Pervert Protector and Bergoglio confidant and Masonic guest speaker Godfried Danneels lectures Africans not to be too Catholic - proves himself a racist in the same way as Kasper

Leader of St. Gallen mafia club Danneels, second from left

In a statement that has racialist overtones hearkening back to the days of Belgian colonialism in Africa, the pervert-protecting Godfried Danneels, heresiarch confidant of Jorge Bergoglio, Bishop of Rome has today lectured African Catholic not to be too Catholic.

During a question-answer interview in Vatican Insider, this episcopal failure advises Africans to "steer clear of triumphalism," because clearly, he is qualified to give advice. Maybe a little "triumphalism" would have been a good think in a land that in twenty years or less will have few Catholics and be overrun by Mohammedans.

Old European racialist colonisers

Danneels protected a sodomite bishop and chastised the victim that came to him for help, the actual nephew of the sodomite episcopal pervert. He lobbied the King of Belgium, for what he is worth, to back abortion and was a player behind the election of Jorge Bergoglio and the "St. Gallen mafia club." 

He calls any idea that the growing and vibrant Church in Africa might lead the way to evangelise a dying European culture as nothing more than "ecclesiastical politics." More of the same European racialist, arrogant, obnoxious attitude that cause close Bergoglio advisor and heresiarch advocate of Holy Communion for adulterers to state, "These Africans should not tell us too much what to do."


May Danneels live many, many years so that he can witness the destruction that will come upon Western Europe in general and Belgium in particular due to his dereliction of duty and zeal for Christ and the Truth. He has no courage to convert the Mohammedans. He'll be lucky to survive the first wave of Belgian beheadings.

He will get his reward.

Bishop of Rome Bergoglio and Danneels at the Synod on the Family

The entire interview can be read at:

http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/inquiries-and-interviews/detail/articolo/francesco-francisco-francis-danneels-44627/
Some say that the salvation of Catholicism can only come from “healthy” African Churches that are doctrinally robust compared to the “decaying” Churches of the West. Starting with you Belgians…
“Some African bishops tell us: you are pagans. You wiped everything out. But I remember Belgium being full of vocations, there were huge seminaries and novitiates being built up until the 60s. Christian families did everything they could to give their children a sense of belonging in the Church. But we started seeing the faith dwindling in boys and girls aged 17-20. This wounded them it caused great suffering. Is it right to say it was their fault and that the parents were not goof Christians? No, that’s not the case. The act of becoming Christians and persevering in the faith remains a mystery and is not the result of some educational or sociological mechanism. It seems to me that all the talk about “robust” Churches that should save the rest of Catholicism, is for the purpose of ecclesiastical politics. The abstractness of it is striking.” What abstractness?
“European Churches have been overrun by the effects of secularisation that have also led to rising individualism. But this very individualism could reach Africa sooner or later: that phenomenon that sees people thinking of themselves as individuals  rather than as members of a group, a community, or a mass. It is possible that the crisis we have had will spread there too, with all that this entails. Africans may also experience a situation similar to ours. Then they might call us up to see how we dealt with it. To get some useful tips.” And what advice would you give them?
“I have always acknowledged that perhaps God drove us towards a sort of new “Babylonian exile”  in order to teach us to be more humble and realise that the Church can only live and grow with the strength of Christ’s Grace. So I would always advise everyone to steer clear of all forms of triumphalism and claims to self-sufficiency. Whoever thinks they are standing, should watch out they do not fall.”

Sodomitical heretic Dominican Adriano Oliva

Further to the article below, on December 14, 2015, five young Dominicans rebuked this malefactor. I thank a reader for bringing it to my attention.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/five-dominicans-shred-fellow-order-members-claim-that-aquinas-endorses-homo

Five Dominicans shred fellow Order member’s claim that Aquinas endorses ‘homosexual love’

 Adriano Oliva , Catholic , Homosexuality , Thomas Aquinas

December 14, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) – Five Dominicans, four friars and one sister, have jointly published a short but sharp refutation of the thesis of another son of Saint Dominic, Fr Adriano Oliva, who has published a book claiming that homosexual love justifies homosexual acts even though plain sodomy is still a grave sin. His sophistry is put bare by Fr. Bernhard Blankenhorn, Sr. Catherine Joseph Droste and Fr. Efrem Jindráček, all of the Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas (the “Angelicum” in Rome) and Fr. Dominic Legge and Fr. Thomas Joseph White of the Dominican House of Studies in Washington, DC. Their text was published on Friday by First Things.

The Order of Preachers has long since ceased to be Catholic. Any man who remains a priest in this rotten Order of Perverts is a fool.  

Prominent Dominican publishes book claiming Thomas Aquinas said homosexuality is ‘natural’

 Adriano Oliva , Dominicans , Homosexuality

Analysis

Nov. 12, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) - A Dominican friar, Fr. Adriano Oliva, has celebrated the 800th anniversary of his religious order with a book about “the Church, the divorced and remarried, and homosexual couples.”

Amours (“Loves”) is a study of St Thomas Aquinas’ definition of love and aims to show that the “Angelic Doctor” recognized the “natural” character of homosexuality. In the wake of the Synod on the family, Oliva pleads for new ways of welcoming divorced and remarried and homosexual couples into the Church and of recognizing their unions in civil law.

His editor, the “editions du Cerf” publishing house, is the historic Dominican editor in France, founded at the request of Pope Pius XI in 1929. It still functions under religious supervision.

Fr. Oliva's subjectivist distortion – one might even say prostitution – of St Thomas’ teachings cannot be set aside as the very marginal ravings of an isolated individual. Fr Oliva is a prominent representative of the religious Order of Preachers – and teachers. 

“The highest of friendships: this is how St Thomas Aquinas calls the unique, faithful and gratuitous love between two spouses who give themselves to each other in consecrated union, as a sacramental sign of the love of Christ for the Church, His spouse. Should couples who are divorced and remarried, who live out their union in a responsible manner, be banned from this friendship? Could it be that homosexual persons, who live as a couple with responsibility, be banned?” reads the text accompanying the book on the Cerf’s web-shop.

It goes on: “Does a theological assessment of the ‘naturality’ of the homosexual inclination, which St Thomas recognizes, not open the doors to new ways of welcoming same-sex couples within the Church? The anthropology of ‘naturality’ then demands that civil rights be accorded to such couples in national legislations.”

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/prominent-dominican-friar-publishes-book-claiming-thomas-aquinas-said-homos

De Mattei: The Pharisees and Sadducees of our time

There are many in the Church today who talk of "Pharisees." It's a tactic right out of Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. The so-called "theologians," neo-Cath commentators, tweeting priests, bishops and even the Bishop of Rome himself have used these tactics against simple Catholics who believe what the Church has always taught. They speak of "change" and moving "forward" and if one opposes their Marxist and Masonic, anti-Christ, modernist, ideological and heretical agenda, they target the person for attack. This writer knows well the evil these men are capable of. 

Fundamentally, they are liars, have no faith in Our Lord Jesus Christ and they are bullies. The way to counter them is to use every tool and fight back. Out them. Expose them. Call them out as the liars and betrayers they are. How vile and putrid are these malefactors, these priests and bishops, many of them Freemasons and sodomites bent on the destruction of the One, True, Faith. They hate Our Lord Jesus Christ. They hate you.

Yet, there is a victory in Trier, Germany - just now. An elderly priest, Father Adolf Mohr, 86, has died, May he rest in peace. His will included the request for a Requiem Mass according to the traditional liturgy. Heresiarch Stephen Ackermann denied it. The push-back of Catholics through blogs, Twitter and email caused Heresiarch Ackermann to change his mind. Ackermann is an example of:

The Pharisees and Sadducees of our time

by Roberto de Mattei

Criticism of the "Pharisees" is often found in the words of Pope Francis. In numerous speeches 2013-2015 he has spoken on the "disease of the Pharisees" (September 7, 2013), "accusing Jesus of not honoring the Sabbath day" (April 1, 2014), from the "temptation of self-sufficiency and  clericalism, that codifying of faith in rules and instructions, like the scribes, the Pharisees and the lawyers of the time of Jesus" (September 19, 2014). During Angelus of 30 August 2015, he said: "As  then for  the Pharisees there is also for us the danger that we order, or worse: to consider ourselves better than the other based solely on the fact that we keep the rules, the customs,  even if we do not love our neighbor, are hard of heart, proud and arrogant. "On November 8, 2015, he compared   the attitude of the scribes and the Pharisees and their "exclusion", to Jesus, who was based in "inclusion." The reference to the Pharisees is equally evident in the speech in which the Pope concluded last October 24  for the XIV. Ordinary Synod on the Family. Who else are the "closed heart, who often hide behind even the teachings of the Church or behind  good intentions to sit  in the chair of Moses and - sometimes condescendingly and with superficiality - to address  the difficult cases and the injured Families,"  if not "the Pharisees, who made ​​religion to an infinite chain of commandments (June 26, 2014)?" Pharisees seem to be anyone who defend with stubborn pride, the existence of absolute and incontrovertible commandments, laws, rules of the Church.

Who Were the Pharisees Really?

Who were the Pharisees really? When Jesus began his teaching years, the Jewish world was divided into different currents, about which we are told from the Gospels, among historians, like Flavius Josephus (3 -100 AD.) in his works "Antiquities of the Jews" and "History of the Jewish War ". The main sects were those of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees. The Pharisees were concerned with the details of the religious rules, but had lost the spirit of truth. They were arrogant men who forged the prophecies about the Messiah and interpreted the divine law  according to their opinions. The Sadducees taught even more serious mistakes. They doubted the immortality of the soul and rejected the majority of the Holy Scriptures. Both were fighting for power in the Sanhedrin, who, when Jesus was condemned, was led by the Sadducees.

The Sadducees are even mentioned by Mark and Matthew three times, while the Pharisees occur repeatedly in the Gospels of Mark and Matthew.  Chapter 23 of St. Matthew in particular, is an open accusation against them: "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! Your tithe mint, anise and cumin, and left the weightier matters of the law: justice, mercy and faithfulness. One must do the one thing without neglecting the others."

The St. Thomas Aquinas, Augustine and Bonaventure about the Pharisees

St. Thomas Aquinas explains in his commentary on this passage of Matthew that the Pharisees were not condemned by the Lord because they paid a tithe, "but only because they valued the lower more than  the spiritual commandments. But [deliver the tithe] in practice he seems to praise it, saying: 'These things shall be done' (Haec oportuit facere) according to the law, as Chrisostomos adds (Summa Theologica, II-IIae, q 87,. a. 2 ad 3).

St. Augustine said, referring to the Pharisees, of which St. Luke writes (18:10 to 14), that he has not been convicted of his works, but because he has boasted of his alleged sanctity (Epistola 121,1,3).  St. Augustine explains the same in his letter to Casulanus that the Pharisee was not condemned because he fasted (Luke 18,11ff), but "because he was inflamed in pride over the publicans" (Epistola 36,4,7). Because it is "fruitless for a man to fast twice during the week as the Pharisees, on the other hand, yet it is an exercise of religion in a  believer who is humble or  one who is a faithfully humble man  when Scripture does not say that the Pharisees had been condemned, but rather that the tax collector was justified." (Epistola 36,4,7).

The most concise definition of the Pharisees is found from St. Bonaventure: "Pharisaeus significat illos qui propter opera exteriora se reputant bonos; et ideo non habent lacrymas compunctionis" (De S. Mary Magdalene Sermo I, in: Opera omnia, Ad Claras Aquas, Florence 2001 Vol IX, col 556b..). "A Pharisees is described as one who thinks of themselves good because of their outer works  and therefore has no tears of penitence."

Pharisees were Proud Conservatives, the Sadducees Unbelieving Liberals

Jesus condemned the Pharisees because he knew their hearts: they were sinners, but considered themselves holy. The Lord wanted to teach his disciples that the external fulfillment of good works is not enough. That which is a good act is not only so in its own property, but the intention. Nevertheless, if it is true that good works are not enough, if good intentions are lacking, as it is also true that the good intentions are not enough, if good works are missing.   Gamaliel, Nicodemus, Joseph of Arimathea (Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1), and even St. Paul (Acts 23.6) who belonged to the party of the Pharisees, were better than that of the Sadducees, precisely because they, despite their hypocrisy, acclaimed the laws, while the Sadducees, from whose ranks the high priests Annas and Caiaphas came (Jewish Antiquities 18.35.95), also disregarded this.

The Pharisees were proud conservatives, the Sadducees unbelieving liberals. But both unified rejection of the divine mission of Jesus (Mt 3.7 to 10).

Who are the Pharisees and the Sadducees of our time? We can give an answer to this with quiet certainty. There are those who have tried before, during and after the Synod and will try to change the practice of the Church and through the practice of their teaching, on the family and marriage.

Pharisees and Sadducees rejected the divine teachings of Jesus

Jesus proclaimed the indissolubility of marriage as God had thought from the beginning, and she founded this on the restoration of the natural law, from which the Jews had removed, and strengthened them by the raising of marriage to a Sacrament. Pharisees and Sadducees rejected this doctrine by denying the divine Word of Jesus and introducing their own opinion. They appealed disingenuously to the law of Moses, as the innovators of our time invoked an alleged tradition of the early centuries, by falsifying the history and doctrine of the Church.

For this reason, a brave bishop and defender of the true faith, Monsignor Athanasius Schneider, speaks of a "neo-Mosaic practice". "The new disciples of Moses and the new Pharisees in the two most recent Synodal Assemblies (2014 and 2015) have veiled their practical denial of the indissolubility of marriage and their occasionally lifting the Sixth Commandment under the guise of charity, by expressions like  'way of distinction,' 'accompaniment', 'orientation by the bishop ', 'dialogue with the priest', 'internal forum', 'a more complete integration into the life of the Church' which are used to eliminate the accountability [in the law] of cohabitation in cases of irregular connections as much as possible (see. Relatio finalis, no. 84-86). "

The Pharisees and Sadducees of Today

The Sadducees are the innovators who openly claim to overcome the doctrine and practice of the Church. The Pharisees are those who, although they confess the indissolubility of marriage with  their mouths, still hypocritical deny it  by their deeds, by proposing a "from-a-case-by-case" - transgression of the moral law.

The real disciples of Jesus Christ belong to neither the Party of neo-Pharisees nor the party of neo-Sadducees, both modernist, but follow the school of St. John the Baptist, who preached in the spiritual desert of his time. The Baptist was, when he denounced the Pharisees and Sadducees as a "generation of vipers" (Mt 3,7) and admonished Herod Antipas for his adultery, not hard-hearted, but moved by love for God and for souls. Hypocrites and Hardhearted were the advisers of Herod Antipas, who wanted to bring his sinful and unrepentant loose life in harmony with the teaching of Scripture.  Herod had John the Baptist executed to bring the voice of truth to silence, but the voice of the forerunner is  still audible 20 centuries later. Whoever defends sound doctrine publicly, does not follow the example of the Pharisees and Sadducees, but the example of St. John the Baptist and Our Lord. 

Translation: Giuseppe Nardi

When prominent, intellectual priests in the public square now say that Francis is trying to "change" the Church, you'd better believe it!

This blogger and others have been saying it for days, weeks, months, some of us even nearly three years. We have given examples of what those closest to the Bishop of Rome, Jorge Bergoglio, have said. We have even finding obscure videos of their talks which disclose much. Whether Thomas Rosica, CSB and his unattributed use of a "professional theologian" comments that "that doctrine changes pastoral contexts shift and new insights emerge" to "Uncle Teddy" Cardinal Mccarrick's "powerful and influential Roman" who tells him, that Bergoglio "could put us back on track" and instructs him to "talk him up" we have been consistent in our warnings. 

Jorge Bergoglio is trying to change the Church and do it by changing doctrine through changing practice.

Now, the  intellectually and highly respected and doctrinally sound priest-journalist Father Raymond J. de Souza of the Archdiocese of Kingston in Canada and columnist with the Catholic Register and the National Post, is saying the same thing. While he says it with more diplomacy and nuance, make no no mistake, the implication is clear. When it gets to the point that a priest such as Fr. de Souza can write what he has today, then you must know that something is gravely wrong.

Father de Souza says it quite boldly, "He (Francis) strongly suggested that he did not agree with the tradition taught by St. John Paul II in Familiaris Consortio or Benedict XVI in Sacramentum Caritatis.

Considering that those two paramount documents are consistent with the teaching of the the Ordinary Magisterium, which is infallible when it concerns faith and morals reiterating the constant, unchanging, consistent, traditional, historical and universal teaching of the popes and bishops through two-thousand years to do otherwise is simply, heretical. 

Are we beginning to see the storm that will come upon this Bishop of Rome should he contradict his two predecessors and two-thousand years of Truth? Are we on the verge of a Christological heresy? 

Is Jorge Bergoglio prepared to create the greatest crisis in the Church since the Arian heresy of the fourth century?

Does he really want history to be an unkind judge?

Francis has steadily prepared the Church for change. It’s foolish to ignore the signs

The synod on the family is over. The Church now awaits what Pope Francis will decide. Those who argued at the synod for maintaining the traditional discipline on admission to the sacraments for the civilly divorced and remarried must be ready for the Holy Father to decide differently.He has steadily prepared the Church for just that. It would be foolish to ignore the signs.

After much back and forth, the synod decided to follow almost exactly what Pope Francis said in his general audience of August 5, during which he strongly suggested that he did not agree with the tradition taught by St John Paul in Familiaris Consortio (1981) and confirmed by Benedict XVI in Sacramentum Caritatis (2007).

He did not explicitly contradict it, and neither did the synod. But he quoted the relevant texts without affirming their definitive conclusion and the synod did the same.

Does silence on John Paul’s formulation token assent? Or does it mean that the traditional teaching is being left aside?

The rest can be read at:

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/issues/november-13th-2015-2/what-will-the-pope-say-his-friends-tell-us/

Fomenter of Something

As you've probably read by now, Bishop of Rome Bergoglio delivered a nearly hour-long address in Florence. Coupled with yesterday's audience statement on the Eucharist, bread and that "all" are to be included, it gives a not so subtle or subliminal message as to where he is going. If where he is going is in to heresy and Eucharistic sacrilege , I will not follow.

It was a "forceful" address, we are told; emphasizing that the "Catholic Church must change." The Catholic Church will never "change!" She cannot "change." This is a heretical notion that it must "change." This "change" is nothing more than political, Marxist bile - do you remember Obama and "change we can believe in?" "Change" and "forward" - two words used by revolutionaries to push their agenda. 

While in Florence, the Bishop of Rome visited a food bank. I always understood from Scripture that you do not "let your left hand know what your right hand is doing" and that you do these good things in "secret" so as not to seek the praise of the world. The whole Vatican press office is nothing more than a screed machine of propaganda that would have made Goebbels himself jealous. No pope ever before took a bus, or carried a briefcase or visited the poor, "ostentatious humility" as someone recently stated. Poppycock!

As for the Florence talk, it was a typical jumbled mishmash of jesuitical gibberish that we have been cursed with these nearly three long and tumultuous years. Much of it came from that lutheresque curse of environmental waste, Evangelii Gaudium, ghost-written by the archbishop of kissing, Heresiarch Fernandez. author of Heal Me With Your Mouth. Pure and utter bile, on all counts.

The most stunning statements delivered in this Peronist Papacy are these:

"We are not living an era of change but a change of era.”

Spoken like a true Freemason. A "change of era," a "new world order." What a pile of dung. A "fomenter of coprophagia" he has said of some; well, if the anything but red shoe fits. The only "change of era" will come after the LORD strikes down the Antichrist and his False Prophet and we enter the time of peace prophesised by Our Blessed Lady when Russia and the entire world is converted through Her Immaculate Heart. However, since this is not what he referred to, nor is it even hinted at, then we must assume that he means something else. If the Church needs to "change" it is to change from the wrong direction It has been on under these modernists for the last sixty plus years.

“Before the problems of the church it is not useful to search for solutions in conservatism or fundamentalism, in the restoration of obsolete conduct and forms that no longer have the capacity of being significant culturally,”

This statement is so blatantly upside down as to be diabolical. It is only through a return to the fundamental roots of our faith found in unchanging tradition that our future lay. It is, in fact, through what he sees as "obsolete conduct and forms" that will lead to any "restoration" of the Truth and Faith of Our Fathers. He has used the word "restorationist" in a derogatory sense on numerous occasions. One only need to recall his statements on those who presented him with the humble gift of a Spiritual Bouquet to experience his thoughts. Outright insult to the simple, humble gesture of Catholic faithful.

He continued that:  

"The reform of the Church then, and the church is semper reformanda … does not end in the umpteenth plan to change structures, It means instead grafting yourself to and rooting yourself in Christ, leaving yourself to be guided by the Spirit—so that all will be possible with genius and creativity."

It is "us" that require endless reformation, not the Church. It is we who must be reformed and conformed to Our Lord Jesus Christ. The Church is His Mystical Bride and cannot be "reformed." What must be "reformed" are the modernist notions and liturgical banalities, the false hermeneutic, the errors of the last sixty years and that which lead to these. What "spirit" is he talking about? I wrote in the post below what comes from the Holy Spirit. If what we experience is the opposite of the "coolness in heat" and the "warming of the chill" and the "sweet repose" then it is not the Holy Spirit, it is a spirit from another places. These people blaspheme. 

Please, if it is out of my simple ignorance that I cannot understand what this man is saying and I am wrong, tell me; but my Catholic heart has not betrayed me yet. Nor has it betrayed Barona who has smoked out the comments from our friends Rosica, Beck, Spadaro and Martin.

Be at peace friends. It is all coming out in the open. What some of us have known since March 2013, is rapidly being made known to many. The desire to vomit, the cold chills, they were for a reason.

Fill your lamps.

Like lambs to the slaughter, we are being set-up

Reading deeply into the Bishop of Rome's speech yesterday together with Barona, it became clear, that we are being set up for something. Yesterday, he returned to consistent themes of name-calling and setting up those who believe in Catholic doctrine and truth and ritual as Pelagians. Louie Verrecchio has written with clarity and gets right to the heart of the matter in his post, Francis reveals content of upcoming Apostolic Exhortation.

Never before in our lifetime and maybe not in history have we seen a pope create an environment of havoc, distress and confusion such as we have now.

If we consider for a moment some of the words of the great hymn to the Holy Spirit, Veni Creator Spiritus or the Sequence Veni, Sancte Spiritus, we see what the Holy Spirit brings. coolness in heat, warmth in chill, solace in grief, sweet relief. He is "sweet unction and true love" a "living spring." The Holy Spirit brings wisdom, understanding, counsel, fortitude, knowledge, piety and fear of the Lord. 

Nowhere does He bring strife, confusion, distress or heresy. He cannot at the same time do one and the other - He cannot oppose the Law of Noncontradiction. Just as Our Lord said, that "Satan cannot cast out Satan" the Holy Spirit cannot contradict, the Holy Spirit.

Today, at his audience, the Bishop of Rome said this:

Dear Brothers and Sisters:  In our continuing catechesis on the family, today we consider the importance of togetherness.  Sitting at table for the family dinner, sharing our meal and the experiences of our day, is a fundamental image of togetherness and solidarity.  Because Jesus gave us the Eucharist as a meal, there is a close relationship between families and the Mass.  The togetherness we experience in our families is meant, in the family of the Church, to extend to all as a sign of God’s universal love.  In this way the Eucharist becomes a school of inclusion, in which we learn to be attentive to the needs of everyone.  Sadly, the family meal, this great symbol of togetherness, is disappearing in some societies.  Food itself, the very sign of our sharing with other, is wantonly wasted in some places, while our brothers and sisters go hungry in others.  The Eucharist reminds us that our bread is meant to be shared with all.  May our families, and the entire Church, be signs of togetherness and solidarity for the good of the whole human family, especially during the coming Jubilee of Mercy.

It is there for all to see. Something is coming on the matter of reception of Holy Communion.

Yet, to now; he has done nothing. He has changed no doctrine. He has changed no practice, though he is telling us something. He is telling us what he wants to do. Whether he does it or not remains to be seen.

There is no sense getting too worked up about "what if" unless and until it becomes reality. Keep your cool. Pray and take courage.

Remember, Our Blessed Lord said that the "Gates of Hell will not prevail." He did not say that Hell will not attack the Church in an all out effort to destroy Her.

If the worst comes, there will be true Shepherds who will emerge and speak with clarity. 

PostScript:

On Thursday, November 12, 2015, Father Raymond J. de Souza of the Archdiocese of Kingston has written:

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/issues/november-13th-2015-2/what-will-the-pope-say-his-friends-tell-us/

Buffalo Pie

Growing up in Toronto we only had a six channels on TV. Two in Toronto, one in Hamilton and three from Buffalo. This was even before PBS and Goldy's fundraising. Who remembers Promo the Robot or Captain Tom a poor cousin of Captain Kangaroo?  Ah Buffalo, the Queen City as I recall. I have family there. South Buffalo, Lancaster, Cheektowaga. Ebeneezer. Uncle Sarkis. born in Lebanon, owned the Wehrle Drive-in Theatre on Transit Road and his brother Frank, The Willamsville Inn on Main Street. Together, they lead the building of St. John Maron Church. Buffalo was my second home. An auntie organised the Variety Club Telethon which was watched in our house all day those Sundays after Mass. How I remember Our Lady of Victory Shrine and all the stories Auntie Mary would tell of the great Father Nelson Baker. How Catholic Buffalo was. German, Polish, Italian, Irish. 

Some of the most beautiful churches in the northeast maybe in all of the United States of America, are in Buffalo. Many look like little Cathedrals. Most would put Toronto's to shame except for a handful. The faith in that Queen City is about as bad as everywhere else. Some say the Church "is not a building." But these buildings were built by the faithful who loved God, respected how to worship Him in beauty and in truth and gave Him their best. Not like those today.

I suppose there were no fires last night in Lackawanna for Irv Weinstein to report on. Wait, Irv's not on Channel 7 anymore? Well, if he were, he'd be reporting on this little dust up that "Jesus had two dads and he turned out just fine." 

That sign in front of Sts. Columba and Brigid Church in Buffalo, a far cry from what was built generations ago, has caused a lot of outcry. Catholic Family News, Father Z, here on this blog, we all wrote about it. The Bishop of Buffalo instantly saw the problem and ordered the phrase removed. The backlash to me includes a comment on the post and an email from the pastor, both of which I received this morning. Let us take a look at them.

Good Evening! It was with great interest that I read the comments that you all posted in the Guest Book of the St. Columba-Brigid Church website.  While I want to allay your concerns, I also find myself wondering where such hatred and vitriol come from.  Did you spend any time at all pondering the true meaning that our billboard was trying to convey?  Or did you snap to judgement as soon as you saw it or heard about it?  Did you hear about it second hand, without seeing it yourself, and join in the condemnation of it based on what someone else shared with you?  These are all things that you should consider. But my task is to provide you with some sense of understanding of our message.  You accept that Jesus Christ had two fathers, God the Father and Joseph - His foster father.  I don’t think that there is any argument there.  He had His heavenly Father and His human father.  Those are the two fathers that we are referring to on our message board.Due to broken marriages and relationships where no marriage occurred, there are literally millions of children in the world who are raised by two sets of parents. Again, there is no arguing this point. Some families actually achieve this quite successfully, with both sets of parents getting along if for no other reason than the benefit to their children. These children flourish in the love and support provided by the love to two families: two mothers, two fathers, several grandparents and shared siblings – a blended family. It is a win-win – wonderful and fulfilling for the children and the parents. This was beautifully exemplified recently on tv by the actions of two dads walking their daughter down the aisle. The biological father suddenly recognized that the stepfather had been equally instrumental in raising their lovely and amazing daughter, and he had him join in the happy ritual of ‘giving her away’ to her new husband.  And that act of love and acceptance resonated around the world.But sometimes children are ridiculed for this circumstance in their lives.  Some children hear snide comments from other children who are lucky enough to be growing up within nuclear families – one set of parents and siblings. The message on the board was put there in support of children who are growing up with two families – two dads- and who may be experiencing some conflict because of it. Your rush to judgement leaves us perplexed because as a good Christian and Catholic you know the Bible very well. Therefore you know that Matthew 7:1-2 says: “Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgement you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you.”Obviously you read other nuances into our message, things that we did not intend. It was only meant for children who have a step-father and a biological father - to give them understanding, support and encouragement and to let them know that they can have a healthy, normal life in the future.Thank you for your concern. And please keep these children in your prayers. God bless! Fr Roy 

My response.

Dear Father Roy,  

Given that you have publicly said that the sign referred to "step-children" I will accept your explanation and apologise publicly here for my rash-judgement and for insinuating otherwise.

However, your decision to put up such a sign was imprudent and careless. At a time when marriage is under attack by a sodomite mafia that is bent, not on marriage for its own sake, but in their own words, the "destruction of marriage and the family," the words you put up contained inflammatory language. Language is important as your fellow New York State priest, Father Tom Rosica (because we Canadians can take responsibility for Justin Bieber okay) likes to remind us. As an educated man you are aware that your sign is the exact dictionary definition of a double entrendre. You are surely aware of the "Heather Has Two Mommies" books. Given the rather "progessivist" nature of your parish and your late "Nun on the Bus," may she receive her just reward, you most certainly would know how the political left uses words to its advantage.

The fact that I, and thousands of others, "read other nuances" into the sign is not our faults, it is the fault of those who put up a sign with those words. To assume that everyone would have seen the video to which you refer is a stretch on your part. To think in this day and age, something so inflammatory and potentially heretical would not make it to social media is foolish. Certainly, the person driving past the church would easily have interpreted the sign as a support for an abomination against the Catholic faith, the raising of children by two sodomite "fathers," well one father actually as the other is his fellow pin-cushion. Nobody is ridiculing any children here. I have children. I had step-children, I had a decree of nullity, I am a sinner. So don't go down that rabbit hole. That is a ridiculous statement on your part. As for "giving away" the bride. You should know, she is not "given away" in the Catholic Sacrament of Matrimony. She comes of her own free will, she is not her "dads" property to give to anyone. Some progressive you are. This is not about the children, it is about the sign you authorised to put up that contained a phrase that would be interpreted by the overwhelming majority of those who saw it as support for sodomite so-called "marriage." As for your liturgical abuses at the camp mess, please read Redemptionis Sacramentum. Please accept my apologies for the "rash-judgement) of misunderstanding your sign.

Vox.

Now, to Anonymous in the combox who judges me to Hell.

I just want to say that you and all of the others who have posted comments full of hatred and vitriol are going to burn in hell. People like you that (use) the word of Christ, which I was taught were words of love, and twist them for your own evil purposes. You are no better than the racist Trump, than the murdering members of ISIS, than rapists, than thieves. You name anything that's evil, and you are all worse. I always thought that God didn't make ugly, but I guess He did, because (he??? Vox) you made all of you hatemongers. How do you look at yourselves in the mirror?  God is everywhere. He was at that outdoor Mass, where we sang His praises to the skies. Mass doesn't have to be in a church, because church is not a building, or didn't you know that. To be able to praise God right there in the midst of His creation is a blessing. But you wouldn't know that because you wouldn't recognize a blessing if it hit you in the head. Oh, and by the way, have you ever heard of Kinte Cloth? Try and get a little bit of culture, it would serve you well. Remember that the only judge is God himself. And He will be judging you and using your hatred against you. You all need to repent and atone for the tons of sins that are burning your souls. I know you're not going to publish this because you don't have what it takes to deal with anything or anyone that disagrees. But God is watching you. Have fun in hell!

Dear Anonymous,

First, read the above response to Father "Roy."  Second, look up to your words of "hatred and vitriol," along with your accusations of my "judgement"  and then look in the "mirror" you speak of and consider what you see.  The "racist Trump" comment is calumny and rash judgement on your part. If you don't know what these mean, please contact Father Roy. I have publicly apologised for my rash judgement. As someone who is of Lebanese heritage, who sees my Christian countrymen in Syria butchered because of your derelict malefactor in the White House whom you probably voted for, I would hope that you are as forthright with those who advocate for the murder of babies in the womb as you are at me. For murderers and thieves, you can look at your own leaders.  As for the outdoor Mass, it was an abomination. I suggest you read Redemptionis Sacramentum linked above to see the sinful liturgical abuses committed by your priest. Plastic cups for the Eucharist, the Precious Blood, this is acceptable? Mass in street clothes? We are not in priest holes (you might need to look that up) nor in Vietnamese prison camps (look it up).

Would you like to compare your unholy sacrilege of the camp mess to this?

In honour of Canadian Remembrance Day today or your Veteran's Day on this 11th day of the 11th month, let us look back a few decades to this.

This is Father Emile Kapaun in Korea. He died in a prison camp and his cause is going forward for canonization. Did he disrespect the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass as you people under a wayward priest did at Sts. Columba and Brigid?

Father Emile Kapuan in Korea

What about this one? If this priest could vest properly and dress a jeep on Omaha Beach on June 4, 1944, with an antependium, (you might want to look that up) and an antemension (you'll want to look that one up too), then why should we, with all of our modern conveniences, do any less for God.

All that effort in the midst of war and a thanksgiving offering on D Day for making it off the beach. How many did not?

As for Kente cloth, it may be "African" but African priests don't wear it  at Mass so don't patronise them in your arrogant white liberality. 

My South African wife is offended. Should Africans wear denim vestments as a tribute to America? Vestments such as these are not praiseworthy to God and they are insulting to Africans.

Do these look like Kente cloth?

 

Here is a google search for kente cloth vestments. I see no African Catholic priest wearing them but I see some old white guys.

I am shocked, shocked; that a progressive such as you would not see your statement as actually being racist and patronising.

Thanks for your comment.

Vox