Belzec, Majdanek. In Germany, Austria and elsewhere he could visit Dachau, Sachsenhausen, Buchenwald, Flossenburg, Mauthausen, Ravensbrueck or the many subsidiary camps -- a trek that could take him across Europe and into the cold reality of historic horror.

Holocaust denial suggests a mind perforated by anti-Semitism, a bigotry so extreme that it blinds the bigot [Exactly! But, would that Cohen reflected on his own bigotry.] to mounds of shoes and hair and eyeglasses, all of these exhibited at various Holocaust museums. To be a denier, it is necessary to believe that all the survivors -- Primo Levi and Elie Wiesel and all the others -- staggered out of the camps, got together and agreed to fabricate a story.

You have to believe that historians did something similar -- and so, too, did the people who lived downwind from the crematoriums, and even the train engineers who took countless Jews unto the camps and brought none out. Where are the 54,000 Greek Jews of Salonika? Where did those people go? "We dig a grave in the breezes," Paul Celan wrote in his Holocaust poem "Death Fugue." Ah, yes, that's where they are. [Let's not forget the 5 million non-Jews who were also murdered in addition to the 6 million Jews by the Nazis. Williamson should be censured by public opinion for disrespecting them too.]

Williamson's lawyer confirmed the authenticity of the e-mails to Der Spiegel. It is possible, though, that the pope has not yet seen the article. He sees so little. Astoundingly, the pope says he was unaware that Williamson is a Holocaust denier. He did not know that Williamson said that only 200,000 to 300,000 Jews were killed during World War II and that none were gassed. [From reports, Williamson spouted this drivel a month ago in an interview on Swedish television. But, ASTOUNDINGLY, since Williamson's denial was obviously so well-known - at least to Cohen, one wonders why COHEN DID NOT WRITE to the Pope. Did Cohen even publish something about the Williamson interview in the Post?] Williamson said that he once reviewed the physical evidence. This, of course, is the telltale twitch of the really obsessed anti-Semite, an architectural deconstruction of the ovens and the chimneys to conclude that the whole thing was impossible -- a yarn, a myth concocted by those diabolically clever Jews to win sympathy, reparations and, of course, Israel itself.

It's clear that the pope doesn't only travel in a bubble, he lives in one. [??? Subtle! Bringing out the anti-Catholic fangs.] But that is no concern of mine -- or yours. [Oh, really?] What should concern us more is the charade that continues. A Holocaust denier now pretends to sift through the evidence to see if such a thing happened. What shall we do with the results? What if Williamson says the Holocaust occurred, the ovens worked, the chimneys were big enough? Who cares? Should he be considered sincere? Can this graduate of Cambridge University suddenly be exonerated of his patent anti-Semitism? How can you doubt the Holocaust and not be a raving Jew-hater? [And what does Cohen suggest be done? He should be careful since he himself is a raving Catholic-hater.]

Still, the pope mulls the matter over. What should he, a German, [So, now it's ok for Cohen to throw in a little anti-German racism. What is the implication of Cohen's refering to the Pope as being German? Does the Pope being Germans make him an anti-Semite in Cohen's depraved mind?] do about this Holocaust denier? (The pope has dismayed much of Germany.) What should he, the pope, do after eons of Vatican anti-Semitism [aeons? Let's not be rational anymore. Cohen unleashes his rabid anti-Catholicism more and more.] culminating in a supine silence [Not only more DENIAL of facts by an anti-Catholic bigot, but Cohen seems to be suggesting that the Pope was collaborating in the Holocaust by supposed "silence." This is the implication of his word "culminating" after accusing the "Vatican" of anti-Semitism. Cohen completely disregards history to portray an anti-Catholic version of history. For example, he ignores the witness of Chief Rabbi Zolli of Rome (who took the name Eugenio for Pope Pius XII after his baptism) doesn't cut Cohen's anti-Catholic filter. He totally overlooks the many reputable authors who have debunked Rolf Hochhuth's (a defender of Holocaust denier David Irving) play which scapegoated Pope Pius XII. Anti-Catholic bigot Cohen totally ignores all the Catholics who risked their lives and safety to protect the persecuted Jews.] during the Holocaust itself? He dithers. He did not know. He demanded a retraction. He is waiting. He is being played for a fool.

Benedict XVI is a traditionalist, an organization man, [??? Wow! This is disingenuous. Cohen earlier accused Benedict of "living in a bubble" and added that it was no concern of his. Yet, apparently he is concerned and he has set himself up as judge, jury, and executioner of the Pope.] and so he worries about a schism in the Church [This is laughable. A schism cannot be "in" the Church since the word itself means "cut off."]-- the Pius X Society representing ultra-conservatives who reject the reforms of the Second Vatican Council, which pertinently included a strong repudiation of anti-Semitism. [Another disingenuous attack. Cohen let's his anti-Catholic agenda no no limit. Since the SSPX rejects certain "reforms" they obviously are anti-Semites in his bigoted mind.] Never mind that the schism has existed since 1969 [1969? Again, why should Cohen let facts interrupt his anti-Catholic diatribe?] and does not matter much anyway. With his overture to Williamson and his subsequent dithering, Benedict XVI has opened a much more consequential schism [Here is where Cohen is just another stupid anti-Catholic bigot who wants to determine Church teaching and define the nature of "schism."] -- between the church he heads and a worldwide community of appalled onlookers. It is one thing to deny the Holocaust. It is somehow worse to deny that doing so is anything other than an irreversible and disqualifying confession of anti-Semitism. No matter what he may come to say, Williamson must not be accepted by the pope. [He has not been accepted!!! But, pretending that he has allows self-righteous bigots like Cohen to go on with anti-Catholic rants with the support of the mass media. Anti-Semitism is a grave evil which Cohen rightly condemns. Would that he, however, would not only condemn but also avoid anti-Catholicism in his own life!] History forbids it.

Monday, February 9, 2009

Dolan Rumors

There are reports that the appointment to New York of a successor to Cardinal Egan will be soon and that it will be Archbishop Dolan of Milwaukee. That said, rumors are rumors. Remember Levada?

His ecclesiatical career is impressive. According to wiki:

Dolan was ordained to the priesthood by Archbishop Edward O'Meara on June 19, 1976. He then served as an associate pastor at Immacolata Parish in Richmond Heights until 1979, whence he began his doctoral studies at the Catholic University of America with a concentration on the history of the Church in America; his dissertation centered on Archbishop Edwin O'Hara. Dolan did pastoral work following his return to Missouri from 1983 to 1987, during which time he collaborated with Archbishop John May in reforming the archdiocesan seminary.

He was then named secretary of the Apostolic Nunciature in Washington, D.C. In 1992, Dolan was appointed Vice-Rector of his alma mater of Kenrick-Glennon Seminary, where he also served as spiritual director and taught Church history. He was also an adjunct professor of theology at St. Louis University. Two years later, in 1994, Dolan became Rector of the Pontifical North American College in Rome. He remained in this office until June 2001, and during his tenure he published a book entitled, Priests for the Third Millennium. He was raised to the rank of Monsignor in 1994 as well.

On June 19, 2001, Dolan was appointed Auxiliary Bishop of St. Louis and Titular Bishop of Natchesium by Pope John Paul II. He received his episcopal consecration on the following August 15 from Archbishop Justin Rigali, with Bishops Joseph Naumann and Michael Sheridan serving as co-consecrators. Dolan was later named the tenth Archbishop of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, on June 25, 2002. Replacing Rembert Weakland, who retired after admitting to having had a sexual relationship with another man[6], Dolan was formally installed at the Cathedral of St. John the Evangelist on August 28 of that same year. He is presently chairman of the board of directors of Catholic Relief Services, and a member of the Board of Trustees of The Catholic University of America. Within the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, he chairs the Priestly Life and Ministry Committee and sits on the Subcommittee on the Church in Africa.

However, I was disturbed by the following report from wdtprs that Dolan has just published "guidelines" for the extraordinary form in his diocese.

Moreover, this move strikes me as strange if he were soon to leave. It would seem an imposition on his own successor and in many ways "unRoman." Dolan is, however, portrayed as a diplomat and unifier.

There's also the following:

... from this blogger who wrote a few years ago:

Dolan replaced the very liberal Archbishop Rembert Weakland (who ordained my old boss Fr. Brett Hoover to the deaconate) who retired amdist scandal unfortunately. When asked what difference there was between him and the slender, spry Weakland, Archbishop Dolan responded: "About 100 pounds." An employee of the Archdiocese recently related to me the following about their bishop: "I like him a lot... He is a good man and excellent with people. He's not as conservative as he is sometimes is made out to be. Likes to have good administrators around him to keep him on task and works closely and well with them." So a guy who knows how to give the media a good quote and who works well with laity and administrators and is reasonably well liked by his priests and employees...

Dolan's own archdiocesan website has this:

In Fall 2004, Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan shared six pastoral priorities for the Archdiocese of Milwaukee.
Seek ye first the kingdom of God
To Strengthen our Parishes
To foster a sense of vocation in the Church
Strengthening of Catholic Education and Faith Formation
Emphasize our mission of justice and charity
To read in greater detail about these pastoral priorities, please visit
this link.
Following the link, it shows some good things. But, I wonder how these have been implemented after 5 years.

Now, granted he was following the awful episcopacy of Weakland. However, the above mantras are typically vague and vacuous spirit of Vatican II sayings on their own. People who read them can interpret them any way they want. Would Dolan merely spout off maxims and try to restrict Tradition in New York?

If so, let's hope he stays in Milwaukee.

I'm hoping someone might have some information that gives me hope that he will be good bishop of New York, if it is the Holy Father's will that he come here.


Friday, February 6, 2009

Japanese Martyrs: St. Paul Miki and Companions

Semper Fidelis

Cardinal Egan, ever loyal to the Pope, has denounced the statements of bishop Williamson concerning the holocaust. It is important that Egan do so both as archbishop and cardinal. On another level it is a reminder that for Catholics history is important and we cannot erase certain facts of history. We acknowledge the diabolical sufferings and murder of the 6 million Jews AND 6 million non-Jews inflicted by the pagan Nazis. Although we do not have first hand experience of the murders we trust those who have reported them. In an analogical way, we were not present at the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ, but we, helped by the Holy Spirit, accept the testimony of those who were there even if there are those who choose to deny these historical facts today.

Statement of Edward Cardinal Egan, Archbishop of New York on Remarks by Bishop Richard Williamson

February 5, 2009



Edward Cardinal Egan, Archbishop of New York, today (2/5/09) released the following statement concerning remarks made by a member of the Society of Saint Pius X, Bishop Richard Williamson. The Cardinal also addressed the matter on his weekly radio program, “Conversation with the Cardinal,” broadcast on The Catholic Channel of Sirius XM Satellite Radio.

The Cardinal’s statement follows:

“Yesterday, the Vatican condemned in the clearest terms a statement made by an illicitly consecrated Bishop by the name of Richard Williamson in which the evil of the Shoah was questioned or at least minimized. As Archbishop of New York, I add my voice to that of the Holy See and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops in rejecting Williamson’s words as hurtful, baseless, and outrageous. It is my prayer that all of our Jewish brothers and sisters understand that we in the Catholic community here in New York hold them in the highest esteem, and look forward to continuing to cooperate with them in countless good works for our community and our nation.”


The Pope's own words for those of ill-will who continue to attack him:

Thursday, February 5, 2009

No Communion for Abortion Supporting Catholics

Vatican Official: Bishops Have no Choice But to Refuse Communion to Pro-Abort Politicians
By Hilary White

ROME, January 30, 2009 ( - Archbishop Raymond Burke, in an exclusive interview last week, told that the issue of pro-abortion politicians continuing to receive Holy Communion is still one of major concern and that it is the duty of bishops to ensure that they are refused.

He told, "I don't understand the continual debate that goes on about it. There's not a question that a Catholic who publicly, and after admonition, supports pro-abortion legislation is not to receive Holy Communion and is not to be given Holy Communion."

"The Church's law is very clear," said Archbishop Burke, who was appointed last year by Pope Benedict XVI as the head of the Church's highest court, the Apostolic Signatura. "The person who persists publicly in grave sin is to be denied Holy Communion, and it [Canon Law] doesn't say that the bishop shall decide this. It's an absolute."

Among the US bishops directly to address the issue, Archbishop Burke was one of around a dozen who vigorously supported a directive of the Vatican that said pro-abortion Catholic politicians "must be refused" Holy Communion if they attempt to receive at Mass. Others have refused to abide by the Vatican instruction and the Church's own Code of Canon Law, saying they would rather focus on "education" of such politicians.

Archbishop Burke called "nonsense" the accusation, regularly made by some bishops, that refusing Holy Communion "makes the Communion rail a [political] battle ground". In fact, he said, the precise opposite is true. The politician who insists on being seen receiving Holy Communion, despite his opposition to the Church's central teachings, is using that reception for political leverage.

In 2004, when self-proclaimed Catholic and candidate for the Democrat party, Sen. John Kerry, was frequently photographed receiving Holy Communion despite his vigorous support of abortion, the US Bishops Conference issued a document which said only that it is up to individual bishops whether to implement the Church's code of Canon Law and refuse Communion. The issue has remained prominent with the appointment of Joe Biden, another pro-abortion Catholic politician, as Vice President of the United States of America.

Archbishop Burke recalled previous experiences with Kerry, pointing to the several occasions when the senator was pictured in Time magazine receiving Communion from Papal representatives at various public events. Burke said that it is clear that Kerry was using his reception of Holy Communion to send a message.

"He wants to not only receive Holy Communion from a bishop but from the papal representative. I think that's what his point was. Get it in Time magazine, so people read it and say to themselves, 'He must be in good standing'."

"What are they doing? They're using the Eucharist as a political tool."

In refusing, far from politicising the Eucharist, the Church is returning the matter to its religious reality. The most important reasons to refuse, he said, are pastoral and religious in nature.

"The Holy Eucharist, the most sacred reality of our life in the Church, has to be protected against sacrilege. At the same time, individuals have to be protected for the sake of their own salvation from committing one of the gravest sins, namely to receive Holy Communion unworthily."

Archbishop Burke also dismissed the commonly proffered excuse that such politicians need more "education". Speaking from his own direct experience, he said that Catholic politicians who are informed by their pastors or bishops that their positions in support of pro-abortion legislation makes it impossible for them to receive Holy Communion, "I've always found that they don't come forward."

"When you talk to these people, they know," he said. "They know what they're doing is very wrong. They have to answer to God for that, but why through our pastoral negligence add on to that, that they have to answer to God for who knows how many unworthy receptions of Holy Communion?"

Archbishop Burke said that the issue had been debated enough. He rejected the idea that the matter should be left to the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, saying the Conference has no authority in the matter. "This is a law of the universal Church and it should be applied."

"I think this argument too is being used by people who don't want to confront the issue, this whole 'wait 'til the Conference decides'...well the Conference has been discussing this since at least 2004. And nothing happens."

When asked what the solution was, he responded, "Individual bishops and priests simply have to do their duty. They have to confront politicians, Catholic politicians, who are sinning gravely and publicly in this regard. And that's their duty.

"And if they carry it out, not only can they not be reproached for that, but they should be praised for confronting this situation."

Fr. Tad Pacholczyk

Fr. Tad Pacholczyk is a Neuroscientist and moral theologian.
Although ambushed in this Al Jazerra video, by Khan, Fr. Pacholczyk remains calm and more than ably defends the Church's teaching.

All through the clip, Khan continaully gives the priest loaded questions and then in an amazingly biased way attacks his answers. Unprofessional Khan undoubtedly favors the the "expert" on doubt, although he does unintentionally allow her to prove herself an irrational moron by her own words and her interruptions of the priest. Her illogic is patent. For example, after asserting her opinion that Catholics should be able to follow the Church's teaching if they want to, she then complains about the hierarchy for not taking public opinion polls to determine doctrine. (Of course, this falsely presumes that "practicing" Catholics do not assent to magisterial teaching.) She also throws in the old canards about "celibate old men." I guess she never met a priest with an Augustine-like conversion such as Fr. Corapi. (Meanwhile, it is all too common that so-called "liberals" try to exclude authority based on one's age, gender, and life commitment. For others to do so is, of course, ageism or sexism. If Fr. Pacholczyk wanted to be rude in exposing her illogic, he could have asked what right the fat ugly atheist female has to speak for thin attractive Christian females!)

In the end, Fr. Pacholczyk wisely avoids addressing her illogical and incoherent rant which had brought the discussion off its stated topic. He then presents the Church's position on life issues, but in a way which even a good willed atheist could assent to, or at least, understand.
The look of desperation on the woman's face near the end as Fr. Pacholczyk speaks the truth with clarity is priceless.

Fr. Pacholczyk is not Msgr. Smith. But considering our recent loss in the Church in the United States, he is proof that our Lord will never abandon His Church.