Topic: Pro-Abortion Catholic Politicians Receiving Communion

[Advisory: I recently received the following contained in an email]

Statement:

Nobody who is obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin should be given Holy Communion. But pro-abortion politicians are obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin for, by being politicians, their support of abortion — the murder of babies in the womb — is an extremely grave sin, and it is publicly manifest. Moreover, they do so in a manner that is obstinate to the clear teachings of the Church, and they persevere in this; thus, they are obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin. Thus, again, nobody who publicly supports abortion should be given Holy Communion.

Justification:

Greetings in the Lord to the faithful of Christ and His Holy Church. The greatest evil, at least on the natural level, in our world today is, by far, the massive slaughter of God’s children in the womb through abortion. With each abortion, an innocent child’s life is snuffed out, and, with legalized abortion, the number of these murders of children in the womb is mind-numbing (an estimated 50 million children murdered by abortion throughout the world each year — over 100,000 daily!) For good reason, then, does the Catechism of the Catholic Church call this sin an “abominable crime.” With each abortion, not only is an innocent baby’s life ended but, along with that, many other lives are deeply devastated: We priests know all too well the indescribably deep pain inflicted on the hearts and souls of the mothers and fathers of these children (to whom our hearts go out with deep fatherly affection) as well as so many others wounded by this horrible scourge, a scourge that is of — or beyond — biblical proportions. “Yea, they sacrificed their sons and their daughters unto devils and shed innocent blood, even the blood of their sons and of their daughters, whom they sacrificed unto the idols of Canaan: And the land was polluted with blood” (Psalm 106: 37–38).

With all this in mind concerning the absolute horror and injustice of abortion, we, the PFC and our supporting clergy, want the faithful to know that Catholic politicians who publicly support this mass murder of God’s children ought not be given Our Lord’s Body and Blood in Holy Communion! For, by publicly supporting abortion, such politicians are contributing to the shedding of the blood of many children, precious children for whom Our Lord shed His Blood, that same Blood that is received in Holy Communion. Concerning the unworthy reception of Holy Communion, i.e., the reception of Holy Communion in a state of mortal sin, the Apostle Paul flat out declares, “He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body” (1 Corinthians 11:29). Based on these words of the Apostle, the Church herself, in her Code of Canon Law (Canon 915) declares that anyone who is “obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin” (e.g., pro-abortion politicians) is “not to be admitted to Holy Communion.” Thus, these politicians ought not to be given Holy Communion, for, in presenting themselves for the sacrament, they are causing scandal to the faithful and offending Our Eucharistic Lord, who, again, shed that very Blood of His, present in the Holy Eucharist, for each and every poor, innocent child who is so very unjustly killed by abortion.

In fact, more than that, we, the PFC, do not understand why these politicians are not required, under ecclesiastical obedience, by our fathers, the bishops, to publicly recant and repent from their pro-abortion positions under pain of receiving a formal, public excommunication should they fail to do so! Nobody who persists in the support of mass baby-murder (which is what legalized abortion is) — especially one who does so publicly — has any right to call himself Catholic! To allow this is to do a disservice to the very names “Catholic” and “Christian”!

The fact that pro-baby-murder politicians are being permitted to receive Our Sacred Lord has the potential to undermine both our awareness of the indescribable evil of this massive child-sacrifice known as legalized abortion, as well as the indescribable sacredness of the Blessed Sacrament — both truths we must uphold as Catholics. In the end, the permitting of such politicians to receive Our Lord amounts, objectively, to a serious lack of charity towards, first, the children in the womb who, daily, are slaughtered by the tens of thousands throughout the world and, second, Our Lord Himself, truly present in the Blessed Sacrament, who is treated in a sacrilegious manner by each and every one of these public sacrilegious Communions. If these little ones of God and the Eucharistic Lord Himself are truly loved, how can this be permitted? It cannot.

So, in the face of such scandalous actions taking place, we, the PFC, urge the faithful to hold fast to their utter hatred of the evil of abortion (and their love of those killed by abortion, as well as those so very deeply wounded by abortion, especially the parents of these children) and to their utter love of the Blessed Sacrament (and, consequently, to their hatred of anything that denigrates this Most Holy of Sacraments, such as is taking place with these publicly scandalous and sacrilegious Communions).

We urgently call upon our spiritual fathers, the bishops, to stop this horrific and unjust (and uncharitable) scandal, even as we also call upon these pro-abortion Catholic politicians (most especially our son in the Lord and in His Church, Joseph Biden) to repent of their sins against, first, the unborn, and, secondly, against Our Lord Himself (for, to these politicians, sons and daughters of ours in the Church, we say that, when your lives are over, you will no longer have power but, rather, will face Our Lord and all His little ones, and you will then have to give an account of your actions: If you do not repent, you will face everlasting condemnation; and, so, out of love for you, our sons and daughters in the Lord and the Church, we call you to repentance today!)

In Christ,
Patres Fidelium Christi (PFC)

Why I’ve Tuned Out National Public Radio

Why I've Tuned Out National Public Radio
ON THE WORSHIP OF THE MOLOCH OF EQUALITY

By John Lyon | September 2019

One day recently, prompted by programming on National Public Radio (NPR), I undertook a penance I had often threatened myself with on similar provocation but had firmly resisted: I listened to an hour of Rush Limbaugh.

Since 1956 I’ve listened to NPR via various state affiliates from Pennsylvania to Minnesota, including 26 years of broadcasts from Madison, Wisconsin. Over those 63 years, I’ve witnessed the steady drift of NPR’s programming downward and to the Left: the expectable, inevitable, massive movement of most institutions in a democracy.

By some fey magic, NPR manages to continue providing valuable programming: classical music; the narration of vital books; generally useful because informative programs about agricultural, medical, and scientific matters; and even news of events. The slant of commentary about events, however, as well as the choice of topics and sociopolitical pitch of most of its talk-show sessions, is obnoxiously slanted and blatantly partisan. It is sheer “progressive” propaganda. And this is particularly dangerous in a republic degenerating into a democracy.

National Public Radio pleads the cause of radical feminism. (Why isn’t this a form of sexism?) It foments racism by offering outrageous examples of it, all designed to demonstrate that nothing white is right. I can’t recall the last time it covered a case of egregious black-on-white or black-on-black violence. Recently, NPR has been treating listeners to endless harassment over “reparations” — even poetry is called to take sides — because some of our ancestors were here when slavery was legal. How does this bring people together in our society? If genuine reconciliation is to take place, then truly monstrous behavior in the past ought not to be forgotten, but it ought never to be emphasized by public media.

National Public Radio plays about with socialism — a discreet, tentative, middle-class, pleading, speaking-in-euphemisms about what is, in fact, revolutionary. In NPR’s scope, policemen, policing, and, above all, any action carried out by ICE functionaries tend ipso facto to be in the wrong; meanwhile, NPR makes celebrities of chosen criminals.

National Public Radio turned the nomination of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh into a circus maximus performance, abetting the pre-judged, thumbs-down verdict of social media in the circus minimus. It played to the galleries about the bad, bad Covington High School students’ oppressing and threatening a poor, unarmed, tom-tom beating “Native American,” when it was, in fact, the tom-tom beater who was attempting to incite an outrage.

July 4th, partisan politics, Canada, and the Feast of August 15th

Fr. Eduard Perrone, "A Pastor's Descant" (Assumption Grotto News, July 1, 2018):

Although I try to keep blissfully free from knowledge of some of the risible affairs euphemistically called politics, I can't remain totally uninformed or unaffected by what passes as the "news." It's a shame and an embarrassment to hear about the conniving and the accusations being flung from political pole to pole. I'll be we're the laughingstock of non-Americans worldwide. "Collusion" or "harassment" or "sex scandal," or gay "rights" or media manipulation of public opinion, and the like -- these have become some of the political "issues" in this sad moment in our country. Certainly there are other things that concern us such as crime, the economy and taxes, health care, international security, immigration, the free expression (or else abatement) of religion. For me, however, these valid and relevant concerns are so buried in the ideological ranting as to give me, if not nausea, disgust when following the daily news.

But on July 4th we manage somehow to put all these divisiveness aside and celebrate Independence Day together. It's a momentary respite in the cultural war, a kind of national truce when all or most of us can be proud patriots and observe a secular sabbath rest from the political wrangling. "One nation under God" is the phrase we utter in common, even though it has itself become a matter of contention.

While we pray together the holy rosary after all our Masses here "for God's mercy on our country," I have been adding to the intentions in my daily private prayers, "for the conversion of our people to the ways of righteousness and of Catholicism." "People" in that intention means our American people, and "righteousness" means "moral goodness." My prayer is that Americans may be delivered from the perverse ideological leanings that have caused so much ruination in our country and that they would be open to the full truth of the Catholic faith -- the one and only Christian religion founded by Christ. That's a tall order, one might say, an awful lot to tack on to one's prayer intentions. Agreed. Yet undaunted by the enormity of it I have now with even greater boldness added to this already heavily-laden intention the same prayer intention for our neighbors in Canada. This comes as a result from speaking to some Catholic Canadians recently who are smarting even more than we from the same philosophical poisons that have been dividing and corrupting us Americans. Religious liberty is seriously endangered for our friends to the north, and it is -- naturally -- the Catholic religion and its moral tenets that are the target for elimination from the governing and even from the minds of Canadians.

Would it be too much to ask you to make the mental (if not outspokenly verbal) intention in your daily prayers, "for God's mercy on our country and on Canada"? It would be a very literal and concrete way of having effective Christian charity on our "neighbor," in this case, our geographic neighbor. Over the issues that trouble and conflict Canadians we stand in a unified worry, for we are all solicitous that the rights of Christ be protected.

While the most blissful month of July is at hand when your pastor tries to forget (not you, but) some of the mundane aspects of parish business, there looms in the not-too-distant future our August 15th celebration. My simple appeal to you is to become much involved in the preparation, the events themselves, and the follow up of Assumption Day 2018. I was reminded at the recent preparation meeting for the feast day that my revered predecessor Monsignor Sawher would goad, urge, and exhort parishioners from the pulpit to take August 15th as a holiday and to clear home calendars so that the entire day could be devoted to Our Lady at the parish. Taking my cue from him I ask you to make this your day of parish involvement and pride by being present and active throughout the day, praying and assisting in the various activities. If Grotto holds a special place in your heart, this is the time to prove it in action. Although it may seem that I'm asking a great favor, the reality is that you will get the greater benefit for the investment of your time and work. Plan now to be a big part of our feast day.

Fr. Perrone

"The Corporate War on Free Speech"

G. K. Chesterton once said "The problem with capitalism is too few capitalists," thereby pointing out that not only socialism but capitalism could be oppressive if unconstrained by the moral respect for the individual, the family, and what Pius IX called the Principle of Subsidiarity. In his book, The Church and the Libertarian, Christopher A. Ferrara also points out that it is not only big government, but a triumvirate of big government, big business, and big finance that serves to create a "market-driven" political economy where the the Church has no business intruding with its moral imperatives. The other side of that equation is that the "free marketplace" of business and finance isn't a value-free "naked public square," to borrow the phrase of Fr. Richard John Neuhaus, but a place now straightjacketed with the "politically correct" values of the left. Ryszard Legutko argues this in his masterful book, The Demon in Democracy: Totalitarian Temptations in Free Societies (2016). And now Jim Goad argues, in "The Corporate War on Free Speech" (Taki's Magazine, March 5, 2018), that it is not only government-sponsored PC censorship that threatens the free marketplace of ideas, but, even more, the private sector's corporations that have taken up the left's ideological war on the traditional ideals of freedom of thought and free speech in the public forum. And when "Political Correctness Goes to the Vatican" (The Philosophical Salon and the Los Angeles Review of Books, December 25, 2017), one wonders what traditional institutions remain to oppose the totalitarian grip of leftist ideology and its dream of jackboot repression of all opposition.

The problem with "American Exceptionalism"

Jack Kerwick, in "'American Exceptionalism' Reconsidered ... And Rejected," argues that this has become a central dogma of neoconservatism, that it is an ahistorical fiction, a rationalization for globalist imperialism, and at odds with patriotism and Christianity.

[Hat tip to L.S.]

"George Weigel: The Swan Song of the Catholic Neocons"

[Disclaimer: Rules ##7-9]

A Review of George Weigel’s Lessons in Hope: My Unexpected Life with St. John Paul II (Basic Books, 2017), by Dr. Jesse Russell, Fetzen Fliegen (A Remnant newspaper blog, September 7, 2017):

The notorious journalist and friend of Catholic traditionalist Patrick Buchanan, Hunter S. Thompson once wrote in his famous essay “The Hippies”: “The best year to be a hippie was 1965, but then there was not much to write about, because not much was happening in public and most of what was happening in private was illegal.”

A similar statement could be made of Catholic neoconservatives: the best year to be a Catholic neoconservative was 2001. September 11 had given the green light to the destruction of any country that stood in the way of the New World Order’s goal of global hegemony. With magazines like First Things and books such as Witness to Hope and The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism, the very polite triumvirate of neoconservative leaders, Fr. Richard Neuhaus, George Weigel, and Michael Novak, had not only complete control over the American reception of John Paul II’s life and work, but increasing access to the White House of President George W. Bush.

Many bishops such as Charles Chaput, Francis George, and Timothy Dolan (whom Weigel refers to as an “old friend”) were the under the spell of Weigel, Neuhaus, and Novak. Even the lumbering, felt-banner-adorned battleship of old liberals called the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops was turning toward the shores of the “new” Catholic conservativism born from Fr. John Courtney Murray and Jacques Maritain.

But then something happened. Like a Greek tragic hero, the Catholic neocons at the apex of their power, fell from grace.

“No Enemies to the Left” [pas d’ennemis à gauche] — Still!

By Kenneth D. Whitehead

In July-August 2001, Kenneth D. Whitehead, R.I.P., a former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Education, was a writer living in Falls Church, Virginia, and a Contributing Editor of the NOR. His latest book was One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic: The Early Church Was the Catholic Church (Ignatius, 2000).

Ed. Note: Throughout 2017, in commemoration of our fortieth year of publication, we are featuring one article per issue from the NOR’s past. This article originally appeared in our July-August 2001 issue (volume LXVIII, number 7) and is presented here unabridged. Copyright © 2001.

Ideological slogans might not always seem to be very important. Sometimes, however, they can reveal basic and persistent mindsets. This is the case with the slogan that originated in the French Revolution, “No enemies to the Left.” Students of European politics will recognize that this slogan has persisted, and that the ideas behind it still apply to today’s politics.

In his 1928 classic, The French Revolution: A Monarchist History, Pierre Gaxotte describes the inexorable logic of revolutionary “progress”:

The revolutionary period was characterized by allowing successive avant-garde parties or factions to take political power while riots and disturbances in the streets dictated the actual government policies that were adopted. Against the royal court and the privileged classes, the members of the National Assembly appealed to the turbulent sectors of the capital. Even while privately deploring the excesses committed from July 13 on, they closed their eyes to them because they wanted to hold in reserve the power of the clubs and of the streets. Thus they became prisoners of the alliance they had made; they became prisoners of the formula “no enemies to the left” (pas d’ennemis à gauche).

The relative moderates initially responsible for getting the Estates General convoked in order to deal with the financial crisis of the French monarchy were very soon shunted aside by the more radical elements, who quickly resorted to extra-legal means to convert the Estates General into a National Assembly. These revolutionaries in the Assembly soon fell from power, however, giving way to yet more radical elements. Each successive party or faction that came to power faced the same ongoing, volatile revolutionary situation.

Continuing agitation in the country at large, but especially in Paris, kept the streets, the press, the factions, and the clubs in constant ferment. What was taken to be public opinion marched relentlessly forward. Yesterday’s impossible, unthinkable measure became today’s “idea whose time has come”; yesterday’s progressive Assembly member became today’s reactionary, if not traitor to the cause. The revolutionary mechanism ground mercilessly on.

Gaxotte correctly identifies one of the reasons why the more radical revolutionary elements were repeatedly able to displace the successively outmoded “progressives”: In a revolutionary climate, where events are thought to be leading ineluctably to human “liberation,” a “better world,” and the perfecting of the human condition, the more radical forces not only exhibit more consistency and determination toward attaining these ends, they also come to occupy the perceived moral high ground — they are the ones who appear truly dedicated to the cause, and thereby usually gain at least short-term popular support. Meanwhile, those who are more moderate and potentially more reasonable become awed or intimidated by the zeal of the zealots and tend to yield to them.

If, by definition, the Revolution is going to usher in freedom, eliminate oppression and injustice, and create a better world, then those who are more committed, energetic, and intolerant of any kind of compromise with injustice and oppression acquire a considerable psychological and moral advantage — while those who are or have become more lukewarm about the cause, or who, at the very least, have become concerned about their jobs or careers, can no longer effectively oppose the zealots and the true believers.

It is true that power relationships and the abilities and opportunities of individuals, as well as a host of other factors, play important roles in how a particular revolutionary situation develops; but if the whole aim of the Revolution is to clear away the obstacles on the road to human liberation, progress, and a better world, then those least deterred by moral or other considerations in the face of the obstacles encountered will be out in front of others who might have second thoughts, or even scruples, or who are otherwise deterred by various obstacles.

These are among the reasons why, in a revolutionary situation, there are “no enemies to the Left.” For it is the Left, after all, that by definition represents where the Revolution is supposed to go.

Trump's Religious Freedom Order: "Woefully inadequate"

John Stonestreet and Roberto Rivera, "BreakPoint: President Trump's Religious Freedom Order" (BreakPoint, May 5, 2017):

President Trump’s long-anticipated order on religious freedom reminds us that salvation won’t come on Air Force One.

Yesterday, on the National Day of Prayer, President Trump signed an executive order on religious liberty.

Unfortunately, though it was a “first step,” it was a small one, an order Ryan Anderson of the Heritage Foundation called “woefully inadequate.”

Now, let me be clear: there are things in the order worth praising. The president said that “No American should be forced to choose between the dictates of the federal government and the tenets of their faith.”

I couldn’t agree more. And I’m thankful that at least so far this administration, unlike the last one, isn’t forcing that choice on Americans. Still, protecting religious freedom requires more than just noble sentiments. And here is where the executive order disappoints. After directing the federal government to “vigorously enforce Federal law’s robust protections for religious freedom,” the measures set forth in the order are, well, less than vigorous.

The order instructs the Secretaries of the Treasury, Labor, and HHS to “consider amending existing regulations” to address “conscience-based objections” to the HHS mandate.

Words like “consider” aren’t exactly a guarantee that anything will change. As Ryan Anderson told The Atlantic, the “regulatory relief” promised to groups like the Little Sisters of the Poor may very well amount to, “Well, you have to do it, because [the Supreme Court] told you to do it,” but, it “doesn’t move the ball” on religious liberty.

Nor does the emphasis on the Johnson Amendment, which prohibits churches and other charitable organizations from endorsing political candidates.

First, the Johnson Amendment is bad law, but it’s rarely, if ever, enforced. So the order effectively tells the IRS to continue doing what it is already doing. Second, the inability to endorse candidates from the pulpit on Sunday isn’t the problem with religious freedom in this country. The problem is the increasing inability of Christians and other people of religious conviction to practice their faith Monday through Saturday.

Yesterday’s events suggest that, as I said after the election, the incoming administration has offered us a reprieve on religious freedom, but not a champion. Or as Chuck Colson often put it, salvation doesn’t arrive on Air Force One.

So, with or without the executive order we really wanted, we have to know this: The case for religious freedom must be made both in our churches and over our backyard fences. Even had we gotten the executive order many of us had hoped for, it would have been, at best a temporary help.

Why? Because our cultural understanding of religious freedom is currently not strong enough to offer or to sustain a long-term political solution. Like the understanding of marriage was lost in the cultural imagination way before Obergefell, so the understanding of religious freedom has been lost in the culture. Many are just frankly ignorant about what the free exercise of religion means and why our founders thought it so important.

For most Americans, religious freedom means the ability to “attend the church of your choice.” The logical corollary of this would be, “what happens in church stays in church.”

Of course, if Christians took that idea seriously, there would be a lot fewer religious hospitals, soup kitchens, homeless shelters, etc. Government can’t even begin to fill the vacuum left should these institutions be forced out of business.

Americans must be reminded that believers ought not be made to choose between obeying their conscience and serving their neighbor. And it would help if Christians understood this better. In too many churches, being a Christian is about how God can make your life better, not how you can work with God to make the invisible kingdom visible.

This is where the battle for religious freedom will be fought, and either won or lost, no matter who sits in the Oval Office.

Important: Review of Rod Dreher's The Benedict Option

The Benedict Option: A Strategy for Christians in a Post-Christian Nation, by Rod Dreher, Sentinel Press, 2017, 262 pp. Reviewed by Sacerdos Romanus at Rorate Caeli, April 24, 2017:

We would not usually be inclined to read a formal schismatic’s thoughts on how Christians should comport themselves in the secular world. But two things persuaded us make an exception for Rod Dreher’s The Benedict Option. The first was a favorable mention of the book by the Rt. Rev. Abbot Philip Anderson of the traditionalist Benedictine monastery at Clear Creek. The second was the bitter dismissal of the book by many mainstream Catholic pundits. And we were not disappointed. While we would agree with the criticisms of some tradition-minded writers, we find that overall Dreher’s analysis of the current situation in Western Europe and North America is accurate, and his suggestions for a practical response to the situation sensible. In fact, Dreher’s insights can very easily be developed into an argument for Catholic Traditionalism and against the anti-traditionalism of the Catholic mainstream since Vatican II. Read more >>

Archbishop Chaput on how liberal democracies become despotic

Charles J. Chaput, Strangers in a Strange Land: Living the Catholic Faith in a Post-Christian World (2017), Chapter 1, "Resident Aliens" (comments mine):

In a democracy, political legitimacy comes from the will of sovereign individuals. Their will is expressed through elected representatives. Anything that interferes with their will, anything that places inherited or unchosen obligations on the individual -- except for the government itself -- becomes the target of suspicion. [Which is why the Principle of Subsidiarity articulated by Pope Pius XI in Quadragesimo anno (1931) is so important, like the Kuyperian concept of Sphere Sovereignty of 'Intermediary Institutions.']

To protect the sovereignty of individuals, democracy separates them from one another. And to achieve that, the state sooner or later seeks to break down any relationship or entity that stands in its way. That includes every kind of mediating institution, from fraternal organizations to synagogues and churches, to the family itself. This is why Alexis de Tocqueville, the great French observer of early American life, said that "despotism, which is dangerous at all times, [is] particularly to be feared in democratic centuries."

Tocqueville saw that the strength of American society, the force that kept the tyrannical logic of democracy in creative check, was the prevalence and intensity of religious belief. Religion is to democracy as a bridle is to a horse. Religion moderates democracy because it appeals to an authority higher than democracy itself.


But religion only works its influence on democracy if people really believe what it teaches. Nobody believes in God just because it's socially useful. To put it in Catholic terms, Christianity is worthless as a leaven in society unless people actually believe in Jesus Christ, follow the Gospel, love the Church, and act like real disciples. If they don't, then religion is just another form of self-medication. And unfortunately, that's how many of us live out our Baptism.

Until recent decades, American culture was largely Protestant. That was part of the country's genius. But it also meant that Catholics and other minorities lived through long periods of exclusion and prejudice. The effect of being outsiders has always fueled a Catholic passion to fit in, to find a way into the mainstream, to excel by the standards of the people who disdain us. Over time, we Catholics have succeeded very well -- evidently too well. And that very success has weakened any chance the Church had to seize a "Catholic moment" when Catholics might fill the moral hole in our culture created by the collapse of a Protestant consensus.

As a result, Tocqueville's fear about democracy without religious constraints -- what he called its power to kill souls and prepare citizens for servitude -- is arguably where we find ourselves today...."

Fr. Perrone: How could a Catholic possibly support a party promoting abortion, contraception, euthanasia, sodomy, and "transgender" identification?

Fr. Eduard Perrone, "A Pastor's Descant" (Assumption Grotto News, February 12, 2017):

A few made known to me their appreciation for the pastor's column last week in which there was a commendatory word about President Trump for his pro-life stand. One may wonder whether it is to be afeared that the pastor now becomes an advocate of partisan politics. Without addressing that suspicion, it must be admitted that for a long time Catholics generally -- and the clergy especially -- have been victims of the gag rule which has deterred them from deep opposition to the immoral policies of the Democrat party, those very moral issues St. John Paul II stigmatized by the shocking epithet, "the culture of death." Surely it ought not to be a matter of preference for one political party over another that every Catholic, every Christian -- indeed, every citizen of sane mind and moral decency -- should oppose abortion, contraception, euthanasia, sodomy, and "transgender" identification. And yet this one partisan body has made these particular issues the basis of much of its program for a revolutionized American society. Can Catholics support these anomalies, these moral atrocities which are an outrage to God and a repugnance to any rational being? This is no endorsement of one political body over another (historically, by the way, the American hierarchy has had a long track record of open support for the Democrat Party). The fact that both major political parties, though unequally, have been supportive of these crimes against humanity means that Catholics must work to expunge these deleterious proposals from any political platform.

Catholics have every reason and duty to be the best of American citizens. they represent, no matter how poorly they may exemplify it in their individual lives, the teachings of Christ and the magisterium of the church which upholds the natural law. They must send this 'message' to their politicians and insist that they uphold moral truth. On its side, government must protect the rights of the Church to be this moral voice for American society and it must not interfere in the right of the Church to assert the moral truths God implanted in human nature and expressed so clearly in divine revelation.

Catholics must contribute to the good of society by its untiring witness to the law of God. The fact that one political party has chosen to espouse immoral ways of living and acting is most regrettable. We pray in our daily rosary "for God's mercy on our country,." This is not a plea that God allow us to continue merrily downward towards moral degeneracy with impunity -- that would be a veritable mockery of divine mercy. Rather, we are praying for a moral conversion of men's minds and their ways of living to conform to God's truth while we make reparation for damage already done by the sins that "cry out to God for vengeance" (as they are labled in the catechism).

There's much work to be done for the spiritual rebuilding of America. If our mores begin to improve, many other national benefits will result, including a renewed confidence in the basic, though not perfect, good of our constituted government; a rediscovered love of our fatherland (patriotism); and the recovery of the Christian faith upon which the entire moral and political order depends.

I have at time spoken in sermons on this theme, though perhaps with less of a political epmhasis, and concluded by insisting that there cannot be hope for a morally improved country or Church without a personal reform of each individual to keep from the sins which are the cause of his own ruin (those so called "besetting" sins of spiritual literature). Everyone contributes wittingly or not to the upbuilding or the ruination of public life. In short, if you do not reform your own life, you become part of America's and the Church's "problem."

By the time you read this the funeral rites for Fr. John's father will have taken place. While I did not know Anthony Bustamante very well, I know he was a lifelong Catholic, very dedicated to his faith, to Holy Mass, and to his family. With the parishioners of Assumption Grotto Church I wish to express condolences to the Bustamante family in this sorrowful time. While their faith and hope in Christ is a great consolation, the inevitable sadness of this great absence in their lives cannot be denied. We lend them the unseen support of our prayers for Anthony's eternal welfare.

Eternal rest grant unto him, O Lord, and let perpetual light shine upon him!

Fr. Perrone

The core of the political war is spiritual (sex & abortion), not pocketbook issues, says M. Matt

The return of the religious alt right Republican Taliban and other left-wing conspiracy theories

"Return of an Imaginary Menace," New Oxford Review (November 2016):

In our New Oxford Note “The Last Rhetorical Refuge of an Intellectual Scoundrel” (June), we asked the rhetorical question: “Remember all those insults about the ‘American Taliban’ hurled at religious conservatives in the 2000s?”

Kevin D. Williamson remembers, and he takes us back to that time, ten years ago, when Chris Hedges, a “leading moralist of the Left,” as The New Republic called him (Jun. 11, 2014), could author a book titled American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America, and that book could earn rave reviews on its way to becoming a New York Times bestseller. Hedges’s book claims, in Williamson’s words, that “a secretive movement of authoritarian Christians organized along the lines of the great totalitarian movements of the 20th century was on the verge of seizing power through violence” (National Review, Sept. 12).

That a Christian cabal bent on recreating America in its own image was poised to ascend to power wasn’t merely the product of Hedges’s fever dreams. Progressive political blogger Markos Moulitsas also entertained the notion. Kos, as he is widely known, might have been the one to popularize the term American Taliban when he posted an incendiary piece bearing that title (www.DailyKos.com, Mar. 11, 2005), in which he argued that “the Taliban/Al Qaida/Hezbollah/Jihadists of the world” are “exactly what we see in the Republican Party as the GOP continues to consolidate power — creeping theocracy, moralizing, us versus them, embrace of torture, the need to constantly declare jihad on someone, hysterics over football-game nipples, control over ‘decency’ on the airwaves, lyrics censorship, hostility to women freedoms [sic], curtaling [sic] of civil liberties, and so on.” Five years later, Kos would capitalize on the concept by releasing his own book on the topic, American Taliban: How War, Sex, Sin, and Power Bind Jihadists and the Radical Right.

In the interim, a kind of cottage industry had spawned, and the term American Taliban — and all that it represented — had taken on a life of its own. Soon, any number of reputable publishers and mainstream organizations, from The New York Times to Oprah Winfrey, were seriously considering the possibility that an influential group of highly placed Christian dominionists was operating behind the scenes of American political and cultural life, forming opinions, influencing policy, and biding its time until it could step out from behind the curtain and impose its beliefs first on a fractured and distracted America and eventually on a bewildered and unsuspecting world.

Fr. Perrone: How our corporate prayers after Mass have been modified following the election

Fr. Eduard Perrone, "A Pastor's Descant" (Assumption Grotto News, November 20, 2016):

Years ago, in the time of my youth, after every Sunday Low Mass the priest would say the "Leonine Prayers," so-named after Pope Leo XIII who originally had ordered them to be said. The stated intention for these in my time was "for the conversion of Russia," that is, for Soviet Russia, the then much-afeared enemy of God and the USA.

These prayers were conducted in this way. The preist and servers would kneel on the alter step after Mass and, after announcing the intention (above) would say three Hail Marys in dialogue with the people (as in the rosary), the Hail Holy Queen, then a prayer for the conversion of sinners and freedom of the Church. This was followed by the prayer to St. Michael the Archangel and was concluded with a threefold invocation for mercy to the Sacred Heart of Jesus.

I have many times written and spoken about our rosary after Mass offered for the good of our country, to which we added, before the election, the Memorare said thrice. Now that the presidential election is behind us, what should we do?

I sense that our rosaries have been very powerful as prayers of petition for the USA. I don't think we should stop them now. Even if Mr. Trump proves to be a reformer of some of the outlandish and frightening directions in which we have been headed morally, our people are still much divided over moral truth with obedience to God's law versus the caprice to act without restriction. To change hearts is much harder than to change laws and policies. We need prayer to ensure the freedom of the Church and the common good of our American people. Moreover, the president-elect will need prayers for his protection and his success. The rosary after Mass ought to remain. But it would be good to modify the remainder of what we have been doing somewhat in line with the former Leonine Prayers to better direct our intentions for our people and for the Church in our country. Accordingly, I would not make these changes in our post-Mass prayers: after the rosary, immediately the Memorare (said once), the verse and response ("Pray for us, O holy Mother of God ..."), the Oration (from the Leonine Prayers, said by the priest alone) "O God our refuge and our strength ...", the Prayer to St. Michael the Archangel (to curb the power of the devils from wreaking havoc in the world). This would not take any more time than the prayers as offered formerly but would be more expressive of our purpose. You should also know that those extra prayers for the intentions of the Pope to gain the plenary indulgence for a group recitation of the rosary may be said privately, and need not be said in common.

The American people need a real conversion from sin and a healing of all the damage that has been done in recent decades through loose morals. What has easy divorce and ready availability of contraceptives, rampant porn watching, and the killing of babies in their mothers' wombs done to the minds and hearts of Americans? Who can calculate the spiritual fallout?

If anything, the stress and fear generated by the days preceding the presidential election have had the good effect of making some people more fervent and steadfast in their prayers. I myself have felt this not only in my private devotions and sacrifices but also in our public rosary and the Memorares we were committed to say.

Beginning this weekend we will adopt these prayers. I hope you will continue to remain and pray as a parish. We are stronger when united as a body of suppliant parishioners.

Fr. Perrone

Fr. Perrone on what we prayed to be spared

With each passing year, as our society continues to evolve, I grow ever fonder of our parish, which in so many ways is unlike nearly any other I've experienced. By the same token, I suspect, in the eyes of the surrounding society (even Catholic society), our parish must seem proportionally out-of-step and weirdly antiquated. What makes it so? Simply that it has resisted evolving along with society. There's nothing really extraordinary about our parish at all in the great historical scheme of things. The fact is, it is simply Catholic; and Catholic precisely in the sense that any of our Catholic great-grandparents would have immediately recognized. They would have found it entirely ordinary; which is what makes it so extraordinary today. This is one reason I like to include those parts of these weekly reflections by our pastor that open a window onto our parish life -- like the concluding two paragraphs of his column below, which was published the Sunday preceding the presidential election. Enjoy.

Fr. Eduard Perrone, "A Pastor's Descant" [temporary link] (assumption Grotto News, November 6, 2016):

I recently came across this and thought you'd enjoy reading it these days just before the election.

*****

A Fable
Once upon a time in a not too distant land there was a people who had just elected a New Leader (NL) who promised, if elected, to enforce contraception funding, support unlimited abortion rights and fetal experiments, and uphold gay marriages, and who was known to have done criminal deeds but people didn't much care about that because their own sins blinded them to see them. One of NL's goals that had not been kept too much of a secret was to penalize any religious body that opposed sweeping social changes for a brave new society. While some people protested these, only one religious group proved big and powerful enough to stand in the way of NL's new ways. So an order came down on them. "Either change your ways and your beliefs to fit with the new program or else heavy taxes will be levied on all your properties, and you'll be shut down in no time!" This threat terrorized the hierarchy and made the hearts of believers tremble. But to keep peace some of the hierarchy said, "Let's give in to this new program so we can keep our properties, stay in control, and keep some semblance of our religion." Others, clergy and laity alike, were adamant and refused to change. These had their parishes shut down for lack of money to pay the taxes and their clergy went into hiding -- some of whom were imprisoned. And so there was a huge split in this church. While the side of those who went along with the new policies resented the oppressive controls they weren't really all that sad. "NL means well," they said. "Besides, most of us -- unlike those rigid forlks who were shut down and forced undegroudn -- secretly agreed with a lot of what NL wanted done anyhow." And so these got on rather well, though theyfelt deeply guilty for their conformity. The diehards meanwhile, those who refused to change their ways, kept the old religion alive, conducting their religious services clandestinely and teaching their children the old religion of their fathers. So there was now an officially recognized church under NL's control and the opporessed reactionaries who kept to their traditional ways in secret.

Meanwhile the whole land was now beginning to feel other pressures as NL pushed on to greater and greater control of people's lives. Taxes were increased to unbearable limits to create the new society that promised freedom, equality, and happiness for everybody -- everybody except those who opposed the new program. Conformists with the reforms were rewarded with jobs and privileges while the general population suffered emotionally and economically, even unto wretchedness. But whenever somebody began to object or criticize NL or the new reforms they were forcibly silenced and punished severely. In this way NL exercised total control over everything in this land and many pretended they liked things this way -- though they really resented them -- because they were afraid.

Life went on a long time in this land and the people were miserable. All the while, however, the underground believers and other dissidents kept going quietly under oppression, living by their old beliefs and ways as best they could, keeping alive in their hearts the hope that someday NL would be gone, the former order reinstated, and liberty restored.

But in the meantime, the people lived most unhappily and were very sorry that they had ever brought this sufering upon themselves.

*****
Recall that there will be an overnight prayer vigil in our church this Monday night after the 7:00 p.m. Mass through Tuesday morning just before the 7:30 a.m. Mass. We will be prostrate before the Lord in the Blessed Sacrament, precisely as we sing the Benediction hymn, veneremur cernui, that is, falling down before God. This is expressed well also in (Vulgate) Psalm 94 that is prayed in the Divine Office every morning: "Come, let us adore, and bow down before God, let us weep before the Lord." We have great reason to pray so very humbly for a good outcome to this election.

The Forty Hours Devotion opens this Friday at the 7:30 a.m. Mass with its procession following, closing just before the 7:00 p.m. Mass. It will reopen Saturday morning at 6:30 (with Mass at the usual 7:30 time), closing 8:00 p.m. On Sunday morning adoration begins at 6:00 a.m. and continues through the solemn closing Mass at noon (procession with the Blessed Sacrament is at the end of the Mass). Note that during the Sunday Masses, the Eucharist is not exposed, except during the noon Mass due to a special privilege for the closing Mass of Forty Hours.

Fr. Perrone

Pancake Sunday today.

How can you pray for your nation's cause if you no longer believe it has a cause?

"Get focused!" Maureen Mullarkey seems to say in "The End Time Is Ever With Us" (Studio Matters, October 17, 2016):

Here on my desk is a prayer from Archbishop Timothy Broglio, Archdiocese of the Military Services, USA. It begins:

Almighty God and Father, look with love upon our men and women in uniform and protect them in their time of need. Give them health and stability and allow them to return to their loved ones whole and unshaken. Be with their families and sustain them in these uncertain times.

The prayer is somehow off key, peaceable and tender to a fault. In their time of need. We could say the same thing about anyone at any time, and in the grip of any of life’s difficulties or sorrows. Health and stability. How does that translate on the battlefield? It is a nebulous pairing that veils the agonies, terrors, and deformations of war. Unshaken. In regard to what?


There is not a word here about victory, about defeating an enemy, or gaining dominion over the forces that threaten soldiers’ lives and ours. The prayer displays no gratitude for the heroic generosity and idealism that prompts young men and women to gamble their lives and the future of their families on the missions assigned to them.

What does it mean to be sustained in uncertain times? Uncertainty bedevils all times. There can be no sustenance without confidence that there exists something worth sustaining, worth the dreaded risk of death or disfigurement. Worth confronting the unspeakable. That fragile and perishable something is not hard to name: our Constitutional freedoms, the concept of human rights, the rule of law. The tragedy of our volunteer military is that their own leaders—and pastors—exhibit uncertainty themselves. They exhibit a kind of morose embarrassment at the reality that Western democracies have to be vigorously and effectively armed against the forces of tyranny.

There's much more to the article, provocative as always. Read more >>

[Hat tip to JM]

Argument of the Month Club debates Catholic views on Trump

Argument of the Month in their Octoberfest Smoker (smokin' pork, smokin' cigars, and smokin' debate) saw Alan Keyes square off with Chris Ferrara on October 11th debating the question: "Must Catholics Be Never Trumpers?" Keyes for the affirmative; Ferrara for the negative. Not online yet, but it should be interesting. I would love to have been there. Both of these guys are pretty sharp.

My pastor weighs in on the forthcoming presidential election

Fr. Eduard Perrone, "A Pastor's Descant" [temporary link] (Assumption Grotto News, October 9, 2016):

It's time for me to weigh in regarding the forthcoming presidential election. Can it be, you ask, that he intends to support publically one of the candidates? Relax. The answer is No. Only some privilege Protestant reverends can do political campaigning with impunity. A Catholic priest who would dare to scale the sacrosanct wall dividing church and state would suffer a double penalty: first from the Church which forbids priests from political involvement; then from the state which threats the withdrawal of tax exemption for the church. Yet it is not apprehension over the specter of these sanctions that would dissuade me from writing to you. If I am reticent at all it is because I do not want to be perceived as exceeding the legitimate moral influence a pastor must have over his flock. I have confidence however that my parishioners have been well informed by Catholic principles and doctrines. I would never presume to exert moral pressure for mere personal preferences.

If my intention is not to advance a particular presidential candidate, I do wish to clarify a moral question which is often posed with regard to the November election. The matter is usually phrased this way: When a voter judges that neither contender for political office is entirely satisfying how then should one vote? Must one abstain from voting?

A distinction must immediately be made between issues which are always gravely wrong (intrinsic evils) and others which are considered as the lesser good. Candidates for public office who espouse or intend to advance intrinsic evils such as abortion, gay marriage, or euthanasia may never be supported or voted for no matter what other positions they may adopt. Here is not a question of political partisanship, of support for one political 'machine' over another. To cast a vote for a party or a person who champions such grave evils is to make one an accomplice to those evils. If it so happens that one political party supports immoral causes while another opposes them it is not the Church's doing. She remains neutral with regard to political loyalties but not indifferent with regard to the moral positions which respective candidates represent.

People's minds become confused in the debates because apart from these never-to-be-admitted evil issues there are other valid areas of concern for the common good, such as the economy, international peace, immigration, taxes, etc. The importance of these matters, which have their own legitimacy, must not override the more basic, fundamental matter of a candidate's intention regarding those moral evils which must always and everywhere be opposed, which cannot ever be admitted. Casting a vote for such a candidate is itself a grave evil, a mortal sin. Such a voter becomes a cooperator in the evils that would ensue from the election of that candidate.

Too bad that in our time we are constrained to side with a candidate exclusively on account of moral issues that ought never to be a matter of discussion. Were it the case that candidates were equally pro-life, pro-heterosexual marriage, etc. one would have the legitimate moral freedom to vote for the candidate who would best represent the common good in the other areas. We are not in such a position as this. We cannot overlook at candidate's stance (or those of a political party) on those intrinsic evils.

Responsible voting is in the domain of the laity. Moral teaching however is a duty of the priestly office. A pastor who turns aside and is silent to his people when the moral law of God is in the balance and great social evils are at stake must prepare to hear words such as these: "The watchmen are blind; they are without knowledge. They are dumb dogs; they cannot bark. The shepherds have no understanding. Woe to the shepherds who destroy and scatter the sheep of My pasture! says the Lord" (cf. Is 56:10-11; Jer 10:21).

My concern then is twofold: the good of your souls first (and the way you vote is a determining factor in your spiritual health), and the good of the society in which all must live according to the express will of God.

Fr. Perrone

Related:

• Michael Matt & Christopher A. Ferrara, "Catholic Journalist & lawyer discuss 'Trumping Hillary'" (Remnant TV, July 26, 2016).
• Fr. John Lankeit, "Homily for October 2, 2016" (Fr. Z's Blog, October 5, 2016)

The Marxist Infiltration of the Latinamerican Catholic Church: sources in Gustavo Gutiérrez

Carlos A. Casanova, "The Marxist Infiltration of the Latinamerican Catholic Church: sources in Gustavo Gutiérrez" (September 8, 2016):

I think it relevant that you know that the Church in Spanish America has been systematically infiltrated at least since the 1960s. Krushev coined the expression “theology of liberation” (cfr. http://www.acidigital.com/noticias/ex-espiao-da-uniao-sovietica-nos-criamos-a-teologia-da-libertacao-28919/, seen Sept. 9th 2016) before Gutiérrez used it and China followed Krushev’s footsteps. In 1974 Carlos Sacheri, an important Argentinian philosopher, was killed for having denounced and documented the infiltration of the Argentinian Church (La iglesia clandestina, available online). I want to show you only a handful of texts by Gutiérrez in which this is admitted openly. The translation from the Spanish edition is mine:

In pp. 29-30[1] Gutiérrez says that a Theocentric Church would be a power structure and not a structure of service. He states this manipulating texts drawn from the Second Vatican Council, underlining not the proclamation of the Revealed Truth as the Council did, but the “Signs of the times.”

P. 100: “In the past the church used the world for its own ends; today, many Christians –and non Christians– are asking themselves if they should, for example, use the social weight of the church in order to accelerate the process of transformation of the social structures”.

Pp. 141-142: “A better perception of the tragic reality of the continent, the clear positionings which the political polarization creates […] have caused that the priestly (and religious) wing of the church is today one of the most dynamic and restless of the Latinamerican church. Priests and religious […] intend above all that this [the church] may break her solidarities with an unjust order and that, in a renewed fidelity to the Lord who gathers her [the church] and to the gospel which she [the church] preaches, she may join its destiny to that of those who suffer misery and dispossession.// In many countries one can see the creation of priestly groups (with traces not allowed by the Canon Law!)". [My note: in one of my books (El republicanismo español en América, una evaluación, available online) and in one of my papers (published in English by Logos, in Minnessota) I show that injustice in Latinamerica was mostly the work of the liberals by the dissolution of the communities of land which the Law of the Indies had created in the 16th century. Very much like poverty rose in England with the expoliation of the monasteries; or in Italy with the extinction of the old property system which Paolo Grossi has documented. So, to blame the Churh in Spanish America for the injustice which we had before the current onslaught of Marxism is very unjust. Moreover, there was not so much injustice (in Venezuela, for example, which is my Fatherland) in 1998 as there is now, when the Marxist are just committing an aseptic genocide by sterilization of women and also by indebting the country to the international Bank system.]

P. 144, note 18: Accorging to Gutiérrez, the meaning of Catholic priesthood has to be radically reformulated until it can be found “[…] in commitment to the oppressed parts of society in their fight for liberation”. [“Liberation” means here the abolition of private property through revolutionary action. This is to say, priesthood exists to serve Marxism.] Gutiérrez adds, approvingly quoting another priest: “Our essential goal is not [as for some Dutch priests who left the priesthood] ‘to put an end to our situation as clergymen’ but to committ ourselves in a priestly way to the Latinamerican revolutionary process. […] Hence, even if our deeds and words will bring us –as they already have– frictions and suspicions from the greatest part of the ‘official’ church, our ocupation is not to appear as marginalized by her, because this would subtract efficacy to our action. We think that the church has an enormous power to create conscience in the people… We think that many sociological and historical reasons make us Latinamerican feel the clerical state in a way different from your [of the above said Dutch priests] way of feeling it […]”.

[1] I am using Gustavo Gutiérrez’ Teología de la liberación. Perspectivas (Ediciones Sígueme. Salamanca, 1972) The 1988 and 1990 editions only added a new introduction and some notes besides changes in chapter 12 (I have no quotations here from that chapter). In 2006 Gutiérrez gave an interview in which he stated that he would not take back anything of what he wrote in the first edition of Theology of Liberation. (See a 2008 interview in the same line: http://blog.pucp.edu.pe/blog/manuelpiqueras/2008/08/05/gustavo-gutierrez-la-teologia-como-carta-de-amor/) Thus, with these brief lines the reader can think by himself whether Gutiérrez is a Catholic author or not.This is very relevant nowadays, among other reasons, because the current Prefect of the Congregation of Faith has gained fame as a champion of orthodoxy. But, actually, he has supported Gutiérrez. Moreover, he has taken sides against the Archbishop of Lima in the quarrel between the Archbishop and the elected Rector of the Pontifical Catholic University of Peru, a quarrell which might be seen as part of Gutiérrez’ legacy. Perhaps the former Secretary of the Congregation for Education, Brugues, was removed as a consequence of this conflict and the Congregation of Faith’s position on the matter.

Fr. Perrone on the real prospect of serious persecution, and a petition to invoke Mother Teresa's intercession for the coming election

Fr. Eduard Perrone, "A Pastor's Descant" [temporary link] (Assumption Grotto News, August 28, 2-16) [emphasis added]:

In the past several years a great deal has been written about the English martyrs during the time of the Protestant takeover in the sixteenth century. The reason for this abundant writing, I opine, is the ominous expectation of how things may well come about in the USA should a reign of terror descend upon the Church. We have been getting signals to help prepare us for such an eventuality for sometime now, in learning that our religious freedoms are in a threatened state. The upcoming presidential election will play a significant if not decisive role in the outcome of the social, moral and religious life of our citizens.

As many of you know, the canonization of Mother Teresa of Calcutta is immanent. The soon-to-be-saint was often present in our country for various purposes. I will recall the reception of Mother when she founded the community of her sisters in Detroit. There was a lot of media hullabaloo at the time which, as the saying goes, rolled easily over Mother's back. She who could not help being made noticed for her humble service (the inherent irony of humility) would hardly have been impressed by the presence of the press and TV cameras. Her firm aim in establishing the community of her sisters here was thereby to mediate the presence of the compassionate Christ thirsting for the souls of the indigent and wretched underclass people in the city of Detroit.

The process of canonization is ordinarily a rather protracted one due to the complexity of gathering testimony about the proposed subject's life, the examination of all pertinent writings and correspondences, and the attendant ecclesiastical business of which I know not a single thing. Exceptions to the prolonged procedure are rare. The canonization of St. Pope John Paul II is the outstanding recent example of this, and one is soon to follow in the case of Mother Teresa. But my reason for writing about Mother's soon-to-be-realized sainthood has to do with an idea I have had.

I am inviting all of you to say a prayer to Mother Teresa every day from now until election time to beg her to intercede for the good outcome of the November election. So much is at stake for our country, for our Catholic Church, and indeed for the whole world, that it cannot be understated. Would not she who showed such compassion for the spiritual and physical welfare of so many not willingly respond to the prayers of some devout souls who beseech her on behalf of the people of the United States? A simple daily formula might take the form of three Hail Mary's (or three Memorares) with an invocation to Blessed Mother Teresa to intercede for the welfare of our country in the November elections. (Other formulas would be as good. It's not a matter of hitting upon a magical formula but of the sincerity and fervor of the one praying.)

Many of you are justly worried over the possible course of things to come. I have repeatedly asked you to stay after Mass for the daily rosary to pray "for God's mercy on our country." I know many of you pray the rosary elsewhere privately, but this communal rosary (for which a plenary indulgence may be gained) is a special uniited parish effort for Our Blessed Mother to plead our case. If you love your country, your freedoms, righteousness, and your Catholic faith, you ought not lightly to excuse yourself from the rosary and from the aforementioned prayer to Mother Teresa. As I said in a recent homily, should the dread things every come to pass it will then be too late to change course without untold sufferings (cf. the English martyrs at the time of the Reformation). In such case, what will you who have excused yourselves from these prayers say?

Yes, I'm putting moral pressure on you to pray. We have thus far lost the battle (to be unisex bathrooms and ... who can say what? I guess legal prostitution, the right to public nudity and coition, and the suppression of at least some part of Catholic faith and practice.) You may scoff at these speculations as being over-drawn, but I ask you to consider where we were only a few decades ago, how things stand now, and what's being proposed now, openly.

Kindly make for yourselves a little prayer sheet to remind you daily to offer prayer to Mother Teresa for the above-stated intention and to be faithful to the daily rosary, especially in church with your priests and your Catholic fellows.