Loving in the Truth at St. Cecilia's - What Would Jesus Do?

If you go to the Mass today, please, be wise and gentle.

All who come to an event that is pitched as an open invitation from the Church are bruised reeds. Above all else, our desire is to bring them to conversion.

It is true that some will come to make this some kind of territorial and cultural victory over the Deposit of Faith. But God can even use our stupid ideas to see if He can get us on the hook. He has the ability to soften the hardest of hearts.

I am living proof.

We don't want to engage in any battle in the cultural war waged by anyone, because souls rebelling are so far from a state of Grace, clonking them on the head on way into the door could cause them to rebel further - and perhaps they will never approach the Deposit of Faith.

The goal is to drive out the false teaching and bring in Courage. There is a time and place to continue with these goals. The people coming to Church today, they are not the parties that will help us achieve this goal. That battle is at 66 Brooks Drive and the Holy See.

Let's welcome, pray and see if Unni has been kicked onto the right trajectory. If he is not, we pick up that battle tomorrow.

These are my thoughts, for what they are worth.

As promised, here's the link to Fr. Landry's theological follow-up on the dung Fr. Unni is feeding the flock at St. Cecilia's. It is magnificent.

Last week we began a look at the controversy at St. Cecilia’s Church in Boston over the scheduling of a Mass originally advertised to celebrate “gay pride” and then after criticism postponed and relabeled to a “welcoming Mass,” which while perhaps no longer explicitly extolling gay pride still seems poised to give no-questions-asked hospitality to those who believe that gay pride should be glorified, including within the context of a Catholic Mass.

We noted that the controversy raises several concerns that extend beyond a particular parish or archdiocese with regard to the authentic pastoral care the Church owes those immersed in a gay lifestyle or in any lifestyle that exalts practices that are incompatible with the Gospel. The only adequate Christian response to anyone is love, but this love can never remain a shallow hospitality that fails to help the person recognize and respond to the rather conspicuous ways Christ is challenging him to turn away from sin and believe in the Gospel. Particularly with those ensconced in a gay lifestyle — which is a way of life built on regarding several basic truths of anthropology, sexual morality, marriage, Scriptural inspiration, and magisterial authority as antiquated and repressive “hang-ups” from which people need to be liberated — the Church’s charity must always be bound to the compassionate, clear and compelling presentation of the fullness of the truth that alone can set them free (Jn 8:32). The stakes of the Church’s failure to carry out this service to the truth are huge, not only for those presently involved in a gay lifestyle, but also for the conscience formation of all in the Church and society....

With that in mind, we will examine three common falsehoods that have come to the surface in the St. Cecilia’s controversy to which the Church must respond with the truth.

Read his brilliant examination and thesis.

It is a masterpiece on answering the question "What would Jesus do".

Not to undermine the theology, so lovingly and gracefully delivered, I wanted, especially for today, to point out the following:

The third falsehood relates to the common calumny that any opposition to the gay agenda, or any criticism of a “gay pride Mass,” comes exclusively from “homophobia” or “hatred” for those with same-sex attractions, as a few members of St. Cecilia’s alleged in interviews with the media. While there’s no dispute that, sadly, in some places real homophobia does exist, ministers to the gay community have a duty not only not to abet this confusion but to disabuse those entrusted to their care from thinking the Church’s teachings on same-sex activities are based on hatred rather than love grounded in truth; they also have the responsibility to remind them that judging others or mendaciously bullying others with epithets about their character are grave sins that those with same-sex attractions are not exempt from committing.

These false accusations, however, lead to a larger point about how much the tide has turned with regard to the direction of bullying between those with same-sex attractions and others in society. Whereas in the past, those with same sex attractions were often subject to ill-treatment and ridicule on account of their attractions, including sadly by those who claimed to be Christian, now it’s Christians who are often subjected to ridicule and, in a growing number of cases, discrimination. If anyone doubts this point, they should just ponder what Constance Cervone of Jamaica Plain said in a June 28 Boston Globe article on St. Cecilia’s: “It was harder for me … to come out as a Catholic than as a gay person.” This is an indication that, at least for her, “Christianophobia” is presently more menacing than “homophobia.” The Church as a whole, and those who minister to the gay community in particular, must have the courage to address this.

These things should be pondered today - and every day going forward when dealing with Fr. Unni and the souls being led by his chaotic spiritual leadership.

The third in Fr. Landry's series comes next week.

Prayers today for all.

Fr. Landry Weighs in on the Future of Catholic Education

Parental Partnership in the Mission of Catholic Schools

Fr. Landry is a gifted priest, homilist and writer.   

The citations I mention herein don't do the entire piece justice  - so do read the entire thing. 

He brings in what many of us have experienced when we go to seek a Sacrament from the Church for ourselves or for our children:

The first principle is that the Catholic Church seeks to welcome everyone and to call and assist everyone to conversion and holiness of life. Specifically with regard to children, the Church is never looking for a reason to turn a child away, but sometimes, with great reluctance and sadness, needs to do so for the good of the child. This paradoxical situation happens not just with Catholic school decisions, but with something far more important and fundamental: the sacrament of baptism. The Church obviously desires all parents to bring their children to be baptized, but when they do, the priest, in order to celebrate the sacrament, has the duty to determine that there is a “well-founded” or “realistic” hope that the child will be raised in the Catholic faith (Canon 868 in the Code of Canon Law). The Church always welcomes the desire of parents to baptize their children, but needs them to understand that baptism is a sacrament of initiation tied to a way of life. If there is no realistic hope that the parents are going to raise the child in the faith — ordinarily by committing to teach the child to pray, take her to Mass, provide for her religious instruction, set a good Christian example at home, and choose godparents who will take seriously her religious upbringing — the pastor, outside of a danger of death situation, must reluctantly delay the baptism.

 I'm a believer.  The conversation happened to me at a time when I had drifted away in a river of rebellion and sin.

When it comes to being in the business of the salvation of souls, you have to do hard things.  

Things against your own will.

Things that sometimes come across as mean or hateful to those not looking beyond what they can see with their eyes.  We do these things as parents all the time.   We do them within our family, our circle of friends.

Priests do them every day. 

Fr. Landry eloquently speaks to what he calls the schizophrenic situation to a child manipulated and used to make Hehir, Grassa O'Neil, Reardon and the Cardinal look like they are ambassadors of Christ:

With regard to Catholic school admissions decisions, similar principles are at work. The Church never wants to turn a child away. Rather, it has a deep desire to share the blessing of a Catholic school education with as many children as possible. At the same time, however, there is a requirement, for the good of the child, that the parents commit to raise the child in a situation that at least does not contradict the values and formation given at the school. If the child’s education will not be coupled to a way of life consistent with it, the parents and school would be placing the child in a spiritually and morally schizophrenic situation — which is obviously harmful.

He says in a paragraph what a lot of us have been trying to articulate for days:

By alluding to an “inherent conflict,” Fr. Rafferty pointed to the obvious truth that the situation of children being raised by a same-sex couple is different from that of kids being raised in other non-traditional situations.  Kids being raised by couples who are unmarried, married outside of the Church, or divorced-and-remarried are seldom taught to look at those situations as models, or even as goods to be desired. Very often the parents of those children accept the Church’s understanding of marriage even if in their own circumstances they do not live in accordance with it. There’s a moral conflict, not an inherent one — and in many circumstances the relationship happily can be brought into conformity with the moral law.

 Yeah. What he said.

Of course everyone agrees with Fr. Landry here:

Catholic schools seek to welcome all children, provided that parents welcome the Church’s teaching and are prepared to partner with the Church for the good of the child’s overall and integral education. 

But the situation of the Hingham mother did not welcome the teachings of the Church.  The Cardinal and his Catholic School Board, his superintendent and his highest-ranking Cabinet member have consistently been dishonest about this fact.

The policy they are creating is about welcoming all children even if the parents oppose the teachings of the Church and make demands that those teachings be excluded in the curriculum.  

Most people are struggling with how we could protect the environment to teach the truth in the climate the Archdiocese has created.  How could you possibly do that when the dishonest and corrupt are carrying out that policy. 

Put the policy right up on the shelf with the policy to teach Humanae Vitae, Confession, Transubstantiation, the Rosary, Prayers, Marian theology.   Pull any kid aside who is being Confirmed and see how those policies panned out for us.

We don't have faithful teachers to introduce any more pockets of dissent and carry out our mission of salvation at this time.

Let's just have the decency to be honest, shall we?

A Catholic who is loyal to Christ above all things wrote me the following today:

The Cardinal is fundamentally a uniter who is not going to want a policy that says "no children of same-sex couples ever need apply," but he will reaffirm that those families who send their children to Catholic school need to recognize the Church's duty to teach the whole truth and not in any way create a situation that would frustrate the fulfillment of that responsibility.

My reply:

We are in a diocese where a generation has been misguided.  By and large our lay teachers dissent from the teachings of the Church.   Even those of us who made it through the dissent, on the practical level, where the reality show is, teachers will clam up - as they have in the teachings against contraception, abortion, promiscuity.  

Few of us have the zeal to love the Lord enough  - and among these - weeding out those who don't have the talent to know how to deliver  the message -- we're down to the rare teacher who will speak to these teachings.   

It is an oxymoron to say the Cardinal will place children of lesbians into a classroom in a way that will not create frustration in the fulfillment of the duty to teach the whole truth. 

Once you place a child living in these circumstances, you have indeed created the situation.

Our schools are not a place where there should be non-exclusion policies.  Our schools are training academies for our future evangelists.

Please forgive me for being blunt - I don't see a "uniter" in this Cardinal.  I see a Marxist and  I see a coward.  When the wolf came, he did not even run, he invited him in to maul Christ, his priests, his people and our two thousand years of history.  He is dismantling the Catholic Church in our country with the help of the communist he has operating the diocese while he is out taking pictures of himself to further his ego and his career.

Christ did not come to unite.  He came to divide.

Did you ever read Matthew 10? 

Check it out.

Some of these Bishops think it says,  "I have come to bring peace upon the earth. I have come to bring not the sword but peace."  "You will be loved by all"    "Whoever will not receive you or listen to your words, take their gold and silver and build your catechetical policies to please them"

Let's not even begin to discuss the last paragraph of the last chapter in the Bible?

Hey, maybe the geniuses in the Chancery can circumvent it.

As for me and my heirs, I wouldn't follow them out of a burning building.

Lots of luck to the lesbians.

Judie Brown on Fr. Landry's Column

Last week, our editorial argued that one of the most important lessons pastors of the Church in the United States need to draw from the history of interactions with Senator Ted Kennedy on the sanctity of human life is that a strategy of conscience education alone with “personally opposed,” but publicly “pro-choice” Catholic politicians hasn’t worked. The attempt to engage, teach and help persuade such politicians to conversion didn’t succeed with Senator Kennedy, and it hasn’t succeeded yet with other “pro-choice” Catholic legislators.

To say that it hasn’t succeeded, however, is really not strong enough. It’s possible, after all, to fail a test with a grade of 59; in such a case, a student would be able to take some solace in the fact that, while there are some areas in need of improvement, he was close to minimal success. If a student fails a test with close to a zero, on the other hand, he obviously needs to make some radical changes if he ever hopes to succeed. And that is closer to the candid assessment that leaders of the Church need to make relative to the education-alone strategy during the past few decades.

Let us take an honest look at the numbers. When we survey the long list of “pro-choice” Catholic politicians from both parties—Kennedy, Kerry, Giuliani, Schwarzenegger, Daschle, Dodd, Durban, Leahy, Mikulski, Pelosi, Delahunt, Capuano, Markey, McGovern, Meehan, Granholm, Sebelius, Pataki, Richardson, Cellucci, Cuomo and Biden, to name just a handful—is it possible to say that the strategy has worked with any of them? Over the last three and a half decades, can we point to even one success story?

Read the rest of this fabulous elaboration by Fr. Landry here.

Fr. Landry on the Kennedy Funeral

Fr. Landry seems to be rather forthright about O'Malley's latest scandal, in a subterfuge sort of way.

"The overall tone of the funeral liturgy - from the three eulogies, to the prayers of the faithful, to the homily, to the celebrity musicians, to the guest list, and to the nationally-televised gushing color commentaries - seemed to communicate that it was more a public, political apotheosis of Senator Kennedy than a humble, insistent prayer of the Church his mother for the forgiveness of his sins and the repose of his soul," writes Fr. Landry.

"This last controversy was totally avoidable; all that was necessary was to adhere to the letter and spirit of the Catholic funeral rite."

Fr. Landry also reflects in detail on "one of the most important lessons that pastors in the United States need to draw from the history of the Church's interactions with Senator Kennedy for its future engagement of other pro-abortion Catholic politicians." The lesson is that the "education-only" strategy employed by most pastors has "failed."

"Kennedy's example was so injurious to the Church," said Fr. Landry, "because the pastors of the Church, for the most part, made the imprudent call to do little or nothing about it beyond general teaching statements that they hoped offending politicians would apply to themselves."

He added: "There were no real consequences, and as a result, Senator Kennedy, scores of other Catholic politicians, and millions of American Catholic lay people concluded that the Church's teachings in defense of human life cannot be that important if those who publicly and repeatedly act in violation of it do so with impunity."

Wooh boy.

You know what comes next, don't you?

Tuning into the Cardinal's blog in the next few weeks gushing about Rose Kennedy's quote in his pocket and making oblique references to priests who use their newspapers to divide Christ's Church as if we all don't know who he is referencing.

"With Senator Kennedy's funeral, they have now grasped that even a 100% pro-abortion voting record will not only not prevent them from having a Catholic funeral, but will not even stop them from receiving possibly one of the most publicly panegyrical Catholic funerals in U.S. history. "

Fr. Landry: The Passion Continues

Excellent piece from Fr. Landry

“Father, forgive them for they know not what they do!” Even though most were technically aware of every action they were undertaking, all were blind, Jesus reminded his Father, to the significance of what they were carrying out.

Such betrayals of Jesus have not ceased. Many continue to sell out Jesus for a payday. Others, including those closest to him, prefer sleep or comfort to prayer. Others stay mute or run away when he or his bride is attacked. And mobs — including those who are accustomed to shout “Hosanna!” when it’s easy, as many did on Palm Sunday and many still do at Mass — turn on him and elect Barabbas in disguise as many in authority wash their hands out of fear or self-interest.

As Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen wrote in his powerful meditation for the first station of the Way of the Cross, “Pilate asked the mob to choose between the two: ‘Whom do you want me to release to you, Barabbas or Jesus?’ How would I have answered that question had I been in the courtyard that Good Friday morning? I cannot escape answering by saying that the question belongs only to the past, for it is as actual now as ever. My conscience is the tribunal of Pilate. … As often as I choose to speak the uncharitable word, do the dishonest action, or consent to the evil thought, I say in so many words, ‘Release unto me Barabbas.’ And to choose Barabbas means to crucify Christ.”

I believe Fr. Landry is referring to women who will be scandalized by Fr. Jenkin's actions - but to be clear theologically about the application of Christ's intercession (Father, forgive them..), it doesn't apply to priests, Bishops and people who knew or should have known. Pilate, Annas, Ciaphas, Herod turned Christ over and gave orders. Christ's intercession was on behalf of the people carring out the orders in the culture and frenzy and under the dictatorship. Just a few short moments before being nailed to the Cross and crying out to His Father to forgive those carrying out the orders, Christ said--"You would have no authority over Me, unless it had been given you from above; for this reason he who delivered Me to you has the greater sin." (John 19:11)

Christ's intercession, Father forgive them for they know not what they do, this applies to the children at the University and all watching who will be scandalized. It doesn't apply to Fr. Jenkins or any other priest or leader who hands Christ over to be crucified.